Romans 16

[Spud]

I would disagree, Spud, especially when one uses the Greek originals, rather than the English translations.

Your message 48 suggests you think the "no women allowed"-type passages are authentic. So how do you reconcile them with the view that Romans 16 shows the opposite of what they teach? 

[Hope]

Your message 48 suggests you think the "no women allowed"-type passages are authentic. So how do you reconcile them with the view that Romans 16 shows the opposite of what they teach?

OK Spud.  If you look at my #48, I am asking for evidence that Timothy (1 & 2) was written "by someone who had never met Paul, let alone Jesus".  That is very different from saying that they are or aren't authentic.  Secondly, as I've previously pointed out, the context of the passages that say that women shouldn't speak in congregation are contexts of congregational behaviour.  I've also pointed out that women's presence wasn't a requirement for a synagogue to be deemed 'quorate'.  That was dependent on there being at least 10 MEN present.  In fact you can have a synagogue meeting without any women being present.  Those women who did attend tend(ed) to be shunted off to one side, or upstairs in the balcony, and Jewish writings talk about the fact that they would sometimes spend their time chattering to each other and not listening to the service.  Paul and his pseudoepigraphical mates were trying to discourage this - especially as, according to Jesus' teaching, there was such differentiation in Christianity.

As such, I don't believe that Romans 16 is contradicting anything, as the differenty passages are addressing very dfferent issues.

[floo]

In my opinion, the Bible needs an extra chapter explaining why people need to question very thoroughly stuff that was written in days predating science. It should point out that there is no evidence to support the fanciful scenarios attributed to god and Jesus. Whilst people might want to believe them to be true, they cannot claim them to be factual.

[Hope]

In my opinion, the Bible needs an extra chapter explaining why people need to question very thoroughly stuff that was written in days predating science. It should point out that there is no evidence to support the fanciful scenarios attributed to god and Jesus. Whilst people might want to believe them to be true, they cannot claim them to be factual.

Sorry, Floo, the Bible was never written 'in days predating science'.  Science has been 'happening' for millennia, and the Bible and other religious material has been written within that context.

As for evidence, it depends on whether one requires all evidence to be purely naturalistic and whether one regards sceince as the sole means of explaining life.  I don't do the latter, largely because of the experiences I've had over my lifetime.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In my opinion, the Bible needs an extra chapter explaining why people need to question very thoroughly stuff that was written in days predating science. It should point out that there is no evidence to support the fanciful scenarios attributed to god and Jesus. Whilst people might want to believe them to be true, they cannot claim them to be factual.

In my opinion The Atheist Playbook needs an extra chapter explaining how science has moved on from a mechanistic view of the universe and the importance of Karl Popper.

Maybe entitled The New Atheists......Indian summer of the mechanistic dinosaurs?

[jeremyp]

I would disagree, Spud, especially when one uses the Greek originals, rather than the English translations.

You have access to the originals of the Pauline letters? Wow.

[Hope]

You have access to the originals of the Pauline letters? Wow.

Sorry, jeremy.  That word 'original' was mis-used.  My bad.  What I was trying to get at is that working from Greek can help see where English isn't always accurate.

[jeremyp]

Sorry, jeremy.  That word 'original' was mis-used.  My bad.  What I was trying to get at is that working from Greek can help see where English isn't always accurate.

The Greek isn't always accurate either. I have heard it said that Romans is a composite of more than one document. If that's the case, there must be some doubt as to what the original massage was.

[Spud]

OK Spud.  If you look at my #48, I am asking for evidence that Timothy (1 & 2) was written "by someone who had never met Paul, let alone Jesus".  That is very different from saying that they are or aren't authentic.  Secondly, as I've previously pointed out, the context of the passages that say that women shouldn't speak in congregation are contexts of congregational behaviour.

You may be thinking in your second point, of 1 Corinthians 14:34. Yes, the behaviour of women (in the balcony, for example) may be the context of this verse. But the context is also the rest of the letter. 11:3 implies that, just as every man is under Christ's authority, so 'the head of the woman is man'. This implies that women serving in the church should do so under male authority, which Paul confirms in 1 Timothy 2:12.

This is worth a read:
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-41-the-triune-office-reconsidered/

[Gordon]

You may be thinking in your second point, of 1 Corinthians 14:34. Yes, the behaviour of women (in the balcony, for example) may be the context of this verse. But the context is also the rest of the letter. 11:3 implies that, just as every man is under Christ's authority, so 'the head of the woman is man'. This implies that women serving in the church should do so under male authority, which Paul confirms in 1 Timothy 2:12.

This is worth a read:
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-41-the-triune-office-reconsidered/

You could of course, Spud, conclude that what was thought about gender equality in the middle-east in antiquity isn't binding in the UK of the 21st century.

[Hope]

The Greek isn't always accurate either. I have heard it said that Romans is a composite of more than one document. If that's the case, there must be some doubt as to what the original massage was.

Is that hearsay, jeremy?  As we all know, hearsay isn't evidence.

[Hope]

You could of course, Spud, conclude that what was thought about gender equality in the middle-east in antiquity isn't binding in the UK of the 21st century.

Or one could conclude that Christian, as opposed to Jewish teaching on gender equality from the 'middle-east in antiquity' was at least as advanced as modern-day thinking.

[Gordon]

Or one could conclude that Christian, as opposed to Jewish teaching on gender equality from the 'middle-east in antiquity' was at least as advanced as modern-day thinking.

Not really, since it doesn't seem that gender equality has been a guiding principle within Christianity in the intervening centuries: I give you the RCC and the CofE as examples. The day we see a female Pope or AofC will be when you can claim Christianity isn't an example of gender inequality.   

[Hope]

Not really, since it doesn't seem that gender equality has been a guiding principle within Christianity in the intervening centuries: I give you the RCC and the CofE as examples. The day we see a female Pope or AofC will be when you can claim Christianity isn't an example of gender inequality.

Just because the Church isn't very clever today - 2000 years later - doesn't mean that the early church wasn't, especially when you remember the statements that run through Romans 16 and the explanation that I've outlined about the advice to women not to spend their time chattering in the balcony or wherever.

[Gordon]

Just because the Church isn't very clever today - 2000 years later - doesn't mean that the early church wasn't, especially when you remember the statements that run through Romans 16 and the explanation that I've outlined about the advice to women not to spend their time chattering in the balcony or wherever.

So what?

Whatever the early Christian church was allegedly like in respect of gender equality is largely irrelevant in terms of the more recent historical and current situations. No doubt those who defend gender inequality in Christianity today will claim scriptural support, and this seems at odds with your portrayal of early Christianity: these so-called 'church fathers ' (but, not and tellingly, 'church mothers').

So either:

a) These early Christians had no gender bias, as you suggest - which implies that Christian authorities in the centuries since have made a mess of this aspect of doctrine.

b) The attitudes of the early church towards women weren't quite as benign as you'd like to think it was, hence the misogyny ever since within organised Christianity.

Perhaps you can clarify any other options.

 

[Spud]

Spud:   "...allowing some women to teach (other women, for instance)..."

That's how it is in Saudia Arabia, Spud.

From the link I posted yesterday:

What the Bible teaches is that women are radically different from men. For this reason, men often do not know how to deal with women’s problems. Other, older women are, however, able to do so. Thus, the office of elder woman, as I propose it, is to be filled by older women who advise and counsel other women.

[floo]

We live in the 21st century, and much of the Bible isn't relevant to the way we live today.

[Hope]

We live in the 21st century, and much of the Bible isn't relevant to the way we live today.

Floo, in case you hadn't noticved, 21st century human nature is very little changed from 1st Century human nature (be that 1st century AD or BC).  As such, the Bible addresses attitudes and behaviours that haven't changed in 2 or 3 millennia. We still have xenophobia, we still have gender injustice, we still have trade injustice, we still have slavery, we still have spousal abuse, we still have bullying, ... ; do you want me to continue the list?

[floo]

Floo, in case you hadn't noticved, 21st century human nature is very little changed from 1st Century human nature (be that 1st century AD or BC).  As such, the Bible addresses attitudes and behaviours that haven't changed in 2 or 3 millennia. We still have xenophobia, we still have gender injustice, we still have trade injustice, we still have slavery, we still have spousal abuse, we still have bullying, ... ; do you want me to continue the list?

That is funny! The Biblical god and its sychophants were the lowest of the low when it came to any sort of decent behaviour, if the deeds attributed to them had any credence!

[Hope]

That is funny! The Biblical god and its sychophants were the lowest of the low when it came to any sort of decent behaviour, if the deeds attributed to them had any credence!

You clearly have a very warped mind if you think this, Floo.  I don't deny that, as with any philosophy or worldview, human adherents can twist and abuse the system - think of Marxism and Communism; think of capitalism and democracy; think of some Roman Catholic thinking;  ... .

However, I can think of many events of the 20th and 21st centuries (let alone earlier ones) where said events are far worse than pretty well anything carried out in the name of Christ - bar perhaps the Crusades and the treatment of the Jews.

As for 'any sort of decent behaviour', I'd include education, healthcare, scientific research and invention as pretty good behaviour.  I get the impression that you want to use the Jewish understanding of God (often expressed in a very different tye of literature to that which I suspect you're used to - such as pictorial, exaggeration (though you seem pretty good at this , theological treatise, etc.), as the real-life norm.

[floo]

You clearly have a very warped mind if you think this, Floo.  I don't deny that, as with any philosophy or worldview, human adherents can twist and abuse the system - think of Marxism and Communism; think of capitalism and democracy; think of some Roman Catholic thinking;  ... .

However, I can think of many events of the 20th and 21st centuries (let alone earlier ones) where said events are far worse than pretty well anything carried out in the name of Christ - bar perhaps the Crusades and the treatment of the Jews.

As for 'any sort of decent behaviour', I'd include education, healthcare, scientific research and invention as pretty good behaviour.  I get the impression that you want to use the Jewish understanding of God (often expressed in a very different tye of literature to that which I suspect you're used to - such as pictorial, exaggeration (though you seem pretty good at this , theological treatise, etc.), as the real-life norm.

What did god do that was good? I have asked that question many times and never had an answer!

[Hope]

What did god do that was good? I have asked that question many times and never had an answer!

In fact, you've had the answer on a number of occasions from a number of people, both here and elsewhere, and you have promptly shut up shop, gone silent for a month or two, then opened a new thread asking the same question.

[jeremyp]

Is that hearsay, jeremy?  As we all know, hearsay isn't evidence.

It was in Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Christ". He presents some evidence that Romans is a composite.

[BeRational]

In fact, you've had the answer on a number of occasions from a number of people, both here and elsewhere, and you have promptly shut up shop, gone silent for a month or two, then opened a new thread asking the same question.

I think that is your MO

[floo]

In fact, you've had the answer on a number of occasions from a number of people, both here and elsewhere, and you have promptly shut up shop, gone silent for a month or two, then opened a new thread asking the same question.

There has never been an answer to my question, you have never put one forward.