New Testament Misogyny

a reply to: pthena

They aren't relevant because they are not what I was talking about.

People like to think that random facts add up to a rebuttal just because they are facts.

What about the fact that I didn't say anything to encourage them? They are not relevant just because they have a relation, however tenuous, to what I said.

a reply to: pthena

If I say ''China had Matriarchal societies."

Saying that "China had only one Empress" is not relevant because I only said societies.

Now if I said Empires, it would be relevant. But I didn't, so it isn't .

a reply to: chr0naut

You are applying a criteria innapropriate to the culture of Paul's day. He is a creature of his times.

I believe that many of the members of the church in Ephesus were converts of Greek heritage. Women held a tradition of much higher esteem than Paul seems willing to allow them, among his congregations.

Not all women were quiet and housebound in the first century Greco-Roman world, the setting of the New Testament.

Rick Strelan, in his book Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus, writes about women’s roles in cults, and quotes from leading scholars.

In terms of cultic life in Ephesus, it is clear that women played a significant role and held important offices in many cults. The mythology of Ephesus [including the myth that Ephesus was founded by warrior women known as Amazons] bolstered their status in the Artemis cult.

According to Pausanius, from very early days, if not originally, the Amazon women resided at the sacred place and performed rituals to Artemis there (7.2.4). Cultic activity for women was more prominent in Asia Minor than elseswhere (Ramsay 1900:67). Kearsley notes that the fifteen women who were archiereiai (“chief priests” or “high priests”) in Ephesus is the largest group known from any city (1986:186). At least some held the title in their own right and were not dependent on the title of their husbands.

Women were prominent in the Artemis cults as priestesses; and in the cult of Hestia Boulaia in the civic centre of Ephesus, the influential position of prytanus is known to have been held by women (for example, Claudia Trophime I.Eph IV.1012). Favonia Flacilla was both prytanis and gumnasiarchos (I.Eph IV.1060).[3].
newlife.id.au...

Along those lines...

We have already touched upon the importance of the Anatolian city of Ephesus and its association with the Bee, including its name – the Bee, and its Bee goddess, Artemis. However, Ephesus was an important city in the development of Christianity as well, for not only did it house one of the seven churches of Asia, as listed in the ‘Book of Revelations’, but Paul spend several years there and the last house of the Virgin Mary is believed to have resided nearby. In fact, many believe the Gospel of John was written there.

Yet perhaps the greatest revelation of all is that Artemis and her high priests of Ephesus were called Essenes, meaning King Bees. The Essenes were a Jewish religious sect founded in the first century BC who flourished for roughly 300 years in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, and their base at Qumran produced one the important historical discoveries of the 20th century; the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were also Beekeepers, and the first association of the Essenes with Bees was in the 2nd century AD by a Greek traveler named Pausanias.
andrewgough.co.uk...

It seems to me that Paul's writings are direct corrections to the "goddess" attributions going on in the temples and churches of 1st century Ephesus.

a reply to: windword

A little later on a women's religious movement based on Thecla came to be.

She began as a disciple who Paul didn't even want and reluctantly allowed to be his companion. He refuses to baptize her and (later on) after several attempts by Romans to kill her she is saved because the lioness protects her.

She then baptizes herself and God accepts .

Cronot will likely tell us the whole story in a few, as if I don't know it already.

ETA link:Paul and Thecla

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Ephesians 5 asks a married couple to ritually and symbolically live as though they are Christ and his Church united in perfection. He asks the wife to revere her husband as though he is Christ on earth, and gives the onus, an impossible task, to the husband to live up to, assume the role of "Christ". Who is equal to Christ? Certainly not his wife.

It's a recipe for disaster.

Maybe you haven't been married before, I can tell you right now if a man doesn't likewise respect and reverence his wife they'll be in divorce court.

a reply to: windword

Thecla even has her own day in September and is called a Martyr even though she lived 72 years after the story ends (significant #) and dies at 99.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Maybe you haven't been married before, I can tell you right now if a man doesn't likewise respect and reverence his wife they'll be in divorce court.

That really wasn't a problem in 1st century Jerusalem. Women weren't hauling their husbands into divorce court!

I don't think that you've even been reading my posts. It was I who said "That's not how a marriage works", early on. There is no equality in a marraige where one person is the boss or the leader of another.

So, please keep your patronizing comments about my personal experience to yourself, thank you.

a reply to: Justso

And if it had been written by women and the same comment, with the gender change would have been used - how would you react?

Yup. It's like that.

Men aren't bad, women aren't bad - for all this 'equality' talk, people still have their heads stuck in the past.

Get over your gender, man, woman, whatever.

Trying to use this to push an agenda is ludicrous, silly and ridiculous. We also need to be more sensitive, not just demand it from men....

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: Justso

And if it had been written by women and the same comment, with the gender change would have been used - how would you react?

Yup. It's like that.

Men aren't bad, women aren't bad - for all this 'equality' talk, people still have their heads stuck in the past.

Get over your gender, man, woman, whatever.

Interesting comment seeing as nobody needs to "get over" their gender and it's not the issue . Who needs to get over it?

Gender obsession is not going on at all.

Gender equality advocacy is nothing to "get over."

Trying to use this to push an agenda is ludicrous, silly and ridiculous....

What is ridiculous is you think anyone has an agenda...and that I am only using the Bible to push it.

I think you just want to be the smartest in the room .

a reply to: deignostian

So no China talk then.

On topic New Testament Misogyny:
Matthew 19

19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So Jesus considered the marriage between a man a woman to be an act of God, therefore divorce would be an act against God. Misogynistic toward abused wives who could benefit by divorce.

19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

So the newlyweds jump in bed, and the groom discovers his bride is no virgin. Then it's okay to cast her off. And she must remain an outcast for life because she was not a virgin. Misogyny for sure.

19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

So the ideal situation for men is to make themselves eunuch's for the kingdom of heaven's sake. No wives. So that best men are unavailable for women to marry, so women are stuck with the inferior but available men. Misogynistic.

And even married with children men have a way of excellence.

19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Men can just take off and abandon their wives and children, and thereby receive tremendous rewards.

a reply to: pthena

Ok... you are misreading the situation.

China talk is the result of a challenge to name one anti misogynist society in the first century.

It was met. But the Chinese Empire was brought up not by me. I mentioned a society that was Matriarchal, not an Empire.

Do you get what I am saying?

And if you want to talk about China I don't even mind.

a reply to: pthena

Excellent post too btw.

a reply to: deignostian

And if you want to talk about China I don't even mind.

I wasn't even thinking about China. I was thinking about the Nuns, and how not all of them have to wear the veil since Vatican 2.

But I don't particularly feel like writing about Nuns either, 'cuz I've never been one, only a High School friend said she wanted to be a Nun. And that's as close as I've ever been to knowing a Nun.

a reply to: pthena

The priests treat the Nuns as servants too.
Even today. It's sad.

a reply to: windword

Why did you say it was patronizing? I said maybe, I don't know if you have or not, my point is the exact same, no marriage can work if its dominated by one person. Both husband and wife have to love and cherish each other, and both have to respect and reverence the other, there isn't any other way for it to succeed.

a reply to: deignostian

This whole New Testament Misogyny boils down to:

As long as books are published with the words Holy Bible stamped on the cover, and there are Corporations which use it as Sacred script rather than just script, it isn't going to go away.

Church Denominations are Corporations which take on a life of their own. As such, they are immortal as long as there are members.

I was raised in a Denomination which began in the late 1800s. By the 1970s the doctrinal reason for it to exist as a separate Denomination distinct from others had been debunked. So it had no legitimate reason for existing as a separate Corporation, but it still exists any way. Why? Just because.

The last Church I belonged to took a stand against the Jesus interpretation about marriage. The one I quoted in my previous post. The Church took the position that marriage is a human agreement and not an act of God.

There were other doctrinal issues involved, but the marriage one was one of them. Shortly after my divorce is when it hit me, if the right thing to do is that which is contrary to the Bible, then why am I a Christian at all?

So then I became a not-Christian, an Infidel. But that didn't make the Bible or the Churches disappear. I'm glad there are Liberal Churches. But as long as the book has Holy Bible on the cover "Reformers" will be jumping up and saying, "The Church has abandoned God and the Bible, we must leave them and form our own Bible cult group that follows the Bible word for word. We will be the blessed while the corrupt churches will burn."

So that's our reality.

a reply to: pthena

I hear that, my sister is in a cultish church but I gave her all the info to know it is and she just likes it and it's her community.

She stopped going for a year and they got her back. I gave her the scoop and she agreed but doesn't let herself be dominated by the church.

She is the real head of her family and her will is her husband's will, she is not subjected. Her husband never bosses her around and always does what she wants because he wants her to be happy and he's a good guy.

But other female members are not so lucky.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

You have taken it out of context and you are to lazy to understand and find the true context
I have no intention of explaining something you are not interested in to you
Your mind is already made up.

Haters are going to hate

If you are so right, why are women equals in the church, why don't they wear head coverings, why are they allowed to talk, why are they equals in the home, loved, fought for and died for

But you know better, I suspect

You should look up the definition of "reality"

You are throwing pearls before swine. The New Testament was radical for it's day precisely because it claimed females were equal to males and it also preached racial equality. These passages talk about the God ordained role for women in the family and in the church. Being under male leadership is not subjugation.

Gal. 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The OP is too ignorant to understand that the very concept of equality among all men, woman and races comes from the New Testament and did not exist among pagans. His self righteous indignation would be impossible without the profound influence of Christianity on western civilization.

By the way, it is unlikely that the unbeliever could actually live up to the male role for the woman. Here I will provide it for you from the new Testament in Ephesians, which the OP conveniently ignores.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies

a reply to: windword

women couldn't haul their husbands into divorce court in 1st century Jerusalem. the decision to divorce or not to divorce, was left up to the husband. only husband could divorce. believe it or not, it seems to be still like that today.

A high rabbinical court in Israel sentenced to five years in prison a man who for years has refused to give his wife a divorce.

The High Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem passed on Thursday the sentence, which is one of the harshest meted out in recent years to an intransigent spouse, the news site NRG reported.

In Orthodox Judaism, a marriage cannot be undone unless the man consents to a get — the Hebrew word for divorce. Rabbinical courts — which in Israel function as family courts as part of the judiciary and have executive powers — cannot force a man to give his wife a get but they can impose harsh punishments on men the judges determine are unjustly withholding a get and turning their wives into what is known in Judaism as agunot, or “chained women.”

forward.com...

I never post on this site anymore but this post is just ridiculous. You took the verses out of context and clearly made no attempt to understand them. The Bible must be read keeping in mind the historical context and the audience to whom it was written.

Bottom line up front. Go read Ephesians 5:22-33. This shows the relationship between man and wife. Women were never meant to be treated poorly just because they weren’t the leaders of the household or church. Men are commanded to love and treat their wives as themselves and love them the way Christ loves us.
Now lets look at those verses.

First off, we have the verses you took from 1 Corinthians 11. This is actually a fairly complicated answer. I would direct you to listen to the hour long study on this topic that Michael Heiser did on his “The Naked Bible” podcast.

www.nakedbiblepodcast.com...

Long story short. According to the medical science of Paul’s day from people like Hippocrates (of Hippocratic oath fame) the hair was considered a sexual organ. Just like you wouldn’t pray to God exposed, it was thought you should cover your hair. This is where it gets weird. They believed the hair drew semen toward it. This is why as men hit puberty and hair grew down their bodies, they became able to have children. Women should have long hair to pull the semen up in to them so they could get pregnant. There is more to this and in the podcast episode it is fully documented and explained with peer reviewed work.

Obviously we know what they thought about hair to be wrong now, no one has to cover their head.
Also, the “because of the angels” part references back to the OT when the fallen sons of God mated with the daughters of men. So again, the hair being thought of as sexual, they didn’t want to entice the angels to come down again.
Now lets tackle 1 Corinthians 14. Starting with Chapter 11 above Paul is trying to reorganize the Corinthian church who were known for disorganized worship. In Chapter 14 Paul is addressing people speaking in tongues and prophesying. In Chapter 11 he mentions women praying and prophesying. We can see that it is fine for women to pray and prophesy. Women were also given the roles to teach other women and children.

The people of Corinth were using tongues and prophecy as a status symbol. They wanted manifestations of the spirit and were faking them. The people of the church were all speaking in tongues but it was unintelligible and was not from the Holy Spirit. It appears in the context of 1 Corinthians that the women were joining in on all the commotion in the church.
Due to the way their society functioned, women weren’t really given speaking roles. Since the men led the church, the women should listen. The man should have led his wife in their walk with God.

Again, this was culturally normal for their time. I do not think anyone today thinks women can’t speak in church.

I mentioned Ephesians 5:22-33 above. You totally took that out of context as it goes on to fully elaborate.