I guess it's just you and me bro ZNP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
The NT is the covenant Christians have with God and therefore defines what it is to be a Christian. Using the common sayings of the day doesn't. It merely reflects the bias of the people who were newly converted (at best) and at worst is simply a stereotype. Some people felt you needed to be circumcised. That does not define Christians, it defines cults.
|
It's biological. I doubt we're ever gonna see a male team against a female team at the Superbowl. It becomes cultic when embedded in religion. That women should shut up in the church is cultic. And cultic that women have to wear head covering (so the sons of God don't come and violate them during the meeting ... apparently).
Is that sort of stuff what God demands? No. It's projected upon God, from the customs and mores of the times when Christianity was born, during Paul's times.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ZNP
1. According to Paul in the church "there is no male or female".
|
Then why do "women" have to learn from their "male" husbands? Seems in practice there are, or were, male and female after all. But female was lower than male, and are commanded to be
obedient. And Paul adds, "And if they will
learn any thing," like it's not likely they can even learn. That's why none of the NT books are written by women ; they were illiterate because they weren't allowed to be educated.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ZNP
Making the two equal. A radical approach to this topic given the feelings of the day and probably the reason "all in Asia abandoned him".
|
Exactly. "Given the feelings of the day," that even Paul couldn't escape. Cuz he clearly distinguished between male and female. Paul must have been speaking in the abstract when he said no male or female.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ZNP
2. Paul said an elder had to be the husband of one wife. A strong position for monogamy and against polygamy and mistresses, etc. That strengthened the woman's position and was a radical position to take in that day.
|
But they are one flesh. So why are elders only male? Seems to me if they are one flesh both are elders.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ZNP
3. Saying that an elder had to be the husband of one wife meant that every locality had both an elder and "the wife of an elder" which is also a leadership position. So in a very elegant way Paul made sure every church had a woman in a very important position of authority.
|
Now you must be speaking in the abstract. It doesn't work out that way. Men are in the leadership. Were the wives considered leaders in the local church?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ZNP
The women's rights movement came out of the movement for ending slavery and giving blacks equal rights. Women said "hey, if you are giving black men the vote why not us". People justified slavery in the US using the Bible incorrectly (Biblical slavery was nothing like slavery of the south. It wasn't racial, it wasn't for life, there were no slave traders, only adults could sell themselves and only to pay off a debt and once the debt was paid they were free. It is analagous to an NFL contract.) Just because people misuse the Bible doesn't mean that is what the Bible says. For example, Awareness is trying to say the Bible is somehow against women's rights when it is exactly the opposite.
|
Not true. You certainly haven't proven it. The rest of the above is too much to bother unwrapping.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ZNP
2/3 of the church membership is women. Why would so many women be in the church if it were abusive? In the church women can take on virtually every role and ministry. As a result, if Paul had not required that elders be the husband of one wife men probably would only have a token presence.
|
That one hit my funny-bone. Thanks for the belly laugh.