Bible on Women

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

1 Corinthians 14:

[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. [35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1 Timoty 2 [11] Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. [12] I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

what do these passages mean?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 11, 2004

Answers

1 Corintians 11 [13] Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 11, 2004.

I'm suprised we haven't addressed this before now. Obviously, it would be a contradiction if Paul thought women should remain silent period just after talking about whether or not a woman should pray in church with her head uncovered or covered.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

They address Greek laws. At the time, the Pagan Greeks did not allow women to speak openly. The Chrisain CHurch was mocked for its open allowance of women to join its congregation. Likewise, owmen where able to be baptised. Thsi was shameful enough. However, Chrisauns where a the time also allowign women to speak up in Chruch, which lead to persecutuon.

Greek law forbade this practice.so natrually Paul frbade it, because f he didnt then everyone woudl ahve been killed.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 11, 2004.


As far as the head coverings go, Paul placed his reasoning in Creation, not Greek laws. To my knowledge, he never mentioned Adam and Eve in regard to silence in worship. Although these two instructions are often taught together, I think there is a clear difference and we should be careful not to throw them together.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

super posts lads.

tell me this though.

it seems to me on a literal interpretation - it being perfectly possible to pray in silence - that St Paul mandates that nothing is to come from the words of a woman who was in Church.

furthermore, St Paul, in order to avoid my direct translation of Scripture, could have added the words "lest we all get arrested,...".

he didn't.

in addition, isn't 1 Timothy Chapter 2 also talking about a gathering of faithful - ie Church.

just playing devil's advocate, you understand.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 11, 2004.



Tell that to Sarah, Rebeccah, Miriam (spoke to God), Hannah, Huldah(a prophetess-gave OK on Deuteronomy).

Don't forget Mary and Elizabeth(spoke to angels). Also Phillip's daugheters (they also prophesied).

The Christian Yahwist PS: Even Jesus was good to women. He taught them.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.


The silence and submissiveness of 1 Timothy seems to be in regard to authority though. It is not a woman's place to speak against or above authority.

Oh btw, I was wrong about Paul using creation soley to head coverings. Verse 13 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve."

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.


And Ian, something you said caught my attention. A gathering of the faithful almost 2000 years ago was very different from one today. The Christians lived under continual persecution, there was much more care about who was admitted to a gathering, as you called it. Many churches today encourage their members to bring their non-believing friends to church, an act that probably would have brought resistance by the apostles. When someone wanted to preach to the unbelievers, he didn't invite them to church, he went out into their places of gathering and spoke to them. Only after a person was baptized were they allowed to worship in the congregation, which makes sense. Why would an unbeliever praise God?

There are a couple of things mentioned to me. First, there isn't a command in the Law of Moses that tells a woman to keep silent and not speak, or inquire their husbands at home. This must mean that the law Paul was speaking of was another law, unique to the culture he was addressing. Second, verses 35-37 of 1 Cor 14 read, "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

Not every version translates the "what?" which actually doesn't appear in the original text. What Paul is doing is writing with emotion. If you consider changes in puncuation, it could appear that Paul is writing against men who would not let a woman speak. "What? came the word of God out from you (men)? or came it unto you (men) only?"

If Paul is saying women given the word of God (prophecy) just as men are, then surely they would be able to speak it.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.


If Greek women were not allowed to speak during religious ceremonies, then the Thesmophoria, Haloa, and ceremonies of their kind would have been extremely quiet. Though women were second class citizens in many aspects of Greek life, they played vital roles in many religious ceremonies. (During funeral processions, for example, the women preceded the men.)

-- J Biscuits (thefilthohgodthefilth@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.

There were problems with those Gnostics. They elevated women to a high position by making them priestesses in their "churches". These priestesess had authority over men.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.



But, then again, they expected women and men to eventually become as one. The implication is that the sexes would be indeterminable. Or, they could have meant that the sexes would have complete equality. Were they correct? Today, we have what looks like equality of the sexes, but such a thing will never happen. Men and women are not and never be equal; we just weren't created that way.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.


This inequality between men and women does not mean injustices for either one. Man loves woman as his own flesh.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.


Some use Galatians 3:28 to show that gender roles cease to exist, that all are equally capable and commissioned. Of course, this sort of logic justifies homosexuality.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.

Physically speaking:

Let's take the healthiest man and woman. Place them on a track for a foot race. Should the woman have a few feet head start before the man? Nah!

The race starts who will win? It depends on the length of the race. It could be that the man may have an advantage if the race is relatively short, but if the race is long? The massiveness of the man might be to the man's disadvantage if the race is extremely long. The lack of muscle mass on the woman might prove to be a disadvantage if the race is short. Hmm?

Emotionally speaking:

An infant raised by the woman may produce a child with tenderness and maternal attitudes. An infant raised by the man may produce a child with aggressive and pragmatic problem solving attitudes. This is a simple view of the differences between men and women. Each sex has degrees of characterics. This is why kids need both parents.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.


In the Gnostic, Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says something about making Mary Magdala into a man. I take this to mean that the offer of Salvation is for everyone. It also means that woman are as equal as men in God's view, but we must also consider the Creation story and the sequence of events concerning Adam and then Eve. But, the Gnostic society was rather warped in their theology. Sex was bad for them. I wonder if the Catholic Church took measure to suppress the elevation of women in the religious(Gnostic) context by providing a ministry for nuns in the "real" religious faith. I wonder.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.c om), May 12, 2004.



Let's also consider the pagan rituals involving women "temple priestesses". They amounted to being proxies--prostitutes--for the gods (Ishtar, to name one). Somebody had to step in and put a stop to all of that mess. Judaism finally came to the rescue, but that paganism mess was still around, Holy Moses! Could the nun vocation have been the solution of setting the world straight against pagan rituals?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.


The word of the day:

celebacy

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.


Celebacy: to sell on ebay

Did you mean Celibacy?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.


Yess, eye mint "celibacy". Akchewally, dat wird skairs mee.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.


It doesn't matter how much I believe my words are spelled correctly or my grammar is performed correctly, I always fowl things up. Uh...foul things up.

............I'm pressing 'enter', but sure enough I'll find errors later.

.....

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.


celibacy

The doctrine puts away any doubts of sexual rituals practiced in the Church by its clergy. Well, it should, anyway. St. Paul spoke of those problems and took measures to expose the wrong doings.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.


What does this have to do with this topic? Well, it may explain the reason for doctrine against having "priestesses", especially the "extra-marrital" types. The women shall remain "silent".

.................. (Hmm? "mara", "marriage", hmm?)

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.


Luke

super Scripture, St Paul to the Galatians, Chapter 3, which i post here from Rheims:

[25] But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue.

[26] For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus.

[27] For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.

[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[29] And if you be Christ's, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.

Kind of sorts out the real issue, the [misogyny]. salvation for all. the other stuff -- makes me wonder about St Paul and what he must have had in opposition. he was quite a "pushy guy" really, me thinks.

anyways, I'm going to track these verses in the Catechism and see what is there.

Rod - Mary Magdalene, phew, i sped read that Gospel last week, though it meant the Mother of God. fool am i. PS i am not too familiar at all with it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 12, 2004.


Some of those gospels read quite innocently, until you re-read them and realize what they are actually telling. There is a lot of monkey business, too, in the history of Mary, Magdala, and Jesus written by some of these "pop" authors. I don't know how those authors are gonna squeek through judgement day.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.


Create a new category for this thread, David Ortiz.

Call it either women issues, women and the Bible,...or anything of that sort.

If the women among us agree on somethin else, let them have their say.

It is about time we accept their contributions.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ