Childbirth, A Protection For Women (Per Paul)... How?

by AGuest 212 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  botchtowersociety

  whose women (Jewish women) were NOT hidden and did NOT rely solely on a husband (some were judges; some owned businesses, etc.) but VERY much among the leadership of their culture and so outspoken and vocal.

  That's nonsense if you are trying to compare Jews and Romans in the first century. Roman women of that time were far more emancipated. Jewish women could get in trouble for merely talking to a strange man, and no one would even believe their testimony since it wasn't admissible as legal evidence in a trial. That is right there in the Gospels. They couldn't read Torah at synagogue--if they were taught to read at all. They had no religious roles whatsoever, unlike Rome and Greece, which had priestesses and oracles. What was extraordinary was how a Jew (Jesus) treated women in contrast with the conventions of his time and culture. Roman woman had far more freedom. The early Church probably reflected this, but Paul put the kibosh on women in the congregations under his care.

  BTS
• 

  AGuest

  Lots of talk about Jews and Romans regarding a passage from 1 Corinthians. That letter is written to the congregation at Corinth by the "Apostle to the Gentiles." Plenty of Greeks there.

  Ummmmm... I think the rest of us are discussion 1 Timothy, dear BTS (peace to you!). Specifically, 1 Timothy 2:15. Timothy was a... wait for it... Jew. Because Timothy's mother was... wait for it... a Jew. Paul wrote these things to Timothy... because he was giving Timothy instructions as to those in Ephesus. Why? Because of the persecution - Paul was TRYING to keep the congregations SAFE.

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  cofty

  I have never before seen anybody try so hard to defend a pet theory that is so self-evidently wrong. It is really bizarre.

  Shelby do you not know how to admit you may have got something wrong?

  If it had anything to do with avoiding persecution why did Paul not mention it?

  If had to do with how Paul understood the woman's place in god's plan why did he not say so? Oh wait he did....
• 

  botchtowersociety

  Ummmmm... I think the rest of us are discussion 1 Timothy, dear BTS (peace to you!).

  Ooops. Wrong book. Well, Timothy was an Ephesian leader at Ephesus, and half Greek. He was never circumcised until after being an adult and part of the church, so he wasn't raised Jewish. My main point still stands, however. Jewish women were some of the most poorly treated in the Roman Empire.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  I have never before seen anybody try so hard to defend a pet theory that is so self-evidently wrong.

  Her pet theory may be right, but it is just a theory. Timothy didn't have to circumcise himself for example, but he still did so in order to not give the Jewish Christians a case of foreskin rage. Telling the women to keep their yaps shut in church and get pregnant may have been in the same vein. Notice that Paul uses "I" rather than saying it is the Lord's command. That sounds like it could be prudential judgement.

  But it's just conjecture.
• 

  AGuest

  You posted that to a specific poster.

  Interesting, dear EP (again, peace to you!). And possibly, though I doubt it. Because the following would suggest that I was addressing a specific group of folks. But you're more than welcome to post a link so that I can see what you're referring to. And, of course, I will apologize if I am in error:

  "Hypocrites!" Notice the "s", which makes that plural (i.e., to more than one);

  "Your "little knowledge" will ultimately be responsible for many millions LOSING ENTRY INTO THE KINGDOM." Surely, one person/poster will not be held responsible for MILLIONS losing entry...

  "... due to your false prophesying, misleading rhetoric, and lying propoganda..." Again, I don't think one person is culpable for this...

  "... will come back upon you when my Lord says to YOU: "Get AWAY from, you workers of lawlessness..." Again, another plural reference...

  "That is because you... and your Pharisaical "leaders" with you... in your ARROGANT "seating" of yourselves in a position given ONLY to him... " Reads like more plurality to me.

  But... again, I could be wrong. Link? And, again...

  Peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  tec

  Of course Paul preached to Jews. If he had not, then why would he have gotten frustrated at one point, and then said that 'from now on' he was going to the gentiles?

  I mean, that is right there in the bible. I'll google it to find the right passage in a minute too.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  tec

  Acts 18: 1-6

  Actually, a great portion of acts around this chapter speaks of Paul preaching to and reasoning with the JEWS in the synogogue. It is not even an issue that is in question.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  You know what, Shelby? I was wrong. You were posting it to people you think read the forum, into the ether, so to speak. Looks like I can admit when I am wrong.

  When will your LORD man up, too?

  Oh, and to verify your exact account of how you came to call me an acoholic, can you post the original thread where that happened? I don't recall the exact thread.
• 

  tec

  A Guest, Submit statement contradicting me from major scholar and the Bible (the standard Bible; not one of your own making)

  I realize the above references from Acts didn't come from Shelby (though she stated them earlier in this thread), but hopefully you can see for yourself now.

  Peace,

  Tammy