[quote]forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
wow your a genious, where does it say anything about being silent, submitting is not being silent.
We were talking about Paul’s justification of women not speaking in church by the underlying logic that women should submit to their husbands. Since you asked:
1 Timothy 2:11-12
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
1 Corinthians 14:33-38
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. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached? If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
Notice the part I bolded above.
[/quote]
has it occured to you that verse 36-38 are just paul being sarcastic?
If you take that chapter as a whole Paul goes from gentle talk to hard and dogmatic talk several times.
Paul does that through out the NT especially in Romans 6.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html
"Finally, Paul consistently uses irony (e.g. I Cor 4.8) and statement/refutation (e.g. I Cor 6.12-13; 10.23) in this epistle to correct mistaken notions. Notice the semantic clues that this is occurring in the text:
Paul uses a gentle, instructional, nurturing tone in 14.26-33, with VERY ‘universal speaking’ words–“everyone has a hymn, teaching, revelation, tongue, interpretation” (26), “if anyone speaks…” (vs. 27), “for you can ALL prophesy in turn…” (vs. 31).
He switches to a legalistic, rabbinical-style, “disgrace”-oriented passage in 14.34-35, with ‘universal silence’ and ‘universal restriction’ words.
He then switches to a rebuking, ironic tone to demolish SOME false teaching in the immediate context! (vss. 36-38). [Notice that the only “teaching” that COULD BE the target of the rebuke in the near context is in verses 14.34-35. This is an important clue.]
He then switches BACK to the gentle, instructional, nurturing tone in verse 14.39-40.
This flow of argument ALONE would indicate that Paul was rebuking the position in 34-35.
But there is an obvious question here: if the women WERE already speaking in church (11.5)–indicating a ‘non-rabbinical’ church–WHY would this rabbinical-type argument show up as a view of someone in that church?
There is a fairly obvious answer–some of the members of the church, concerned about the “chaos” of the worship service, probably were seeking to ‘return to the good old Intertestamental days’. In other words, THEIR answer to the problem of church order was to cut the church in half! But Paul, on the other hand, explains that in every church (vs. 33) God ordains order WITHOUT restricting who does the speaking. This is affirmed both BEFORE the passage in question (vs. 31-33) and AFTER the passage in question (vs. 39-40). [That there would have been “rabbinic-leaning” contingents there that could have advanced this position is suggested from clues such as the “party of Cephas” (1.12), the dual reference to Jews/Gentiles in 1.23ff, and the Pauline Accommodation passage in 9.19-23. We KNOW there was a large Jewish population in the city–see historical background below.] "
However I am still waiting on quotes from the Law of God.