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

by AGuest 212 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  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's not accurate, dear BTS (again, peace to you!). Under ROMAN rule... Jewish women could get in such trouble. Because the Romans were imposing THEIR views... of women and the positions of men... ON the Jews. Prior to that, Jewish women had GREAT freedom. It was the removal of such freedoms due to the occupation by and rule of Rome that was causing the problem (between the Jews and Rome).

  That is right there in the Gospels. They couldn't read Torah at synagogue--

  Now, wait... think about that. If they COULDN'T... all along... why would PAUL have to make that known to them? Why did it have to be HIS "rule"? What were they doing BEFORE Paul said, "I do not permit..."???

  if they were taught to read at all.

  Under the previous Hellenistic rule, Jewish women were not only educated but many possessed wealth and status. ROMAN law, however, attempted to undermine that. As I posted previously, although Roman law could be BENT... it could not be BROKEN. And ROME expected women to act like wives and mothers. That was, in their eyes, the true VALUE of women.

  They had no religious roles whatsoever, unlike Rome and Greece, which had priestesses and oracles.

  Again, you err. They had priesteses (think Miriam)... judges (think Deborah)... prophetesses (think Anna)... and women who were in business for themselves (think Lydia... and the "wife" of Proverbs 31). Prior to exile to Babylon, women were GREATLY regarded in the Jewish culture. Even more so today. They believe THEIR "guiding light"... the Shekinah... is FEMALE, not male.

  What was extraordinary was how a Jew (Jesus) treated women in contrast with the conventions of his time and culture.

  Because HE knew what JEWISH Law taught as to women... versus the ROMAN laws in effect at the time! Which is the POINT.

  Roman woman had far more freedom.

  Wealthy Roman women, yes. Even so, until the 6th century BCE, their "freedom" was exercised from within the shadow... of their husbands (or sons). I'm not making this up, dear one - the information is out there. I first learned of it in my "Women's Studies" course at university. It didn't make the SENSE it's making to me NOW, though... because I never applied it here. Until my Lord told me to.

  The early Church probably reflected this, but Paul put the kibosh on women in the congregations under his care.

  He DID. I am NOT saying that he DIDN'T. I am only sharing WHY he did: so that they would be KEPT SAFE. NOT "saved"... as in, salvation "comes through" childbearing... which is what some of YOU are saying he meant. Seriously... if THAT were TRUE, then every pregnant christian women... is saved in Christ! But why save pregnant women... and not, say, elderly women? Or young girls? Heck, the men who got such women pregnant? Why are THEY "saved" by such, as well? What is SO special about being pregnant... that it puts a woman in line for salvation??

  Come ON, dear ones... THINK!!!!!! You can't SEE what Paul meant... because you are (1) so blinded by your view of ME, and (2) so SURE he was placing a misogynic burden on the women... that the truth of it cannot "shine" through. Heck, some of you don't even believe HE wrote it... yet, keep accusing him of false motive! Seriously??

  Again, NO ONE has to take MY word for it, not at ALL. ALL of you can ASK... for yourselves. If you don't want to condescend to DO that... then whose fault is it if you DON'T see?

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  botchtowersociety

  My lord tells me you are wrong.

  Case closed.
• 

  AGuest

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

  Absolutely, dear Cofty (again, peace to you!). I actually think that I can safely say that if we added up all of the apologies, by poster, on this board, I would be in the top 10, if not 5 (if not 3). I have NO problem apologizing... when I'm wrong AND when I'm not (but someone "felt" hurt). Do it all the time.

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

  He did, if you read both of his letters in their entirety... and take into consideration (1) how folks spoke at the time, (2) what was going on, and (3) his attempt to NOT write a letter that could get anyone "in trouble" that early in the persecution. I'm SURE Timothy knew what he was getting at. The gist being:

  "Tell the people to calm the heck down, stop fighting among themselves, get along and ACT like "christians." Have everyone, particularly the women, adhere to the Roman laws... so as not to give ANYONE... ANY... reason to find reproach and either deliver us up or kill us themselves. They KNOW we have enemies out there, people are looking to shut us down, even KILL us if they have to to do that. So tell them that they need to BE CAREFUL and conduct themselves under the radar, so as not to draw undue attention! I am a Roman and I KNOW Romans want women off the streets and in the houses being wives, having babies, and taking care of kids. It's what they VALUE in women: their domesticity! I know we once enjoyed certain freedoms... but those days are OVER! We are under occupation! And in order to quell our movement, as well as save their own hides, some of our brothers, Jews, are looking to deliver us up for ANY reason. Tell the people to not GIVE THEM ANY REASON, but to OBEY THE LAW."

  It was unlawful, under ROMAN rule... for women to speak to or meet with men PUBLICLY... or for men to teach WOMEN (anything, and certainly not PUBLICLY). Synagogues were PUBLIC places were, prior to Roman rule... Jews went to talk about/discuss all manner of things in their community... INCLUDING... but not LIMITED to... the Torah.

  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...

  The same "Paul" that YOU say "understood the woman's place in God's plan"... said:

  "There is NEITHER Jew nor Greek... male NOR female... but you are ALL.... ONE... in union with Christ." Galatians 3:28

  When he wrote to Timothy... things were starting to "heat up." He knew that, while the (Jewish) Law would not always protect them from the Romans... it could, for awhile, protect them from the Jews.

  Again, peace to you!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  N.drew

  I see saved as a process. "he who has endured to the end will be saved". So the scripture has to do with the endurance needed for salvation. It doesn't mean being saved spiritually but being concealed from spiritual dangers.
• 

  Band on the Run

  tammy, The quote from Acts is a departure. Paul is a towering figure in history b/c he preached to the Gentiles. Jewish Christianity was not very popular. His very Jewishness and then the repudiation and his great mission was to the Gentiles. If he had been so into Jews, I suspect he would have remained a faithful Jew. Perhaps he never would have had the vision or he would rationalize it was from an enemy not God but his fame stem from his conversion and mission to the Gentiles.

  Paul is primarily responsible for what we know as Christianity. He transformed it. The Jerusalem apostles were not pleased. If Paul had not arrived on time, Christianity might not even been known. Jewish Christianity would have withered as a subset of Judaism. He is a pivotal figure from Jew to Gentile. Perhaps a form of Christianity would have prospered but we could not even imagine what might have emerged.

  Also, I disdain the Wt practice of honiing in on a specific scripture to the detriment of the whole. Compared to the apostles who lived with the real Jesus, Paul would have been a minor figure in Jewish Christianity. He is the apostle to the Gentiles, just as he described himself. FYI, Acts and Paul's authentic letters are not consistent. I don't know the details but repeatedly I have read neutral academic sources say that Acts and Paul do not agree on major theology. Not knowing who authors actually were confuses people. Luke/Acts theology differs from Paul. It is not a minor difference. My problem has been not wanting to read Acts as thorougly as Paul.

  A trained seal can play Bible trivia. Does God really condemn homosexuality? Well, there are a handful of scriptures. What are those handful of scriptures compared to the rest of the Bible which (mostly NT) show a God who would never condemn anyone for being born a certain way. The fault is with God, not the human.

  Again, another monstrous thread over a very insignificant verse. Also, a verse that one cannot skype Paul and say hey dude, Mr. Apostle, why did you write that. Maybe Paul wrote off-hand comments from time. The Timothy one with a little wine for the stomach is a real hoot. We heard that all the time in KH. His message of salvation was never mentioned.
• 

  AGuest

  I see saved as a process. "he who has endured to the end will be saved".

  Yes, dear N.Drew (the greatest of love and peace to you!): our LORD said "he who endures." Not, "she that keeps herself in childbearing and endures." The Greek word for saved "sozo"... means literally saved (from danger/peril) and well as technically/spiritually "saved." As with everyone else, you certainly don't have to take my word for this matter. Asking is at your fingertips... well, the tip of your lips... as well. Even more so, yes?

  Again, peace to you, dear one!

  YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  AGuest

  Again, another monstrous thread over a very insignificant verse.

  Indeed. And yet, here you are. So, why don't we all, say, just go on over and check out one of YOUR "monstrous" threads? Just point me to one... and I'm there...

  Also, a verse that one cannot skype Paul and say hey dude, Mr. Apostle, why did you write that.

  Why would one need to skype Paul? Isn't that what holy spirit, the spirit of the Truth... which leads us into ALL truth... is for?

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Band on the Run

  Truth is very variable in your case. What makes you any different from the crazy ladies who have revelations who hang out in the public restrooms of mass transit spaces until they are ejected. It is very sad to experience.
• 

  ziddina

  "Under ROMAN rule... Jewish women could get in such trouble. Because the Romans were imposing THEIR views... of women and the positions of men... ON the Jews. Prior to that, Jewish women had GREAT freedom. ..." AGuest

  

  From: http://www.cta-usa.org/wicl/4jesusandwomen.html

  "Greece and Macedonia
  In 340 BCE, Demothesenes wrote:"Keep mistresses for the sake of pleasure, concubines for daily care of our person, wives to bear legitimate children and be faithful guardians of households." Only Greek wives were citizens with the right to vote. They had a limited right to own property apart from their dowry. Concubines and mistresses had no civil rights, though mistresses were educated to be the pleasurable soul-companions of their lovers. As in Rome, unwanted daughters could be left on the hillside to die.

  Macedonian women faired better. They built temples, founded cities, engaged armies, and held fortresses. They served as regents and corulers. Men admired their wives and even named cities after them. Thessalonica was such a city, and here women were given inheritable civic rights. A Macedonian businesswoman, Lydia, founded the church at Phillipi after her conversion by Paul.

  [Pity the Christians didn't allow Christian women such freedoms... ]

  Egypt and Rome
  Egyptian women were equal to men juridically. They were buyers sellers, borrowers, and lenders. They could petition the government for support or help, initiate a divorce, and pay taxes. The eldest daughter was permitted to be a legitimate heir.

  In Rome, the authority of the father was paramount. A Roman girl was "sold" in name into the hands of her future husband.Both daughters and sons were educated, boys until the age of seventeen, girls until thirteen when they were expected to marry.A Roman woman couldn't conduct business in her own name, but could enlist the help of a male relative or friend who served as her agent.Women did have inheritance rights and the right to divorce.Roman women were not permitted to vote or hold public office.Nevertheless, Roman matrons had power and influence because they were the defacto heads of households and business managers while their spouses were off fighting in Caesar's legions.

  Early Christianity spread rapidly in the Roman world due in no small part to the influence of wealthy Roman matrons.

  As a rule, in Gentile cultures with strong female deities (Aphrodite in Corinth, and Isis in Egypt), women had greater socioeconomic status. In virtually all Gentile cultures both women and men exercised leadership in religious worship.

  Women in Palestinian JudaismPalestinian Hebrew women were among the poorest in the world in Jesus' day. This was probably because they had no inheritance rights and could be divorced for the flimsiest of reasons.Hebrew men could divorce their wives for anything from burning the dinner (Hillel) to adultery (Shammai). Yet Hebrew women were not allowed to divorce their husbands.In a culture in which women did not survive unless they were linked to the patriarchal household, it was disastrous to be divorced.Seen in this light, Jesus' proscription of divorce is markedly protective of women. The raising of the son of the widow of Nain is another example of Jesus' compassion for the poverty of women entrapped by patriarchy.

  A Hebrew woman had minimal to no property rights. Theoretically she could inherit land, but in practice male heirs had precedence.Even if she did inherit property, her husband had the right to its use and its fruits. A woman's primary sphere was in the home, where hospitality was her special care. Women did lead table prayers and festival candle lighting ceremonies.

  A child was held to be Jewish, only if the mother was Jewish. Most Jewish girls were betrothed by their fathers at a young age.Jewish women were held to be unclean while menstruating.If she inadvertently touched a man while having her menses, he was obliged to undergo a weeklong purification ritual before worshipping at the Temple.In Mark's gospel, the woman afflicted with a twelve year hemorrhage would have been a complete social outcast. We see Jesus' lack of concern about ritual impurity in his healing of her after she courageously touched him despite the taboo. (Mk:25)

  In early Judaism women did proclaim and prophesy but in Jesus' day, they weren't permitted to proclaim Torah at synagogue because of their periodic "uncleaness."Whether a woman should be educated in the Torah was hotly debated. As a rule, only the Rabbis'wives were so educated. Women were not accepted as witnesses in Jewish law, nor could they teach the law. Women had no official religious or leadership roles in first century Judaism. In a country ruled by the religious elite, this rendered them invisible and powerless. ..."

  Anyone who's EVER studied goddess worship, would have figured out rather quickly that worship of a female deity or female deities along with male deities provides FAR MORE EQUITY for women than Middle-Eastern nomadic male mentality which worshipped a violent, dominant male deity of warfare and volcanic violence....

  Zid
• 

  ziddina

  And from this site:

  http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/tetlow1.asp

  The information on the far greater freedoms afforded to the Sumerian women, the Greek women of different periods, and the Roman women, are far too lengthy to quote here - unless I wanted to eat up as much page space as AGuest tends to do...

  However, I will quote the statements regarding Hebrew women, as they are most telling - and quite a bit shorter... [I forgot to mention - as above, bold, hi-lites, and enlarged type are mine...]

  "In general women in the Old Testament were legally the property of men.(87) This condition is characteristic of patriarchal societies. Before marriage the girl was the property of her father. After marriage a woman became the property of her husband.(88) Widows were placed under the authority of their fathers, sons or brothers-in-law.(89) polygamy was common. Women were considered objects of property among the spoils of war.(90)

  The ten commandments are an example of early, yet continuous, legal tradition of Israel. Stylistically they are addressed to men. The last commandment lists a wife among objects of property which are not to be coveted. Yet men are also exhorted to honor mothers as well as fathers, and to allow both women and men to rest on the sabbath.

  A woman achieved some measure of social status by becoming the mother of a son. Conversely, a sterile woman was divorced. Sarah and Rebecca were especially revered as the mothers of Israel. The narratives about the patriarchal period, although written much later, mention some freedom of women to appear in public.(91) Later Hebrew women generally led a harem-like existence, confined within the home. As time went on, the restrictions gradually became more elaborate and were combined with formal penalties for their transgression. The patriarch ruled family and clan in Hebrew society. Inheritance passed from father to son. Men could initiate divorce at will. Women were bound in marital fidelity.

  Somehow a few Hebrew women did manage to exercise a leadership role in public life. In the period of the settlement, Deborah led the people Israel as judge and as military commander in battle against the Canaanites. Queen Athaliah ruled the southern kingdom for six years after the death of her son, Ahaziah.(92) A late hellenistic book presents a literary portrait of another Hebrew queen, Esther, in legendary Persia.

  A number of women are named in the Old Testament as functioning in the important religious office of prophet: Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, the wife of Isaiah, and Noadiah.(93) Hymns whose composition was attributed to women stand among the oldest religious literature of Israel.(94) There is also mention in the Old Testament of women sages.(95) Women were, however, totally excluded from the religious office of priest in Israel.

  According to the Torah, women were impure during times of menstruation and childbirth. They were impure twice as long after the birth of a daughter as after the birth of a son. Any contact with women at such times rendered a man ritually unclean. Women also were thought to contaminate any object they touched. Ritual purity was of primary importance in the Jewish tradition of priesthood and temple cult. A major reason why women were excluded from the priesthood and from full participation in the temple cult was their frequent ritual impurity. Even within the synagogue women were kept at a distance and seated in an area segregated from the men. ..."

  I'm afraid that AGuest is about as accurate on the subject of womens' rights amongst the "pagans" as compared to the lack of womens' rights amongst the Jews and Christians, as she is about the influences of volcanic eruptions on the primitive, superstitious Israelite nomadic tribes, geology, paleontology, or basically any sort of science that you'd care to name...