NT on women

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
look at the immediate context then get back to me, what most scholars say is irrelevant and is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum, you are talking to someone who has studied the Bible daily for twenty years!

There is no possible context that makes that ok.

EDIT: Just as there is no possible context in which slavery is ok.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
why would this be specifically aimed at women? do men not also cause factions and divisions? have headstrong men every tried to usurp authority?? why did paul direct this specifically at women???????

perhaps it was a problem in the Corinthian congregation and specific counsel was needed, of course it applies to men as well.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no what I am saying is that unless you look at the immediate context and the context of the Bible as a whole you will never be able to put the constituent parts together and form an accurate picture of the whole, to take a verse out of context and ascribe a meaning to it in such black and white terms is pure folly! Pictures are meant to be looked at not sniffed as the great Rembrandt reminds us.

I agree. When you put all the constituent parts together it's quite clear that this verse is in contradiction with other texts Paul has written. For those of us who accept Corinthians is of post-Pauline authorship the contradiction makes sense, for those of a fundamentalist persuasion like yourself it puts you in a quandary. As a result here you are trying to claim that 'women should remain silent in church' doesn't actually mean 'women should remain silent in church'.

Originally posted by googlefudge
There is no possible context that makes that ok.

Are you denying that unless you look at the immediate context and the context of the Bible as a whole that you will not be able to come to a more accurate understanding of the verse, are you really? To state that no possible context makes it ok is nonsense, its the same close minded approach as saying, forget the context the verse is what it is, ouch is this what we have come to expect from those who have limited their search for truth to unintelligent agencies, a close minded approach. is it?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I agree. When you put all the constituent parts together it's quite clear that this verse is in contradiction with other texts Paul has written. For those of us who accept Corinthians is of post-Pauline authorship the contradiction makes sense, for those of a fundamentalist persuasion like yourself it puts you in a quandary. As a result here you are tryi ...[text shortened]... en should remain silent in church' doesn't actually mean 'women should remain silent in church'.

no quandary simply harmonization so that the verses resonate with each other, those who deny Pauls authorship simply are taking the easy way out, day trippers!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
perhaps it was a problem in the Corinthian congregation and specific counsel was needed, of course it applies to men as well.

so a problem in one place at one time........makes it into the final cut of a book which is supposed to be offering timeless wisdom? are you putting this down to an editorial error? if it does apply to men as well then why not say so, all it would take is a slight change in the sentence? are we blaming pauls poor writing skills? is this the word of paul or the word of god?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no quandary simply harmonization so that the verses resonate with each other, those who deny Pauls authorship simply are taking the easy way out, day trippers!

Changing a very clear, unambiguous direction form the Bible is 'harmonisation'? As I've said before, you would make a very good politician, except you're too brittle in the heat of battle.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so a problem in one place at one time........makes it into the final cut of a book which is supposed to be offering timeless wisdom? are you putting this down to an editorial error? if it does apply to men as well then why not say so, all it would take is a slight change in the sentence? are we blaming pauls poor writing skills? is this the word of paul or the word of god?

wow, the book covers a period of thousands of years, why you think that a problem recorded in one epoch simply because its specific to the time of writing has no relevance or contains no wisdom in another epoch is known only to you, to me your reasoning makes absolutely no sense.

your other assertions are unworthy of serious comment.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Changing a very clear, unambiguous direction form the Bible is 'harmonisation'? As I've said before, you would make a very good politician, except you're too brittle in the heat of battle.

it was the same yesterday when Hinds and the born againers were trying to state that the Bible admonished people not to go from house to house, a nonsense when considered in the immediate context and the context of the Bible as a whole.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow, the book covers a period of thousands of years, why you think that a problem recorded in one epoch simply because its specific to the time of writing has no relevance or contains no wisdom in another epoch is known only to you, to me your reasoning makes absolutely no sense.

your other assertions are unworthy of serious comment.

epoch? so most churches of the time were full of rebellious women? you seemed to imply that it was in just one place.which is it?

are you saying history is full of churches full of rebellious women that need to be told to pipe down?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
epoch? so most churches of the time were full of rebellious women? you seemed to imply that it was in just one place.which is it?

are you saying history is full of churches full of rebellious women that need to be told to pipe down?

what are you talking about? i have said that perhaps it was specific at the time to the Corinthian congregations why that it may not apply elsewhere once gain is known only to you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it was the same yesterday when Hinds and the born againers were trying to state that the Bible admonished people not to go from house to house, a nonsense when considered in the immediate context and the context of the Bible as a whole.

Harmonisation, it's going to tickle me all day that one.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Harmonisation, it's going to tickle me all day that one.

when you are playing your drums it will come to your mind and you'll get groovier!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what are you talking about? i have said that perhaps it was specific at the time to the Corinthian congregations why that it may not apply elsewhere once gain is known only to you.

ahhh it made it into the bible because women are going to become loud in the future??? so a vague bit of writing, that implies all women should be quiet in churches it there because one group of women in corinth and one group of women in some unspecified future time dare to speak their mind in a church...........and you dont find this a tad sexist.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
ahhh it made it into the bible because women are going to become loud in the future??? so a vague bit of writing, that implies all women should be quiet in churches it there because one group of women in corinth and one group of women in some unspecified future time dare to speak their mind in a church...........and you dont find this a tad sexist.

it made it into the Bible because its inspired of God. Not sexist, just awesome.