Paul was either famously insecure, esp. about the power held by James and Peter, or his hubris had no limits. What happened to Mary Magdalene after Pentecost? Mary and Martha disappear. Yet Magdalene had a special relationship with Jesus. It could be the Roman hatred of women but there is not a single scripture that states she was a prostitute. A competent woman, closer to Jesus than the apostles, scared them. I've identified with Mary of Martha and Mary my entire life. All these women are a vibrant part of early Christianity but they soon disappear. I doubt they disappeared.
Childbirth, A Protection For Women (Per Paul)... How?
by AGuest 212 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
FlyingHighNow
Some in the Episcopal Church believe that the entire body of scripture has been tampered with to reflect badly on women. For instance, they do not believe Mary Magdelene was a prostitute--ever.
-
EntirelyPossible
Scripture never says she was a prostitute. Ever.
-
FlyingHighNow
Pope Gregory is supposed to have started all that. And today many people still believe it.
-
AGuest
Well, lots to respond to, so please bear with me (peace to you, all!). I have tried to respond to each one that I am permitted...
Your Lord can accept the challenge or simply apologize. The issue will NOT go away until it is resolved.
I never said he wouldn't accept your challenge, dear EP (peace to you, dear one!); to the contrary, I absolutely don't doubt that he would. Please, then, by all means... continue your challenge(s). That's how we got here in the first place, isn't it? I, however, cannot apologize for him. I did, though, take the matter to him as to MY part in this... and he said I was, basically, to "stand out of" HIS way. So, I have, I am, and I will continue to do so. Doesn't matter to me what others believe has occurred/is occurring here; you are the one not being truthful. And there's nothing anyone can do about that but you.
I'd like to see "the Lord's" evidence of EP being a drunkard.
Er?? It is not my understanding that dear EP is a "drunkard," BP (peace to you, too!) and nothing was ever stated to that effect. They are NOT one and the same. Even so, my Lord's "evidence" may not be the same as what some here would be looking for. His would be based on what's IN a person (which you/I may not see), sometimes (often) evidenced by what comes OUT of a person (which you/I might see - and, again, it's in the record, here). But the person involved would know, much more than anyone else... unless such is greatly manifest. There are many "functional" alcoholics, though, that neither you nor I would ever have a clue as to.
It's a libellous statement, and not one that should be thrown around without real proof.
It is if it's untrue, yes. It is not untrue, though, but true. It also was not "thrown around" - it was demanded to be revealed. Even so, it's no different than "schizophrenic," "delusional", "mentally ill," "batshitcrazy," or any of the other descriptions thrown about on this board. For the record, though, there are a LOT of alcoholics on this board, and even a few drunkards. So what? OUR obligation is to love ALL... regardless of what we think we "see" or "know" about them... regardless of what we [allow ourselves] to FEEL about them. I think dear EP's "all that and a bag of chips," in spite of what I may know about him. I don't CARE about that... and, as I stated elsewhere, wish I DIDN'T know. NOT because I have a problem with it... but because it was HIS issue... which only HE needed to know... and he, unfortunately, didn't want it to stay that way. Some of you would be surprised at what people reveal about themselves. Most want to keep it [very] private - not all.
The thing I'd like to focus on from the opening post is the Ellipsis (the ...) after 1 Tim.2:15 is partially quoted. When you see that in a quote it means something was intentionally left out, sometimes changing the meaning of the original context by not appearing in complete form.
Actually, I use the ellipsis all throughout my posting style, dear Stone (peace to you, too!), which could give that impression all the time. I realize that it's a misuse and wish I didn't do it... but it kind of "says" what I mean at times. I use the ellipsis as a emphasized pause; yes, I know that's not proper, that pauses are delineated by commas, but I have learned, in business and in coming here, that MANY people have no clue as to punctuation and its proper use/interpretation. So I post as I "think" or hear. Here, I included the ellipsis for the right purpose: the rest of the verse was irrelevant to the point that childbirth would keep christian women "safe." I was TRYING to help folks see the SECULAR reason for the admonition, and not the spiritual (i.e., RELIGIOUS) reason many purport it to mean.
The Watchtower has done this many times and I always like to go back and read the original documentation if at all possible.
They have and so, me, too! Not only that, I also like to look at the GREEK... because the ENGLISH very OFTEN misstates, misapplies, misuses, and misinterprets the Greek.
But getting back to the opening post lets look at why the reasoning that is given is not supported in the scriptures that are cited when read in complete form. I'm going to quote that one verse from a number of translations in its entirety to compare what is said to what is meant. (In each case notice the qualifying word that I underline in each quote and notice how it applies to the over-all scripture).
I did. Did you, however, note the GREEK word that is translated in English as "if" and "provided"? I did. It is "ean"... which means if, yes... but also "IN CASE." So, now, let's look at those verses again, with the words "in case":
1 Tim. 2:15 [New World Translation] However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, in case they continue in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind.
1 Tim. 2:15 [New International Version] But women will be saved through childbearing - in case they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
1 Tim. 2:15 [King James Version] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, in case they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Tim. 2:15 [Young's Literal translation] and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, in case they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
Why would the words "in case" apply here? Because it is denoting that such women could not otherwise HIDE that they WERE christian; their ACTIONS and presence, including presence of mind, would REVEAL that they were "of the Way." Thus, making them TARGETS. It's not like folks were just going around killing folks willy-nilly... yet. It was the christians who were being "delivered up" at the TIME. Jews were delivered up later... when THEY rebelled against the Romans, who they had delivered up the christians TO. Why didn't I state all of that at the outset? Because those to whom the post was directed... would GET it... without that. Why? Because the Spirit... WOULD BEAR WITNESS WITH THEM... as to the truth of it. Not me. I'm just shared it with them, is all.
So notice how it does go on in that scipture to qualify how the woman would be safe not just through the act of child-bearing as brought out in the opening post but it would be dependant on continuing in faith,love, holiness etc. That is why I can't buy into the argument of what is initially presenting by AGuest in the opening post in this thread.
If that's the interpretation and meaning YOU accept, then I understand both positions: the different view and your inability to "buy into" what I shared. No worries - I just shared it; didn't say anyone HAD to accept it... nor can I make them.
Her reference to Exodus chapter 21 is totally independent (and I see no correlation at all) of 1 Tim. 2:15 in that Exodus is talking about the "consequences" of what would befall someone that harmed a pregnant woman, and Timothy is dealing with not just pregnancy but the act of child-bearing and continuing on and remaining faithful etc.
That's because you can't "see" what was literally taking place at that time: christians were being severely persecuted (and, no, I'm not saying that some who profess(ed) to be christians didn't and haven't retaliated since... to their own shame). But it was not only dangerous to BE a christian... but often cost ones their lives. At the forefront of the persecution were those who considered christians to be heretics, blasphemers, etc., and so THOUGHT they were performing "sacred service" by killing these... or having them killed. The "leaders" of the opposition were the priests, religious leaders, and others associated with them. These, however, KNEW THE LAW... and conducted themselves as if they adhered to it without one iota of deviation. So... harming a pregnant woman was a no-no. They couldn't justify that among their OWN, let alone to Rome. They wouldn't have garnered the people's sympathies against christians if they had gone after pregnant women.
Let's compare this to modern day. I'm going to make-up a scripture and you see how it changes by just leaving out the part where "if" is in the verse. StoneWall 2:15 "And StoneWall decided to give AGuest one thousand dollars, if she traveled around the world two times by sailboat."
Good example. Now, let's try it with the CORRECT use of the Greek word "ean":
StoneWall 2:15"And StoneWall decided to give AGuest one thousand dollars, IN CASE she traveled around the world two times by sailboat."
See that? Your example states a contingency; my example states a PROTECTION. Which is what is means to BE "kept safe."
Now in view of that imaginary scripture, what if AGuest made the claim that StoneWall was going to give her $1000 dollars? While not totally a falsehood, it would actually be misleading due to the fact that it is dependant on her satisfying the qualifying part of "if she traveled around the world two times by sailboat."
I don't know if I would say misleading. It COULD be, but only if either Stonewall or AGuest weren't trustworthy (to GIVE the thou' if she DID sail... or that she indeed would sail). The way you've stated it, it's like religion teaches: contingency over mercy. MORE than mercy. Which is the lie.
Dear Cofty (peace and good health to you!), please see my response to dear Stone.
Dear Fernando... the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one... and, YES!!! THANK you... for your insight and kind words!
Dear FHN... the greatest of love and peace to you, too... and okaaaaaaaayy?? It's the thinking that God chose to allow Eve to live out of His desire for her to bear children... rather than His love (for the seed she was carrying!)... and MERCY (as to her). THANK you for pointing that out! As dear Fernando stated, it's "religious" thinking at its best!
Why won't God heal amputees?
Besides that fact that He is not obligated to, pursuant to His covenant, it's also because the flesh is of no use at all, dear EP. Healing an amputated leg won't bring life back to an "amputated" spirit...
Or answer the challenge in front of him about whether or not he is a liar?
Wait, are you challenging God... or Christ? Or both? No matter: again, you will receive a response.
His actions have cast a dark cloud over both his and Shelby's reputation and it must be dealth with, else it will only get worse.
Oh, surely, neither His reputation NOR mine can get worse.
Then where will be be? People will stop believing in the Lord,
People already have, dear one. Very few literally do anymore. Which is the basis for the question: when the Son of Man arrives, will he REALLY find faith in the earth? Each one must answer for himself (and perhaps his household).
I mean, Richard Dawkins, Ricky Gervais and Christopher Hitchens all used to be good God fearing Christians until Shelby and her Lord lied about me.
Yes. Sad, isn't it, that these... each human icons in their own right (dead or alive)... are upset and losing sleep over EP and Shelby. Goodness, one would think THEY would at least get a life...
Who will fall away next? Cofty? Bohm? The Pope?
Surely, you jest. Have not all of these already "fallen away"? - LOLOLOL!
Oh yeah and many more women are not pregnant at any given time, than are pregnant. Where's the protection for the unpregnant?
That was the point, dear FHN: there was only protect for pregnant women! NO christian was really safe, man, woman, or child; however, pregnant christian women... and those with newborns... stood a better chance (as to the Jews!)... because of the Law! ROMANS... didn't care one way or the other.
I hate it when dweebs like Paul write things and then people credit God with it.
Yes, Paul did say something pretty dweebish stuff. But (1) he didn't mean what many believe he did, in MANY instances, including here; and (2) he rarely credited what he DID say to God - people [erroneously] do that FOR him.
If God ever does talk directly from heaven, to all of us, I think the first thing he is going to say is, "I did NOT write that $j8+!!!!!!"
Again... okkaaaayyyyyy??? Trust me, I hear that ALL the time! Well, not "$j8+!!!!!!" - LOLOLOL! But the [under]tone suggests that that might not be far from what he's THINKING - LOLOLOL!
If it was matter of persecution then why refer to eve?
EXCELLENT questions, dear EElite (peace to you!)... and I asked about that! He said it was because the Body was "in infancy" and still adhering to the Law "and Moses" in some instances, still "checking" (as with the Beroeans). Because Israel was (before and during that time) a hard-headed, hard-hearted, stiff-necked nation, Paul had to give them an example they could ACCEPT. For example, having Timothy get circumcised for the conscience of others. The things that were being shared... and were occurring... were new to this "generation." Most important, though, is that their very lives were at stake. Paul felt a personal responsibility for those he took the good news to... that he had to protect them, spiritually AND physically. Again, as a former PHARISEE... he would KNOW what would prevent some from being sought after by the Jews.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought Paul was guilty of doing what Moses did that prevented him from entering the Promised Land .....taking credit for something that belonged to the Lord.
He very often did, dear JO (the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!)... which is what caused divisions between him and the Apostles/older men (some of whom he called "superfine apostles"). But if you read his writings IN ORDER, you will see his progression, as he learned. Why did he do it? For one, again, the hard-headed of Israel at the time, both Jews and christians. Which is the exact same reason Moses did it! Since it happened to Moses, it can happen to anyone. And while it did prevent Moses from entering into the promised land of Canaan, it did NOT prevent his entry into the Promised Land of "New Jerusalem."
It always seemed to me that he was grabbing authority, while at the same time, suppressing Mary's growing influence. It seems he "won" out in the end....or did he?
He WAS grabbing authority because his authority was often questioned... although he, too, had been called and given an assignment. Problem was, WHY he was called... which lowered any esteem he could have received (i.e., in comparison to, say, the Apostles and other disciples, such as the fleshly brothers of my Lord; even Paul had to consult with them on the issue of circumcision... which issue HE was right about, when they were not (except Peter)).
"New scrolls will be opened."
There are NO new scrolls, dear one - that is another WTBTS lie! In the revelation John saw two sets of scrolls opened... but neither were NEW. Both were in existence long before John wrote of them. One (the Book of the Lamb; the Lamb's Book of Life) started at the throwing down of the seed (i.e., the founding of the world) and the other (the Book of Remembrance) spoken of by Malachi.
Some in the Episcopal Church believe that the entire body of scripture has been tampered with to reflect badly on women. For instance, they do not believe Mary Magdelene was a prostitute--ever.
It was, dear FHN. But she was, as well. Mary the Magdalene, is the SAME Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus... who was the SAME Mary who washed my Lord's feet with her tears... and the SAME Mary who anointed his head with nard. It was how she supported herself, her sister Martha, her very sick brother Lazarus (Simon the Leper/Zealot, who wrote the book of "John")... and at times, my Lord (whose needs she often cared for... which he didn't NEED, but ALLOWED because it was HER way to show HER love for HIM).
So, OKAY... I think I've responded to everything and everyone I need to. Please, though, remember that you don't have to take MY word for any of this, indeed, you SHOULDN'T. If you have questions, doubts, want clarification, truly want to understand... then go to the Source himself. HIS mouth speaks truth itself, all of his sayings are in righteousness and NOTHING among them are twisted or crooked. If you put faith in HIM... and LISTEN when he speaks to you about these things, then you, too, will receive the TRUTH of... FROM the Truth. I am just a good-for-nothing-servant and messenger. MY word is nothing, means nothing, and holds nothing. It cannot add one cubit to your lifespan. GOD's Word is the ONLY One who can do that... and it is the truth from THAT One that should listen to... and put faith in.
Again, I bid you all peace!
Servant to the Household of God, Israel, and all those who go with... and a slave of Christ,
SA
-
-
cofty
Yeah just ignore the hard questions as usual Shelby. The reason for Paul's rant is in the text.
-
AGuest
just ignore the hard questions as usual Shelby
Me? Ignore a question (hard or otherwise), dear Cofty (again, peace to you!)? From you? Where? I mean, yes, I did/do ignore a poster or two in this thread/on this board... and will continue to do so ever more. But I can't see where you asked a question of ME... that I ignored. Can you clarify, please? Thank you and, again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
-
cofty
The hard question came from BTS early in this thread. Pauls restriction on women was based on his understanding of Genesis and his view that women were inferior from men from the beginninng. You waffled something about the question above but it was all obfuscation.
-
journey-on
Why do I have a "dislike" for Paul.....actually, it's more like mistrust. I'm somewhat bothered by that, so I tend to sweep it under the carpet till I see a post like this one....lol. What I euphemistically called "new scrolls" was more or less a reference to the discovery of the codices found in Nag Hammadi.