"I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Discuss Biblical and theological support for concept that Bible teaches equality between sexes.

Moderator:Metacrock

ZAROVE
Posts:412
Joined:Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm
Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:24 am

Jim539 wrote:"
Do people here entertain the possibility that Paul's egalitarianism which is demonstrated in other parts of his writings and actions may possibly have been somewhat altered during a redaction by well meaning later followers. The changes or additions would have been made by those who felt their understanding better reflected a woman's position within the emerging church and a developing hierarchical structure not known to Paul.

At one point in Corinthians he argues that a woman should have her head covered when prophesying, later he seems to suggest they should keep their mouths shut. Thus, at one section they can speak with head covered, and at another surprisingly in the same letter, they must remain silent.

Jim



I'm new here too, but I've heard people (not here) claim that Paul was too egalitarian for their tastes so they made his writings more sexist.

I'm afraid that this is an unfair representaiton fo those that disagree. I have never encountered anyone hwo claimed Paul was too Egalitarian, nor that made his writtings mroe sexist.

I think that you are Caracaturising those who think women shoudl not preach or hold ministarial roles as somehow sexist and disliberaltye distortive of scripture, which is not the case.

Those hwo disagree with you arne't always actign out of Mysogany but conviciton, and shoudl be mroe respected than that.



Textual criticism I've seen seems to lean against redaction for the most part. I think the real issue is concerning context and interpretation. Your examples are good ones to highlight this.



Isn't it facinationg thoguh that you would attemot to use the excuse of redaction. Since you can't, you go for interpretation.

But why shoudl we assume your interpretation is the correct one?


The section about head coverings is, IMHO, really saying Paul gives women the authority to decide whether to cover their heads or not. In 1 Cor. 11:11 he says "However...", so we're going to hear a contrast to what he just said, which has to do with the old distinctions between men and women regarding the symbolism of head coverings. After stressing interdependence between men and women in Christ, he says "Decide for yourselves". Then he talks about hair and nature, but I believe most translations have it backwards (see the ISV here). He isn't making up some illustration from nature that doesn't exist; after all, men and women both grow long hair naturally. In other words, nature says nothing about head coverings. Then he ends with saying "we have no such custom". What custom? A distinction in head coverings. Putting it all together then, Paul is saying "Head coverings are not a matter of nature, and in Christ there is no issue with this. You decide."

This striles me as a rather strained interpretation designed ot brign us to a desired end. After first critisisng others hwo think women shoudl not stand in the Ministry by sayign they do not liek Pausl Egletarianism and thus mad ehis writing smroe sexist thus villiisign them, you take a text that says oen hting and play with the words ot get it to say somethign else.


Nature, of course, was a mroe loose concept for the Ancient languags we deal with, and Oaul was referign to a CUltural nature. Men in the Greco-Roman world cut their hair short, nd women grew it ong. This was a part of their society. Women wearign veils was too. The purpose for women wearign long hair was to show them to be mroe extravegant and beutiful, whilst men had short hair to emphesise their strength and endurance. ( One did not go into battle iwht logn hair, if one as wise.)

The Veil, though, wa sa sign of Submission to Authority, worn by women to show their meekness. Men had to uncover their heads in the same culture because they stood ot make a petition, even if in humility, as a man.

The fact that Paul recognised that not every culture has the same customs, and htus the Veil and short hair ion men and suchlike wher enot Universlaly applicable to all Situations, the truth of the matter still remains that Paul the Apostle did make a clear distinction between men and owmen int he verses presented, and obviously intended such a distinction to be udnerstood by his audience , the Corinthians.


This makes even more sense when we know that culturally it could be a big problem for Christian wives of pagan husbands. If the wives were free as believers to uncover their heads, but their pagan husbands considered it a sign of loose morals, such a woman would not be advised to use her freedom and bring needless strife in the marriage. But Paul certainly did not make it mandatory, instead leaving it up to the women.

Except, he did make it Manditory for thr COrinthian women. His admonishment was that other cultures may not share this custom, and htus shoudl not be so compelled, but under the culture they lvied in, it was mandated, and not becaiuse it woudl bring contention betwen a Pagan Husband and Christian wife. You are simply reading the text in a fashion that helps you to create a case for your desires, I'm afraid.



As for keeping their mouths shut, there are two equally plausible views. One is that Paul was only telling women to be silent if they were teaching falsehood, or possibly trying to take up authority as teachers without first having sat down to learn. The other is that Paul had a particular woman in mind who was teaching Gnosticism.



But these views are not supported by the text. Pul could eaisly have said " Let not the uneducated women teach" not "The omen". Or "Let not the women who teach falsehood teach". In fat, he did tell men not to teach if they had not learned, so why woudl he spacificlaly say women shoudl keep silent and ask at home their husbands shoudl they have any questions?


Remember that Paul wrote specifically to Timothy in Ephesus, who had been sent there for a purpose: to stop false teachers and endless discussions of genealogies. In 1:6 he says "they want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about". Now in ch. 2 we come to the part about "a woman", so with that context in mind let's look at the "silence" issue.

But, the silence issue wa snot under sthe same auspices.


In 1 Tim. 2:11 he tells "a woman" to learn-- a very radical concept at the time.

Not really. Women did learn many thing sin their lives, and it was common to think of them as learning.




But she must do so "quietly" (not in absolute silence), like any good student. Women had been forbidden to sit at a teacher's feet and did not know proper behavior, so they had to be told this.


I think you are still strainig the text to form it to yur conclusion.


It's also possible that these women had formerly been synagogue leaders (something little known, but there is evidence for it), and had presumed that this gave them the right to teach in the church, but Paul is saying "no, you have to start over and learn new teachings first". From what I've read, the word Paul uses for "quietness" never means absolute silence.

But, not only is there no real evidence for women as Synagouge leaders, your enture argument about them learign firts before teachign has absolutley no suppot int he text. Paul coudl have said "For the Women, let them furts learn, then teach". He instead issued a blanket statement abotu women not teaching in general, or Userpign the authority of the man. He then references Adam beign fomed firts, then Eve.

Its pretty clea that htis was meant as a general rule, nto spacificlaly referincign hypothetical women synagouge teachers who thoght thye could teahc and had ot firts learn.

Obviosuly, the men woudl have to learn the Tenets of CHrustianity firts too, btu he doesn't say " I say that the man shoudl be silent".

Yoru statements come accross as contrivances meant to meet an end. Fanciful footwork enables you to rewrite Paul, and accuse others of it when they cling to a plain reading.




Verse 12 is where we see an unusual phrase never used elsewhere in the NT, and rarely in classical literature: authenteo tinos. Debate rages over what that means, being presumed to mean "usurp authority" in the vast majority of translations. But what is this presumption based upon, given the rarity of the term and that Paul used other words for authority elsewhere (like the part about women having authority over their own heads)?



So now we engage in Semantic debates.

The fact that a word is used but once int he New Testament is nto the same thign as it beign controversial. Nor does htis render much support for your conclusion, other than to attmeo to confuse th issue woth wordplay.

The nearest guess at the meaning is that of "murderer, one who takes unlawful control", and that it possibly includes sexual overtones. This likely refers to the pagan (Gnostic, I'm pretty sure) practice of women priestesses giving spiritual revelation to men via intercourse in pagan temples.


This is based upon nothign but a flight of the imaginaiton, and is extracted form sheer speculation and fanciful imaginaiton.

The text doens't support this at all, and yoru importign this form outside the plain text and shippign it in to help confuse matters. You even amdit this is useless , so its an odd sidetrail. A Red Herring.


But though this meaning is possible, it does not fit the immediate context at all. Paul is discussing proper behavior and I seriously doubt any of the churches at that time would have even thought about continuing such a practice from pagan religion. So most who take the meaning of "usurp authority" view it as referring to taking authority improperly, but then it raises the question, why is Paul only concerned with this when men are involved? From there, the presumed answer is that what is unlawful is women having any kind of authority over men, but why call it unlawful then? Why not just say "I do not permit any woman to have authority over a man"? Too many problems with these views.


Not really, and its tsill wordplay.

Paul did say " I do not allow women to have autority over men" in verse 12.

I think there is a better meaning for authenteo tinos: to teach that woman is the source or originator of man, as the Gnostics taught. They believed Eve was first and Adam created from her, and Paul is addressing a particular woman who has begun to teach this.

No , the Gnostics didn't. If you read Gnostic texts they teahc the same creation narrative as did hte Jews, except they see YHVH as the Demiurge who was an evil beign who trapped souls in this mateiral world. Thus the creation was mprisonment to our osuls, and liberation form this wold wa sour salvation.

However,the Gnostics didn't tach Eve came frst.

At least, not the majority.


This interpretation makes perfect sense out of vs. 13-14, where Paul refers to the fact that Adam was formed first and then Eve. It is chronology Paul is talking about, not authority. But then, why did he follow that with Eve being the one who was deceived?

The CHronology used it also supporting the fact that women shoudl elarn in subjection.

It flows form he text evently, from Women swearign modest apperal, to learnign in silence, to beig formed second.Its all interlocked and related and not a hint of this text suggests Paul is refering to Gnostic teachings or women Synagouge leaders or anythign other than women not teaching in the CHurch.





Again, the topic of the letter is false teaching.



Actually there ar enumeorus topics. The letter was giving General advice to Timothy, and as such went on a range of topics he woudl face.

Paul is saying that this false teacher is deceived herself, just like Eve, and must therefore stop, sit down, and learn the truth. But what does chronology have to do with deception?


Your manipulating the text.

Adam knew that God created Eve, but Eve never actually witnessed God's creative power in any way. Because of that, only Eve could conceivably be fooled into thinking she could be like God; Adam knew better through firsthand experience.


Wasn't Adam unconcious?

Didn't they both talk to God?


This scenario makes much better sense of the passage. If we view it in the context of false teaching, particularly that of Gnosticism's belief that Eve came first, it flows along smoothly and does not make Paul contradict his other writings. But if we presume the topic switched to authority here, we run into all sorts of problems.


Actulaly it can be said htta letitng women teahc is a false twaching. If you want ot depict htis letter as beign only agaisnt false teaching, then what if women where teachign int he Church, and Paul was puttign a stop to this false teaching? I see no problem withhtis, and more problems with your explanaitonz that trequire importing outside idea sintot he text and perforing mental gymnastics to get it to read the way you desire it to.

Much like is described in 2 Peter Chapter 3.

Now what about that pesky vs. 15? "She will be saved through the childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." This is very strange syntax: "she will... if they". I've heard all sorts of contortions to try and make sense of this, and most translations simply ignore it and mistranslate it completely.

Of course. And we know its a mistranslaiton because...?


But if this is a particular woman, and "they" are she and her husband, it clears right up. In fact, if we pay attention to the actual grammar as "she will... if they", it's the clue that interprets the whole passage. "She" is the false teacher, "a woman", who is to stop teaching Gnostic falsehood to her husband. This dissolves all the conjecture about whether the passage has Paul either silencing all women for all time or even just women at that church. It's all moot if we know who "she" and "they" are.


Your still taing the text in a direction its nto mean tot go in, and tryign to shift sway form the obvius reading and into one that fits your parameters by distortign its meaning to render it as you need it.


"She" cannot be Eve, because then Paul would be saying Eve could be saved if women far in the future would be faithful! Impossible. But what is "the childbearing? Notice that the Greek has it in the form of a noun, not a verbal form. So what does Paul mean? Knowing that Paul makes frequent use of plays on words (like what he said just before addressing "head" coverings), we can say that this expression does two things: to dismiss the pagan fears about safety in physical childbirth, and at the same time refer to a much more important Childbirth.


We know Pual the apostle makes frequent plays on words as is illustrated by the HEad coverigns remarkwhich in and of itself neeed a lengthy explanatin from you to justify why its not abotu Head coverigns at all but symbols of authority, but then you said it was head coverings and about Pagan husbands and suchlike... makign one suspect of the hwoel enteprise you launch here.


Paul says women are otbe save din Childbirth. To me the meanign is plain. WOmen are saved by perofmrign their natural duties as wives and mothers. Exceptison are htose who do not marry, but do other duties.

It snot about any other kind of anything.



So that whole chapter, IMHO, says something like this:


"Timothy, stop false teachings. Tell them to pray from a pure heart, and make sure they know the gospel. Stop that woman who is teaching Gnosticism and tell her to sit down and learn quietly. After all, we know that it was Adam who was formed first, and Eve was fooled because of her lack of experience. Tell the couple that she can still be saved in spite of what she's been doing, but they have to be faithful now."


(I owe much gratitude for some of this understanding to Cheryl Schatz of Women In Ministry, and Dr. Ann Nyland, a classical Greek scholar.)



But, your inteporetation requires that we forgo the plaina nd obvious reading of the text,m loo for possible otside cues Paul nevcer references inthe text, and hen to maanipulate the text into a reading that somehow conforms to what you had alreayd desired it to say.

I fidn that rather a bit dubious.

User avatar
2thePoint
Posts:51
Joined:Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:51 pm
Location:Ohio
Contact:

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by 2thePoint » Tue Feb 19, 2008 12:52 pm

ZAROVE wrote: I'm new here too, but I've heard people (not here) claim that Paul was too egalitarian for their tastes so they made his writings more sexist.

I'm afraid that this is an unfair representaiton fo those that disagree. I have never encountered anyone hwo claimed Paul was too Egalitarian, nor that made his writtings mroe sexist.
Zarove, I simply reported what I have heard. You can't dispute that, because you don't know what I've heard. I was not even trying to refer to whoever you might have encountered. I did not attempt to "represent" anyone.
I think that you are Caracaturising those who think women shoudl not preach or hold ministarial roles as somehow sexist and disliberaltye distortive of scripture, which is not the case.
Your opinion. And yes, there have been deliberate attempts to distort scripture. For example, the USB back in the 1950s turned Junia into Junias in their Greek text without any shred of textual or historical evidence earlier than the middle ages. They gave no references, which is supposed to be required. In the 1990s they changed it back, again without attestation or notes. Although I can't locate the source right now, I read somewhere that the committee in the 1950s decided that they had to make Junia a male because they presumed no woman could be an apostle. That's deliberate distortion of scripture.
Those hwo disagree with you arne't always actign out of Mysogany but conviciton, and shoudl be mroe respected than that.
I have no respect for people who tamper with scripture, regardless of motivation. And if I cannot judge motives of others, then why do you judge mine?
Textual criticism I've seen seems to lean against redaction for the most part. I think the real issue is concerning context and interpretation. Your examples are good ones to highlight this.

Isn't it facinationg thoguh that you would attemot to use the excuse of redaction. Since you can't, you go for interpretation.
You completely misunderstood what I wrote. I am NOT arguing for redaction, but against it! Please read more carefully before mocking me ("isn't it fascinating..."). This is an example of the "straw man" fallacy.
But why shoudl we assume your interpretation is the correct one?
Who is asking you to? When did I claim it was? Are you intolerant of other people's opinions? Can I not disagree with you?
The section about head coverings...

This striles me as a rather strained interpretation designed ot brign us to a desired end. After first critisisng others hwo think women shoudl not stand in the Ministry by sayign they do not liek Pausl Egletarianism and thus mad ehis writing smroe sexist thus villiisign them, you take a text that says oen hting and play with the words ot get it to say somethign else.
You are building up your straw man here.
Nature, of course, was a mroe loose concept for the Ancient languags we deal with, and Oaul was referign to a CUltural nature. Men in the Greco-Roman world cut their hair short, nd women grew it ong. This was a part of their society. Women wearign veils was too. The purpose for women wearign long hair was to show them to be mroe extravegant and beutiful, whilst men had short hair to emphesise their strength and endurance. ( One did not go into battle iwht logn hair, if one as wise.)
Why do you think Paul was referring to "a cultural nature"? On what facts do you base your assertion that "nature was a more loose concept for the ancient languages"? My interpretation is perfectly legitimate and at least as likely as yours. (And what do you do with Absolom's long hair? Was he going against culture?)
...the truth of the matter still remains that Paul the Apostle did make a clear distinction between men and owmen int he verses presented, and obviously intended such a distinction to be udnerstood by his audience , the Corinthians.
"Obviously intended" is a matter of opinion. You cannot cite what you personally feel is "obvious" as a proof. The debate over women and the Bible is over interpretation, and what's obvious is that the two sides of the debate each have what they consider solid scripture behind them. If this issue were obvious there would be no debate at all.
...If the wives were free as believers to uncover their heads, but their pagan husbands considered it a sign of loose morals, such a woman would not be advised to use her freedom and bring needless strife in the marriage. ...

Except, he did make it Manditory for thr COrinthian women. His admonishment was that other cultures may not share this custom, and htus shoudl not be so compelled, but under the culture they lvied in, it was mandated, and not becaiuse it woudl bring contention betwen a Pagan Husband and Christian wife. You are simply reading the text in a fashion that helps you to create a case for your desires, I'm afraid.
No, he did not make it mandatory for any women, even the Corinthians. He left it up to them ("we have no such custom"). Paul was very counter-cultural to Judaism and never used it as an excuse to put gentile Christians under it. This is very similar to the issue of eating meat offered to idols. He personally believed there was no harm in it, but advised those with "weak faith" to abstain. In the same way, he advises Christian wives of pagan husbands to decide whether such a practice would cause undue strife.

You say, "You are simply reading the text in a fashion that helps you to create a case for your desires, I'm afraid.", but I can say that same thing to you. Again, you are judging my motives. Don't.
As for keeping their mouths shut, there are two equally plausible views..

But these views are not supported by the text. Pul could eaisly have said " Let not the uneducated women teach" not "The omen". Or "Let not the women who teach falsehood teach". In fat, he did tell men not to teach if they had not learned, so why woudl he spacificlaly say women shoudl keep silent and ask at home their husbands shoudl they have any questions?
Because he's addressing "a woman". Why did he not say "any woman" or "all women" if that's what he meant? Paul could "easily have said" that, but he didn't.

I was referring to the first passage, about head coverings, regarding "a woman". 1 Cor. 14 is what you are bringing up here, and I did not talk about that. But now I will.

Paul has been in the habit of quoting questions from the Corinthians; that is the purpose of his letter, to answer their questions. But quotes have to be determined from context, since there are no quote marks in Greek. In many cases they are followed by what is translated "Or" or "What!", and we see that twice in vs. 36. So we look back to see what Paul is quoting, and it appears to start with vs. 34. We have further evidence that the words of vs. 34-35 are not Paul's but the Corinthians' because they refer to a "law" that does not exist in the Bible. No OT law ever forbids women to speak in the assembly; this rule is from the Talmud, not God. And this is the same Paul who wrote Galatians, who argued passionately against legalism, against going back to the Law. Do you really think he'd invoke that same old law now? Why would Paul go so completely backwards from all his other writings here? What's "obvious" to me is that Paul is consistent and would never do such a thing. So there are good reasons to understand that this is not his command, but is from the Jews.
Remember that Paul wrote specifically to Timothy in Ephesus, who had been sent there for a purpose: to stop false teachers and endless discussions of genealogies. In 1:6 he says "they want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about". Now in ch. 2 we come to the part about "a woman", so with that context in mind let's look at the "silence" issue.

But, the silence issue wa snot under sthe same auspices.
Huh?
In 1 Tim. 2:11 he tells "a woman" to learn-- a very radical concept at the time.

Not really. Women did learn many thing sin their lives, and it was common to think of them as learning.
This does not fit with your prior comment about silence.
But she must do so "quietly" (not in absolute silence), like any good student. Women had been forbidden to sit at a teacher's feet and did not know proper behavior, so they had to be told this.

I think you are still strainig the text to form it to yur conclusion.
The Greek word does not mean "absolute silence", you can check it for yourself. Still judging my motives, are you?
It's also possible that these women had formerly been synagogue leaders (something little known, but there is evidence for it), and had presumed that this gave them the right to teach in the church, but Paul is saying "no, you have to start over and learn new teachings first". From what I've read, the word Paul uses for "quietness" never means absolute silence.

But, not only is there no real evidence for women as Synagouge leaders, your enture argument about them learign firts before teachign has absolutley no suppot int he text. Paul coudl have said "For the Women, let them furts learn, then teach". He instead issued a blanket statement abotu women not teaching in general, or Userpign the authority of the man. He then references Adam beign fomed firts, then Eve.
Yes, the text does support it. Who is told to learn but forbidden to teach when they have learned sufficiently? All rabbinical students were expected to be rabbis themselves some day; that was the purpose of their learning. So for Paul to say women can learn was much more significant then that it is for us now. Again, what "Paul could have said" is "never let any women ever teach", but he did not. As for Adam being made first, I already discussed that. The Genesis account says nothing at all about authority until after the Fall; there is nothing in that text to connect authority with chronology, or we'd have to say that the last is the greatest since man was made last. Or look at Isaac and Ishmael, or Jacob and Esau; the younger was chosen over the older.
Its pretty clea that htis was meant as a general rule...
Only if that's what you insist upon seeing. "It's pretty clear" that there would be no debate if the text clearly says what you want it to say.
Yoru statements come accross as contrivances meant to meet an end. Fanciful footwork enables you to rewrite Paul, and accuse others of it when they cling to a plain reading.
I can say that as easily for your views. And about that so-called "plain reading"...

Does a "plain reading" tell you there was authority between Adam and Eve before the Fall? Where is it in that passage? What about a "plain reading" of Jesus' statement about gouging out your eye if it causes you to sin? You see, your "plain reading" is something you only use when it suits you.
Verse 12 is where we see an unusual phrase never used elsewhere in the NT, and rarely in classical literature: authenteo tinos. ...
So now we engage in Semantic debates.
And you don't?
The fact that a word is used but once int he New Testament is nto the same thign as it beign controversial. Nor does htis render much support for your conclusion, other than to attmeo to confuse th issue woth wordplay.
It's only controversial because people who want it to mean "authority over" just assert their preferred meaning. If word studies confuse you, then don't criticize those of us who see great value in them. We are not content with a sporadic "plain reading" but wish to be like the Bereans and study.
The nearest guess at the meaning is that of "murderer, one who takes unlawful control", and that it possibly includes sexual overtones. This likely refers to the pagan (Gnostic, I'm pretty sure) practice of women priestesses giving spiritual revelation to men via intercourse in pagan temples.

This is based upon nothign but a flight of the imaginaiton, and is extracted form sheer speculation and fanciful imaginaiton.
No, it's based upon historical and linguistic research.

I'm really not interested in conversations with people who judge my motives, brush off research and ignore experts' work, and keep basically calling me a liar. I'm sorry, Zarove, but you have to get over this ridiculous personal vendetta and start dealing with more than your already made-up assertions if you want anyone to take you seriously.

I leave for reference a document I prepared that covers all the pertinent points:
Christian Egalitarianism

And a more scholarly but concise article:
Women in the Heart of God
Those who know all the answers haven't heard all the questions.
Image

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by Metacrock » Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:12 pm

hey Zor, look man I have great respect for your intellect. But in this case I think you are not as convergent with the material as you should be. As to the word authentain there is a lot of evidence that it does carry connotations of either murer, or sexual manipulation. They translated it "usurp" for a reason. Now there are some studies that show that the word lost those connotations or gained them latter, after the time of St. Paul.

but the fact is you need to be convergent with the passages. Those who study these women's issues study the same passages over and over for years. So they know the material pretty well.

here read my pages. I have a whole section on this on Doxa.


http://www.doxa.ws/social/Women/women_index.html


most of the alleged Pauline verses commanding women to be silent or what not are wrongly translated.

I forgot you are discussing that specialized view of 1 tim 2:12. Well I have promised to re consider it, so I wont argue or comment here, except to say it is not the only egal view. check out my view in "not permitted to teach?" on my pages. link above.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

tiro3
Posts:26
Joined:Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by tiro3 » Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:48 pm

In 1 Tim. 2:11 he tells "a woman" to learn-- a very radical concept at the time.

Zarov replies: “Not really. Women did learn many thing sin their lives, and it was common to think of them as learning.”
I think we can make a good case that this is not true in Luke 10:38-42
38 Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’[k] feet and heard His word. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.”
41 And Jesus[l] answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. 42 But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.”


First, Martha would not have been worried and troubled about Mary sitting at the feet of the Lord as a student does, if it were normal accepted behavior for women. Second, Christ would not have said that it wouldn’t be taken away from her, if it were not a possibility that the cultural dictations of the time wouldn’t do just that. Right there Christ protected the right of women to learn Scriptural truths. The question is who “got it”. We know Mary did.

ZAROVE
Posts:412
Joined:Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:43 pm

I said they learned, I didn't sya they sat at the feet of teachers. Martha learned gwo to serve, for example.

As tot he rest, the Scriptures are too plain, and where Universlaly understood by the Ealry CHurch, I cnanot go agaisn thtis.

More later.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by Metacrock » Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:38 am

ZAROVE wrote:I said they learned, I didn't sya they sat at the feet of teachers. Martha learned gwo to serve, for example.

As tot he rest, the Scriptures are too plain, and where Universlaly understood by the Ealry CHurch, I cnanot go agaisn thtis.

More later.

thats' not true Zor. they did not universally understood it that way. they women bishops and priests up to the fifth century. They weren't common place but they did exist. Eusebius takes it as a mark of God's presence in the community that the orthodox as well as the montantists had prophetesses. there is no need to tell anyone to let women learn when all they can learn is house work. obviously that meant doctrine. the whole context in 1 Tim is about understanding the genesis creation story.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

ZAROVE
Posts:412
Joined:Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:16 am

thats' not true Zor. they did not universally understood it that way.

I'm afraid that, with all my reading of the Fathers, and all my readign of the Counsils, this was the concensus.

Only offshoot branches liek the Montanists had anythign other tos ay, and they often got theirs form the "New revelations".

It seems that the Christian Community as a whole udnerstood the verses spacificlaly to mean owhat is beign said here by me they mean.


they women bishops and priests up to the fifth century.

I have seen no compelling evidence for those Women PRietss and Bishops. I have hear dmuch of them, and seen the evidence from such varied places that advance this idea, btu I have not seen objective evidence.

Even if so, though, they also had Arius.




They weren't common place but they did exist.


So did Montanus.

I have yet ot see where, in the mainstream Christian community, this occured. Only in various Heretical groups did anythign close to this emerge.



Eusebius takes it as a mark of God's presence in the community that the orthodox as well as the montantists had prophetesses.

But a Prophet is not a Presbyter, or Bishop.

THat is most assuredly a convolution of the terms, and you cannot use the existance of Prophetess's to assert women Presbyters.

Even St. Paul noted women as Prophets. This is however a different role than we are describing.


there is no need to tell anyone to let women learn when all they can learn is house work.

I didn't say all they can learn is housework. I said women learned much in their lives, but not in the sence f themselves beign seen as masters in the ocmmunity.


obviously that meant doctrine. the whole context in 1 Tim is about understanding the genesis creation story.


But, at the same time, the wo,men are told, in three seperat elocaitons in Pausl letters, to not userp the authority of the men, and ot learn in silence. I do nto think this means htey cnanot speak at all once they enter the CHurch, or must sit in abject silence int he Audetorium while beign taught. I do, however, think that they should not lead the services, preach, or teach classes, and beleive this base dupon the fact that I am bound to Scripture. The Scriptures are very plain in this, and it is how the ancient Churhc understood it.

The women Presbyters and Bishops you speamk of I have not seen evidence for, except perhaps amongst those who taught Heresy.

Nor do I find it compellign to say that, since women where int he role of Prophet, this means they where Presbyters.

That claim makes no real sence.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts:1410
Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Sun Apr 06, 2008 2:26 am

The only reason I have not answered this to date, is that when someone is as convinced as you are, Zarove, of your position, it seems like simply arguing the opposite position is -- simply arguing. And the Bible exhorts to avoid "vain disputes."

But today I found what I was looking for-- not just a different interpretation of the same scriptures (with no reason to give as to why my interpretation is more accurate), not just an argument-- but a testimony. The testimony of a man who sincerely loves God, a man who even considers himself a Fundamentalist-- but who became convinced that the male-authority position had to be wrong, for compelling reasons both from Scripture and in his own life as to why such an interpretation made no sense.

I offer it HERE. I hope and pray that you will read it, Zarove, with an open heart and mind.
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts:412
Joined:Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:25 am

I'mafraid that I must ask you to maintain a higher standardthan is preasent above, Wordgazer.

I do dislike the implicaiton that somehow I amnot beign open midnedand open hearted because of the posiiton I take,one you, and Metacrock, and 2thepoint seem to be at odds with me over. Yet, can't I say the same of you,and they, that you three aren't beign Open minded? Can I not present testemonies of my own that would argue for the Reverse?

Just the other day, I read about how WOmen Priest(esses) have ended up harmign the Anglican COmmunion, and that they ar eineffectual in Ministry, and this article ende din a plea for Anglcians to reconsider women in the Ordaiend Minstry.

I have also seen others fromt he same group you have presented a link to, the Baptist, who switched sidesand have their own Horror stories associated with women, and of coruse their own Biblical passagesand queasitons in permittignthem.


No, I'm afraid its less about someone liek me beign so convinced that I won't hear reason, but I do think the reverse may be true of you if you think that, if only you could causeme to see the light,I'd drop thiswrong and erroneous conclusion,and come into the truth that women shudl be preachers.

Really now, is that fair on me?

As to what you presented, it actulaly is just argument and reinterpretation,disguisedasa Testemony. He not only brign sup the queasitosn his wife had, but ends offgping into a tangent about how wrong it is to exclude women, and how right his new path is, and ofering his wn justifications for this position.

He even demonises the others who disagree,lablign them "Heirarichalists" and insistign they are osmehow more legalistic and dogmatic.

I am from the Churches of Christ, which has no Heirarchy, so hwo does that really apply to me?

We don't allow women to preach but have no pastors.

As tot he rest, it isn't really that onvincing since essentually he confessed to his wife being the central reaosn for his change of mind. Can't it be that his emotion clouded his judgement?

Or woudl you prefer I go hrough the enture testemony and reveal what I find innacurate, poor logic, or condecendign fluff?

I would, for example, offer answers for Pat's queastiosn for Pastor Chuck. I'd not need to sound condecending or rude, well no more so than Usual given thats hwo Americans seem to see what I say anyway, to address them.

Like the comment abotu Deborah. Did they not realise she was a Judge,not a preacher?

As to my poiiton, it stands. You are fre to sy, or at leats think, that this means I did not read the testemony with an open heart and mind, but I woudl ask you to consider that perhaps beign open minded is not the same thing as agreeing wiht the position you hold to.

I haven't called you, or Metacrock, or 2thepoint closed midned for your own positiosn no matter how feircely you hold them, and reserve that only for htose who will not listen to other views. Why must I be made sunject to that sort of thing in regards to this?

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts:1410
Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:15 am

I sincerely apologize, Zarove.

I really did not think that when I asked you to read a certain article with an open heart and mind, you would interpret that as an implication that I thought you were close-minded. If you will read what I said again, you will see that I never said you were closed-minded, but that I merely asked you to consider another viewpoint, that I knew you disagreed with, with an open heart and mind.

As I re-read my words, considering how I might feel if they were directed to me by someone else, I can see how that implication could be taken. It was unintentional, I assure you. Please forgive me.

For the rest-- your arguments would be more effective if you posted links to the articles you mention. What do you mean, "horror stories about women"? Do you realize how that sounds? There are, as you know, many "horror stories" about priests-- but to my knowledge no one has ever claimed that the problem was just because they were men!

Without reading the article, I have no way of knowing that it is not simply villifying all women ministers based on the actions of a few. Or that their being "ineffectual in ministry" might not have something to do with men who don't want to by ministered to by a woman.
Wag more.
Bark less.

Post Reply