New Testament Misogyny

a reply to: windword

Adam was the first "snitch."

"She did it and tricked me into doing it too."

What a guy. Like he didn't know that it was from the tree of Knowledge. He had seen the tree, its fruit and was aware of what he was doing.

Misogyny is very old indeed, and a scripture based/backed problem.

a reply to: deignostian

Surely most of this comes from the change over from the old Pagan religions where women were revered as priestesses and with the desert religions the men wanted that power (and the frocks) and took control - hence the disrespect levelled at the women. Christ didn't follow through with this policy but interestingly Paul pushed it and he won if you look at how much of the New Testament he occupies - far too much in fact. You also have to remember that no women were involved in deciding what was put into Christianity to make it a religion for the Emperor and governance.

In most homes the woman runs it and is the heart. Today we have the term hearts and minds because we recognise its importance, but the bullying patriarchs wanted their women as chattels and IMHO they have a lot to answer for.

a reply to: deignostian

I won't disagree that there is misogyny in the Bible -- old and new testaments. But there is a little more to the story. Jesus Himself was quite progressive in his views and treatment of women.

Regarding the new testament, and your OP, the epistles you quoted were written by Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus). Since the beginning, many Christians (including myself) reject the words/teachings of Paul because they often contradict the teachings of Jesus. Some scholars believe that Saul of Tarsus is the "Man of Lies" in the Dead Sea Scroll. The Gnostics also rejected Paul.

Many scholars also believe that the Gospels -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- all derive from one manuscript known as the "Q" gospel or "Q" source, although that manuscript has never been specifically found or identified.

There are some others here (and everywhere!) with far more knowledge about this than me. But it's a start for you to begin further researching if you're so inclined.

a reply to: deignostian

The NT also says men are subject to their wives, also says their bodies are not their own and belong to their wives, and says a man should love their wives as Christ loved the church. Which in essence means He put His church first in all things and sacrificed Himself for it. When you look at the total picture, it's no different than Genesis, husband and wife become one flesh, one person basically, they both should serve each other.

Plain and simple. Paul was an asshole with insane ideas and should be revealed for the false prophet he was.

a reply to: deignostian

Such creeps those people.

Its alright, you can say it... men are creeps.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
Plain and simple. Paul was an asshole with insane ideas and should be revealed for the false prophet he was.

Peter calls Paul a beloved brother in 2 Peter. The apostle John wrote 1,2, and 3 John after 90 AD and never mentioned Paul once as a false apostle. If the other apostles gave him the right hand of fellowship, there is no reason to think he wasn't.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
Plain and simple. Paul was an asshole with insane ideas and should be revealed for the false prophet he was.

Peter calls Paul a beloved brother in 2 Peter. The apostle John wrote 1,2, and 3 John after 90 AD and never mentioned Paul once as a false apostle. If the other apostles gave him the right hand of fellowship, there is no reason to think he wasn't.

lol.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: deignostian

The NT also says men are subject to their wives,

Not so. Other way around, unless you can quote the exact words you claim were said about male subjection TO women you got no reason to say that.

also says their bodies are not their own and belong to their wives, and says a man should love their wives as Christ loved the church. Which in essence means He put His church first in all things and sacrificed Himself for it. When you look at the total picture, it's no different than Genesis, husband and wife become one flesh, one person basically, they both should serve each other.

So this is your reasoning for subjection of women and subservience to men demanded of them and that makes subservience and subjection OK? Sorry, not convincing.

a reply to: Boadicea

Excellent research!!!

a reply to: deignostian

You could certainly be correct about Mark, may I ask your reason? I am very curious.

Just the impression I get while reading it.

Straight forward narration; not particularly making a big spiritualized hoopla out of a narrative.
Stuff like that.

I would say the answer to this debate is how you perceive a higher power

If you don't believe in one, you look around life in today's society and cherry pick reasons to back your belief.

If there is an all knowing being. He would be smart enough to know that you have to speak to your audience. You have to speak to their free will and make them want to follow. So somethings will be written for society then and some for society now and some for society later.

I find it all quite strange that throughout most religions, they seem to have a thing about womens hair, as though it holds so strange power over men. Mind you according to this statement back in 1979 it seems it does

In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane. To protect the public, the new regime passed special legislation in 1982 making the new form of hijab mandatory for all females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code is punishable by 100 lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment.

This amazing scientific discvoery (sic) was one of the reasons for the return of the hijab to protect the poor men and the lustful desires
Then you have the Quakers, The Amish, Fundamental Christians, and many others who all believe in some mystical hair power!

a reply to: deignostian

When you read the entire 5th chapter of Ephesians it says husbands and wives submit to each other, serve each other, there is nothing in there about ruling over one another. As a husband it tells me to love and cherish my wife as Christ loved the church, and to sacrifice myself for her. To me, that means I put my wants, needs, desires and dreams behind those of my wife's, that I seek to make her as happy and secure as possible. That's how I read Ephesians 5, that I'm to lay down everything for her.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Not just women's hair, but men's too... remember Samson and Delilah? Samson claimed his hair gave him his strength and power. And it would at least seem to be so, since he lost his strength and power when she cut his hair off!

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Long beautiful hair does have mystical power. Lol 😂😂😂

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Back in NT times the scientific community thought that hair was part of sexual reproduction . It worked like this ...the hair was hollow and had a vacuum to it .The mans sperm was sucked up to the woman's brain and that is how pregnancy happened . There is a old document of the time from a Doctor who lays out how to tell if the woman's tubes were blocked . It says to put a scented suppository in her womb and leave it for a day and then check her breath the next day for the sent . In Corinthians when Paul alludes to Nature as to why the woman should cover her head it may be that it was considered genitalia . The other part referring to the angels may be a reference to the Watcher episode in Genesis .

Sub•jec•tion (noun) The action of subjecting a person (or country) to ones CONTROL or the fact of being subjected.

Synonyms: domination, oppression, mastery, repression, suppression

I dare anyone to tell us how this is acceptable to believe as proper behavior.

Especially in "the good book."

Alternative definitions:

1. Being under the rule of another
2. The act of bringing someone under one's control.

What would the Messiah say about such a disgusting practice?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Not just women's hair, but men's too... remember Samson and Delilah? Samson claimed his hair gave him his strength and power. And it would at least seem to be so, since he lost his strength and power when she cut his hair off!

Samson lost his strength for his constant sin
He constantly broke nazarite laws.
Context

a reply to: deignostian

But you can't remove the role of the husband in verses 25-29, there we are told to love, cherish, and sacrifice ourselves for our wives. That's how I respond to her, put her first in all things, love her more than myself, and do all things necessary to provide, protect, and nurture her.

A wise man listens to the council of his wife, she sees things from a different perspective, and her council is invaluable. Wives are a gift from God, something to love and to serve her needs and desires above my own. I don't need to concern myself and focus on how she treats me, I can't control that, all I can do is love her as Christ loved the church. Unselfishly, and put her first in everything.