women to keep silent

[Guest HIS girl]

I was just saying there are some that are teaching this..... it is not known for sure if he ever was married...

mike

That's dangerous, teaching something that's not based on Truth. They shouldn't be teaching it.

[givennewname]

It doesn't really matter whether Paul is married or not.. since his teachings had no bearings on his marital status. he certainly did not prohibit marriage, and he encouraged women to get married.

Paul is a member of the Sanhedrin, and usually to qualify as a member of the Sanhedrin one has to be married..

I am not sure how a teaching that Paul is a married man is a dangerous teaching?

[givennewname]

I am not sure why chrisitians would have so much difficulty in accepting this command from PAul or from the Lord. It is quite clear that the wife is supposed to subject herself to the husband's authority at home, and in church they are not to have leadership roles. The have other roles in church and the church has recognised their abilities in contributing to other roles.

During the Lord Jesus's ministry on earth he had many women followers and suppoerters, and none were in leadership roles.

[givennewname]

If headcovering were a "universal" commandment, it would be in every epistle as they did not all have access to a complete Bible as we do today. We have no record of Paul commanding headcoverings to the Philippians or the Colossians or the Galatians. If it were universally commanded by God, we would see this command repeated to every congregation addressed in the New Testament. We would see longer doctrinal explanations in more epistles even the general epistles like Peter's and John's letters

How many times must a commandment be written before it is a universal command? the doctrine of justification by faith is espoused mainly in the book of Romans, no other apostles have written it in their epistles yet it is a universal doctrine.

Edited August 15, 2008 by givennewname

[Guest HIS girl]

I am not sure how a teaching that Paul is a married man is a dangerous teaching?

No. I didn't say that Paul BEING married is a dangerous thing.

What I'm saying is that teaching "anything" that isn't factual is a dangerous thing.

Why teach that Paul was married and divorced if it's not in the Bible? See my point?

[Guest shiloh357]

If headcovering were a "universal" commandment, it would be in every epistle as they did not all have access to a complete Bible as we do today. We have no record of Paul commanding headcoverings to the Philippians or the Colossians or the Galatians. If it were universally commanded by God, we would see this command repeated to every congregation addressed in the New Testament. We would see longer doctrinal explanations in more epistles even the general epistles like Peter's and John's letters

How many times must a commandment be written before it is a universal command? the doctrine of justification by faith is espoused mainly in the book of Romans, no other apostles have written it in their epistles yet it is a universal doctrine.

Well, you are trying to compare a doctrine with a commandment. A doctrine is a doctrine. All doctrine is universally applicable. All commandments are not.

What I mean is, when you look at the 613 commandments given in the Torah, not all commandments were for every person. Some commandments only applied to you if you were a priest, or if you were married or if you had children, or if you were male, or if you were female, etc.. You were only responsible for the commandments that applied to your specfic situation in life. This is because not all commandments were "doctrinal" in nature.

A doctrine on the other hand is always universal because you are dealing with issues pertaining to how God relates in and interacts with humanity as a whole and mankind's response to God. Salvation, justification, sanctification, humility, charity, the fruit of the spirit and so forth are "doctrinal" and thus universal.

It goes back to what I said yesterday morning about being able to discern when Paul was giving advice meant specifically to address the immediate need of the original audience in the first century and when he was speaking in terms of doctrine and theology. Again, because we have a complete Bible, those lines of discern often get blurred because we forget about the hermeneutic rule of determining the who the audience is and determining their spiritual condition and the issues they faced which necessarily flavor what Paul is trying to teach them. We forget that these letters were to real people in history.

A lot of damage has been done theologically by taking what was meant to address a specfic problem in a given congregation and applying it to our modern congregations as if it were some kind of doctrine.

[Guest shiloh357]

It doesn't really matter whether Paul is married or not.. since his teachings had no bearings on his marital status. he certainly did not prohibit marriage, and he encouraged women to get married.

Paul is a member of the Sanhedrin, and usually to qualify as a member of the Sanhedrin one has to be married..

I am not sure how a teaching that Paul is a married man is a dangerous teaching?

Paul was a Pharisee, but he was not member of the Sanhedrin. So, Paul was not under any requirement to be married. There is no hard evidence that Paul was ever married.

So to teach he was married as fact when that fact cannot be established, sets a dangerous precedent.

[givennewname]

If headcovering were a "universal" commandment, it would be in every epistle as they did not all have access to a complete Bible as we do today. We have no record of Paul commanding headcoverings to the Philippians or the Colossians or the Galatians. If it were universally commanded by God, we would see this command repeated to every congregation addressed in the New Testament. We would see longer doctrinal explanations in more epistles even the general epistles like Peter's and John's letters

How many times must a commandment be written before it is a universal command? the doctrine of justification by faith is espoused mainly in the book of Romans, no other apostles have written it in their epistles yet it is a universal doctrine.

Well, you are trying to compare a doctrine with a commandment. A doctrine is a doctrine. All doctrine is universally applicable. All commandments are not.

What I mean is, when you look at the 613 commandments given in the Torah, not all commandments were for every person. Some commandments only applied to you if you were a priest, or if you were married or if you had children, or if you were male, or if you were female, etc.. You were only responsible for the commandments that applied to your specific situation in life. This is because not all commandments were "doctrinal" in nature.

A doctrine on the other hand is always universal because you are dealing with issues pertaining to how God relates in and interacts with humanity as a whole and mankind's response to God. Salvation, justification, sanctification, humility, charity, the fruit of the spirit and so forth are "doctrinal" and thus universal.

It goes back to what I said yesterday morning about being able to discern when Paul was giving advice meant specifically to address the immediate need of the original audience in the first century and when he was speaking in terms of doctrine and theology. Again, because we have a complete Bible, those lines of discern often get blurred because we forget about the hermeneutic rule of determining the who the audience is and determining their spiritual condition and the issues they faced which necessarily flavor what Paul is trying to teach them. We forget that these letters were to real people in history.

A lot of damage has been done theologically by taking what was meant to address a specific problem in a given congregation and applying it to our modern congregations as if it were some kind of doctrine.

Well with regards to Paul giving the command to be silent and cover their head just because prostitution is a problem in Corinth, I can say that prostitution is a problem nearly in every part of the world ever since it had been identified as the oldest profession on earth. Just to say that Temple prostitutes are bald, there i nothing to suggest that, rather Paul would give the reason for his command-that the woman is to have long hair as a symbol of being under authority and covering of her husband.

1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:

1Co 11:9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:

1Co 11:10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.

1Co 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God.

1Co 11:13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

If Paul gave this command just to set the Christians apart from temple prostitute in appearance, well isn't the message a bit superficial? What i mean is should some one judge a person's character based on appearance and clothing? Lots of pastors have tatoos nowadays with ministries extending to bikers. Should they be discouraged? or should we encourage judging of character based on mere appearance?

The command for a woman to subject herself to the authority is not only found in these parts of scriptures. Passages in Timothy admonishing a woman to place herself under her husband's authority is found also reflected in the ministry of the Lord. I don't find any women given to teaching or positions of authority during the 3 year ministry of the Lord.

The Jewish culture do tend to be male centric and male dominated. Even when the judge Deborah went to war, she did so under the covering of a male general.

I just wanted to know if there are any Jewish influence in Paul giving this command?

[Guest shiloh357]

Well with regards to Paul giving the command to be silent and cover their head just because prostitution is a problem in Corinth, I can say that prostitution is a problem nearly in every part of the world ever since it had been identified as the oldest profession on earth. Just to say that Temple prostitutes are bald, there i nothing to suggest that, rather Paul would give the reason for his command-that the woman is to have long hair as a symbol of being under authority and covering of her husband.

I did not say it was JUST becaue of temple prostitution, but that would have been a very prominent reason. It would, if you were living at that time, go without saying, that Paul was addressing how these new converts who were former prostitutes should conduct themselves.

Paul didn't have to go into a long explanation about the temple prostitutes and such. He would have taken for granted that they would have understood the underlying cultural reasons for his advice. Its like I told bookwirm, if I write a letter and tell someone in the letter that I went to baseball game, I don't have to stop and describe the game. I can take for granted that my friend knows what a baseball game is and what goes on at that type of event. No elaboration for his sake is necessary. So, Paul did not have to explain his reasons for that original audience. As far as a owmna

1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:

1Co 11:9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:

1Co 11:10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.

1Co 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God.

1Co 11:13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

If Paul gave this command just to set the Christians apart from temple prostitute in appearance, well isn't the message a bit superficial?

Not at all. Paul would naturally give such commands so that these new believers don't end up causing others to stumble. It would be analagous to instructing a recovering alcoholic to not wearing garments that advertise liquor, like Budweiser or Coors. To us who have no problem with alcohol, such an instruction might appear superficial, but it can be something that can cause a guy who is trying to kick an alcohol addiction to stumble.

That "superficiality" with the long hair and stuff in Corinth was used to tempt and attract men. If there are men in the congregation who are trying to overcome being attracted to such things, it would make sense for Paul to tell them to change their appearance so as not to tempt their fellow brothers.

The command for a woman to subject herself to the authority is not only found in these parts of scriptures. Passages in Timothy admonishing a woman to place herself under her husband's authority is found also reflected in the ministry of the Lord. I don't find any women given to teaching or positions of authority during the 3 year ministry of the Lord.

I agree, but you also don't see any headcovering commanded in that part of Scripture either. That is why I say if it were a universal requirement then headcovering would be found in EVERY epistle, as Paul could not take for granted that every other church read his letter to the Corinthians.

The Jewish culture do tend to be male centric and male dominated. Even when the judge Deborah went to war, she did so under the covering of a male general.

I just wanted to know if there are any Jewish influence in Paul giving this command?

Absolutely. Paul was a Rabbi and a Pharisee, and he viewed the Bible from that lens and God did not circumvent that. I think that Paul drew from certain customs in the synagogues. That would go without saying.

I would add though, that you need to be careful labeling Jewihs culture. Jews are not a monolith, and they are segregated as Christianity is in their customs and such and there are both conservatives and liberal spectrums in Jewish thought.

[stevehut]

Paul is a member of the Sanhedrin, and usually to qualify as a member of the Sanhedrin one has to be married..

In the Bible, all of the leaders of Jewish society were married men -- priests, prophets, kings, Christian elders, etc. It is not unreasonable that the Sanhedrin would be the same.