New Testament Misogyny

a reply to: windword

Actually, all three are fulfilled in Isaiah 53. And Jesus gave the period of time of 3 days when He was asked for a sign and said the only sign they would get would be he sign of Jonah.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

No it isn't.

a reply to: windword

About context, can you show me the Old Testament scripture that Paul is referring to here?

Psa 40:6-7

Psa 98:1

Psa 132:11

Isa 52:10

Isa 53:1-12

a reply to: MrBlaq

This is just my limited understanding. But no man or woman would ever
be willing to follow any of the commandments of Christ if their not
changed of God through a spiritual transformation/sanctification.

Something like that. Suppose the Gospels had been written as a play. The original cast or even understudies are no longer around.

All that remains of the play are half remembered lines. the director cues are lost

"Then Jesus stood up and said:
'The kingdom of God [lean head left, slightly up]
is like [roll eyes, heavy sigh] a king in a far off land who ...'"

So reading it today, we have no way of determining what is sarcasm, or joke, or straight talk.

originally posted by: MrBlaq
a reply to: windword

About context, can you show me the Old Testament scripture that Paul is referring to here?

Psa 40:6-7

Nope

Psa 98:1

Nope

Psa 132:11

Nope

Isa 52:10

Nope

Isa 53:1-12

Nope

a reply to: dawnstar

nothing like brow beating the rebellious women into submission!! is there a group or church that teaches men how to do this or something? just asking because I recognize the tactic... only the guy who tried it on me before was much better at it.

In my understanding it's love, usually love she's never felt nor experienced.

It's obvious to me, at least on an emotional level, that the #1 factor that
drives some women to rebellion against Christ, is they've never understood or
experience genuine devotional love that comes through a man walking in
the Spirit of God.

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord
the church. Eph 5:28-29

GOD IS LOVE

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: chr0naut

but, warping the laws so that they force all women into a state of dependency so that they have to accept this submissive role is Mysogeny. and in christian dominated western countries this was done using those biblical verses as a justification for it.

just as a man who tries to force his wife into that submissive role is.

you are conveniently leaving out that other meaning of the word... EXTREME PREJUDICE.
when you warp the laws to force any group of people into an submissive role...
how can you not call that extreme prejudice?

The scripture verses quoted were not actually laws, more like guidelines and neither did they "warp" any laws.

Submission and dominance behaviours are not purely human but appear in nearly all apex mammals (I can think of no exception, actually).

To ascribe mysogeny to these behaviours would be a MISSAPLICATION OF THE SEMANTIC (even in uppercase).

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

No it isn't.

Died for our sins: ( he was killed for the transgression of God's people)

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. Isaiah 53:8

He was buried: (he went to Hell for 3 days, and was buried in a rich mans tomb)

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Isaiah 53:9

And He would rise again: (After He was killed and buried, God would prolong His days)

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Isaiah 53:10

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

"Making love" does not necessarily require one partner to assume a dominate role while the other assumes a submissive role. I would assume that those who prefer such sexual expressions also prefer role playing and Paul's model of a Christian marriage.

Dominant and submissive roles are applicable far beyond the sexual.

Even in debate, one must adjudicate, while others must accept their ruling.

In sports, there is usually some sort of referee who interprets the application of the rules and it is important to the game that the players accede to their rulings.

In law, there has to be an arbiter who determines the outcome.

There are so many examples in human societies that I would suspect that without 'pecking orders', society itself would descend into anarchic chaos.

a reply to: chr0naut

do you deny that CHRISTIAN MEN within CHRISTIAN DOMINATED governments warped the laws for the purpose of enforcing their god given authority over women...
because, I am sorry...
but they did!

a reply to: chr0naut

There need not be a "pecking order" in a marriage. Nobody is perfect and relationships are one way to find oneself in another, for good or for bad.

The fact that you believe that in a marriage its healthy, even curcial, for the husband to have authority over his wife, tells me that you're not arguing the misogynous nature of Paul's model.

So, we agree. The New Testament promotes misogyny. Not just in Ephesians and 1 Timothy. In fact, Paul's misogyny stems from Genesis and Eve's deception and from idea that women can't be trusted to be left to their own designs.

what did they mean when they said "Obey your husband in all things"??

a king of Isreal was once having a party. as was custom, he was entertaining the males in one room of the castle while his queen was entertaining the females in another room. this queen was very, very pretty and the king decided that he wanted to show her off to his male companions and sent for her. she, being busy with her own guest, turned down his invite. who knows, maybe she had good reason to. but the king got so irked with her disobedience, he banished her from his kingdom.
one might claim that he was the king and was deserving of such respect because of this, but then, that wouldn't explain why he then went on and commanded every wife in the kingdom to obey their husband.

he didn't love her enough to wish for her to be by his side, or even in the same kingdom. he didn't respect her judgement to ascertain the situation she was in and decide now just isn't a good time to leave. it is quite plain that he expected blind obedience because she was his wife!!

sugar coat it all you want, but that is what the writers of the bible meant.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Was Jesus God's suffering servant, who was given a portion of greatness, to divide with the strong?

Clearly men are given the role of leaders in Christianity and women are to obey. This is with the understanding that the man will treat the woman with respect. These were the roles given. Yes, it involved trust and being subservient. Often, the community would help enforce both roles, but since men were in charge, things likely slanted their way.

Speaking of context;

It's easy to criticize scripture written thousands of years ago from the comforts of modern life. We live in wealthy nations (enough to find our way here at least) and enjoy so many resources. There was a time when simply surviving was appreciated. Having regular meals. Protection from any number of physical dangers. These roles required the strongest and most capable of the family, which of course were usually men. The wife's main roles were to reproduce (and I mean plenty), to create bonds with other "tribes" and most importantly tend to the provider, which also included being an advisor I'm sure. Make no mistake, women needed men to survive. If from nothing else, other men, as countless stories tell.

This may not be palatable in today's world of redefining all things unfair, and maybe it shouldn't be, but it requires some real honesty. Not the PC tinted kind, the real, often uncomfortable, but deep down you know it's true kind. Things were different back then, end of story. If we've progressed to a time when all forms of misogyny can truly be erased, then as a society we can agree to honor it, but what happens to the privileges of being female? Another discussion I'm sure.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Was Jesus God's suffering servant, who was given a portion of greatness, to divide with the strong?

Who will rule and reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom?

a reply to: MrBlaq

Paul and his whole story are garbage .


You actually think that because Paul said he met Jesus (who had ascended) that he did?

Too bad the 3 times the story is told by Luke they contradict each other. That is not a good sign.

Neither is the fact that he admits his Gospel is not what Jesus taught the Apostles, boasts of it several times.

My Bible is fine. You just don't want to acknowledge that nobody in the church of Jerusalem considered him an Apostle.

And neither did Jesus, despite what "all things to all men" claims. It never happened and Jesus not acknowledging to John a 13th apostle named Paul in REVELATION, where important things were revealed to John in a vision pretty much closes the case on the false apostle Saul/Paul.

I think he would have cleared it up then, no?

His silence on the matter shows Paul wasn't even important enough to get a mention from Jesus.

The Apostles knew he was false and didn't need Jesus to tell them the obvious.

But if Paul wasn't lying then he (Jesus) would have mentioned this in Revelation.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: chr0naut

do you deny that CHRISTIAN MEN within CHRISTIAN DOMINATED governments warped the laws for the purpose of enforcing their god given authority over women...
because, I am sorry...
but they did!

I would agree that since the 1st Century, the majority of legal decision makers have been nominally Christian and male.

The thing is, before that, most lawmakers were also male (as far as history seems to record).

Oh, yes, and of course, all those laws against women. Very dammning.

a reply to: Paschar0

Yikes. Women are leaders too.

Again, yikes.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

"Making love" does not necessarily require one partner to assume a dominate role while the other assumes a submissive role. I would assume that those who prefer such sexual expressions also prefer role playing and Paul's model of a Christian marriage.

Dominant and submissive roles are applicable far beyond the sexual.

Even in debate, one must adjudicate, while others must accept their ruling.

In sports, there is usually some sort of referee who interprets the application of the rules and it is important to the game that the players accede to their rulings.

In law, there has to be an arbiter who determines the outcome.

There are so many examples in human societies that I would suspect that without 'pecking orders', society itself would descend into anarchic chaos.

a reply to: windword

Was Jesus God's suffering servant, who was given a portion of greatness, to divide with the strong?

No.

In the context of the Grand Opera which is Second Isaiah, which is presenting the newly formed eternal one God, the lines of chapter 53 are being sung by the kings of the nations of the Earth about the new eternal god's dealings with Israel(actually Judah) the suffering servant of the new god.

So Judah has earned through suffering the right of distribution to the nations. According to the opera that is.