Silence Of Women

[aspen]

I am seeing clients all day - will look at the verses when I have a chance

 

[TexUs]

You don't even need to look at the verses just answer the question why you think it's acceptable to snip out and omit scripture to support your claims.

 

[mjrhealth]

Oh man,

and satan has another giggle, foolish, foolish people, who or what is your faith in, God or the bible,

In His LOve

 

[TexUs]

and satan has another giggle, foolish, foolish people, who or what is your faith in, God or the bible,

Not sure what this is in response to. Faith is obviously in God, but as I have faith in him and trust what he says, by extension I must also trust the Bible.

It'd be like placing your faith and trust in your auto mechanic but then not trusting the work they do... If you took one without the other.

 

[Selene]

Oh man,

and satan has another giggle, foolish, foolish people, who or what is your faith in, God or the bible,

In His LOve

Most definitely God. God existed before the Bible was written. If all the Bibles were destroyed today God would still be three. So, defintely God because nothing can destroy Him.

[/color]
Peter died 67AD. Considering your first two mentions were second century, you'll have to try again. Clement is the only leg to stand on you've mentioned. And I did look up some of his writings but fail to find anything that identified Peter as more than he existed Biblically as an Apostle. So I will once again ask, what document existed during the life of Peter that identified him as the founder or first Pope of the RCC?

Oh come on, TexUs. Do you expect me to do all the work for you? You're an intelligent man. Go figure it out yourself. And here's something for you to contemplate on. We live in the 21st century; yet, we know that the first President of the United States was George Washington. Therefore, it also stands to reason that people living in the second century would know who the first Bishop of Rome would be. There are documents showing that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, so go look for it. After all, you could figure out who the first President of the US was.

Not sure what this is in response to. Faith is obviously in God, but as I have faith in him and trust what he says, by extension I must also trust the Bible.

It'd be like placing your faith and trust in your auto mechanic but then not trusting the work they do... If you took one without the other.

I am shocked to hear this! :blink: If you took one without the other?????? God has always existed. I do not worship the Bible. If all the Bibles were destroyed today, that still will not shake my faith in God. What weak faith you have.

 

[aspen]

You're distracting from the argument. Your argument was that we should throw out the NT when clearly both the early church and the Apostles thought some of it was Scripture. I'm not here to argue what should or should not be included, that's besides the point. My point is that your argument is flawed.

Do not re-frame my argument. My claim is that all the references in the NT to written scripture refer to the OT because the NT was not canonized yet. I said nothing about throwing out the NT. This is really getting outrageous - I am surprised you didn't include that I also believed Jesus was a women, just to make sure my claim was completely out in left field (that's another metaphor, Anastacia - there really isn't a left field involved here)

Again, I'm not here to argue which books should and should not be included.
My point is that John presented the FULLNESS of the Gospel, in his ONE letter. That's all we need! Paul says Scripture is sufficient! It's all we need!

So why do you read anything else in the NT? If John's letter is SUFFICIENT? Why go to Safeway if Walmart has all you need? Your argument, not mine.

There's a difference between tradition and inspiration.

Not Sacred Tradition, which is equally authoritative as Sacred Scripture

Claiming Mary never died isn't going beyond it?

Nope.


What church tradition do I follow?

That is a good question - you kinda went off the grid - so to speak - I can understand why a Protestant would have trouble discerning this dilemma. Here is the good news (not the gospel, Anastacia) you are already following a lot of Sacred Tradition without recognizing it. Unfortunately you were told by your church leaders that some of it is ok and some is not. One of your own traditions allows you to reject Sacred Traditions that your church hallmarks as 'too catholic', while accepting others that are new like sola scriptura and dispensationalism, for example.

It's not sacred tradition, it's historical fact.
Peter was a prominent figure and his death was written about by many. It's easily verifiable.

Well, don't let me stop you! Go ahead and provide a first hand account that is not written by a Catholic - Eusebius Ecclesiastical History does not count - neither does Foxes Book of Martyrs. Who knows, perhaps Josephus wrote something about it. I always heard that the date is a speculation.

In the previous context there's exactly zero mentions of traditions so the question is: What did Paul just address them about? Look at the prior chapter and he's urging them to flee idolatry and such. The OT talks about this topic extensively (it's tradition). So what Paul addressed to them has been tradition for hundreds of years, it's nothing new.

And in the prior book he was talking about.....com'mon stop the mental gymnastics. There is difference between the Churches Tradition, laid down by the disciples, which are being referred to by Paul and human tradition, which is associated with the Pharisees and condemned by Paul.
This does not speak of ORAL tradition anywhere and in fact isn't delivering anything new or groundbreaking, it's just the Lord's commentary, so to speak, on what he had already established for hundreds of years!

Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthian church - a church he, himself planted and is referring to the traditions he has passed down for them - whether or nor they are oral or written down doesn't matter - Paul calls them traditions, not scripture.

How's this support tradition?

1 Corinthians 7:17 is not scripture, yet - it is simply a letter describing a rule Paul laid down for the church - just another piece of Sacred Tradition!


"all traditions of the church", LOL... You just had to add that because the text didn't say it, eh?
"aspen's addition to the scripture" aside, how does this support tradition?

Were you confused? You see, the use of parathesis - the ones you didn't bother to mention when you reprinted my quote are a signal that my addition is describing the activities listed as part of traditions in the corinthian church. Therefore, the verse doesn't so much 'support tradition' as it lists traditions in the church

Nice try aspen but you purposefully snipped out the first part of this passage, I'd imagine?
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

Look at 1:1, this is also, an inspired work- once written, it's the Word of God- this is not oral tradition. You'll also find that the word "foundation" isn't in the Greek, but instead, "support" is accurate in the Greek, the ESV translated it buttress (which is the version I quoted). The NIV is quite a poor translation, I've started switching to ESV, even in day to day readings. The NIV goes beyond translation and enters the realm of interpretation.
They support the truth, they do not form the truth, they support a truth. What truth? It's the gospel of Christ that they support.

You really need me to have sinister intentions, don't you? Really?! Once again, I could careless if you are convinced - I am not defending Catholic doctrine. I am not a professional apologist, nor do I believe I am going to cover new ground - these arguments have been going on for centuries. If you think you are bring down the Catholic Church with your sarcasm and condescension, Quixote - you are merely tilting at windmills, brother......

Look, are you actually trying to tell me that a simple letter written to a specific church because Paul was too far away to actually tell them the information in person is somehow more important? Com'mon! Paul was in Corinth - in person, as well - does that not count, because the words came out of his mouth, rather than his pen? I am asking because Paul didn't make this distinction:

[font="Verdana][size="2"]2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
[/size][/font]

 

[TexUs]

Oh come on, TexUs. Do you expect me to do all the work for you? You're an intelligent man. Go figure it out yourself. And here's something for you to contemplate on. We live in the 21st century; yet, we know that the first President of the United States was George Washington. Therefore, it also stands to reason that people living in the second century would know who the first Bishop of Rome would be. There are documents showing that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, so go look for it. After all, you could figure out who the first President of the US was.

(By the way, the sky is actually red, go look for the documents, they exist, I'm right!).
Once more, your inability to provide such documents just proves my point that... Catholics can't prove it.
The burden is upon Catholics to prove it. The absence of proof proves my position.


You seriously lacked some critical thinking here.
We have documents from the period George Washington lived that prove he was the first President. We know this is true because countless people recorded it. They were witnesses and said, "Yes, George Washington is our first President." We aren't looking back it on from TRADITION, nay, we can look at actual documents FROM THAT TIME PERIOD to know it was true.
The same cannot be said of the Papacy, you lack any documentation.
The first mentions of this are hundreds of years removed, when some guy dream the idea up in order to secure their power.

One of your own traditions allows you to reject Sacred Traditions

LOL- I think we're done here.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

Back to the topic at hand............

It seems to me that the Bible is quite literal about women being silent,,, I think it was mentioned by another apostle as well. (sorry can't find the verse of the second).

This argument goes right along with the hair deal. Men having long hair is called shamefull.

However, Many of us say, it's just for the Corinthians, or for the culture we live in to be the guide of what is shamefull.

Anyway, about women being silent in church,,,,

Where do any of us get the idea that it's because women were uneducated?

What would be the purpose of women being silent today? What was the purpose of yesterday?

Most of the men were uneducated and couldnt' read as well back in those days.

 

[Selene]

Back to the topic at hand............

It seems to me that the Bible is quite literal about women being silent,,, I think it was mentioned by another apostle as well. (sorry can't find the verse of the second).

This argument goes right along with the hair deal. Men having long hair is called shamefull.

However, Many of us say, it's just for the Corinthians, or for the culture we live in to be the guide of what is shamefull.

Anyway, about women being silent in church,,,,

Where do any of us get the idea that it's because women were uneducated?

What would be the purpose of women being silent today? What was the purpose of yesterday?

Most of the men were uneducated and couldnt' read as well back in those days.

I don't think St. Paul meant for women to be silent literally because he did allow them to pray and prophesy in Church (1 Corinthians 11:5). He meant that women are not to teach ( 1 Ti. 2:12). In the Bible, the only ones who taught in church were the bishops, priests, and deacons and these were all men.

As for men having long hair, the Jewish people among Jesus' time kept their hair short. The only ones who kept them long were those who are under a vow such as the Nazirite (see Numbers 6:1). John the baptist also kept his hair long and like the nazirite, he was not allowed to drink any alcohol. I find this interesting because Jesus is often pictured with long hair, but he is not a nazirite. He was a Nazarine and he drank wine. As for the women keeping their hair covered, this also goes back to the Old Testament ( See Genesis 24:65, Numbers 5:18, and Isaiah 47:2). Therefore, these are customs carried fourth from the Judaism.

That should not be surprising. Afterall, the first Christians were Jewish Christians and God's chosen people were the Jewish people. So, it should not be surprising that some of the customs of the Jews were carried into Christianity. As a matter of fact, some of these customs can still be seen in Church. For example, I still wear a veil to Church. My grandmother who was a Francisian always wore a brown veil to church also. All our nuns wear a head covering. From what I heard, the female Christians in the Middle East still wear a veil or head covering in Church. It is a custom that was carried on from Jewish ancestry.

 

[mjrhealth]

I guess the nexr thing ro do is for us to go and stone adulterers because thats what they did in the bible. Its a good thing God is not like us, the world is bad enough with us in it,

In His Love

 

[Selene]

I guess the nexr thing ro do is for us to go and stone adulterers because thats what they did in the bible. Its a good thing God is not like us, the world is bad enough with us in it,

In His Love

I do not see anything wrong with wearing a veil or head covering. I still wear a veil to Church. All our nuns wear head coverings. And females Christians in the Middle East still continue to wear veils to Church. A female who chose to wear a veil does not hurt anyone. In the Muslim culture, it is a different story. There, women have no choice but to wear a head covering. As a Christian, if I chose not to wear my veil in Church, I will not be punished for it. This is why we do not take the Bible LITERALLY. We do not need to follow the specific dress code demanded from the Bible because it was written in a time period and place different from modern times.

However, in my opinion, I feel that women should dress modestly and conservatively and should not be showing a lot of skin when they attend Church. If there is something to be learned from what St. Paul is saying about the dress code of those times is that both men and women should dress decently to Church.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

I found this article. It seems to make alot of sense. It definately seems to make more sense than the idea tha women should be quiet because they're ignorant or uneducated back then.

http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/monthly/Silent.html

 

[Selene]

I found this article. It seems to make alot of sense. It definately seems to make more sense than the idea tha women should be quiet because they're ignorant or uneducated back then.

http://www.churchofg...hly/Silent.html

Hello WhiteKnuckle,

That is an interesting article, but I do not think it has to do with women being ignorant or uneducated. In the context of what St. Paul is saying, it is a custom practiced among all the churches regardless of whether the women were educated or not.

1 Corinthians 14:33-34 ....As in all the Churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the Churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

 

[Selene]

Wow! I just realized what the confusion is. Look at how some of the verses are written:

King James Version:
For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Revised Standard Version:
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

American Standard Version:
for God is not [a God] of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.

Look at where the period is in the King James Version compared with the other Bibles. The first sentence in the KJV ended at "saints" while the rest ended at "peace." That is interesting.

 

[aspen]

(By the way, the sky is actually red, go look for the documents, they exist, I'm right!).
Once more, your inability to provide such documents just proves my point that... Catholics can't prove it.
The burden is upon Catholics to prove it.

[font="tahoma] [/font][/quote]

[color="#000080"]Excuse me? Since when is the burden of proof ever on Catholicism? You guys are the people with the objections - you are preaching the new form of Christian religion on the block. The burden of proof is always on you.[/color]

Mormons are in the same place as you - we have nothing to prove to Protestants or Mormons - you guys are the ones who object to the status quo.

What an arrogant statement! I guess this is how you treat your mother, too?

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

Wow! I just realized what the confusion is. Look at how some of the verses are written:

King James Version:
For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Revised Standard Version:
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

American Standard Version:
for God is not [a God] of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.

Look at where the period is in the King James Version compared with the other Bibles. The first sentence in the KJV ended at "saints" while the rest ended at "peace." That is interesting.

Great observation. Amazing how putting a little dot somewhere can change a whole phrase and inflection. No wonder people have such a hard time learning the English language. :lol:

Looking at it from this way, Seems to me the article I posted makes much more sense that I originally thought. Good job!~

 

[aspen]

I cannot help thinking that Paul must be a bit shocked that his simple letters have been chopped up into individual scripture and used as proof texts to be argued about for the duration of human history,

The fact is, many of Paul's statements are context specific; who knows? Perhaps the Corinthian church had a group of women that talked during the service and Paul found out about it? What would be really helpful is to find the letters addressed to Paul by the churches he planted - that would shed so much light on what Paul is actually addressing in the specific churches and to a wider audience. What we do know is that the issue of women talking in church is irrelevant to the gospel and has only been invoked to place restrictions on women ever since Paul's letter was determined to be inspired.

Seems to me to be a complete waste of time to think any more about it.

I just read your observation Selene after I wrote this post) - really interesting

 

[TexUs]

What would be the purpose of women being silent today? What was the purpose of yesterday?

Submission.

Excuse me? Since when is the burden of proof ever on Catholicism? You guys are the people with the objections - you are preaching the new form of Christian religion on the block. The burden of proof is always on you.

So I can just randomly make doctrine up and the burden of proof is on people to DISPROVE it?

Let's have a go at this. The Apostle John was the first carny to ever exist and in fact started the very first circus as a side job while not preaching, to bring entertainment to children anywhere.
This is fact unless someone disproves it.

So how arrogant THAT is? Make no mistake, the burden of proof is on those making the ridiculous claims not supported by facts.

 

[Foreigner]

"Excuse me? Since when is the burden of proof ever on Catholicism?" - aspen

-- Whenever they claim that their practices are approved by God but provide nothing to support that claim.



"What an arrogant statement! I guess this is how you treat your mother, too?" - aspen

-- Now we're dragging people's mothers into this?
This from the guy complaining about disrepect from others?


Newsflash!
You can't complain about it out one side of your mouth then practice it out the other side and be expected to be taken seriously.



"you are preaching the new form of Christian religion on the block." - aspen

-- Really? Basing your Christian walk on actual Biblical principles makes them the new religion on the block?

According to your standards the Druids have the right to say that Catholicism has a lot of explaining to do...

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

Is there any way we can stop the hijack and get the subject of the OP back on track?

Thank you!