Religious texts are a choose your own adventure book, even for the fundamentalists that endorse the parts like that. All believers intentionally leave room for whatever they like.
There are in fact at least two alternative explanations on this: (1) Paul is issuing a general decree that in absolute terms means women must never have authority in any situation ever at any time; (2) this is a local issue specific to Israel at the time because Jews believed women shouldn’t have authority, and the Church allowing them to would bring it into disrepute, so this was fitting in with the local society. The second interpretation also ties in with Paul’s “all things to all people” teaching. Also Paul in other places specifically notes the difference between “I, not the Lord…”, and “The Lord, not I…”, and this line states “–I-- do not permit…”, suggesting this is from Paul rather than an ultimate directive from above.
Sure, but (a) that’s how exegesis works, and (b) so are you if you’re extrapolating anything beyond Paul’s statement. He cannot permit or refuse anything now because he’s dead.
some christians discount old testament for anything but historical purposes and consider jesus a new covenant. So the interpretation of that is it does not apply to the modern world.
I love JC, but words mean definitive things
There are no alternative interpretations, only self delusions to protect yourself from bigger questions
Religious texts are a choose your own adventure book, even for the fundamentalists that endorse the parts like that. All believers intentionally leave room for whatever they like.
But that wasn’t Jesus; it was Paul. Paul wrote a lot of stuff that is exactly opposite of the quotes attributed to Jesus.
There are in fact at least two alternative explanations on this: (1) Paul is issuing a general decree that in absolute terms means women must never have authority in any situation ever at any time; (2) this is a local issue specific to Israel at the time because Jews believed women shouldn’t have authority, and the Church allowing them to would bring it into disrepute, so this was fitting in with the local society. The second interpretation also ties in with Paul’s “all things to all people” teaching. Also Paul in other places specifically notes the difference between “I, not the Lord…”, and “The Lord, not I…”, and this line states “–I-- do not permit…”, suggesting this is from Paul rather than an ultimate directive from above.
youve added a whole lot of words that arent there.
Sure, but (a) that’s how exegesis works, and (b) so are you if you’re extrapolating anything beyond Paul’s statement. He cannot permit or refuse anything now because he’s dead.
some christians discount old testament for anything but historical purposes and consider jesus a new covenant. So the interpretation of that is it does not apply to the modern world.