Scholar8200:
Thanks for that.

No problem brother,
now if you want: "Reading the web link and this post above further accentuates my post to Scholar8200"
to flush directly under "Muttley" just put the mouse before the R in "Reading the web link...."
and then backspace 2 or 3 times
You obviously have to be in Modify mode to carry the above out

Scholar8200:
Look forward to your responses, do keep them scriptural.

Not sure what you mean by "do keep it scriptural"
as all I've so far typed is scriptural, through and through

malvisguy212:
Paul was aware of there culture about women and he respect it.
But in Corinthians the context was about the prophecy and toung.
Women can have this gift and when they do, they should not assume authority over the men.
That was the message in Corinthians

With a clearer head I have just revisited the above post,
and would love to hear where were you going with the "culture" thing.
What culture are you talking about or referring to?
Curious to know if yours aligns with mine.

Scholar8200:
I like the reference to Acts 18:24-26, it further accentuates my penultimate post.
A sexist translator will not mention Priscilla, yet her name is mentioned almost if not all times her husband's name was mentioned!

Brother, you are on a long thing, what business has translation got to do with mention?

Scholar8200:
Also note that the context of the couple's activity was in their home,

Where else did you expect the activity to have been held?
You do agree, that the early believers, ekklessia, the called outs, activities has always been in their homes. Dont you?

Ekklessia "called out", in the beginning, gathered together, for a common purpose, in one place, their homes and not in edifices

Ekklessia, OK using the modern time parlance, CHURCH, are the "called out" gathered to be set up, be joined up, or be fitted together
and traditionally they met in their homes

Scholar8200:
not the assembly of believers.

I almost laughed at the above
If not an assembly of believers, what are you calling the coming together of Apollo, Priscilla and Aquila, her husband?
An assembly of heathens?
Apollo, Priscilla and Aquila, her husband coming together is an assembly of believers brother, dont get it twisted.

Some of your remarks like those above, unfortunately, are ample justification for me querying your definition of "church"
and your understanding of what "church" is actually all about

MuttleyLaff:

With a clearer head I have just revisited the above post,
and would love to hear where were you going with the "culture" thing.
What culture are you talking about or referring to?
Curious to know if yours aligns with mine.

I don't want to argue that why I ignore most of your first post.
400 years ago women are to stay home,the Jewish culture was dominated by men ,Women could not play a significant role in the synagogue. Read this link and know more about women in ancient isreal http://www.bible-history.com/court-of-women/women.html Paul was aware of there culture.

malvisguy212:
I don't want to argue that why I ignore most of your first post.

What is the bolded above meant to mean
You air your thoughts, others independently do likewise.
Is that arguing?
Have better things to do than lollygagging or argue

malvisguy212:
400 years ago women are to stay home, the Jewish culture was dominated by men,
Women could not play a significant role in the synagogue.
Read this link and know more about women in ancient isreal
http://www.bible-history.com/court-of-women/women.html Paul was aware of there culture.

MuttleyLaff:
You better start thinking so now
and imbibe Romans 12:2, to be transformed by the renewing of your mind

We are now living in a rapidly changing what used to be an exclusive man's world
but thank you God, this man's world, wouldn't be nothing, it'll be nothing without a woman
so in essence, they cant and shouldnt have in the first place, nursed the idea of promoting sexism
or reinforce the status quo underhandedly, the manner this is or was done

After I had posted the above, I cant seem to understand why you're holding out a link about Jewish culture dominated by men to me.

Thought you were on about the women of Corinth, the reality of ancient Greek culture and hetaira, but you obviously aren't

MuttleyLaff:

What is the bolded above meant to mean
You air your thoughts, others independently do likewise.
Is that arguing?
Have better things to do than lollygagging or argue




After I had posted the above, I cant seem to understand why you're holding out a link about Jewish culture dominated by men to me.

Thought you were on about the women of Corinth, the reality of ancient Greek culture and hetaira, but you obviously aren't

ok, I want to read your explanation, did Paul really say woman are not to preach or say a word in the church?

malvisguy212:
ok, I want to read your explanation,
did Paul really say woman are not to preach or say a word in the church?

I wouldnt possibly be able to satisfactorily comment on that, until I know which church you are referring to.
Is this about women are not to preach or say a word in the church in Corinth or church universally?

MuttleyLaff:

cc Sibe007, Scholar8200, Sleekydee, elveco, Mprex

Are you for or against what Sibe007 posted?
How is it a wrong division of the Word of Truth and as private as a private interpretation gets?
What exactly has Sibe007 "twisted"?
How or where exactly has Sibe007 "twisted"?

Read below.

Sibe007:
2 Timothy 2:15 Rightly divide the Word of Truth.


1 cor 14:
33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
34 Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[g]
36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.[h]
39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Looking at the above, you would see some contradictions. How will Paul say women should be silent in verse 34 and same time say in verse 39. my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

There was no contradiction here, it is simply a matter of context. Its a long chapter of about 40 verses. The earlier part had been clear about prophesying and even made allusion to keeping silence.
1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Of course, keeping silence there is not about being dumb throughout church service but self control/temperance. One may have tongues and yet keep silent. In the latter part of the chapter, the passage talks about women keeping silent instead of teaching in the capacity of a leader or pastor over the men. It is not a contradiction by any means. One talks of prophesying, another of speaking in tongues, another of teaching. These are three different things. There are many activities in church like praying, singing, testimonies, report etc. CONTEXT.

Paul could not have said about women prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11 and go on to say women should be silent in 1 Corinthians 14.

The truth is there is no contradiction. If you follow the story from the beginning, you would see that there was a central theme bothering around orderliness in worship and verse 34 and 35 seems out of place. The reason is because Paul was responding to letters they had written to him, hence verse 34 and 35 was a quote from their letters. They were pointing to their Law, how women were not allowed to speak. Paul questioned them asking if they were the only ones who had God's word or if the Word of God originated from them. In KJV verse 36

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

CONTEXT is different. Prophecy is different from teaching or directing in the capacity of a shepherd or pastor. The establishment, corroboration and interpretation is clearer looking at Timothy.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to TEACH, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

The issue/context here is TEACHING, not prophesy, not prayer, not singing, not even tongues.

This was an interaction between Paul and the Corinthians, he was responding to a letter they wrote earlier.

1 cor 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
So the book of 1 Corinthians was Paul's response to their letter to him, and he did quote from their letters directly in his writing to them, which was not properly reflected in the English translation.

Yes, Paul wrote them after a particular letter from them, but you cannot just jump from chapter 7 to chapter 14 to say that Paul was interacting with some invisible letter. Where else is that interaction inbetween? Do we just make up interactions as we feel like? Where is this interaction in chapter 13 for instance or chapter 10? Who determines what is a question and what is an answer from Paul when the text doesn't say so?

The truth was that Paul was rebuking them. He took their quote in verse 34 and 35 and tore it apart. Reading the verses before and the verses after would give more insight.

The point is Paul never said that, the Corinthians said that, and Paul was responding to that.
Read the post again if you have.....

Stay blessed.

http://www.thekorro.net/2015/04/truth-did-paul-say-women-should-remain.html

1Co 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.
1Co 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.

These are not any interaction but visibly and clearly commands. You may disagree with these commands as opinions or bigoted or sexist or not spiritual or whatever. But don't insult us by telling us that they are quotes from another letter. The pronouns are very clear and straight. If they are from another letter, they should read as follows or similar.
Let our women keep silence in our churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [s]they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [/s]
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in our church.
These are clear commands and the next verses says so.
1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

In other words, if you do not acknowledge that they are commandments of the Lord, you are either not a prophet or spiritual or not thinking well(according to verse 37). Twisting a straight forward command into a question that it is not is not acceptable. If you say you do not understand this part of the Bible or do not agree with this part, fine and better. But telling us that it is a question and answer session, you would do well to show more proof.

Image123:
Read below.

There was no contradiction here, it is simply a matter of context. Its a long chapter of about 40 verses. The earlier part had been clear about prophesying and even made allusion to keeping silence.
1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Of course, keeping silence there is not about being dumb throughout church service but self control/temperance. One may have tongues and yet keep silent. In the latter part of the chapter, the passage talks about women keeping silent instead of teaching in the capacity of a leader or pastor over the men. It is not a contradiction by any means. One talks of prophesying, another of speaking in tongues, another of teaching. These are three different things. There are many activities in church like praying, singing, testimonies, report etc. CONTEXT.

CONTEXT is different. Prophecy is different from teaching or directing in the capacity of a shepherd or pastor. The establishment, corroboration and interpretation is clearer looking at Timothy.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to TEACH, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

The issue/context here is TEACHING, not prophesy, not prayer, not singing, not even tongues.

Yes, Paul wrote them after a particular letter from them, but you cannot just jump from chapter 7 to chapter 14 to say that Paul was interacting with some invisible letter. Where else is that interaction inbetween? Do we just make up interactions as we feel like?
Where is this interaction in chapter 13 for instance or chapter 10? Who determines what is a question and what is an answer from Paul when the text doesn't say so?

1Co 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.
1Co 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.

These are not any interaction but visibly and clearly commands. You may disagree with these commands as opinions or bigoted or sexist or not spiritual or whatever. But don't insult us by telling us that they are quotes from another letter. The pronouns are very clear and straight. If they are from another letter, they should read as follows or similar.
Let our women keep silence in our churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [s]they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [/s]

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in our church.
These are clear commands and the next verses says so.
1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

In other words, if you do not acknowledge that they are commandments of the Lord, you are either not a prophet or spiritual or not thinking well(according to verse 37). Twisting a straight forward command into a question that it is not is not acceptable. If you say you do not understand this part of the Bible or do not agree with this part, fine and better. But telling us that it is a question and answer session, you would do well to show more proof.

Is this "command" a situational or universal one?
Why the "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. I suffer not a woman to TEACH, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence"?
Was there anything prevailing that warranted Paul dishing out this course of action?
What other "command(s)" apart from this particular has Paul given?

MuttleyLaff:

Is this "command" a situational or universal one?
Why the "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. I suffer not a woman to TEACH, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence"?
Was there anything prevailing that warranted Paul dishing out course of action?
What other "command(s)" apart from this particular has Paul given?

We need to first be clear on one thing. Are we agreed that it is a command? If not, why on earth or heaven do you think it is a discussion or Q&A session?

Image123:
We need to first be clear on one thing.
Are we agreed that it is a command?

If you've agreed it is a command, I am ready to sail with you on it and thereby agree

Now, after agreeing with you that it is a command, here is where my inquisitiveness flares up
Is this "command", a situational or universal one?
Why the "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. I suffer not a woman to TEACH, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence"?
Was there anything prevailing that warranted Paul dishing out this course of words or action?
What other "command(s)" apart from this particular has Paul given?

Image123:
If not, why on earth or heaven do you think it is a discussion or Q&A session?

Where it is "If not" or it's "If so" and without bringing "earth or heaven", why not should it be a discussion or Q&A session?
There's nothing to fear in having a discussion or Q&A session except fearing that obscure details might get exposed

Matthew 10:26
Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known.

Mark 4:22
For everything that is hidden will eventually be brought into the open, and every secret will be brought to light.

Proverbs 10:9
Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but whoever takes crooked paths will be found out.

MuttleyLaff:
If you've agreed it is a command, I am ready to sail with you on it and thereby agree

Now, after agreeing with you that it is a command, here is where my inquisitiveness flares up
Is this "command", a situational or universal one?
Why the "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. I suffer not a woman to TEACH, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence"?
Was there anything prevailing that warranted Paul dishing out this course of words or action?
What other "command(s)" apart from this particular has Paul given?

Let's not assume, we cannot be working on assumption and maybes. Do you agree it is a command? If not, why not? Also, how do you determine that a command is situational or universal, any tangible proof or reason?

Where it is "If not" or it's "If so" and without bringing "earth or heaven", why not should it be a discussion or Q&A session?
There's nothing to fear in having a discussion or Q&A session except fearing that obscure details might get exposed

Matthew 10:26
Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known.

Mark 4:22
For everything that is hidden will eventually be brought into the open, and every secret will be brought to light.

Proverbs 10:9
Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but whoever takes crooked paths will be found out.

i'm not afraid of having a discussion or Q&A session, neither did i hint so. You or the OP say that the 1Corinthians passage is a Q&A session between Paul and the Corinthians. i simply ask WHY DO YOU THINK it is a Q&A session?

MuttleyLaff:

What is this? Are you having a laugh at my expense?

What's the meaning of this your "The Church is the body of Christ. 1 Cor. 1:2, Rom. 12-5-8"?
Are you kidding me? Is this meant to be a one-liner?
Is that how you explain your understanding or give a definition to a kafir?

Using the word kafir on a Christian thread, explain yourself.

nairalandposter:
Using the word kafir on a Christian thread, explain yourself.

Your wish is my command.

Kafir is an Arabic term meaning "infidel", "rejector", "disbeliever", "unbeliever", "nonbeliever".
The term refers to a person who rejects or disbelieves in God.


[img]https://s1/images/MuttWipesHandSmile.gif[/img]
Are you happy now nairalandposter?
Digging up a 7:28pm On Apr 30, 2015 over 4 years old comment. Smh