Cheryl Schatz

Jeremy,

You asked:

How does someone even change that author, and how does Google make the author be contrary to what I have listed as ME as the author on my page?

I don’t know, you tell me.  If you want I can email you the alert sent to me.

Check out my page and you will see my picture. I have used Matt Slick’s name, email, site, etc to let others know of contacting or calling him since he is a great apologist, but other than that my blog should have my authorship, other than quoting other apologists and sharing their work with others.

On posts there should always be a name of a person who wrote the post.  You can see on my posts that I am listed as the author.  There is no author listed on your posts except for the author that is listed in Google alerts.  It may be your blog, but the authorship of this article is not listed to you in the alerts.

Jeremy,

Actually I am very aware of the “unnamed person”.  I would suggest you read the link I posted to a statement that I have made.  This person is clearly a mentor for you on your post and I have already refuted him on many posts here on this blog.  He has not answered the refutations nor will he allow me back on his radio show.  The section on women in ministry on the site that you link to is about half of it dedicated to “trying” to refute me.  He doesn’t do a very good job as there are many holes in his arguments that he has never answered and likely never will be able to answer.  As far as the article that is on your blog, I picked only one area to refute.

I would also recommend you get a copy of my DVD so you can see the material that this “unnamed author” has not refuted.  In fact he now claims that he has never watched the DVD set, although it was in his possession for two years, and that is why he doesn’t refute it.  I have copies of emails sent to me from two years ago that discuss the contents so we will let his recent claims be judged against that.

You can also see clips of the DVDs at http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22cheryl+schatz%22&search_type=&aq=f

There are six clips there about 6 minutes each.

I have no problem in discussing this issue in depth.  I would highly recommend you get a copy of the DVD because the exegesis and refutation is in the series and I just don’t have time to present in writing the same information that I carefully documented in the DVD.  Once you have viewed the material, I would be very happy to discuss it with you.  I am willing to answer questions and discuss over email or on this blog.  But it is best to have the person trying to debate me familiar with the evidence and the argument so there is an argument from knowledge.

I hope that helps!

Jeremy,

The blog update came through as:

Google Blogs Alert for: “matt slick”

A Deeper Look Into: 1 Timothy 2:12
By [carmradio@ymail.com](mailto:carmradio@ymail.com) (Matt Slick)
Different Stances on 1 Timothy 2:12 Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:12, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet,” seem to stir up a lot of emotion among the Christian faith. …
Innovation Apologetics Research – http://innovationapologetics.blogspot.com/

This clearly comes through as written by someone other than yourself.  Perhaps you can explain why google alerts lists someone else as the author and gives someone else’s email address as the email address of the author.  I did notice that you have CARM as a sponsor.  Obviously there is something more than meets the eye, eh?

Don,

Great points!

Scripture does talk about teaching with authority in 1 Peter 4:10, 11.  Note the authority is from God himself to teach as speaking the oracles of God himself.  Is this authority to be final so that the listener may not question the one teaching “with authority”?  No, not at all.  Even Paul said that his own teachings were subject to be tested by the scriptures by those listening to him.  Paul commended the Bereans for testing even Paul’s own authoritative teachings.  They checked him out with the scriptures.  1 Peter 4:10, 11 is not given for men alone, but for everyone gifted by God.

So what does this “unnamed” mentor of the blog author mean by “teaching with authority”?  He has stated on his radio show that a woman can use his material to teach men.  So, in essence, a woman can say this man says such and such about this bible passage.  But what he does not allow her to state that “God says…”  She cannot definitely state that God says… or God means this… and you must obey the word of God, because that would be, in his eyes, teaching with authority. Men are supposedly the only ones who can authoritatively say “God says..”

This “unnamed person” also teaches about the authority of the pulpit.  What he fails to tell people is that there is no such thing in scripture as a “pulpit”.  There is no such authority given to a piece of furniture or to people who stand behind this piece of furniture.  The only authority that is given resides in the gifts of God.  And even that authority is subject to testing against scripture.  We are all required to test and we are all required to hold fast to what is true.

Paula, you are right in that there are no levels of authority beyond scripture.  Although those gifted to speak are given the authority to speak as if they are speaking the very oracles of God, their authority is to speak and it is not an authority over another person.  This is why their words are to be tested by scripture.  Their authority to speak forth God’s word only exists while their words align with scripture.

By the way, I added a short audio clip to the post above that has the “unnamed mentor” of the blog author denying that quiet means silence.  What he stated so confidently a year ago is now taken and measured against his own position.

Even if we went with stereotypes we would have to make a point that men and women are truly “complementary” and we need each other.  We are good at some things that men typically aren’t, and vice-versa.  Having both men and women teachers brings a well-rounded view.

However dismissing an argument by attributing it to emotionalism is frankly a non-argument and as Paula said, in essence the person is admitting they have no answer.  I don’t like to win by default, and I tend to like to win by winning the person over not just winning the argument.  But I do have to agree that a non-argument in the form of an attack on one’s character, gives the win to the other person by default.

A logical fallacy it certainly is.  I also see it as a “thought-stopper”.  If one charges another with a “name”, one then doesn’t have to think about the points that the person has brought up.  A better way is to respond with a logical answer, respectfully ignoring the things that the person is saying that “appears” to cloud their judgment.  That isn’t being done.  In fact there is no answer to my questions.  I have pointed that out in the past but there are no answers forthcoming.  So it appears to me that the game-plan is to shut down the opposition by calling them a _____ (fill in the blank) and then no further answer is needed.  It is an attack on the man (ad hominem).

So what is the easiest way to shut down the ad hominem?  How do you turn things back to the argument and away from the person?

Thoughts?

Light,

I do not understand the thinking of hierarchists and how they reason that attempting to lord it over a person either directly or through others has anything to do with our mandate from Jesus.  We are all brethren and we have only one Lord and Master and that is Jesus.

Thank you for your prayers!  I sincerely appreciate all those who stand with me in prayer as I continue to work out my own calling and I resist the demands to stop my work on women in ministry.

Thanks Don, especially for that last verse in Psalm 59.  The Lord indeed is good and he is my stronghold.  He bids me to keep my eye on all the good that has happened and the increase in my ministry that has happened just since August.  Praise the Lord!  What a wonderful way this Psalm ends after discussing the attacks of those out to destroy David.  I also love verse 16 which contrasts the unsatisfying way of those who plot evil…and David says “But as for me, I will sing of Your strength…”  I definitely need to remember that I am a “But as for me…” kind of person who sees God’s hand bringing good out of evil.

I will be having much more to say about 1 Cor 14.  However you are the best chiasm guy around.  I would be honored if you would present it and if you would like to have it as a post, email it to me and I will set it up as a guest post.

I have made myself unavailable to be harassed.  I cannot be reached for harassment through emails sent to my Pastor or emails sent to my ministry partners.  These emails will not be responded to and will no longer even be read.  I will not take down my biblical refutation of the hierarchical view of women in ministry.   I cannot be controlled or threatened or blackmailed to stop my work supporting women in ministry.  If people view me as a special threat because of my well thought out arguments presented in my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” and they think that I will be too persuasive and influence a good portion of the church, then they need to stick to trying to refute me instead of attacking the messenger and trying to destroy my ministry.  It has been well-noted that the ones attacking me have not responded to my refutation of their position.  Turning a debate about secondary issues of faith into a personal attack instead of focused on the issue usually shows a weak argument.  I would encourage all who seek to contradict the view that women can teach the bible for the common good, to focus on the issue, love the body of Christ who do not believe as you do, and do not consider ripping at the sheep to be a solution to this problem.  If we really belong to Christ, we need to concentrate on loving the brethren and doing the work that God has called us to.  Anything else is a distraction and unproductive.  And we will give an account of our actions in the end because God is the one who is the judge of the motives of the heart, not us.

Oh and Cindy, it looks like you aren’t too much late on Wade’s blog as there are still comments after yours and yours was very well taken.  Good job!

Cindy,

Thanks for listing the areas that a religious group can be a cult without having false doctrine.  I am sure this will be helpful for many.

Frank,

It is amazing that proof can be carefully presented that the scriptures release women to serve in their God-given gifts and that the difficult passages read in context do not contradict this view, yet people will still turn a blind eye because man’s tradition has become a powerful attraction rather than wrestling with the “not so clear” passages of scripture.

Frank, you mentioned on a previous comment on another post that Dr. Robert K. Wright recommended this blog to you.  I believe that I failed to mention at that time, that Dr. Wright has been very encouraging to me and very supportive of my ministry especially regarding my work on women in ministry.  I am eternally grateful for the men who have valued my work and supported me.  Dr. Jon Zens is another one of those brothers in Christ who has been extremely supportive of my work.  I really trust that God has a special crown in heaven for you precious men who risk your necks to support, affirm and stand alongside women in ministry.  It is a tough battle to be heard because of the prejudice in the church against women who teach the bible for the benefit of both men and women.  I value everyone who supports this work and who has given words of encouragement to me.  But these days I am in awe of men who are not silent on this issue.  Thank God for my brothers in Christ!!

I haven’t read the 10 Lies book but it is good to see that the Greek matches what I have been saying.  In my DVD I quote Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon and also the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider.  Thayer’s says this about the “n” that it is “before a sentence contrary to the one just preceeding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted, the other must stand” and Thayer’s lists 1 Cor. 14:36 as an example of this.  The Exegetical Dictionary says that the “n” is “used frequently to introduce rhetorical questions to which a negative answer is expected” and it lists 1 Cor. 14:36 as such an example of this.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Greek construction has Paul refuting was has just proceeded verse 36 and the only way this could be logical is that Paul is not refuting himself but a quote from the Corinthians.

Yes, I second that!  Christians who take the time to research and test issues and test the scripture and ancient manuscripts are very much appreciated here!

gengwall, tiro and Don,

Thanks for giving the information that you have on these manuscripts.  I have not done the research myself and it is good to know.

I am certain that the accents and punctuation of the later versions can be helpful. I just do not believe that they are necessary to understand the text.  The grammar of 1 Cor. 14:36 is specific enough to allow us to understand that verses 34 & 35 are a quotation that Paul is refuting.  Is part of verse 33 part of that quotation?  Many are convinced that it is.  I think it probably is too but I am not convinced that it makes a difference either way.  Not yet, anyway.  Having an accent in verse 33 that would further identify that the quotation started there is also helpful but without it the quotation is identified already because of the way that verse 36 is written.

I have not studied the versions with the accents, so what I say about them should not be taken as anything more than just my own opinion.  I do not know for sure if these same accented manuscripts made Junia into a male name.  If that is true, then the accents should be treated as a human addition that can be very helpful but may also skew the text into an interpretation instead of a translation.  A person’s interpretation put into the text is not helpful in my opinion.  I believe this is why 1 Cor. 11 has been so difficult to understand for so long.  When one adds “a symbol of” in 1 Cor. 11:10 when the words are not there in the original and the added words change the meaning of the text, it is clear that interpretation needs to be left out of the business of translation so that difficult passages can be wrestled with, without an unfair influence of the translator regarding the meaning of scripture.

So as regards to an accented text, would it be helpful?  Absolutely, I am sure it would.  Is it necessary to understand the meaning of the passage?  I don’t think it is necessary.  God has left a witness to us with the inspired words and the inspired grammar in an inspired context.  That I know for sure.  The other I will consider and appreciate and I can even value it.  I am not convinced it is more than that at this point.

I do appreciate God’s Holy Spirit who is the most important factor in understanding God’s inspired words.  His work in our hearts to open the word is very important and I do not take that work lightly.  But still we are to struggle with the text and to study to show ourselves approved unto God a workman that does not need to be ashamed.  I trust that all of us are on the path way to be that kind of workman.

Yes, the issue of capitals doesn’t work because of the way the originals were written in all caps.  It is also my understanding that the accents were also not in the oldest manuscripts so that would appear to be a later addition, although helpful, it doesn’t appear to be inspired.

gengwall,

I agree with you in that I am not saying that the term “but” means that a quotation is referenced.  It is only when “but” presents a contrary view to what was just presented that we can consider that Paul is referencing a quote.  This is where 1 Corinthians 10:23 is shown to be presenting a contrary view.  The ESV, NET, NIV, NRSV are some of the versions that put quotation marks in this verse as referencing a quotation of the Corinthians.  The Montgomery Centenary Translation of the New Testament also has quotation marks around verses 34 & 35 including the ending of verse 33.

In my DVD I bring up a quotation of Sir William Ramsay who says “We should be ready to suspect 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.”

This also appears to be the case in 1 Cor. 7:1 where the ESV and the NET bible also put the quotation marks indicating that Paul is referencing a position quoted from the Corinthians.  Again we see the word “but” in 1 Cor. 7:2, but again “but” means nothing aside for the fact that verse 2 appears to contradict a position quoted in verse 1.

In 1 Cor. 14 the quotation is not marked with a “but”.  It is marked with the Greek word “n”.  It also is a strong indication that Paul is refuting the position just quoted in verses 34 & 35.  Again, in my DVD I go through all of the documentation proving that it is impossible for verses 34 & 35 to be Paul’s position since the inspired wording of verse 36 is grammatically set up as a refutation.  What is verse 36 refuting? It cannot be that Paul is refuting some imaginery reaction to verses 34 & 35 that he thinks that Corinthians would give when they read Paul’s words.  The documentation I give shows that the inspired wording must set verse 36 as a marked contrast to what had just been quoted.  This is also a very important reason why verse 36 must be kept in its position.  Some manuscripts have this verse at the very end of the chapter but this cannot be.  Verse 36 is very carefully worded as a refutation and if is removed from its position, there is nothing to refute.

As far as 1 Cor. 11 I am not convinced at all that there is a quotation in the passage.  I see no marked contrast in the passage and no carefully worded refutation of a position.  I have exegeted this passage in my DVD to show that it can be demonstrated that the entire passage is Paul’s words in answer to questions about women, headcoverings and hair and Paul uses this as an opportunity to preach our dependence on each other and that God is the ultimate source of all things so that neither male nor female is lifted up as being more important than the other.

Paul also points to customs that can be respected but should not override our loyalty to Christ and the honor due him.  Any custom that dishonors Christ must be abandoned and any custom that separates believers also should not be held onto.

Lin,

Sarcasm definitely has its place in revealing truth.  It is hard to see how the SBC doesn’t get it.  Why the fear regarding even mentioning that there are women pastors?  And why inactivity when an issue is serious like the issue of predators in the pulpit?

It is a lesson to all of us that we need to be cautious that a personal agenda does not blind us.

I am not comfortable at all with milieu control.  It appears to take the form of “lording” it over others not giving them opportunity to learn to discern truth.  Truth has to be discerned for you.  That is what the cults do and it makes me shiver at how some have used it to control and manipulate information.  This is why I do not have a problem here of linking to an article that I am refuting.  If what I am doing by my refutation is fair and is not just knocking down a “straw man”, then it will be seen by referring to the original.  Those who want to manipulate and control people’s opinion have a great fear of letting people see the other side.  When both sides are presented side by side, the control is not there.  If I have misrepresented someone’s teaching, I deserve to be corrected in gentleness and love.  I would expect that others would appreciate a correction on their view too.  The bottom line is that we should not fear people from seeing both sides.

Don,

Do you see these verses as something that Paul is agreeing with or disagreeing with?   Also why do you not also consider verse 7 as a quote from Corinth?

The issue of men’s head covering is that it did not have a double meaning.  There was one cultural meaning alone and that meaning shamed Christ.  It is rare to find this meaning discussed as you said.

The issue of forbidding men to cover was not sexist because the only reason for covering during prayer and prophesying was because of the shame of their sin.  Since Christ died to take away our shame, anything that put the emphasis on a continuing shame was demeaning to Christ.  If our cultural traditions demean Christ, then they have to go, no doubt about that.

On the other hand, the meaning of the head covering was two-fold for women.  Not only did the covering indicate a shame for sin, but it also indicated a covering over of personal shame because the hair of a married woman was considered to be a private area.  Just as her intimate private parts would cause shame to her husband if she was publicly exposed, so too would her uncovering of her hair cause him public shame.  If she uncovered, she would shame her husband.  If she kept covered for the sake of the cultural mandate to cover one’s sin while approaching God, then she shamed Christ who died to take away her shame.  It was a precarious dilemma for the married woman especially if her husband was not yet a Christian and was still holding to the cultural view of shame.

Understanding culture and cultural shame is a necessity to understand 1 Cor. 11 and understanding the cultural laws of the Jews is important to understand 1 Cor. 14.  These indeed are two of the very difficult passages for our time as our culture views shame, head covering and women’s voices very differently than the people living in Paul’s day.

I have seen some blogs/web sites/discussion boards that claim to be Christian and they delight in abusing those who do not believe the same way as they do on secondary issues.  I am thoroughly amazed by this.  We are told in scripture that we are to strive together for peace.  We are commanded to show love for one another by none other than Jesus Christ himself.  In fact John wrote that the love of the brethren that we are commanded to show is proof that we are truly born again.

1 John 3:14, 15, 18 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him…Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

The truth of the matter is that no one can see our heart.  We alone need to judge whether there is love within us.  But others can see the fruit of our heart by our deeds.  Those who rip at the sheep and take pleasure in hurting other Christians, calling them heretics and deceivers for merely having a different secondary doctrine of faith are in danger.  These are not acts of love.  I have personally seen many hurt, many called names and many dismissed as if they are the scum of the earth by none other than those who state that they are Christians.  What I have also seen is the love of Christ coming through the ones who have been called horrible names.  I have seen them respond in humility, return respect for the anger and disrespect leveled at them, and generally show a Christ-like attitude.  I have been in awe of some of the kindest and most gentle Christians that I have seen who are egalitarians, and who are living the command to love.

I have also seen a few complementarians try to show a level of respect and love even in the heat of the dialog.  I commend them as well for their love of the brethren.  I am also honored to be known as their sister in Christ as I see the fruits of love in their lives.

What we all need to remember is that when we love each other and show respect because we are all in the same body of Christ, we are actually showing love for Jesus.  The one question that I have asked of hierarchists who are acting in anger and separating themselves from their brethren, is if they love Jesus?  The interesting thing is that when I have asked this question, while they are acting in anger, I haven’t had an answer at all.  Do they love Jesus?  We can never really know except to see how they tend to the sheep.  When the love of Jesus and the love of the Father lives within us, we cannot help but LOVE the sheep.

Let me ask a direct question to hierarchists that may read my words – Do you mock other believers?  Do you speak derogatory words about the appearance, the manner of speech or the “style” of communication of other believers merely because they disagree with you on the non-essentials?  Do you fail to walk in forgiveness and take the wrongs that have been done to you that you have forgiven them for and turn around and use the same thing that you have forgiven, to question the character of the other brother, their salvation or their place in the body of Christ?  No one can make you repent of these things.  You must do it yourself.  When we walk together in repentance and the forgiveness that follows repentance we will not only have fellowship with one another, but we will have fellowship with the owner, master, Savior and Lord of the sheep.  Those who refuse to do that must consider what proof do they have that they belong to this special flock?  Again I repeat that “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren.  He who does not love abides in death.”

Yes, not every “but” refers to a quote.  However when a “but” introduces a contradiction to what comes before, we can then entertain that what is contradicted is not Paul’s words but the words of another.  In my DVD set I quote from a well-known commentary to this effect…that when the words spoken are against what Paul has taught elsewhere and they are contradicted by Paul, we can understand that they are from the Corinthian letter to Paul.

The words in 1 Cor. 11 fits quite well with Paul stating a prohibition, then the cultural position of women’s head covering and then he ties it all in with how God sees men and women and head coverings.  In the end he tells us that there is no custom of head coverings (or even length of one’s hair!) in all the churches.  It is not a Christian custom, but cultural custom that doesn’t fit in with Christianity.

Amen, Paul!  That’s why we do not have to wear hats today.  It is why you can go into church after church and see no universal custom of head coverings.

Faulty fads (customs) are also laid to rest by Paul in 1 Cor. 14 and so women today are allowed to have their voices heard in the assembly and no one stops them from singing or reading God’s word or giving an announcement.  If we all laid the faulty customs to rest, we would have no problems allowing a woman to use her God-given gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ.

I should add that just as Paula said, the passage has a question mark regarding the length of hair instead of a period.  This turns Paul’s comment into an affirmation instead of a statement refuting the cultural standards for hair as if they are God’s standards.

Paula,

I agree that Paul is answering a question of the Corinthians regarding the length of hair and head coverings, etc.

I just do not think that this is one place that is a direct quote (false tradition) presented by the Corinthians and then directly refuted by Paul.  I believe that Paul is refusing to allow men to follow the Jewish oral law that demands that men cover their heads when they pray but he is leaving the decision for women to the women’s own authority to make a decision as her head covering presented a huge dilemma for married women because of the culture of that day.

This passage has been a difficult one for many because the translators typically have put their own interpretation into the passage by adding words that are not in the original text.  These added words change the original meaning and make the passage almost impossible to properly interpret.  It is only when we discard the added words that Paul’s meaning becomes much more obvious.

In my next post I think I will make it quite clear why I do not think Paul is quoting the Corinthians here.  I do believe he is writing about head coverings because they had questions that they brought to Paul in their letter.  However if this is a quote from the Corinthians in chapter 11, it is unlike every other quote that Paul put into his response back to the Corinthians.

Can we look at this passage and see it as Paul writing and not the Corinthians?  I see no reason not to see that.  Would Paul have said that it is disgraceful for a man to pray with his head covered?  Yes, that is what he taught.  Likely those influenced by the Judaizers would not agree with Paul since it was their custom to cover their heads while praying.  So if the letter had questions or statement influenced by the Judaizers, this is unlikely to be a quote from the Corinthians.

Also could it reasonably be Paul stating that the custom dictated that women whose head was uncovered in public prayer was disgraceful (or filthy)?  Yes.  That was the custom and Paul certainly would have been sympathetic to the married women’s dilemma.

Also Paul makes reference to having the hair cut and/or having the hair shaved off.  Would he give a woman the choice to cover her head if she was shamed by having her head shaved?  A woman making a Nazirite vow would have her head shaved and would Paul force her to be in public bald or would he allow her to cover for personal shame (not for spiritual shame of her sin)?  It appears that Paul allows women to cover (for personal shame) or to uncover as the power for that decision is in their hands.

More on this in the next post 🙂

I fixed it and put the whole part in quotes.  Let me know if this isn’t what you were trying to do.

Don, thanks for reiterating our mutual stand just in case someone doesn’t see that you agree with me in general.  This blog is a safe place to passionately argue one’s view in a respectful manner, unlike other places that would draw and quarter one for disagreeing 🙂

As far as drunkenness goes, it is clearly a wickedness that God charges against both his people and the nations.  In Nahum, God displeasure is with Ninevah which is a pagan city and drunkenness is spoken against unbelievers in Nahum 1:10.  God calls them to repentance through Jonah and they go back to their evil ways later.  I don’t think we can say that doing heroin is a sin for believers, but it is not a sin for unbelievers.  This is a universal moral issue of substance abuse.

As far as the issue about prophesy and the place of Jesus’ birth, one prophesy alone would not validate Jesus as the Messiah since there were other baby boys born in that city.  God did not leave us with only one prophetic witness, though, and so we can be certain, even if from prophecy alone, that Jesus is the Christ.

Yet while the prophetic is a fascinating issue to deal with, the issue that I want to bring out is the judicial matters that necessitate a second or third witness.  Jesus’ claim to Deity was such a judicial matter since rejecting him as Messiah would result in a charge of sin.

I would also like to affirm Don as a very special person that visits my blog.  Don is a male (not a female “Dawn”) and his presence here is very special.  The mere fact that a male would step out to support women in ministry and risk receiving abuse from hierarchists because of his support, is a very special thing in my eyes and many other people’s eyes too!  Don, you are special in many ways, but your support is precious and I trust that the Lord will give you an extra crown in heaven for being willing to face those who see you as a threat because of your brave stand.  Thank you!!

Good point about Ephesians 5:11, 12.  The shame and filthiness is clear in the Greek regarding the works of darkness.

I am curious why you believe that 1 Corinthians 11:6 is not Paul?  There is a little word translated “if” that changes the meaning from a certainty to an if/then statement.

I see a distinct difference in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 because verse 36 is a contradiction of the previous verses.  But what about 1 Cor. 11?   If 1 Cor. 11:6 is not Paul but a quote from the Corinthians where do you stop the quotation from the Corinthians?  And what is in the passage that shows the change from the Corinthians to Paul?

I believe that 1 Cor. 11 can be read in context without Paul’s demanding women to veil.  But I am interested in your take how you divide the passage between Paul and the Corinthian quote.

Kingz Daughter,

Welcome to my blog.  I understand the hurt that you feel especially seeing that some women have been given privileges by the same men who actively restrict other women.  It is a shame that there is a double standard.

The double standard does not come from the Bible.  I would encourage you to have a look at the Youtube clips that we have put up showing that there is a thoughtful way to interpret Paul where Paul is not one who restricted women but set them free and the “hard” passages of Paul have had a history of having verses ripped from their context.