Woman can't teach in the congregation

[garee]

What epistle verse has Paul saying he doesn't permit women to wear pants in church?

"This then is what I mean. Let your lives be guided by the Spirit, and then you will certainly not indulge the cravings of your lower natures." Galatians 5:16
We're judged by the work we do that is of God. Not by the clothing we wear.

Because mankind alone of all the beast of the field (male and female ) when created, was created in the image of God as to using the two immutable attributes of God (father and Son) who is not a man as in order to create a government . Its two working together in mutual submission to each other, as the Son submitted to the father, the father submitted to the Son in mutual submission to one an0ther . The same applies to the church, male and female, working together to please the father, not seen. The smallest denomination or unit is two or three getting together under the hearing of God's word

Matthew 18:20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

Much has been lost because of the ceremonial ordinance is not longer practiced in most churches . Many dismiss the doctrine that uses the church, male and female together as a representative glory, in regard to the uncovered head of hair of the man, who is used as a representative glory of Christ our husband not seen, and the covered head of hair of the woman who is used to represent the glory of man . She is not left without a representative glory of her own .Her hair . Many simply dismiss it as a fashion statement for the woman .Its been causing a bad hair day ever since. No representative glory of the upcoming unveiling of the new creature the bride of Christ. the future wedding .

 

[jimd]

If this is your response to my inquiry regarding the post:



Then I would encourage you to consider very carefully the rest of the Genesis passage. Was God commanding women to suffer horrible pain in childbirth? Was God commanding men to fight with thorns and thistles while they cultivated crops? Why would God put now-sinful man in leadership over women? Why would He give a command justifying all sorts of abuse in the name of "ruling"? Exactly what kind of a monster do you think God is?

Also, where is there any example (other than this verse as you allege) where God gives a command to person 'A' that person 'B' is to do something to them? It simply doesn't follow any sort of logic.

Consider this instead, that God's words to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 are statements of certain consequence, not commands at all. Because of what Eve has done, men are now fallen and will rule over women... and it won't be pretty.

Your post are so one sided they do not deserve a reply but I will say you are choosing to look at this all wrong. As long as you do you will not see the truth.

 

[jimd]

Will the Holy Spirit ever lead anyone to do something that is clearly against what Scripture teaches? I doubt it - maybe Abraham sacrificing Isaac could be seen as a biblical exception - but God intervened!

No but many men and women have clearly done things that are not of the Spirit.

 

[trofimus]

Trof, I'm surprised that you would advance this idea.

I consider myself conservative, regarding this.

First, Paul knew of the alleged verse so we are looking at only 2000 years.

But he did not quote the place he had in mind.
So we do not have it.

Second, if this particular alleged verse is lost, anything could have been lost, so we can't know anything for certain.

The state of the preservation of the Old Testament is not perfect nor great. It can be seen on various examples. Just compare LXX a MSS.

Third, Genesis 3:16 says nothing about silence.

But about submission.

"For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says."

"... he will rule over you" - G 3:16

 

[trofimus]

A simpler conclusion is that Paul didn't write the verse. There is compelling evidence for that, but zero evidence for what you are suggesting.

So, I am saying that the 4000 years old OT verse is lost, our oldest manuscript of the OT is 2000 years after the Law was written.

You are saying the NT verse is not authentic even if it is present in the oldest manuscripts like sinaticus, 300 years after the NT was written.

I think my hypothesis is more probable...

 

[Magenta]

You gave so much love to my posts that I am unable to continue arguing with you

BTW, orama - "what was seen" - it does not have to be "a vision", but everything what was seen. "Do not tell anybody what you saw".

I thought we were having a friendly discussion Still, the fact remains that the word in both Hebrew and Greek means "vision." I would not be so hasty, as you are, to openly contradict Jesus

 

[trofimus]

I thought we were having a friendly discussion Still, the fact remains that the word in both Hebrew and Greek means "vision." I would not be so hasty, as you are, to openly contradict Jesus

English word "vision" is from latin "visio" - to see.

But because this English version of "seeing" has some special meaning to English speakers, it probably makes you to put some special meaning also back to Greek.

But Greek really means just "what was seen", there is no special meaning like "it was just some unreal vision".

So I am not sure what you think I contradict Jesus in.

---

I am not sure what Hebrew has to do with it...?

P.S. by "arguing" I probably meant the same thing as "conversation". My English

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

So, I am saying that the 4000 years old OT verse is lost, our oldest manuscript of the OT is 2000 years after the Law was written.

You are saying the NT verse is not authentic even if it is present in the oldest manuscripts like sinaticus, 300 years after the NT was written.

I think my hypothesis is more probable...

It's in all manuscripts. The problems are that it appears in different places depending on the manuscript, which is highly suspect, and there are scribal markings in some manuscripts that indicate scribal concern for their authenticity. Furthermore, those two verses interrupt the flow of 1 Corinthians 14, no matter where they are placed. That's called evidence, whereas what you have proposed is mere speculation.

 

[trofimus]

It's in all manuscripts. The problems are that it appears in different places depending on the manuscript, which is highly suspect, and there are scribal markings in some manuscripts that indicate scribal concern for their authenticity. Furthermore, those two verses interrupt the flow of 1 Corinthians 14, no matter where they are placed. That's called evidence, whereas what you have proposed is mere speculation.

We must agree to disagree, then.

 

[Dino246]

Your post are so one sided they do not deserve a reply but I will say you are choosing to look at this all wrong. As long as you do you will not see the truth.

So instead of simply claiming, without any supporting evidence, that I am "all wrong", how about explaining your position, and demonstrating from your viewpoint what is wrong with mine. Otherwise, you're just sniping rather than contributing anything of value to the conversation.

 

[Dino246]

So, I am saying that the 4000 years old OT verse is lost, our oldest manuscript of the OT is 2000 years after the Law was written.

You are saying the NT verse is not authentic even if it is present in the oldest manuscripts like sinaticus, 300 years after the NT was written.

I think my hypothesis is more probable...

I think it more likely that the verse was written by Paul, but that he was quoting a question/comment from someone else. That would make sense of the passage and make the verses after a refutation rather than a support.

 

[trofimus]

I think it more likely that the verse was written by Paul, but that he was quoting a question/comment from someone else. That would make sense of the passage and make the verses after a refutation rather than a support.

"...as the Law says" does not seem to be a quotation/refutation of somebody.

 

[Dino246]

"...as the Law says" does not seem to be a quotation/refutation of somebody.

Unless that is part of the quoted section.

Paul didn't preach adherence to the Law... at all. It is incomprehensible that he would be doing so here, and that the key verse to which he allegedly points would happen to be lost from Scripture. There is plenty in the extra-canonical Hebrew writings that is misogynistic, and quite possible that the quotation points to one or more of those.

Regarding "submission", Genesis 3:16 does not tell the wife to be in submission to the husband. It says that the husband will rule over the wife. See this as a command (which to me is absolutely unsupportable) and you still can't conclude that all women must submit to all men, because Genesis 3:16 specifically says "your husband". It would mean that wives must be in submission to their own husbands. There would be no restrictions on unmarried women, widows, or, in today's church, divorced women. More than half the females would be free from that restriction. It just doesn't fly.

 

[trofimus]

Unless that is part of the quoted section.

Paul didn't preach adherence to the Law... at all. It is incomprehensible that he would be doing so here...

"Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn't the Law say the same thing?"
1 Corinthians 9:8

"In the Law it is written: ..."
1Cor 14:21

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."
1 Cor 14:34

I think that the verse in 14:34 is not so incomprehensible, its similar to others in the same letter.

Regarding "submission", Genesis 3:16 does not tell the wife to be in submission to the husband.

It does...

...and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:16

...and you still can't conclude that all women must submit to all men, because Genesis 3:16 specifically says "your husband".

Yes, I cant conclude that from Adam and Eve. But Paul can. If Paul meant Gen 3:16, his conclusion is right.

I do not insist that Paul had Gen 3:16 in mind. But there are some similarities, so its a possibility.

 

[Dino246]

"Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn't the Law say the same thing?"
1 Corinthians 9:8

"In the Law it is written: ..."
1Cor 14:21

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."
1 Cor 14:34

I think that the verse in 14:34 is not so incomprehensible, its similar to others in the same letter.


It does...

...and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:16



Yes, I cant conclude that from Adam and Eve. But Paul can. If Paul meant Gen 3:16, his conclusion is right.

I do not insist that Paul had Gen 3:16 in mind. But there are some similarities, so its a possibility.

I have been unable to locate a translation that has "submission" in Genesis 3:16. From which version do you have it?

 

[trofimus]

I have been unable to locate a translation that has "submission" in Genesis 3:16. From which version do you have it?

I always use Septuagint, so I did not even realize that MT does not have it. Now I understand why you had a problem with it.

But its there in the LXX, so I see no problem with Paul´s reference to Gen 3:16.

καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου
and thy submission shall be to thy husband

https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/septuagint-genesis/3.asp?pg=2

 

[Dino246]

I always use Septuagint, so I did not even realize that MSS does not have it. Now I understand why you had a problem with it.

But its there in the LXX, so I see no problem with Paul´s reference to Gen 3:16.

καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου
and thy submission shall be to thy husband

https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/septuagint-genesis/3.asp?pg=2

I'd have to do some more digging on this. Most English versions have 'desire' where this has 'submission'.

 

[trofimus]

I'd have to do some more digging on this. Most English versions have 'desire' where this has 'submission'.

Most English versions use masoretic text (MT) as their basis for the OT. So if its not in the MT, it will the same with English versions, too.

 

[SaintMichaels]

Because mankind alone of all the beast of the field (male and female ) when created, was created in the image of God as to using the two immutable attributes of God (father and Son) who is not a man as in order to create a government . Its two working together in mutual submission to each other, as the Son submitted to the father, the father submitted to the Son in mutual submission to one an0ther . The same applies to the church, male and female, working together to please the father, not seen. The smallest denomination or unit is two or three getting together under the hearing of God's word

Matthew 18:20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

Much has been lost because of the ceremonial ordinance is not longer practiced in most churches . Many dismiss the doctrine that uses the church, male and female together as a representative glory, in regard to the uncovered head of hair of the man, who is used as a representative glory of Christ our husband not seen, and the covered head of hair of the woman who is used to represent the glory of man . She is not left without a representative glory of her own .Her hair . Many simply dismiss it as a fashion statement for the woman .Its been causing a bad hair day ever since. No representative glory of the upcoming unveiling of the new creature the bride of Christ. the future wedding .

My question was, what epistle verse has Paul saying he doesn't permit women to wear pants in church?

 

[SaintMichaels]

Amen SaintMichaels. Very much agree with you today. Liked what you said about gun ownership in the other thread too. I often think about people who are sick or in a dire situation and the man in the scenario is not one given to prayer., but the woman in the scenario is. Yet some SILLY person will tell the woman not to pray... good grief Godly truth and sense goes out the window when man made reasoning comes in.

Unfortunately, there are those men in our society that happen on a faith that they believe empowers the male persona exclusively, and as such those type men think that means women are inferior by edict of that religions deity.
They're pathetic.
The first sign in my experience that a man is not in Christ is when that man would state women are not to pray.
I don't know what cult they're a member of. I don't wish to know. However, I do know that by those words, or similar, they are openly stating first and foremost that they are most certainly not in the Christ that was born of a woman that prayed. And was found to be so pure in God's sight that His eternal foreknowledge and wisdom chose her to bear His only begotten son to life.And in this fallen world that was so largely because prayer was rare.