Originally posted by debbiejo
"If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church" (1 Corinthians 14:35).In the OT women WERE the speakers as in Judges and Prophetesses.
* you cling on OT too much... maybe if Jesus was here, you'd be throwing stones at Him like the Jews... read the context of the chapter and not only the verse... looky here, my friend...
"But I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is minister of the assembly which is in Cenchrea;
That ye may receive her in the Lord worthily of saints, and that ye may assist her in whatever matter she has need of you; for she also has been a helper of many, and of myself."
Romans 16:1-2
* Phoebe, obviously a female, was a minister at Cenchrea...
Originally posted by Gregory
The entire post was aimed at peejad.There's no question that we're talking about Paul's views; I've never heard anyone question 1 Corinthian's authenticity. The 1 and 2 Timothy stuff was an aside to debbijo.
I wouldn't argue that Paul loses credibility. Whether or not his advise is good or not, it's never a bad thing when a religious leader admits that sometimes, he's giving his own opinions instead of channeling God. It's one of the things, in my opinion, that seperate legitime religious figures from wannabe cult leaders.
* just like what mr.feceman said, marriage causes anxiety, as i have also posted earlier... that is the intention of Saint Paul... but in general, Saint Paul did not disapproved marriage... and the fact that he gave his own opinion is no big deal because his intention was for the unmarried brethren can serve God whole-heartedly because married people are sometimes more pre-occupied with their spouses, children, parents, etc... 😉
Telling people he wishes they wouldn't get married as an expressal of disaproval of marriage. The reason for this dissaproval is well known; certainly I knew it before any of you saw fit to assume I'd never read the epistle and explained it out to me. You're wrong about this, and I'm sure you'd feel better if you just admit it and get on with your life.
Originally posted by peejayd
* stop being an a-hole, we've started a nice discussion... read I Corinthians 7:7, it's very simple enough for anyone to understand... 😉
Not simple enough for you, apparently 😉
(Since this started with something I thought was funny, here's something else I think is funny to finish it off: I have never once, in this entire thread, criticized Paul's views on marriage. And yet everyone seems to feel compelled to defend him, as if he were under attack. Weird.)
Originally posted by FeceMan
Oddly enough, I was considering posting a thread specifically about the chapter Paul writes about marriage. It can be a tad disconcerting unless one reads the whole thing through-and-through.You'll notice that Paul states that anyone who does marry has not sinned. Marriage is stressful. Marriage causes anxiety. Paul is saying that we should be patient and do things in God's timeframe, being content as we are until then.
We must also remember that Paul's words are not commandments from God. They are not wrong, but, in the case of women and church, it is culture-specific. (This is a dangerous line to walk, I must say, lest we destroy biblical teaching for the sake of culture.) Would it be morally wrong for women to be silent during church? No. Would people squall about sexism in the US? Yes.
Furthermore...
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/1_corinthians_1434_silence_in_the_church
Originally posted by Gregory
But Paul was telling people how to run their churches and communities. As I recall, he really didn't give much moral advise, and when people slavishly follow Paul's advise about how to run a church while ignoring Jesus' message--and I think we can all agree that people shouldn't do this, but we can probably also agree that a lot of people do (Phelps, to pick an extreme example)--then you're essentially back to OT legalism; and lord knows that isn't what Jesus was supposed to stand for.(And you can use whatever smilies make you happy.)
I assume Peejayd feels he must remain loyal to the entire Bible....is that true Peejayd ?
Originally posted by GregoryI would like to point out that I agree with you and that I have defended Paul on this matter.
Not simple enough for you, apparently 😉(Since this started with something I thought was funny, here's something else I think is funny to finish it off: I have never once, in this entire thread, criticized Paul's views on marriage. And yet everyone seems to feel compelled to defend him, as if he were under attack. Weird.)
Now a question for you Gregory. Why do think Paul wrote what he did?
What he did? You mean regarding marriage? Well...
Paul is responding to a particular problem in the Corinthian community. There's apparently a lot of fornication going on, with someone even sleeping with his father's wife, and Paul does not approve. Paul would prefer that men didn't touch women at all (7:1), but, "because of fornication" people should keep with their wives and husbands, although Paul would personally prefer it if they were as he is (unmarried), and advises unmarried people to stay unmarried, unless "they have not continency," in which case they should marry so that they do not sin (when they have sex with their spouces).
(He then argues, apparently tangentally, that husbands and wives who are already married should stay together, unless one of them is an unbeliever, in which case ... well, they should still stay together, for the sake of the unbeliever's soul, but if the unbeliever wants to leave, let him/her.)
There are also apocalyptic undertones to the text. Paul claims that "appointed time has grown short," and that is why people who already have spouses should live as if they didn't (abstain from sexual intercourse? I'm not quite sure what he means by that, since that interpretation would conflict with the reason for marriage that he gives above.)
Originally posted by Gregory
What he did? You mean regarding marriage? Well...Paul is responding to a particular problem in the Corinthian community. There's apparently a lot of fornication going on, with someone even sleeping with his father's wife, and Paul does not approve. Paul would prefer that men didn't touch women at all (7:1), but, "because of fornication" people should keep with their wives and husbands, although Paul would personally prefer it if they were as he is (unmarried), and advises unmarried people to stay unmarried, unless "they have not continency," in which case they should marry so that they do not sin (when they have sex with their spouces).
(He then argues, apparently tangentally, that husbands and wives who are already married should stay together, unless one of them is an unbeliever, in which case ... well, they should still stay together, for the sake of the unbeliever's soul, but if the unbeliever wants to leave, let him/her.)
There are also apocalyptic undertones to the text. Paul claims that "appointed time has grown short," and that is why people who already have spouses should live as if they didn't (abstain from sexual intercourse? I'm not quite sure what he means by that, since that interpretation would conflict with the reason for marriage that he gives above.)
I do not think he included sexual intercourse in his 'act as if not married' thing because it would indeed be a slight contradiction if he did. I believe he was referring to the anxiety and worries of marriage that he directly addressed.
Originally posted by Nellinator
So do you believe that Paul truly felt that others should not marry, or that he was simply lamenting over a certain situation in a certain area considering that he did not send that same message to the other churches?I do not think he included sexual intercourse in his 'act as if not married' thing because it would indeed be a slight contradiction if he did. I believe he was referring to the anxiety and worries of marriage that he directly addressed.
I don't think his statement that he wished everybody was like him (I wouldn't say catagorically that "he truly felt that others should not marry"; he thought people should marry if they could otherewise not control themselves) is community-specific; he doesn't limit it in such a manor. On the other hand, since he didn't feel he had a divine mandate against marriage, would you expect him to bring it up in letters to other communites?
So, what does that boil down to ...
Paul truly wished that others would not marry, but since he didn't view it as a divine command, he was only movied to mention it because of a certain situation in a certain area.
Originally posted by debbiejo
You shouldn't swear in the Religious Forum, it's not becoming. 😉I know, I know...I know this one...Cause he's a follower of Mithra?
Originally posted by Gregory
I don't think his statement that he wished everybody was like him (I wouldn't say catagorically that "he truly felt that others should not marry"; he thought people should marry if they could otherewise not control themselves) is community-specific; he doesn't limit it in such a manor. On the other hand, since he didn't feel he had a divine mandate against marriage, would you expect him to bring it up in letters to other communites?So, what does that boil down to ...
Paul truly wished that others would not marry, but since he didn't view it as a divine command, he was only movied to mention it because of a certain situation in a certain area.