A Little Perspective On Religion

I agree... The Corinthians passage seemed the most controversial to me. Might be easier to focus on that.

 

I understand that T, but if you want to understand that passage you have to understand it within the context of other Pauline literature and NT literature. Dont get me wrong, I do not endeavor to write a book regarding this topic, as many great ones exist, nor do I desire to change anyone's mind, rather I simply want to provide yall with a overview of the matter and the discussion can go where it does.

 

I will potentially be doing a presentation on this topic on Wednesday, depending on your response... Not trying to hurry you, but I would really appreciate if you could do it in the next couple days! If not, I totally understand, because you don't want to give a brief opinion so that we'll jump on that without giving your full opinion. But it might still be easier to use the Corinthians passage a starting point (maybe not).

 

My goal is to start this evening, if I can help you with that presentation prep, that would be awesome lol

 

Even our Lakers talk is scholarly. We smart!

 

Sorry for the delay, life got busy with my fam and other things so I didn't get to sit down and do what I had planned. But I don't want to leave you hanging so I figured I would at least address the 1 Corinthians passage you brought up.

When discussing NT Letters you need to understand you are reading one half of a two part communication not a systematic set of instructions, as the writers are writing to address specific situations within local congregations they have been made aware of. . In essences it is like sitting in a room and listening to a phone conversation where you only hear the person you are in the room with. That is not to say they do no cover all encompassing principles, nor that they do not teach doctrinal truths, only that do diligence needs to be done to see what exactly is going on.

I'm gonna quote chunks of scripture then discuss it.

Their are two points I want to make before actually discussing verse 34. First of all this text comes at the end of a text where Paul is giving instructions to the Church in Corinth on how to hold a orderly worship time that is beneficial for all. Secondly, earlier in the same letter Paul gives instruction on how women should pray and prophesy within the context of group worship, meaning that women are allowed to speak. Lets look at that section for a second.

First of all lets define what prophesying means in the NT. Prophesying in a New Testament context does not mean foretelling the future, here is a good definition: Prophecy is a regulated message or report in human words usually made to the gathered believers based on a spontaneous, personal revelation from the Holy Spirit for the purpose of edification, encouragement, consolation, conviction or guidance but not necessarily free from a mixture of human error, and thus needing assessment on the basis of the apostolic (Biblical) teaching and mature spiritual wisdom.

If Paul meant for women to never talk why would he tell them how to pray and speak in the above outlined way to the church?


I suppose the next question is whats the big deal with hats and hair? Do modern Christians practice this?

In short Corinth was like most Graeco-Roman cities thrived on Idol worship which in many ways incorporated sex and temple prostitutes. The working women of Corinth wore no head covering and Paul is basically saying dress and carry yourselves appropriately in worship. It is not sinful to not have a head cover on, but Paul talks about not causing others to stumble with the way we live our lives at several other places in the NT, and this could be a practice put in place for just that reason. In the pagan Graeco-Roman world issues like temple prostitutes and eating meat cooked certain places were huge divisive issues, today not so much. Paul goes on to point to creation order and the natural or societal order of things to bring home his argument.

Further reading that touches on this by one of the most important figures in modern Christianity, the Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright can be found here: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm Note: he also touches on other Texts that deal with women.

A second option for this passage that does not deal with the potential for pagan practices in the community has drastically more to do with the family structure of Christianity. In short the argument goes Paul is saying that only men and women who live properly at home should have the freedom to speak in such a way within the worship gathering. To be cliche, if you do not walk the walk you may not talk the talk. Again the head covering (hair, hat, or veil) is something that exists within the existing culture to demonstrate submission and the church should to a point operate within that cultural language.
For a much more in depth take on this option feel free to read this article written by Daniel Wallace, one of the most renown Greek/Text Criticism scholars in the world: https://bible.org/article/what-head-covering-1-cor-112-16-and-does-it-apply-us-today

Also if you are really up for some reading here is a two part series on Womens leadership in the NT by D. Wallace : https://bible.org/series/women-leadership

This secondary point bring up two separate issues that I wont touch on at the moment, but may comeback too tomorrow or later in the week.
1. What is the roll of Christianity in culture.
2. What does the NT say about family structure and in turn church structure. (much more likely to explore this as it seems more pertinent to our discussion)

There is plenty more great discussion on this passage, but I doubt you want to read my further ramblings on the subject. So back to women not talking in 1 Corinthians 14.

There are a number of explanations for this passage I will do my best summarize the most recognized.

1. This view is forwarded most by NT Scholar Gordan Fee, who is a fantastic author and scholar who is universally recognized as an expert in Textual Criticism, hermeneutics, and has written what is in many other scholars opinions the most authoritative scholarly work on the book of Philippians. According to Fee this very small section I have colored red above is actually a non-Pauline floating text that was added into the text later. How does one figure this out. Their exists an entire scholarly discipline known as textual criticism, in which the scholar researches the historical composition of a text by examining it within existing NT manuscripts and non biblical documents. In the case of NT textual criticism there is just under 6000 separate manuscripts, as well as the large collections of quotes from scripture contained in the writings of the church fathers and other writers through out church history that are constantly being examined. In short scholars like Fee and Wallace spend their lives pouring over these manuscripts and comparing them, using literary criticism tools, etc to examine the body of biblical writings. But I digress, Fee argues that that specific section was not written by Paul, and was placed their much later by someone else.

2. A much more common interpretation is that Paul is telling women, who were not allowed the same education level as men at the time, to remain silent while the educated men discuss what these prophecies hold, how true they are, etc etc. Furthermore, we perceive church as a place where a group of people sit and look forward hearing someone stand who is standing in front of them talk for a specific amount of time. That is nothing like the practices of the NT churches. NT Churches gathered in homes where things were much more round table discussion and much less lecture. Per this argument the uneducated women who did not understand something should not ask during the time of collective worship, as it could take a lot of time to sidebar and answer any number of questions, and instead as the text says ask those questions at home so that things stay orderly. To summarize this view is women should remain quiet at this point in the church service not simple because they were women, but because of a lack of education.

3. This view is similar to the previous in that it builds off of existing first century norms. Namely that it was normal practice then, and even now in some parts of the world, for men and women to sit separately in public meetings. Furthermore it was, and remains the same today in some parts of the world, for communities to speak one local dialect but for business meeting to be conducted in a different dialect or different language all together. According to this view while the prophecies meanings are being discussed by men in on one side of the room, perhaps in a different language, the women on the other side of the room would lose interest(not because they are simple or don't care but because they do not understand the actual language) and talk about something else. According to this view Paul is saying don't side talk during this time of worship, wait and get clarification later.

4. A Final view on this, at least that I will be talking about, goes something like this. After the prophesying was completed it was now the job of the elders to examine what was being said, and the role of elder is reserved for men only. So at the time that the elders of the church met to discuss this in front of the gathered church it would be the role of women to remain silent.

For a much more in depth read over this particular text check out an article written by yet another preeminent NT Scholar D.A. Carson here: https://bible.org/seriespage/silent-churches-role-women-1-corinthians-1433b-36

Now that I typed more than I planned too I will stop, again I will double back hopefully tomorrow, and touch on the two points I mentioned earlier. If you really want to get a taste of the level of work that goes into NT Scholarship, or if you want an actual article to read, not my randomness written off the top of my head at my dinner table while trying to orchestrate homework and bedtime, I would encourage you to read the article I linked to.

I also hope Time will chime in as I know we share a great deal of commonality in our faith, but if i remember correctly we do have some differences. And as I type this I realized that I didn't forward my own view. That may be largely because I do not view those two passages as being as controversial as others. To me they are seen as being so because the are often viewed like they are in this thread, snatched out of the context of the grand narrative of scripture and sat isolated for the modern western thinker to draw conclusions from based off of modern understandings of culture and terms, instead of what they meant at the time they were written. But for fairness I will say this. I think the head coverings passages meaning is found somewhere between a specific cultural meaning and the desire for those that live right at home to reflect so while gathered. As for the other text, I bounce back and forth between its a floating text or really comes down to the level of education. I worship at a home church and know first hand what its like when you have to stop every few minutes to catch someone up on something. We are a very small group, and can't imagine what it would be like in a larger setting.

At any rate I hope this helps in some way shape or form. Though I wish this discussion could take place at a bar a cup of coffee, liquor, beer, or the like in our hands...

 

in the wall oh text I forgot to mention that out of those 6k manuscripts the are something like 96% identical, of the difference 3.5% consist of scribble errors like switching word order, misplaced punctuations, spelling errors, etc. The remaining .5% is made up of more serious differences, but most are easy to deal with, but non actually exist in passages that effect major doctrine.

there are also 19k 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages that are also used in textual criticism research/study.

 

Thanks for all the insight and context, Kingsama. @TIME , don't feel pressured to finish it tonight - I'm not presenting on it anymore. I was going to present and explain how Christianity is a patriarchy... Seems like something I need to study a lot more on before I can do that, especially after the context you provided. This is a good question: do you think Christianity is a patriarchy? Is there any religion that isn't a patriarchy?

 

Questions for Christians: Why is it necessary to believe in Jesus? Can you have a loving relationship with God and not believe in Jesus?

What significance is it for the messiah to have come? Like, what does a messiah coming mean to life as we know it? If you talk about how there will be a 2nd coming, then why believe in the 1st coming or why is it necessary for a 1st coming?