FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: 1 Corth 14:29-36, a closer look. By lilpixieofterror

[Twinpeak_14]

There is one more thing that should be taken in when reading this passage. It's the historical context of it all. Up until recent times, as in the 1900's some time, churches were segregated by sex. And what was happening in the church of Corinth was that women were standing up and yelling across the church asking their husbands what the preacher meant. Paul was probably addressing that problem of this particular church. It is most likely a statement to the women in that church to keep quiet and not be an interruption to the service. The reason for this is most likely because the women at the time were uneducated and simply did not understand what was being said.

Corinth was a church that had many problems with their women, because the culture of that city had women set up on a pedestal. So whenever Paul addresses women in Corinth it was because they were causing problems that other churches of the time didn't have.

Now I am not trying to say that this is the definitive answer to this question, but it is what makes the most sense to me.

[lilpixieofterror]

Good point Twinpeak! Thanks for the input.

[Genesius]

Hmmm, doesn't really jive for me. I wonder if the men and women usually sat separate in the church meetings at that time.

[Alexander's Mom]

Ok, so they put their uneducated woman-folk on pedestals? Doesn't make sense to pedestal the fairer sex while denying them an education. Maybe Paul wasn't sexist, he was just smart.
Women are more prone to annoyingly over-emotionalize gospel principles. They're weepy. I have to check the tendency in myself. Maybe he just wanted a clear-headed teaching session (what he was accustomed to?) instead of the pink, fuzzy love-fests that church service is now.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ok, so they put their uneducated woman-folk on pedestals? Doesn't make sense to pedestal the fairer sex while denying them an education. Maybe Paul wasn't sexist, he was just smart.
Women are more prone to annoyingly over-emotionalize gospel principles. They're weepy. I have to check the tendency in myself. Maybe he just wanted a clear-headed teaching session (what he was accustomed to?) instead of the pink, fuzzy love-fests that church service is now.

It's unknown rather or not these women were uneducated or if they were over-emotionalizing everything, but it could be possible. There is no way of knowing without actually being there.

[NathanDavid]

Some of you are going to hate me for what I am about to express, but I don't care. The liberals will call me crazy for still believing the Bible, and the conservatives, some of you, might be angered at me because liberals will have access to this post, but here goes:

You liberals are giving women a bad sense of direction. Hannah's prayer made the Bible, as did songs that were sung by Solomon's wife. The New Testament even reiterates that "daughters" will have dreams, visions and prophesy. Why, though, do you encourage women to take roles in the church that are less than prophets' roles, when they are not supposed to? This is truly bad, what you are doing. Prophesying is a strong role, and far greater than teaching or otherwise usurping authority over men. We need the greater of the two, not the lesser. You are encouraging women to compromise the Bible and become false teachers. Many, being the weaker sex, will fall into your temptation, sense prophets are not paid staff (eg. not honored in their own country). The love of money is the root of all evil.

Please also stop babbling that garbage about culture. The scripture says, "I change not." Women were never allowed authority over men in the Old Testament, nor in the New Testament. Culture had already changed hands to the point of much of the New Testament being recorded in Greek. Even with the Gentiles having been brought into the early church, we have no teachings NOR WRITINGS of women that were ever ordained into the scriptures. Ester and Ruth were books that prove that women have not been mistreated, in that the two women were written about and even the books named after them. Hardly mistreatment of two prophetesses.

I guess you can look at women's authority over men with the same respect as you can consider the Apostle Paul's description of his experience on the road to Damascus - in Acts 22:9. If you look at it closely, Luke accurately described the event in Acts 9:7, explaining that only Paul saw the light AND heard the voice (during his vision), and that the men who journeyed with Paul only heard the voice of the vision. Later, however, in Acts 22:9, Luke wrote of Paul's account of the event when under severe persecution. Luke quoted Paul saying that the men who journeyed with him saw only the light and heard not the voice (the reverse of Luke 9:7). Luke recorded BOTH of these accounts, but the one that LUKE RECORDED AS HIS DETAIL OF THE EVENT in Luke 9"7 was the accurate account. Paul's errant (under pressure) account of the events was being expressed to non-believers, and it was also not a written work. Thus, Luke's hand was GUIDED BY DIVINE INTERVENTION in that he accurately recorded the road to Damascus, and then accurately recorded Paul's confusion in describing the road to Damascus. God's divine intervention will be where it belongs, and not where we are told that it will not be, and women have never had that divine intervention giving them the authority to write nor usurp authority with the scriptures.

'NUFF SAID...

[lilpixieofterror]

Some of you are going to hate me for what I am about to express, but I don't care. The liberals will call me crazy for still believing the Bible, and the conservatives, some of you, might be angered at me because liberals will have access to this post, but here goes:

Too bad I'm not a liberal, eh?

You liberals are giving women a bad sense of direction.

I'm not a liberal dear, I'm telling women that they can be who they want to be and that God doesn't look down on them for being women. Is that a bad thing?

Hannah's prayer made the Bible, as did songs that were sung by Solomon's wife. The New Testament even reiterates that "daughters" will have dreams, visions and prophesy. Why, though, do you encourage women to take roles in the church that are less than prophets' roles, when they are not supposed to?

Where did I say they can't or did you just read that in there?

This is truly bad, what you are doing. Prophesying is a strong role, and far greater than teaching or otherwise usurping authority over men.

That isn't what the Bible teaches, but hey... who needs to study when we can just make assertions and not back them up? Are you even aware of the point of that verse? I'll tell you right now, even men were told to learn in silence in submission so Paul was telling Timothy that women should learn the same way men are.

We need the greater of the two, not the lesser. You are encouraging women to compromise the Bible and become false teachers. Many, being the weaker sex, will fall into your temptation, sense prophets are not paid staff (eg. not honored in their own country). The love of money is the root of all evil.

Sorry dear, but you're reading that into my words. What temptation am I saying? That it's ok that women can be successful in the work place as well as at home and have every right to peruse their education and career goal as well? How dare I say that, I should be telling them to be barefoot and pregnant until they outlive their usefulness and than just live in a bed room alone.

Please also stop babbling that garbage about culture. The scripture says, "I change not."

It doesn't, but society does and the bible was not written in a culture vacuum, it was written to them... not us so we should understand it within it's proper context.

Women were never allowed authority over men in the Old Testament, nor in the New Testament.

Might want to tell Lydia that or explain why women are mention in all of Paul's fare wells and greetings and told that they are great teachers as well.

Culture had already changed hands to the point of much of the New Testament being recorded in Greek. Even with the Gentiles having been brought into the early church, we have no teachings NOR WRITINGS of women that were ever ordained into the scriptures.

Men where not ordained in the scriptures either. Your point?

Ester and Ruth were books that prove that women have not been mistreated, in that the two women were written about and even the books named after them. Hardly mistreatment of two prophetesses.

And again, you miss the point of the article, huh? But who needs logic or to understand the point when we have you to tell us what the point is!

I guess you can look at women's authority over men with the same respect as you can consider the Apostle Paul's description of his experience on the road to Damascus - in Acts 22:9. If you look at it closely, Luke ac... blah blah blah blah blah...

I'm sorry, but does that ranting of yours have a point?

God's divine intervention will be where it belongs, and not where we are told that it will not be, and women have never had that divine intervention giving them the authority to write nor usurp authority with the scriptures.

Ummm, you sure about that? Ever hear of Deborah or the daughters in Acts that we are told had the gift of prophecy? Try again...

'NUFF SAID...

Oh yeah, you said plenty... but no substance. Shoot, you can't even get my views right, I'm not a liberal, I'm actually more in the middle and I got my information from a man, aka... not a women. So try again.

[NathanDavid]

lilpixieofterror (not), I did not read all of the original post, but I read enough of your poor writing to learn that you were darkening the waters with assertions about the Apostle Paul and Christ being anti-woman. That was enough right there for me to know that arguing with you would be a waste of pearls, but the other folks in this thread deserve to have the light shine in the midst of all of your darkness. You can read around all of the truth in the world (WELL, ahem, you could if you could read), but in the end, if you choose to do so, then you will surely perish. As for me and my house, I will serve the Lord. Well well well...

[sc_q_jayce]

You came away from her writing to believe that she supported the thesis "Paul/Christ is anti-woman" ?

Read again.

[Michelle]

Well, he admitted he didn't actually read it.

[sc_q_jayce]

I know. Still, my advice stands. :)

[lilpixieofterror]

lilpixieofterror (not), I did not read all of the original post, but I read enough of your poor writing to learn that you were darkening the waters with assertions about the Apostle Paul and Christ being anti-woman.

If you actually read what I said instead of what you think I said you would of learned that my actual view is that Paul has a heart for women as well and expresses this in his writing, but that would require reading what I said, huh? BTW care to point out what is so bad about my writing? I've done quite well in college level writing classes or do a few minor spelling/grammar errors enough for you to whine about?

That was enough right there for me to know that arguing with you would be a waste of pearls, but the other folks in this thread deserve to have the light shine in the midst of all of your darkness. You can read around all of the truth in the world (WELL, ahem, you could if you could read), but in the end, if you choose to do so, then you will surely perish. As for me and my house, I will serve the Lord. Well well well...

You could actually try reading my article and showing that I was saying Paul was anti women, but that would require educating yourself, huh?

[NathanDavid]

I did go back and read the article, briefly, last week - after the last few posts made your thread. It still looked/looks to me that you were trying to water down Paul's instruction. You were doing so by using (or quoting) condescending tones about Paul and Christ. Whether you wrote them yourself, or whether they were just tones from an article, the way that they were presented in this thread was as if to apply the femenist movement's tests to the Bible (particularly, Christ and Paul). We (men included) are not to test God, only try the spirits against the Word.

Clearly, when Christ was tempted on the mount he stated as much to Satan, that God is not to be tested. So, to even consider creating a thread that questions the character of Christ himself as being anti-woman, and to not immediately denounce the tone, it is the perfect example why God led Paul to disallow women teaching/usurping authority over men with the scriptures.

So, now do you understand ME better? The Bible says to BOLDLY proclaim the gospel of Christ. You were not bold, at least not for Christ's unadulterated Word.

I would be really easily tempted to say, at this point, "It's not what you said; it's what you didn't say," but that would imply that I accept you as a teacher of the Gospel. If you learn to post and teach Christ's unadulterated message, then you'll be useful to teach women and children, or even to prophesy, if God gives you the gift. It is obvious that you have something driving you to want to teach something somewhere...

One quick look and I'm done. Even Harvard College uses provocation to open minds. I am aware of that, but they do not test the Words of Christ or the apostles. They ask the students, "Can God make a rock that He can't pick up?" That question is not a shot at God; it's a shot at the limitation of human wisdom, a shot that ultimately supports Bible's teaching. Now, if I am wrong about that, well, then at least I am just that much more right to not vote for Obama (a Harvard graduate)...

Oops, sorry... one more thing. Don't know where it is, but somewhere in the Old Testament the women had to lead the military in battle. That's not using scripture to usurp authority, that's just being a hootin' of a woman! It is truly sad that so many feminists have convinced our ladies that a woman is being mistreated who accepts her role as it is laid out in God's Word (Proverbs 31). God loves women (he just has to!)...

[Michelle]

God loves women (he just has to!)...

You mean...He doesn't really want to?? :-(

[NathanDavid]

Michelle... hmm, that's a power name right? I bet your a tough one! From Psalms 23 ... "I shall not want..." (I am just kidding of course)...

Gotta love 'em...