Attention Christian ladies. Have you given birth yet?

[Khatru]

Because if you haven't you won't be saved from your god when he comes to destroy everything.

Not only is Adam blameless - it's all your fault and shutting up/ kowtowing to your man isn't enough, it looks like you won't be going to heaven unless you have babies.

9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Timothy 2:9-15

[Brownie]

B....cks

[Khatru]

B....cks

Bollocks? 

In the Bible?

Surely not?

[Hope]

Because if you haven't you won't be saved from your god when he comes to destroy everything.

Not only is Adam blameless - it's all your fault and shutting up/ kowtowing to your man isn't enough, it looks like you won't be going to heaven unless you have babies.

1 Timothy 2:9-15

What's the context of the passage, Khatru?

[Khatru]

What's the context of the passage, Khatru?

This passage of scripture is set against the overarching context that the supreme cosmic mega being has a real downer on women.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Khartoum......enjoying your posts just on sheer barminess.

[Hope]

This passage of scripture is set against the overarching context that the supreme cosmic mega being being has a real downer on women.

Oddly enough, Khat, if you look at the context of the passage, you will notice that 1) it is a Pauline statement that is couched in terminology that he uses across his writings - to express his own opinion.  And 2) if you look across that body of writing, he spends more space and wordage on condemning the 'downer' attitudes of the Jewish leadership (especially) towards women than he does suggesting that the deity has a downer of women.  In fact, he often extols the value and importance of women to society.

Yes, I accept that there is more than one suggestion that women ought to keep quiet in the synagoge, but then one has to remember the cultural context of a 1st century synagogue.  Not a single woman was required to be present in order for a synagogue to be deemed 'quorate' - all that was required was 10 men.   In most cases, a synagogue would have a balcony, where women and children were allowed to sit - but they were required to remain quiet during the proceedings.  According to many Jewish religious and social historians, they had and still have a habit of chattering to each other rather than paying attention to the rabbi and/or the readings.

Interestingly, the history of the early Christian church sort of turned that on its head - there was at least one woman deacon (leader of a congregation) in the early church; there were many women who Paul referenced in his epistles as having important roles within various congregations: even the greatest news of all - that of Jesus' resurrection - was placed in the hands of a woman to pass on.  Here was no Jewish 3-woman deputation - the number of women's voices required to provide evidence on a par with a single Jewish man; here was a single woman being regarded as equal to a single man.

[Khatru]

Khartoum......enjoying your posts just on sheer barminess.

Glad you find the scriptures I quote as being barmy!

[Khatru]

Oddly enough, Khat, if you look at the context of the passage, you will notice that 1) it is a Pauline statement that is couched in terminology that he uses across his writings - to express his own opinion.  And 2) if you look across that body of writing, he spends more space and wordage on condemning the 'downer' attitudes of the Jewish leadership (especially) towards women than he does suggesting that the deity has a downer of women.  In fact, he often extols the value and importance of women to society.

Yes, I accept that there is more than one suggestion that women ought to keep quiet in the synagoge, but then one has to remember the cultural context of a 1st century synagogue.  Not a single woman was required to be present in order for a synagogue to be deemed 'quorate' - all that was required was 10 men.   In most cases, a synagogue would have a balcony, where women and children were allowed to sit - but they were required to remain quiet during the proceedings.  According to many Jewish religious and social historians, they had and still have a habit of chattering to each other rather than paying attention to the rabbi and/or the readings.

Interestingly, the history of the early Christian church sort of turned that on its head - there was at least one woman deacon (leader of a congregation) in the early church; there were many women who Paul referenced in his epistles as having important roles within various congregations: even the greatest news of all - that of Jesus' resurrection - was placed in the hands of a woman to pass on.  Here was no Jewish 3-woman deputation - the number of women's voices required to provide evidence on a par with a single Jewish man; here was a single woman being regarded as equal to a single man.

So whatever Paul says is simply his opinion and needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt - I get it.

Yet the quoted scripture says childbirth is necessary for women to be saved from the Bible god's rage and spite. 

You're saying that scripture is erroneous?  No probs - I get that too!

As for the overarching biblical downer on women................

And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Leviticus 15:19-30

By the way, what gives with the turtles or pigeons?




 

[Brownie]

Khatru, Paul was a man of his time and of his culture.  That comes across very clearly in all his utterances, on many subjects.  Christians know this quite well.  He was also conscious that the 'new religion' must not create any scandal.

I've no idea what he was thinking when he said that women are saved through childbirth, nowhere else in the Bible, nor in Jewish scripture is that stated.  Everything has to be read in context of course but that really is an odd thing to say as some people cannot have children and that is nobody's fault.  Not enough status is given to childless couples in our society unfortunately and I'm sure it was even worse in Paul's day though the Jews did adopt orphans and took care of extended family.

Far better to concentrate on what Jesus said and to look at his character.  One cannot imagine Him thinking any the less of a woman who could not bear children - and for all they knew, it could have been due to male infertility.

[floo]

Having children isn't the be all and end all of a woman's existence. One of my sisters never wanted kids and ensured she didn't have any, fortunately her husband was of the same mind.

[Brownie]

Yes, you've said that before, but this thread isn't about us or our families, it's general and not to do with people who do not want children;  I imagine it was difficult to avoid pregnancy in Biblical times so if a woman - or couple - was childless there was usually an anatomical reason.

[Sassy]

Because if you haven't you won't be saved from your god when he comes to destroy everything.

Not only is Adam blameless - it's all your fault and shutting up/ kowtowing to your man isn't enough, it looks like you won't be going to heaven unless you have babies.
9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
1 Timothy 2:9-15

A lot ignorance....



A man not men or all men then. Exactly what teaching is Paul referring to. Not men and women already born of the Holy Spirit.
For they need no man or woman to teach them and they are equal in the Spirit no male or female.
So often people use the teachings of others to misrepresent what is really being taught.

A man or woman in the Spirit needs no one to teach them. No man and no woman.

King James Bible
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

So Paul not speaking to believers in the Spirit, then.

Was there anything else you wanted to share?

And a woman will be kept safe through her labour/birth of child if they continue in faith etc.

You really are showing your ignorance when it comes to the bible and what is actually being taught.

26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

You can always ask one of the believers before you print. Could save yourself looking ignorant.
Might keep people from telling you what you wrote was 'Boll*cks.

[Sebastian Toe]

You can always ask one of the believers before you print. Could save yourself looking ignorant.

That's a keeper.....

[floo]

That's a keeper.....

Hilarious coming from Sass!

[Brownie]

I thought Sass explained it quite well though had to read it twice to 'get it'.  Her explanation is a Christian exegesis and if you are not a Christian, it will mean nothing to you.  I'm not sure I go along with the explanation but I understand it as one way of looking at the passage.  I prefer what I said  but I would, wouldn't I.

[Hope]

Glad you find the scriptures I quote as being barmy!

I think the reason that some here regard the scriptures you quote as being barmy has to do with the interpretation you then lay on them.

[Shaker]

I think the reason that some here regard the scriptures you quote as being barmy has to do with the interpretation you then lay on them.

And not actually because they're barmy. Riiiight.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Relax people, this is a case of some translators removing the word, the. Also with a dose of atheist cherry picking. Bad combo for sure.

Now if Khatru was smart, he would read the context of that verse plus context with all Paul's letters. He fails of course.

My King James Bible reads, "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith...."

Taken in context it is plain that Paul is not writing about salvation as in eternity. He is talking about the fact that bearing a child was very threatening to a woman's life.

Galatians 3:26-29
"For ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, there is neither male NOR FEMALE: FOR YE ARE ALL ONE in Christ Jesus."

"Are Women Saved Through Childbearing"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUJKp7lQW-k

[Bubbles]

And not actually because they're barmy. Riiiight.

This one always struck me as barmy.

Ezekiel 23:20New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

20 There she had longed for her lovers. Their private parts seemed as big as those of donkeys. And their flow of semen appeared to be as much as that of horses.


Even in context it's barmy.
 

Muslims seem to like quoting that one, judging by Facebook

[Hope]

So whatever Paul says is simply his opinion and needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt - I get it.

Khat, there are passages where Paul clearly states that what follows is his own opinion, and not the word of God; there are then other passages that he makes clear aren't his opinion, but God's word.  As someone who reads the Bible you clearly need to learn how to read 1) what it actually says and 2) what the context requires of us.

Yet the quoted scripture says childbirth is necessary for women to be saved from the Bible god's rage and spite. 

Perhaps that is what Paul believed.

You're saying that scripture is erroneous?

No, you are saying that whilst I am saying that it is a combination of author's own opinion of various situations and God's instructions.

As for the overarching biblical downer on women................

There isn't one.

Leviticus 15:19-30, & 31/33

Verses 1-18 & 31/32 refer to male unclean discharges.  So, that's 20 verses dedicated to a 'biblical downer on men' and 14 dedicated to a 'biblical downer on women'.

By the way, what gives with the turtles or pigeons?

Many societies use/used blood sacrifice as a means of indicating absolution.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Rose,
Yes, the story of the two whores (Israel and Samaria) is quite a read. I wonder how my father would have explained what some of those words mean, if as I child I had read them and asked. He probably would have been honest and red faced. Mom told me that he didn't kiss her until they were engaged. Mom was raised Danish Lutheran, she wouldn't have minded a kiss or two before the engagement.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/ezekiel/23.html

[Bubbles]

Rose,
Yes, the story of the two whores (Israel and Samaria) is quite a read. I wonder how my father would have explained what some of those words mean, if as I child I had read them and asked. He probably would have been honest and red faced. Mom told me that he didn't kiss her until they were engaged. Mom was raised Danish Lutheran, she wouldn't have minded a kiss or two before the engagement.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/ezekiel/23.html

  thanks

🌹

[Spud]

Relax people, this is a case of some translators removing the word, the.

Agreed.

Taken in context it is plain that Paul is not writing about salvation as in eternity. He is talking about the fact that bearing a child was very threatening to a woman's life.

I understood this passage to be saying that the dangers of childbearing were the curse pronounced on the woman after the Fall. Paul has just described the woman's part in the Fall. So in that context: her own eternal salvation and that of others depended on Eve and her future daughters risking childbirth, so that the Messiah would be born. This is "the childbirth" Paul is referring to. Since the Messiah has now been born and finished His work, Paul says that women would be saved through the birth of the Messiah if they continued to live a godly life.

[jeremyp]

Oddly enough, Khat, if you look at the context of the passage, you will notice that 1) it is a Pauline statement that is couched in terminology that he uses across his writings - to express his own opinion.

It wasn't written by Paul, but it is still in the Bible. If it was not God's message, why did he let it sneak in there?