The Bible Teaches that Women can Teach Men in the Church

The statements made at 1 Cor 14:34-35 are either the true doctrine Paul preached under inspiration, or the false doctrine to which he was responding. If these words are not God's commands, then they cannot stand in this debate as legitimate Biblical evidence that women cannot teach men in church. I will quote each of the statements found in this passage and show where the Bible refutes it as false doctrine: (1)"let your women keep SILENCE in the churches," (2)"for it is not permitted unto them to SPEAK," These words are not just saying that women shouldn't teach men, these words are saying very bluntly that women are not supposed to speak in church AT ALL! It commands women to be SILENT, you are not to hear their voice. Why? Cause Adam was formed first? No. Cause the woman was deceived but Adam wasn't? No. Because women shouldn't teach men? No. What is the reason given? (3)"for it is a SHAME for women to SPEAK in the church." Now I sincerely hope with all my heart that Con doesn't really believe this! I hope he doesn't believe it is a SHAME for a woman's voice to be heard in the congregation. Note how the Bible disagrees with this false belief: "Every woman that prayeth or prophesyeth…" (1 Cor 11:5) My opponent conceded that women can rightfully pray and prophesy. He said in round 3 "I am not contesting that women can pray or prophesy." 1 Cor 14:4 says "he that prphesieth edifieth the church," which means that such prophesying by women is done publicly and would require for them to both "SPEAK in the church" and to be heard. If it were such a shame for a woman to speak in the church, why would God allow them to both pray and prophesy publicly, which requires them to disobey the command at 1 Cor 14:34-35 to keep SILENT and not to SPEAK in the church? Paul went on to say in 1 Cor 14:5 that he wanted ALL Christians there to speak in tongues but preferred that they prophesied, so he wanted ALL (including women) to prophesy, which requires SPEAKING in the church. This proves it is not a shame for a woman to speak in the church; if it were, Paul would not be saying under inspiration that he preferred it. So Con is in fact using a false belief (that women should be seen and not heard in the body of Christ) as proof that they cannot teach men! But the false doctrine also says: (4)"as also saith the law." So the Corinthians in their letter to Paul (1 Cor 7:1) were claiming that the law had said this. No wonder why Paul said, "What?" He was well acquainted with the law and knew that it never said such a thing. I challenge my opponent to find one verse in the law that commands "women [to] keep silence in the churchces," or says "it is not permitted unto them to speak." Since the law never said this, we know this is a false teaching! The falsehood continues: (5)"And if they will learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." This is very demeaning to women; it clearly implies that if after hearing a sermon and a woman has a question, she isn't even allowed to ask the pastor elder for clarification, but has to wait till she gets home to ask her husband because she isn't allowed to utter a word while at church. What if her husband is an unbeliever? Or what if he's a new believer and doesn't know the answer to the deeper things that were discussed on that occasion? This is so unfair, so unjust, but I guess Con doesn't mind because as far as he is concerned, God is an unfair God as well !?! I urge Con to see that the passage at 1 Cor 14:34-35 is teaching something far worse than just ‘women shouldn't teach men in church,' it is saying very plainly that women shouldn't be heard in church at all! If Con disagrees with the idea of women being totally silent in church, then he disagrees with this passage and should not be using it as evidence that women should not teach men, or as evidence of any Bible teaching. This is clearly a falsehood Paul was trying to correct! On 1 Tim 2:9-15 Con says: "the passage about "her" being "saved through child birth" refers to Eve (and consequently Adam and all of humanity) being saved by childbearing... which would eventually lead to Christ the savior." Notice the future tense "she SHALL be saved in chilbearing" if "they CONTINUE (meinosin) in faith." This is not worded as a historical account of how childbearing lead to salvation, but is telling what will become of women who follow the advice Paul is giving to them in 1 Tim 2:9-15. (1)It can't refer to Adam and Eve because since they were long dead, the "IF they continue in faith" could not apply to them; Christians in Paul's day would already have made up their minds regarding whether or not Adam and Eve ever repented and were saved by Christ's blood. The "IF" could only apply to those alive in Paul's day or future generations whose final fate has not been sealed in death. Since Eve was dead there was no point saying "she SHALL be saved" as if she was still alive but sill in her sins awaiting salvation in Paul's time. (2)It can't mean Adam and all humanity because only "SHE," the woman, is said to be saved in childbearing, not the man. Men don't bear children. (3)Paul would not tell women or even all humanity they would be saved through childbearing which leads to the Messiah because since the Messiah had already come, any childbearing after that point would no longer have any bearing on salvation. (4)It's impossible that women in general or all humankind leading up to Christ could be saved from sin by childbearing for the simple reason that most lineages would not lead to the Messiah anyway. So most women having children had no bearing on the Messiah, only a certain line, so this cannot be applied across the board. Considering these points, it is clear that Paul was not speaking about salvation from sin at all. Paul was simply saying that she would be "saved," that is, "kept safe, secure" in her relationship with the man through childbearing, which would strengthen their bond provided that both of them ("THEY") "continue in faith, and love, holiness, etc." "Finally, my opponent seeks to connect the teaching in 1 Tim 2:9-15 to the family. However, the letter written to Timothy is explicitly instructions on the Church." Con seems to be saying that if the purpose of the letter is instruction to the church, it cannot mention anything other than that (ie, instruction on family life); this would be like saying that since 1 Tim 3 lists the qualifications to leaders in the church that it should not mention women, yet, it does mention women right in the middle of the qualifications for deacons. (1 Tim 3:11; see context vss 8-13). In this same letter he instructs on the relationship between slaves and their masters (1 Tim 6:1-2), and the love of money. (6:8-10, 17). What he needs to realize is that while Paul was giving Timothy instructions for the church, this instruction touches various aspects of their lives. What is preached from the pulpit is not always about what you do in the walls of a building for worship, but also about what you do at home, work and play. He even says, "Cross Reference this with the letter to the Ephesians which explicitly teaches about how to run a household." Isn't Ephesians instruction for the church just like 1Timothy? (Eph 1:1; 4:1-12) 1 Tim 2:11-15 references when Adam and Eve were formed, at that time the family, not the church, came into existence. Jesus said "upon this rock I WILL build my church" (Matt 16:18), showing that he was yet to establish the Christian church as an organized body. This church is not mentioned at 1 Tim 2:9-15, rather, the family is, the first human family where the man is head of his wife. Childbearing is not a religious practice and is a family matter. This has been an enjoyable debate and I'm not even sure that I won. Thanks for presented the other side. Bless U