New Testament Misogyny

a reply to: Raggedyman

Samson lost his strength for his constant sin
He constantly broke nazarite laws.
Context

You may very well be right. I have no inside information so I don't pretend to know.

However, it is what Samson claimed, and according to the story, it is what reportedly happened after Delilah cut his hair. And, in context, it happened after he had told her a few other ways to take his power, which she also did to him but none of which took his strength and power as he claimed it would.

I'm just relating that story -- nothing more, nothing less.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: deignostian

"The man said, 'The woman you put here with me--she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.'"

Woman is sin! She's an evil temptress that brings out the worst in men. She must be subdued, covered, controlled. If she cannot, she must be silenced, isolated, gotten to a nunnery!

Subservient: (adj.) prepared to obey others or another UNQUESTIONINGLY. synonyms: submissive, deferential, compliant, obedient, dutiful, downtrodden, subdued

Today we call this "domestic abuse."

Who in a sane capacity could let this slide and not totally reject the epistles, whoever wrote them. Paul is said to be the author but who is Paul? How many Nazarenes did he murder and imprison.

With this guy as your role model you either have to be in denial, ignore it outright or, gasp, agree with him.

If he was evil, the evidence is more than sufficient to say he was, how can you accept the epistles as divine without thinking God is also a, forgive this hypothetical, misogynist.

That can't be, not the Father, Son or Good Spirit could believe this is right and still be good? The NEW Testament says this but it is more Old Testament than new.

Christianity is NAMED after the Messiah/Christ but is in reality a pagan bastardization of the real Yeshua's teachings. When comparing each other's teachings one can't help but notice that Paul did not have a brotherly relationship with the apostles as people like to ASSUME. Acts even tells the story of James, John and Peter having problems with Paul's made up teachings and were understandably upset. James had to summon Paul (James was like a pious Don) and enforce a ritual to prove that Paul was walking in "the Way."

Only Paul tells the story as if it were drama free because he needs James blessing to obtain the right to preach the true Gospel which Paul later condemned and declared only he knew the true Christ and gospel.

His teachings are not the Gospel of Christ. He wrote desperate letters to people who were rejecting him and his deviant teachings to try and turn them back to his "gospel."

It didn't work in Asia. Barnabas ditched him. James humiliated the never humble Paul by his decree that Paul must prove himself in Jerusalem in the ritual.

He also wrote invectives against what he called super apostles thinking his sarcasm clever. He denounces the apostles quite often so people try to say the ridiculous " he didn't mean the Apostles" argument that hasn't a hundredth of an ounce of truth to it and is the result of a failure to read the entire New Testament or a willing denial about the actual accounts recorded in Acts and other epistles.

Absolutely no scholar (maybe a fraction of an exaggeration) believes 2 Peter was written by Peter so the ONE TIME a real Apostle allegedly vouched for Paul is deemed a "Catholic epistle" and not the writing of Peter.

Factually speaking, Paul is Paul's only witness (in all three contradictory tellings) to his "revelation" and that means it's unreliable by the rule of witnesses due to the three irreconcilably contradictory accounts of his "conversion."

No way is Paul a prophet. So megalomaniacal is he that he hints that he was given a tour of heaven, albeit vague, upon consideration it is clear he means himself.

Just a bad, bad man working for the Romans Empire. I find it no coincidence that a letter attributed to him is written to Titus.

I will let you figure out the connection.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Good grief! not heard that before!

As for Samson and his hair and losing his strength etc....all fine and dandy...but least he wasn't accused of bewitching women with it and causing lustful thoughts with his hair rays!

a reply to: Boadicea

It was his hair getting cut that cost him his power but God gave it to him one last time to destroy the building.

Nazirites took a temporary vow not to cut their hair.

Samson took it further and was promised from birth to God , his ma vowed never to let a razor touch his hair.

Delilah seduced his secret out of him making the woman AGAIN the villain , a constant theme.

a reply to: deignostian

Once again, based on what Paul said in verses 25-29, my role is to love my wife the same manner as Christ loved His church. Put her first, sacrifice my wants, needs, desires for her's, and love and honor her more than myself. That's my obligation to her.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Good grief! not heard that before!

As for Samson and his hair and losing his strength etc....all fine and dandy...but least he wasn't accused of bewitching women with it and causing lustful thoughts with his hair rays!

Like Fabio. Evil Fabio and his bewitching locks.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: deignostian

But you can't remove the role of the husband in verses 25-29,

But I don't need to either.

there we are told to love, cherish, and sacrifice ourselves for our wives. That's how I respond to her, put her first in all things, love her more than myself, and do all things necessary to provide, protect, and nurture her.

A wise man listens to the council of his wife, she sees things from a different perspective, and her council is invaluable. Wives are a gift from God, something to love and to serve her needs and desires above my own. I don't need to concern myself and focus on how she treats me, I can't control that, all I can do is love her as Christ loved the church. Unselfishly, and put her first in everything.

Two words: Subjection and subservience (see provided definitions) put any passage you can think of to bed.

Extra words don't cancel previously spoken evil words. No matter what.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: deignostian

Once again, based on what Paul said in verses 25-29, my role is to love my wife the same manner as Christ loved His church. Put her first, sacrifice my wants, needs, desires for her's, and love and honor her more than myself. That's my obligation to her.

See my last quote before this one.

a reply to: deignostian

And words taken out of context, are just a pretext. Based on 25-29 the role of the husband is to serve the wife, to put her preeminent in all things above himself. Single verse theology creates all kinds of perverted doctrines, failure of the husband to follow 25-29 makes a monster of a husband. As a husband, my role is to follow my responsibilities to my wife, not be policemen to make sure she is following her's. I won't answer for her on judgment day, I'll only answer for how I treated her.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

You can not decieve me with the lame, poor, sorry and desperate "out of context" argument.

Why is that the go to argument for every stumped Christian debating sensitive topics that they can't reconcile with what they want to believe?

I am so used to that tactic I laugh every time someone tries it.

And it has been addressed and discarded as invalid in this instance.

I didn't take anything out of context and every argument you have made is moot.

Subservient... Subjection ...no rationalization or apologetic will change the fact that Paul was FACTUALLY, and in his own writings, a rabid misogynist.

Your failure too see this is astonishing. Two words make my case irrefutable

a reply to: NOTurTypical

it says that the man is to LOVE his wife as christ loved the church, but to women, it says they are to OBEY their husbands as unto christ IN ALL THINGS. so when you say that the man and women are to become one flesh, well, it's the man's brain that is to be controlling that one flesh, both the man and the women.. it cuts the true god from the women and replaces him with the man. the women is instructed in that bible that even if your husband isn't saved, heck could be the worst of the worst, you should still be obedient and just pray that god will soften his heart toward you. if one were to read the bible, both old and new testament through a couple of times, one could come to the conclusion that a women cannot really be saved, unless her husband agrees with it since any contract, any oath, and promise that the wife makes, if when the husband learns of it, he can voice his objection and the promise is voided!

“A [wealthy] matron [of the Rabbinic academy] asked Rabbi Eliezer: ‘Why is it that there was one sin committed with the golden calf, and yet [we learn that] three punishments were meted out?’

[Rabbi Eliezer] said to her: ‘There is no wisdom in women other than the spinning wheel, as it is written: And all the women who were wise in heart spun with their hands (Exodus 35).’

[Rabbi Eliezer’s] son, Hyrkenus, said to him, ‘Why could you not answer her with some words of Torah? [Because she has been insulted] I will lose 300 kor in donations from her every year!’

[Rabbi Eliezer] said to him, ‘The words of Torah should burn rather than be taught to women.'”

www.bj.org...

in the time the time that christianity was born, very few women were found in the jewish temples, and those that did go were forced into the balconies where they couldn't really hear anything anyways so they spent the time gossiping. the spiritual knowledge was taught to men, who then were held responsible to go home and train their wives and servants according to that knowledge. just as adam in the garden was told not to eat of the tree of knowledge, and was then responsble for passing that knowledge to eve.. which is rather evident since what she claimed god said and what god told adam are significantly different.

so, when the christians started gathering to worship, the jewish women were used to relying on their husbands for this type of knowledge..and basically no real idea how they should be acting within the church. This is one of the explanations I have read for the "women should remain silent in church, and ask their husbands at home" bit.

in one of those books that never made it into the bible, the disciples found themselves being chased out of the villages because the men were afraid that they would take their wives away. Like they were literally dropping all their responsibilities at home and traveling with the disciples or something. deserting their families much like some of the apostles did their own families to follow christ. if this was indeed going on, it wasn't doing much to the respectability of the newly formed religion. it is quite possible that the apostles had to enforce the standard of the day for a time, in order to survive long enough for the religion to take root?

to those that say that the misogyny was put in later I have to ask, have you ever read the bible? the old testament is filled with it. here is one of the stories from the old testament rephrased by me..

one of the kings was having a party. like most gathering of the time, the king and his male guest were in one room feasting and having a good time, while the queen and all the female guest were having a good time in another room of the castle. (separate but equal I am sure!!)... Well I guess this queen was very pretty because the king called for her to come to him so he could show her off. well, the queen busy with entertaining her own guests, decided that should couldn't leave them at that moment, heck maybe she suspected one of the women as being a thief and didn't was to have to explain to the king how the fine silverware had disappeared or something. But, the king was so angry that she didn't comply, he banished her from his kingdom, and then went on to make it law that every wife in his kingdom was to obey their husbands...
Misogyny was not only present in the bible before the catholic church and king james came out with their versions of the bible, it very well could have been still embedded into the jewish laws in the time of christ.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Dr. Micheal Heiser has a podcast on the subject where he brings in scholarly articles ...As many bible studies I had been in where the head covering was the subject I always felt that I was missing something but never imagined it was something as bizarre as this and have to say that it made the best sense of them all .

This episode begins a series of topical episodes following the end of our series on Leviticus. The topic for this episode is the controversial head covering reference in 1 Cor. 11:13-15. The discussion summarizes the material discussed in a scholarly journal article published in 2004 by Dr. Troy Martin entitled, “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Cor. 11:13-15: A Testicle instead of a Head Covering” (Journal of Biblical Literature 123:1 [2004]: 75-84). Martin summarizes his approach as follows: “This article interprets Paul’s argument from nature in 1 Cor. 11:13-15 against the background of ancient physiology. The Greek and Roman medical texts provide useful information for interpreting not only Paul’s letters but also other NT texts.” The article (and the author’s subsequent responses to criticism, also published in academic literature) presents a compelling case and is, to Dr. Heiser’s knowledge, the only approach that provides a coherent explanation as to why the head covering warnings are important, in the words of Paul “because of the angels” (1 Cor. 11:10). This warning ultimately takes readers back to the incident with the Watchers (sons of God) in Gen. 6:1-4. The nature of this material is overtly sexual, so this episode is for adult listeners.

www.nakedbiblepodcast.com...

someone asked why christians don't treat women the way some sects of Islam does today.
well, let's first make it clear, there are some small sects of christians that do...
and there are other christians who would think that we should...



but something did change the interaction between man and wife over time...
and it was probably that "love your wife as christ loved the church" that did it. once men had found themselves free of the priests and free of the kings, the makers of their own destiny, they loved their wives, and wanted them to enjoy this new found freedom themselves.

they gave permission to their wives to think for themselves, to act out of love instead of obedience. and they found a richer relationship because of it. which, I think is something that one mother was trying to teach her princely son..

a reply to: dawnstar

Is that mentioning John Hyrcanus?

a reply to: dawnstar

I also said above that a wise man listens to the council of his wife, they are INVALUABLE! That they have a perspective on things that the husband doesn't, wives are a tremendous blessing from the Lord. No man who is honest can say they are where they are in life without the wise council of their spouse, and if any man is honest they will quickly admit their wife is smarter and has a keener sense of truth and reality than they do.

a reply to: deignostian

You can not decieve me with the lame, poor, sorry and desperate "out of context" argument.

Well, then get your iron scepter out, sit on your throne, and rule as a master over your wife. Get a Sharpie and cross out verses 25-29 from the text, and I wish you luck in your marriage. You're going to need it.

a reply to: dawnstar

They never should have needed permission in the first place is the messed up thing.

I am not disagreeing with you just observing and commenting.

When did Women get the right vote? Not too long ago. Another totally messed up scenario that women or anyone should have to fight just to be seen as or told you are equal.

Women still make less for the same job too

a reply to: NOTurTypical

And?

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: NOTurTypical

And?

And nothing, good luck if you want to follow chapter 5 of Ephesians without verses 25-29.