It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Women Should Keep Silent In The Churches

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I've posted this information on here before in the middle of a heated thread but there was so much shouting going on that I think it got overlooked. There's still a lot of shouting going on regarding the issue of women needing to remain silent in the churches so I'd like to let it stand on it's own as a thread.

I think this translation resolves the issue. What is your understanding?



"APPARENT BREAKTHROUGH IN UNDERSTANDING THE WOMEN'S "SILENCE" PASSAGES, 1 COR.14:34-35"

A Summary By Jon Zens, July 2007

"In "The Elusive Law", Cheryl Schatz presents evidence to demonstrate that verses 34-35 are not Paul's words, but the remarks of some in Corinth based on the Talmud's restrictions on women (DVD #4, Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?, MM Outreach, Nelson, B.C., Canada, 2006).

"I've been wrestling with the issues raised regarding women in 1 Cor.11-14 for twenty-six years. My first article, "Aspects of Female Priesthood," appeared in 1981. For the first time I feel like significant light has broken through the lingering problems and questions. Without doubt every conceivable explanation of what is entailed in 1 Cor.14:34-35 can be challenged from some angle. It is admittedly a difficult passage. However, the position convincingly set forth by Cheryl does the best job I've ever seen of doing justice to what the verses actually say and the immediate context, beginning in 1 Cor.11.

"For a long time I've wondered what "law" was in view in v.34. There is strong reason to believe that it is not the Old Testament, but the Talmud that is being cited. According to Wikipedia, "The Talmud is a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs and history." In Jesus' day the first part of the Talmud, the Mishnah, was in oral form, but in 200AD and 500AD it and the Gemara were put into writing. In brief, two key issues point to why the Jewish oral law (Talmud) was behind what was stated in vv.34-35.

1. Only the Talmud silences women.

2. Only the Talmud designates the speech of women as "shameful."

The Talmud Silenced Women

"Cheryl observes that "The silencing of women was a Jewish ordinance. Women were not permitted to speak in the assembly or even to ask questions. The rabbis taught that a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff."

""Josephus, a Jewish historian, asserted that "the woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to a man. Let her accordingly be submissive."

""The Talmud clearly affirms the silence of females:

""A woman's voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative" (Talmud, Berachot 24a).

""Women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing, and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent" (summary of Talmudic sayings).

The Talmud Called the Voice of a Woman "Shameful"

""It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men" (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin)

""The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness" (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin)

"The English translation of the Greek word, aiskron, as "shameful" or "improper" hardly convey the strength of what the word encompasses. The affirmation in v.35, Cheryl notes, is that a woman's speaking is "lewd, vile, filthy, indecent, foul, dirty and morally degraded."

"Male and female prophesying was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18). Paul approved the prophesying of women in 1 Cor.11:5. In 1 Cor.14 he saw the whole body involved in prophesying – "everybody is prophesying" (v.24), "each one of you has a teaching" (v.26), "you may all prophesy one by one" (v.31). How could the same apostle Paul a few pen strokes later turn around and unequivocally designate women's speech in the body as "filthy, lewd and vile"? It makes no sense at all. I have always felt like verses 34-35 didn't sound like Paul. Something was awry.

"The matter is cleared up by realizing that Paul did not write the negative words about women in vv.34-35. Instead, those basing their view of women on the oral law did. Paul never required women to be silent and never called female speaking "lewd and filthy." The Talmud was guilty of advocating both.

"This is further confirmed in v.36 when Paul exclaims "What! Did the Word of God originate with you?" The "What!" Indicates that Paul is not in harmony with what was stated by others from the Talmud in vv.34-35. Thayer's Lexicon notes that the "What" is a disjunctive conjunction "before a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand."

"Sir William Ramsey commented, "We should be ready to suspect that Paul is making a quotation from the letter addressed to him by the Corinthians whenever he alludes to their knowledge, or when any statement stands in marked contrast either with the immediate context or with Paul's known views."

"Paul contrasts his commands which promote edification by the varied contributions of all with the restrictive prohibitions upon women demanded by the anti-gospel Talmud. Paul saw the voices of the sisters as a vital part of the building up of the Body of Christ. The Talmud, on the other hand, viewed female voices as "shameful" and as "filthy nakedness."

"We know that various concerns and questions came to Paul from the Corinthians in a letter. He refers to this communication several times in 1 Corinthians. If quotation marks are placed at the beginning and end of verses 34-35, thus seeing them as the words of some Corinthians to Paul, then the apparent contradiction between Paul's encouragement of female participation and then his seeming silencing of them is resolved satisfactorily.

"Those who use 1 Cor.14:34-35 as a basis for requiring the sisters to be silent in the meetings would do well to consider the strong possibility that the words they cite as proof-texts are non-Pauline, and reflect the non-gospel viewpoint of the Talmud. Are they prepared to maintain, as the anti-feminine Talmud did, that a woman's voice is "dirty" and "like filthy nakedness"? I submit that it is unthinkable that Paul would assign such awful sentiments to the sisters' words.

Search the Scriptures to see what is really so."


I think a lot of what Christians have been taught as "the correct way" is actually religion. Christ was pretty progressive in his treatment of women (considering the oppression of women at the time).
Paul has been castigated as a misogynist who advocated for women to "shut up and know their place". I think this article disproves that concept rather nicely.

Please play nicely. If you don't agree with the conclusion given in the article, it's ok; your world view is not being threatened.

 
Mod edit: external tags added.

[edit on 10/5/2010 by ArMaP]




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I don't care who said it or why. No woman is inferior to a man. A woman should enjoy her femininity without being seen as a sex object or slave to any man.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Night Star]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave

"Those who use 1 Cor.14:34-35 as a basis for requiring the sisters to be silent in the meetings...."


Are you by chance one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

[edit on 8-5-2010 by taccj9903]

[edit on 8-5-2010 by taccj9903]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 



The prophetesses Miriam, Deborah and Huldah didn’t exactly have a passive role in the old testament and they certainly weren’t silent.

After Jesus resurrection, he chooses to appear before Mary, to be his first witness. An interesting choice, considering woman at that time, were not considered to be liable witnesses in court.

I don’t believe woman should have to remain silent in the church because the Holy Spirit is to be received by both men and woman. So if the gift of prophecy is given to a woman, then why should she remain silent in the church? (rhetorical question)


- JC



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 


S & F


You did a great job with your OP

Thank you

It's all much clearer now


Personally, I feel we need a revised Biblical text. Or, more correctly, I'd be far more receptive to a completely overhauled tract

I find myself quite repulsed by the current tome, with its ignorance, superstition, misogyny and rant

It's nothing more than an 'old' collection of primarily politically- motivated claims ---- penned by men with whom I have next to nothing in common

And just because it's old does not make it right or palatable

I would most certainly be disobeying the 'silence' edict, were I to be confronted in the here and now by those female-hating, power-hungry, mendacious old thugs who presumed it their right to dictate what is even today, considered to be 'the word of God'

No. It's the word of man. And those men were greedy, corrupt, power-hungry

If the Church really cares about the vast numbers who are turning away from it, it needs to quit hiding behind the collected-works of nose-picking old goat-herders of a couple of millenia ago ---- and compose something relevant to the people of today

I do not consider the Bible to be ' the word of God' at all

I believe it is fiction and filled to capacity with deceit

Which is why, of course, people are indoctrinated from early childhood in the lie that the Bible is the literal 'word of God'

And there are tens of thousands, even today, who are so terrified of questioning the indoctrination that they refuse to examine the Bible with anything approaching a critical eye

It is *not the 'word of God' at all. That's lie-one

And once people realise the Bible is not the 'word of God' but simply the claims of power-hungry men ---- then it's like a light going on in their head. And their brain doubles overnight. And their life becomes their own --- as it should have been all along



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I'm not sure where things jumped the track but, women were not always considered chattel or useless baggage.

There are many examples in the old testament dating all the way back to Adam and Eve. It was Eve who took the lead (to our detriment) and Adam followed (to our destruction). The point being that Adam could have refused to follow his wife into sin. He could have complained to G-D that Eve was "defective" and insist on a replacement. Instead he loved his wife and followed her into certain death. I don't think it's because she was the only "piece" on the planet.

Deborah was a judge in her town and when she couldn't find any men willing to break the siege and go fight the enemy at their gates, she went. Alone. Served as diplomat to an entire town and vanquished the enemy herself. You can't do that if you're playing the quiet little mousy type awaiting instructions from a man.

Esther saved an entire race from genocide. Yes, she was taking instructions from her uncle but SHE'S the one who took the RISK to go before the king without him summoning her which was an automatic death penalty unless he decided to have mercy on her.

Solomon's mother managed to alter a king's lineage by inserting first herself (what was a married woman doing bathing in plain sight?) and then her son who was not the first born to King David.
Solomon met with the Queen of Sheba who had a very wealthy kingdom and apparently ruled it well.

The proverbs talk about a "virtuous woman" and apparently she was able to "consider a piece of property and purchase it".

The entire story of Moses early life mentions ONLY women. His mother and sister cooked up a plot to save him. The sister coordinates her floating of Moses to when the Pharaoh's daughter will be at the river. She then waits for an opportunity to engage the plan. Pharaoh's daughter had the power to ignore and countermand her father's dictates and even adopt Moses. When she asks for a nursemaid, the sister ran to get Moses mother so Moses was able to be partially raised by his own mother in much better surroundings, get a first-rate education and improve the lot of the mother and sister. Only women involved in that story. Changing the course of history. The midwives in Egypt ignored the Pharaoh's decree to kill the male children, thereby saving the Israelites from extinction.

These were not women who "just talked" as you mention, OT. They were also doers. They talked about what to do and they made a difference.

Somewhere along the road, the role of powerful, influential women changed. I've searched through histories of different cultures to see when the change occurred and what might have brought it about. It seems to be a global phenomenon. Honestly, I can't find it.

The Talmud is very disrespectful and condescending to women. G-D never intended it to be so. Since Christianity is a Judaic- based religion, the role of 2nd class citizen has carried over. The New Testament is replete with stories of women who made ALL the difference. Women were not allowed to "preach" and yet Jesus appeared first to the women at the tomb and TOLD them to go tell the disciples that Jesus was risen. This would have been considered preaching since it was a fulfillment of prophesy. I'm sure Jesus knew that. Yet He didn't go to the disciples (men) first. Why? Do you think Jesus might have been trying to get across the idea that things were going to be different?

Christ's death and resurrection was like hitting the "reset" button for humanity. We had strayed a long way away from a relationship with our creator into religious formulas and traditions of men. Treating women like powerless automatons was one of the many errors in thinking that was to be reset to the correct original intentions.

Also, in the lineage of Jesus, why do you suppose only 5 women are mentioned? And look who the women are? Harlots and women not considered on a societal pedestal. Mary, Jesus' mother is the only one considered "righteous" but in her day she was an unwed teenage mother (a stoning offense) whose "bastard" child was an enemy of the state and executed for treason. The Catholic Church later venerated her and exalted her status but in Mary's day she would have been considered in the same category as the other 4 women mentioned.

When these women talked their words carried power. They said things like, "I'll lower you spies over the wall to help you escape" or "I am the handmaiden of the Lord, do with me as thou wilt." History changing events. No wonder the religious men wanted women to shut up and mandated it through their religious practices.

@taccj9903
No, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness.
@Dock9
Thanks for the s&f. I appreciate the input although we disagree about the bible being the word of God I think we do agree that control freaks have perverted the words for their own agenda.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by whitewave]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
The verse in Corinthians COULD not mean what religion says it means; that women should keep silent in the churches. For one, the early organic CHRISTian church was understood to not be a physical place built by man.

It was understood that the people were the church, not a building. Secondly, women sang in the places of worship so they were not silent anyway and no one complained about it (at least we have no record of such).

The Jews being such sticklers for the law, if there was some compunction for women to "keep silent in the churches", singing would also not be allowed. No, the correct understanding of the verse is explained in the OP and further confirms the verse that says, "In Christ there is neither male nor female..."

In Genesis when the first couple were chastised, the "curse" for women was that FROM HENCEFORTH she would have pain in childbirth (was childbirth painless before then?) and that her "desire would be toward [her] husband" (was her desire not toward her husband before?). Under the curse, women are subject to their desire of men; in Christ there is neither male nor female. Christ was the great liberator of women (and men). In Christ there is equality.

An often overlooked biblical fact is that men also have a headship:Christ. If a man is not under his headship then it is hypocritical and counterproductive to insist that women be under their headship.

If men want to insist that women "get under their headship" and "obey" them and "keep silent", etc. then they need to be men and take the lead in showing women what it means to be under headship by doing it themselves.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Women are the ultimate humans in my view. I wish the world were ruled by women, the world would be a more peaceful place. All hail women!



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by BeastMaster2012
 


That's a lovely sentiment, beastmaster2012 and thank you for sharing it with us. I can't imagine why anyone would think one gender is "better" than the other. It boggles my mind.

I like to build things/make things with my own hands and being the practical sort that I am, I think one should use the right tool for the right job. Generally speaking men and women both possess different skill sets and all skills are needed to get through life.

As a manager, I have to be able to look at people's innate abilities (male or female) and assign them the duties to which they are most capable. It never occurs to me to check under their skirt before making that decision.

How has such a ridiculous notion as sexism persisted for millennium? I understand that some people believe religion is to blame but I'm not convinced that's accurate. Certainly, some religions have encouraged it but to consider even a woman's voice or speaking as "filthy" denotes a deep-seated hatred that originated somewhere not within the realm of most people's experiences.

I don't think women are superior to men any more than I think hot pink is "superior" to royal blue. Why would .50 cents worth of hormones decide a human being's value or be a determining factor in deciding when and where they are allowed to speak?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
You are missing the real point of Paul's message.

You see, from the earliest of time, the "Sons of God" came down and saw how beautiful women were, and desired them for mating. The giants of old were the results of these unions.

The Midrash has many stories of how women were such a temptation to the angels. This was why women were supposed to wear coverings over their heads, because their lovely hair and faces would tempt the angels who arrived in the gathering to support the believer's prayers.

From the standpoint of today, this would closely correlate to "aliens" showing interest in human reproduction, and that they are possibly beings from another star system, with advanced technology, but the same inferior will-power that we ourselves have.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 


Yes, women in the Bible, Corinth contained many temples, to Aphrodite, and Apollo, converts might have at one time been a part of the orgiastic ecstatic cult worship in which women played a prominent role.

Also combined with the fact women access to the inner temple was restricted,

But Paul had already gifted the women with the right to prophecy and pray. 11:5

www.questia.com...



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Night Star
I don't care who said it or why. No woman is inferior to a man. A woman should enjoy her femininity without being seen as a sex object or slave to any man.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Night Star]


Being a Sex Object to men is something designed in wether it be by a God or Evolution it is just a fact of nature. Our inteligence allows us to chose how and when to react to our naturual sexual attraction to women.

Being a slave to a man, should of course only happen if your in the mood



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
You are missing the real point of Paul's message.

You see, from the earliest of time, the "Sons of God" came down and saw how beautiful women were, and desired them for mating. The giants of old were the results of these unions.

The Midrash has many stories of how women were such a temptation to the angels. This was why women were supposed to wear coverings over their heads, because their lovely hair and faces would tempt the angels who arrived in the gathering to support the believer's prayers.

From the standpoint of today, this would closely correlate to "aliens" showing interest in human reproduction, and that they are possibly beings from another star system, with advanced technology, but the same inferior will-power that we ourselves have.


Makes me wonder why god would create Angels or Women that could be or cause distraction in this way. I do not think anyone on earth nor any religeon on earth knows anything at all about God. Its all made up by men and what they think or thought defines God and Gods law.

Just look at the universe for a moment. If God created it then its message to us is that we are truely insignificant to the whole and and our petty "sins" effect only other men and not the Creator of the universe. How petty is it for such a powerful being to really care if its pets have sex out of marriage, curse, steal something even less important etc...



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 


I have to admit, what I find both interesting and sad is in my culture (Anglo-Saxon) women have gone from being equals to being slaves..

It is sad that it has taken until the 20th century for Women to regain some of the rights an Anglo-Saxon woman of the dark ages would have taken for granted.

Certain flavours of some faiths have a lot of answer for the treatment of women in humans in general.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I really do understand why the men in ancient history would implement such a discriminate rule.

Women have the capacity of making men twist around their fingers.
How many times in history didn't women influence decisions for important heads of states.
It is no secret women are naturally attracted to men with power.

To forbid women to even speak is nothing more then a sign of men that trying prevent their own weakness from happening.

Here is the prove,

"A woman's voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative" (Talmud, Berachot 24a).


However.
If you look at women in power these days...
Angela Merkel for example. She is not really a young guys idea of sexual attraction. ( IMO )

But...
Sex sells. No matter what anyone says about it.

My personal opinion :
Woman is the source of life. The core of the family. The place to turn to for comfort and love but also leadership and guidance.

I love women and I think that our world would be a better place if women influenced direct control, without the interference of male testosteron.

But that's just me.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

But Paul had already gifted the women with the right to prophecy and pray. 11:5



Prophecy and Prayer are gifts of the Spirit that Paul did not have the authority to bestow.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
Being a slave to a man, should of course only happen if your in the mood



Touche'!


@truther1000
If what you say is true, that the "sons of God" were tempted, then shouldn't the restrictions be on THEM and not on the "object" of their temptation? Besides, there's a parable (too lazy to look up chapter and verse) in which Christ alludes to the sons of God as not marrying or being given in marriage.

Who knows if angels are ABLE to marry or reproduce but it would be rather pointless to create man "a little lower than the angels" and not give those angels the ability to have sex unless sex/sexuality is something of a "lower function" among spiritual beings such as humans and/or angels.

@stormdancer777
Since it was understood that the Christians themselves were the "church" (called out ones) then forbidding them from speaking "in the church" would be to forbid them to speak anywhere they went. I suspect the verse in Corinthians has been interpreted according to the prejudices of the time.

@thoughtsful
I think that 150 years of suffrage would go out the window in about 15 minutes in a post apocalyptic setting as "might makes right" in chaotic situations. That tidbit of human nature is probably how we got in this situation to start with. It was probably for our own good (allegedly) to order women around in order to protect them from harm. Then it just became habit over time.

I don't know-just spitballin' here. Still, I prefer to view females as being similar to a left hand. Try to get along just one day using only your right hand (if you're predominantly right-handed, of course). It can probably be done but you'll be exhausted and frustrated at the end of the day. Is your left hand "inferior" or is it just another part of your body, useful in specific ways?

@Sinter Klauss
Yes, sex sells but it sells mainly to males. On the rare occasions when I get stuck watching an advertisement I wonder what demographic those car commercials are targeting. I gotta tell ya that seeing a svelt, exotic brunette seductively hiking her skirt up as she's pivoting out of her vehicle does not inspire me to run out and trade in the SUV.


Great replies, everybody.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 



@Sinter Klauss
Yes, sex sells but it sells mainly to males. On the rare occasions when I get stuck watching an advertisement I wonder what demographic those car commercials are targeting. I gotta tell ya that seeing a svelt, exotic brunette seductively hiking her skirt up as she's pivoting out of her vehicle does not inspire me to run out and trade in the SUV.


Hi.
Klauss is spelled Klaas.


I understand your point exactly.
Did you know study shows that all men, (statistically) are dumbed down when there is a beautiful woman in the room ?
And
Men are easier spending money without first thinking over the consequences ?

Men even struck by death do to women. A heart attack or aneurysm do to a higher blood pressure driven by testosterone.

No wonder they want women to stay quite.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
With all the Bibles occurances and encouragement therein of raping women, taking their virginity, forcing marriage on them by their violators, and demanding them to submit to men, its unbelievable that any female on the entire planet can honestly believe in, or support ANY bit of that TRULY SORRY bunch of NONSENSE!!!



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 





@stormdancer777
Since it was understood that the Christians themselves were the "church" (called out ones) then forbidding them from speaking "in the church" would be to forbid them to speak anywhere they went. I suspect the verse in Corinthians has been interpreted according to the prejudices of the time.



I am sure it played a role, along with other things, I always thought Jesus and the women he surrounded himself with were interesting, and that maybe there is something more then meets the eye,

Once I spent a great deal of time compiling information about women of the Bible OT and NT, there is a pattern.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join