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.

[cnorman18]

MODERATOR FORMAL WARNING

You have been advised three times on this thread to contact the moderating team by PM and not respond to interventions on the forum. You have done so again.

I'm not in this debate, and I don't care about the subject; the issue is following the rules you agreed to abide by when you joined this forum. You're a longtime member, but you don't have a special privilege of violating the rules for that or any other reason.

As you know, the next step after formal warning is probation, followed by banning if the problem isn't resolved.

Resolve it. Don't do this again. If you respond to this warning publicly, I will be calling for a probation vote. Respond by PM or not at all.

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.

[Cathar1950]

I apologize for my confusion and error.
I was confused; I thought that if you had a problem with your ruling or warning we were to PM you. I didn’t have a problem, I didn’t know I couldn’t respond and the more I tried to explain the more I got warned.
I was thinking it might be an interesting topic and was looking for some direction or interest.

[Cathar1950]

I don't think you are doubting him at all Scottlittlefield. The question was directed to Cathar1950 in response to his post.

That makes sense

Please see the irony with which he was teaching. The men of Corinth were telling women to be silent, let the husband teach you, etc. Shocked How silly is that? Paul, on the other hand, was setting them straight....do you not see that?


No I don't see it at all. Show me how he was being ironic.

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

What Paul was saying was that the men there needed to understand what he was saying and that whoever ignored it would be ignored. You are only giving half of the passage. And you are ignoring the part that explains verse 36.

The irony is in WHAT? Came the word of god out from you? or came it unto you only?

The irony is in the men in Corinth believing they had the right to tell the little woman to stay at home and only be instructed on God's Word by her husband....no matter what a dunce he may or may not be. Paul is saying The Word DID NOT come to those men only. It is for all of God's children, men and women. The Word didn't come from them nor was it written for them only.

That is the meaning of the passage. Nothing is being ignored. Paul continues by writing..."Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." Covet to prophesy...everybody...covet to prophesy which is to teach His Word as inspired by the Spirit.

Paul was telling the men of Corinth that they had no right to dispute his word or authority as you can see by then next couple verses. He was not applying it to the women of the church.

I think you are both right and that it isn't an either or situation.
Paul was certainly flouting his authority even going so far as saying those that speak agree.

"36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?"

This is appeal to their experience where he isn't forbidden tongues either.
Unless we are to assume the "Word of God" only came to the men he was making fun of the idea that only men should speak...