It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pauls statements against women.

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Klassified
 


Didn't Jesus call Peter "satan" in one passage?



You could say that. But he was actually addressing the spiritual influence that Peter was listening to.




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Klassified
 


Didn't Jesus call Peter "satan" in one passage?



You could say that. But he was actually addressing the spiritual influence that Peter was listening to.


Well i did say that... because he did call Peter satan...

Interestingly enough... you say he was "listening to some spiritual influence" yet he had the son of God in front of him... and he didn't believe what he said.

And coinsidentally..
He backs paul...

Perhaps he was still under said spiritual influence?


edit on 16-8-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
First, Paul didn't write 1 Timothy, in my opinion, shared with Western non-fundamentalist scholars generally. Since the title of this thread asserts a historical claim, rather than a religious one (Paul did or else he did not make statements against women), it is irrelevant to the announced topic who other than Paul wrote the Pastorals, when and why.

Which leaves us with 1 Corinthians 14, especially 34-35.


1) The Corinthians were a Gentile, Greek church
2) Citing the Jewish Law to quell some members of that church wouldn't make sense, as they were NEVER under the Law, may not even have known what it was


Although I agree with the thrust of that, I would argue a bit differently from my friend adj. I think some Corinthians knew the Law well enough, as we shall see.

The OP obligingly tells us some of what is unacceptable about an uncritical reading of 34-35 as an admonition of Paul. First, it is indeed ironic, exactly ironic in my view, that Paul refers to the Law in 34. Paul intends irony.

It is also clear, just as the OP says, that "Paul had a certain view towards women." If we'd like to see what that view was, as it applied to the participation of women in the early Gentile church, then we need only turn back to chapter 11, where we see throughout that Paul takes women's full participation in his church for granted.

That is, chapter 11 throughout contradicts what 14:34-35 asserts. We also have early Second Century pagan witness to women of rank in the Gentile church (Pliny the Younger's much cited letter to Trajan). Chapter 11 was implemented; 14:34-35 not for a long time.

The manuscript witness is also interesting. The verses 34-35 are somewhat unlikely to be forged, since they appear in all manuscripts, incuding the earliest. However, depending on the manuscript, the verses appear in one of two different places, either where they are now canonically, or at the end of what is now chapter 14, tacked on.

Wandering location is sometimes the mark of a marginal annotation that eventually becomes mistakenly incorporated into the text. That doesn't fit so well here, because the incorporation would have to have been very early, and a widespread choice.

The more direct explanation is that Paul himself set the verses apart from the text, or perhaps the recipient added them offset, to cross-reference the letter that Paul is answering, otherwise lost to us now. In other words, the Corinthians had proposed a rule to Paul, based on the rule in Jewish Synagogues, and Paul quoted the proposed rule in order to reject it.

. 36 Did the word of God go forth from you? Or has it come to you alone?

Those are two rhetorical questions, addressed to some particular "you." The meaning would be "Your proposal, boy(s), is rejected."

Or so it seems to me. While Paul may indeed have had a nuanced attitude to the Law, I don't think he intended or neglected flatly contradiciting himself on a question of Christian church rules within the space of a few legislative pages. We know that actual Gentile church practice continued to feature women in prominent roles for at least two generations after 1 Corinthians.

So, the resolution is neither forgery nor misogyny, but rather the most rotuine sort of use-mention confusion on the part of some later readers (that is, not the people to whom the letter was addressed, nor their contemporaries either, it would seem). Such confusion happens all the time, even in later ages where inline quotation marks (inverted commas) are a routine part of the writer's punctuation arsenal.
-
edit on 16-8-2012 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 

Thank you eight bits. Starred. That's an interesting angle on this text. Hope you don't mind if I keep that around for reference.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Well, that would be an example of Paul contradicting himself, not Christ, but as I pointed out earlier, there are bits of Paul that appear to be reflective of his time, rather than himself.


A double minded person is not anointed of the Spirit. Contradicting yourself is double-mindedness. You should not change your mind/views regardless of the situation/time/trends. If Jesus met Adam and Eve, the couple would not have persecuted Jesus in his teachings. But Jesus wasn't sent to them because they understood God's Laws and obeyed them. Jesus was sent when everyone has forgotten the way. He did not compromise and he paid the consequences with his own life.

I've worked in Data Analysis when I was in IT. Historical data must never contradict, if they do and client finds out, you're in big trouble, you'll lose your job or worse, get sued! Same thing for truth, it must never contradict, else it loses it's credibility.

James 1:6-8
6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.

To prosperity doctrine followers. Note, James is not talking about money or any material/carnal 'blessings'. He's talking about the revelation of the Truth, ie, 'ask for the Truth', 'receive the Truth and/or Holy Spirit'.
edit on 16-8-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 



James 1:6-8
6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.


Thats interesting...

So basically if you ask a "priest"/spokesman of God... or whatever you like to call them something about the bible... you must believe whatever he says?

Even though John specifically said "test all spirits"... which means have doubt...




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
Thats interesting...

So basically if you ask a "priest"/spokesman of God... or whatever you like to call them something about the bible... you must believe whatever he says?

Even though John specifically said "test all spirits"... which means have doubt...



Doubting is different than testing. Doubting has a preconceived bias because of lack or missing evidence or lack of knowledge.

Testing requires an open mind and more time. You take on a methodological approach and even research/study all affected matter.

Say a prototype automobile. The boss has doubts about the vehicle surviving the proving grounds in one piece. The engineer on the other hand, says, let's test it.

I once had a car my uncle was quite doubtful it would meet my expections. My expectations are quite high. I put the car into rigorous tests literally, rally-driven, driven very long distances, and it passed all my expectations and quite happy.

The reason for my uncle's doubt is that he didn't know much about cars. He didn't even know what I like about cars. He used his own criteria for judging, not my own.

In testing truth, we use God's (the Spirit's) criteria, not ours. If we doubt, it's because we are using ours.
edit on 16-8-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by ahnggk
 



James 1:6-8
6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.


Thats interesting...

So basically if you ask a "priest"/spokesman of God... or whatever you like to call them something about the bible... you must believe whatever he says?

Even though John specifically said "test all spirits"... which means have doubt...



Every person can have a bad day surrounded by duality views in an unharmonious world away from home. Even Jesus have times when he judges in his preaching if we can belive the bible is somewhat a true account of what the people saw him do. Why follow a messager if the message seems wrong and not thoughtthru.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ahnggk

Originally posted by Akragon
Thats interesting...

So basically if you ask a "priest"/spokesman of God... or whatever you like to call them something about the bible... you must believe whatever he says?

Even though John specifically said "test all spirits"... which means have doubt...



Doubting is different than testing. Doubting has a preconceived bias because of lack or missing evidence or lack of knowledge.

Testing requires an open mind and more time. You take on a methodological approach and even research/study all affected matter.

Say a prototype automobile. The boss has doubts about the vehicle surviving the proving grounds in one piece. The engineer on the other hand, says, let's test it.

I once had a car my uncle was quite doubtful it would meet my expections. My expectations are quite high. I put the car into rigorous tests literally, rally-driven, driven very long distances, and it passed all my expectations and quite happy.

The reason for my uncle's doubt is that he didn't know much about cars. He didn't even know what I like about cars. He used his own criteria for judging, not my own.

In testing truth, we use God's (the Spirit's) criteria, not ours. If we doubt, it's because we are using ours.
edit on 16-8-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)


Sometimes doubt or being very sceptic makes you find/seek thruth from both within and without that is different than the thoughts of the mind/ego. Doubt might be difficult for the person but can give the greatest rewards in understanding and change.
edit on 16-8-2012 by apushforenlightment because: spellchecking



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Have you tested whatever spirit "inspired" the bible?

Specifically the OT?

Knowing that paul has made such statements against women... does that not leave "doubt"?




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Have you tested whatever spirit "inspired" the bible?

Specifically the OT?

Knowing that paul has made such statements against women... does that not leave "doubt"?


Nice conclusion jump -- as I and several others have said, what Paul wrote there is not necessarily "statements against women". He clearly has affection and respect for many that he names, and, as he set up the churches that he is writing to, it would seem that he was personally in favour of female Deacons, at the least.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Hi, Klassified

Thanks for the kind words. This thread from a few years ago, posted by whitewave on the Conspiracies in Religion board here, was the eye opener for me on this passage:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe you and others will find it interesting.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Have you tested whatever spirit "inspired" the bible?

Specifically the OT?

Knowing that paul has made such statements against women... does that not leave "doubt"?


Nice conclusion jump -- as I and several others have said, what Paul wrote there is not necessarily "statements against women". He clearly has affection and respect for many that he names, and, as he set up the churches that he is writing to, it would seem that he was personally in favour of female Deacons, at the least.


hmm...

CANON XLIV.

Women may not go to the altar

Yet deacons can... Something conflicting there don't you think?




edit on 16-8-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Really? Could all men go the alter, or just Deacons and Bishops? If woman was a deacon, and she couldn't go to alter then I don't suppose she could speak in church either.

It isn't much to allow a woman to be a deacon, as the word means "waiter" or table server. The Hellenites were complaining about wasting there time with waiting tables and feeding the widows, when they could be out teaching and preaching.

So they decided to appoint 7 Deacons to serve the widows at the tables.



www.baptiststart.com...

In the original language, the word, Deacon, means Servant
The title itself, is as descriptive as any job description could be. In the Bible, words have meanings and the word "deacon" means servant. Here is how the word has been defined in its various forms:

"Diakoneo and its derivatives, as their etymology suggests, are used mainly for personal help to others."
"Diakonia is found 34 times in the NT. It means service at the table in Lk. 10:40; Acts 6:1, etc."
"Diakanos is found 29 times in the NT. Its primary meaning is one who serves at tables."


Deacons and Elders Are the Two Distinct Offices in a New Testament Church

The two New Testament offices are mentioned together in Philippians 1:1 and in 1st Timothy 3 — bishops and deacons. In 1st Timothy 3 the qualifications are spelled out for the two offices, bishops in verses 1-7, and deacons in verse 8-13. The qualifications are similar, but not identical. For example, the bishop is required to be “able to teach” whereas the deacon does not have that expectation. The differences in title and qualifications mean that the offices are distinct.


So progressive of Paul to accept a woman as a deacon to serve food to the widows, since the men were complaining about having the duty! /sarcasm


I wonder what Jesus would've told those complaining men? Do you think he would have told them to get some woman to the job they didn't want to do? I doubt it.


edit on 16-8-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Take a glance through the 60 Canons... theres lots of interesting information there

THE COMPLETE CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF LAODICEA IN PHRYGIA PACATIANA





posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Hmm. Okay, I will. Should I be scared?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Lets just say...

You won't be supprized




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


WOW! That's some control freaking, Jew hating, woman repressing, heathen and heretic condemning, self righteous stuff!


Thanks for showing me that. That explains a lot of the BS I grew up with in church.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




"For it is written" means Paul is quoting the OT.


Paul is also quoting the OT ....when he speaks of the law in 1 Corinthians 14:34.

Do you know why he was admonishing the Corinthian women to remain silent in church and wait till after to ask questions of their husbands? I'll give you a hint, that's not a problem today with the seating arrangements in modern churches.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by apushforenlightment
Sometimes doubt or being very sceptic makes you find/seek thruth from both within and without that is different than the thoughts of the mind/ego. Doubt might be difficult for the person but can give the greatest rewards in understanding and change.
edit on 16-8-2012 by apushforenlightment because: spellchecking


Yes, it is good to doubt - if you have no clear criteria to test an idea against. But we have a criteria.

James gave a warning in James 1:6-8 about doubting because more often than not, people just doubt and never test and spend hours upon hours of research to validate if an idea is to be discarded or to be accepted as truth. They used their own criterias, not God's.

I'm guilty of this especially when I just glaze over people's ideas and still trying my best not to! it's very common in online forums!


Doubting can come without testing. But testing can come without doubting if you have a truthful criteria to test against. People doubt if they don't trust the criteria.

It's only useful to test with doubts if you have no (clear) criteria to test against. But we have a Criteria, Jesus gave it through his teachings and he gave us the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Truth).

Having spent more than 3 years in Software Testing. I have a very good idea of the methodologies of testing. We got the testing steps, expected results (criteria to test against), and the actual result.

If the criteria is clear especially if the guy who made the criteria is very competent and very experienced, we go testing clear of doubts.

If we don't trust the one who made the criteria. We doubt and double check everything. If we have the Holy Spirit, we have a clear criteria we can trust and not doubt. We can therefore, test ideas without doubting.

It is a dangerous thing to doubt during testing if the criteria is truthful all throughout because there only one direction you go beyond truth - lies/deception. The human mind can easily twist the truth I tell you. You can twist all the teachings of Jesus into the prosperity gospel. That's why God sent his Spirit after Jesus left.
edit on 16-8-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join