Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

I realised I should be clear what the question is:

eh -who are the 'your women' Paul is referring to?

Cheers,
Shafique

Women who chit-chat during mass.

event horizon wrote:Women who chit-chat during mass.

So women who chit chat in mass should shut up and only learn from their husbands.

Cool - but I couldn't see where this interpretation comes from - did you just make this up?

But the problem in your novel interpretation is that Paul actually says 'Your women' ... so who was he addressing (was it only men whose women chit chatted?)

Interesting that the Bible tells the men to tell their women to shut up and doesn't tell the women 'look chatterers, shut up'.


Cheers,
Shafique

bump for 'eh' - I'm sure he's busy looking up references for Banu Nadhir etc, but this question came first..

If the question is unclear, please let me know eh - but I'm struggling to make it simpler:

'who are the men being addressed by Paul when he tells them to keep their women ('your women' he says) quiet in church and to tell them to only learn from their husbands at home if they don't understand something'?

The operative word here is 'who'.

Does it apply to all men whose women 'chat in church'?

(We can then move on to another contradiction in the NT once we've got an explanation from eh why this one isn't a contradiction)

Cheers,
Shafique

C'mon 'eh', which men did Paul mean when he said 'Your women'... should not speak in Church?

Cheers,
Shafique

Here's my personal opinion:

You think that 9.29 applies to all Jews and Christians - right or wrong?

You are arguing that the other Quranic verses on warfare and how to live with Jews and Christians contradict this interpretation of yours - right? (This is the 'contradiction' you have made in your first point.

I agree with your argument - the other Quranic verses do indeed contradict your interpretation. So where's the argument now?

Are you now saying the Quran does not contain a contradiction?

I totally agree that for there not to be a contradiction, my interpretation of 9.29 requires that the verse only apply to the non-Muslims who fulfil the criteria laid out in other verses of Chapter 9 and the other verses laid out in the previous posts - but you are arguing that there is a contradiction.

Please make up your mind - my interpretation of 9.29 etc means there isn't a contradiction, but your interpretation is contradicted by other verses. Can we at least agree on that - I will concede you think your interpretation is right and you think we're all wrong to interpret 9.29 as we do. One of us is 'seeing' the elephant as a snake - but only one set of arguments leads to the accusation of a 'contradiction'.

I hope I haven't confused you with the logical conclusion of your argument - if so, let me know and I'll try and simplify it for you.

'eh' - you appear to be confusing threads - the questioned which you are not answering is:

shafique wrote:C'mon 'eh', which men did Paul mean when he said 'Your women'... should not speak in Church?

I'm patiently waiting for the answer before moving on to the next contradiction in the NT.

(The question about 9.29 etc is asking me to confirm/deny your interpretation of the verses - this is dealt with in the other thread - and the question is moot - however you wish to interpret these verses, we both agree that God contradicts your interpretations in other verses - hence why you've been arguing the Quran contains contradictions to your views)

Cheers,
Shafique

'eh' spoke about the contradictions in the NT in his 'contradictions' in the Quran thread - so I thought I'd remind him that the thread about the contradictions in the NT is here, and he still needs to explain who is being referred to in this verse - which he believes is original (and scholars such as Kung say is a fabricated addition):

1 Corinthians:
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Who are the men being addressed?

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique, I agree with you that your interpretation of the New Testament contradicts with what the New Testament says about women speaking, holding positions of authority within the church, etc,.

What I am saying is that you are correct in saying that the Christian reading of I Corinthians 14:34 is complimentary, not contradictory.

But this thread is about contradictions, do you still maintain the New Testament contains contradictions or not?

So you don't know who Paul was addressing and yet you disagree with Kung who says this was a later fabrication. You could have just said so and saved me asking you so many times the question.

But I agree with you - at the end of the day, you don't see any contradiction between the verses which say women should shut up in church and the ones who say women were deacons.


Scholars like Kung seem to share my view that these are obviously contradictions - but I agree that you don't see a contradiction. I'm sure you think you are right - despite not being able to answer the question 'who' the men in this verse.

So the answer to your question is, yes, the NT obviously has contradictions in it - even your expert says so - but it appears that in your world 'shutting up' is not a contradiction to 'deacons in church'.

Thanks for making this clear.

Do you want us to move to the next contradiction, or is your argument going to be the 'ostrich defence' again?


Cheers,
Shafique

Actually, I think I'll let 'eh' choose the next contradiction to explain.

Here's a list of some them:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#references


We'll take is as read that 'eh' doesn't have an answer to the simple question, 'who was Paul referring to' when he said 'your women'.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:So you don't know who Paul was addressing and yet you disagree with Kung who says this was a later fabrication. You could have just said so and saved me asking you so many times the question.

But I agree with you - at the end of the day, you don't see any contradiction between the verses which say women should shut up in church and the ones who say women were deacons.


Scholars like Kung seem to share my view that these are obviously contradictions - but I agree that you don't see a contradiction. I'm sure you think you are right - despite not being able to answer the question 'who' the men in this verse.

So the answer to your question is, yes, the NT obviously has contradictions in it - even your expert says so - but it appears that in your world 'shutting up' is not a contradiction to 'deacons in church'.

Thanks for making this clear.

Do you want us to move to the next contradiction, or is your argument going to be the 'ostrich defence' again?


Cheers,
Shafique

Yes, I agree the passages of women who were promoted to deacons, teachers and evangelists under Paul was first pointed out to you another thread.

What I have said now, is that these passages, along with a passage which Paul writes of women prophesying in church a few passages prior to I Cor 14, are seen as complimentary to the command that woman should not speak in the church.

Obviously, when read in toto with the rest of the NT and I Cor, the speaking that is being prohibited is of the chit-chatting type since women can already speak in mass if it's part of the worship and women were deacons, etc.

It's interesting that you continue to cite Kung, perhaps you have not read your own thread of the fallacy of citing a name and believing the argument is now over?

event horizon wrote:Yes, I agree the passages of women who were promoted to deacons, teachers and evangelists under Paul was first pointed out to you another thread.

Yes, I said there were contradictory passages in the Bible and that most Christians ignored the misogynistic passages which Kung says were later fabrications.

We're not debating whether the Bible also says women should speak in Church (this is a given) - but whether the passage in question saying women should shut up is a contradiction or not.

You seem to be saying that the verse, whilst opposite in meaning, is not a contradiction.

Yet you also seem unable to answer the question who Paul was addressing?

event horizon wrote:Obviously, when read in toto with the rest of the NT and I Cor, the speaking that is being prohibited is of the chit-chatting type since women can already speak in mass if it's part of the worship and women were deacons, etc.

So, still waiting to hear who is being addressed - is only men whose women chit chat?

event horizon wrote:It's interesting that you continue to cite Kung, perhaps you have not read your own thread of the fallacy of citing a name and believing the argument is now over?

I quoted Kung saying this verse was a later fabrication by misogynistic Pauline Christians - did I misunderstand what I quoted? He made the point that the Bible was written/doctored by the Pauline Christian 'victors' - and he made this point in the book which you quoted from. Let me thank you again for the reference.

Thank you.

Cheers,
Shafique

So, still waiting to hear who is being addressed - is only men whose women chit chat?

What confused you about the last few times I answered your question above? Was it the fact that other verses in the NT do indeed clarify I Cor 14:34 or are you still confused about something else, i.e., that the NT contradicts your view of I Cor 14:34?

Anyway, I'm glad you don't disagree with my previous post, I agree that the NT contradicts your interpretation of I Cor 14:34. If we agree that the NT contradicts your view of the verse, what else is there to discuss?

What confused me was the silence when I asked who the men Paul was addressing when he said 'your women' must stay silent in church and only learn from their husbands.

Your answer that it was referring to women who chit-chat in church was perplexing - and I assumed that you had some basis for this leap of imagination, and was waiting for the explanation.

However, all you seem to be saying is that the other verses DO contradict this verse - but you can't bring yourself to admitting this (or the fact that Kung et al say this verse was a fabricated later addition).

Happy to answer any more questions you may have - I suspect you will continue to avoid answering my straightforward questions. Ostrich defence indeed.

Cheers,
Shafique

I totally agree. You do not seem to understand what has been posted about I Cor 14:34 - but in the end - we agree that the NT contradicts your interpretation of I Cor 14:34, which is the point you made in the first post here.

Have you now changed your mind?

Cool - great.

So, Kung and I agree there is a contradiction in the Bible relating to whether women should speak in church, and you disagree with us.

No probs - we'll gloss over the fact you still refuse to answer who is being addressed in this verse (which Kung says is a fabrication).

Do you want to address the other contradictions in the link I gave now?

cheers,
Shafique

Actually, I agree with you that your interpretation of I Cor is contradicted by other verses of the NT.

I'd hate to think how much you'd post if I disagreed with you on this point!

Well, I've never denied that the Bible contains contradictions - so it is strange that you ask whether I've changed my mind on the subject, especially as you've quoted Biblical scholars who say it is a contradiction and that this misogynistic verse was a later fabrication.

I totally agree that Christians need to explain the contradiction with other verses - and have sympathy for the view that it was inserted by incompetent forgers (again from a quote you gave).

And let us not lose sight of the fact that I've always said, we must choose what verses of the Bible to follow and which to ignore.

Can you tell me when you follow this verse? Do you tell your women to shut up?

1 Corinthians:
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

'For it is a shame for women to speak in Church'

Cheers,
Shafique

It is a shame for women to chit-chat during mass.

It's not a shame for women to prophecy during mass, it's not a shame for women to conduct service in mass, etc,.

If you read the New Testament wholly, it becomes clear in that verse what type of speaking is not allowed.

Context, dear shafique, context.

^Thanks - I guess you'll be writing to Prof Kung to tell him he is wrong then.



How could we have been soooo stupid - now you've clarified it, of course there isn't a contradiction.

How enlightening for the Bible to say:
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home

Cheers,
Shafique

bump for eh - he seems to be developing another one of his false memories, thinking he gave an explanation for why this contradiction isn't a contradiction, when in fact he hasn't explained which men Paul was addressing in this fabricated and contradictory verse (according to Kung).

I don't expect eh to answer, as he patently does not have an answer - but I just want to remind him that he hasn't answered the questions.

Perversely, we agree with him that the Quran contradicts his spin on verses 9.29 etc - and that may be what is confusing him, that someone agrees with him!

Cheers,
Shafique

I wouldn't call your argument about the contradiction in the NT 'funny' - just plain wierd. "Its not a contradiction, because I don't believe it is a contradiction - but the meaning is contradicted by the other verses"

As for whether the Quran contradicts your interpretation of 9.29 - as I've said, I agree with you. Why the insistence that I re-supply you with the quotes I gave 2 weeks ago?

Is it because you can't accept I agree with you?

Cheers,
Shafique

^ I see that eh-oh is having trouble with the quote function. So sad.


I presume you are trying to use the same argument I've used for your thread - that you now agree that the Bible contains contradictions if we interpret:
'Don't speak in Church' as 'don't speak in church'.


But as I said in my previous post above, I don't expect you have an answer to the simple question - who are the men Paul is addressing when he says 'your women' ... should only learn at home from husbands etc. (Which, comes to think of it, begs the questions about the unmarried/widowed/divorced women - do they just not get to learn at all????)

Cheers,
Shafique

eh requested I produce references from (more) theologians to back up what Kung is quoted as saying about the insertion of mysogynistic verses into the NT.

Let me therefore add one more reference (more can be added if required - but eh, can work on this one for now).


Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P.:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are not a Corinthian slogan, as some have argued…, but a post-Pauline interpolation…. Not only is the appeal to the law (possibly Genesis 3:16) un-Pauline, but the verses contradict 1 Corinthians 11:5. The injunctions reflect the misogyny of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and probably stem from the same circle.

New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J, and Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990, pages 811-812)

So not only does this theologian say the verses are contradictory (obviously they are), but that they are forgeries.

I trust this is an adequate reference for you eh - if not, let me know, I have others - but the Good Father is a leading authority on Paul:

Jerome Murphy-O'Connor is Professor of New Testament at the Ecole Biblique et Archeologique Francaise in Jerusalem and a leading authority on the historical Jesus and Saint Paul. His other publications include Paul: A Critical Life and Paul, His Story .


Cheers,
Shafique

So, eh states in another thread that the information I'm posting above is 'well known' - which was my contention all along - it is a well known fact that the Bible contains verses inserted by Pauline Christians and falsely attributed to various authors, and that these inserted verses are in support of Pauline Christian theology and version of history, and (in this case) contradict other verses.

As O'Conner states above, the misogynistic views of later Pauline Christians led them to insert the above verses and attribute them to Paul.

This contrasts with the earlier official Church view that what the Bible says is true and that the authorship is not to be questioned. There are some that still believe in this - but precious few who have actually studied the evidence (such as O'Conner, Kung) still believe in this.

Of late, I've noticed a trend in eh-oh to go for ad hominem attacks (attack me rather than message) - so this quote from NN Taleb resonated with me:

An ad hominem attack against an intellectual, not against an idea, is highly flattering. It indicates that the person has nothing intelligent to say about your message.

NN Taleb, The Black Swan, pg280

As well as this snippet from pg 279:

..so you become numb to insults, particularly if you teach yourself to imagine that the person uttering them is a variant of a noisy ape with little personal control.

Cheers,
Shafique

Dear Shafique "May Allah bless you in this world & hereafter"

Where have I attacked you, shafique? I've questioned your reading ability, as you have mine, but that isn't a horrible attack.

You've been unable to state where you come to your conclusions. I suspect this is because you simply make them up or read them off of a certain missionary website you've cribbed talking points off of.

So, which source have you read that states the apostles were distrustful of Paul's missionary work?

I'll also laugh at what you say is the official church view of this or that.

You haven't read very much about Christian history and this shows when you claimed that the church historians always believed that the second epistle attributed to Peter was never questioned based on its authorship.

I know you want to believe that my views are not based on an examination of the historical material and scholarly works - no issues with you wanting to hold that belief. Questioning whether I can read is an ad hominem attack, especially when I have quoted O'Conner above categorically contradicting your view on this contradictory verse of the NT.

The quote is from a book about the compilation of the Bible - so is highly relevant. O'Conner is both a priest (a Dominican Monk) and a leading authority on the 'historical' Paul - having written two books on the subject.

This thread is about one contradiction in the NT - one you disagree with Father O'Conner, Hans Kung etc. It is a quaint view that the NT contains no contradictions, but appears to be based solely on a pre-Medieval view of the Bible and certainly not based on modern Christian/Biblical scholarship.


I take it you now have to agree that my statements that the Bible has both contradicitons and fabricated verses inserted by Pauline Christians is based on actual evidence rather than blind faith.


Cheers,
Shafique