New Testament

Keep the womenfolk Barefoot and Pregnant (rerun)


“also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” 1 Timothy 2:9-15 NRSV

If you are wondering what that just said, try reading it again. According to the unknown author of 1 Timothy, a woman is not permitted to teach or have authority over a man, but to be modest and quiet. Why? Because it was the woman’s fault that Adam fell from grace. Therefore the way that a woman can be “saved” is through having children, but only “IF they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.” Looks like Sarah Palin’s presidential aspirations just flew out the window, unless she doesn’t actually believe the bible.

In modern vernacular it might sound something like this:
Sit down, Shut up, and if you want to go to heaven, have babies and hope that your children don’t reject the religion.

If you don’t believe me, read 1 Timothy 2:9-15 again. Then if you want to have some fun, watch how Christian apologists try to deal with this obviously uncomfortable biblical reality.

Many Christians falsely claim that the author of 1 Timothy was Paul. The majority of biblical scholarship would disagree. The key to understanding this passage, IMO, is to understand that these are >not< the words of Paul, but the words of later Christian leaders who had realized that the original message of Paul had provided a liberating experience for women believers. In God’s eyes, they were equal to men. “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” – Galatians 3:28. THAT was Paul. Now it was time for Christianity to rein back in them free women.

After all, here is what happens when you let them women’folk get all uppity:
From the Acts of Paul and Thecla

While Paul was preaching this sermon in the church which was in the house of Onesiphorus, a certain virgin named Thecla (whose mother’s name was Theoclia, and who was betrothed to a man named Thamyris) sat at a certain window in her house. From where, by the advantage of a window in the house where Paul was, she both night and day heard Paul’s sermons concerning God, concerning charity, concerning faith in Christ, and concerning prayer; Nor would she depart from the window till with exceeding joy she was subdued to the doctrines of faith.

At length, when she saw many women and virgins going in to Paul, she earnestly desired that she might be thought worthy to appear in his presence and hear the word of Christ; for she had not yet seen Paul’s person, but only heard his sermons. But when she would not be prevailed upon to depart from the window, her mother sent to Thamyris, who came with the greatest pleasure, as he hoped now to marry her. Accordingly he said to Theoclia, Where is my Thecla?

Theoclia replied, Thamyris, I have something very strange to tell you. Thecla, for the space of three days, will not move from the window not so much as to eat or drink, but is so intent in hearing the artful and delusive discourses of a certain foreigner, that I am completely astonished, Thamyris, that a young woman of her known modesty will suffer herself to be so prevailed upon. For that man has disturbed the whole city of Iconium, and even your Thecla, among others. All the women and young men flock to him to receive his doctrine; who, besides all the rest, tells them that there is but one God who alone is to be worshipped, and that we ought to live in chastity. Notwithstanding this, my daughter Thecla, like a spider’s web fastened to the window, is captivated by the discourses of Paul, and attends upon them with prodigious eagerness and vast delight; and thus, by attending to what he says, the young woman is seduced. Now you go and speak to her, for she is betrothed to you.

Accordingly Thamyris went, and saluted her with care not to surprise her, and said, Thecla, my spouse, why are you sitting in this melancholy posture? What strange impressions are made upon you? Turn to Thamyris, and blush.

Her mother also spoke to her after the same manner and said, Child, why do you sit so melancholy, like one astonished, and make no reply?

Then they wept exceedingly: Thamyris, that he had lost his future spouse; Theoclia, that she had lost her daughter; and the maids, that they had lost their mistress; and there was universal mourning in the family. But all these things made no impression on Thecla to incline her so much as to turn and take notice of them, for she continued to contemplate on the discourses of Paul.

Then Thamyris ran into the street to observe who they were who went in to Paul and came out from him; and he saw two men engaged in a very warm dispute, and said to them; Sirs, what business have you here? And who is that man within, belonging to you, who deludes the minds of men, both young men and virgins, persuading them that they ought not to marry but continue as they are?

I promise to give you a considerable sum if you will give me a just account of him, for I am the chief person of this city.

Demas and Hermogenes replied, We cannot so exactly tell who he is, but we know that he deprives young men of their intended wives, and virgins of their intended husbands, by teaching, There can be no future resurrection, unless you continue in chastity and do not defile your flesh.

Now a word from those wild and crazy Southern Baptists…

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, president L. Paige Patterson denied tenure to Sheri Klouda: “a brilliant theologian who served Southern Baptists as a professor of Hebrew at Southwestern Theological for a total of seven and a half years, three and a half as an adjunct professor and four as full time elected faculty, establishing impeccable credentials and an extraordinary track record, only to be forced out from the job of her dreams for solely one reason — her gender.” http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/01/sheri-klouda-gender-discrimination_17.html

“Ladies, the highest and noblest calling of God is mother and grandmother. Equal to men, yes, but do what God has called you to do,” Patterson said. “Write it in bold letters with a big magic marker.” http://www.bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=19402

“The North American Mission Board no longer will endorse women to chaplaincy positions requiring a “fully qualified member of the clergy” or that have a “role or function similar to that of a pastor” — a move that primarily will bring an end to endorsing women as military chaplains.” http://www.bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=17580

The Flying Spaghetti Monster’s “8 I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts”

#3

I’d really rather you didn’t judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, Okay? Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we’re talking about fashion and I’m sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.

Advertisements

Discussion

15 thoughts on “Keep the womenfolk Barefoot and Pregnant (rerun)

  1. It’s enormous that you are getting thoughts from this post as well as from our argument made at this time.

    Posted by click here | May 28, 2014, 6:50 pm
  2. xcntrik, I wanted to clarify something. Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly. Maybe I am not understanding Scripture. But I think that Scripture is not blaming the woman (Eve) for the man’s (Adam’s) sin, but that (according to Scripture) she (all daughters of Eve) are forbidden from authority because they like their mother Eve are subject to deception, whereas Adam sinned knowingly, but not from deception. Perhaps Adam’s desire to remain united with his wife contributed to his sin, and perhaps that is in view in the Scriptures as well. I also think that God questions each them in order for a reason: Adam, because he is first in authority, Eve next, and finally Satan (the Serpent, technically, I suppose) because he/it had no real authority over them except by virtue of being a tempter for evil purposes. Maybe I am mistaken, but that is where I am coming from.

    Posted by byroniac | October 28, 2010, 8:39 pm
    • Let’s see if we can at least come to a common understanding, even if we don’t agree.

      Your point opens up another paradox. How can Adam sin knowingly, if he didn’t possess the knowledge of good and evil? But I’ll agree with you that the passage from 1 Timothy 2 isn’t blaming the woman for Adam’s sin. What is clear to me in that passage, is that the reason the author is saying that women are to be subordinate to men was because of Eve’s failure in the garden, drawing from Eve’s punishment in Genesis 3:16. It still runs contrary to the genuine Pauline perspective recorded in Galatians 3:28. That was kind of the point of this particular exercise, to show the difference between the historical Paul and Deutero-Paul, or Pseudo-Paul, or Fraud-Paul, a term that might not sit well with some.

      The participation of women in early Christianity is addressed by several scholars. Here is one article by Elizabeth Clark and Elaine Pagels, that might help clarify what it is that I was trying to say in that particular post. At the bottom of that page you’ll find a link to another article written by Karen King which includes this:

      Until recently the texts that survived have shown only the side that won. The new texts are therefore crucial in constructing a fuller and more accurate portrait. The Gospel of Mary, for example, argued that leadership should be based on spiritual maturity, regardless of whether one is male or female. This Gospel lets us hear an alternative voice to the one dominant in canonized works like I Timothy, which tried to silence women and insist that their salvation lies in bearing children. We can now hear the other side of the controversy over women’s leadership and see what arguments were given in favor of it.

      BTW, Satan isn’t in the Garden of Eden story. That character wouldn’t exist until hundreds of years later, after Persian dualism had influenced the Hebrew culture. That’s another one of those ways that Christianity likes to hook people, while denying the actual history of the religion.

      Posted by xcntrik | October 29, 2010, 12:04 am
  3. Man, it took me a while to figure out how to get here even though it said comments at the bottom of the page! Hope everybody is well. Quite the site you put together X, very professional looking. It is late but I will be back by to check it out. Peace

    Posted by Skombolis | October 27, 2010, 1:31 am
    • NO! Wait ! Stop !!

      You forgot your keys.

      Gooda seeya Skomb-meister,
      Dude, if you can get around, you’re doing better than me. I laid down a copy of Schweitzer’s “Quest” somewhere in here the other day and still haven’t found it. I wonder what this red button does ….

      I did get your keys, though. I appreciate you stopping by. Dig in, tell me what you think.

      Posted by xcntrik | October 27, 2010, 2:08 am
  4. HAHA!
    It is on Yahoo Answers.

    lol

    Posted by THE DRIFTER | October 21, 2010, 10:04 am
  5. Hello Xcntrik, …

    1 Timothy 2:9-15 NRSV
    In modern vernacular it might sound something like this:
    Sit down, Shut up, and if you want to go to heaven, have babies and hope that your children don’t reject the religion.

    …are you up for a few opposing viewpoints?

    Posted by THE DRIFTER | October 20, 2010, 2:30 pm
    • Ho Dancer,
      I couldn’t imagine that your opinion would be much different than the official Watchtower apologetics, or else you lose a point or something, I think. If you are asking me if I am interested in the Watchtower apologetics or your opinion, not in the least bit. I would have to respect you to desire your opinion, I don’t. I’m quite familiar with your dance routine and the NWT version of that passage. However, I do enjoy an occasional dance, providing that the music isn’t too repetitive. You see, I’m not much of a fan of rave music. It seems that every time I let you lead; I end up with bruised toes while you bite your tongue concentrating on counting to four. And since I’m more of a sandal guy than a steel-toed boot fella, and since we’re in my playground, I’m sure you won’t mind if I take the lead.

      We’ll file this under: “if you want to have some fun, watch how Christian apologists try to deal with this obviously uncomfortable biblical reality.”

      If one compares the NRSV and the NWT of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, one will find that up to a point they pretty much agree with one another. Then at verse 15, the NWT interprets one particular word differently than most other modern translations. So we’ll look specifically at that one verse, which I’d bet a quarter is your point.

      1 Timothy 2:15
      “Yet she will be >saved< through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” NRSV
      “However, she will be >kept safe< through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind.” NWT
      AND, just for the fun of it, here is the English translation from the Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century CE:
      “But she shall be >saved< through child-bearing, if they abide in faith and love and holiness with sobriety.”http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=47&chapter=2&lid=en&side=r&verse=15&zoomSlider=0

      That particular Greek word is identified as Strong’s # G4982: You will find it transliterated as sōthēsetai or sode’-zo or sozo, meaning, “to save, i.e. deliver or protect — heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole.” Paul uses this word eight times in Romans, eight times in 1 Corinthians, once in 2 Corinthians, and once in 1 Thessalonians. Let’s look at how the NWT translated that word in some of those verses. We’ll be looking for how many other times it is translated as “kept safe”.

      Romans 5:9 – saved
      Romans 5:10 – saved.
      Romans 8:24 – saved
      Romans 9:27 – saved
      Romans 10:9 – saved
      Romans 10:13 – saved
      Romans 11:26 – saved
      1 Cor. 1:18 – saved
      1 Cor. 1:21 – save
      1 Cor. 3:15 – saved
      1 Cor. 5:5 – saved
      1 Cor. 7:16 – save
      1 Cor. 9:22 – save
      1 Cor. 10:33 – saved
      1 Cor. 15:2 – saved

      Now for the Pastorals: 1 Timothy uses the word four times. 2 Timothy uses the word twice. Titus uses it once. So let’s see how the NWT translates the word in those instances, which of course, will include our example of 1 Tim. 2:15.

      1 Tim. 1:15 – save
      1 Tim. 2: 4 – saved
      >> 2 Tim. 2:15 kept safe
      1 Tim. 4:16 – save
      2 Tim. 1:9 – saved
      2 Tim. 4:18 save
      Titus 3:5 – saved

      So, I suppose the only opinions of yours that I would be interested in would be the following:
      1. Why do you suppose the NWT translated only that word to mean “kept safe” rather than “save” as it did in all the other numerous instances? Why just that one particular time?
      2. How does that even apply, given the context of the passage of scripture in question? It simply makes no sense. “ She will be kept safe through childbearing, if they abide in faith and love and holiness with sobriety”? It doesn’t say that she will be kept safe through childbearing if she abides in faith…. It says if they, an obvious reference to her offspring. Contextually, it simply makes no sense whatsoever. It’s apologetic anti-logic, the cause of black holes, from what I hear.

      Now, just for the halibut, let’s take a look at what the NWT would look like if it HAD translated some of the other instances as it did in this one desperate apologetic attempt. It’ll be fun.

      Matthew 10:22 – And YOU will be objects of hatred by all people on account of my name; but he that has endured to the end is the one that will be kept safe.
      Matthew 19:25 – When the disciples heard that, they expressed very great surprise, saying: “Who really can be kept safe?”
      Matthew 27:42a – Others he kept safe; himself he cannot keep safe!
      Luke 7:50 – But he said to the woman: “Your faith has kept you safe; go your way in peace.”
      Luke 18:42 – So Jesus said to him: “Recover your sight; your faith has kept you safe.”
      Romans 5:9-10 –Much more, therefore, since we have been declared righteous now by his blood, shall we be kept safe through him from wrath. For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be kept safe by his life.
      Romans 10:13 – For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be kept safe.”
      Romans 11:25-26 – For I do not want YOU, brothers, to be ignorant of this sacred secret, in order for YOU not to be discreet in your own eyes: that a dulling of sensibilities has happened in part to Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, and in this manner all Israel will be kept safe. Just as it is written: “The deliverer will come out of Zion and turn away ungodly practices from Jacob.
      1 Timothy 1:15 – Faithful and deserving of full acceptance is the saying that Christ Jesus came into the world to keep sinners safe.
      1 Timothy 2:3-4 – This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, whose will is that all sorts of men should be kept safe and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

      As I said in my original post:
      “If you don’t believe me, read 1 Timothy 2:9-15 again. Then if you want to have some fun, watch how Christian apologists try to deal with this obviously uncomfortable biblical reality.”

      Posted by xcntrik | October 20, 2010, 11:35 pm
      • Not all that sure of exactly what you said or are even trying to say but you sure covered a lot. I was referring to the vernacular reference you made below.

        1 Timothy 2:9-15 NRSV
        In modern vernacular it might sound something like this:
        Sit down, Shut up, and if you want to go to heaven, have babies and hope that your children don’t reject the religion.

        Sit down, Shut up?

        I don’t think this is an accurate Christian view or teaching concerning women at all.
        In fact, …I think it is way behind the times.

        Is it possible you are getting this confused with another religion?

        This is interesting!

        So, I suppose the only opinions of yours that I would be interested in would be the following:
        1. Why do you suppose the NWT translated only that word to mean “kept safe” rather than “save” as it did in all the other numerous instances?
        Why just that one particular time?

        Actually, …they could be interchangeable depending on your definition and usage of the term ‘saved.’ ‘Kept safe’ renders a better understanding of what Paul was trying to get across in this instance. Confusing the use of the term ‘saved’ with ‘salvation’ would throw the entire context into left field.

        Happens all the time.

        2. How does that even apply, given the context of the passage of scripture in question?

        It simply makes no sense. “She will be kept safe through childbearing, if they abide in faith and love and holiness with sobriety”?

        It doesn’t say that she will be kept safe through childbearing if she abides in faith…. It says if they, an obvious reference to her offspring.

        Contextually, it simply makes no sense whatsoever.
        It’s apologetic anti-logic, the cause of black holes, from what I hear.

        Consider this, …

        Why did Paul write regarding a Christian wife: “She will be kept safe through childbearing”?—1 Timothy 2:15.
        What does the context of this verse reveal about what Paul meant? Under inspiration he was giving counsel on the role of the Christian woman in the congregation. He wrote: “I desire the women to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb, but in the way that befits women professing to reverence God, namely, through good works.” (1 Timothy 2:9, 10) Paul was urging his Christian sisters to be modest, to be balanced in choosing personal adornment, and to be ‘adorned’ with good works.

        Next, Paul explained the headship arrangement in the congregation, saying: “I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 11:3) He explains the basis for this arrangement by showing that while Adam was not deceived by Satan, Eve “was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression.” How could a Christian woman be protected against Eve’s error? Paul answers: “However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind.” (1 Timothy 2:14, 15) What did Paul mean by these words?

        Some translators seem to imply that a woman’s salvation depends on her having children. For example, Today’s English Version says: “A woman will be saved through having children.” However, this interpretation of Paul’s words is not accurate. Many scriptures show that to be saved, a person must come to know Jehovah, believe in Jesus, and exercise faith, demonstrating that faith by works. (John 17:3; Acts 16:30, 31; Romans 10:10; James 2:26) In addition, Paul did not mean that safe childbirth is guaranteed to believing women. Women have come safely through the experience of giving birth whether they were believers or not. And sadly, some have died giving birth, whether they were believers or not.—Genesis 35:16-18.

        Paul’s additional counsel regarding women later in this same letter helps us to understand what he meant. He warns of some younger widows who were “unoccupied, gadding about to the houses; yes, not only unoccupied, but also gossipers and meddlers in other people’s affairs, talking of things they ought not.” What was Paul’s advice? He continues: “Therefore I desire the younger widows to marry, to bear children, to manage a household, to give no inducement to the opposer to revile.”—1 Timothy 5:13, 14.

        Paul highlights the positive role of women in the family arrangement. Occupied with such activities as ‘bearing children and managing a household,’ a woman who continued “in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind” would not gravitate toward conduct that is not upbuilding. Her spirituality would be preserved, or “kept safe.” (1 Timothy 2:15) Following such a course would help many young women to avoid Satan’s snares.

        Paul’s words to Timothy remind all of us, men and women, to be profitably occupied. God’s Word advises all Christians: “Keep strict watch that how you walk is not as unwise but as wise persons.”—Ephesians 5:15.

        *** w05 5/1 p. 29 Questions From Readers ***

        I don’t think you’ll find that in Yahoo answers but you never know.

        Posted by THE DRIFTER | October 21, 2010, 9:47 am
      • Paul didn’t write 1 Timothy. So that false premise is rejected.

        I don’t think you’ll find that in Yahoo answers but you never know.

        http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091213203833AAGQRoJ

        Word for word.

        I don’t think this is an accurate Christian view or teaching concerning women at all.

        I’m not real concerned with what you think. I’m talking about what the bible says, but thanks for the apologetics. It is worthless drivel. Remember when I said, “If you don’t believe me, read 1 Timothy 2:9-15 again. Then if you want to have some fun, watch how Christian apologists try to deal with this obviously uncomfortable biblical reality”?

        Now once again, let’s look at the verse together and we’ll be done. What does it say? Not what do you want it to be saying, but what is it saying?

        “also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” 1 Timothy 2:9-15 -NRSV

        OFFICIAL Xcntrik Study Bible, Version 2.1
        “Sit down, Shut up, and if you want to go to heaven, have babies and hope that your children don’t reject the religion. ”

        If you don’t like my interpretation, get your own. At least mine is based on what the bible actually says. Novel idea, huh?

        Please don’t bother me again unless you’re going to use your own brain. I really don’t want to delete your posts, because it’s what people need to see. But go peddle your damaged wares elsewhere and do not spam my blog. Get your own blog. Consider this your warning.

        Posted by xcntrik | October 21, 2010, 6:16 pm
  6. Hey xcntrik. Well, quickly, I’ve flip-flopped a lot, and decided I’m a fundamentalist again. BTW, you were right: it’s HARD being a fundamentalist. I’m always interested in reading what you write, too. I can’t call myself completely open-minded or a freethinker in any respect, but I think it’s good to have my views challenged even if I have to admit in all honesty I don’t have all of the answers.

    I did want to address one point in what you said, however. Now this could just be me, but as a fundamentalist (back then and now again), I’d still say the passage is not teaching that it’s Eve’s fault Adam fell into sin. At least, that’s not the way I’ve ever taken it, and I could be in the minority on this, but I don’t think so (among fundamentalists, that is). First of all, I would assert that the chronological priority of Adam’s creation to Eve places him in a position of higher authority and honor in the scheme of God’s creation (though this priority in creation obviously does not hold equally for all created things since Adam and Eve were created last but exercised dominion and power or at least stewardship over all the creation that came first before them). Secondly, I would assert that God gave Adam wisdom and discernment over and above what He gave Eve so that Adam was not deceived by the serpent’s trickery though Eve was and by that deception became a transgressor. Both of those assertions I believe fit well in fundamentalism though they are rejected by many (even as abhorrent; I realize that). My only point in it is this, fundamentalism aside, I do not believe Scripture ever places the blame for Adam’s sin on Eve (though Adam does seem to blame God for creating her and her for handing him the fruit, though Adam never says she is at fault for his eating it [Genesis 3:12]). I know that is a small point, but basically I believe the Scripture places Eve in a subservient position to Adam, inferior in terms of honor and authority, but not inferior in terms of personhood and personal worth (though it’s very difficult to argue that it’s not an inferiority of essence but an inferiority of function, and then only in spiritual function not in ordinary life function, as I desire to do). Maybe I’m trying to kill it with the death of a thousand qualifications, lol.

    Perhaps you will not agree with me, but I hope to have at least explained the fundamentalist mindset (mine anyway).

    Posted by Byroniac | October 19, 2010, 1:22 am
    • Yo Byroniac,

      Regardless of what anyone in this world tells you, flippy-floppin’ is a part of life. As growing and developing people’folk, we learn from our trials and successes. Sometimes repetition is the best teacher of all. What you learn and where your travels take you is exclusively your own experience. I just appreciate that you take a few minutes to spend some of it here with me. I would hate to live in a world where everyone always agreed.

      And, yep, bein’ a fundamentalist is going to be difficult, I found it impossible and rejected the concept. One of the primary reasons that I did so is that the premise of any Fundamentalist movement rests on the word “fundamental”. The underlying presupposition is that the movement seeks to get back to the first, the beginning, the origin, the fundamentals. That took me on a journey to try to find who Jesus was historically, which is an whole new can of worms. The problem is that these are always revisionist concepts and never actually the original, but a reflection of the past, through a glass darkly, in the contemporary world. This particular passage from 1 Timothy 2 is an ideal example of that process of revision. You seem to both agree and disagree that it places the blame squarely on the shoulders of Eve, but that is what it says. It’s even very specific in the wording.

      “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” http://biblelexicon.org/1_timothy/2-14.htm

      That is also the specific reason given for the disqualification of feminine authority, even today.

      Now if one were to take this as a fundamental, then women take their place in the back seat. But, “aye, there’s the rub”. It conflicts with the known writings of the historical Paul, and is not reflected in the recorded teachings of Jesus anywhere, that I am aware of, at least. What we are seeing is the influence of a patriarchal society, trying to put women back in their place AFTER their experience of Christianity had let them break free. So which is the fundamental?

      God gave Adam wisdom and discernment over and above what He gave Eve so that Adam was not deceived by the serpent’s trickery though Eve was and by that deception became a transgressor.

      Too bad he didn’t give Adam the wisdom and discernment to resist Eve. According to the text, all she did was hand it to him and he ate, which I take to be another metaphorical lesson. “and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.” She probably did one of these:

      I would say that if one wants to truly be a “Fundamentalist” one must first truly get back to the fundamentals. For a Christian, that would be the original Paul. For a follower of Jesus, that would be an attempt to get back to the original message of the man from Nazareth. People been revisin’ it ever since.

      I would be remiss if I did not also warn against the dark side of fundamentalism. I won’t put up a picture of the World Trade Center, instead I’ll provide a short clip from a Christian biblical scholar for whom I have a great deal of respect.

      Posted by xcntrik | October 19, 2010, 10:51 am
    • Good post.
      I like the way you have ‘reasoned’ things out from the literal words.

      Uncommon!

      Posted by THE DRIFTER | October 21, 2010, 10:19 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Twitter

  • RT @BennyEsanu: If anyone wants a crazy story, here's @SenTomCotton switching his Town Hall venue 5 times in 3 days to confuse his constitu… 1 hour ago
  • RT @ColeEscola: It's funny because where I'm from "resigning from Breitbart" means pooping out a guy's cum. 1 hour ago
  • RT @soledadobrien: Most interesting twitter thing tonight is random people explaining anti-semitism to the good folks at the @AnneFrankCent1 hour ago
  • RT @ALT_DOJ: Russians dead since Steele Dossier: Erovinkin,Krivov,Karlov,Melanin, Chandelon,Polshikov,Churkin all connected to Dossier. @It1 hour ago
  • RT @Patbagley: Sleazy little Jason Chaffetz investigates couple of comped Burning Man tickets and a tweet from Bryce NP,but no time for Tru… 1 hour ago
%d bloggers like this: