Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 26 (59478)
10-05-2003 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Trump won
10-04-2003 8:45 PM


There was no need to repost those two paragraphs, MessenjaH. They do make sense. I know something about women's conditions of that time, but if we go through the rest of Pauline letters, his attitude towards women seems to be quite different.
The strongest "evidence" for interpolation is that it really looks like that it was inserted between the verse 33a and 36. Consider the whole part without suspected interpolation:
If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret.
28: But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God.
29: Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.
30: If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent.
31: For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged;
32: and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.
33: For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
36: What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
37: If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
38: If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
39: So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues;
40: but all things should be done decently and in order.
The suspected paragraph also directly contradict 1 Cor 11/5:
but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven.
Why would Paul bother to tell women that they shall have their heads covered when speaking prophecies, if he intended to tell them just few paragraph farther that they are not supposed to speak at all? That does not make sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzsaw: If I close both eyes, I can regard #1 and #2 of you first post here as SLIGHTLY relevant. But the rest of it is nothing but MCP crap of the heaviest calliber.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Trump won, posted 10-04-2003 8:45 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2003 10:41 AM Raha has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 26 (59479)
10-05-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Buzsaw
10-04-2003 10:18 AM


quote:
1. Throughout the history of mankind it has been so. Not only in Christian cultures.
...um, except when and where it hasn't been so.
There are more than a few examples of matriarchal societies, including the Iroquois Native American tribe.
In fact, there is some compelling evidence to suggest that Goddess worship and reverence of women's ability to bring forth life was the prevailing religion/mindset of humans for a very long time.
quote:
The world has not become a more content/happy place where this is changing. Nor are women happier/more content.
Yes, I certainly wish my father had sold me to the highest bidder instead of my being able to choose to marry or not to someone of my own choosing.
I am also very regretful that I can vote, own property, control my own fertility, become employed at any profession I choose, become educated at all, and even to the highest degree I can attain, etc. etc.
Yes, I surely wish I was still ruled over by all men.
Do you REALLY think that women would be much better off as chattel, Buz, or as second-class citizens?
quote:
2. I believe Biblical women have faired as well or better than most women historically. Islam is an example of greater opression of women.
Actually, Islamic texts encourage the education of women. the Bible, by contrast, does not, and in fact instructs women to shut up a lot of the time.
quote:
4. The lower voice, physical strength, and mental nature of the man is more naturally suited for leadership role.
HAHAHAHAHA!
Your justification for your sexism and woman-hating is amusing.
Lower voices and physical strength have what, exactly, to do with leadership, other than possibly being used to intimidate others?
Intimidation is not leadership.
Please also explain what kinds of mental attributes that only men enjoy which makes them good leaders, and also please explain how women do not or cannot also enjoy these mental attributes.
Also please explain how you know that women have not been systematically discouraged from developing these attributes of leadership by our culture, and also please explain how you know that men have not been encouraged to develop thease attributes by our culture.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Buzsaw, posted 10-04-2003 10:18 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 10-05-2003 9:09 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 18 of 26 (59480)
10-05-2003 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by nator
10-05-2003 8:56 AM


I am going to start a new topic in "Faith and Belief" regarding biblical sexism.
See you there, Rei nad Buz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 10-05-2003 8:56 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2003 9:41 AM nator has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 26 (59486)
10-05-2003 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by nator
10-05-2003 9:09 AM


quote:
Your justification for your sexism and woman-hating is amusing.
I am going to start a new topic in "Faith and Belief" regarding biblical sexism.
See you there, Rei nad Buz.
Schraf, LOL. I'm not into being lied about and maligned any further by you. Nothing I've ever said on EvC Forum warrants labeling me as a woman hater. Nor am I going to feel obligated to respond to your meanspirited attitude towards me either in this thread or another. If you want to talk to me in a civil manner, fine. Otherwise go find someone of your own generation more willing to tolerate your insults.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 10-05-2003 9:09 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by John, posted 10-05-2003 9:57 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 21 by nator, posted 10-05-2003 10:22 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 26 (59489)
10-05-2003 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
10-05-2003 9:41 AM


quote:
Nothing I've ever said on EvC Forum warrants labeling me as a woman hater.
I disagree. You may be blind to it but you post things that are extremely demeaning to women and to anyone with feelings as well. As a woman I knew when I was child said to me more than once, "I'm not prejudice, but those niggers ( mexicans, whatever ) would just as soon kill you as look at you. They're dirty. They don't take baths. They stink."
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2003 9:41 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 26 (59492)
10-05-2003 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
10-05-2003 9:41 AM


quote:
Nothing I've ever said on EvC Forum warrants labeling me as a woman hater.
Buz, when you plainly state that you think that the 'natural' state of women is to be led by men, then you are, to me, someone who thinks women are inferior.
That's what a woman-hater; a misogynist, is, Buz. Someone who fears and dislikes women so much that they attempt to dictate to women what they can or can't do or say or think, etc., solely on the basis of their gender.
In short, a misogynist is someone who thinks that women and women's behavior should be controlled by men, and that men have every right to this control.
The thing is, you obviously don't even know you you are a misogynist.
Also, I think you are using my strong language to avoid answering my questions.
I repeat the most crucial one; do you REALLY believe that women were better off as chattel, or as second class citizens?
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2003 9:41 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2003 11:00 AM nator has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 26 (59494)
10-05-2003 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Raha
10-05-2003 6:23 AM


quote:
Why would Paul bother to tell women that they shall have their heads covered when speaking prophecies, if he intended to tell them just few paragraph farther that they are not supposed to speak at all? That does not make sense.
The women didn't spend all their lives in church assembly, for sure. When the prophet Agabus, a male prophesied about Paul's impending peril were he to go to Jerusalem, the text does not sound like the prophecy was given during church assembly. My point is that the restrictive instruction to women pertained to church assembly only. Nor were they forbidden to teach other women or children, but were encourged to do so, the elder teaching the younger. It is possible, imo, that this might also pertain to ingathering classes within the church where men were not present. I Timothy 2: 12 possibly, I say possibly implies this to be the case. Also, Paul, in Titus 2:3,4 exorts the older women to be teachers of good things, "that they may teach the young women to be sober......." All of the numerous evangelical churches I've been in over the years do allow women to teach women and children in or out of the church.
The statement Paul made about women learning in silence and not speaking is a qualified statement which seems to pertain only to the general church assembly where both men and women are gathered together for worship and preaching. This is how most evangelicals see it, except that in most churches strict absolute literal adherance to this is not practiced. In other matters, like eating and drinking as well as sabbath keeping Paul does use language like "let each be convinced in their own mind" as to how they observe these things. I think that to be the case here. One should not judge others in this, but let God be their guide and judge.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Raha, posted 10-05-2003 6:23 AM Raha has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 26 (59496)
10-05-2003 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by nator
10-05-2003 10:22 AM


Schraf, I simply posted what I see to be facts of history and things taught in the Bible, etc. Until your attitude changes towards me, go insult someone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 10-05-2003 10:22 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 10-06-2003 8:55 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 26 (59681)
10-06-2003 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
10-05-2003 11:00 AM


quote:
Schraf, I simply posted what I see to be facts of history and things taught in the Bible, etc.
And I disagree and explained why, and gave examples, of why I think you are completely wrong.
quote:
Until your attitude changes towards me, go insult someone else.
I regret using the inflamatory phrase of 'woman-hater', buz, and I am sorry that you felt insulted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2003 11:00 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dilyias
Member (Idle past 1367 days)
Posts: 21
From: Minnesota
Joined: 10-02-2003


Message 25 of 26 (59779)
10-06-2003 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Raha
10-04-2003 9:39 AM


Ok, after having read the surrounding verses it appears quite clear to me that this is a forgery, or later add-in. It completely breaks the train of thought.
But I fail to see how this really changes anything. There are other verses that express the same idea, such as 1st Timothy 2:9-15. Women are allowed to learn the law in silence but they could not teach or have authority over a man. This IS a step up from the Jewish tradition where women were not allowed to learn the law at all.
This then obviously means that a women could not teach in church or speak, they were PRIVALIGED (from the perspective back then) to be able to sit in and learn when the law was taught.
So while it appears that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is in fact a later add-on, I believe it makes no real difference. The idea is there expressed in other verses. It makes sense based on the history of the Jewish tradition, and while it seems oppressive to us nowadays it actually was giving woman more freedom than they had before; the ability to learn the law (albeit in silence).
Eric

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Raha, posted 10-04-2003 9:39 AM Raha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Raha, posted 10-06-2003 5:56 PM Dilyias has not replied

  
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 26 (59799)
10-06-2003 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dilyias
10-06-2003 3:13 PM


But I fail to see how this really changes anything.
Well, that changes a lot.
1. As it seems, women created quite an important part of early christian church. Why? Because Christianity gave them more freedom and higher status.
2. It puts Paul and his teaching in complete new light. It is not uncommon to hear that Paul is responsible for everything evil in Christianity. But now we have rather different story here. Timothy is not Paul's work either.
3. It is very important for our understanding of the development of early church. It seems now that early Christianity was indeed very egalitarian religion, which made almost no difference between sexes, personal wealth, political status, race, nationality etc. But as its power grew, it become more and more corrupted by it.
------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dilyias, posted 10-06-2003 3:13 PM Dilyias has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024