Christianity Called Heresies

[tonytony]

Water mean water---John 3:5.

Rest man rest---Hebrews 4.

No women preachers mean no women preachers----1 Cor. 14:34-35

Unruly tongues mean unruly tongues----1 Cor. 14.

No marrying divorced people mean just that----Romans 7:2-3.

No pagan godhead theology mean just that----John 8:24.


Attracting the John 8:31 crowd ONLY.

Amos 3:3 and John 17:21.

[Elijah John]

Water mean water---John 3:5.

Rest man rest---Hebrews 4.

No women preachers mean no women preachers----1 Cor. 14:34-35

Unruly tongues mean unruly tongues----1 Cor. 14.

No marrying divorced people mean just that----Romans 7:2-3.

No pagan godhead theology mean just that----John 8:24.


Attracting the John 8:31 crowd ONLY.

Amos 3:3 and John 17:21.

Moderator Clarification

Welcome Tony. As you are new here, you are entitled to some friendly advice. Here in this forum we need a question for debate, not just observations. Can you, will you do that for us?

Otherwise we will have to move your topic to Random Ramblings.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[postroad]

I can play along for a while.

No sinning means no sinning.

1 John 3:6-9New International Version (NIV)

6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Hebrews 6:4-6New International Version (NIV)

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[a] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

[Pierac]

Water mean water---John 3:5.

Rest man rest---Hebrews 4.

No women preachers mean no women preachers----1 Cor. 14:34-35

Unruly tongues mean unruly tongues----1 Cor. 14.

No marrying divorced people mean just that----Romans 7:2-3.

No pagan godhead theology mean just that----John 8:24.


Attracting the John 8:31 crowd ONLY.

Amos 3:3 and John 17:21.

1Co 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?

The passage appears to be a clear and straightforward injunction for women not to speak (let alone teach!) in the church. As most have seen, however, scholars are convinced that Paul did not write the 1 Timothy passage, because it occurs in a letter that appears to have been written instead by a second-generation follower of Paul in his name. No one doubts, however, that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. But there are doubts about this passage. For as it turns out, the verses in question (vv. 34-35) are shuffled around in some of our important textual witnesses. In three Greek manuscripts and a couple of Latin witnesses, they are found not here, after verse 33, but later, after verse 40. That has led some scholars to surmise that the verses were not written by Paul but originated as a kind of marginal note added by the scribes, possibly under the influence of 1 Timothy 2. The note was then inserted in different places of the text of various scribes—some placing the note after verse 33 and others inserting it after verse 40.

There are other good reasons for thinking that Paul did not originally write these verses. For one thing, they do not fit well into their immediate context. In this part of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is addressing the issue of prophecy in the church, and is giving instructions to the Christian prophets concerning how they are to behave during the Christian service of worship. This is the theme of verse 26-33, and it is the theme again of verse 36-40. If one removes versus 34-35 from their context, the passage seems to flow seamlessly as a discussion of the role of the Christian prophets. The discussion of woman appears, then, as intrusive in its immediate context, breaking into the instruction that Paul is giving about a different matter.

Not only do the verses seem intrusive in their context of chapter 14, they also appear anomalous with what Paul explicitly says elsewhere in 1 Corinthians. For earlier in the book, as we have already noticed, Paul gives instructions to women speaking in the church: according to Chapter 11, when they pray and prophecy--activities that were always done aloud in the Christian services of worship-- they are to be sure to wear veils on their heads (11;2–16). In this passage which no one doubts Paul wrote, it is clear that Paul understands that women can and do speak in church. In the disputed passages of chapter 14, however, is equally clear that “Paul� for bids women from speaking at all. It is difficult to reconcile these two views--either Paul allowed women to speak (with heads covered, Chapter 11) or not (chapter 14). As it seems unreasonable to think that Paul would flat out contradict himself within a short spaces of three chapters, it appears at the verses in question do not derive from Paul.


And so on the basis of a combination of evidence to several-- manuscript that shuffle the versus around, the immediate literary context, and the context within 1 Corinthians as a whole-- it appears that Paul did not write first Corinthians 14:34-35. One would have to assume, then, that these versus are scribal alteration of the texts.

Study
Harder!!!
Paul

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 4 by Pierac]

The words are in the bible canon, so obviously they are authorative. In any case Paul was not speaking in the absolute, but refering to organizational order.

JW

[Pierac]

[Replying to post 4 by Pierac]

The words are in the bible canon, so obviously they are authorative. In any case Paul was not speaking in the absolute, but refering to organizational order.

JW

Which bible canon? ... as I have several from the 2nd century that do not include 1 Cor. 14:34-35. Also, Paul very much so spoke in absolutes...

So then why is the United Bible Society's Greek text is in it 4th edition... and the Novum Testamentum Graece is in it 27th edition if the bible canon is soooo authorative!!!

You lack complete understanding from which your bible translation came from! Perhaps you should consult your pastor before posting such silliness!

Study before you speak!

Paul

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 4 by Pierac]

The words are in the bible canon, so obviously they are authorative. In any case Paul was not speaking in the absolute, but refering to organizational order.

JW

Which bible canon?

Our present bible canon. Why do you ask? Are you questioning whether the bible (canon) is true... that is certainly an interesting topic but not one I personally (personal opinion) expect to find in this sub-forum.

So what is the point of your post? To question whether the verse belongs in the present canon? or to question whether the bible is true?

[Pierac]

[Replying to post 4 by Pierac]

The words are in the bible canon, so obviously they are authorative. In any case Paul was not speaking in the absolute, but refering to organizational order.

JW

Which bible canon?

Our present bible canon. Why do you ask? Are you questioning whether the bible (canon) is true... that is certainly an interesting topic but not one I personally (personal opinion) expect to find in this sub-forum.

So what is the point of your post? To question whether the verse belongs in the present canon? or to question whether the bible is true?

What is the publish date and publisher... of your present bible canon? And why does if differ so much from other older bible canons that were written so close to the time of Jesus? At what point did you get added bible canon material that did not exist before your present bible canon you so speak of...? Who had the authority to add to your present bible canon.?


So what is the point of your post? Is there a canon or just a present canon... ? The answer to this question proves 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is not of GOD!!! but men whom create present canons... want women to submit... so they don't have to be a man to get one! Are you one of these type of men?


Study harder...

Paul

[JehovahsWitness]

The answer to this question proves 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is not of GOD

That is your belief and I can respect that, beliefs are not debatable, however that the words appear in the present bible canon is a fact. They can be interpreted differently by different people, declaring them "not from God" is, imo, not an analysis but a dismissal, but a dismissal you are free to make if you so choose.

Go well,

JW

[Pierac]

The answer to this question proves 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is not of GOD

That is your belief and I can respect that, beliefs are not debatable, however that the words appear in the present bible canon is a fact. They can be interpreted differently by different people, declaring them "not from God" is, imo, not an analysis but a dismissal, but a dismissal you are free to make if you so choose.

Go well,

JW

You speak as a child! How can what was present in the past cannon... that was so much closer to those whom wrote it... be so inferior your present canon which was added by men???

Again... who published your modern canon and what is the date of your canon???... !!!


... for once!
Paul