by belbab 66 Replies latest watchtower bible
Dobermans? Dobermans?
It was the Lions of Rome that knawed on the bones of Paul long ago.
Caesar's lions broke their teeth on Paul's bones.
Today it is Doberman's?
As a man I would rather keep a 'quiet and mild spirit' than the teeth of or kisses of a Doberman to make my way in the world.
belbab, with a small b
Daniel P:
San Diego is renowned for its infestation of pirates. This is why all the women there are urged to be silent. Because of the pirates.
I lived in Victoria, BC til I grew up. Victoria was a San Diego of the British Empire, where the biggest drydock in the Empire existed at that time . During the second world war, you would see hundreds of sailors "on the town", cruisin' and not for dolphins. Plenty of military police also. I remember one evening, seeing a sailor and a girl, drunk walking along the street. The sailor was trying to push her away, but she would come back and cling to him, pulling him by the arm. He had got his jollies, he wanted no more of her.
Navy ships continue to visit Victoria to this day. This past summer, if I remember correctly, a big American aircraft carrier, anchored off port, to give their sailors shore leave to ease tension. There was a write up about it in the newspaper.
The funny part of it, many the girls in town, look forward to it,
Also during the war, I sold newspapers at the Army barracks. Always the first question that was asked of me was, do you have any sisters? After the war, I worked as a long shoreman loading ships. Japanese sailors who didn't know English, their first question was a two handed finger suggestion along with the words, giggy-gig???
Navigator's post was like a breath of fresh air for me, he certainly is a true navigator, navigating in un-charted waters.
What has all this to do with Paul's words, let the woman keep silence?
Hey, bud, you got any sisters, you got any daughters ? enquiring minds would like to know.
Ever hear of a woman hero in the bible?
Rebekah, Rachel, Zipporah, Rahab, Jael, Deborah (a prophetess), Naomi, Ruth, Abigail, Esther, Mary (the mother of Jesus), Mary Magdalene, Lydia, Prisca (Priscilla), and those were just ones I could name off the top of my head. But there are no female "heroes" in the Bible, none whatsoever.
Narkissos,
Please excuse the delay in acknowledging your post and your previous one; I got inundated with balloons of emoticons floating in the atmosphere from my cheer leaders.
You write:
1 Corinthians 14:33ff is widely recognized as a non-Pauline addition into the Corinthian correspondence (v. 34f are located after v. 40 in some mss),
I intended to write at the beginning of this thread of the information posted on this board, that in January 2007 there is an article dealing with woman within the ranks of the so-called “Christian congregation” My intention with this thread is to present information to counter their stance about women being in subjection. If I use your information, that l Cor. 14:33 is widely recognized as an unauthorized addition to the text, that will alienate any thinking JW from even considering any contrary discussion. I do not dismiss your position, but rather hold it as possibility which leans towards probability.
The JWs look at this text as The Law. As a self-appointed defense lawyer working pro bono for dominated women within this org, I have to meet this “Law” head on and also use other “laws” or texts to disprove their position as you have done by using 1 Cor 11 to show that women did pray and prophecy with a headdress.
In your previous post on this thread you directed me to Leolaia’s benchmark discussion about women in the early Christian community.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/92014/1.ashx
I had browsed through it before, but now I am in the process of going through it thoroughly. I have questions and comments for her and also you to which I hope you both will be in a position to reply and end result be fruitful. I only may be able to direct my thoughts in bits and pieces, and scattered all over the landscape, but hopefully the gist of my explanations will shine through a little.
belbab
Leolaia:
Narkissos directed me to your article: The status of women in early Christianity.
(at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/92014/1.ashx
Your article is a gold mine of information, bringing me awareness of many things that I was
not aware of before. Please accept my comments, not as dogmatic statements but more as
questions that are an endeavor to gain a clearer grasp of things.
From this wealth of information I can only bring up comments in bits and pieces, without
overwhelming any readers that may want to read them. In this post, I bring up points from
three texts, namely, 1 Cor. Chap 11 and 14; 1 Timothy chap 2.
The first text with your comments in blue as copied from your post:
In his later discussion of decorum in public worship, Paul endorsed women's rule as prophets
in the church but sought to regulate their manner so as to respect the "natural" order:
"However, what I want you to understand is that Christ is the head of every man, man is the
head of woman, and God is the head of Christ. For a man to pray or prophesy with his head
covered is a sign of disrespect to his head. For a woman, however, it is a sign of disrespect if she prays or prophesiesunveiled; she might as well have her hair shaved off....Man was not
created for the sake of woman, but woman was created for the sake of man.That is theargument for women's covering their heads with [a symbol of] authority over them, because
of the angels...Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a
disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her
as a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:3-10, 14-15)
This notorious passage has been the subject of controversy for centuries, and Paul's argument
in whatever interpretation we follow has certainly not been expressed clearly.
I agree that this text indicates that woman can prophecy in public albeit with a token or sign
upon her head similar to lawyers appearing before a judge sitting at an elevated bench.
Proper decorum is required as a custom. The lawyer, male or female addresses the judge as
your honor.
To understand the question of headship, please consider it from the top down. God is the
head of Christ. My conception of God is for the purposes of this post is that He/She is That
Which Is, responsible for events, circumstances, everything that seems to be beyond the
control of Man, out of the blue in a manner of speaking. During the years of his life as a man,
Jesus was subject to events beyond his control. It seems the Pharisees implied that his birth
was the result of fornication. (John 8:41) Herod sought his life, flight to Egypt, subject to his
parents at twelve years of age, baptism by John even though John said it should be the
reverse, forty days of schizophrenia, kick-started by his mother to act at a wedding, given the
book of Isaiah as was the custom, he read, commented and was nearly stoned for it. Sick
people flocked to him, hungry people, Pharisees peppered him with questions, hounded until
he could say, the son of man has no place to lay his head. The only act that comes to mind is
his determination to go to Jerusalem at the end of his days but even that was in compliance
with his times and circumstances. In Jerusalem, he was betrayed and nailed.
He was swept along by What is, What was, and What was coming. He was submissive to
these events. Let Your will be done, these words were his banner.
Twelve men, learned, accepted and were in submission to his ways, immersed themselves in
them, the way of sacrifice, and spent the rest of their days, bringing others to live his ways
also. These men, accepting willingly til death to be submissive to Christ, spearheaded as an
avant garde the spread of what is called Christianity to the ends of the known earth of that
time. They bore the brunt and faced head on the onslaught of persecution as true princes
sheltering their flock from the winds of destruction menacing them as Jesus also did. They did
not hide under helmets, behind walls of fortresses or behind the skirts of their women.
Paul was one of these. From the beginning a great crowd of women followed. (Mark15:40
ff). This text in Mark says that a crowd watched Jesus execution from a far off. Why far off?
Paul shows that many of these women, prophesized in public as you have shown from the
text cited above.
Keep in mind that Paul would also have in the back of his mind
that previously as Saul, he….{began} ravaging the church, entering house after house, and
dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison (NASB)
He writes that women should prophesy with a head covering because of the angels. Why
could he not identify these angels? Why couldn’t he name publicly the forces and authorities,
Jewish, Greek and Roman, even those in Corinth, who always sought the leaders of
movements and destroyed them, thinking that they would behead the movement. If woman
prophesized publicly they would leave themselves vulnerable, because they were exposing
themselves to the unnecessary wrath of higher powers that is “angels “ in quotation marks
which they didn’t have in those days.
Romans 13:1ff (NASB):
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have
opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear
of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not
bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the
one who practices evil.
Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for
conscience' sake.
For because of this you also pay taxes, for {rulers} are servants of God, devoting themselves
to this very thing.
Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax {is due;} custom to whom custom; fear to
whom fear; honor to whom honor.
Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled
{the} law.
You write in your post: Paul was protecting their (the woman who prophecy) public role in congregational matters. With this statement in mind and all I have written above, along with
the text of Romans 13, why cannot one say that Paul was writing for the protection of his
flock along with establishing peace, decorum and order within the congregation?
Also, you write: Paul was also less the misogynist he has been made out to be.
For what reason do you he was a misogynist at all?
I welcome any comments, agreeable or disagreeable that you may have whenever convenient
for you.
belbab,
It always irked me that this scripture, "Let the woman keep silent", was 'adjusted' to allow comments, talks, preaching etc....Is that the meaning behind that statement not crystal clear? Yet how can they justify manipulating and playing with it a bit? Because it would not suit their needs nor would it be tolerated.
Why not adjust some other scriptures as well then, like "quit mixing in company with anyone that calls himself a brother that is a.........not even eating with such a man". If any scripture calls for some understanding and some watering down, is it not this one?
Or what about the blood issue? "You must not eat..." Adjust that one too then!!!!!
Adjusting certain scripture to suit their needs, determining which scripture is to be taken literally and which is to be taken figuratively, should not be an individual decision.
Jez
Jez,
Thank you for your comments.
Why not adjust some other scriptures as well then, like "quit mixing in company with anyone that calls himself a brother that is a.........not even eating with such a man". If any scripture calls for some understanding and some watering down, is it not this one?
I wrote a two post article on just this subject at:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/33895/1.ashx
Part 1
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/33894/1.ashx
Part 2
There was to be a third part, but I guess I didn't write it yet, I probably thought because there was not too much interest in the first, I didn't write the third one. I shall review the subject and see if I can remember what I wanted to say in the third.
belbab
belbab....Thanks for your comments.....I should first mention as I did in the essay that 1 Corinthians 11:2-6 is a very complex rhetorical production that is open to a number of different interpretations, and thus has engendered an enormous literature of exegesis and analyis. The ambiguity arises from many different things, e.g. words being used with different meanings in the same text (cf. "head" referring headship in v. 3 and a literal "head" in v. 4-10; cf. "glory" in v. 7 as it pertains to people and 15 as it pertains to inanimate hair), it alludes to cultural practices that we do not have access to today, it has obscure arguments (such as the argument from "nature" in v. 14 and the unelaborated reference to angels in v. 10), it is also allusive of Genesis 1-3 in problematic ways (e.g. both women and men are the "image of God" in Genesis 1:27, but not here), and I'm sure I'm leaving out a bunch of other considerations. Thus some scholars interpret the passage as arguing in favor of head coverings for women, and other scholars conclude that it actually is arguing against it.
The theme of submission similarly has been interpreted in two rather different ways. Paul stresses inequality between women and men in v. 7-9 and uses it in v. 10 to base a suggestion about social practice ("the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head"). However this description of the existing relationship between men and women is then contrasted in v. 11-12 with how things are "in the Lord". These verses emphasize equality between men and women: "However (plén) in the Lord, the man is not without the woman, neither is the woman without the man, for (gar) the woman is of the man just as the man is of the women". We might also be reminded of Galatians 3:26-28. So we can take the text in two different ways: Paul could either be presenting v. 11-12 as an ideal that argues against putting v. 7-9 into practice, or he could have a more nuanced view: submission with equality. I personally find this the more likely interpretation because this is exactly the view he has of Christ in Philippians 2:1-11, submission in spite of "equality with God," and he recommends Christians to imitate the example because even tho Christians are all equally one in Christ "do nothing out of selfish ambition ... but in humility consider others better than yourselves" (v. 3). This reflects the point made in my essay that Paul ideologically believed in the dissolution of gender divisions "in the Lord" (an eventuality that would be fully realized in the resurrection at the Lord's coming), and supported teaching and oversight roles for women, while at the same time maintaining gender roles in the present.
He writes that women should prophesy with a head covering because of the angels. Why
could he not identify these angels? Why couldn’t he name publicly the forces and authorities,
Jewish, Greek and Roman, even those in Corinth, who always sought the leaders of
movements and destroyed them, thinking that they would behead the movement.
I'm not sure if I understand your point, but the obscure reference to "angels" would not have any reference to civil or religious authorities as the term is understood throughout all of Jewish and Christian literature. Since the activity of the women pertains to prayer and prophecy, and since angels were widely believed to have intercessory roles in prayer and prophecy (cf. the many examples in Daniel, Tobit, 1 Enoch, Revelation, 4 Ezra), the best explanation for the reference to angels is that angelic authority in intercession is in view here. But why would women cover their heads and not men? Since there was already a strong tradition about the relationship between women and angels that referred to women's sexual attractiveness (cf. Genesis 6 LXX, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, etc.), and since Paul refers to women's long hair as her "glory" (v. 15), it makes sense that women would want to cover their most sexually appealing feature when approaching angels in prayer. In fact, in the Greek culture of the time, women's long hair was believed to be a sex organ in its own right.
What has all this to do with Paul's words, let the woman keep silence?
Hey, bud, you got any sisters, you got any daughters ? enquiring minds would like to know.
Belbab , you're just another person who doesn't have the ability to let "God's Word" speak for itself. You're an apologist, indirectly rationalizing your faith.
I still don't understand how you can connect women "keeping silent" with the physical domination of women by men. It does not harmonize with Paul's words about the woman sinning first and eating the fruit and why she should be submissive to man. You talk about sailors and "pirates" in San Diego and this is somehow supposed to have something to do with why women should maintain a subordinate position. Your reasoning and points are unconscionable. In fact, I think you're pretty much full of crap - just as much crap as anyone can get at their local Kingdom Hall. You're not going to convince me that Paul's words were anything more than basic sexism.
The entire bible was written in an extremely male dominated society so it shouldn't come as any surprised that women are viewed as less than men. Jesus himself seemed to have a better attitude towards women but Paul was a chauvenist who obviously did not like women at all. Not only was he reinforcing the general view of the day, but Paul had (apparently) also been a Pharisee before switching sides, so that would have influenced his views as well.
Amen Mary.
The bible in my view further supported societies attempt to oppress women and place them as subordinate- Paul was clearly chauvinistic and its no wonder he never married with an attitude like his, in fact its a wonder that any woman spoke to him anyway.
This further supports my view that the bible is the work of man as opposed to a work under divine inspiration; at best it catalogues individuals spiritual journeys and nothing more.
DB74
