How Many Authors Wrote The Gospels Of Paul?

[oldblindjohn]

the second is speaking of unlearned women disrupting a service because they had a question. have a nice day all,

i'm outta this thread before i lose i.q. points.. <TOO LATE>

That's not what it says.

[secretkeeper]

Sorry, meant 5 typed 4. Try verse 5.

1 Corinthians 11:5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

1 Corinthians 14:34: 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.

Women were not priests in the old testament but they did prophesy. Deborah was a prophetess as was Miriam but there are no examples of them speaking in the tabernacle (church).

I still see no contradictin.

[oldblindjohn]

1 Corinthians 11:5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

1 Corinthians 14:34: 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.

I still see no contradictin.

Do people speak when prophesising?

[mererdog]

self-censor

Edited February 1, 2007 by mererdog

[secretkeeper]

Do people speak when prophesising?

The women are not to speak in Church... I may not like what it says but that is what it says... they are allowed to prophesy in other locations... no contradiction.

[marsamben]

Hate to bust anyone's bubble, but there is only 4 Gospels in the New Testament and Paul is not one of them. We have the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Paul was responsible for the Epistles (letters to the Corinthians, Galations, Romans and the Colossians), whilst he was imprisoned most likely with the use of a scribes person. Paul did not contribute to Revelations as this was John.

Cheers Mark

[Coolhand]

Do people speak when prophesising?

One thing to note, when you read the epistles (specifically Paul's), you have to realize that you are reading a letter inspired by the Holy Ghost written by a theologian with lofty ways of explaining what he is talking about. By today’s standards, Paul would be a double PhD in Theology. Paul's letters were always written in response to something that was going on in the church he was writing to, either bad behavior or bad doctrine. When we read the epistles written by Paul we are reading the response to either a situation or a question that was asked him. It’s like Jeopardy; you have the answer, but what was the question?

I've heard several explanations for his statement of "Let the women keep silent in the church," and none really sound right to me. The only sense I can make out if it is that (among the other problems addressed in First Corinthians) there was some issue with the women talking during their services. Due to the cultural and historical distance, the reason behind that comment may be lost.

We do know that Paul ordained women as deacons (Pricilla) and that there were women prophets (prophetesses) and women judges. God used women in leadership in the history of Israel and in the history of the church. There are seminary classes specifically on women in ministry.

I would not make a doctrine about Bible contradictions based on an obscure passage.

[sting_of_truth]

That's not what it says.

1Cr 14:34 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.

1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, LET THEM ASK THEIR HUSBANDS AT HOME: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

[now in the caps part it says a woman should ask the husband at home, why not say ask the pastor after the message.. this caps part obviously shows the women were asking their husbands DURING the message. and since women were not as educated as men it goes to show if they had a question they would ask them in the middle of the service, trying not to interrupt, but in reality they were..

if you take the time to ask the question why was this written, then study the culture, problems in the church at corinth, etc. etc. you'll learn something... now thats the historically correct proveable point. but since you can't accept that let me prove you wrong yet another way..

Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

this is the holy spirit using the person as a vehicle, not the woman speaking on her own but the lord speaking through her. now if a woman is given a word and does not bring it before the elder/elders of the church, and once approved share it. then the woman is shutting herself off to the holy spirit and in 1 thessolonians we are told not to quench the holy spirit. 1Th 5:19 Quench not the Spirit. so there you're shown wrong again, biblically, and yet it is not entirely correct because not all things are taken into account.. now i'm turning off my email response thingy..

[boteomm]

hey, at least your not an ass about it.

[Sr.Sue]

On the topic of Paul's view on women....My question is this. Why would Paul refer back to the old testament law, when he had argued with Peter and James that it should not apply to gentiles? To me, that would appear to either be a contradiction in his message, or indication of tampering with the original text. Consider the following....

Acts 18:24-26 Priscilla and Aquilla BOTH disciple Apollos. This would mean that Priscilla (a woman) taught a man.

Acts 21:9 There are 4 prophetesses mentioned

Roman 16:1 Paul refers to Phoebe as diakonos (this translates to minister)

Romans 16:7 Paul refers to Andronicus and Junia as "outstanding among the apostles"...Junia is a woman.

1 Cor. 16:3 Priscilla and Aquila are referred to as "fellow workers"...also, Priscilla is listed first..The more important of 2 people was commonly listed first.

Galatians 3:28 "THere is nieither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, aor you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Philippians 4:2 Paul refers to Euodia and Syntyche (women) as coworkers and active evangelists (this logically would mean they were preaching/teaching)

Philemon 2 Paul refers to "...Apphia, our sister...." as one of 3 leaders of a house church

2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15 Timothy was taught by his mother and grandmother.

Also, the early church would probably have had a much harder time surviving and growing if it hadn't been for women...The following are a list of women who owned houses that churches met in...

1 Cor. 1:11 - Chloe

Acts 12:12- Mother of Mark

Acts 16:14-5 & 40- Lydia

Col 4:15- Nympha

Plus, let's not forget the fact that it was the women who stayed with Jesus at the crucifiction as well as women who discovered the empty tomb. Mary Magdalene was the apostle to the apostles, and on the day of Pentecost, the holy spirit was poured out on all of them.

[Coolhand]

On the topic of Paul's view on women....My question is this. Why would Paul refer back to the old testament law, when he had argued with Peter and James that it should not apply to gentiles? To me, that would appear to either be a contradiction in his message, or indication of tampering with the original text.

The rest of your post echos what I believe about women in ministry: there is a need and they are effective and God many times can use them easier it would seem than he can use men, and many times it was the women that got (get) it, not the men.

On this first part here, the part I have in quotes; women and genitles are two different issues. The vision Peter had (Acts 10:10-15) showed that the Gentiles were grafted in and the was now no difference between Jew and gentile, faith in Christ is now the issue not race. And that was proved when the baptism of the Holy Ghost fell on the gentles the same way it fell on the Jews (Acts 10:45).

The rules changed in the New Testament regarding gentiles; assuming I understand where you were going with that.

[Sr.Sue]

The rest of your post echos what I believe about women in ministry: there is a need and they are effective and God many times can use them easier it would seem than he can use men, and many times it was the women that got (get) it, not the men.

On this first part here, the part I have in quotes; women and genitles are two different issues. The vision Peter had (Acts 10:10-15) showed that the Gentiles were grafted in and the was now no difference between Jew and gentile, faith in Christ is now the issue not race. And that was proved when the baptism of the Holy Ghost fell on the gentles the same way it fell on the Jews (Acts 10:45).

The rules changed in the New Testament regarding gentiles; assuming I understand where you were going with that.

True...but women were considered in judaic law as only slightly better then gentiles. Plus, you have to remember that Paul was evangelizing, starting churches, and writing letters primarily to gentile populations. Peter had to be chastised by Paul for refusing to eat with a mixed group of gentiles and jews that were now all christians. Where Paul refers back to the law makes me wonder if this isn't an interpolation (add in) by a later scribe in 1 Cor 14:34.

[Coolhand]

True...but women were considered in judaic law as only slightly better then gentiles. Plus, you have to remember that Paul was evangelizing, starting churches, and writing letters primarily to gentile populations. Peter had to be chastised by Paul for refusing to eat with a mixed group of gentiles and jews that were now all christians. Where Paul refers back to the law makes me wonder if this isn't an interpolation (add in) by a later scribe in 1 Cor 14:34.

Right, the Pharisees used to pray something like "Lord I thank you that I was not born a woman and dog or a gentile" which we all see the uncompassion in and would never even consider.

I really think 1 Cor 14:34 is a cultural and situational comment. I beleive it is Paul's comment and was not added by someone later.

[Sr.Sue]

It could be a situational comment. After all, Paul was not expecting his letters to be gathered together and made into the majority of the new testament. We would all probably put alot more thought into our posts if we knew they were going to be made into a relgious text. However, it could also be an edited statement.

[mererdog]

We would all probably put alot more thought into our posts if we knew they were going to be made into a relgious text.

I'd certainly talk more about the benefits of giving me money.