No. I asked exactly what I meant to ask.Are you asking me for an exegesis of 1 Cor 14:26-38?
No. I asked exactly what I meant to ask.Are you asking me for an exegesis of 1 Cor 14:26-38?
Generally, I respect you and the input you share here. However, as you put a "Like" on Truth7t7's post #546 in which he conflated the terms "bishop/pastor" where the word pastor does not appear in the text, you lost credibility. You have no ground to complain about others "disregarding" Scripture when you applaud those who do the same thing. Get some integrity.
The Western World Savages kill millions of innocent children annually (Abortion), and approves of same sex marriage in homosexualityLiberation of women is a big part of Western Civilisation. Your view is rather prejudiced if you fail to see that.
I am not exactly sure what it is you want.No. I asked exactly what I meant to ask.
Black African Tribal Leaders Sold People Into Slavery, They Were At The Hierarchy Of The Slave Trade.Platosgal said, "White men ... free slaves in the West."
Seriously? White men started and maintained Western slavery for 400 years.
Yet, you are commending white men for ending a system of slavery that white men started and maintained in the first place.
White men would not have been able to free slaves in the West if white men had not started and maintained Western slavery in the first place.
No slander You're a liberal, that's my open opinion in observation of your postings over months, who you kidding.You can't refute my arguments, so you dismiss me with groundless slander. You are clearly incapable of defending your position.
You take the very simple, clear, teaching of scripture and bend and twist it to suit your liberal viewsI asked Platosgal what the context is; I did not accuse her of departing from it. Therefore, I see no reason to regale anyone with anything. Besides, I have already explained the context, as I understand it, in this thread.
As for "congregation", the context was her comment about 1 Timothy 2, not 1 Corinthians 14.
In your view, how does 1 Corinthians 14:36 follow from verses 34-35?
Premise: "Black African Tribal Leaders Were At The Hierarchy Of The Slave Trade"Black African Tribal Leaders Sold People Into Slavery, They Were At The Hierarchy Of The Slave Trade.
Just As The Jews Were Enslaved By The African Egyptians For 400 Years.
Slavery In America Was Primarily By Whites In The South, Driven By Evil Greed, Atrocities To Mankind Without Question.
Just As Liberals Support And Defend Killing The Innocent Unborn (Abortion) No Greater Evil On This Earth.
Conclusion: Black African Tribal Leaders Were At The Hierarchy Of The Slave Trade, Driven By Evil Greed.
The word translated "a man" is not the word for "adult male". It's the word for "anyone". Deal with it.You take the very simple, clear, teaching of scripture and bend and twist it to suit your liberal views
1 Timothy 3:1-13KJV
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
I don't give a duck what you think of me. You are a hypocrite, so your opinion is worthless.No slander You're a liberal, that's my open opinion in observation of your postings over months, who you kidding.
If it walks and looks like a duck, it's a duck, not a dove
Matthew 7:20KJV
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I am requesting your explanation of the logical connection between verse 36 and verses 34-35.I am not exactly sure what it is you want.
I agree; the term "pastor" is used today in ways that confuse the issue; and yes, Peter links the task of shepherding to the role of elders. However, most people who would forbid females from being pastors claim that Paul specifically forbids it. He doesn't. No amount of exegetical gymnastics will put a word in Paul's letters that he didn't put there.The verbs bishop and pastor are both represented in the office of the elder as Peter demonstrates in 1Peter 5. One who holds the office of an elder is to shepherd and oversee the flock over which they are responsible. Thus the words ποιμάνατε/shephard and ἐπισκοποῦντες/oversee are to responsibility of the Πρεσβυτέρους/elders. The problem is that we have so abused the term "paster" that we have removed it from it biblical definition.
The word translated "a man" is not the word for "adult male". It's the word for "anyone". Deal with it.
You Have Validated My Claim, As ExpectedThe word translated "a man" is not the word for "adult male". It's the word for "anyone". Deal with it.
Yawn. Deal with the text instead of avoiding it.You Have Validated My Claim, As Expected
Once again, you take the very simple, clear, teaching of scripture and bend and twist it to suit your liberal views.
Let me just start here.I am requesting your explanation of the logical connection between verse 36 and verses 34-35.
There are several problems with your interpretation:Let me just start here.
“Therefore, if the whole church assembles together (This is the condition that specifies and limits what follows) and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you. What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn, and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands (ἄνδρας – men or husbands) at home; for (here is the reason) it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? (This is the reason the woman is commanded to show self-restraint.) If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone ignores this, he is to be ignored (consequences). Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.”
A. Notice – the occasion / condition is “if the whole church assembles together.” The “anyone” of verse 27 is qualified by the “he” of verse 28 and has a limited application. This instruction is given to “all the churches of the saints.” In the context of the prophesying and tongues, “the women are to keep silent” and are “not permitted to speak.” Their subjection is to be self-imposed as they are to “subject themselves.” This is active, not passive they are to be self-subjecting not having to be forced to be subject. Clarification for whatever questions they may have was to be addressed “at home.” Why? Because it is “improper for a woman to speak in church.”
1. In verse 26 regarding the speaking in tongues, revelation, psalms, and interpretation Paul address the men saying, “each one,” this is nom, masc, sing. In verse 27 he says, “if anyone,” this too is nom, masc, sing. This is then reinforced in verse 28 by “let him be silent,” “let him speak to himself.” All of this is in relation to “a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.” In verse 29-33 Paul then address the issue of prophesying and in verses 33 and 34 commands the women to keep silent in this as well and not to speak because it is improper for them to do so.
2. Paul ends all of this by saying, “these things are the Lord's commandment.”
From a conservative, Spirit filled Christian, that understands the simplicity of scripture, and it's clear teaching.A sound interpretation must make sense of all these issues.
It isn't an interpretation Dino. I just showed you what the text says. What you choose to do with the information is up to you.There are several problems with your interpretation:
1. It leaves unmarried adult females without anyone to ask their questions.
2. It contradicts 1 Cor. 11:5 wherein females are expressly permitted to speak (pray and prophesy), which makes no sense if they were not in the assembly.
3. It does not cite any passage in the Law that requires women to subject themselves and/or be silent.
4. It does not deal with the "What?" at the beginning of verse 36. The word is translated "Or" in some versions, but that doesn't make good sense of the passage.
5. There is nothing in the text, anywhere, that suggests that women thought the word of God had come only from or to them. There is no reason given as to why Paul would ask the questions in verse 36.
A sound interpretation must make sense of all these issues.