Women pastors you like

Should this guy be excomunicated from speaking of the Bible?? or not??

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2006/03/Did-Scribes-Edit-Women-Out-Of-The-Bible.aspx

Perhaps their is a way for women to serve in leadership and that back in the old days the good ol boy system excluded them. Scribes who copied text may have played fast and loose with it out of controlling motives to exclude women.
________________________________________________________________

One of the most important passages in the contemporary discussion of the role of women in the church is found in 1 Corinthians 14. As represented in most of our modern English translations, the passage reads as follows.

33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 let the women keep silent. For it is not permitted for them to speak, but to be in subjection, just as the law says. 35 But if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 What! Did the word go forth only from you, or has it reached you alone?
The passage appears to be a clear and straightforward injunction for women not to speak (let alone teach!) in the church, very much like the passage from 1 Timothy 2. As we have seen, however, most scholars are convinced that Paul did not write the 1 Timothy passage, because it occurs in a letter that appears to have been written instead by a second-generation follower of Paul in his name. No one doubts, however, that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.

But there are doubts about this passage. For as it turns out, the verses in question (vv. 34-35) are shuffled around in some of our important textual witnesses. In three Greek manuscripts and a couple of Latin witnesses, they are found not here, after verse 33, but later, after verse 40. That has led some scholars to surmise that the verses were not written by Paul but originated as a kind of marginal note added by a scribe, possibly under the influence of 1 Timothy 2. The note was then inserted in different places of the text by various scribes—some placing the note after verse 33 and others inserting it after verse 40.

There are good reasons for thinking that Paul did not originally write these verses. For one thing, they do not fit well into their immediate context. In this part of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is addressing the issue of prophecy in the church, and is giving instructions to Christian prophets concerning how they are to behave during the Christian services of worship. This is the theme of verses 26-33, and it is the theme again of verses 36-40. If one removes verses 34-35 from their context, the passage seems to flow seamlessly as a discussion of the role of Christian prophets. The discussion of women appears, then, as intrusive in its immediate context, breaking into instructions that Paul is giving about a different matter.

Not only do the verses seem intrusive in the context of chapter 14, they also appear anomalous with what Paul explicitly says elsewhere in 1 Corinthians. For earlier in the book, as we have already noticed, Paul gives instructions to women speaking in the church: according to chapter 11, when they pray and prophesy—activities that were always done aloud in the Christian services of worship—they are to be sure to wear veils on their heads (11:2-16). In this passage, which no one doubts Paul wrote, it is clear that Paul understands that women both can and do speak in church. In the disputed passage of chapter 14, however, it is equally clear that "Paul" forbids women from speaking at all. It is difficult to reconcile these two views—either Paul allowed women to speak (with covered heads, chapter 11) or not (chapter 14). As it seems unreasonable to think that Paul would flat out contradict himself within the short space of three chapters, it appears that the verses in question do not derive from Paul.

And so on the basis of a combination of evidence—several manuscripts that shuffle the verses around, the immediate literary context, and the context within 1Corinthians as a whole—it appears that Paul did not write 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. One would have to assume, then, that these verses are a scribal alteration of the text, originally made, perhaps, as a marginal note and then eventually, at an early stage of the copying of 1 Corinthians, placed in the text itself. The alteration was no doubt made by a scribe who was concerned to emphasize that women should have no public role in the church, that they should be silent and subservient to their husbands. This view then came to be incorporated into the text itself, by means of a textual alteration.

While some have indicated that Bart Ehrman is trying to attack Christianity, I do not find this at all. His tone is clear, concise, and to the point without being aggressive. At the end of the book he explains in length that he is not trying to force anyone to lose their faith. He is simply explaining his position and hoping that getting this knowledge to the masses will do a world of good. His biggest concern – echoed on many occasions – is that pastors are not teaching their congregations the whole truth. Pastors go to seminary, learn all the historical problems, but then never inform their congregations of these issues. Just think of how many fights over women’s roles in church could be resolved if church members knew the passage in 1 Corinthians was added by later scribes! This is Ehrman’s point: knowing the historical background of the faith millions adhere to is essential in understanding our own culture, our churches, and the doctrines that so many accept almost without question from the clean-as-the-driven-snow lips of their pastors.

All in all, this is an excellent book – regardless of where you are coming from in the “debate”. I highly recommend it!

If a person is talented and gifted to care for large groups of church goers why exclude them from heading a church of people who trust him or her.

Could a scribe played fast and loose with the text?? and why was it not found in other manuscripts??? and why was it placed in different places in manuscript?? and why was it a marginal note??

I know christians hate this guy but I think he knows his field of expertise better than most here on this board so can we ignore him??

now you can go back to bashing women pastors hahahahaha:tonofbricks:

 

What is this guys world view? Does it taint his view on this subject? Is he infallible?

When you start with the claim that God will keep His word forever then it automatically puts this position in a bad light. But it is also clear that the author fails to give consideration to other things such as What is the particular context in which Paul is speaking? Is it necessary to discard this passage because of what may immediately appear to be a contradiction? And if so should we do this every time this appearance occurs? Are there any possible scenarios that can reconcile this passage and avoid discarding it all together? Do we have to assume that Paul did not author this or are there other plausible options?


Whatever expertise the author may have he has jumped to conclusions that are not necessary and rather extreme. But it is common among those with a liberal mindset to rip passages of scripture right out of the Bible when they do not fit in with their on preconceived world view. His position is not worth considering.

 

That's over thinking it. Its still wrong to have women pastors.

 

Am I surprised hahahaha

 

... As a Southern Baptist all I can tell you is that we have n women pastors and we have no unmarried male pastors in my church. Please pay attention to the wording of my statement, ok?

 

:thumbs:.............

 

With all respect, my comment was not directed at you per se. We've had this discussion/debate many times. Many who believe scripture expressly forbids women pastors are less adamant about saying that unmarried men are scripturally forbidden from pastoring.

Additionally, some will argue that scripture is referring to a bishop, and that a pastor is not necessarily equal in role to a bishop (though I don't necessarily agree with that notion).

We usually don't come to much headway, as most people are already convinced in their own mind as to the interpretation of the aforementioned passages.

 

Bart Ehrman is not merely presenting information he thinks is helpful. He does not believe the bible is God's word. Furthermore, his arguments against the biblical text are worn and nothing new - they have been soundly refuted by many. I heard Ehrman in a debate in NC and his points did not hold up.

As for the reasons that the Bible teaches against women pastors, God gives us two: it is because the man was made first, and the woman was deceived:

 

Women were also a peculiar problem in the Corinthian Church. It is for the same reason, Paul talks about the woman's hair. Prostitutes had their head shorn to reveal who they were. Women were to keep their long hair to set them apart.

Funny how some stick like glue to the no women pastor part, but ignore the women be silent and learn from their husbands at home! Every woman MUST be married to have a husband, and she better be at home as well.

Culturally, things change down through the ages, thank God. Certainly I believe the Bible, and that is why I believe there were woman leaders down through the ages, and women deacons in the New Testament.

By the way, I have only known three female pastors. Two I liked, and the third didn't belong in the church let alone pastoral ministry.

Cheers,

Jim

 

What is the warrant from the I Tim. 2 passage for limiting woman's "silence before man" to the "assembly"? Are we really "standing on the Word of God" when we produce this monstrosity:

I Timothy 2:12 BBRYAV (Baptist Board Revised Yet Again Version)
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, that is, any adult man, in the church setting, but to be in silence. However, she can teach a man Scripture, with her husband, outside of the assembly, as long as they call it "counseling". And she can teach men secular things outside of the assembly. Of course, she can sing her teaching in a church service, and that counts as silence. It also counts as silence when she teaches men at church and calls it a "seminar".

 

Doctrines should not be made from individual verses.

Notice that Paul said "I" ............ he did not say God.

Remember in some places Paul said "this is me speaking" and in other places he said "this is God speaking." In this section I do not believe he indicated who was speaking, but the "I" indicates it was his opinion and not necessarily God's opinion. In the entire passage it is Paul says "I" over and over indicating what he wants and does not say "this is God speaking through me." So I find the quote above not convincing at all.

Also Paul places all the blame for the fall on Eve .... "it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." Adam was deceived and also became a sinner.

If women must keep silent there are questions that need to be answered such as:

What about a woman teaching through writing
books or teaching a man individually (as Priscilla and Aquila did
with Apollos [Acts 18:26])?

From the verse it is obvious that Priscilla participated in the teaching.

What about all the noteworthy exceptions
in Scripture (Deborah, Huldah, Junia, etc.)?

What of Lydia and the church that met in her house?

 

The problem with interpreting the writings of Paul is that he often does not include the cultural context in his writings. That's because he didn't need to. His letters were directed to specific churches to address specific problems. Today, we read those same letters without any regard to why Paul was writing those letters in the first place.

The reason Paul is addressing women here is because, at that time, idolatrous practices were being adopted by, and spread by, women. Paul is addressing that in specificity. That's why Paul addresses Eve being deceived first, then Adam. Because the idolatry that was being spread in his day was first being spread through the women, and then from the women to the men.

Paul is NOT addressing the issue of women teaching men in general, or in perpetuity.

 

John,
And I would say that the reason he didn't mention it was because he is not basing it on cultural issues. He is dealing with it from what the Scriptures say. So it is not as settled as you suggest.

You are saying that you know what Paul had in his mind. We're just basing it on what he actually said.

 

No, I'm saying that we must apply all of scripture, including Paul's letters, in accordance with the context, content, and audience. Paul was not addressing all women everywhere for all time.

To say "we're just basing it on what he actually said" is an excuse to not have to study to show oneself approved.