New Testament Misogyny

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
Plain and simple. Paul was an asshole with insane ideas and should be revealed for the false prophet he was.

Peter calls Paul a beloved brother in 2 Peter. The apostle John wrote 1,2, and 3 John after 90 AD and never mentioned Paul once as a false apostle. If the other apostles gave him the right hand of fellowship, there is no reason to think he wasn't.

Then the other apostles where assholes also. I do not need the bible to be the objective truth and divine.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

What I read in those 5 verses is putting my wife above myself, sacrificing myself to her, loving and cherishing her more than myself. I'm a husband, that's written to the husband, so definitely not irrelevant.

yes, husbands are told to love their wives, as christ loved the church... ain't denying that one...

but then what does it tell the wives to do?? obey the husband as unto christ? he is the head of the wife, as christ is his head? maybe I am misintrepreting this but it seems to me that what it is saying is that she should consider any order given to her by her husband as an order coming from god himself...
much like men were to consider any order, regardless of how immoral they saw it coming from the king or high priest as coming from god himself.
they aren't told to love their husbands, they are told to obey them, as if they are god!!
so, if that husband for some reason, just isn't in tune with god on that day and comes up with an idea that means the women should do something or submit to something that she knows in her heart will harm him, she can talk to him and try to convince him it is wrong, she can pray to god to convince him it is wrong, but she just can't refuse to do it because she feels it is wrong. heck it might even come down to her not really being able to act in a loving way to do this thing..
she can't fully act in a loving way towards her husband with that command over her head! it makes everything that she would be willing to sacrifice for him into an obligation to him, as God's appointed authority over him.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Who wants your help? I know how misinformed you are you ars right that you can't help me.

But not for the reasons you think.

Please. Nobody wants your help, you are not wise counsel.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: deignostian

Then I cannot help you, I don't know.

"You don't know" is right. You would be the last...no I would never look to you for help. You are defending misogony even if you don't know it (you do though).

But when I read Ephesians 5 my obligations in a marriage is defined in verses 25-29, that's the template I follow to give glory to the Lord. I consider how Jesus loved the church, and mirror that to the best of my knowledge and power. She is flesh of my flesh, we are one body. So I don't rule over her, just as I don't rule over the left or right side of my own body, my desires and needs come secondary to her's. Or as the old proverb goes, "happy wife, happy life."

Do as you want, but that's what I do with Ephesians 5, I love her and cherish her like Christ does His church. At the end of the day, He gave His own life for the church.

I think your problem is you fail to see what is true and believe what isn't. You don't know the scriptures, love Paul and deny his provable beyond reasonable doubt misogyny.

You won't acknowledge it and actually think that quoting one passage somehow erases everything said by the misogynist. You are basically the only person in this thread who just doesn't get it.

Don't ever insinuate that I need help. Especially from someone who is the epitome of sdrawkcad ssa .

a reply to: deignostian

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

Primogeniture is the right, by law or custom, of the legitimate, firstborn son to inherit his parent's entire or main estate, in preference to daughters, elder illegitimate sons, younger sons and collateral relatives. The son of a deceased elder brother inherits before a living younger brother by right of substitution for the deceased heir.

Primogeniture was the custom of the tribes and peoples surrounding the Israelites. The Israelite religion in order to be distinct, rejected it. The first born male was not only refused inheritance, his very life was forfeit. He was to die.

Compare with European custom; the first born is Crown Prince, the Second born in order to avoid assassination takes holy vows of priesthood by which he renounces all claim to the throne.

So in Israelite religion, the first born son must either be redeemed through blood sacrifice or dedicated to the deity so as to avoid death. Samson was first-born son (he who opened the womb) of a hitherto infertile mother.

It is my guess that the long hair of the Nazirite Vow was a sign that he held no inheritance claim and his life would not be forfeit. Once his hair got cut, no protection, he had to die.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: deignostian

Then I cannot help you, I don't know. But when I read Ephesians 5 my obligations in a marriage is defined in verses 25-29, that's the template I follow to give glory to the Lord. I consider how Jesus loved the church, and mirror that to the best of my knowledge and power. She is flesh of my flesh, we are one body. So I don't rule over her, just as I don't rule over the left or right side of my own body, my desires and needs come secondary to her's. Or as the old proverb goes, "happy wife, happy life."

Do as you want, but that's what I do with Ephesians 5, I love her and cherish her like Christ does His church. At the end of the day, He gave His own life for the church.

What is even your point?

It is like you think you will get to heaven for defendind the enemy of the Nazarenes. You won't admit they didn't get along even though the Bible tells us this clearly.

So making up your own story is all you are doing. Paul was an imposter and how anyone can not realize it is baffling. You just can't know that much about the story if that's the case.

Besides fundamental nutbags everyone who cares has figured out Paul was a miserable scumbag. Because they take off the blinders.

Defending the subjection and subservience of women is the same tas denying it happened. This is what you do with your spiritual life?

You need help not me. I know you know everything said about Paul being a misogynist is true. You don't think you can be a disciple without the mad guidance of a false prophet.

You seriously lack faith then because Jesus never met Paul, not even in the desert. Only an absolute fool would believe such a ridiculous tale. Naivety.

Wow.

ETA: I feel bad maybe I was a little rude.


Imagine you knew something that many people did, something probably true.

Then you tried to tell someone who operates emotion first, before logic, reason and truth.

And that totally blind to logic person who is far from correct argued something he didn't actually understand as well as you. And arrogantly thought you wanted his help.

It would be called unlearning were I to follow your theories about the NT. I have figured out something many people have, and they all try to inform you.

But you refuse to see evil for evil and only want what you want to be true, to be trueand, no fact, evidence or proof would even be entertained by you.



What good does it do me to regress in Wisdom, deny what I know based on the Bible to be provably true and return to ignorance?

That is what would happen if I were to accept "help" from you. I would be betraying the Good Spirit that gave me eyes and ears to SEE and HEAR.

And I don't treat my friends like that for some false prophet. Or any reason. Just because you don't believe in the Good Spirit as a bestower of Truth doesn't give me a reason to deny what I have experienced.

Your failure to listen to people who are trying to teach you the truth, whether or not you accept the absurd story of Paul, is holding you back from progressing in Wisdom. You dismiss more truth than lies and emotions are your issue.

If you drop the Christian charade and read the New Testament straight through like a novel you would figure out...damn, these people were trying to help and Paul was a false prophet who did nothing but write a few letters and bastardize the Nazarene faith.

Christianity is a death cult. You believe a mans death is profitable to you because you fear the non existent place called hell.

Human sacrifice is WORSE than the animal sacrifice Jesus sought to end.

Thr biggest insult would be to turn him into a sacrifice.

Pauline Christianity is not the movement of Jesus but of a con artist like L. Ron Hubbard.

The Way. That is the name of the TRUE Spiritual movement of the Nazarenes who despised Paul. All of Asia rejected and despised Paul, it's in the Bible.

a reply to: pthena

Sounds accurate. JTB is said to have never cut his hair. I wonder if something happened to him that got Herodias to request and receive his head.

I always thought it was a sorceress thing. The head of a dead prophet may have been thought to possess magical properties.

Pure speculation but I think deep into things sometimes and sometimes it is beneficial because figuring out something on your own is better than being told.

"The head of prophecy was cut off with the head of John the Baptist" is an Apocryphal saying of Jesus so maybe she wanted to do just that, eliminate prophecy altogether.

Again, the female is the villain.

a reply to: deignostian

If not defending anyone, just pointing out the necessity of the entire context of the passage, not a single verse or two. Based on verses 25-29 no husband can twist it to Lord over his wife, that would be the opposite of the direction to husbands how they are to love their wives. It's important to always take a verse in its entire context of the verses around it, no to see what other verses say in other books of the Bible. It's a dangerous practice to use "single verse theology", that has been the bedrock foundation of every cult ever created.

So, a man cannot simultaneously sacrifice himself and love and nurture his wife as Christ loved the church and lord over her and make her submit to him, you can't do both. A husband shouldn't even be worried about passages for wives, no should only concentrate on his role to his own family and wife.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Based on verses 25-29 no husband can twist it to Lord over his wife, that would be the opposite of the direction to husbands how they are to love their wives.

that's funny because for years they denied the importance of love in marriage!!

1690s U.S.: Virginia wasn't always for lovers—Passionate love between husband and wife is considered unseemly: One Virginia colonist describes a woman he knows as "more fond of her husband perhaps than the politeness of the day allows." Protestant ministers warn spouses against loving each other too much, or using endearing nicknames that will undermine husbandly authority.
18th-century Europe: Love gains ground—In England and in the salons of Enlightenment thinkers, married love is gaining credibility. Ladies' debating societies declare that while loveless marriages are regrettable, women must consider money when choosing a partner

www.psychologytoday.com...

a reply to: dawnstar

I don't think a wife is bound to follow her husband in something that is against what Jesus said, he wife is responsible to Him first and foremost. I think what it means to "submit", is just to acknowledge that God has given the responsibility of leading the household to the husband, but in many other places, like Proberbs for example, it says how wise the wife is and any man worth nothing will readily acknowledge his wife's council is invaluable. So I don't see "submit" as in the context of like a master/slave relationship, that would be pretty unbiblical.

a reply to: dawnstar

Hey, I'm not saying people haven't used verses out of context to justify evil and perversions, history is littered with that. That's why I stress the importance of the entire council of God's Word, and how critical it is not to make doctrine out of single verses. I mean, love is how God created us, He gave us that emotion to share with others, especially our wives and children.

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Who wants your help? I know how misinformed you are you ars right that you can't help me.

But not for the reasons you think.

Please. Nobody wants your help, you are not wise counsel.

I'm not the topic of this thread, and as a member here at ATS I have the right to comment and offer my contributions to the discussions. This isn't about me.

a reply to: Klassified

Was a slave or binder ant the way of life in the day? In fact, MANY people freely went into indentured servitude as a way to pay off debts. Today is different, but in that period of world history people had to go into slavery. There is part of the Bible in the NT that condemns manstealing, or in other words capturing a free man and selling that person into slavery.

a reply to: deignostian

You are defending misogony even if you don't know it (you do though).

Good grief, nowhere have I defended that, that's a completely false accusation. Misogyny means "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls." I've condoned nothing of the sort, in fact, said that a wife should be loved and cherished, and that a husband should sacrifice himself and put her wants, needs, and desires above his own. That a husband should serve his wife.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

but, more historically accurate...

you are giving an interpretation of those verses that only came into being maybe 60 or 70 years ago??

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I am sorry but you don't tell people things like "well then I can't help you" when help is not needed. I should help you but you only believe what you want.

I apologize for trying to show you the covered up truth about the Nazarenes and how Christianity is not about what Jesus taught. It's Paulinism not Christianity.

The restoration of the true movement of the Nazarene Yeshua is happening as we speak all over the world. People are discovering more and more that a false prophet, not the Messiah of the Nazarenes, created Christianity.

Documentaries, websites and books about this topic abound but you have a fetish with this nobody Paul who was a traitor to every person he ever knew.

Although I will say, the only time Paul was lying (when he lived) was when he was talking or writing.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: NOTurTypical

but, more historically accurate...

you are giving an interpretation of those verses that only came into being maybe 60 or 70 years ago??

Hasn't Western culture, and specifically Christianity, been more loving and considerate of the wife as a child of God than other cultures and even other religions? Think of how Islam treats women, or historical non-Christian societies and cultures. You can even say Judaism and the Jewish culture in the day of Christ. Remember what the disciples first thought when they saw Jesus even talking to the woman at the well? When I read the NT, I can't justify any behavior to my wife that isn't the utmost respect and honor for her as the precious gift God gave me, and fellow companionship and honor she is due as a daughter of the Most High.

History is littered with perversions of the Christian model, and it's correct that using verses out of context is justified for abusive behavior, and that's what is worth pointing out and making sure how important it is to stress that the Bible can't be used to justify abusive behavior.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: deignostian

You are defending misogony even if you don't know it (you do though).

Good grief, nowhere have I defended that, that's a completely false accusation. Misogyny means "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls." I've condoned nothing of the sort, in fact, said that a wife should be loved and cherished, and that a husband should sacrifice himself and put her wants, needs, and desires above his own. That a husband should serve his wife.

Does it look like I need you to define a word I have been using correctly or are you trying to change the meaning to suit your self?

Unnecessary defining of words aside:

By denying it (misogyny) is in the NT, yes you did defend it. You defend the person who said it and who had no qualms about expressing his opinion that women should be subservient.

You defend it by trying to say he meant something else or that it doesn't matter because he said other things (that don't even serve a purpose to the topic).

Every rationalization, excuse, denial and misrepresentation of unrelated (to a stand alone statement or 4)... is defending it.

Until you admit that Paul WAS a misogynist, you are defending a misogynist and misogyny.

Because the Bible isn't vague or cryptic about it we can call it a fact.

Paul preached misogyny AS GOD'S WILL "According to the 'law' " It's all in the OP.

I don't care if you follow Paul but have some cajones and admit what is true.

a reply to: deignostian

Okay, then show me the "hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls.", (misogyny) that Paul taught that a husband should to to his wife in verses 25-29. That's his opinion how a husband should act towards his wife. If you say he taught misogyny, then show it in the verses that instruct me as a husband how I'm to relate to my wife. Verses 25-29 is that instruction to me as a husband, this is why I'm stressing the importance of the entire context of chapter 5 of Ephesians.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

It's in the OP, like I JUST said.

Pay attention for once. Your denial is making me sick. You have been showed everything but you like to use distractions like asking me to supply information that has been already supplied.

It's a simple fact that has been proven and you refuse to admit the truth.

That's pretty corrupt of you.