Women cannot have authority in the congregation.

[Mem]

humm never said that...

hmm, I suspect poor interpretation skills may been involved

 

[wolfwint]

Hey Wolfie... just a quick note: I know English is not your first language, and you do fairly well with it. Where you use "or" to indicate another option, there is no "e"; the word is simply "or".

In English, "ore" is the raw rock from which minerals are extracted, such as "iron ore".

Dino, thank you for correcting. Never to old for to learn, I hope

 

[wolfwint]

3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Now here is a good example of proper hermeneutics. Someone could read this and say that his wife should cover her head in church because THE WORD OF GOD says so. But does it? Hermeneutics requires that we determine who he was talking to, cultural context, and other statements that are made in the context. We can see that he ends it with; But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. By saying this he makes it obvious that the custom he was referring to of the woman covering the head was a Jewish custom and not a custom in the churches of God. Many having no proper training in hermeneutics have run off and put a rule of head covering on their women. Now they may preach sermons about it from the pulpit and countless hours explaining the spiritual significance of authority as Paul taught and when they get to the Judgment seat of Christ... POOF... wood hay stubble. And probably an admonition "What part of verse 16 did you not understand?"

Now it is true that the husband has God given authority and responsibility to take care of the family, protect it, teach the word, lead in prayer etc, but none of that means that God does not want women to preach and teach the bible and evangelize the world along with men. It is to both sons and daughters that the Holy Spirit is poured out with ministry gifts of the Spirit for MINISTRY. They are mostly SPEAKING gifts of the Spirit. Your sons and daughters shall PROPHESY. Give me a woman PROPHESYING over a man just droning on out of his own spirit any day. Can I get an AMEN?

So is 1. Cor. 11, 3 -and this was my question- Gods word, but you would put it under culturell and thats why not for today?

Btw, I know that for woman in indian churches it is normal to cover their head with saree, while praying.

I did not say that woman cant evangelize, this is not the topic of this thread.
I dont find verses in the bible which says that woman should teach and preach like man in the church. I only find those which says the opposit. So what should I follow?

So is that what Paul taught in 1.Tim 2 and in 1 cor 14 wrong?

And did you not quote a vers which is prophesised to the volk of Israel in a time which is still in Future? Joel 2, 28

 

[kaylagrl]

hmm, I suspect poor interpretation skills may been involved

Humm wasn't speaking to you. How bout let the poster answer for themselves.

 

[Scribe]

So is 1. Cor. 11, 3 -and this was my question- Gods word, but you would put it under culturell and thats why not for today?

Btw, I know that for woman in indian churches it is normal to cover their head with saree, while praying.

I did not say that woman cant evangelize, this is not the topic of this thread.
I dont find verses in the bible which says that woman should teach and preach like man in the church. I only find those which says the opposit. So what should I follow?

So is that what Paul taught in 1.Tim 2 and in 1 cor 14 wrong?

And did you not quote a vers which is prophesised to the volk of Israel in a time which is still in Future? Joel 2, 28

I suggest the book "How to read the Bible for all its worth" by Gordon Fee. Great, easy to understand book on hermeneutics or how to interpret scriptures and he uses 1 Corinthians in many of his examples. Classic book.

 

[Mem]

Humm wasn't speaking to you. How bout let the poster answer for themselves.

I consider public posts to be open to public comment. Whooops! :/

 

[kaylagrl]

I consider public posts to be open to public comment. Whooops! :/

Yeah, maybe I just should have come out and said what I wanted to. Your comment came off as rude. Comment is fine, rudeness isn't appreciated. Must be a full moon round here tonight. smh

 

[wolfwint]

I suggest the book "How to read the Bible for all its worth" by Gordon Fee. Great, easy to understand book on hermeneutics or how to interpret scriptures and he uses 1 Corinthians in many of his examples. Classic book.

Fine, but I dont believe his few is inspired.

 

[Mem]

Yeah, maybe I just should have come out and said what I wanted to. Your comment came off as rude. Comment is fine, rudeness isn't appreciated. Must be a full moon round here tonight. smh

Its true. I do come across rude, but the sarcasm wasn't (meant to be) directed in any way toward you as much as a return volley of the initial sarcasm that was directed toward you that compelled me to comment, but yes, rude nonetheless, if not only another example of how misreadings (especially of scripture) are ever so prevalent.

 

[Scribe]

Fine, but I dont believe his few is inspired.

Interpreting inspired scripture requires some common sense rules. When these rules are understood and used you will see that some modern interpretations are NOT inspired, but are mistakes based on violating rules of hermeneutics. The Scriptures are inspired, but some people are dumber than a box of rocks and need help with reading comprehension skills.

 

[wolfwint]

Interpreting inspired scripture requires some common sense rules. When these rules are understood and used you will see that some modern interpretations are NOT inspired, but are mistakes based on violating rules of hermeneutics. The Scriptures are inspired, but some people are dumber than a box of rocks and need help with reading comprehension skills.

Yes, and I suppose this will be claimed from all scholars according their denominal view.
Here we are again. Everybody is right

 

[wolfwint]

Interpreting inspired scripture requires some common sense rules. When these rules are understood and used you will see that some modern interpretations are NOT inspired, but are mistakes based on violating rules of hermeneutics. The Scriptures are inspired, but some people are dumber than a box of rocks and need help with reading comprehension skills.

And the other thing is, that everyone claimes to have the correct hermeneutic tools.

Modern Interpretation sounds mostly right. Its modern, in opposit to oldfashion interpretation.
So far I know the Apostles often renember the believers to stay in that what they have learned First. Instead of modern Interpretations which we will find also in the Apostles days.

 

[Lafftur]

Interpreting inspired scripture requires some common sense rules. When these rules are understood and used you will see that some modern interpretations are NOT inspired, but are mistakes based on violating rules of hermeneutics. The Scriptures are inspired, but some people are dumber than a box of rocks and need help with reading comprehension skills.

Oh Scribe, where does the understanding only given by the Holy Spirit “fit in” with your hermeneutics?

The disciples were “unlearned” yet those Pharisees took notice of them because the disciples had been with Jesus- He taught them and I’m pretty sure Jesus did not use “hermeneutics”.

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
Acts 4:13 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Acts 4:13&version=KJV

Jesus just simply “opened their understanding.”

Then opened he (Jesus) their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Luke 24:45 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 24:45&version=KJV

Hermeneutics is to help human reasoning understand scripture.....it’s just knowledge that puffs up the flesh.

Go higher!!!! Take the training wheels off! Ask the Holy Spirit to teach you the Word of God.

 

[kaylagrl]

Its true. I do come across rude, but the sarcasm wasn't (meant to be) directed in any way toward you as much as a return volley of the initial sarcasm that was directed toward you that compelled me to comment, but yes, rude nonetheless, if not only another example of how misreadings (especially of scripture) are ever so prevalent.

Well let's just skip this one. I think everyone has their POV nailed down and aren't about to move and inch. Kind of saw it was just another troll looking to kick up dust. Let's not sweat the small stuff. Have a great evening.

 

[Scribe]

Oh Scribe, where does the understanding only given by the Holy Spirit “fit in” with your hermeneutics?

The disciples were “unlearned” yet those Pharisees took notice of them because the disciples had been with Jesus- He taught them and I’m pretty sure Jesus did not use “hermeneutics”.

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
Acts 4:13 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Acts 4:13&version=KJV

Jesus just simply “opened their understanding.”

Then opened he (Jesus) their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Luke 24:45 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 24:45&version=KJV

Hermeneutics is to help human reasoning understand scripture.....it’s just knowledge that puffs up the flesh.

Go higher!!!! Take the training wheels off! Ask the Holy Spirit to teach you the Word of God.

Praying and asking for the Spirit that inspired the scriptures to help you understand what the intended interpretation is IS one of the Rules of heremeneutics. Don't let words like hermeneutics scare you, it is just an abreviated way of saying something that takes serveral sentences to explain. No fake man thoughts that dont comply with God thoughts are involved

 

[Scribe]

Yes, and I suppose this will be claimed from all scholars according their denominal view.
Here we are again. Everybody is right

If you apply the rules and find a problem with an interpretation violating a rule you have discovered why the interepretation is wrong. Then the person has to decide whether they will hang on to the wrong interpretation or change their view based on sound heremeneutcs. It will reveal whether they love truth or error. Some love error more. They don't want to change their mind. They don't like the truth. The truth will cost them too much. They would rather pretend that they believe that a error is still truth even though they know it is not. They deceive themselves into thinking that they will be able to tell God that "they were honestly believed that interpretation was the right one" But God will remind them that they knew it wasn't. There are theologians who have confessed to knowing that the pentecostal doctrine was correct but it took them many years to yield because they knew they would be fired from their positions when they finally came out public.

 

[Funkus]

Jesus said not to "lord it over one another". He didn't say anything about authority structures. Unless you think that Paul's letters aren't Scripture, you would have a hard time making your case in light of Paul's instruction to "appoint elders in every city".

I do think Paul's letters are scripture, but many scholars think some of them were written in his name (which is normal ancient practice) and they're later, because in Paul's own letters he talks about the offices as spiritual gifts, prophet, preacher etc not anything about elders because that was later on maybe later 1st century. Sure, probably Christianity could never have grown to a religion that it became without that structure so i'm not saying it was wrong i'm saying it just wasn't original to have anything beyond offices that were spiritual gifts, which can be men or woman. When people see Paul saying about women having authority its partly because he's only temporarily claiming authority himself to put things in some order, and is always wishing he didn't have it but is forced to - these offices today of pastor or priest are kind of 'pretend', make believe things that shouldn't be such a big deal and you can see why, eg all these courses today making people 'apostles' and telling them all the authority they have.. is asking for trouble. As to women speaking in church, its funny how Jesus spoke to women and they to him all the time but women can't speak in his church? at some point Jesus's own example has to guide on these things...

 

[garee]

So also to you the question. Is 1. Cor.11,3 Gods word ore human word? And is it OT ore NT?

Good question .

God's words spoken through his messengers prophets (humans) The whole testament the word of God. .

I would offer. Mankind both men and women as one creation are created after the image our invisible head Christ . Male made he mankind those subject to salvation.

Male one creation and female another separate creation he made other beasts of the field not subject to salvation. .

Again Christ the head of mankind. (His bride) what we will be as sons of God a term that speaks of mankind.

Man seen represents our unseen Lord the place or source of faith and power . Man cannot cover his head or hair he represents Christ the head .


Woman the covering of man as the glory of man is given as a representative glory to man. Not leaving her without a representative glory her hair .She must cover it or shave it off to represent shame "no husband Christ". Together they work as one representative glory a shadow of the upcoming wedding supper .

In that way women is a glory of men representing the mother of us all and again she has a glory .One of those double blessings.

 

[garee]

3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Now here is a good example of proper hermeneutics. Someone could read this and say that his wife should cover her head in church because THE WORD OF GOD says so. But does it? Hermeneutics requires that we determine who he was talking to, cultural context, and other statements that are made in the context. We can see that he ends it with; But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. By saying this he makes it obvious that the custom he was referring to of the woman covering the head was a Jewish custom and not a custom in the churches of God. Many having no proper training in hermeneutics have run off and put a rule of head covering on their women. Now they may preach sermons about it from the pulpit and countless hours explaining the spiritual significance of authority as Paul taught and when they get to the Judgment seat of Christ... POOF... wood hay stubble. And probably an admonition "What part of verse 16 did you not understand?"

Now it is true that the husband has God given authority and responsibility to take care of the family, protect it, teach the word, lead in prayer etc, but none of that means that God does not want women to preach and teach the bible and evangelize the world along with men. It is to both sons and daughters that the Holy Spirit is poured out with ministry gifts of the Spirit for MINISTRY. They are mostly SPEAKING gifts of the Spirit. Your sons and daughters shall PROPHESY. Give me a woman PROPHESYING over a man just droning on out of his own spirit any day. Can I get an AMEN?

Its not head covering .Its hair covering. Heads cannot be shave off.

No such thing as cultural context, oral traditions as commandments called private interpretation .It was not a Jewish custom any more that water baptism or any other ceremonial law of God .

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

 

[garee]

If you apply the rules and find a problem with an interpretation violating a rule you have discovered why the interepretation is wrong. Then the person has to decide whether they will hang on to the wrong interpretation or change their view based on sound heremeneutcs. It will reveal whether they love truth or error. Some love error more. They don't want to change their mind. They don't like the truth. The truth will cost them too much. They would rather pretend that they believe that a error is still truth even though they know it is not. They deceive themselves into thinking that they will be able to tell God that "they were honestly believed that interpretation was the right one" But God will remind them that they knew it wasn't. There are theologians who have confessed to knowing that the pentecostal doctrine was correct but it took them many years to yield because they knew they would be fired from their positions when they finally came out public.

Yes no sign gifts like falling backward slain in the spirit, no show, no Job .

They have sign gifts what the eyes see the temporal mixed up with spiritual gifts not seen the eternal . God brings a sign against them .they fall backward slain in the spirit.