Women forced to keep silence in Church

[Waggles]

Ivan Panin who used the Bible Numerics of the original Greek text has given us a New Testament translation (1914) wherein every word and verse is proven by the numerics of the Greek text.

"But Bible Numerics having demonstrated that in the Bible not only the books and their words as well as their order, but the very syllables also and letters, are dealt out by measure as well as weight, new standards are thus set up for the translator: he not being free any longer to avail himself of paraphrase, interpretation, ..." from the Preface 1914 first edition

Matthew 28:19 is true and correct

Mark 16:15-20 is God given and belongs in the scriptures

Acts 8:37 is omitted

Now Ivan Panin's "The New Testament From The Greek Text As Established By Bible Numerics" contains the following:

1Co 14:33  for *God is not a God of confusion, but of peace), as in all the churches of the saints. 
1Co 14:34  Let the women be silent in the churches: for it is not permitted to them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. 
1Co 14:35  And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in church. 
1Co 14:36  What, is it from you that the word of *God went forth, or came it unto you alone? 

God seals his word from dangers of theology.

The verses in dispute in 1Corinthians 14 are doctrinally consistent with the teachings of other scripture in the NT; such as:

Eph 5:22  *Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord, 
Eph 5:23  because the husband is the wife’s head as also the Christ is head of the church, himself saviour of the body. 
Eph 5:24  But as the church is subject to the Christ, so the wives be also to their husbands in everything. 

[Paul James]

41 minutes ago, Waggles said:

Supposition. 

Read the M.A. thesis that I have linked in the thread, and then come back to me.

[Riverwalker]

58 minutes ago, Arrabon said:

If you study the history of the church for the last 2000 years, and also how the current bibles have come to be worded, you'll find a lot of meddling.

History  in many ways is our best teacher about the truth.

I am sorry God is the truth, and His word is the truth.

 

[Willa]

 

1Ti 2:11  Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.

1Ti 2:12  I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

 This does refer to women not be in a teaching role or in authority over men and to be submissive, respecting her role and being under the authority of her husband.

 It seems, as today, many women distract others by making comments, asking questions, gossiping and being rude in church.  Often the comments are a joke she heard or what they will do after church, having nothing to do with the service.   A women who is under the authority of God and her husband will not do these things.   She will be respectful and have a quiet spirit, being at peace with her role in all godliness.

[Willa]

The danger of some textual criticism is that both critics and lay people will stop trusting in the Bible as being God's word.  They start making excuses, telling themselves that this doesn't apply to me, or that wasn't part of the original text.  Where do you stop with this?  Some even remove the words of Christ:  I am the way, the truth and the life;  no man comes to the Father but by Me.   Others remove everything written by Paul.   So let's just remove everything we don't like or don't agree with.

I am not against textual criticism per se.  True accuracy should be sought after, but not to the extent that the faith of the weak is destroyed.  Conservative measures should be applied.  

[Paul James]

1 minute ago, Riverwalker said:

I am sorry God is the truth, and His word is the truth.

 

Just a question:

Seeing that there are 25,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts, some edited to exclude female pastoring, preaching and prophecy, and others remaining true to the originals (given the odd minor typo by a scribe), which ones are the true Word of God?

And...

If the particular collection of Greek manuscripts that were edited formed the basis of the Latin Vulgate and consequently the KJV, are the translations that result for them the word of God?

Or...

The translations that use the Greek manuscripts that weren't edited and used by the Eastern Greek Orthodox churches, that did not prohibit women from acting an active verbal role?

Also...

Out of all the different English translations, which one can be relied on to be the absolutely true and literal Word of God?

Another thought from church history:

Up until the end of the First Century, the church was a Spirit-led church.  Into the Second Century, as the so called "canon" of Scripture was compiled, the church became  literature-dependent.  At the same time, there was a marked decline in the manifestation of the spiritual gifts in most of the Latin churches which replaced the common members sharing revelation from the Holy Spirit, to "authorised" men reading and expounding the written Scriptures.  Therefore the authority of what was shared and taught in the churches passed from common members led of the Spirit, to an "ordained clergy" to took over the authority of "correct doctrine" which was to be taught in the Latin churches from then on.   These Latin churches evolved into the Roman Catholic church and remained so for the next 1000 years until the Reformation.

It is interesting to note that the Eastern Greek Orthodox churches, that did not use the "doctored" manuscripts, had female ministry and the spiritual gifts manifesting right through to the 12th Century.

 

[David1701]

1 hour ago, Paul James said:

Given Paul's attitude to the Law, it is highly improbable that he would say in Romans that we are not subject to the Mosaic Code, and then in 1 Corinthians 14 he saying that we should be subject to the Law in terms of women's involvement in the churches.

 

He does not say that we should be subject to the Law; he says "...as the law also says.", which means that the Law agrees, not that we are to be subject to the Law.

Quote

It is true that married women be in submission to their husbands, but there is no requirement for single women to be in submission to any man, except to the leaders of their church.  

This is wrong.  Women were subject to their fathers, until they were married, which was often in their mid teens, then they were subject to their husbands.

Quote

But submission never included being locked out of verbal ministry.  Paul in his instructions to Timothy says that women should not usurp authority of men in the church, but that does not prohibit a woman having verbal ministry under the leadership of the elders.  

Women are not to teach, nor to usurp authority over men, in the assemblies.  This is clear.  The reasons given for this, in the Bible, are to do with God's order in creation and what happened at the Fall.

1) Man was created first and God put him in authority

2) Woman was deceived, so should not be in a teaching position in the assembly (women are more susceptible to being deceived)

Quote

 

It is obvious that Priscilla would have been submissive to Aquila, but it is clear that she had a teaching ministry of her own in conjunction with her husband.

 

She was not teaching men, in the assembly.

Quote

And Junia was acknowledged as an apostle by Paul, which is totally contradictory to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. So we are led to see that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not all that it appears to be and requires closer exegesis and study to find out if Paul actually wrote it, or, if he did, why and in what context did he write it.

Rom. 16:6,7 (Wesley's NT) 

6 Salute Mary, who bestowed much labour on us. Salute Andronicus and Junias,
7 my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are in repute among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

1) The Greek name translated as "Junias" here can be male or female (it can be translated "Junias", as Wesley did), so it cannot be claimed with certainty that a female was intended.

2) Being of note is also ambiguous, since it can mean "a noted apostle" or that the apostles found that person noteworthy.

You need much stronger evidence than this.

 

[Paul James]

11 minutes ago, Willa said:

The danger of some textual criticism is that both critics and lay people will stop trusting in the Bible as being God's word.  They start making excuses, telling themselves that this doesn't apply to me, or that wasn't part of the original text.  Where do you stop with this?  Some even remove the words of Christ:  I am the way, the truth and the life;  no man comes to the Father but by Me.   Others remove everything written by Paul.   So let's just remove everything we don't like or don't agree with.

I am not against textual criticism per se.  True accuracy should be sought after, but not to the extent that the faith of the weak is destroyed.  Conservative measures should be applied.  

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 refers to married women, but not to single women.  1 Corinthians 11 where Paul mentions women prophesying refers to women in general, both single and married.

Paul was not a chauvinist.  Therefore the chauvinist attitude of Tertullian, who was the first church father to teach silence of women in churches was continued in the established church from then on, and persists in many churches to this day.

Paul fully supported the apostleship of Junian as an equal to all the other church apostles.   It is interesting that the foundation Scriptures of the RCC have altered the female name to a male name for the apostle to make it appear that it was not a female apostle that Paul was referring to.   So, although the established church was chauvinistic, the Holy Spirit is not.

There is an opinion that the reference in 1 Timothy prohibiting women from teaching, could have been an insertion by a misogynistic Latin church editor to make it appear that the insertion was actually written by Paul.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Paul James

[Paul James]

6 minutes ago, David1701 said:

He does not say that we should be subject to the Law; he says "...as the law also says.", which means that the Law agrees, not that we are to be subject to the Law.

This is wrong.  Women were subject to their fathers, until they were married, which was often in their mid teens, then they were subject to their husbands.

Women are not to teach, nor to usurp authority over men, in the assemblies.  This is clear.  The reasons given for this, in the Bible, are to do with God's order in creation and what happened at the Fall.

1) Man was created first and God put him in authority

2) Woman was deceived, so should not be in a teaching position in the assembly (women are more susceptible to being deceived)

She was not teaching men, in the assembly.

Rom. 16:6,7 (Wesley's NT) 

6 Salute Mary, who bestowed much labour on us. Salute Andronicus and Junias,
7 my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are in repute among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

1) The Greek name translated as "Junias" here can be male or female (it can be translated "Junias", as Wesley did), so it cannot be claimed with certainty that a female was intended.

2) Being of note is also ambiguous, since it can mean "a noted apostle" or that the apostles found that person noteworthy.

You need much stronger evidence than this.

 

As I said, read the M.A. thesis in the link below, and then come back to me with your response to it.

http://www.personal-communication.org.nz/Bringing_Order_to_1_Cor_14_34_35 (1).pdf

[David1701]

10 minutes ago, Paul James said:

As I said, read the M.A. thesis in the link below, and then come back to me with your response to it.

http://www.personal-communication.org.nz/Bringing_Order_to_1_Cor_14_34_35 (1).pdf

I'll respond to your posts, not to someone's thesis.  If you want to condense the salient points and post them as your own, then I'll respond to that.

Do you have any answer to the points I've made?