Paul's view of women

[fantome profane]

But in many cases it was considered a compliment to one's mentor and was not viewed as being unethical. However, there are probably some that indeed were forgeries or modified in some way by later revisionists, and especially the latter seems to have been more common as commentaries ("midrashim") were sometimes injected into the scriptures, such as the ending of Mark that we now read.

And I think what you are describing might be an accurate description of the Epistle of James, but I don't personally feel that this is the case with first Timothy, but that is my opinion. In any case it is relevant to know that these are forgeries (whatever word you wish to use) especially when we find just the kind of contradictions that this thread is about. The question is did the author writing in Paul's name really faithful express Paul's viewpoint on women, or was he giving his own viewpoint on women? If the latter than there is no mystery as to why first Timothy could contradict something from one of Paul's actual letters.

 

[metis]

And I think what you are describing might be an accurate description of the Epistle of James, but I don't personally feel that this is the case with first Timothy, but that is my opinion. In any case it is relevant to know that these are forgeries (whatever word you wish to use) especially when we find just the kind of contradictions that this thread is about. The question is did the author writing in Paul's name really faithful express Paul's viewpoint on women, or was he giving his own viewpoint on women? If the latter than there is no mystery as to why first Timothy could contradict something from one of Paul's actual letters.

The irony is that what we see coming from Paul and the author of I Timothy, whomever he might have been, is that there actually is a liberalization of women's roles as compared to the normative Judaism of the day. However, as compared to the mores of us in the modern west, they didn't go far enough. To be fair, we do need to take the times into consideration.

 

[Pegg]

My point exactly.

I have to (reluctantly) agree. I don't believe for a second that God views women as less than men because if he did he wouldn't have chosen women to be among the anointed ones. So this is simply a matter of men's pride and nothing else.

I once had a conversation similar to this one with a man who belongs to a christian religion and who follows the bible very closely. You know what he told me about it? He said that most men are self-righteous, proud creatures with a constant need to have their egos fed and if religious organizations allowed women to perform the same tasks as men, a lot of men would leave because they wouldn't feel as important anymore. This has nothing to do with faith or with someone's ability to do something.

I totally agree with that. There are certainly men 'and women' who thrive on power and position. We can see that in how there is a pecking order among people in the business world and unfortunately it also makes its way into religions too.

Thats why I've always disagreed with the idea that a man can attend a theological college and get a degree to become a priest. A certificate purchased through a college does not make one worthy of the 'double honour' the bible says we should show to those leading the congregation.

Rather, the scriptural directive is to appoint only those men who have proven spiritual qualities and exemplary behaviours ...and they should be willing to serve 'freely' without expecting payment in return. That sort of man is worthy of double honour imo.

If we look at teaching from a logical point of view, what religious leaders are teaching is not their own material but the word of God (or so they say). God is the real author and the real teacher; they are only the messengers. [/quotes]

exactly.

A lot of things changed since those times. We have running water, electricity, airplanes, computers, women with careers and no family, etc. Shouldn't we adapt what we can do to our present circumstances?

If someone offered me a position as a religious leader I would respectfully decline it. It's not my thing, I'm not interested, however I would like it to be my choice instead of having it imposed on me because I wasn't born with a penis.

yes, sure. Those who are in a position to do such work are certainly able to. We have examples of young single women who do go on missionary service.

Here is a video experience of one young woman:

The bible doesnt say women are not to be involved in the work that Jesus began. We all have a responsiblity to take up our share. But it has to be according to our individual circumstances. I have 4 kids and obviously could not do what this young sister has done. But I can do my share in my home territory which i do.

 

[sojourner]

Thats why I've always disagreed with the idea that a man can attend a theological college and get a degree to become a priest. A certificate purchased through a college does not make one worthy of the 'double honour' the bible says we should show to those leading the congregation.

Rather, the scriptural directive is to appoint only those men who have proven spiritual qualities and exemplary behaviours ...and they should be willing to serve 'freely' without expecting payment in return. That sort of man is worthy of double honour imo.

That's not How It Works, though Pegg. The graduate degree is only one of many requirements that must be met in a process of discernment that helps both candidate and judicatory determine if a call is valid. There is a considerable amount of spiritual formation, psychological testing, counseling, prayer, conversation, and interviews that happen, and the candidate has to pass parochial and regional qualifications (of which the degree is part) before ordination is conferred. The judicatory helps the candidate determine if it's a valid call, or "simply a bad case of indigestion," as we say. One doesn't just "get a seminary degree and call it good."

And, we don't "work for our pay." That's a gross misunderstanding. We don't get paid for the work we do. We draw a stipend that allows us to be free from a job, so we can serve God through the church full-time.

 

[fantome profane]

The irony is that what we see coming from Paul and the author of I Timothy, whomever he might have been, is that there actually is a liberalization of women's roles as compared to the normative Judaism of the day. However, as compared to the mores of us in the modern west, they didn't go far enough. To be fair, we do need to take the times into consideration.

Here I have to agree and disagree. Yes I think what we see coming from Paul was actually a liberalization of women's roles. But to the contrary I think that what we see coming from the author of the pastoral epistles (1 Timothy 2 Timothy and Titus) represents a much more conservative and even restrictive view of women. I think 1 Timothy is in part a reaction to the liberal views of Paul. I think the author was trying to "correct" some of the liberal views of Paul and put women "back in their place".

 

[james2ko]

First of all, you're basing an absolutism upon a document that was never meant to be absolute,

Mat 24:35: Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away
Hab 2:14 For the earth will be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea.​

1. Looks to me like it was..... is.......and will be absolute.

and whose very philosophy is informed by androcentric thought.

2. Androcentric? Do you realize that term was made famous by one of the pioneers of today's feminist movement, Charlotte Perkins Gilman? Androcentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In essence you're tossing scripture out like a dirty diaper to embrace this world's ideology. We've been warned about that:

1Jn_2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Jas_1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
​

Second, it's a document that has shaped our post-modern society in its own, imbedded androcentrism. Don't believe me? Women are still objectified, violated, and dehumanized -- even in 21st century America, because of this imbedded assumption.

3. So my Godly perspective would imbed in me a need to objectify, violate, dehumanize my wife/women? Hang on. Let me ask my wife if I'm guilty of this behavior..........................................She LOL'd....Wait... let me ask my 26 yr old daughter, who just walked in.................................She LOL'd even louder....

You say, "I'm far from being misogynistic," yet, instead of encouraging your spouse (and I hope you don't mind my dragging her into the debate) to be an equal partner in the relationship, you encourage her acceptance of "her role" (as imposed by an androcentric social mind set).

4. We are equal partners. We each give 100% effort to our roles in our partnership.

One of three things is possible here :
1) she has given up her bid for equality because she's either tired or afraid of being Sisyphus and bucking the system that subtly ensconces her in oppression, under the guise of being a "good, Christian woman,"
2) she loves you more than her own person, in that she wants to please and make you comfortable, to the neglect of her own equality with you,
3) she actually buys into this horse-and-buggy thinking, and sees herself as, somehow, "naturally incapable" of being on an absolute equal footing with men.
Any of those options is unhealthy. For both of you. "She is an extremely capable human being," you say, "but she also recognizes her Godly role in being 'my helper.'" I argue that this is a misogynistic POV to take. It's so insidious that you're actually both comfortable with the rightness of her being, somehow, less of a human being than you are, and with your own egocentrism. And, yes, that is what you think (before you argue that such sexually-embodied subservience isn't "less," just "different").

5. I'm sorry. That "Dr. Phil" diagnosis doesn't equate to our (my wife and I) thinking or God's. I don't know which is worse--your ignorance about my wife and I or the scriptures.

Any time sex is used to define absolute roles that are defined as "over" or "under" other people, it represents a brand of dehumanization, which is violence, which is a product of hatred (in whatever "religious" clothing it is draped). In this case, a deep-seated, culturally-imbedded hatred that has prevailed for far too long in this society. And it's probably, if truth be told, the reason why you're against homosexual marriage -- it represents something that just doesn't squeeze a couple into the mold of one partner being "over" the other, as defined by their sex. And we just can't have that!

I don't mean to say that "you secretly hate your wife." I'm sure you love her with all your heart. But, culturally, you think all women should be subservient to men -- to let men lead them, because they're "incapable," by some sort of God-ordained something. That represents a basic hatred of the female sex. And it is misogyny.

6. The Scriptures are clear Sojourner on the roles of men and women in the church. Your apparent fixation and love for this world's "ungodly" feminist agenda is duly noted. Like I said, please look me up in the judgment. I have to see the look on Christ's face when you attempt to explain away, in your "extensive" vocabulary, the teaching of scripture while justifying this world's feminist movement....I imagine His look would be priceless....

Sorry, I can't let this one go. This is a perfect example of how imbedded in our social thinking and how insidious this type of thinking is:

7. My thoughts exactly of your "wordly" thinking. I'd be careful, if I were you. Christ did say, many are called but few are chosen.

 

[james2ko]

My point exactly.

Remember, women in the church today do have teaching/leading roles--teaching and leading other women. We do not know the details of their roles in the millennium.

 

[sojourner]

Mat 24:35: Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away
Hab 2:14 For the earth will be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea.
1. Looks to me like it was..... is.......and will be absolute.

"the bible is absolute, because it says so???"
Circular reasoning writ large.
Plus, the passages you cite say nothing about the bible, itself. Oh, you'll have to do much, much, much better than that.

2. Androcentric? Do you realize that term was made famous by one of the pioneers of today's feminist movement, Charlotte Perkins Gilman?

Yup. Known it for years. Did you just now have to look it up on Wikipedia? Feminist theology is on of the best examples of modern theology. I'd be careful in disparaging it, just because you don't like it.

3. So my Godly perspective would imbed in me a need to objectify, violate, dehumanize my wife/women?

That's not what I said. I said that the "role" of women as necessarily "not able to lead men" is based in an androcentric mind set. Our culture has been so imbedded in that mind set that we either don't realize it's happening, or we invent justifications for it.

4. We are equal partners. We each give 100% effort to our roles in our partnership.

Fine. Switch roles. Let her be "in charge." We'll see how 100% it really is.
Oh, wait! You can't do that! "God said" that women can't be in charge!

5. I'm sorry. That "Dr. Phil" diagnosis doesn't equate to our (my wife and I) thinking or God's. I don't know which is worse--your ignorance about my wife and I or the scriptures.

All I'm seeing here is an ad hominem attack. Show me where I'm wrong. Don't just smugly inform me that I'm ignorant about the bible. I can assure you that I'm not.

6. The Scriptures are clear Sojourner on the roles of men and women in the church.

No. They're not. These passages represent outdated opinion, and come from an unknown source.

Your apparent fixation and love for this world's "ungodly" feminist agenda is duly noted.

So now critical thinking is a "fixation" and a widely-recognized and respected theological construction is "ungodly." Your apparent fixation and love for your own opinion of the bible is duly noted.

Like I said, please look me up in the judgment. I have to see the look on Christ's face when you attempt to explain away, in your "extensive" vocabulary, the teaching of scripture while justifying this world's feminist movement....I imagine His look would be priceless....

I'm quite comfortable that Jesus knows what's really going on here. But the egg on your face may be quite iconic.

 

[james2ko]

the bible is absolute, because it says so???" Circular reasoning writ large.

1. Yep. It's called faith. You oughta try it sometime.

Plus, the passages you cite say nothing about the bible, itself. Oh, you'll have to do much, much, much better than that.

2. The Bible is God's Word . I'm afraid Mat 24:35 does apply.

Feminist theology is on of the best examples of modern theology. I'd be careful in disparaging it, just because you don't like it.

3. No. I disparage it just because God doesn't like it.

That's not what I said. I said that the "role" of women as necessarily "not able to lead men" is based in an androcentric mind set. Our culture has been so imbedded in that mind set that we either don't realize it's happening, or we invent justifications for it.

4. Never said women were "incapable" of leading men in the world. What they do in the "world" is not our concern. But in accordance to scripture, a Godly woman should not desire to lead or have authority over men in the church.

Fine. Switch roles. Let _her_ be "in charge." We'll see how 100% it really is. Oh, wait! You can't do that! "God said" that women can't be in charge!

5. Being the Godly woman that she is, she does not want to.

Show me where I'm wrong. Don't just smugly inform me that I'm ignorant about the bible. I can assure you that I'm not.

6. I did. And because the text in Timothy is so clear, you are forced to discredit, undermine, and reject the truth of the text and it's authorship in order to perpetuate your unbiblical and worldly feminist dogma.

So now critical thinking is a "fixation" and a widely-recognized and respected theological construction is "ungodly."

7. I see. Because it's widely accepted and respected it must be right? Smells like an appeal to popularity to me. Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No. They're not. These passages represent outdated opinion,

8. This one has the stench of classic Chronological Snobbery Chronological snobbery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia---Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Unless of course this is another one of your "disposable" scriptures.

and come from an unknown source.

9. So that makes the text false?? You're on one "fallacious" roll!

Your apparent fixation and love for your own opinion of the bible is duly noted.

10. One tiny problem. I can prove my opinion is the correct one from the text. You have to reject the text to prove yours.

I'm quite comfortable that Jesus knows what's really going on here. But the look on _your_ face may be quite iconic.

11. I would be also if I decided to discard portions of scripture that refute my dogma. In all seriousness, SJ, it's very apparent you have allowed this world's ideology to cloud your reasoning, which the scriptures strongly discourage:

Rom 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

1Jn 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

Jas 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

​

Hopefully you haven't thrown any of these away...Yes..You may have the last word.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's a bit phony to go on trying to defend Mr Saint Paul.
He was a misogynist. Full stop

 

[Pegg]

It's a bit phony to go on trying to defend Mr Saint Paul.
He was a misogynist. Full stop

thats a strange thing to say really.

Especially seeing your yourself dont think males and females should even be friends. Funny thing is that those apochryphal writings are very mysoginistic even advising men to stay away from their wives and to separate from them.. maybe thats where you get those sorts of ideas from.

 

[sojourner]

1. Yep. It's called faith. You oughta try it sometime.



2. The Bible is God's Word . I'm afraid Mat 24:35 does apply.



3. No. I disparage it just because God doesn't like it.



4. Never said women were "incapable" of leading men in the world. What they do in the "world" is not our concern. But in accordance to scripture, a Godly woman should not desire to lead or have authority over men in the church.



5. Being the Godly woman that she is, she does not want to.



6. I did. And because the text in Timothy is so clear, you are forced to discredit, undermine, and reject the truth of the text and it's authorship in order to perpetuate your unbiblical and worldly feminist dogma.



7. I see. Because it's widely accepted and respected it must be right? Smells like an appeal to popularity to me. Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



8. This one has the stench of classic Chronological Snobbery Chronological snobbery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia---Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Unless of course this is another one of your "disposable" scriptures.



9. So that makes the text false?? You're on one "fallacious" roll!



10. One tiny problem. I can prove my opinion is the correct one from the text. You have to reject the text to prove yours.



11. I would be also if I decided to discard portions of scripture that refute my dogma. In all seriousness, SJ, it's very apparent you have allowed this world's ideology to cloud your reasoning, which the scriptures strongly discourage:

Rom 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

1Jn 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

Jas 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

​

Hopefully you haven't thrown any of these away...Yes..You may have the last word.

I'm sorry that your strong faith gives you the entitlement to perpetuate discrimination and violence in the name of your religion. The world is diminished because of that.

 

[james2ko]

I'm sorry that your strong faith gives you the entitlement to perpetuate discrimination and violence in the name of your religion. The world is diminished because of that.

Dont' be. I'm the one sorry, that as a Christian, you have allowed this perverse world's doctrine to twist your reasoning into thinking Paul and other NT authors perpetuate this behavior against women. Your salvation is diminished because of that.

 

[sojourner]

Dont' be. I'm the one sorry, that as a Christian, you have allowed this perverse world's doctrine to twist your reasoning into thinking Paul and other NT authors perpetuate this behavior against women. Your salvation is diminished because of that.

You have no business, Sir, to go digging about in my eye for a speck, when there's a whole forest in your own that demands your full attention.

(BTW: I thought you said I could have the last word here. And you know what happens to people who tell falsehoods... :beach

 

[james2ko]

You have no business, Sir, to go digging about in my eye for a speck, when there's a whole forest in your own that demands your full attention.

A conclusion based on the assumption I am the one committing a wrong. YOU ARE the one rejecting scripture and replacing it with a worldly view. Two clear sins. Hence the forest is actually in your eye, my friend. And since the speck is removed from mine, I am allowed to correct a brother with the forest in theirs:

Mat 7:5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.​

Would you like to borrow my chainsaw?

(BTW: I thought you said I could have the last word here. And you know what happens to people who tell falsehoods... :beach

Changed my mind. If God can change His, so can I.

 

[sojourner]

A conclusion based on the assumption I am the one committing a wrong. YOU ARE the one rejecting scripture and replacing it with a worldly view. Two clear sins. Hence the forest is actually in your eye, my friend. And since the speck is removed from mine, I am allowed to correct a brother with the forest in theirs

No. I'm not "rejecting scripture and replacing it..." What I am doing is treating it with the respect and gravity that it deserves. Therefore, I've done nothing wrong, just as Jesus was doing nothing wrong when the religious authorities mistakenly stood in judgment of him. In fact, since you're taking the entitled position (as a religious authority), it's you who are acting the hypocrite, since it's you who are taking the worldly view of power and entitlement, and you who are perpetuating discrimination based upon views that do not take the full humanity of other people into account.

 

[sojourner]

Changed my mind. If God can change His, so can I.

God always changes God's mind out of mercy, not hubris...
What's your excuse? We've already determined that you're acting out of an overblown sense of entitlement.

 

[james2ko]

No. I'm not "rejecting scripture and replacing it..." What I am doing is treating it with the respect and gravity that it deserves. Therefore, I've done nothing wrong, just as Jesus was doing nothing wrong when the religious authorities mistakenly stood in judgment of him. In fact, since you're taking the entitled position (as a religious authority), it's you who are acting the hypocrite, since it's you who are taking the worldly view of power and entitlement, and you who are perpetuating discrimination based upon views that do not take the full humanity of other people into account.God always changes God's mind out of mercy, not hubris...What's your excuse? We've already determined that you're acting out of an overblown sense of entitlement.

My views reflect the scriptures. You're the one undermining and essentially rejecting the Holy Writ's teaching on a woman's role in the church and feeling the need to replace it with a more modern wordly rhetoric, which has also been demonstrated to be against scripture, then have the audacity to call yourself a Christian. Now that is ultimate hypocrisy and acting out of an overblown sense of entitlement.

 

[sojourner]

My views reflect the scriptures.

No they don't. Your views reflect a biased reading of the scriptures.

You, of course, realize that the whole "women must not be in authority over men" is not a universal commandment; it's the opinion of one person, writing to one congregation, in one particular context. And when it was written, it wasn't "Holy writ." It was just a letter. Unless you're willing to admit that letters written by the Pope to a particular congregation are "commandments" that also apply to you, in your congregation, you really have no leg to stand on here.

What? The Pope has no authority over you? But Someone, adding to Paul's letter, does have authority over you? Get lucid, man! How hypocritical can you be???

 

[Ingledsva]

I have to disagree. If we believe God created both male and female, we also have to believe He created the male psyche with the propensity to be the family and civic leaders. Eve was created as Adam's "helper" (Gen 2:18). I believe God never intended women to be leaders over men. This is made evident by God Himself in His negative admonition to Israel who apparently employed women civic rulers or the decisions of the male leaders were heavily influenced by the women in their lives:


ING - Look at the last three words in 18 - meaning - bring forth a helpmate from other side. They are also in 20.

Gen 2:20 And did call the human, names for all of the dumb beasts, and flying things of the sky, and all alive of the field; but the human didn't find a helpmate counterpart/OTHER SIDE.

It is very interesting that it actually ends with a word meaning OTHER SIDE, - as we have already been told the human was in the image of the Elohiym, - male and female, - and we have a splitting so they can procreate.

There is absolutely NO superior, nor first, male here. They are created together.

Isa 3:12 As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths."​

ING - And what is your point putting this verse in? This is NOT from God! It is a vision of another patriarchal tribal male - Isaiah.

And while we are at it; - Paul's writings are obviously not from God either, - just another patriarchal male, but at least he put in an "I."



Although they could be leaders/teachers over women in the church (Tit 2:3-5). And I already know what you and others reading this are thinking. I'm far from being misogynistic. My very happy housewife of 29 years, whom I love very much, makes all of the household and or small purchase decisions without having to consult me, although she often does. She is also consulted and sometimes herself recommends and coordinates major purchase/family decisions. Her wisdom is sought after by women in and out of the church. She is an extremely capable human being, but she also recognizes her Godly role as my helper. Although not perfect (who is?), she's as close to the Proverbs 31 woman as one can get--a true blessing indeed.


ING - LOL! Others have already covered this.


Is it really the poster's thoughts or are they your own?

Just make sure you look me up when you explain this to Christ on judgment day. I definitely want to see the look on His face. I'm guessing it would be something like .......

It is hilarious that you take the words of Patriarchal Iron Age male herders as the word of God! LOL!


Jesus did not teach on male and female roles, or against homosexuals. HUMMMM! Do you think he was a little smarter then those patriarchal Iron Age herders?





*