Welcome to Gaia! ::

I've noticed that a great many people seem to like to point out where Saint Paul supposably spoke out against women in his letters. I HIGHLY disagree with this conclusion. A great majority of bible scholars agree that the verses in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 which appear to degrade and restrict women from roles in the Church appear to be a later forgery by a later Non-Pauline author, as it contradicts many other verses in his letters in favor of women, and interupts the flow of the text, among other obvious red flags. Here is some important information I've gathered on this topic from religioustolerance.org and bibletexts.com:

[Begin Quotes]

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services. It is obvious that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter* with little talent at forgery.* Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition. Since they were a later forgery*, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul. This is a very important passage, because much many denominations stand against female ordination is based on these verses.

Verses in Favor of Women in Paul's Letters:

1. In Paul's letter to the Galatians, Paul had said that in Christ, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one." (Galatians 3:2 cool

2. In Paul's letter to the Corinthians, he refers to women praying and proclaiming God's message in public worship. (1 Corinthians 11:5, see TEV)

3. In Paul's letter to the church in Ephesus (Romans, chapter 16), he recognized and introduced the woman Phoebe as not only a "deacon" (not a deaconess) but also the president of the Christian church in Cenchreae. (Romans 16:1,2)

4. In the same letter to the church in Ephesus, Paul refers to the woman Prisca and her husband Aquila as his coworkers, who also host the church at their house. (Romans 16:3-5) Earlier when he was in Ephesus writing his letters to the church in Corinth, he also had referred to the church in Ephesus as being in the home of Prisca and Aquila. (1 Corinthians 16:19)

5. In the same letter to the church in Ephesus, Paul also addressed the woman Junia and her husband Andronicus as apostles -- even as "prominent among the apostles." (Romans 16:7)

6. In the same letter to the church in Ephesus, Paul refers to Erastus as the city treasurer. (Romans 16:23) Erastus is one of the very few Christians mentioned in the New Testament of whom there is verifiable archeological evidence of their place and time. In Ephesus Erastus' pavement has been excavated, which described him as the city treasurer. At that time and place, engraved pavements were used for the same purpose that signs on the window, the door, the awning, or elsewhere on the front of today's stores and businesses. This is literally concrete proof that Romans 16 was written to the Christians in Ephesus.

7. Later Greek texts of the Western Text lineage display clear anti-women biases in modifications that were made.

1 Corinthians 14:33b ... (As in all the churches of the saints, 34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?)

(The above text is from The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version: A New Annotated Edition by the Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco, 1993, page 2160. Note also that the NRSV encloses 14:33b-36 in parentheses to characterize it as a parenthetical comment that does not fit in smoothly with the surrounding texts. The footnotes below, on 14:34-35 and 14:36, are also from The HarperCollins Study Bible.)

14:34-35 Some scholars regard the instruction for women to be silent in churches as a later, non-Pauline addition to the Letter, more in keeping with the viewpoint of the Pastoral Letters (see 1 Tim 2.11-12; Titus 2.5) than of the certainly Pauline Letters. See also Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1-6.

14:36 Some scholars include this verse in the non-Pauline addition.

1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 This self-contained section upsets the context: it interrupts the theme of prophesy and spoils the flow of thought. In content, it is in contradiction to 11:2ff, where the active participation of women in the church is presupposed. This contradiction remains even when chaps. 11 and 14 are assigned to different letters. Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. And finally, v 37 does not link up with v 36, but with v 33a. The section is accordingly to be regarded as an interpolation. Verse 36, which is hardly very clear, is meant to underline the "ecumenical" validity of the interpolation. In this regulation we have a reflection of the bourgeois consolidation of the church, roughly on the level of the Pastoral Epistles: it binds itself to the general custom. Those who defend the text as original are compelled to resort to constructions for help.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35. These verses are not a Corinthian slogan, as some have argued..., but a post-Pauline interpolation... Not only is the appeal to the law (possibly Gen 3:16) un-Pauline, but the verses contradict 11:5. The injunctions reflect the misogynism of 1 Tim 2:11-14 and probably stem from the same circle. Some mss. place these verses after 40. [Written by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P., Ibid., pages 811-812.]

1 Timothy 2:11,12. 1 Cor 14:33b-35, a probable early addition to the original text of 1 Cor, is close in language and sentiment to this text. The author of the Pastorals speaks explicitly only of women's behavior at Christian worship but may intend a more general application... [Written by Robert A. Wild, S.J., Ibid., page 897.]

Either Paul is truly inconsistent here, reacting against a threat of 'unruly' women by forbidding their verbal participation, despite what he had earlier allowed [e.g., 1Co 11:2-16, where women were understood as publicly praying and proclaiming]. Or this passage is an interpolation into the letter by a later editor, one who took the opportunity of the surrounding context to introduce the restrictive ethos of the Pastoral Letters (e.g. 1 Tim 2:8-15, part of a letter generally regarded as written by a later Paulinist, not by Paul himself). This latter option is favoured by many commentators, and it is given slight textual support by the fact that some manuscripts place verses 34-35 at the end of the chapter, rather in their present location; that might indicate that they were once a marginal gloss which was inserted by scribes a varying points in the the original text...

[End Quotes]

Gender and sex are not hte same thing. There isn't anything that is impossible for one gender or the other; genders are purely social constructs. Gender deals with all those silly associations people have about what it means to be masculine or feminine. SEX is what you are biologically by genetics and THAT is what makes certain this improbable for one sex versus the other (ie, men cannot give birth). Beyond that, not much to say. whee

I'm not going against chicks. I am a chick.


You quoted a scripture that said that men and women are one. Just think, when God made Adam, he said it was made in his own image. But it said "man and woman, he created them." He created them as one, but they were separated into male and female later. God did this so we would have a companion. He didn't want us to be lonely.

But the thing with men being the head of the household is still applied. When you marry someone, you become one with them, but according to God's mantles of authority, the husband is the head. This makes sense. You see, the Church is the wife of God, and, no matter what, the Church can't supercede God. It's impossible. When it says wives submit to your husbands, the Bible is also saying Church, submit to God. That is what I meant by the rules for women apply to men.

I also put that woman must be silent in church. Ever heard of Joyce Meyer? She is a wonderful preacher and she is funny, too. It scared my Dad because he liked her but if women are supposed to be silent in church, then I shouldn't listen to one. Then, one day, the revealed it to my Dad. Joyce Meyer mentioned her husband, and what she said about him lifted him up and acredited him to much of her success. Don't supercede your husband. God made them the head of the house for a reason.

There seem to be some problems with putting the man at the head of the household. Men are generally quicker to anger than women are. Well, that is why men need women backing them. Women can think things through with emotions other than anger. When God separated Eve from Adam, he split us perfectly so that they could work together.

When you out dating, looking for someone to be the head of your house, remember that you are looking for someone that you will become one with. If you pick the right guy (by listening for God to tell you who is right), you should fit perfectly with him.

This is the reason God says divorce is a hateful sin. When you become one with someone and you separate, well, a house divided will not stand. If your husband is the head and his legs leave him, how is he gonna stand?

WELL, WHAT IF MY HUSBAND ABUSES ME!! MENTALLY OR PHYSICALLY?!!!
Why are you marrying someone who treats you like that? If your answer is because you love him, first try to discover if he really loves (you'll know). If he doesn't, you married the wrong guy and I guess you're gonna have to commit a hateful sin to get out of that relationship. If he does, well, just think, if someone you love is hungry you give them food and it helps them. If your husband beats you leave him for a while. Don't divorce. It has become a common falacy that divorce solves all problems in a relationship. It is not true.When youleave him or even if you stay with him, get a counselor, or even call the police and send his butt to prison, if you think it'll help him. It may hurt you to help him by sending him to prison, but God doesn't say to help people only if it doesn't hurt you. He says help people. And if you truely love and respect your husband, you'll help him.

But why de men have to be at the head? Why can't they be equal?

Please don't reply to my stuff anymore. All you seem to do is harass me.

Not you! Not you! I meant that to Schildeguy, but I take that back. I think I'm taking stuff wrong.

No I like your responses. They are thoughtful, though-invoking, and respectful. Schideguy(slaughtered the name) has thought-invoking responses. I think I'm just being pissy today and taking it out on him...

HEY! Another good use for guys! You get to take out your whininess on them!