Women, religion and positions of power

[bowerbird]

Now I know the catholic church has been debating allowing women to join the priesthood,
Every church within the Catholic Faith in the United States deserves to have a powerful figurehead. This person should have a divine spirit and deep connection to God. This person should emulate all that Jesus Christ spiritually personified and have the answers to the parishes' hard questions regarding the Catholic Faith. This person should be someone dedicated to God with a love for preaching about all that God is. Clearly, it is not what physical attributes this person has on the outside of their body; it is the idea that they share a likeness in spirit, heart, and soul to Jesus Christ. In the Roman Catholic Church, the person preaching on the altar is always male.

http://are.as.wvu.edu/Scheible.html

But this debate is not confined to the catholic church


he role of the black woman in the church has varied from one religious denomination to another. While women as often referred to as "mother," and highly respected in the religious and secular black community, they do not always hold positions of official power. In Baptist and Methodist churches, women have their own departments within the church. Often, they function as Evangelists, missionaries, teachers, and choir directors. If they do preach, it is without ordination, and often solely to carry out the work of a deceased husband. This is especially true in many Pentecostal denominations. In some black religious denominations, such as Mt. Sinai Holy Church of America, women can be ordained as elders, a position separate from that of preacher. The House of God allows women preachers, while The Firstborn Church of the Living God separated as a result of the liberal stance. Often, black women who wish to preach must open independent churches or enter white denominations.

http://dickinsg.intrasun.tcnj.edu/diaspora/women.html

The two sides of the debate, often called complementarians (those who believe the Bible teaches that men and women have different and complementary roles) and egalitarians (those who believe that leadership positions are open to both men and women), disagree on many issues. However, both agree on two other assumptions, which are important to state.

First, the debate is not over the equality of women. Both sides of the debate are clear that both men and women are equal in value, and both were created in the image of God. While complementarians would suggest that men and women have different roles, they do not mean to say that men and women are not equal, just as the member of the Godhead differ in their roles but are fully equal.

Second, the debate is not about rights or power. Within God's Kingdom, there is no place for anyone to demand their rights or to cling to power (Matthew 20:25-28; Philippians 2:1-11). The debate is therefore not about feminism or women's rights.

http://www.dashhouse.com/resources/Gender/index.htm

I would be interested in what the members thought of the role of women within the church.

[neo of the mind]

I think women should and can take any role not already declared to be the role of men as described in the New Testament.

[bowerbird]

I think women should and can take any role not already declared to be the role of men as described in the New Testament.

Would you like to elaborate on that?

[cpwill]

one of my prof's was a member of a episcopalian delegation to the vatican back when they first ordained women. the pope actually came to see them, and brought the subject up. one of my prof's contemporaries had the guts to ask the pope if he was using the episcopalians as a test case to see if the catholic church (which is very similar to high episcopalian) could make a similar leap.

he said the pope just smiled..........

[sub_zer0]

I think women should and can take any role not already declared to be the role of men as described in the New Testament.

You are absolutely correct neo.

Would you like to elaborate on that?

I would, if neo doesn't mind. After all we are using the same source with the same heart, the NT.

# Under the law of Christ, both male and female are equally obligated to the marriage ordinance; neither husband nor wife should depart from the other (1 Cor. 7:11). But should a husband leave his wife, she is not bound to follow the deserter (1 Cor. 7:15). And in the case of marital infidelity, the woman is granted the equal privilege of divorce and remarriage (cf. Matt. 19:9; Mk. 10:11,12).

# Inspiration clearly stresses the mutual dependence of men and women in Christ. Paul says, “Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11). Neither is complete without the other.

# In the matter of salvation, both stand on equal footing before God. Paul says concerning those who have obeyed the gospel: ”. . . there can be no male and female; for ye all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Galatians 3:28 is certainly in harmony with 1 Peter 3:7 which makes it clear that women are “joint—heirs of the grace of life.”

# The New Testament authorizes woman a domain of authority within the home. Younger widows are advised to marry, bear children, and “rule the household” (1 Tim. 5:14).

This does not indicate, of course, that woman’s authority in the home equals the man’s. He is the head of the wife and she is to be willingly in subjection to him (Eph. 5:22,23). Yet, he should lovingly allow her the freedom to exercise authority in the management of domestic matters, for God has ordained it.

SOURCE (http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/womans_role_in_the_church)

[mataj]

I think women should and can take any role not already declared to be the role of men as described in the New Testament.Such roles, I presume:

Forced To Deliver Human Material (http://www.towson.edu/heartfield/images/human.jpg)

(by Herzfeld/Heartfield (http://www.towson.edu/heartfield/artarchive.html))

[burntgorilla]

Do you two find there are many people in your congregation against women in the church? Do churches have any scriptural basis for denying women the higher ranks? All I seem to hear is "Jesus had only male disciples".

[neo of the mind]

Do you two find there are many people in your congregation against women in the church? Do churches have any scriptural basis for denying women the higher ranks? All I seem to hear is "Jesus had only male disciples".


What two people are you refering to? I also think you should reword your statement, "your congregation against women in the church?"

I don't think there is any Christian church that is AGAINST women.

[burntgorilla]

What two people are you refering to? I also think you should reword your statement, "your congregation against women in the church?"

I don't think there is any Christian church that is AGAINST women.

You and sub_zer0, obviously. And my wording meant "is there anyone in your congregation that is agaist women roles in the church?". I ask because there always seems to be controversy over here when a woman gets a high role in the church. Apparently, there is something of a glass ceiling in the Anglican church regarding women. I wanted your experiences.

[serenity]

This does not indicate, of course, that woman’s authority in the home equals the man’s. He is the head of the wife and she is to be willingly in subjection to him (Eph. 5:22,23).

Oh, of course! Who could argue with this? :)


Please.

[neo of the mind]

There is controversy over here versus some other places due to American churches actually adhering to what the scriptures say versus disregarding them. That is, unfortunately becoming less the case as the ideology of Liberalism as crept in.

The man is to be the spiritual leader of his household. It is a responsibility and obligation that should not be delegated. Likewise in a Christian church, men are to be the leaders for the congregation corporately. This leaves every other role open to women, including leadership positions outside of the corporate setting.

[burntgorilla]

What exactly do you mean by "corporately"? That a man must be in charge of the church, or congregation, as a whole, but women can be delegates, so to speak?

Secondly, why are men the spiritual leaders? Or, to put it a better way, why aren't women spiritual leaders? What do women lack?

[neo of the mind]

Oh, of course! Who could argue with this? :)
Please.

By this reaction, I don't perceive that you understand the role of a husband and wife. If the husband fulfills his role, a wife will gladly fufill hers and vice versa. Tension occurs when one or both are not fullfilling their roles.

Jesus and the church were examples of the relationship between a husband and his wife.

A husband is to love and treat his wife as Jesus loved and treated the church. I recommend reading all of the scripture in relation to the roles of a husband and wife and don't stop at the word subjection before you discount it.

[serenity]

By this reaction, I don't perceive that you understand the role of a husband and wife. If the husband fulfills his role, a wife will gladly fufill hers and vice versa. Tension occurs when one or both are not fullfilling their roles.

right...when the woman is submissive to the superior entity--her husband--then all is well. It's fairly clear.

Jesus and the church were examples of the relationship between a husband and his wife.

A husband is to love and treat his wife as Jesus loved and treated the church.

Yes...the man is as Jesus, and the woman is not as Jesus. Excellent stuff.


I recommend reading all of the scripture in relation to the roles of a husband and wife and don't stop at the word subjection before you discount it.

I do discount it, because subjection demands inferiority, or rather the perception of one or both parties to the inferiority of women. It's pathetic. This stuff is enjoyed only by men who have a desire to have power over women--that is, weak-minded and frightened little individuals--and by women who believe they should have a submissive role to the superior spirituality and morality of the male--that is, these types of women too are weak-minded and frightened little individuals.

[bowerbird]

:sorry: but speaking as the poor 'lil' ole woman here - do you realise how condescending this sounds??

Guess I'll just have to remain barefoot and pregnant!!

[neo of the mind]

right...when the woman is submissive to the superior entity--her husband--then all is well. It's fairly clear.

Yes...the man is as Jesus, and the woman is not as Jesus. Excellent stuff.

I do discount it, because subjection demands inferiority, or rather the perception of one or both parties to the inferiority of women. It's pathetic. This stuff is enjoyed only by men who have a desire to have power over women--that is, weak-minded and frightened little individuals--and by women who believe they should have a submissive role to the superior spirituality and morality of the male--that is, these types of women too are weak-minded and frightened little individuals.

I can't discuss this with you if you don't acknowledge the responsibilites and the role a husband must fullfill in relation to his wife. If you only can see one side of the equation, then it will appear unfair.

Also everyone is subject to something higher than themselves. It doesn't bother you apparently for anything else other than the husband and wife roles.

The U.S. government derives it's authority from the consent of the people, likewise a husband derives his authority from the consent of his wife. This is empowerment.

Infering that women that understand the realionship between a husband and wife as being weak minded and frightened is extremely offensive.

[neo of the mind]

:sorry: but speaking as the poor 'lil' ole woman here - do you realise how condescending this sounds??

Guess I'll just have to remain barefoot and pregnant!!

of course you can take the extreme position as you stated, but nothing warrants that.

That's like saying if I said women should not be line backers in the NFL due to their physical limitations in comparison to men and you then state that you won't play any sports the rest of your life.

[bowerbird]

Apples and oranges - I still contend that the responses have been, to say the least condescending toward women.

[neo of the mind]

Apples and oranges - I still contend that the responses have been, to say the least condescending toward women.

My example was in relation to your extreme response, so I disagree that it is apples and oranges.

You can feel that my comments are condescending, I don't have a problem with that. Your feelings however won't trump scripture in my opinion.

[Atticus]

Apples and oranges - I still contend that the responses have been, to say the least condescending toward women.That would reflect the fact that St. Paul was/is condescending toward women.

Of course, he reflected his time and culture. Times and cultures change--scriptures do not. That's a basic problem.

[sub_zer0]

Apples and oranges - I still contend that the responses have been, to say the least condescending toward women.

What is condesending about woman? Realize God has established a role. How could anything be condescending to a woman, when they know they are doing what God wants them to do? If their heart is right for Christ, they should feel blessed, just as a man would doing what his role is.

[Atticus]

Quit using what you think it is, and realize God has established a role. How could anything be condescending to a woman, when they know they are doing Gods will? They wouldn't feel that way, they would feel blessed, just as a man would doing what his role is.But that's only if they accept the premises 1) that Paul (among others) spoke with complete accuracy on God's behalf in every particular, 2) that Paul's words are not bound by his time and culture [and therefore speak as accurately to women today as they did in the first century, 3) that problems do not occur because men don't hold up their part of the bargain (after all, it's very difficult to be a good follower when the leader uses his authority to abuse you.

For example, if we substitute the word "slave" for woman (and, considering the language Paul uses to describe women's roles, that's not an unreasonable substitution) we get "...realize God has established a role. How could anything be condescending to a slave, when they know they are doing God's will?"

Hmm.....Are you suggesting that it is impossible to condescend to a woman? Is her position so lowly as that?

One last note: I notice that Jesus (you know, the one we actually believe IS God) doesn't speak to this issue--in fact, there are many instances in the Gospels where Jesus lowers himself in order to serve the needs of a woman--and raises her up beyond a station even she herself would assume was her right. All the New Testament declarations about the subordinate position of women come from Paul, who is elaborating out of the old law based on his own experience as a Pharasee, not on Jesus's teaching. In this way, Paul seems to contradict Jesus rather than affirm Him.

[sub_zer0]

But that's only if they accept the premises 1) that Paul (among others) spoke with complete accuracy on God's behalf in every particular, 2) that Paul's words are not bound by his time and culture [and therefore speak as accurately to women today as they did in the first century, 3) that problems do not occur because men don't hold up their part of the bargain (after all, it's very difficult to be a good follower when the leader uses his authority to abuse you.

1) Yes, obviously. Not just God's behalf, but of Christs teachings.

2) Sure they were, there was only a set vocabulary during that time. But the meaning of them stands forever in Christ.

3) As I stated in my last post:

"This does not indicate, of course, that woman’s authority in the home equals the man’s. He is the head of the wife and she is to be willingly in subjection to him (Eph. 5:22,23). Yet, he should lovingly allow her the freedom to exercise authority in the management of domestic matters, for God has ordained it."

Not only that, but the general idea is to treat everybody as you would want to be treated, treat especially your wife with utmost care, respect and love.

For example, if we substitute the word "slave" for woman (and, considering the language Paul uses to describe women's roles, that's not an unreasonable substitution) we get "...realize God has established a role. How could anything be condescending to a slave, when they know they are doing God's will?"

Hmm.....Are you suggesting that it is impossible to condescend to a woman? Is her position so lowly as that?

Not at all, are you going to ignore the blatent wording of the Bible and subsitute a word to prove a point?

You see, my whole point is, nothing God has commanded will be condescending, it will be EXACTLY the role that should be played for a woman and a man. Notice how I equated man and woman in that they should never feel condescended if they are following God's will.

One last note: I notice that Jesus (you know, the one we actually believe IS God) doesn't speak to this issue--in fact, there are many instances in the Gospels where Jesus lowers himself in order to serve the needs of a woman--and raises her up beyond a station even she herself would assume was her right. All the New Testament declarations about the subordinate position of women come from Paul, who is elaborating out of the old law based on his own experience as a Pharasee, not on Jesus's teaching. In this way, Paul seems to contradict Jesus rather than affirm Him.

Wrong, Jesus who is God indeed shows the importance of woman, which again proves that they should not feel put down by anything stated for their role.

Paul is only writing based off of Jesus Christ's life, death, resurrection and teachings. Everything he said is in line with what Christ said or taught.

[Dangerrmouse]

So where did JC unequivocally state that women must be subordinate to men?

[sub_zer0]

So where did JC unequivocally state that women must be subordinate to men?

Since JC came to fulfill the Law, and we are to look at the entire context of His teaching and Biblical doctrines, in Genesis 2:18 it states:

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

Genesis 2:20:
The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

After going through animals and other aspects of creation, God then said in Genesis 2:22:

The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

[brainpan]

Since JC came to fulfill the Law, and we are to look at the entire context of His teaching and Biblical doctrines, in Genesis 2:18 it states:

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."The shorter answer, DM, is that he didn't.

[sub_zer0]

The shorter answer, DM, is that he didn't.

LOL, JC followed every aspect of the Law, you are wrong sir. Do I need to start drawing some parallels?

[neo of the mind]

The shorter answer, DM, is that he didn't.

Do you have empirical data to back up this statement?

[Dangerrmouse]

None of the above was put in JC's mouth as in him being quoted as ever having said it. Anything else is so much bollocks.

[sub_zer0]

None of the above was put in JC's mouth as in him being quoted as ever having said it. Anything else is so much bollocks.

Actually you are completely wrong. Jesus as a child just like other Jews tried to follow the Law (first five books, including Genesis). Jesus fulfilled everything and through His life, just as other Jews tried to do.

You stating that because I quoted the OT instead of Jesus words directly means nothing, His life was based and is what fulfilled the teachings of the OT. I am in my right to quote either OT or NT since Jesus fulfilled the OT and taught in the NT based on the OT teachings. He literally quotes 34 books of the OT in the NT, including Genesis.

[Dangerrmouse]

He never said it, in short.

[Atticus]

1) Yes, obviously. Not just God's behalf, but of Christs teachings.Paul's words, as in this case, often go beyond Christ's teachings. When they do, I question them. I don't just reject them, but I do question them. Paul was a man--and a rather self-interested and prideful, at that. 2) Sure they were, there was only a set vocabulary during that time. But the meaning of them stands forever in Christ.But meanings change, and over 2000 years and several language translations, they change a lot. And Paul is pretty clearly here trying institute a set of gender relations that fits with his own culture's views. Personally, I don't think it's important to argue over minor points--and this is truly a minor point.

3) As I stated in my last post:

"This does not indicate, of course, that woman’s authority in the home equals the man’s. He is the head of the wife and she is to be willingly in subjection to him (Eph. 5:22,23). Yet, he should lovingly allow her the freedom to exercise authority in the management of domestic matters, for God has ordained it."

Not only that, but the general idea is to treat everybody as you would want to be treated, treat especially your wife with utmost care, respect and love.Surely there needs to be something reciprocal about this. If I am to "willingly submit" and what I'm submitting to is abuse, then my obligation to submit has to be limited, no? Does Paul make allowance for this? I don't think he does.
Not at all, are you going to ignore the blatent wording of the Bible and subsitute a word to prove a point?
No, I'm trying to point out that what the NT says about slaves and what Paul says about women are quite similar. We don't believe in slavery anymore, though many have argued that the NT does not prohibit it. Others made the quite reasonable claim that slavery violates the spirit if not the letter of the Law. We don't believe in the subjugation of women either, on the same basis.
You see, my whole point is, nothing God has commanded will be condescending,You operate on the premise that God's commandments don't change, when clearly they do. Eat pork much? Wife got a moonhut? it will be EXACTLY the role that should be played for a woman and a man.No variation allowed, huh? Notice how I equated man and woman in that they should never feel condescended if they are following God's will.Something tells me that God's will is more complex than you or I can really know. It clearly changes over time. Following scriptures too strictly and without thinking about their spirit is what makes people fly planes into buildings. And kill unbelievers. And insist women have short hair and men have long hair (so far as I know, this was just Paul's messed up sense of fashion).

Wrong.Okay. Explain HOW I am wrong. Jesus spends zero time or space on this question. You're just assuming he supported the old law. Show me why I should believe that Paul reflects JESUS'S views rather than the one we find in Leviticus. Jesus who is God indeed shows the importance of woman, which again proves that they should not feel put down by anything stated for their role.But again, he never speaks to them about this role--you are making an assumption.

Paul is only writing based off of Jesus Christ's life, death, resurrection and teachings. Everything he said is in line with what Christ said or taught.I disagree. Paul was rather a free-lancer in many regards. People who try to prove otherwise, IMO, always find themselves running around their backhands. They start with their conclusion and then find justification for it. This inevitably leads to error.

[bowerbird]

But that's only if they accept the premises 1) that Paul (among others) spoke with complete accuracy on God's behalf in every particular, 2) that Paul's words are not bound by his time and culture [and therefore speak as accurately to women today as they did in the first century, 3) that problems do not occur because men don't hold up their part of the bargain (after all, it's very difficult to be a good follower when the leader uses his authority to abuse you.

For example, if we substitute the word "slave" for woman (and, considering the language Paul uses to describe women's roles, that's not an unreasonable substitution) we get "...realize God has established a role. How could anything be condescending to a slave, when they know they are doing God's will?"

Hmm.....Are you suggesting that it is impossible to condescend to a woman? Is her position so lowly as that?

One last note: I notice that Jesus (you know, the one we actually believe IS God) doesn't speak to this issue--in fact, there are many instances in the Gospels where Jesus lowers himself in order to serve the needs of a woman--and raises her up beyond a station even she herself would assume was her right. All the New Testament declarations about the subordinate position of women come from Paul, who is elaborating out of the old law based on his own experience as a Pharasee, not on Jesus's teaching. In this way, Paul seems to contradict Jesus rather than affirm Him.


:kiss:

(((((((((((hug))))))))))))))

:kiss:

[bowerbird]

1)
"This does not indicate, of course, that woman’s authority in the home equals the man’s. He is the head of the wife and she is to be willingly in subjection to him (Eph. 5:22,23). Yet, he should lovingly allow her the freedom to exercise authority in the management of domestic matters, for God has ordained it."

.

I have this horrible and nasty habit of wanting to read the original source of a quote - being unfamiliar with the bible - could you give me a link?

[sub_zer0]

Paul's words, as in this case, often go beyond Christ's teachings. When they do, I question them. I don't just reject them, but I do question them. Paul was a man--and a rather self-interested and prideful, at that.

I do not think so.

But meanings change, and over 2000 years and several language translations, they change a lot. And Paul is pretty clearly here trying institute a set of gender relations that fits with his own culture's views. Personally, I don't think it's important to argue over minor points--and this is truly a minor point.

Not at all, that is why you always go back to original Hebrew and Greek to capture the full meaning. Paul is quite clearly reflecting Christ and His teachings.

Surely there needs to be something reciprocal about this. If I am to "willingly submit" and what I'm submitting to is abuse, then my obligation to submit has to be limited, no? Does Paul make allowance for this? I don't think he does. No, I'm trying to point out that what the NT says about slaves and what Paul says about women are quite similar. We don't believe in slavery anymore, though many have argued that the NT does not prohibit it. Others made the quite reasonable claim that slavery violates the spirit if not the letter of the Law. We don't believe in the subjugation of women either, on the same basis.

As I said, treat others as you are to be treated, nothing less, including slaves or servants during the time. The NT does not teach any of what you say you don't believe in, so you are safe.

You operate on the premise that God's commandments don't change, when clearly they do. Eat pork much? Wife got a moonhut? No variation allowed, huh? Something tells me that God's will is more complex than you or I can really know. It clearly changes over time. Following scriptures too strictly and without thinking about their spirit is what makes people fly planes into buildings. And kill unbelievers. And insist women have short hair and men have long hair (so far as I know, this was just Paul's messed up sense of fashion).

Actually the complex nature of God in regards to the questions posed can be answered in that, Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law. Through that action of His life, death and resurrection we now live in a new age of Grace (NT) not Law (OT).

Okay. Explain HOW I am wrong. Jesus spends zero time or space on this question. You're just assuming he supported the old law. Show me why I should believe that Paul reflects JESUS'S views rather than the one we find in Leviticus. But again, he never speaks to them about this role--you are making an assumption.

Jesus teachings on the subject are displayed by Paul's writings.

I have this horrible and nasty habit of wanting to read the original source of a quote - being unfamiliar with the bible - could you give me a link?

Ephesians 5:22
Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.

[Dangerrmouse]

Jesus never said it, did he?

[neo of the mind]

There is only one place that I am aware of that Paul specifically states that he is teaching something from his perspective alone and he honestly states it.

1 Cor 7:6

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
KJV




I think Paul was a rather humble man, he had a lot to boast of.

2 Cor 12:1-10
12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.

7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.

9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
KJV

[sub_zer0]

Jesus never said it, did he?

Doesn't matter, all scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

[Dangerrmouse]

Jesus never said the message that Paul is spreading, but "it doesn't matter"? Fine.

[sub_zer0]

Jesus never said the message that Paul is spreading, but "it doesn't matter"? Fine.

EXACTLY! We only have limited quotes from Jesus, we do not know every word He said on every subject, just what is in the NT.

Having said that, the normal, logical conclusion would be that Paul wrote about it instead of a direct quotation from Jesus. Paul, fulfilling the commandment from Jesus to make disciples of all the nations, in his epistles represented the teachings of Jesus not directly quoted.

[neo of the mind]

EXACTLY! We only have limited quotes from Jesus, we do not know every word He said on every subject, just what is in the NT.

Having said that, the normal, logical conclusion would be that Paul wrote about it instead of a direct quotation from from Jesus. Paul, fulfilling the commandment from Jesus to make disciples of all the nations, Paul in his epistles represented the teachings of Jesus.

You are exactly right about this sub and explain it rather distinctly.

This thread is a perfect example of cherry pickin.

[sub_zer0]

You are exactly right about this sub and explain it rather distinctly.

This thread is a perfect example of cherry pickin.

Right on brother, just doin what comes naturally, hehe.

[bowerbird]

Ephesians 5:22
Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.


I still have problems referrencing the original - perhaps this link will help

http://www.biblegateway.com/

[sub_zer0]

I still have problems referrencing the original - perhaps this link will help

http://www.biblegateway.com/

What are you talking about dude? That is where I copied and pasted them from, specifically the NASB version, but you don't need a link just read the Bible.

[bowerbird]

Still cannot find them - please provide a link I like to read the original

[sub_zer0]

Still cannot find them - please provide a link I like to read the original

Dude, why did you give me a link to an online Bible, then say you need a link?

READ THE BIBLE! lol

[bowerbird]

Dude, why did you give me a link to an online Bible, then say you need a link?

READ THE BIBLE! lol

Because I cannot find your quotes within that resource. Now I am NOT accusing you of making things up but that has happened on this forum before and so we, myself, other moderaters and members like to see the original source of a quote. It is a simple request.

[Atticus]

You are exactly right about this sub and explain it rather distinctly.

This thread is a perfect example of cherry pickin.Actually, no. Your side is making stuff up--that's not an accusation; you said so yourselves. To say that the Bible doesn't record what Jesus said, but because Paul said it Jesus must agree--we call this "argument ad ignoratium" or argument from ignorance. All His words are not recorded, therefore he might have said it (or worse, must have said it). This is not logical. Logical arguments have to work from premises to conclusions. Here you've started with a conclusion (Paul is always right and never contradicts Jesus) and worked backwards. That's what I've been calling "running around your backhand."

I'm not "cherry pickin" because I'm pointing out that the cherries don't exist, therefore they cannot be picked. You're trying to say "there are cherries on a tree beyond the horizon--just trust me."

Seriously, I have great respect for Biblical scholarship. Hermenutics is the intellectual tradition from which all the humanities grow, particularly my field in rhetoric and literature. But this kind of argument makes a mockery of scholarship.

[sub_zer0]

Actually, no. Your side is making stuff up. To say that the Bible doesn't record what Jesus said, but because Paul said it Jesus must agree--we call this "argument ad ignoratium" or argument from ignorance. All His words are not recorded, therefore he might have said it (or worse, must have said it). This is not logical. Logical arguments have to work from premises to conclusions. Here you've started with a conclusion (Paul is always right and never contradicts Jesus) and worked backwards. That's what I've been calling "running around your backhand."

ACTUALLY, I stated, that we don't have what Jesus said on every topic, so the normal conclusion would be that Paul represents the teachings of his teacher.

So prove that Paul contradicts Jesus...

I'm not "cherry pickin" because I'm pointing out that the cherries don't exist, therefore they cannot be picked. You're trying to say "there are cherries on a tree beyond the horizon--just trust me."

Seriously, I have great respect for Biblical scholarship. Hermenutics is the intellectual tradition from which all the humanities grow, particularly my field in rhetoric and literature. But this kind of argument makes a mockery of scholarship.

Well since you can't prove a negative, namely that cherries DON'T exist, you can't prove anything.

[sub_zer0]

Because I cannot find your quotes within that resource. Now I am NOT accusing you of making things up but that has happened on this forum before and so we, myself, other moderaters and members like to see the original source of a quote. It is a simple request.

Are you kidding me?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:22;&version=49;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:23;&version=49;

[Dangerrmouse]

Do you have links for non-Americans?

[sub_zer0]

Do you have links for non-Americans?

What are you?

[Atticus]

ACTUALLY, I stated, that we don't have what Jesus said on every topic, so the normal conclusion would be that Paul represents the teachings of his teacher.Actually, no. That would be a leap of faith. The logical conclusion would be that Paul represents something--but since he never met Jesus, how can he represent the "teachings of his teacher." I might accept this idea if Paul were a disciple, but he wasn't.


So prove that Paul contradicts Jesus...Paul goes well beyond what Jesus said about women. There's no logical reason to believe he is following in Jesus' footsteps when he says these things.


Well since you can't prove a negative, namely that cherries DON'T exist, you can't prove anything.But again, the rules of logic don't say I have to. That responsibility falls to the person who is making the claim.

Look at the whole passage, all of Ephesians 5. It's all about sexual and other kinds of immorality. What precisely does Paul mean by "submit?" Hmm..... He says submit to your husbands in "everything," but earlier he says not to be immoral. Does a woman not get to decide if her husband is acting immorally, and then choose not to follow him into his error?

[Dangerrmouse]

As I understand Atticus' post re cherries, his position that they do not exist counters YOUR claim without evidence that they do. The onus therefore, is on you to prove their existence.

[Atticus]

Also, notice how he ends in verse 33: However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.Respect is quite a bit different from "submit." It also appears at a point farther removed from his discussion of sexual immorality, so it would appear to be a more general edict. And this verse, which comes as a summing up, is far less sexist. A generous reading of Paul would say that "respect" is a more accurate general instruction to wives.

[sub_zer0]

Actually, no. That would be a leap of faith. The logical conclusion would be that Paul represents something--but since he never met Jesus, how can he represent the "teachings of his teacher." I might accept this idea if Paul were a disciple, but he wasn't.

And there is your leap of faith, that he never met Jesus. Although since Pauls writings are right there in the same NT, I think mine is more logical.

Paul goes well beyond what Jesus said about women. There's no logical reason to believe he is following in Jesus' footsteps when he says these things.

Sure there was, he was His disciple and student. Obviously a student is to represent his teacher and the teachings.

But again, the rules of logic don't say I have to. That responsibility falls to the person who is making the claim.

Look at the whole passage, all of Ephesians 5. It's all about sexual and other kinds of immorality. What precisely does Paul mean by "submit?" Hmm..... He says submit to your husbands in "everything," but earlier he says not to be immoral. Does a woman not get to decide if her husband is acting immorally, and then choose not to follow him into his error?

Since you ask the question, you do not know the answer, the answer is yes she can decide if her husband is acting immorally... Obviously. But hopefully the man would have enough sense not to act like that in the first place.

[neo of the mind]

"but since he never met Jesus"

Who did Paul meet when he was near Damascus? Who spoke to him? Who later gave him revelations?

[Atticus]

And there is your leap of faith, that he never met Jesus. Although since Pauls writings are right there in the same NT, I think mine is more logical.If one accepts the NT as a single, unified text, I guess that might make sense. It's not. It's a conglomeration of texts selected hundreds of years later. Again, you're starting with a premise (the NT is a unified text that doesn't contradict itself) and moving backwards. There may be forums in which you can make this assumption unchallenged, but this is not one of them.
Sure there was, he was His disciple and student. Obviously a student is to represent his teacher and the teachings.But implicit in this claim is that he MET Jesus--which he did not. Therefore he was not a disciple (we call him an Apostle, but not a disciple). My teachers are all people I've met. I might respect the idea of THEIR teachers that they transmit to me, but those are not my teachers--and I would make the assumption that anything transmitted by teacher A through student B (who is my teacher) and then transmitted to me, will likely be colored also by the ideas of B. Plus, when I write down what I've learned, I'll add a bit of myself to it also.

My claim is that Paul's words are as much Paul's as anyone's.
Since you ask the question, you do not know the answer, the answer is yes she can decide if her husband is acting immorally... Obviously. But hopefully the man would have enough sense not to act like that in the first place.Ahh...but so often we don't. You see, you've just admitted that the followership required of a woman is dependent on the "sense" of the man--and it is the woman's right to decide on how sensible he is.

Which doesn't sound so bad after all..... :angel:

[Atticus]

"but since he never met Jesus"

Who did Paul meet when he was near Damascus? Who spoke to him? Who later gave him revelations?I don't know...but I'm not sure I want to take his word for it. I certainly don't want to believe that I must take every word the man wrote as without error based on those claims.

If someone made claims like that today, he'd be called crazy or a charletan (see claims of UFO abduction). But because he made the claim thousands of years ago, they seem more credible.

What's the difference?

[Dangerrmouse]

What are you?

non-American, devilishly handsome, and rich... :rolleyes:

[neo of the mind]

I don't know...but I'm not sure I want to take his word for it. I certainly don't want to believe that I must take every word the man wrote as without error based on those claims.

If someone made claims like that today, he'd be called crazy or a charletan (see claims of UFO abduction). But because he made the claim thousands of years ago, they seem more credible.

What's the difference?

You don't know? Then we can not discuss this then, because I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God and if you think God would allow Paul to write everything he wrote as a lie, then we will not see eye to eye on scripture.

I take it also that other than Paul, your not sure about what any of the others wrote as well. This of course would put into doubt everything that was recorded to be said by Jesus, since He didn't pen down his words personally on a scroll.

[steveksux]

What exactly do you mean by "corporately"? That a man must be in charge of the church, or congregation, as a whole, but women can be delegates, so to speak?Preaching and corporate stuff requires a johnson.

Randy

[cpwill]

If one accepts the NT as a single, unified text, I guess that might make sense. It's not. It's a conglomeration of texts selected hundreds of years later.

:) actually the gospels were first selected (bishop irenaeus) in the early first century, and by the end of the first century the entire modern canon (with the exception of two books which were later excluded) was already established. :sorry: :)

But implicit in this claim is that he MET Jesus--which he did not.

:) he most certainly did. it is, in fact, recorded in that same new testament. specifically the Book of Acts.

My claim is that Paul's words are as much Paul's as anyone's.

and that's fine, but it doesn't lessen their inspiration one iota to say that he wrote them.

frankly, if i were you i would be taking more of the historical look at the pauline texts, as they actually provide better fuel for your argument than you may imagine. ;)

[Atticus]

:) actually the gospels were first selected (bishop irenaeus) in the early first century, and by the end of the first century the entire modern canon (with the exception of two books which were later excluded) was already established. :sorry: :)By that you mean the years 0-100 AD? or 100-200 AD? Because my understanding is that James was the first book written--about 70AD. At least that's the most authoritative dating I know about. So I'll buy that the the century beginning in 101 AD (ok, CE) saw the compilation of the documents.

I look at the person of Christ, and there are many elements of Paul's personality and teachings I don't see in his work. He was essential to the spreading of the Gospel, but I'm sceptical of his contributions.

[cpwill]

sorry, my bad: second century: 100-200 AD

and your understanding is innacurate: the letters of paul and the gospel of Mark were the first texts written.

[serenity]

Also everyone is subject to something higher than themselves. It doesn't bother you apparently for anything else other than the husband and wife roles.

First of all, it frequently bothers me, in several scenarios. The misuse of power is arguably THE primary problem (or, better put, inarguably MY primary issue) with human relations.

The U.S. government derives it's authority from the consent of the people, likewise a husband derives his authority from the consent of his wife. This is empowerment.

No...according to you, hee derives it from God, ultimately; the woman's DUTY is to submit to the superior sex. If you're going to convince a contemporary Westerner--including most religiously-minded people--you're going to have to better than claim that male superiority exists siomply because Paul said so.



Infering that women that understand the realionship between a husband and wife as being weak minded and frightened is extremely offensive.

Offensive to you, you mean; it is not objectively offensive.

Look, your views on the woman's relationship to the man is offensive to me. But so what? Are religious sensibilities to be held to a higher esteem, and to demand a greater amount of respect? You'll at least understand why such a notion is difficult for me to accept.

At any rate, I doubt we can possibly have a conversation of this type without offering offense; our very PREMISES are offensive to each other.

[sub_zer0]

sorry, my bad: second century: 100-200 AD

and your understanding is innacurate: the letters of paul and the gospel of Mark were the first texts written.

Not only that, but one could easily argue that the NT was finished by 70 AD.