It not only IS contradictory, but these two passages may also not have been Paul's contribution to 'Christian' New Testament theology and praxis for the Corinthian, or any other 'Christian' church. However, since both passages have been accepted into the canon though, along with the rest of 1 Corinthians, we, on earth, are stuck with them here on earth and have to make a choice whether to ignore them as non-apostolic opinion or not. If I ever meet Paul in the afterlife though, I fully expect him to disassociate himself entirely from the interpolated passages I have previously quoted. I don't think even Paul could satisfactorily explain why he suddenly wanted to talk about hats, hair coverings, hair for women and men and 'messengers' i.e. angels, right in the middle of a telling off for the abuse of the agape meals by selfish, greedy, wealthy, Corinthian men. Or suddenly start a diatribe against women even speaking, right in the middle of a telling off of Corinthian men and women, who kept interrupting one another or babbling on in language they didn't even themselves understand the meaning of, let alone be intelligible to visitors in church. In other words, his subject was actually chaotic, disruptive meetings caused by both male and female 'prophets'. The possible interpolations are in fact of very questionable relevance to the main point, in each case. We should not forget that the whole of 1 Corinthians was written as a telling off of Corinthian 'bad practice' reported to St Paul by Chloe's people. Chloe was obviously a woman held in high regard by St Paul as a leader who could spot hypocritical, misogynistic bias going on within the body of Christ. You can bet on the fact that 'factions' were not the only THING that Chloe's people reported to Paul, concerning the divisions, leadership failings and what else was going on in the Corinthian church, while Paul was away. 2 Corinthians shows signs of even MORE tampering with Paul's letters to the Corinthian church, by possibly someone IN the Corinthian church, possibly in an attempted 'cover up' of the many things wrong in the Corinthian church. .
I agree with you that they're 'canon'. Scholars have noted that the verses in question in ch. 14 occur in a different part of ch. 14 in some manuscripts. I am not aware of any manuscripts - but please correct me if I am mistaken in this - that exclude them outright. It thus wouldn't be sound procedure to exclude those verses from the task of interpretation on the basis of mere speculation. If we want to try to 'square the circle', we might suppose that Paul had created a second standard (in ch. 14) in order to avoid violating the first one (in ch. 11). When Paul talks about "nature" it's clear that he's referring to common custom in the Mediterranean world of his day. Paul wanted to avoid scandal, so he instructed his congregations not to deviate from accepted custom. What he wrote subsequently in ch. 14 may have been intended as a hedge, similar to some of the statements of Jesus in Matt. 5-7. One obvious problem with treating this as an entrenched maxim is that 1st cent. Greco-Roman custom bears no resemblance to 21st cent. Anglo-American custom. One would have to go to the Islamic world to find such customs in use today, and as I understand the matter Christians in those societies typically only conform to Islamic custom to the extent that they must; otherwise, those customs are disregarded in favor of their own cultural patterns. One example of this is hair: Eastern Christian monks do not cut their hair, whereas among Muslims it is expected that there will be a distinction in the length of hair between men and women. Another example is - you guessed it - head coverings. Arab Christian women might wear some sort of headscarf when attending religious services out of respect for tradition but generally, as I understand it, do not do so in secular settings unless it's required by law or local custom. In a city like Damascus, for example, it has been reported that one can generally tell the Muslims and the Christians apart because the Christians typically don't wear head coverings in public. In the U.S., head coverings in Orthodox churches are more of a Russian/Eastern European practice; I've never personally witnessed Arab Orthodox Christian women using them (at all). One suspects they refuse to do so on principle (and who could blame them?). Either way, I don't see that their choice is really any of my or anyone else's business. To insist that obscure passages of Paul's letters be imposed without consent, and that existing custom be blithely disregarded, is as rigidly fanatical and mindlessly unconservative as it is contrary to the spirit of Paul's approach, which was respectful toward prevailing custom. We ought not pretend that Paul was a liberal Protestant centuries ahead of his time but neither should we accuse him without evidence of harboring the arrogant presumption of having the ability or the authority to legislate for all time.
Angels and demons are real. I have seen them, in dreams and with my own eyes. You are wrong. It is in a creed. The Athanasian Creed: And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. According to the creed, you should believe in the everlasting fire, the place for those that have done evil, human and angelic. In Matthew 25:41, Jesus talked about “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Do not think that the creed and Jesus tell tall tales. I am not surprised that you have those out of chronological order, because you tend to go against order. Already, back in 1 Cor. chapter 11, Paul taught us that a woman can prophesy and pray while covered. Accept it. Paul is not a confused man. Next, in 1 Cor. chapter 14, Paul is teaching, among other things, that women should not weigh or oversee tongues and prophecy but be silent in these matters. Men provide the oversight, as part of their headship that is taught in at least 10 other parts of the NT and demonstrated throughout the OT. To understand it, or even see it, you have to accept that God made us male and female, and that we become one flesh. Plus, you have to stop being so emotional and overly details focused, though you were taught to think in this way. Instead, listen to the whole letter, and stop playing games with demons. You, and Tiffy, break apart the scriptures, scatter them about, and then play spin the bottle with them… as you kill, steal, and destroy the message. And, apparently, you read Lewis in the same manner.
There is no mention of angels or demons in the clause you cited. Furthermore, the Athanasian Creed is not an ecumenical creed. It has also had a rather controversial and contested history within Anglicanism, in both Britain and the U.S., in large part over the very clause you cited. Employing it the way you have here is an unconvincing rhetorical strategy, but perhaps the argument you're trying to make can be restated if we widen its scope. I suppose one could argue that in the clause "he created all things, visible and invisible" in the Nicene Creed, that the term 'invisible' is a reference to angels, but this is not explicit. One problem with such an interpretation is that things don't have to be angels in order to be invisible, nor do they have to be invisible in order to be angels. The point of the clause is that the domain of God's causal activity is total: there is no middle term between 'visible' and 'invisible', thus emphasizing God's having created all things. The world that we know today consists of space, time, matter, and energy, i.e., 'all things visible and invisible'. There is thus no reason why a Christian who accepts the modern scientific view of the world could not assent to these clauses of the Creed in good faith. Since logical disjuncts aren't posited ordinally, I fail to see what difference it makes whether one cites 1 Cor. 11 before or after 1 Cor. 14. That's why the passages in questions have been a conundrum.
I thought through the Nicene Creed in a similar way. Anglicans follow the 3 creeds. If that changed, you need to tell Wiki, Google AI, and a long, long list of others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_creeds Logical disjunction . It’s not. You thinking that is exactly why you think it is a conundrum. Or, it could be because of one of those demons that you do not literally believe in. Like I wrote before, you have fractured Paul’s teachings, and play a game of spin the bottle with the parts, rather than having an understanding relationship with the whole. Look at all the headship verses as working together. The 10 commandments worked together as an important part of a system that established community for the people of Israel. If followed, the teachings on headship work this way. They work together as a system for Christian community, under Christ rather than the law. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 1 Corinthians 14:31-38, 1 Timothy 2:8–15, 1 Timothy 3:1-12, Titus 1:5-9, Titus 2:2-5, Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-21, 1 Peter 3: 1-6, Matthew 19:4-6 https://history.stackexchange.com/q...tury-israel-not-trusted-as-witnesses-in-court Again, about the “law”, about Deut. 19:17 - “two men shall stand”. Here is a better link that explains it, without all the Hebrew. Just read the first part, the Jewish perspective. Paul was referring to this.
Well, internet search engines and AI are ‘garbage in, garbage out’. Since their purpose is primarily to facilitate advertising, using them for “research” is a great way to fall victim to confirmation bias. Anyway, the Athanasian Creed is a product of the Latin tradition and was never endorsed by the Eastern Orthodox. It’s not an ecumenical creed. Only the ‘Nicene’ Creed (without the Filioque) and the Definition of Chalcedon fulfill those criteria if we’re not going to arbitrarily exclude the East. Even if the Athanasian Creed were an ecumenical statement, and even if it hadn’t been controversial within Anglicanism (to the point of falling into near-total disuse), it still makes no reference to angels. Perhaps Google might have helped you here. A disjunctive proposition in logic is an ‘either/or’ statement. In this case, the exegetical problem can be stated succinctly in such form, viz., as “either a woman may speak in church (cf. 1 Cor. 11), or she may not (cf. 1 Cor. 14).” (Although it makes no difference to the argument, I stated the disjuncts in their order given in the epistle this time, to avoid any further unnecessary digressions.) In a valid argument, only one of the disjuncts may be negated. Otherwise, the Law of Non-Contradiction is violated. It ought to be clear at this point that I read Paul’s letter as a cohesive whole. I have even offered a suggestion of my own above regarding how the two passages might be reconciled, without assuming that one or the other statements wasn’t really written by Paul. My assumptions throughout have been (1) that Paul wrote all of it, (2) that he meant what he wrote, and (3) that the message was coherent to him. In other words, I read Paul’s letters the same way I would read any other document, viz., with the benefit of the doubt going to the author, not the reader. Interpretation could hardly be any less “fractured” than that. I am not in need of any 'explanation'. It was my own posts above that emphasized the continuity between Paul's statements and the Pentateuch, to which you are referring. My familiarity with the background context should be evident based on the discussion thus far.
True. It's hard to dig down to good sources. It’s lame. Even so, if you are not careful, you confine yourself in a box. That is why the Beatles did not want to learn how to read music. I’m not saying that formal education is not valuable. Certainly it is. Satan is the father of controversy. I know the Episcopal church has abandoned many controversial things. However, recently, we recited the creed every Sunday for a time. And if you talk about my abode, you are making reference to me. That is so academic. And if I understand you, you are still wrong. It is wrong to think we have 2 choices: 1. women can speak in church, OR, 2. women cannot speak in church. No. That is not what Paul teaches. He teaches that 1. a woman can prophecy and pray in church while her head is covered, AND 2. she should not weigh or judge prophecy, and in fact providing such oversight in matters of prophecy is shameful. Not really. Hear this, brothers and sisters. To completely get 1 Cor. 14, you have to understand the place of the prophet. A prophet judges people, the church, even nations. Other than Christ, this is at the very top of headship. Even so, a woman can still prophesy, if her head is covered. But she cannot have oversight or authority over the prophets… and her prophecy is subject to the prophets. To do otherwise IS shameful . In the Book of Judges, chapters 4 & 5, listen to the words of the prophet about Deborah, and he will teach you about that shame. Paul knew this, and that is what he teaches. And this is also part of the law. In fact, it is a reference wider and stronger than Deut. 17:19, because the message is in the story and not lost in the translation of a mere word. I know some think demons are metaphorical and I'm being ridiculous, but they are blocking your understanding, with the cooperation of your flesh and the world. Fortunately, their removal does not depend on you, for it is by Christ that we have power over such things. Rather than having debates about these scriptures, maybe we should fast, pray, and study more. And accept that it may not be our place to understand everything. And stop reading the Bible like “it is any other document”.
Thank you! Let's see. 1 Cor. 11:5-6 "...any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled shames her head...she should wear a veil." So, praying or prophesying was definitely ok according to Paul, as long as a veil was worn. Got it. 1 Cor. 14:34-35 "...Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate...it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." So, praying, prophesying, or even speaking at all in public gatherings was most definitely not ok according to Paul, and he apparently felt so strongly about it that he felt the need to say it three times. Everybody got that? Put the two together and it's 'clear as mud'. The contradiction is undeniable, and if we're going to assume, as I do, that every part of the letter was in fact genuinely authored by Paul, and that both of the statements quoted above were intended with equal force, then we are left with a conundrum of interpretation that is insoluble. We can fairly assume that it made sense to Paul, but we do not know how it did so, and we are in no position for him to explain it to us. We are thus left to make our own best guesses. I have provided my own guess as to what he might have meant above, but there is no way for me to prove that my proposed interpretation (or anyone else's) is the correct one. All we're trying to figure out here is what 1st cent. practice actually was, and we're stuck. People way smarter and better informed than us have tried to figure this out, and yet a scholarly consensus on the matter remains elusive. The list of schools of thought dedicated to showing the proper way to interpret Paul is as long as my arm. And yet, even if we had a way to resolve the problem satisfactorily, that still wouldn't help us at all with regard to what 21st cent. practice ought to be, in part because the social-cultural mores and assumptions are completely different. People today no longer assume that supernatural beings are going to see women and start behaving like Jabba the Hutt in Return of the Jedi, and that this is why women should wear veils (cf. Gen. 6:1-4; 1 Cor. 11:9-10). That's dumb. We can certainly agree with Paul that "all things should be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40), but we're under no obligation to recreate - and we have no right whatsoever to impose - ancient Roman Imperial social conditions just so certain parts of Paul's letters can have a contemporary reference point. 'Decency' and 'good order' mean very different things in the 21st cent. from what they may have meant in the 1st cent., and it's up to us to figure out how to put the maxim of 'doing things decently and in good order' into practice.
Maybe it was not a compliment. You write that… as you shut your eyes to the whole of 1 Cor. 11, and more importantly the whole of 1 Cor. 14. You are worse than a CNN reporter. You quote one line and think you are accurately representing the text. That is exactly what I was referring to when I told you that you play spin the bottle with the things Paul writes rather than having an understanding relationship with the whole of his teachings. You are still doing it. Study Judges 4 & 5 about Deborah the prophetess, who was called up during a time of corruption, sinfulness, and impotency of the priesthood. Notice the shame of Barak, and Deborah herself said so, and all the failures at leadership that precipitated Deborah’s ministry and judging. Then read 1 Cor. 14. Then you might better see that Paul indeed directed the women to be silent three times and why. Though they can prophesy, they are not called to be in authority over it. Indeed it is a shame for the women to speak in church, especially over prophecy, and teaching, and other than the manner already taught, BUT the shame is on the men, because it exposes the men's disobedience in their call to headship. It's the men's fault, just like it was Adam's fault. Just like Deborah exposed the sinfulness of Israel. Can you not see that? You respond as if Paul is standing before the women and wagging his finger at them. But, actually, he wrote a letter to the men of the church, and he is telling them to not be a Barak. This IS in the commandment and it is to the men. The mud is on your eyes. It’s demon mud. And I deny the contradiction. Invictus, sometimes you sound like the Episcopal ghost in the Great Divorce. You certainly make it sound dumb. Meanwhile boys are getting their penises removed and plastic breasts, while girls are getting their breasts chopped off and flesh cut off their leg to form a fake penis. Looks like Jabba is having his way with both the princes and princesses this time. Maybe it’s different this time because men are dressing up like women, and both male and female are have relations with demons. And because they are being made infertile with the sex swapping drugs, the offspring will be obliteration rather than giants. But “because of the angels” may not be referring to Gen. 6, as you claim. That is only one theory. Rather, it is referring to the fall of the angels. They fell from heaven because they refused to stay in their God-given identity… you know, like the gender swapping that goes on today inside and outside of the church. Actually, Gen 6 and the fall of the angels could be the same thing, according to some. You sound like that ghost again.
What a weird, bizarre reply. Some of your comments are frankly disturbing. You'll have to debate this with someone else at this point.
Actually the reference to 'angels' may not be referring to 'supernatural beings' at all. g0032. ἄγγελος aggelos; from ἀγγέλλω aggellō (probably derived from 71; compare 34) (to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an “angel”; by implication, a pastor: — angel, messenger. AV (186) - angel 179 times, messenger 7 times; a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger (from God). It is entirely possible that who ever wrote the sentences referring to 'angels' being in a position to observe and report, was actually alluding to human beings who were inclined to be running around gossipping and spreading rhumours to Roman society at large, concerning the bad behaviour or inappropriate attire of Corinthian Christian women and the inability of Christian Corinthian men, to curb excesses. The concern was perhaps therefore merely to avoid the church getting a bad reputation through gossips i.e. tale bearers, messengers. The notion of man as the source of woman is twice repeated in the following verses, (1 Cor.11:8, 1 Cor.11:12). The covered head of the woman not only indicated commitment to her husband but also respected the Jewish obligation for a man to divorce a woman who appeared in the street with head uncovered. (m. Ketub. 7:6). Observance of this custom was particularly important in a house church which met next door to the synagogue (Acts 18:7), where 'messengers' might carry back a report of unsuitable behaviour or attire. In 1 Cor.11:16 however, the writer indicates that the church has no such universal custom, and the woman has the right of choice, (1 Cor.11:10), exousia; cf. 1 Cor.7:37, 1 Cor.8:9, 1 Cor.9:4-12. But it is mandatory for her to respect the sensibilities of others. That being said however, sensibilities today are very different than they were in 1st century Corinth in the Roman Empire. It was common legal practice at that time for the 'Head' of any family, (including any children or slaves), to be held fully responsible and punishable for any misdeeds of anyone under his 'headship'. (Shepherd of Hermes, Similitudes 7:3). According to Roman patria protestas, the oldest living male (pater-familias) - whether father, grandfather or Greatgrandfather - controlled ALL the other members of the family, regardless of age or political importance. Only the paterfamilias was recognised as a full 'person' in the eyes of Roman Society. You can well imagine how this ancient Roman / Jewish societal set up would result in a very different (not better but different), kind of society, with very different values than societies which have evolved through two thousand years of 'Christendom'. .
Interestingly, there’s not really much if any compelling evidence that synagogues were places of worship in the 1st. century. Readers of the NT generally just tend to assume that because of the way the word is used today. (Of course, that has no impact on whether the “angels” in this passage were meant to be understood as messengers or mythical/supernatural beings.)
Sorry, buddy. I hope my comments about reality are so disturbing to you that you second guess your feasting on the cud of the golden calf. Facts: it means angel 179 times, and messenger 7 times Tiffy: I’m gonna go with messenger LOL. You are funny, Tiffy. So, you reduce angel down to messenger, and then reduce messenger down to tattle tale. LOL. That’s even funnier. You are not being serious, are you, Tiffy? Looks like your information is incorrect. Mishnah Ketubot 7:6 does not have anything about a man divorcing a woman that appeared in the street with head uncovered. Even so, it is one thing to look at the Mishnah concerning the Torah, but for the New Testament? Come on, man. Now you reduce angels to the fashion police. Tiffy, shame on you. Read again. It says there is no universal custom for a woman to pray UNCOVERED. You are not even trying, man. Your new woke meaning stands against the rest of the text. Marg Mowczko agrees with you, so at least you have feminist pride on your side. That’s true, Tiffy. So you should accept the Bible according to the traditional teachings of the church, rather than reinterpret it along with the likes of Marg Mowesko or any other feminist pride and gay pride advocates. I don't think you guys really care. You are stuck on you. You are not even responding to the serious things I wrote about 1 Cor. 14 and Judges 4 &5, back on post #27. You just turn the page. Maybe you guys do this for entertainment and agenda purposes. You chose the blue pill.
It’s amazing just how much a transliteration can take on a life of its own. Part of me wishes they would just translate it as “messenger” in every case and then allow the context to clarify the messenger’s status to the extent that’s possible.
We don't do pills of that kind. If you are addicted to the 'red' ones, as your posts seem to confirm, then that would fully explain the weird, wired, secty content. Is the 'red pill popping' guy with the horns on his hat a fellow 'believer'? There was nothing relevant to the subject under discussion in Judges 4 & 5 and isegesis cannot make it so, even for habitual 'red pill' takers. The whole point of Judges is that there was no 'Law', every man did as they liked, and we see the results of it all in chaos and disorganised, bronze age anarchistic, operation. Judges 17:6. .
Practically every public disagreement over what a State is for can be reduced to whether a person thinks this statement is describing paradise or perdition: “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.”
Tiffy these texts have been repeatedly provided to you in multiple discussions across this forum. To compare people who disagree with you on the invalidity of women's ordination (a consistent stance through the years by faithful Christians) to murderers who throw acid in women's faces, assault girls and murder women in the most gruesome ways is so blatantly unedifying and beneath you, it's honestly a bit shocking. Truly a new low on here. If this is the tenor moving forward in any conversation I have no idea why anyone would stay here for such a "conversation."
Surely you aren't suggesting that Muslims routinely do the things you have accused them of? All I have said is that they routinely have rules that apply only to their women, similarly to the way some 'Christians' do, when they think there is a LAW which forbids women to speak, (by their understanding of the way they interpret the meaning and legal application of their scriptures). The principle is the same, that both Muslims, have LAWS controlling women's behaviour which don't apply to men, and also some 'Christians', who also believe there are LAWS which govern women's behaviour, which also don't happen to apply to any men. Do these (women only) LAWS come from God, or are they just the desire of legalist men, (either 'Christian' or 'Muslim', and some other religions too), to impose control on women, by claiming that such LAWS actually exist, and have never been repealed in a New Testament situation, living under God's Grace, with freedom from all LAW except the moral, 'law' of love for one's neighbour and God. I haven't accused anyone of the gross abuses of the law that our Lord Jesus Christ establised in his last days on earth, (but many of ALL religions still do), that we human beings should love one another as he has loved us. And that we human beings should become obedient to Him alone and everything that he teaches his disciples, not just slavish adherance to 'the law of Moses, Mahomet, The Pope, St Paul or anyone else'. .
In your subject you quite literally compared us to the Taliban, an explicitly murderous and abusive group. I haven't accused Muslims of anything. I'll be blocking you now, this is insane that the forum continues to allow such slanderous conduct on this forum. Genuinely questioning the use of it to be honest at this point.
I accept the point, that I falsely accused you of accusing all Muslims of those crimes. You only accused Taliban Muslims of those crimes. I therefore owe you an apology for that false accusation. I didn't compare 'Christians' who hold similar views to the Taliban concerning the legal silencing of women, of being like the Taliban in every respect, including all the crimes that you mentioned. I only compared the similarity of their attitude specifically to the silencing of women, (as opposed to the obvious religious freedom of MEN to speak openly, when ever and where ever they like), to the attitude towards women, (just because they are women), by some 'Christian's who claim their coersive controlling attitude towards women is supported by a Holy LAW of some kind, presumably handed down to them by God, and therefore becomes unquestionable when imposed. (A bit like the Taliban men will not tolerate themselves being questioned on the issue of their desire to silence and coersively control 'their' women.) .