A Curse Is Not An Ideal

[John317]

Yet just a few posts ago you stated that the Bible was the Standard. Now in the face of clear Biblical FACTS you deny the Truth. You deny the very FACTS the Bible says happened.

You deny that Deborah led men in battle when the Bible actually says that Deborah did lead men in battle and actually gave the order to advance just like any male general would do.

"Then Deborah said to Barak, “Go! This is the day the LORD has given Sisera into your hands. Has not the LORD gone ahead of you?” So Barak went down Mount Tabor, followed by ten thousand men. 15 At Barak’s advance, the LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by the sword, and Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled on foot. 16 But Barak pursued the chariots and army as far as Harosheth Haggoyim. All the troops of Sisera fell by the sword; not a man was left."

Judges 4:14-16.

There it is John317, Deborah gave the order for Barak and all the men of Israel in that army to advance. I would say she led men into battle. Why do you deny this Truth?

Deborah told Barak that God commanded him to go and deploy troops at Mount Tabor (v. 6). Notice that God did not tell Deborah to deploy the troops.

At that point Barak told Deborah that he would deploy the troops only if she went with him (v. 8). So she said she would go with him.

But notice that she said since she was going with him, he wouldn't get the glory but a woman would get all the glory-- Jael, Heber's wife. In other words, Barak should have gone alone, without Deborah.

Whose command does verse 10 say the ten thousand MEN were under?

It says the men were under the command of Barak, not under a woman's command.

Then look at verses 14 and 15. It says the army was following Barak. The army-- all men-- wasn't following Deborah.

As you read on, does the text (v. 22) say that Deborah pursued Sisera? Or does it say Barak pursued Sisera? Barak, right?

[Neil D]

But that is not the way it is used in 1 Cor. 11. It says the head of Christ is God (v. 3). If it means what you claim it does, it would be saying that God is the "source" of Christ. But we know that is not its meaning here. The pre-existent Christ is self-existent. John 1: 1 says clearly that the Word was God-- i.e., that the Word was everything that God was-- and it is impossible for God to have come from God.

Also, consider that verse 10 shows that it is using the word "head" to refer to authority:

1 Cor. 11:10

That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Oh....So, when Paul says that he is following the example of Christ [vs 1] he is NOT refering that Christ was his source...just as when Christ was here on this earth, His source was not God.....which we know is also not true[John 10;8,25]...And while you are correct about the pre-existant Christ, you are obviously not interpreting correctly what Paul meant..Therefore, your reasoning is just a bit off..

[John317]

[John317]

...And while you are correct about the pre-existant Christ, you are not interpreting correctly what Paul meant..Therefore, your reasoning is off..

You need to show your reasoning, not merely your conclusion. Show your reasoning and your evidence that I am not interpreting Paul correctly. Where is my reasoning off? So far, all you have done is make a claim. Show it to be true.

[Neil D]

While the "authorized version" translates this 20 times as MINISTER, and 8 times as servant and 3 times as deacon, there is sufficient evidence by the definition alone to warrent that she had an office..."a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use"...which I believe is from Thayer's Lexicon....

If she is not a minister, then she is a leader of people, sent to do the job that God wanted done....

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

...And while you are correct about the pre-existant Christ, you are not interpreting correctly what Paul meant..Therefore, your reasoning is off..

You need to show your reasoning, not merely your conclusion. Show your reasoning and your evidence that I am not interpreting Paul correctly. Where is my reasoning off? So far, all you have done is make a claim. Show it to be true.

...Go read the verse again.

I show IN CONTEXT that "source" [not authority] is the better interpretation that should be used, and you want me to explain YOUR reasoning???? I have NO IDEA WHAT THE CORRELATION BETWEEN ANGELS AND WOMEN are used in your reasoning....sorry, but I ain't just gonna do your work. It's NOT way it's done, John...

I'm done...

[John317]

Rom 16:1 minister/President

chruch Cenchrea

Do you really believe Phoebe was President of the church at Cenchrea?

For sure she was a "minister" [Gk diakonos] of the church at Cenchrea, but what did she actually do? What kind of "minister" or "servant" or "helper" was Phoebe?

Consider the fact that Paul wrote the following instructions to the church at Corinth-- only a few miles from Cenchrea-- "As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in the congregations of the saints, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says" (1 Cor. 14: 33b-34).

In 1 Timothy 2: 11, 12, Paul says,

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Does it make sense that Paul would give these direction and say this about "all the churches of the saints" while a church only about 6 miles away is being led by a woman pastor/minister?

Please explain.

[Neil D]

Perhaps 1 Cor. 14: 33b-34 and 1 Timothy 2: 11, 12 isn't saying what you think they are saying....Usually, when there are unfair statements being said in the bible, and there is an example contrary to those wierd and unfair statements, I usually find that the unfair statements are interpreted wrong...

I always like to give God the oppertunity to be in the best light...and if I give Him time, He usually does...

[John317]

[quote name="hamilton-beach

I show IN CONTEXT that "source" [not authority"] is the better interpretation that should be used, and you want me to explain YOUR reasoning???? I have NO IDEA WHY ANGELS AND WOMEN are used in your reasoning....sorry, that's not the way it's done, John...

I'm done...

You need to show references and evidence, not merely make a claim that "source" is the better interpretation. Why is it the better interpretation?

Do you have a single translation to support your claim?

I wasn't referring to the "angels," HB. I am referring to the "authority" it speaks of. Did you notice 1 Cor. 11: 10 mentions "the symbol of authority on her head"?

Paul uses the same word in Eph. 1: 21-22 in a clear reference to authority:

Ephes. 1:21-22

far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. [22] And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,

Also Eph. 5: 22-23:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Col. 1: 18--

And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Col. 2: 10--

and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

[John317]

Perhaps 1 Cor. 14: 33b-34 and 1 Timothy 2: 11, 12 isn't saying what you think they are saying....Usually, when there are unfair statements being said in the bible, and there is an example contrary to those wierd and unfair statements, I usually find that the unfair statements are interpreted wrong......

What is Paul saying?

How is it unfair?

Is it possible you think it's unfair when it isn't?

Why not let God determine what is fair and unfair? He knows a lot better than we do.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Yet just a few posts ago you stated that the Bible was the Standard. Now in the face of clear Biblical FACTS you deny the Truth. You deny the very FACTS the Bible says happened.

You deny that Deborah led men in battle when the Bible actually says that Deborah did lead men in battle and actually gave the order to advance just like any male general would do.

"Then Deborah said to Barak, “Go! This is the day the LORD has given Sisera into your hands. Has not the LORD gone ahead of you?” So Barak went down Mount Tabor, followed by ten thousand men. 15 At Barak’s advance, the LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by the sword, and Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled on foot. 16 But Barak pursued the chariots and army as far as Harosheth Haggoyim. All the troops of Sisera fell by the sword; not a man was left."

Judges 4:14-16.

There it is John317, Deborah gave the order for Barak and all the men of Israel in that army to advance. I would say she led men into battle. Why do you deny this Truth?

Deborah told Barak that God commanded him to go and deploy troops at Mount Tabor (v. 6). Notice that God did not tell Deborah to deploy the troops.

At that point Barak told Deborah that he would deploy the troops only if she went with him (v. 8). So she said she would go with him.

But notice that she said since she was going with him, he wouldn't get the glory but a woman would get all the glory-- Jael, Heber's wife. In other words, Barak should have gone alone, without Deborah.

Whose command does verse 10 say the ten thousand MEN were under?

It says the men were under the command of Barak, not under a woman's command.

Then look at verses 14 and 15. It says the army was following Barak. The army-- all men-- wasn't following Deborah.

As you read on, does the text (v. 22) say that Deborah pursued Sisera? Or does it say Barak pursued Sisera? Barak, right?

Why do you ignore what the Bible says before that?

The FACT is that Deborah was there and she led and gave the command to attack. That is FACT. It is vital FACT that you keep ignoring.

For example:

General Eisenhower (WWII) tells General Patten to attack the Germans at a certain place. General Eisenhower does not go into battle and Patten defeats his opposite number.

In this scenario are you saying that Patten was the commander and that General Eisenhower was not in the war and was not Patten's superior?

Please John317 join the real world.

Deborah was a commander/leader like General Eisenhower and Barak was the subordinate to Deborah who carried out her orders.

Get it now.

Face it John317 what you have said is supporting a failed position because the Bible does not support it. It is twisting and manipulating of Bible verses that cannot erase the True FACTS as presented in the Bible.

In addition all these attempts to minimize and demean these women will fail because the Bible is clear about the Truth concerning these God chosen women leaders.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

Rom 16:1 minister/President

chruch Cenchrea

Do you really believe Phoebe was President of the church at Cenchrea?

For sure she was a "minister" [Gk diakonos] of the church at Cenchrea, but what did she actually do? What kind of "minister" or "servant" or "helper" was Phoebe?

Consider the fact that Paul wrote the following instructions to the church at Corinth-- only a few miles from Cenchrea-- "As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in the congregations of the saints, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says" (1 Cor. 14: 33b-34).

In 1 Timothy 2: 11, 12, Paul says,

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Does it make sense that Paul would give these direction and say this about "all the churches of the saints" while a church only about 6 miles away is being led by a woman pastor/minister?

Please explain.

There you go again, John317. You admit that Phoebe was a "minister" then you go on and question her role and demeaning and minimizing what she did as if as minister she was of less standing than her male counterparts.

The Bible merely says that Phoebe was a minister at Cenchrea and nothing more is said. So why do you want to minimize her role there?

When you minimize and demean the roles of these Biblical women it not only looks bad John317 but it is also not being true to the actual FACTS as stated in the Bible.

[miz3]

Perhaps 1 Cor. 14: 33b-34 and 1 Timothy 2: 11, 12 isn't saying what you think they are saying....Usually, when there are unfair statements being said in the bible, and there is an example contrary to those wierd and unfair statements, I usually find that the unfair statements are interpreted wrong...

I always like to give God the oppertunity to be in the best light...and if I give Him time, He usually does...

We have long ago on this and other threads shown John317 that he is indeed wrong in his interpretations of 1Corinthians chapter fourteen and 1Timothy chapter 2. Yet he continues to press these texts. Repeating these texts over and over again does not make your interpretation any better by just repetition, John317.

These text still do not support what you, John317, say anymore today than they did yesterday, or last week. You have misinterpreted these texts and they do not support your position.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

Rom 16:1 minister/President

chruch Cenchrea

Do you really believe Phoebe was President of the church at Cenchrea?

For sure she was a "minister" [Gk diakonos] of the church at Cenchrea, but what did she actually do? What kind of "minister" or "servant" or "helper" was Phoebe?

Consider the fact that Paul wrote the following instructions to the church at Corinth-- only a few miles from Cenchrea-- "As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in the congregations of the saints, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says" (1 Cor. 14: 33b-34).

In 1 Timothy 2: 11, 12, Paul says,

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Does it make sense that Paul would give these direction and say this about "all the churches of the saints" while a church only about 6 miles away is being led by a woman pastor/minister?

Please explain.

Ya know, all the stuff you have posted from Paul just really points to what an arrogant, self centered, ego driven chauvenist he really was.

He also said a lot of stuff that makes no sense at all and I think was just based on his own personal predjudice.

1st Cor 11:14 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him.

Really? Where does nature teach that? Jesus had shoulder length hair, Samson etc.

Now I know this thread is not about hair length, but the point is that Paul wrote a lot of stuff that was based on his own opinion - not the divine inspiration of God

[doug yowell]

We have long ago on this and other threads shown John317 that he is indeed wrong in his interpretations of 1Corinthians chapter fourteen and 1Timothy chapter 2. Yet he continues to press these texts. Repeating these texts over and over again does not make your interpretation any better by just repetition, John317.

These text still do not support what you, John317, say anymore today than they did yesterday, or last week. You have misinterpreted these texts and they do not support your position.

It is not John alone that has understood these texts in this manner, but millions of Christian women and tens of thousands of scholars and preachers over the centuries. This,of course, does not necessitate their being right, but it does make the case for a more natural reading of the Scriptures rather than the new alternate,some scholars say,we need to remove the curse, it really means the opposite rendition that is being propagated.And speaking of supportive women neither you nor (or?) HB have addressed the question of why the majority of Christian women continue to support the traditional roles that "John's position" advocates.

[Neil D]

general post-

does anyone here appreciate historical evidence to help understand the culture of the time of paul and why he wrote what he wrote?

Here is evidence from scholars of why women "covered thier head"....

Paul writes:

(5)But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

The term "veil" is no where in the text. The often translated "bear-headed" or "uncovered" is akatakaluptos or akatakaluptos which really means "loose hair" or "loosened hair" (see William Welty,Executive director ISV Foundation, "Re-Thinking The Veil: Another Approach to 1 Corinthians 11."). Why is an uncovered woman (Or a woman whose hair is worne loosely) like one whose head is shaved? Some have speculated that this was the fashion of temple prostitutes, but not enough is known about temple culture in ancient Greece to say this. What is known, however, is that the Jews used shaving the head an a penalty for adultery. In the Gospels we see that a woman was about to be stoned for adultery, but this penalty was replaced with shaving the head (Welty,3-4).

Bushnell Writes:

243. (Verse 6) "For if the woman be not covered, let her be shorn." Paul refers to the Oral Law of the Jews. Says Lightfoot: He "does not here speak in his own sense but cites something usual among the Jews." It admits of proof that such was the Oral Law. A woman "sinner" is described in the Talmud as "she who transgresseth the law of Moses and the Jewish law." The gloss explains: "’The Jewish law, that is, what the daughters of Israel follow though it be not written" (i.e. the oral Law). The question was asked: "How does she transgress the Jewish law? Answer: "If she appear abroad with her head uncovered if she spin in the streets," etc., etc., through a long list. For the offenses here enumerated, one of which is uncovering the head, it is prescribed that the wife should be divorced "with the loss of her marriage portion." (Kethuboth, fol. 7, col. 1). Furthermore, in that section of the Talmud called "Sotah," which treats of unchaste women, under the sub-head, Of the duty of Repudiation of a Wife for adultery, we learn that this DUTY rested upon a Jew whose wife was seen abroad with her hair "not done up,” i.e., not covered. Thus we learn that a Jew, even if favorably disposed towards his wife’s profession of Christianity, and toward the practice of unveiling in worship, might be compelled by his relatives or the synagogue authorities, much to his regret, to divorce his wife, if she unveiled. The rest of the story, as to what would be done with the woman who unveiled, and thus furnished sufficient proof of "adultery" to compel her husband to repudiate her, we learn from Dr. Edersheim's Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p. 155: "It was the custom in case of a woman accused of adultery to have her hair shorn or shaven," at the same time using this formula: "Because thou hast departed from the manner of the daughters of Israel, who go with their heads covered . . . therefore that hath befallen thee which thou hast chosen." An unveiled Jewish wife might, then, be tried for adultery; and when so tried, be "shorn or shaven." Paul here cites this obstruction to commanding women to unveil, but he permits it (verse 10).

If the woman prayed (in chruch presumably) with her head uncovered, or her hair worn down loose, it would be the same as a confession of adultory, that's why it would dishonor her head (husband); it's just a way of saying it dishonors the marriage and looks like an endorsement of liscienceious living. How much more could the church ill aford to have prophetesses running around prohesying iin chruch looking like they lived in adultory? The motive for asking the woman to cover the head is not to symbolize her subjection to her husband, but propriety!

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

We have long ago on this and other threads shown John317 that he is indeed wrong in his interpretations of 1Corinthians chapter fourteen and 1Timothy chapter 2. Yet he continues to press these texts. Repeating these texts over and over again does not make your interpretation any better by just repetition, John317.

These text still do not support what you, John317, say anymore today than they did yesterday, or last week. You have misinterpreted these texts and they do not support your position.

It is not John alone that has understood these texts in this manner, but millions of Christian women and tens of thousands of scholars and preachers over the centuries. This,of course, does not necessitate their being right, but it does make the case for a more natural reading of the Scriptures rather than the new alternate,some scholars say,we need to remove the curse, it really means the opposite rendition that is being propagated.And speaking of supportive women neither you nor (or?) HB have addressed the question of why the majority of Christian women continue to support the traditional roles that "John's position" advocates.

All kinds of people have erroneous views. The fact that you cite numbers has no bearing whatsoever on Truth. We do not accept Truth by the Numbers.

So why do you keep going down this path? It has no relevance.

[John317]

Rom 16:1 minister/President

chruch Cenchrea

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Do you really believe Phoebe was President of the church at Cenchrea?

For sure she was a "minister" [Gk diakonos] of the church at Cenchrea, but what did she actually do? What kind of "minister" or "servant" or "helper" was Phoebe?

Consider the fact that Paul wrote the following instructions to the church at Corinth-- only a few miles from Cenchrea-- "As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in the congregations of the saints, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says" (1 Cor. 14: 33b-34).

In 1 Timothy 2: 11, 12, Paul says,

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Does it make sense that Paul would give these direction and say this about "all the churches of the saints" while a church only about 6 miles away is being led by a woman pastor/minister?

Please explain.

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Ya know, all the stuff you have posted from Paul just really points to what an arrogant, self centered, ego driven chauvenist he really was.

He also said a lot of stuff that makes no sense at all and I think was just based on his own personal predjudice.

I don't agree with you at all about Paul, but I respect your honesty in telling us your opinion of him.

Have you tried reading Paul's letters in many different translations and in some of the better paraphrases?

Paul has always been one of my most favorite persons in the Bible and I can't wait to meet him in heaven.

Are there any parts of his letters that you like? For instance, what about 1 Cor. 13?

Does it seem likely to you that Paul would say that women should not speak in the churches, at the same time that a woman is a pastor/minister of a nearby church?

[Neil D]

More scholarly discourse over the following verse-

"v10)Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

This is one of the most obscure passages in the Bible.

could it be " a symbol of authority on her head."?

That certainly sounds like a command to subordination. The problem is, its translated wrongly! Not only is the translation bad, but it has been (purposely?) batched so as to indicate the exact opposite of what it says. It should read for these reasons, the woman should have power over her own head. Or, "she should be able to decide for herself whether or not to cover her head." This is not a radical proposal, it's something that most Greek scholars know well, and have known so for a long time. Sir William Ramsay, the great archaeologist who, at the turn of the last century, proved so much accuracy for the book of Acts, and established Luke as a valid historian, openly mocked the traditional rendering! He called it "a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at anywhere (except in the New Testament, where they seem to think Greek words can mean anything commentators choose." (see Ramsay, Cities of ST. Paul (Londong: holder) 1907, 203).

The word exousian (exousian) means "liberty," "privilege," "authority" but of a kind that is one's own. For example- The Centurian told Christ, "I am a man under authority. I say to one 'go' and he goes and 'come' and he comes." He describes himself as one who must be obeyed, but says he is "under authority," why? Because that is the word exousian. the Centurion's authority was delegated by Rome, but it was his own authority to wield as he saw his duty. It was his privilege to command as he saw fit. The word means one's own power, it does not mean "to be under subjection." It is the woman's own power to veil or not, as she sees fit. Ramsay himself proved this in the Cities of St.Paul. On one of his digs he found a statue of a woman, the inscription of what clamed that she had "three powers on her head." This was Ramsey's rendering, and it was the same word. This meant, she was the wife, daughter and mother of kings.

Intermediate Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1983) defines the word: I."Power or authority to do a thing. Magestry, the body of mageistrtes, authirities, powers." II. "Means, resources."

It certianly looks to me as though that word is entirely concerned with the ability of the bearer to work by his/her own peragative, and not subjection to the authority of another. The Barclay Newman Greek Dictionary defines it as "liberty, power, authority, to be in subjection or to wear a veil." I showed that to my Greek teacher (a Classicist from Yale) who laughed himself silly saying "the Greeks never had a word like that!" This just shows the bias of Christian publications on this topic.

William P. Welty, ISV foundation,"Rethinking the Veil:Another Approach to I Corinthians 11:2-16" agrees and presents other examples where exousia illustrates the authority of the bearer. He argues that every time exousia is used in the NT his bears this meaning.Examples he provides

Luke 9:1 believers given it over demons

Rev 2:26 given to those who overcome

5Rev 6:8 destroying angel to slaughter 1/4 of the world

Rev 13:7 anti-Christ given to beat up the saints

(William Welty is the Executive Director of The ISV Foundation of Yorba Linda, California. The ISV Foundation produces the Holy Bible:International Standard Version.

Here's a problem. The connecting phrase is "dia" meaning "for this reason." So for what reason? What came before is that the woman should cover her head because woman is made for man. How does this make sense? The woman should have her own authority to decide about veiling because she was made for man? The phrase dia touto means "because of this, for this reason," so he's saying because of this whole idea I've been developing; the Christian concept of marriage, the whole purpose of God in creation of genders, to be one flesh and to help each other. The woman should have her own right to decide, not because she was created to be a salve and serve man, but because she is created in God's image like the man, and is equal with him in the economy of God. All of this Paul is driving at and leading up to.

And because of the angels.

No one has given a satisfactory account of this verse except Kate Bushnell. Tertullian ascribed it to lust; women's faces cause angel to lust (which I think tells us more about Tertullian than it does about angels). Some have said these are human messengers (angeloi) who will see the woman looking like hookers and get the wrong idea. That is possible but it would be a pretty cryptic remark. Bushnell has the most fitting and logical answer:

When the disciples asked the Lord which of them would be greatest in the kingdom of heaven, Jesus set a child in their midst, and informed them that until they humbled themselves as such they could not even enter that kingdom. From the child He transferred the lesson to "one of these little ones that believe on Me," i.e., to the believer humblest in rank among them, saying, "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father who is in heaven," Matthew18:10. The words in verse 10 bear the translation, "because of her angels," the definite article in Greek often having the force of a possessive pronoun, and thus the verse should have been rendered. Paul taught that "angels" were inferior in rank to redeemed man, 1 Corinthians 6:3. They are ministering spirits to us, Hebrew 1:14. Yet the most despised women's angels stand before God, with no intervening veil, and behold His face. Shall not woman be permitted to do as much as her "ministering spirits" are allowed to do? Man unveils because Christ, his Head, is unveiled before God. Woman "ought to have the right" to unveil because not only is Christ, her spiritual Head, unveiled before God, but man, her matrimonial head, also; and, if this were not enough, then her ministering spirits "do always behold the face" of God. This is the Apostle's argument. Shall man attempt to require that woman veil out of respect for his authority (?) over her? Not when God does not require man to veil out of respect for God's authority over man.

The women's guardian angels behold the face of God unveiled, why shouldn't the women? "

[Neil D]

Granted that Paul was able to say some of the most elequent things in scripture about God, and gave us some of the most beautiful insights into the human condition, how is it that Paul, comes down so hard on women? By the way that some have brought forth Paul's comments and his put-downs of women in general, you'd take all of Paul's great commentary with a grain of salt.

But what if Paul was not making generalization or universal law regarding women in general? What if Paul speaks to the local situation that brought forth these comments due to the extra-ordinary circumstances?

My previous 2 posts in this thread give a partial glimpse into the culture of the times and the reasons that Paul was a bit more reasonable than our "scholarly" Adventist brethern let on.

Now, I have not answered every objection here. But I have given adequate information from the latest scholarly reviews that are coming from the internet that give some sombering evidence contrary to bias scholarship. It is my purpose to show that God IS a fair and just God, and is not out to subjugate women to a 2nd class status, regardless of what our "esteemed" but misinformed bretheren want to expound upon...

[John317]

More scholarly discourse over the following verse-

"v10)Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

This is one of the most obscure passages in the Bible.

could it be " a symbol of authority on her head."?

That certainly sounds like a command to subordination. The problem is, its translated wrongly! Not only is the translation bad, but it has been (purposely?) batched so as to indicate the exact opposite of what it says. It should read for these reasons, the woman should have power over her own head. Or, "she should be able to decide for herself whether or not to cover her head."

That makes no sense when you consider what Paul says in verses 3-7, especially verses 5 and 6, where Paul says that a woman should have her head covered, and if she doesn't, she should have her head shaved.

1 Cor. 11:3-7

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. [6] For if a wife [woman] will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife [woman] to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. [7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

Verse 10, which begins with "for this reason," is the logical result of verses 8 and 9. Let's look at those two verses:

1 Cor. 11:8-9

For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Does it make sense that Paul would say that since woman came from man and not man from woman, therefore woman ought to be able to decide for herself whether to cover her own head? And this, right after Paul has just said that "if a wife [woman] will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short"?

[John317]

....But what if Paul was not making generalization or universal law regarding women in general? What if Paul speaks to the local situation that brought forth these comments due to the extra-ordinary circumstances?

If that were the case, why wouldn't Paul have attributed his instructions to extraordinary local circumstances? But notice that the apostle doesn't even describe any extraordinary local problems in connection to his instructions about women in the churches.

Why does Paul instead refer to the events in Eden and say his instructions apply to "all the churches of the saints"?

[CoAspen]

Cross,

What you are noticing is a careful avoidance of cultural influence on Pauls writing, when it serves a purpose. This happens quite often in theological discussions, regardless of the organization. Within the SDA organization when all else fails, ie, study, research, etc, many rely on EGW and fit here words into a preconceived idea. If her words fit, then they are from God/inspired, if they don't, it becomes opinion. What SDA's have to do, in my opinion, is rely more on the words of Christ/God, directly, through the guidance of the 3rd person of the Godhead, Holy Spirit. Of course, if one is not a believer, then that makes no sense. My belief, for the person seeking to understand the Bible and not a believer in any religious orientation, is to read it with careful cultural, time and history understanding. This method would also serve professed christians as well.

The following is an example of trying to fit words with preconceived ideas, in my opinion.

>{God reprimanded Adam for listening to the voice of his wife because Adam was supposed to be her protector and teacher. Instead, he became a passive observer. He allowed his love for Eve to lead him to disobey God.

God didn't intend for Adam to be a passive observer of what his wife did. He was supposed to be the leader. Adam wasn't given to Eve in order to be her helper, but Eve was created to be Adam's helper.

God didn't create an inferior partner for Adam. Eve was made equal to Adam, but they had different functions and roles. Similarly, Christ is equal to the Father, yet they have different work to do. This is the way it is in the church as well as in the home.}<

Notice in one sentence Adam is called, leader, protector, and teacher, then in the next we get told that Adam and Eve were equal!!!! Is the student equal to the teacher or follower to the leader, etc? Does equal mean equal? Or is there a subtle inference that we have a dual meaning for equal when it comes to men and women, ie, well, you know, the refrain of different functions and roles!!! We are seeing the real issue here of who has more blame, the women, and she was only to be a helper, still not fitting the equal definition!

equal |

adjective

1 being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value

• (of people) having the same status, rights, or opportunities.

• uniform in application or effect; without discrimination on any grounds: a dedicated campaigner for equal rights.

• evenly or fairly balanced

So, according to some, equality in the Bible has another meaning....at least for men and women!! Confused!! Don't be...we have our cultural differences as well!!

[Woody]

Excellent Post CoA

[M. T. Cross]

You have said all the exact things I have been thinking as I have read this thread CoA

John to answer your questions - No there is really nothing about Pauls writings that I like. That said of course as with anything there is a few gems here and there. I just can't think of any off of the top of my head. I think he was a lonely man that threw himself into a religious fervor so hard that he could not see the trees for the forest. He comes off to me as a bitter, angry man that was never satisfied with much of anything.

Thats my opinion. If you can get some light out of his words my hat is off to you.