Was Paul really a woman hater?

by peacefulpete 26 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Aztec

  Men are superiour to women in rank.

  My initial reaction to this is:

  On second thought I'm thinking:

  So I'll hope you have a good explanation for what you said and I'll just do this for now:

  ~Aztec *taps foot patiently*
• 

  Carmel

  vimen rock!
• 

  peacefulpete

  Narkisos..Even the GThomas which has Gnostic Xtian overtones is is not typical of the movement. But consider saying 22 to interpret the saying you quoted, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the insde, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in a place of a likeness, then you will enter into the kingdom."
  
  Sex distinctions were being discouraged.
  
  I agree that 1 cor 11 has "Paul" compromising but still he does not condemn women to speak or prophesy, they are merely to give lipservice of sorts to the Judaic sexism and wear a hat.
• 

  Aztec

  they are merely to give lipservice of sorts to the Judaic sexism and wear a hat.

  Merely?

  ~Aztec
• 

  Euphemism

  Aztec... doesn't progressiveness have to be defined in light of the times?
• 

  Double Edge

  Sorry liberalists. Men are superiour to women in rank.

  Oh, excuse us all to heck... I didn't know we were all enlisted in the military.
• 

  onacruse

  Insofar as 1 Tim. 2:11, 12 is concerned, the Greek word translated "to be in silence" (NWT and others) is better rendered as in Phillips: "...learn quietly...their role is to be receptive." Vine and Trench comment on this word, and Vine says it "indicates tranquility arising from within, causing no disturbance to others." The same word is applied to women in 1 Peter 3:4 ("quiet...spirit" NWT), but it was not limited to women.

  For example, after Peter related his experience with Cornelius (Acts 11), the apostles and elders (though probably shocked by this unexpected turn of events, and over an issue that would burn for at least another 10 years), "acquiesced" (NWT; same Greek word) when presented with the evidence...there was no public argument.

  On these verses The Interpreter's Bible says the following:

  In regard to the place of women in church, the writer has reverted toward the older Jewish practice. In part this may have been caused by extravagances resulting from the primitive Christian "emancipation" of women, in part by a natural masculine reluctance to yield historic prerogatives to women.

  More compelling, though still somewhat ambivalent, is The Abingdon Bible Commentary:

  This is prudential advice dictated by the needs of the age for the good of the cause, and to be revised when the good of that same cause justifies it. It is to be remembered that Paul employed and commended Priscilla, Phoebe and other women helpers. In this letter he sanctions the employments of deaconesses (3:11) and official-widows (5:9). While he recognizes woman's limitations and supports it by appeal to the Eden story, he points out that she has a wonderful ministry to fulfill; she is to find her greatest ministry as mother and home-maker. God has no greater work to offer. She shall help save the world by the children she bears and rears; in bearing and rearing children her religion shall be her strength. Some see here a reference to the incarnation, reminding us that through the Son one woman bore we are saved.

  Rather than paint Paul as a woman hater, I'd be inclined to think of him more as a "whatever doesn't interfere with my establishing congregations" type of guy. In that respect, he went after men who got in his way a lot more than he went after women.

  Craig
• 

  gumby

  I'd be inclined to think of him more as a "whatever doesn't interfere with my establishing congregations" type of guy.

  Me too.

  Paul was a religious zealot from the gitgo as we remember, and his focus was to proclaim the message and establish congregations. He was a pharisee and pharisee's were the leaders in the church. Why would he give creedence to women playing a role in the church?

  I also heard he had a problem with pre-mature ejac.................ah never mind.

  Gumby
• 

  Valis

  Aztec... doesn't progressiveness have to be defined in light of the times?

  Dan, I'm sure many a dub would argue the same thing in favor of forgiving the WTBTS for their indiscretions over time. My mom has tried this w/me before. Also IMO its kind of like the Catholic diocese drawing up a plan to prevent child abuse and then having the gaul to grade themselves on it to a more than satisfactory degree. Ah well, never mind...blah blah blah...I watched A Beautiful Mind today....I think I'm still seeing things...*LOL* Sincerely, District Overbeer
• 

  peacefulpete

  Onacruse that explanation of 1 Tim is just plain silly. read the whole passage. The author (not Paul) makes clear he is directing women to be silent and be in sujection to the men as they are no allowed to teach. He then utilizes the Genesis myth as proof of the superiority of men over men. Progressive church exegetes would like nothing more than find a way to make theses passages appear enlightened.
  
  
  I am most certainly not defending the sexism of the Bible nor the compromises that "Paul" appears to be making. I was pointing out that the full development of this religious tenet was reached after the "Pauline" letters were made.