OkCornel:


I guess you are missing the big picture by applying to specific circumstances to stand for solution to generic issues...

I ask again, why didn't Paul repeat this in all of his letters to the various churches he wrote to? why only the Corinthians and Timothy?

Or do you understand the mind of Paul better than Paul himself? or are you in a better position to tell us what was going on in Paul's mind and the circumstances that led him to writing such to Corinthian church and to Timothy?
Once again, you missed another point by thinking the letters of Paul serves as the foundation for Christianity. What about the teachings of Jesus?
NO JESUS...NO PAUL... Don't put the cart before the horse....Cheers

OkCornel:

Going by the bolded, why didn't Paul write a single letter to all the churches? Why then did he write specific letters to the various churches and to certain people?

No, it is Paul’s letters that apply general solutions to generic issues not me. I take your point that Paul wrote letters to specific churches to address in some cases, specific issues, those letters, admonishments, exhortations e.t.c. now form the doctrinal basis of Ecclesia, I did not say the foundation for Christianity, I wrote “Ecclesiastical Christianity” that is to say the philosophical and ecumenical basis of Christianity, the body and volume of Pentecostal Christianity that the sparse words of Jesus did not convey, there is a difference. Therefore your shouting of no Jesus no Paul is wholly unnecessary.

You ask why Paul did not write a single letter to all the churches, Why would he have to? Paul established a great many churches and those gatherings would have a uniform standard of behaviour grounded in Law as evidenced when he begins the verse in 1 Corinthians, It would have been those churches who derogated from acceptable standards of behaviour supposedly who would have been addressed. In any event I am only concerned with what Paul actually did write.

Sarassin:



No, it is Paul’s letters that apply general solutions to generic issues not me. I take your point that Paul wrote letters to specific churches to address in some cases, specific issues, those letters, admonishments, exhortations e.t.c. now form the doctrinal basis of Ecclesia, I did not say the foundation for Christianity, I wrote “Ecclesiastical Christianity” that is to say the philosophical and ecumenical basis of Christianity, the body and volume of Pentecostal Christianity that the sparse words of Jesus did not convey, there is a difference. Therefore your shouting of no Jesus no Paul is wholly unnecessary.

You ask why Paul did not write a single letter to all the churches, Why would he have to? Paul established a great many churches and those gatherings would have a uniform standard of behaviour grounded in Law as evidenced when he begins the verse in 1 Corinthians, It would have been those churches who derogated from acceptable standards of behaviour supposedly who would have been addressed. In any event I am only concerned with what Paul actually did write.

Per the bolded...so having this knowledge, how did you conclude that Paul is totally against women speaking in the church (all the churches both then and now) whilst he was addressing Timothy and the Corinthians?

Sarassin:
So, what’s new in men reinforcing the misogyny of 1 Tim 2:11-14?

Paul was very clear in 1 Corinthians 14: 33-36 and if you think that what Emmanystone wrote up there is “shedding light” then I truly despair for what passes for Christianity these days, Paul begins those verses with the words “As in all the congregations of the Lord’s peoples…” the inference here is that whatever he is about to say next is the general norm of all churches…a pre-existing state being extended to the church at Corinth, the kicker here are the words “ as the Law states…” words that are quite simply astonishing because here is the man who claimed to have abrogated the law now appealing to the law.

This was no ordinary one-off letter to a bunch of unruly women. Paul here laid down existing ecclesiastical directives rooted in the law as it stood at that time with regards the conduct of women in the Lord’s gathering and these directives persisted
Personally I do not believe that Paul was misogynistic in his personal dealings with women this is clear from the relationships he had with other women including the likes of Prisca, Julia and Phoebe and having read the apocryphal "Acts of Paul and Thecla"

Glad to read this about how you in a positive light, personally see Paul.
We live in a man's world, which from Jesus' time to date, increasingly is becoming a woman’s world

Sarassin:
The elephant in the room of course is that the Pastoral Epistles are not considered the writings of Paul, but that's a discussion for another day

It's no elephant in no room, when this in the past came up, I had posited that if not all, are Paul's authorship, nothing wrong in a ghost writer filling in for him

Sarassin:
The point I was trying to make which you have clearly missed, up there on your slippery soap-box is that I am referring to the societal norms and values of the times, perpetuated and reflected in statements such as 1 Tim 2 :11-14 and that requiring a man to obtain the consent of his wife for sex was tantamount to giving him a free pass.

I didn't miss the point you were trying to make
I saw it but just over stepped it because it was a red herring.
Compare 1 Timothy 2:12 with Priscilla whom you so gladly admitted you know.
Was Priscilla told off for teaching Apollos?

Also no one, not even Paul, not even in the remotest posited nor required that a man should to obtain the consent of his wife for sex.
What the earlier verse 1 Corinthians 7:1 and the passage surrounding it, was talking about was the question put to Paul, whether it was good for a man, not to have sexual relations with a woman. It had nothing on or about free pass

OkCornel:


Per the bolded...so having this knowledge, how did you conclude that Paul is totally against women speaking in the church (all the churches both then and now) whilst he was addressing Timothy and the Corinthians?

By the very obvious fact that Paul did not ask men to refrain from speaking in church.

Sarassin:


By the very obvious fact that Paul did not ask men to refrain from speaking in church.

In the Corinthian church yes...in his letter to Timothy yes...

What of his other letters?

MuttleyLaff:
Glad to read this about how you in a positive light, personally see Paul.
We live in a man's world, which from Jesus' time to date, increasingly is becoming a woman’s world

Thanks and true.

MuttleyLaff:

It's no elephant in no room, when this in the past came up, I had posited that if not all, are Paul's authorship, nothing wrong in a ghost writer filling in for him

Well then MuttleyLaff has spoken and that’s it sorted then! So pseudonymous writings attributed to Paul are now Paul’s authorship? I suppose I commend you for accepting the possibility of a ghost writer. You’ll get there in the end.

MuttleyLaff:

I didn't miss the point you were trying to make. I saw it but just over stepped it because it was a red herring.
Compare 1 Timothy 2:12 with Priscilla whom you so gladly admitted you know. Was Priscilla told off for teaching Apollos?

Clearly both accounts are contradictory in nature, and that is the conundrum of the Pastoral Epistles. I believe that those who wrote the Pastoral Epistles made a huge assumption about Paul's attitude towards women. I think Paul had a clear idea of how he saw the female laity and their role within the church but this did not preclude women of substance playing a leading role. I think that those who wrote the Pastorals failed to see this distinction.

OkCornel:


In the Corinthian church yes...in his letter to Timothy yes...

What of his other letters?

I refer you to my previous posts. You either accept all the Pauline corpus as scripture or none at all, there are no distinctions to be made.

Sarassin:


I refer you to my previous posts. You either accept all the Pauline corpus as scripture or none at all, there are no distinctions to be made.

Then you see things as black or white...with no grey in-between...

Let's simplify this thing so we do not major on minor issues...

1) What was Jesus and the Holy Spirit's position on this matter?

2) I believe God does not discriminate...the Holy Spirit was poured out on all believers (male & female) during the Pentecost

3) If a woman is led by the Spirit of God to give a revelation in the church would Jesus or Paul shut her up or permit her to speak?

OkCornel:


Then you see things as black or white...with no grey in-between...

Let's simplify this thing so we do not major on minor issues...

1) What was Jesus and the Holy Spirit's position on this matter?

2) I believe God does not discriminate...the Holy Spirit was poured out on all believers (male & female) during the Pentecost

3) If a woman is led by the Spirit of God to give a revelation in the church would Jesus or Paul shut her up or permit her to speak?

You make the same mistake that many Christians make, you conflate the spiritual and the temporal. That women received the Holy Spirit is no determinant whatsoever. We are talking about temporal laws.

Sarassin:


You make the same mistake that many Christians make, you conflate the spiritual and the temporal. That women received the Holy Spirit is no determinant whatsoever. We are talking about temporal laws.

Temporal laws that are no longer relevant today since the issues they were meant to resolve are no longer applicable?

Is that what you meant here? Because I thought I hammered on the fact that Paul wrote those things on women to the Corinthian church and to Timothy for some reasons which does not apply to all the churches existing at that point in time or in the present times...

OkCornel:


Temporal laws that are no longer relevant today since the issues they were meant to resolve are no longer applicable?

Is that what you meant here? Because I thought I hammered on the fact that Paul wrote those things on women to the Corinthian church and to Timothy for some reasons which does not apply to all the churches existing at that point in time or in the present times...

You wrote your own opinion. What Paul wrote carries universal applicability even though he addressed his comments to the Men and Women of the Corinthian church, by mere dint of the fact that all his other letters apply universally, then so does this one. If it is deemed no longer relevant then it is up to the church hierarchy to make the necessary amendments.

Is it really true that temporal laws are no longer applicable? Contrast the behaviour of women (and men) in churches today and then tell me that issues are solved. Irreverently dressed women paying lip service and falling about themselves, nothing has changed in my humble opinion....

Sarassin:


You wrote your own opinion. What Paul wrote carries universal applicability even though he addressed his comments to the Men and Women of the Corinthian church, by mere dint of the fact that all his other letters apply universally, then so does this one. If it is deemed no longer relevant then it is up to the church hierarchy to make the necessary amendments.

Is it really true that temporal laws are no longer applicable? Contrast the behaviour of women (and men) in churches today and then tell me that issues are solved. Irreverently dressed women paying lip service and falling about themselves, nothing has changed in my humble opinion....

That's where you are getting it wrong in the understanding of the scriptures...

Ask yourself this questions;

Everything that Paul wrote 2000 years ago, does everything apply to the Church of today?

OkCornel:


That's where you are getting it wrong in the understanding of the scriptures...

Ask yourself this questions;

Everything that Paul wrote 2000 years ago, does everything apply to the Church of today?

I am always willing to learn, I am happy to accept that my understanding is wrong if you can clearly demonstrate why it is wrong. Why do you think Paul’s admonishments to womenfolk do not apply today? What is the yardstick or criteria and why do you think such criteria would not apply to any other aspect of doctrinal directives that any future generation does not agree with?

Sarassin:


I am always willing to learn, I am happy to accept that my understanding is wrong if you can clearly demonstrate why it is wrong. Why do you think Paul’s admonishments to womenfolk do not apply today? What is the yardstick or criteria and why do you think such criteria would not apply to any other aspect of doctrinal directives that any future generation does not agree with?

The answer lies in this simple question,

Are all women in the church today exactly like the Corinthian women Paul admonished?

Do they have the same attitude? Are they causing controversies in the church like that of the Corinthian church?

If no, then no need for a Law that does not apply to them...

Were you thinking Paul wrote what he wrote to the Corinthian church to address all the issues prevalent in Nigerian churches or the global church in 2000 years' time?

Cheers

Emmanystone:

And they are shared, but why not during Fasting Prayers?

Have no idea what Fasting prayers means... some sort of new Christian ritual?

sonofluc1fer:

Have no idea what Fasting prayers means... some sort of new Christian ritual?

You guys don't fast in the kingdom of darkness? I thought satanists fast too.

Ask Lucifer your Dad if he fasts.

OkCornel:

Ask yourself this questions;

Everything that Paul wrote 2000 years ago, does everything apply to the Church of today?

Ask yourself these questions;

Does anything written about 2000 years ago apply today? What is the criteria for determining which applies and that which doesn't?

budaatum:


Ask yourself these questions;

Does anything written about 2000 years ago apply today? What is the criteria for determining which applies and that which doesn't?

A good example... Love your neighbor as yourself...