Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
StanJ said:Nope...glad we agree for once.
Don't like reciprocal heat aye Barrd?The Barrd said:
Drink your stale beer and enjoy your leftover pizza and your jerky...
I do hope there is a woman somewhere to pick up after you...
Because I do believe I'm about done trying to talk to you.
You have too much animosity for someone like me to deal with.
I'm sure that you know that the Bible is chuck full of women that were chosen by God for various reasons. My favorite, of course, is the lady I was named for...Deborah.Wormwood said:
Relax, WW. Women are the last minority, or so it seems. I have a black friend who gets absolutely furious at the way people compare the struggle for gay rights with the struggle for black equality...and she is quite right. She also gets irate when someone compares women to homosexuals, and I agree with her. Yes, gays try to board the feminist wagon...of course they do! You said that homosexuals also accuse you of having bigotry against them in your heart, or at least, that is what I understood you to be saying.
I only wanted you to get a feel for the atmosphere in Ephesus. There is no way the people who belonged to the Cult of Diana were going to sit still while the Christian church took over their town. Of course, the women were going to try to infiltrate the new church. In their place, that is exactly what I would do, myself. (When you study law, one of the most important things you learn is to anticipate your opponent.) I would dress down, to look more like the women who were already part of the new church, and I'd get in there and learn as much about them as I could before I made my move. After a bit, I'd start "converting" my sisters...and young Timothy would be delighted to see the church growing.
Since this is the only congregation that gets this particular warning, I think it is fair to assume that he was addressing a particular problem in that community. And the problem involving female authority...well, there is that beautiful Temple full of beautiful young priestesses...not to mention a very lucrative business. No, WW...Diana wasn't going down without a fight.
What I actually said was:
It's that idea of "usurping" authority that is not found anywhere else. This, more than anything, suggests to me someone coming in from outside, trying to take what does not belong to them. I do not believe it was directed at Christian wives and mothers, but rather at those priestesses from the Temple of Diana.
Sorry. My son has always had his cardboard and paper Strong's. Mine came along when I downloaded my E-Sword...a program I would not be witihout.
Obviously, we are not going to have a meeting of the minds, here. I have said that I believe Paul was addressing a problem peculiar to Ephesus, and one we had already seen in Acts.
Paul means exactly what he is saying. In Ephesus, he does not suffer a woman to usurp authority over the men.
LOL...you got me on this one. I had long ago decided, based on what I have read in my own Bible, that the truth is that Paul did not mean this instruction for everyone through all time, but for a particular problem in a particular place at a particular time. This guy just happens to agree with me.
I told you those things to tell you that I am a strong woman. Trust me, those first few years after my David was taken from us by a drunk driver were horrible years. I learned what it was like to stand in line at a food bank, and how to gracefully accept other people's cast off clothing...something I had never done before. I learned what poverty is really like, WW. There was a short space of time when we had to live with friends...because I couldn't even keep a roof over our heads. Today, my youngest son and I are discussing selling the house I am currently living in and buying a nicer house, closer to his job. I haven't decided yet...but I am tempted. I may decide to go along with him...he wants that house so badly. He is, after all, the night manager at the largest store in this town...not bad for a kid who left school to help his Mom after his Dad died...
What, you don't eat "man-food"??StanJ said:
I eat food, and because I am diabetic, it is usually healthyish.The Barrd said:
Barrd, I affirm that all these women were used by God. However this did not mean that Israel decided to make women priests serving in the temple, ignore instruction about male/female roles written about in the Law or cause them to be teachers in the local synagogues. Dont you find it strange that though the Jewish people knew these stories of these women very well that this stories did not cause them to second guess the teaching role of men in the synagogues or home?
Perhaps there were. Maybe they even prophesied and spoke in tongues. However, there is no record of them teaching the men or being placed in authority over the men. Again, you are confusing gifts, value and abilities with teaching and authority roles.
There is zero evidence that women taught in the local church or served as elders, neither in the Bible nor in church history. Again, you are citing stories of women that God used to do amazing things or some women that accompanied and helped Paul or Jesus on their journeys. And then you are speculating about hypothetical women who were in certain places and what they might have done in those situations (none of which really apply to the local congregational gatherings either). So, yes, God used women. However this does not mean they served as priestesses, synagogue rulers or church elders. There is not one shred of evidence that supports you here.
I dont know how I can be more clear. I dont even think you read half of what I write. I dont know how you could and come to these conclusions.
Again, this is nothing but speculation. Moreover, why would Paul command that no women teach in Ephesus because of a few trouble makers? Talk about sexism and bigotry! I just think it is a fools errand to suggest that the Holy Spirit would inspire a text like this and preserve it through the ages if it actually teaches that which is contrary to the actual will of God, and do so on the basis of how God created man and woman in Genesis. You have invented a background scenario as a means of dismissing a clear biblical command that gives no indication that it is directed at a particular person or group of people...and I find it alarming.
No, I dont hate you. I have never said, nor implied that one gender has superior wit or intelligence to the other. This has everything to do with God's Word and design, not ability, intelligence or cunning. It wouldnt surprise me if women as a whole had a higher IQ than men. I dont pretend to know, and I dont think that has anything to do with God's design or commands in this regard.
I guess if we pretend Corinth didnt exist..then its the only one. Oh, but you gotta watch out for those scally-wag pirate women on the sea ports! jk
I forgot about them. Paul sure has an interesting way of dealing with problematic women in certain cities...."Tell them not to speak! The whole lot of them! If they are a woman in these cities, they cant talk...that should solve the problem we are having with the few." I guess Paul was a bigot. Maybe the Holy Spirit too....since He inspired it? Come on now, surely we wouldnt come to that conclusion, right?I take it this is your way of apologizing and admitting that I was not calling you simple, but that it was merely reciting your own labels. I never said or implied that you had a low IQ. Apology accepted
Again, you seem not to be reading what I write. I have given you two scholarly sources to show that the word in question does not mean "usurp authority." 1. It doesnt mean that. 2. Why wouldnt it be equally bad for men to "usurp authority" or domineer over others? The combination of "teach and have authority" with the oude conjunction linguisticly shows that these words should not be seen as a positive/negative pair. It is either positive/positive or negative/negative. And the word for "teach" is never really used in a negative statement. Consider the following journal article by a leading linguistics expert (StanJ, you may appreciate this as well):
I do not deny that Paul is addressing problems in Ephesus specifically, and that some of those problems likely are related to the views of the culture in relation to Artemis. However, the idea that there were specific, rowdy women who were domineering over men in this congregation which is the only reason why Paul says the women should be silent is simply fabricated. There is no shred of evidence either in the letter or from historical sources that this is why, and the ONLY reason why Paul commanded such submission and silence. I dont doubt the temple worship influenced women's apparel and perhaps their ideas on order and teaching. This is precisely why Paul tells them NOT to teach. They were accustomed to leading and teaching based on the culture around them. So yes, the culture does play a role, but its quite the opposite of what you are proposing.
I do not doubt at all that you prepare well and that your lessons are good and accurate. Yes, I do think you are disobeying the Lord's direct commands in Scripture. However, as you pointed out, I am not your judge. We will each stand before God. We both trust in the love and grace of God in Christ Jesus. If I were a woman, I would not teach and I would embrace a submissive role in the congregation as an act of love and adoration to Jesus. In my opinion, there will be a lot of women who learned in quietness and were patient and longsuffering who will have a much greater heavenly reward that the big name, well-known flashy preachers that occupy the stage. The first are last and the last are first. I really believe Jesus when he says that. That is why I think we are encouraged so much by Jesus and Paul to find ways to surrender and submit. These are the things that bring the applause of God. Not our gifts and abilities, but our obedience, submission and weakness as we patiently trust him. Jesus could have worn a glittery robe and taught millions of people with such wisdom and eloquence that the world would have been left spell bound. Instead, he allowed men to strip him naked, punch him in the face, kick him in the gut, cram thorns on his head, nail him to beams of wood and mock him while he struggled to breathe. Why is it we feel like surrendering and submission is such an awful thing when it is perhaps the most poignant attribute of our precious Lord and Savior? The things of God are foolish to the power, "rights" and glory this world desires. Humility, love and submission are the means by which we have been saved and the very core qualities of Christ's life and attitude. The are the highest call of the Christian life. And I mean that with all my heart.
We assume so much, don't we?Wormwood said:
You do know that Jesus also had female disciples, right? They also traveled with Jesus. In those days men and women did not travel together, but the women traveled in a group behind the men. I believe this was to keep the gals safe in case of attack...but I could be wrong about that.
In my Bible, it says that 5,000 were added to the church that afternoon. That's a lot of people. I'm guessing the ladies took part, talking with and baptizing new converts.
https://ancientbodies.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/women-as-leaders-in-early-christianity-fairy-tales/
LOL! You are too much, WW!
Do you agree that African Americans should always have had the same rights as anyone else?
This was more than "a few trouble makers". This was THE religion, not only in Ephesus, where the Temple was...but all over Asia. Dedicated men and women came from all over the known world to worship the great goddess. And a lot of money changed hands. Opening shots had already been fired in Acts...and now this interloper had dared to establish a rival church on Diana's turf. And you think I have "invented a background scenario"?
You probably aren't old enough to remember Harry Belefonte...pity.
Oh, come on! You do know that, in these early home churches, they would have followed the pattern set for them...iow, men and women would not be sitting together, as we see in our modern churches. Such an idea would have been shocking to them...flying in the face of tradition!I guess if we pretend Corinth didnt exist..then its the only one. Oh, but you gotta watch out for those scally-wag pirate women on the sea ports! jk
LOL...fair enough, WW.I take it this is your way of apologizing and admitting that I was not calling you simple, but that it was merely reciting your own labels. I never said or implied that you had a low IQ. Apology accepted
Excuse me, but the words used in my Bible are "usurp authority"...
Maybe I'm not reading you correctly...but you seem to be contradicting yourself here.
Isn't it interesting that you would encourage all this meekness and submission for women...while you prepare your own sermons. I totally agree with you that humility, love, and submission are the core qualities of Christ's life and attitude. I do not agree that women alone ought to reflect these qualities. As Christians, we ought to submit to one another...both male and female alike.
And Im the one who is being sexist? I know you would like to think that our Christian church history with regards to women is simply men acting like immature boys....but as we have seen...there are those pesky Words of God we have to contend with.
I am so sure because there is a mountain of historical evidence and teaching from early church leaders and apologists that declare this to be the case. I think I would take the words of someone who lived during that time above a drawing in a tomb that could be this or could be that. Shall we look at what the early church fathers and apologists wrote on the matter?
There are hundreds of such quotes and references in the early church so as to leave no doubt to their view and teaching on the matter from the earliest years of the church. But hey, we have an obscure picture of a a person who could perhaps be a woman that maybe we could imagine she is teaching....so lets go with that. smh.
Haha, thanks for recognizing my humor. I hope I dont come across as mean and stuffy. I try to keep things reatively light...even though we both know these are important ideas we are discussing
Yes, there are a few that translate it that way. I have read a wealth of scholarship on the issue and I think the Greek makes it abundantly clear that this word should not be taken negatively. Yet, even if we say the word is a negative "domineering" word, then that is clearly wrong too. So women should not teach...and women should not domineer. Both are wrong. What is evidently clear is that these two are not linked as you would want to translate it...."teach in a domineering way." Pretty much every Greek scholar affirms that this conjunction should not be seen in this light. But I wont get into that because its mind-numbingly boring and complex.
No. I am saying
What is that supposed to mean?
I didnt say women only are to reflect these qualities. However we do it in the roles we find ourselves. I am submissive to other elders in the Church. I am submissive to governing authorities. I am submissive to my parents. Suggesting that submission is always reciporical in every relationship is nonsense. It isnt really submission at all if that is your definition! That is like saying, "Children submit to your parents as your parents likewise are to submit to you." Um, no. Or, "Wives submit to your husbands as the Church submits to Christ. But also husbands submit to wives because, uh, Christ submits to the church...i guess." No, no no. That is not submission. Thats modern, western, "ill scratch your back if you scratch mine." That is present day, "I'll submit to your authority so long as your authority is exercised in a way that garners my approval." Not what Paul was teaching at all.
Actually, that "men will be boys" is a saying I picked up from my husband.Wormwood said:
Let's see...wearing a dress, with a head covering...
D'ya think you can find me some early "scholars" who were not taught by the Catholic church, and not influenced by the culture they lived in?
You're cool, WW. We can disagree here, and still be friends...as long as you don't get the idea that you are "properly instructing me.Haha, thanks for recognizing my humor. I hope I dont come across as mean and stuffy. I try to keep things reatively light...even though we both know these are important ideas we are discussing
If you once realize that Diana's priestesses did hold supreme authority over both men and women...even life and death authority...the use of this particular term to mean "usurp authority" becomes quite clear.
I am saying that the gals who were once a part of the Cult of Diana were not to usurp authority over the men in Christ's church, where authority should not have been an issue in the first place. Paul would not suffer them to teach until they had learned humility.
Suppose you move to a new neighborhood. The who live across the street have no discipline...they are destructive, they bully kids smaller then them...they are quite used to being the terror of the neighborhood. If they want another kids' toy, or lunch money, or whatever, the other kid gives it up without question, and without tattling. They have learned. It doesn't take long before you discover that they are starting in with your kids. What do you do, WW?
My place is at His feet, washing them with my tears and wiping them with my hair. I long only to touch the hem of his garment. I would gladly follow him, and support him with whatever money I might have. I would follow Him anywhere. I mean that with all of my heart, WW. Just knowing that my sin disappoints Him is devastating to me. I would do anything not to disappoint Him, go anywhere to please Him. Everything I am, and everything I ever will be, I am because of Him.
You do know that parents are to exercise their authority in a way that garners God's approval, right?
I understand. I would just say that I dont think that scholars and teachers throughout church history were trying to be jerks. I think they were trying to obey the Word of God, as am I.
To me it looks like someone, perhaps a woman, praying and lifting her hands with a covered head. But, then again, I am no expert on wall paintings. It is important to note that teachers in the first century sat down when they taught (cf. Luke 4:20). Moreover, I would be more apt to go with the mountains of direct teachings from renown leaders in the early church as a guide on this matter than interpreting a picture and imposing Vatican conspiracy theories.
Yep. I assure you they are no more influenced in this regard than the online blogs you read. They actually allow their opinions to be formed by the Greek itself and the actual validity of various historical and linguistic arguments. Just let me know and Id be happy to refer you to some of these books. But only if you really plan on reading them.
I'll be the first to admit that there have been abuses in these areas and people have used such verses to be cruel or demeaning toward women. This is incredibly unfortunate and not at all what these Scriptures teach. We just need to be cautious we dont "throw the baby out with the bath water."
I think you assume to much about my views on these matters. I dont say that Paul didnt mean his words. I think he meant exactly what he said. He wanted slaves to submit to their masters. What exactly are you arguing? Are you saying that because we dont like slavery and we see it as antiChristian that therefore we can throw out all the verses related to submission? I guess that means children do not need to submit to parents? Oh, wait we dont like to throw that one out...because, well we like that one.
Can you point me to a historical document (preferably something from an actual published source) that shows that priestesses of Diana exercised abusive and domineering authority as a way of life in their temple leadership? Also, I have also shown that linguistically this is just not really possible. This word was almost always used in the neutral sense. Moreover, the Greek construction demands a positive/positive or negative/negative. The Greek word for teaching here is pretty much always viewed as a positive in the NT Epistles. There is no reason to view either of these words as negative, unless of course, one approaches the text with a desire to see them as such because of a predisposition regarding the subject matter.
First, I do not tell my kids that all older boys in the neighborhood are bullies and should be avoided. Second, I go address those boys in person by name and confront their behavior. This is what Paul regularly does in his letter. He confronts the "super apostles," he confronts Euodia and Syntyche by name, and he confronts a couple of the MALE culprits of this teaching fiasco in this very letter!
I think this is wonderful and would be in total agreement that you should pursue this.
I hope you didnt take from my note that I do not think you are a humble person. I was simply trying to say that I feel many people have turned the concept of biblical submission into a dirty word and that the idea of women submitting to men is mean and abusive. I dont think that at all. I think biblical submission is a beautiful thing and something our Lord modeled. That is all I was getting at. Again, I was not trying to imply you were not humble. Sorry if it came across that way.
Of course, and I believe the same is true for men in the home and church. We are all accountable to God, whether we are presidents, judges, police officers, elders, deacons, SS teachers, parents or husbands. Having authority is not the same as abusing authority. We will all stand before God and will be held to account for the roles we had and our faithfulness (or lack thereof) with those positions and opportunities.
Of course. I think that is why we each need to focus on our own role and God's desire for us. If we always look at another person's failures as rationale for us to not submit or not to lead in a godly way, then no one would ever fulfill God's role for them. God will hold me accountable for the places he put me in life. I will have to give an account for how I worked as a minimum wage employee in my early years and as a waiter when I was paying my way through school. I cant say, "God my boss was a jerk and that is why I didnt respect him or obey him." No, God expects me to be a godly leader, a submissive worker, a godly parent, a submissive child to my parents and so forth. I think the reason many marriages fail is because wives say, "Well when he starts loving me like Christ loves the church, then I will submit." Likewise, the guy says, "When she starts submitting, I will start loving her." No, that is now how it works. Jesus loved us when we didnt deserve it. Love is not something earned, it is something freely given. Love is a commitment and a promise I make, not only when things are good and going my way, but even when they are not. While we were sinners, Christ died for us, and so we ought to lay down our lives for one another. Well, there is my little mini sermon for the day.
Perhaps. I'd have to take a look at their personal lives, before I'd be willing to trust that they were not "jerks".Wormwood said:
After we talked yesterday, I decided to see what else I might find in early Christian artworks, so I googled "depictions from the first century of Christian preachers". There were some sitting, as you say, and some standing, and a couple on horseback. Most of what I got back seem to be early pictures of Jesus, some were obviously supposed to be John the Baptist. There were several in the bunch that were obviously not what I had asked for, but which came much later. And there were a few...a very few, to be sure...that look an awful lot like women.
Did I give you the impression that I surf the net looking for blogs to read? LOL! I assure you, it is not so. When I'm not fooling around in here, I am quite busy working on a book about Deborah. There is very little information about her outside of the Bible. I did come across some interesting information, though. There does seem to be an idea that she and Barak were married. Do you know anything about that?
Well, of course such verses have been used to bully women! My goodness, WW...they are almost "made to order" for that purpose.
Did you really say that we "don't like slavery"? WW, we abhor slavery. No man may own another man.
I'm afraid I do not agree. There was a specific problem in Ephesus, which Paul had already faced. It would be natural for him to address this problem in his letters to Timothy. That is what I believe, WW.
Good gravy, WW, I was maybe 13 or so when I first became interested in Greek mythology. I was fascinated by the stories. There was a writer in me even then. I went to several different libraries, and drove the librarians crazy with requests for more material on the Greek myths...
I would hope you would tell your kids not to join forces with these new kids. I do hope you would tell them that their behavior is wrong.
Gosh, thanks, WW. I do appreciate your encouragement.
Jesus never demanded submission, at least not that I can recall.
And that is why I believe we should all encourage one another to make full and joyful use of the gifts God has given each one of us. Fevvinsake, it is time and past time to put aside such foolishness as "gender roles" (sorry, Paul), and simply love one another as Jesus loves us. I truly believe that, WW.
That's a lovely sermon, my friend...but it isn't very realistic. At least not the part about marriage.Of course. I think that is why we each need to focus on our own role and God's desire for us. If we always look at another person's failures as rationale for us to not submit or not to lead in a godly way, then no one would ever fulfill God's role for them. God will hold me accountable for the places he put me in life. I will have to give an account for how I worked as a minimum wage employee in my early years and as a waiter when I was paying my way through school. I cant say, "God my boss was a jerk and that is why I didnt respect him or obey him." No, God expects me to be a godly leader, a submissive worker, a godly parent, a submissive child to my parents and so forth. I think the reason many marriages fail is because wives say, "Well when he starts loving me like Christ loves the church, then I will submit." Likewise, the guy says, "When she starts submitting, I will start loving her." No, that is now how it works. Jesus loved us when we didnt deserve it. Love is not something earned, it is something freely given. Love is a commitment and a promise I make, not only when things are good and going my way, but even when they are not. While we were sinners, Christ died for us, and so we ought to lay down our lives for one another. Well, there is my little mini sermon for the day.
Barrd, I think you are projecting here. Your suggestion that perhaps most of people's doctrine on this matter throughout history was a result of wanting to keep women in their place is really disturbing to me. I believe we are to believe the best about our brothers and sisters in Christ. It seems that on this issue you are inclined to believe the worst.
Barrd, I choose to follow the teaching of the Bible. I will gladly stand before God and tell him that my decisions were based on his written Word and my effort to obey his voice. I'd rather be found wrong in trying to be obedient to the Word than have to give an account to God as to why I rejected a very clear and direct command from him on this issue. Again, this argumentation is nothing more than pragmatism. By this rationale, why dont we let homosexuals preach? I mean, after all, maybe they can reach members of their community we cannot reach and maybe people would accept Christ because of their preaching that dont because we do not allow them to be preachers. You see the problem with this line of thinking? Again, dont say I am comparing women with homosexuals. I am comparing the line of thinking that is based in sheer pragmatism. Give me a Biblical reason as to why I should disregard God's command on this matter and I will consider it. This line of argument that, "You are being mean to women" or "maybe more people would hear if we allowed women to be preachers" is just not a convincing argument for me. I would rather do things that seem unconventional and be faithful to the Lord than do things that seem wise before the eyes of people that are disobedient to God's commands.
Im sure if you look hard enough, you can find reasons to approve of anything anyone wants to do. People find scholars and writings that substantiate their desire to ordain homosexuals, people find scholars that approve of their divorce for any and every reason, people find scholars that will approve of them being abusive and domineering to their wives and children, people find scholars and verses that allow them to live selfish and greedy lives of materialism. I mean, really, if you look hard enough, you can find whatever you want to find. The question is, are we really trying to seek the Lord's will and follow his word without reservation, or are we looking for a way to justify what we have already determined to be right? I think if you find yourself randomly searching for pictures that could potentially look like women preaching when we have commands in the Bible and mountains of first century teachers saying this was not in accordance with God's will or the practice of the churches, then something is wrong.
I have done a little reading about Judges lately and that story in particular, but I dont recall any information about any views or traditions of her being married to Barak. I'll browse around some materials I have on Judges in my free time and let you know if I come across anything that would potentially be of interest to you in this area.
What are you saying here? It seems you are implying that women being submissive in the gathering of believers is the same thing as bullying women. I dont agree with this and I dont think that one necessarily leads to the other.
In case you are unaware, Jewish and Roman practices of "slavery" is not at all the same as modern slavery where people were stolen from their homes and treated like animals due to their skin color. So, let us not confuse the two.
Barrd, when it comes to interpretation of the Bible, we need actual interpretive rules that justify our views. You cant just say, "Well this is cultural, this is not" on a whim. What indicates to you that one thing is cultural and another is not cultural? How do you decide if Paul's prohibition of homosexuality, fornication, lying, head covering, or any other issue is a cultural one or a timeless command? Does Barrd decide that based on her own gut instinct? Do we allow the Western culture to decide for us based on whatever popular trends are? Of course not. There is a way to view the Bible and determine if Paul is talking about something in a way that he is only reflecting on his culture or if he is reflecting on something that is timeless and to be expected by all Christians for all ages. Paul uses creation, the Law, the angels, and his own practices and those of all the churches for justification for his commands about women speaking in the Church. If this does not indicate a timeless principle, then nothing does. We can just take and leave any command we want a whim if we are just going to interpret the Bible willy nilly with no regard for the actual context and arguments placed therein. This is called reading into the Bible want we want to see rather than allowing the Bible to shape and form your understanding of right and wrong. God is the authority on these matters, not us. His word should shape us rather than us shaping his word to our liking.
Well, as much as I would like to take your word for it, I would prefer some actual resources to validate things you remember from when you were 13 and liked to read about mythology. I have tons of background resources about Ephesus, Artemis and so forth. I have yet to read anything to the effect that women who served in the temple were domineering over men regularly based on their understanding and worship of Artemis. I can provide you resources if you like.
Would you ban "all" older boys from your yard? Surely not. Yet, by your rationale, that is what Paul is doing, both in Corinth and Ephesus. He bans all women from using their gifts because some rowdy sailor women and gritty Artemis priestesses with an attitude pushing the boys around in the local church. Again, doesnt sound remotely like the Paul of the NT to me.
No, I have been extremely busy lately. I will try to read some of it when I get some spare time.
Why would he have to? Are you familiar with the Jewish culture of the 1st century? Jesus certainly empowered women and used them in awesome ways...ways that were controversial in his day (who would have a woman be the first witness of the resurrection in the first century world? women were not even allowed to testify as witnesses in court!) Yet again, this is an argument from silence. It is like saying, "Jesus never condemned abortion, so he must not of had a problem with it." Of course he didnt condemn it...the Jews never practiced infanticide. Why would Jesus address an issue like this when it wasnt an issue for his audence? Jesus clearly taught that women were of great value, were to be respected, loved and that they were participates in the Kingdom and in his ministry. Yet he never makes an appeal for women to teach men. He could have easily of made Mary Magdalene one of the 12 Apostles if he wanted to make a statement in this regard or challenged his culture about women teaching. The fact that he says nothing is not an argument for his approval of women preaching and teaching men. If anything it merely shows that he didnt feel this was a cultural practice that needed to be challenged as he certainly had no problem challenging the traditions and expectations of his day.
Maybe thats my problem, I preach the Bible, not pragmatism. I just dont believe the desires and commands of God are burdensome or incapable of being followed. But maybe I am a (relatively) young guy with an old fashioned point of view
You don't think that history itself testifies that men have deliberately oppressed women? Are you kidding me? Tell me, have you ever watched any old "I Love Lucy" reruns? Ever heard the song "Hey, Little Girl", which advises women that "there are girls at the office, and men will always be men..." Here are some adorable little advertisements from that era in our own history:Wormwood said:
Enforced submission is the same thing as bullying. Forcing someone to submit to you against their will is the textbook definition of bullying.
I suspect that you are talking about "bond-servants". But it was possible for a man to become a permanent slave:
Do women in your church still cover their heads, WW? Most women in today's churches don't.
Fair enough, WW. I don't expect you to take my word for it.
Not all older boys...but all the kids from that family. And the ban would not necessarily be permanent. I would lift it the minute those kids could show me that they had changed their ways.
That's okay, WW. I really didn't expect you to.
I don't think you actually understood what I meant.
What do you think "inspired" means, WW?
Wisdom is justified of her children.Maybe thats my problem, I preach the Bible, not pragmatism. I just dont believe the desires and commands of God are burdensome or incapable of being followed. But maybe I am a (relatively) young guy with an old fashioned point of view
It means "breathed of God" so the issue is, does BARRD believe that or not?The Barrd said:
What does it mean when someone reads something of mine, and says to me "You are an inspired author"?StanJ said:
The Greek is where one starts, so that has to be the first consideration in arriving at the proper connotation. Secondly the inspiration is from God, so in that regard it far exceeds human inspiration, and in fact is perfect, unlike humans.The Barrd said:
My point was that the oppression of women was and still is a very real problem. Even to this day, there is oppression, although it is not what it once was.Wormwood said:
