|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raha Inactive Member |
I've found interesting article:
THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES' (NEW TESTAMENT) EPISTLES And I would like to know everybody's here opinion.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." ... ...It is obvious that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter with little talent at forgery. The paragraph in question is rather important one with many consequences. What about that claim that it is a forgery? Is it proved? ------------------Life has no meaning but itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dilyias Member (Idle past 1388 days) Posts: 21 From: Minnesota Joined: |
I believe it is mostly speculation. There isn't a hard proof out there. However, it makes sense that this was the attitude of the Church back then as it piggybacks on the patriarchal Old Testament.
In "the olden days" women were sold to their husbands, husbands could buy and own multiple wives - not the other way around. Men could have their wives killed if they found they were not virgins after wedding/purchasing them. The reason it was so bad to sleep with an unmarried woman was because it was a disgrace to the father who would now not receive money/riches from selling his daughter to a husband. When the Israelites went to attack other nations they were instructed to kill the men, mothers, and boys but check any attractive women and keep them for themselves if they were virgins. Imagine you being a woman in this time and a soldier comes in, kills your husband and throws you on the table and opens your dress to check if you are a "virgin", killing you if you are not.... And God was ok with, nay - he commanded this? *shudders* Women were booty, like cattle and food and riches.. For years Christianity has seen man as the head of the household - to this day some conservative churches still do not permit women to teach over a man at church or in the home. Fortunately Paul's ideas (if they were his) are much tamer than what they could have been considering the source. So in closing I feel it is very likely that it is not a forgery, it seems to fit in with the general thought of the NT. Eric
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raha Inactive Member |
Personally I am more inclined towards "forgery" theory.
quote: ------------------Life has no meaning but itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
1. Throughout the history of mankind it has been so. Not only in Christian cultures. Men have been leaders/heads of home, government and religion. The world has not become a more content/happy place where this is changing. Nor are women happier/more content.
2. I believe Biblical women have faired as well or better than most women historically. Islam is an example of greater opression of women. Athiestic Communism as in China scores badly also. 3. Women are designed both emotionally to follow and to be protected by the stronger man. 4. The lower voice, physical strength, and mental nature of the man is more naturally suited for leadership role. The Biblical account of orgins accounts for and explains this, imo far more adequately than does chancy evolution. Why would the sexes evolve to incorporate this phenomonen of mankind's history? (Here come the eggs n tomatoes. Buz leavin town. Talk to ya when I dare return.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1261 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
I'm not arguing that it is a forgery or not but if it is a forgery done at such a "poor" job then why did the translators not notice this when putting the Bible into english?
------------------"I AM THE MESSENJAH" contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1261 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
It looks like religioustolerance.org got its information from this page:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/1716/errors.html ------------------"I AM THE MESSENJAH" contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Or that site got their info from religioustolerance.org?
Brian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1261 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
I found this Q&A at another page which I feel explains it well:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1261 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Yeah, either way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7034 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: I got my trusty slingshot ready, too
quote: Excuse me? Have you looked at suicide rates among women in cultures where they are oppressed like this? Or rates of transgender feelings among girls in such cultures? Let's see if I can find one really quick here... Hmm, here's a mirror of one that I ran into a while ago.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TNUKdigest/message/158 And don't try and pretend that this is due to the veil This is what happens almost universally when you treat women like property. You see, you may not realize it, but we have these things called "feelings", and we can do this amazing trick called "free thought", something once thought only available to males like you.
quote: So, you're talking greater oppression than selling women as property, God-endorsed enslavement of virgins-only, etc? Give me a break If your answer is due to the covering of women's hair, are you aware that that was initially as Jewish tradition as well? Only some orthodox still use it: Lubbock Avalanche-Journal Shamash.org (an orthodox jewish site) has a fair bit of discussion on this issue. It used to be far worse. Would you like some of the early writings on women's dress in general? BTW, if you want to talk about women's rights in ancient cultures, are you aware that throughout much of ancient Egyptian history, women could not only own property, divorce their husbands, and hold high office - but actually were guaranteed the same wages as men for doing the same work? Oh wait, but we should be thankful for having no right to own property, to divorce our husbands, and to get paid less, right!?
quote: Are you actually trying to claim that *men* are emotionally stable? Men, who do the vast majority of murders, of assaults, etc? Men, who much more often than women think wars are a good thing? I suppose if you think violence is good guidance, then be my guest in holding that opinion. If you're talking about physical strength, of course men average being stronger. But physical strength has absolutely *zero* to do with intelligence and, consequently, coming up with a good plan for leadership. Scholastically, women average better than men in most subjects.
quote: Oh give me a break. If I could lift a bulldozer that wouldn't make me any better to lead than a yucca plant. "Mental Nature"? Go tell that to the next girl that you ask out. "Lower Voice"? Yeah, that's another thing that makes a good leader! Give me a break.
quote: Sexual dimorphism is an obvious expectation of evolution. You'll notice that the more polygynous a species, the more male-dominated it is, and the higher the ratio of size differences between males and females. Polyandrous species have just the opposite. True monogamous species tend to be roughly the same size. Humans have been slightly polygamous throughout history, and thus have slightly larger males than females. Polygamy induces more intense competition between males; polyandry incudces more intense competition between females. Neither, by the way, affect intelligence. Ego, perhaps. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." [This message has been edited by Rei, 10-04-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raha Inactive Member |
You know Rei, Buz's post was entirely off topic and so it can be regarded as spam and should be ignored therefore (and since we have some good admins here, I hope they will do their "duty").
This thread is not about women's rights etc. We are in The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum. Let's discuss whether the paragraph in question is genuine or not. And if it is interpolation - from what time? (BTW - Messenjah made the best contribution so far) ------------------Life has no meaning but itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raha Inactive Member |
messenjaH writes: why did the translators not notice this when putting the Bible into english? As suggested in that article, many translators not only did not care, but they continued in "masculinisation" of Bible by changing female names to male's (Priscilla to Priscillus for instance) or lowering status of some women (from "diakoness" to "servant" for instance). ------------------Life has no meaning but itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1261 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: This makes sense to me. Comments Raha? ------------------"I AM THE MESSENJAH" contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: My post was intended to lend credibility to the NT quote in the opening statement so as to show it to be consistent with similar context of the role of women in the Bible. It was also intended to show that the quote in question was not inconsistent with the role of women throughout the history of mankind. Check out I Timothy 2:11 and 12 which is not dissimilar and in fact in which context is given the reason for this restriction, i.e. that 1. The man was created first and 2. that the woman, not the man was deceived in the garden. You're being disingenuous in labeling it as off topic spam. Could it be that the admins understand this and are in fact not derelict in duty as you are implying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Rei, I don't want to arouse any further disgruntlement from Raha so I'll forego response to your statements, except to say that I don't think your statements adequately refute my contention that women who live by Biblical roles are oppressed. Hardly any of even Christian fundamentalists adhere to a strict interpretation of the text for women to be totally silent in churches. Maybe Quakers adhere totally to it. This is not to say the church is better off today than in Biblical times when it was likely imposed more literally. Women in those days were allowed to prophesy, but it is not clear as to whether this was in or out of the church assembly.
You may want to read up on my new Koran thread link which quotes Mohammed as saying/teaching that women are like fields for men to go into at will and women of bounty can be acquired lawfully by men as slaves for men to do with as they wish. Imo, that's real oppression, far unlike anything suggested in the Bible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024