Her Lord must be using faulty transmission wires. I had no idea there was such a difference in how women were treated. There must have been very moving tales of women rebelling that we don't know about b/c women were not taught to write. Neither were slaves allowed to read and write.
Childbirth, A Protection For Women (Per Paul)... How?
by AGuest 212 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
tec
Band, I don't understand what you're trying to say now. You said that Paul did not preach to the Jews. He did. The account of Luke in Acts shows this. In multiple places. Paul preached in the synagogue to Jews and Greeks. When the Jews would have no more of him, then he left and said that from now on, he would go to the Gentiles.
It is a simple point, not taken out of conte x t. And very very clear.
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
Even if that were true (I can't say because you did not mention what theology you think are not agreed upon); what does that matter to the point? Acts was written by Luke. He took a record and accounting of things that occurred, and reported them. Paul preaching to the Jews in synogogues was an accounting, not a theology.
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.
Yes, of course that is because he wrote letters, not gospel, and so those letters contained personal messages for particular people as well.
Peace to you,
Tammy
-
ziddina
Hi, Band!
I'm going to tug this thread off-topic just a bit, because I found something very interesting while looking up the above information...
This is a fun site...: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/virginmary_1.shtml
Which presents this interesting tidbit...
"Rape
There was an ancient legend from the Jewish side that Mary was the victim of a rape. They even gave us the name of the Roman soldier who was supposed to have carried out this rape: a man called Panthera, which apparently was quite a common name for Roman soldiers.
Recently some scholars looked at this theory and decided it was simply an ancient slur, anti-Christian slander made up in the second century to try to prevent belief in Jesus. Some say that perhaps it isn't so impossible as previously we thought. There are certain clues in the New Testament to suggest that Mary was in quite a terrible state after the beginning of the pregnancy. The fact that she went in great haste to see Elizabeth. The fact that she talks about herself as a "lowly handmaid": why is she lowly? Some people believe the lowliness was because she was actually the victim of a crime.
The strength of the idea is that just as Jesus in his crucifixion identifies with those who suffer, Mary, as victim of rape, is somebody that women who suffer can identify with.
The problem of the theory is that Jesus could have been the son of a Roman soldier, which is even more unpalatable for people than the idea that Mary wasn't a virgin. The idea that Jesus was somehow genetically dependent upon a rapist is more difficult to swallow and it would take a tremendous radical leap of faith to accept that kind of theory. ..."
Hmmmm......
-
Broken Promises
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?
Don't you love how she puts all the blame on you (the reader) if her lord doesn't tell you the same things he apparently tells her?
It's all your fault, apparently, lol.
-
tec
Don't you love how she puts all the blame on you (the reader) if her lord doesn't tell you the same things he apparently tells her?
No... that is not what she said. If you can't condescend to even ask about what she shared, then who's fault is it that you don't see? (or in this case, hear)
Now on the other hand, if in faith, you knock and keep knocking, or seek and keep seeking, and you NEVER receive a response, then perhaps you can bring that up if you're standing before the Lamb or God. Because the promise is that if you knock, the door will be opened. Only you and He will know if you were truly sincere or asking in faith.
But in the meantime, if you want to show that you are sincere, that you do love Him, that you are trying... then follow Christ and do as he taught. Love, forgive, be merciful, don't judge... (unless you wish to be judged in the same way that you judge)... don't be a hypocrite. Give to those who ask of you. Love your enemies.
Peace,
Tammy
-
Band on the Run
Tammy, I'm not arguing that Acts states otherwise than you state. A Guest's thread distorts both history and the scriptures. Paul's main fame was his message to the Gentiles. I don't easily understand what the diff. is between Lukan accounts and Paul. It is often mentioned. I don't remember details the way I once did b/c of law. It is impossible to know everything. This is what the bar review course taught. Lawyers dont know all those long statements that are shown on TV and in films. You learn enough to spot issues and learn how to research the answers. I do the same with Bible study. There is no way I will ever know what full time academics know. I try to remember the main themes and have a rough idea of where to look for the answer. As a matter of fact, I have several books that prob. discuss it. I can't access them at this moment.
Zid- What a cool site. Some citations on the side would have been nice. I thought the presentation was great. People with all different degrees of knowledge could access the site. I learned a lot. The times of Henry Tudor are over. Evidently, the BBC is not fundamentalist. I've heard sermons that addressed what the rumor mill in Nazareth must have said. My personal feeling is that Mary must be tied to goddess worship. It is strange to me how feminists havea adopted the cause of Mary.
My college prof addressed a class of young women. She explained that there was a big difference between a son of man and a son of God. Many figures in the OT are addressed as sons of God through adoption. King David is one. Nowhere does God have any daughters, though. I freaked out on a gut level and declared,, "F- you. No daughters? I refuse to worship you." It freed me from bondage to a male image of God. It seemed as though all of the women who were headed for seminary were doing goddess projects on the side. It was very heady back then. They also were dropping LSD to have psychic breaks. I have enough trouble with reality. Acid was not my drug of choice. It was so different from the KH.
There was an excellent book on goddess religions. I met the author. It must be out of print by now, though. Of course, all this is old news now.
-
ziddina
"Wealthy Roman women, yes. Even so, until the 6th century BCE, their "freedom" was exercised from within the shadow... of their husbands (or sons). ..." AGuest
Ahhh....
6th Century B.C. would be the "Archaic" period of ancient Greek civilization... And the Etruscans still held sway over Rome - or what would eventually become Rome - during the 6th Century B.C. ....
Rome didn't actually become a world power until around 100 B.C ...
-
AGuest
Dear Zid... I'm confused (peace to you!). I cannot see where we disagree. For example, Lydia WAS a christian... and one who Paul stayed with on occasion. According to the sources I read (and posted):
Jewish women were once held of high esteem (I cited Miriam, Deborah, Hulda, the "wife" of Proverbs 31, etc). Then, stated that while exiled in Babylon... the Jews' view of women changed. Then stated that because of the Hellenistic (Greek) influence, they were given great latitude, again. Even allowed to learn to read and write. Then, because of Roman law, which had been in effect for some time BEFORE my Lord's life in the flesh... such latitude was suppressed. Even though wealthy Roman woman did have some influence, it was behind the scenes ("in the shadow of their husbands/son")... because although they could BEND the rules, they couldn't BREAK them... and openly show influence.
I'm not understanding how we're disagreeing... other than perhaps YOU misunderstand what I'm saying. I never said women served as priestesses, etc., DURING Roman rule. That was my POINT. Even prophetesses had to take care, as NO christians woman was absolutely safe: she had two "enemies" (although the Jews more than the Romans). Those that were pregnant/suckling children were safer... but even they weren't entirely safe ("Woe to the pregnant woman...!").
I cited neutrual, historical sources. You've cited religious sources. My sources are apparently "wrong" and yours are "right." I can only think, then, that it wouldn't matter WHAT sources I cited... secular or religious. I only posted a fragment of what's IN those sources, but I included the links.
Can you tell me where... and why, truly... we're missing one another on this?
Again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
-
ziddina
"There was an excellent book on goddess religions. I met the author. It must be out of print by now, though. Of course, all this is old news now..." Band on the Run
Well, I suspect it's more like ignored news... [Would that book be, "The Language of the Goddess", by Marija Gimbutas???]
The true significance of goddess worship to the pre-history and history of the human race has been ignored, hidden, and discounted, largely due to the overwhelming influence of the Middle-Eastern Male God Three - that is, Judaism, Christianity and Islam...
Which have only been around for a period of about 4,000 years...
A minor scratch on the surface of the hundreds of thousands of years of human existence. But since they are the most recent versions, far too much emphasis is being placed on male-god rule, at this point in human history.
Zid
-
ziddina
"Then, because of Roman law, which had been in effect for some time BEFORE my Lord's life in the flesh... such latitude was suppressed..." AGuest
No, honey...
The Romans were pagan - er, heathens, and as such, had female goddesses to set them an example of treating women with far more equality than occurred amongst the Middle-Eastern male-god-dominated Jewish culture...
Go back and READ what I've posted - the Jewish women were the LEAST 'liberated', generally speaking - and not due to any "outside" influences, either...
The Jewish men - influenced by their Middle-Eastern version of a dominant, male god - were far harsher and MORE restrictive of their women than the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the Romans...