1 Corinthians 14:34-35

[slashreborn06]

So in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 it says...

34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

How are we supposed to take this passage? If we really are to take the Bible for truth, should women really not talk in church? It seems to me that the message is pretty straight forward. Now I believe that it is the place of a man to be set in charge of the church (as pastors) but I find it hard to believe that God dose not want woman to speak in church.

[Cathar1950]

Moderator Comment

In this subforum, the Bible is considered an authoritative source. Challenges to the authority of the Bible are not allowed here.

I understand.
What would be the nature of that authority?
What about differences in interpretation? Is this assuming an Orthodox interpretation?
It seems when someone asks if Paul is believed they have opened the door.

As a Christian do you not believe the words written by Paul?

Does Pauline interpretation speak for the whole authority of scripture?
It might be an interesting topic.

If Paul says death came because of one man's sin and the facts are that death has been around as long as there has been life and well before humans should we assume we don't understand Paul because he can't be wrong? If we understand it to be rhetoric or allegory how does that related to the scriptures being valid or unquestionable?

This could be seen as a challenge to a moderator comment. Please ask these kinds of questions via PM.

Well don't look at it as a challenge, it is more of a question and a possible topic for another debate subject.
If I think the deck is stacked to such a point where it seems anything and everything has to be accepted because someone accepts or interprets the scriptures to such a point where it is meaningless except in the mind of the Believer I won't have anything to say I will be glad to move on.

[Cathar1950]

If you kept up with the scholarship you would also know the Peter letters are also forgeries.

That type of scholarship is a waste of my time Cathar.

I am sure it is. It kind of makes your questions pointless and a waste of mine.
Paul was a product of his culture(Diaspora Jew and Herodian) and his times(Roman).

We are all products of our cultures are we not? Some cultures deny truth. Some cultures believe in boogey men. Some believe in a myriad of gods. Some believe in truth as led by the One True God.

May I ask what Paul's heritage as being both Roman and Jew have to do with your assertion of Biblical writings being forgeries?

Context, it is the context of Paul's writing when I write of his heritage. The forgeries are another matter. Only 7 of Paul's letters are considered authentic. Peter's letters are all understood as being later then the author as well as James' letters.

[Cathar1950]

Moderator Comment

What reasons do we have for believing him?

Please be advised that this is the Theology forum, not the Apologetics forum. Arguing for or against the validity of scripture is off topic.

In this subforum, the Bible is considered an authoritative source. Challenges to the authority of the Bible are not allowed here.

I understand.
What would be the nature of that authority?
What about differences in interpretation? Is this assuming an Orthodox interpretation?
It seems when someone asks if Paul is believed they have opened the door.

As a Christian do you not believe the words written by Paul?

Does Pauline interpretation speak for the whole authority of scripture?
It might be an interesting topic.

If Paul says death came because of one man's sin and the facts are that death has been around as long as there has been life and well before humans should we assume we don't understand Paul because he can't be wrong? If we understand it to be rhetoric or allegory how does that related to the scriptures being valid or unquestionable?

Cathar, what type of "death" is Paul speaking of? Physical or spiritual?

http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/mind-bib.htm
Cohn:

Prim(�) donates biblical usages.
Bringing together the usages we have sampled. Of, life, life�, death and death�, we notice some unexpected things. If one is elect, then at some time during his life, while still living, he dies�. Before dying�, he had been one of the living dead�. Insomuch as he has died�, he is by definition still dead�. But also by biblical definition, to be dead� is to be truly alive�. This apparent contradiction is resolved by taking into consideration that two dimensions of aliveness verses deadness come through, one relative to sin and the letter of the law, and the other relative to the Holy Spirit. To be dead� to one is to be alive� to the other and vice versa. So during life, each person is only partly alive�, and which part it is depends upon whether the person is saved or not. At death the persons life� status does not change: he remains alive� or dead� as the case may be in his soul existence, but since the disposition of his corporal part is not to occur until judgment day, his body, although dead and perhaps decomposed or dispersed, apparently remains alive� to the flesh�! After judgment day, the saved person at last becomes fully alive� in his resurrected, glorified body �hence for the first time, entirely dead� to sin-and the unsaved person, in his putrid old body, which somehow still, remains in the deadly� state of life� to the flesh�, cast into Hell, where his soul and body are eternally to undergo destruction but, we infer, also always preserved so that the destruction can grind on sadistically forever.

[whirlwind]

Context, it is the context of Paul's writing when I write of his heritage. The forgeries are another matter. Only 7 of Paul's letters are considered authentic. Peter's letters are all understood as being later then the author as well as James' letters.

Considered by???? Why do you accept what they say?

Luke 20:46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

There is great deception in this world. Be careful.

[whirlwind]

Cathar, what type of "death" is Paul speaking of? Physical or spiritual?

http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/mind-bib.htm
Cohn:

Prim(�) donates biblical usages.
Bringing together the usages we have sampled. Of, life, life�, death and death�, we notice some unexpected things. If one is elect, then at some time during his life, while still living, he dies�. Before dying�, he had been one of the living dead�. Insomuch as he has died�, he is by definition still dead�. But also by biblical definition, to be dead� is to be truly alive�. This apparent contradiction is resolved by taking into consideration that two dimensions of aliveness verses deadness come through, one relative to sin and the letter of the law, and the other relative to the Holy Spirit. To be dead� to one is to be alive� to the other and vice versa. So during life, each person is only partly alive�, and which part it is depends upon whether the person is saved or not. At death the persons life� status does not change: he remains alive� or dead� as the case may be in his soul existence, but since the disposition of his corporal part is not to occur until judgment day, his body, although dead and perhaps decomposed or dispersed, apparently remains alive� to the flesh�! After judgment day, the saved person at last becomes fully alive� in his resurrected, glorified body �hence for the first time, entirely dead� to sin-and the unsaved person, in his putrid old body, which somehow still, remains in the deadly� state of life� to the flesh�, cast into Hell, where his soul and body are eternally to undergo destruction but, we infer, also always preserved so that the destruction can grind on sadistically forever.

Sadly, the writer as well as many Christians don't understand. Everyone is going to die once....

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

That is speaking of our physical bodies. Our flesh body for....

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

When we physically die our body goes back to dust. We NEVER use that body again.

Ecclesiastes 12:6-7 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Our spiritual body steps out of that old, diseased, tired flesh...it's gone forever and we are then as we were before this flesh life....spirit. And, our spirit body is not some floating whispy cloud. It has mass. It walks, talks, eats.

Above, where it is written "If one is elect, then at some time during his life, while still living, he dies," I agree with for it is quite true. While still living in this flesh body, still physically breathing, we are to crucify outselves spiritually. We are to die to self...our old carnal nature dies and we are a new man. We still live physically but have died to self and as such are spiritually alive! We are resurrected.

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.

Galatians 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

This could be seen as a challenge to a moderator comment. Please ask these kinds of questions via PM.

Well don't look at it as a challenge...

Because more clarity is apparently needed:
"Well don't look at it as a challenge" is also a challenge.
It's not hard to send a PM. Publicly responding to a moderator comment to argue that you weren't arguing with a moderator comment does not help your case. Your argument will not receive consideration so long this is your method of presentation.

[Cathar1950]

Moderator Comment

This could be seen as a challenge to a moderator comment. Please ask these kinds of questions via PM.

Well don't look at it as a challenge...

Because more clarity is apparently needed:
"Well don't look at it as a challenge" is also a challenge.
It's not hard to send a PM. Publicly responding to a moderator comment to argue that you weren't arguing with a moderator comment does not help your case. Your argument will not receive consideration so long this is your method of presentation.

Maybe we need another area for non-orthodox theology and doctrine, or one for every possible version or interpretation.
I don’t see any point in a PM as I don’t have an issue with you but an issue as to what is meant by “authority�.

As an authority is it suppose to mean every passage is true and literal, when it suits the apologist’s purpose, even when it is using allegory, rhetoric, myth, polemics or psuedography? Even a forgery can be used as an authority if it relates to doctrine and dogma as it espouses the believers beliefs. When the forgery I Timothy says all scripture is inspired it doesn’t claim it is infallible or inerrant. How does that mean every passage is to be read as an orthodox Bible Believer reads and interprets it? Why is the NT also being included as many of the writings didn’t even exist until after the unknown writer penned it in Paul’s name.
Are we to ignore the scholarship because it is considered an authority and disagrees with some presupposed interpretation and factualness?
Only 7 of the 13 letters are Paul’s and Titus and Timothy as well as the Peter, Jude, and James letters have unknown authors and written after those traditional writers were gone.
If someone says Peter backed up Paul with a forgery how is it an authority? The II Peter passage was written to rehabilitate Paul and to defend his revelations after both were dead and ignores Paul’s own letters that tell us they withdrew from Paul.
In the 19th century Liberals and Literalists agreed the scriptures were an authority.

Taking the Bible as interpreted thought the theology of 19th century apologist theology as an authority amounts to taking the apologists interpretation as the authority as to how it is to be used.
It becomes no authority as it becomes the mouthpiece of Orthodox theologies. The reader’s interpretation becomes the “Word of God�. These kinds of ideas about the authority of the Bible are not even Biblical.

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

Moderator Comment

This could be seen as a challenge to a moderator comment. Please ask these kinds of questions via PM.

Well don't look at it as a challenge...

Because more clarity is apparently needed:
"Well don't look at it as a challenge" is also a challenge.
It's not hard to send a PM. Publicly responding to a moderator comment to argue that you weren't arguing with a moderator comment does not help your case. Your argument will not receive consideration so long this is your method of presentation.

Maybe we need...

Apparently, this is still unclear.
Your argument was not considered, nor did I bother reading more than the three words you see copied here. If you wish for me to invest time discussing it with the other moderators, use the proper channels.
Until then, there is no reason not to use a private message. It is not difficult - ask on the discussion forums if you don't know how to send one.
If you are not interested in having your ideas considered, however, and are simply hoping to be put on probation, responding publicly to this post is an advisable course of action.

[otseng]

If I think the deck is stacked to such a point where it seems anything and everything has to be accepted because someone accepts or interprets the scriptures to such a point where it is meaningless except in the mind of the Believer I won't have anything to say I will be glad to move on.

Moderator comment:

Well, the TDD subforum is pretty much for believers since the Bible is assumed to be authoritative. And questioning how to interpret the Bible would be out of scope for this thread. Also, please respect the rules in regards to moderator actions and only respond via PM. I wrote more about it here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=13385

[Cathar1950]

If I think the deck is stacked to such a point where it seems anything and everything has to be accepted because someone accepts or interprets the scriptures to such a point where it is meaningless except in the mind of the Believer I won't have anything to say I will be glad to move on.

Moderator comment:

Well, the TDD subforum is pretty much for believers since the Bible is assumed to be authoritative. And questioning how to interpret the Bible would be out of scope for this thread. Also, please respect the rules in regards to moderator actions and only respond via PM. I wrote more about it here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=13385

Thank you gentlemen for your responses.
I think there is a good idea here some where for another topic or thread.

What kind of authority is an authority that is determined by the believer when believers differ?
A liberal would look at the authority of the scripture differently then the literalists.
How was the Bible being used as an authority? Using “Scripture� as a fluid if not organic varied and limiting selection and collection of writings which have added new material even after its claim is at best circular.

How does using the Scriptures as an authority negate our use of reasoning and knowledge? Are we supposed to suspend, scholarship, facts and history in favor of someone’s interpretation of a few writings as they use it to advocate their selective and limited “Scriptures� through their own pet doctrines or dogma?
There is a limit to how we use the “Scriptures� as there is no agreed upon writings that are not doctrinally selected as well as what the literature’s types are or how they are to be read.
Who determines rather the gospels are read as myth or fact, allegory or propaganda?
The “Bible� or the “Scripture’s� of some teaches through the reader as an oracle. In an almost idolatry like way the “Word� of God is the projection of the reader.
How is not letting the apologist selective decide what is constituted an authority by how the oracle like passage is read not letting the claimer set the standards and judge?
The uses are as fluid and varied as the interpretations where moving the goal post would be better then having them always beyond our reach as to be infinite and always one better to mean anything but wrong. It becomes the authority for what ever the Believer believes and is no authority at all, except;
A series of begging the questions with any kind of appeals to authority where the authority could “Not� be wrong regardless of context, content or knowledge of either the reader or the author...

Maybe the only way we can assume the Bible is authorities is to not use it as an authority is debates with other then those that prefer the “Holy Huddle�. Maybe Evangelical Fundamentalist Biblical theology and doctrine should be tacked on the front of the thread provided. It looks more like a game where you try to make scripture to mean anything you want or don’t want it to mean using rationalizations, reinterpretations, twisting selectively ignoring anything that might disprove the believer’s interpretation as his Bible is always right. They write a new story that is neither biblical nor true insisting it is fact and literal as they selectively read it. They take what we don’t know or understand as the standard by which we must judge the known and understandable. Their epistemology is upside-down
Given the variety, myth, story and poetry it is a collection of propaganda, myth, polemics, teachings, poetry, idealized history, legend and more that has shaped much of our histories and cultures in many ways.
Using the Bible as an oracle to support a limited interpretation and Authority about ultimate claims is to not take the writing seriously even as the claim demands we assume their position, suspend judgments and reason and/or silence doubts.
It is always right and anything wrong is a misunderstanding or problem with the reader is to make it mean anything but what it might have meant and even that is subject to how the reader understands what the read. How is not the whole enterprise a giant beg the question when it is always right, ignored or failed to be understood when confronted with dissonances? It becomes an exercise in rationalizations and puzzles meaning what ever you want it to mean.