New Testament Misogyny

a reply to: NOTurTypical

What does that have to do with 1 Corinthians 15 and with keeping in context with the scriptures?

Isaiah 53 is out of context and doesn't explain Paul's assertion in 1 Corinthians 15. Isaiah's suffering servant is a poem lamenting the fate of Israel, with Isaiah's hero being a personification of the Nation of Israel. It doesn't match the Jesus narrative.

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: Paschar0

Yikes. Women are leaders too.

Again, yikes.

Yes by all means let's argue the exception as the rule some more. Tell you what, how about we compare the lives of 10,000 average women 5,000 or just 2,000 years ago compared to today and it'll be crystal clear to any sensible person.

originally posted by: pthena
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.

Interesting.

originally posted by: Paschar0

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: Paschar0

Yikes. Women are leaders too.

Again, yikes.

Yes by all means let's argue the exception as the rule some more. Tell you what, how about we compare the lives of 10,000 average women 5,000 or just 2,000 years ago compared to today and it'll be crystal clear to any sensible person.

No thanks. I want no part of this type of "thinking".

a reply to: windword
Yes, I haven't read 2nd Isaiah in a couple of years, then it was brought up, I looked at it and...

Seemed a bit clear, who the singers were, in context.

Plus the fact that that's how the Rabbis teach it to the Noahide disciples. Of course they don't say words like "newly formed" when describing the one god.

Priceless. a reply to: deignostian

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

What does that have to do with 1 Corinthians 15 and with keeping in context with the scriptures?

Isaiah 53 is out of context and doesn't explain Paul's assertion in 1 Corinthians 15. Isaiah's suffering servant is a poem lamenting the fate of Israel, with Isaiah's hero being a personification of the Nation of Israel. It doesn't match the Jesus narrative.

Yeah logic is not the strong suit of many people and Christianity is no exception.

Sorry... Paulinism or Paulianity is what I meant. Jesus (+ the 12) only people tend to be very logic oriented.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

What does that have to do with 1 Corinthians 15 and with keeping in context with the scriptures?

Isaiah 53 is out of context and doesn't explain Paul's assertion in 1 Corinthians 15. Isaiah's suffering servant is a poem lamenting the fate of Israel, with Isaiah's hero being a personification of the Nation of Israel. It doesn't match the Jesus narrative.

Well, that's what Jews said after 32 AD, the rabbi commentators before Jesus said it was Moshiyach ben'Yossef, (Messiah Son of Joseph), they thought there were 2 Messiahs, the suffering servant and the ruling King (Moshiyach ben'Dahavid).

Now, you are right after Jesus came and died they taught it was about Israel, but I don't put too much weight on he people Jesus pronounced spiritual blindness on when He rode into the city in the 10th of Nisan in 32 AD and presented Himself as the Passover lamb.

Orthodox synagogues don't even read Isaiah 53 today, it's a forbidden chapter in the yearly reading cycle.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Either way, Jesus of Nazareth doesn't fit the bill, therefore, Paul's citation in 1 Corinthians 15 has not be verified, so how could it be in context?

If Paul's citation in 1 Corinthians 15 can't be tested with OT scripture, then why should I trust his model for marriage? I don't believe Hebrew tradition placed the impossible onus on husbands, that they should emulate Yahweh in their relationships with their wives. That's certainly not what God required of Adam.

a reply to: windword

Jesus of Nazareth is the only one who fits the bill, the Messsiah had to come before the 2nd Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. There aren't 2 Messiahs, there is one Messiah who came once to suffer and die for sins, and is coming again to rule from David's throne.

I don't believe Hebrew tradition placed the impossible onus on husbands, that they should emulate Yahweh in their relationships with their wives. That's certainly not what God required of Adam.

It's not impossible, I've been saying from the start of this thread that is how a husband is told to love his wife.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

No one fits the bill!

No one can be equal to Christ! To require husbands to emulate the impossible, Christ, who is God, and require wives to worship their husbands as if they were Christ, is a setup for failure for all parties concerned. God doesn't even require such a preposterous demand of Adam.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The problem with that view is that there isn't a single text. Every group has collections of texts from various time periods, then adds different interpretations and sub-texts over time.

As a comparison, look at a short and simple document like the US Constitution. Not only have most Americans never read it in full, but they can't even agree on what's "constitutional" or not. In fact, one third of the entire federal government (the Judicial Branch) is devoted to judging whether new laws and measures are "constitutional". And even they don't agree with each other most times, much less agree with previous courts' decisions.

By comparison, collections of religious texts can have many times more words than the US Constitution. And most of them (that I've studied) were written or revealed to people from different regions, time periods, and in the middle of completely different cultures from previous parts of the same texts. So even if the texts themselves are actually consistent with each other, will they remain "consistent" after the different cultural interpretations and translations are brought into play?

"Fight for your beliefs." Is that simple phrase calling for actual violence, calling for devotion, or calling for a defiant stand?

"Do not steal." Does that include "stealing" from nature or just stealing from humans? Because animal milk isn't "ours", and neither is their flesh. Plus, animals and insects may have already "claimed" the fruits, vegetables, and other vegetation long before we encountered them (as well as the land). And what if someone owes you $1,000 but leaves $200 on a table? Is is "stealing" if you claim that $200 as part of the $1,000 you're owned?

and christ is perfect, husbands are not...

let's consider for a moment the abusive husband, and yes their are even deacons within the churches that have been abusive to their wives.
the church can't really say that no, these wives shouldn't be submitting to this abuse, or obeying these husbands outright, because, well, see, it's in their little book, supposedly the infallible word of god...
ya know that magical little book that men have been writing in since the beginning of time claiming that they are the spokesmen of god. I can actually imagine these men getting to heaven, seeing what god really is like and pointing at their magical little book and telling him that hey, he isn't supposed to be this way, see, right here, they wrote it down, they define what he is, what he wants, what he demands... the book is magical, and god is supposed to conform to it, bend over backwards as he tries to make all these quirky ideas that man has had over the ages work in the real world.
but god is what god is, regardless of the little magical book and what men have written in it. he isn't gonna bend over backwards for the whims of men. so maybe he will take pity on the poor wife or maybe he will just let things take it's course and hope that the wife will realize that god never wanted her to give her husband what really was his. after all, her body is his temple, not the husbands and his sheep will know his voice and only him will they obey. and he had really very few commands, the primary one being to love one another...
so then, you have the christians trying to rationalize their way out of this... surely, god doesn't want the wife to put herself in harms way, after all, she is the temple of god. god is a loving god, he wouldn't wish such a thing on her!! but, looking at the price the disciples paid for their faith, at how many christians ended up being food for the hungry lions. will they be willing to say that god really didn't want any of them to suffer for their faith and would have preferred to just do what was expected of them and deny their faith? reading some of the discussions on ats, one can get the impression that the christians believe that the antichrist will come into power any time now and start chopping off their heads because of their faith. but the way they have to twist and turn to rationalize their way out of what has been said in that magical little book, by men, for the benefit of men, that just doesn't fit into the current view or normal and just, I don't know. it's like yous are being conditioned, you will be able to rationalize yourself out of anything. if you truly believe that god has commanded a wife to obey their husband in all things, then you have to be able to bear the idea that if that abusive husband orders that wife to come to him in his drunken stupor that it is right for her to walk to him, even though she knows his intention is to knock her across the room.
that is what submission is, that is what obedience is.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

No one fits the bill!

No one can be equal to Christ! To require husbands to emulate the impossible, Christ, who is God, and require wives to worship their husbands as if they were Christ, is a setup for failure for all parties concerned. God doesn't even require such a preposterous demand of Adam.

I wasn't told to be equal to Him, just to love my wife the way Jesus loved the church, which means, as I've said several times earlier in this thread, to love and cherish her, sacrifice myself for her (figuratively), to put her needs, desires, and wants ahead of my own.

That's it, in basic terms, serve her unselfishly. You're adding to scripture, wives aren't told to worship their husband. That would be a sin anyways, idolatry.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I wasn't told to be equal to Him

Thank you for proving my point!

You keep telling me that, Paul's model of a Christian marriage isn't unequal. You keep telling me that Paul's model absolutely guarantees equality!

It absolutely does not, as you have just proven!

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

No one fits the bill!

No one can be equal to Christ! To require husbands to emulate the impossible, Christ, who is God, and require wives to worship their husbands as if they were Christ, is a setup for failure for all parties concerned. God doesn't even require such a preposterous demand of Adam.

I wasn't told to be equal to Him, just to love my wife the way Jesus loved the church, which means, as I've said several times earlier in this thread, to love and cherish her, sacrifice myself for her (figuratively), to put her needs, desires, and wants ahead of my own.

That's it, in basic terms, serve her unselfishly. You're adding to scripture, wives aren't told to worship their husband. That would be a sin anyways, idolatry.

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 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." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)

whats good for the goose... or in this case, whoever noticed these passages and decided to keep printing them anyway.

a reply to: TzarChasm

whoever noticed these passages and decided to keep printing them anyway.

But they had to because:

Rev 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, may God add to him the plagues which are written in this book. 19If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

Now look what I've gone and done!!!
I removed everything from the book but this verse
Duhn, Duhn, Duhn!

a reply to: TzarChasm

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

I just can't help myself. Personal anecdote:

Once upon a time I had a business partner. After work we would usually drink a few beers together. One day we couldn't go to the pizza joint that we frequented because his wife, the leader of a Christian Ladies Study Group, expected him home to babysit while she was conducting a meeting.

So we picked up a case of beer and went to his house. As he was tending the children, I was outside drinking the beer. Once the meeting was over, the ladies came outside. Well, I was drunk and started telling the story of The Levite and The Concubine.

The ladies all laughed when I was telling the part about the excuses the concubine's father was making about why they should stay one more night, and leave in the morning. The laughter died out though further into the story. By the end, there was great hostility toward me.

Said my partner's wife: "How can you dare to tell Bible stories while drunk? Don't you know what happened to Aaron's sons when they were drunk?"

I then replied, "The fire came out of the tent and burned them up. But they had strange fire with them. This story is not strange fire, it is in the Bible."

One thing and another, and for no explicable reason, the drunk storyteller became the subject of many Christian Ladies Study groups rather than something more appropriate like Jesus or the Bible. A coalition formed, calling upon the leadership of a man, of course, my partner's father-in-law, to confront me and demand that I step down from any leadership role in any Christian Church.

So I relayed this to the congregation that I was an elder for, and they rejected my request to step down. Their response was, "We don't have to respond to what some other Christians demand, we can take the heat as well as you can."

a reply to: pthena

So we picked up a case of beer and went to his house. As he was tending the children, I was outside drinking the beer. Once the meeting was over, the ladies came outside. Well, I was drunk and started telling the story of The Levite and The Concubine.

Your experience is not that unusual, Many in Christian Churches drink alcohol.
I read a story just recently of a family Church group that won the power ball.
What struck me was the part about them promising to pay 10% of the
payout to their Church. (Tithing is just one of the many false teachings)
Which indicates they didn't have a problem with gambling

originally posted by: MrBlaq
a reply to: pthena

So we picked up a case of beer and went to his house. As he was tending the children, I was outside drinking the beer. Once the meeting was over, the ladies came outside. Well, I was drunk and started telling the story of The Levite and The Concubine.

Your experience is not that unusual, Many in Christian Churches drink alcohol.
I read a story just recently of a family Church group that won the power ball.
What struck me was the part about them promising to pay 10% of the
payout to their Church. (Tithing is just one of the many false teachings)
Which indicates they didn't have a problem with gambling

Common estimates put the Catholic Church’s wealth at around $15 billion, however, a few figures may give some idea of the Church’s real net worth. A frequently quoted investigation by The Economist magazine into American Catholicism in 2012, concluded that in the USA the Church regularly spends $170 billion on church-affiliated hospitals and institutions of higher education, although only around $11 billion a year on parish operations. According to Georgetown University, American Catholics alone regularly donate $10 per week, so the 85 million Catholics in the USA contribute well over $400 billion per year. (In comparison, Apple and General Motors each have worldwide revenue of about $150 billion.)

The Vatican is known to have gold reserves alone to the value of several billion dollars, including in the US Federal Reserve, and of course even a casual assessment of the real estate owned world-wide by the Church would add many more billions to that figure. The Vatican City itself has a rich economy relative to its size. The exact GDP figure is unknown, but authoritative estimates place the Vatican City’s current annual revenue at over $350 million. For a population of around 800 people, this means GDP per capita is well over $400,000, making it the richest state on earth by some way.

Overall, the Vatican has a very dense but widespread investment portfolio, holding billions of shares in some of the most powerful international corporations, for example in Gulf Oil, General Motors, General Electric, IBM, Shell and many others. The Church also has large investments with the Rothschild family, and in a number of world-renowned banks, which in the United States alone include the Morgan Bank, the Chase-Manhattan, the Bankers Trust Company and a number of others. Even the Vatican’s own bank – formerly the Institute for the Works of Religion – made a profit of $76 million in 2014.

Writer and philosopher Avro Manhattan suggests that the Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. It’s a greater possessor of material riches than any other single institution, corporation, bank, giant trust, government or state worldwide. The Pope, as the visible ruler of this immense accumulation of wealth, is consequently the richest individual of the twentieth-first century, although as pointed out, no one can realistically assess how much he is worth in terms of billions of dollars.

celebritynetworths.org...