Home Discussion Forums General Patrick Mead vs the Church of Christ

This topic contains 88 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Thomas Dohling Thomas Dohling 1 year, 10 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #2878
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    Again we see infighting amongst the Churches of Christ but it’s not just the Churches of Christ where this is occurring, it’s all churches. It’s the same thing that’s been going on for the past 2,000 years and that’s why there are over 35,000 christian denominations today. Everyone agrees that infighting and division is bad so why does it still exist and is there a solution?

    Yes, there is a solution but I’ll get to that in a moment.

    Let’s look at some verses that are at the core of the current division: 1 Timothy chapter 2. In the Fourth Avenue Church of Christ’s, “Document on Women in Worship and Ministry” that was posted by Patrick Mead on his most recent blog post, “When Fish Form Committees”, Patrick and his more liberal supporters have crafted an argument that dismisses part of the bible as having no authority over modern day Christians.

    The document claims that “most churches” agree that Paul’s instructions for men to pray with holy hands and for women to not have elaborate hairstyles or jewelry is only directed towards the people that he was writing to. Therefore, Christians must also consider the other instructions (or commands) that Paul has laid out in the same chapter, namely those about women remaining silent, to be only applicable to the people he was writing to and no one else.

    The real question is: how do you know that any of these instructions were only applicable to those that he was writing to and how could you know if they were universal? You can’t. The text is too vague. The words of Paul are considered scripture and therefore also the word of God yet he uses words like, “I want” and “I do not allow”. A reasonable person could conclude that he’s only speaking for himself in this instance and therefore, in this case at least, this isn’t the word of God.

    But then he claims that his justification for his command for women not to usurp authority over men and instead to remain silent is based on God’s established order of the sexes from Genesis, that Adam was created first and that Eve was deceived first. In this sense then it seems that Paul is making a universal command and should therefore be considered the word of God.

    Then you have to ask the question: what is the context of these verses? Is this concerning a “church assembly” or just in general? There’s no mention of this applying to a church assembly so we would have to assume that he’s speaking in general. In that case, women must never hold positions of authority over men in any situation.

    Why is the text so vague? Why does it bring up seemingly odd and confusing verses like verse 15, “But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” Women will be preserved through child birth? Preserved? Is that the same thing as being saved? Does that mean that women must give birth to children to be saved? Why would is say that? How does that even make sense?

    How could anyone expect reasonable people to come to a unified conclusion about any of this? And that’s where the solution comes in. The solution is to blame the text. Why are people fighting with each other when the blame lies with the text itself? But everyone is afraid to admit it because they know that to admit that this chapter is a confusing mess is to admit that they don’t really believe in the bible as being the word of God. If the bible was written by ordinary men without the inspiration of a higher power this is exactly how we would expect it to look: confusing, contradictory, and oftentimes nonsensical.

    And this is just one small example.

    Just look at all of the confusion and infighting about what a person needs to do to be saved, inarguably the most important thing a person must do according to the Christian faith. Yet the bible is incredibly contradictory, confusing, and misleading about this subject. Here’s one example:

    Romans 10:9, “… if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

    Let’s try some logic… a=confess b=believe c=salvation
    According to this verse, a+b=c

    Acts 2:37-38, “Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

    d=repent e=baptized c=salvation
    According to this verse, d+e=c

    Two completely different formulas for achieving the same thing. That’s called a contradiction. And, contradictions make things incredibly confusing if you’re not aware. If the formula for salvation is claimed to be something different than what it is in another verse then a contradiction exists.

    I haven’t even gotten into all of the horrible, horrible things concerning the support of slavery, rape, and murder that are found throughout the bible. By the way, if you ask Patrick Mead about any of that he just dismisses it all by claiming that none of those “bad” verses are the word of God. When he’s asked to explain how we can determine which verses are the word of God and which aren’t, he ignores the question.

    If you haven’t figured out where I’m going with this let me be very clear: blame the bible and stop blaming each other. 1 Cor 14:33 reads, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace…”. 35,000+ Christian denominations proves that verse to be a lie. If God is the author of the bible through inspiration then he is most certainly the author of confusion.

    Please, for the sake of your own sanity and for peace amongst yourselves, stop believing in this nonsense and accept the reality that the bible is not the word of a higher power. I did.

    • This topic was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Profile photo of jay9920 jay9920. Reason: grammar
  • #2880
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    BOOYAH! Finally, the most intellectually honest discussion of this topic that I’ve heard! Not saying I agree with the conclusion, but this nails the issue in the Timothy passage. Meade also says he believes Jesus more than Paul, but all we know about Jesus (presumably from the Gospels) came from folks writing more than a decade after Paul. Maybe Jesus came and told Meade something in person, I don’t know. Who am I to judge?

    Let’s not play pretend.

  • #2881

    robert_buna
    Participant

    There are many issues at stake here:
    1. Is this a sin? If so, whose? Is it the poor lady that has shaken the CoC world just by trying to give a message of faith? Patrick’s and elders’ for allowing and encouraging this? Or maybe it’s the audience’s that didn’t stand up and leave when she started to speak? Let the ones without sin make the call… Do we really believe that Jesus will forbid salvation to any of them for what they did?
    2. Variety. Jesus compared the kingdom with a mustard seed that grows into a tree. Let me remind you that a tree only grows when it branches out in all directions. Some of the branches may bare many fruits, while other may need pruning, some may host cuckoo nests – this IS the kingdom. CoC is only a branch with its own “nests”.
    3. What principles are to be used to tell whether a verse still applies today. Since I hold the paradigm of the NT being written in that 40 years transition period of “already-but-not-yet”, that the NT is nothing but the fulfillment of the old, that we are now living in the endless Christian age when one can only be in Christ or out of Christ, I believe that many of those instructions were for a church under development, imature, where things had to be kept in somewhat strict order. Let’s take 1 Timothy 2: Paul takes Adam and Eve to make his point. But Adam never was the ultimate goal. Christ is. Once we reached the spiritual measure of the fullness of Christ there is no more women or man, slave or master, gentile or jew. Christ is all in all (even in the lady preaching at Fourth Avenue)
    4. Patrick’s a last blog Although I agree with Patrick’s end point, I think his reasoning is unconvincing mostly because he and I are holding different doctrinal grounds (as I briefly explained above). I would only mention that the starting quote from Matthew refers to the end of Jewish age in which Jesus and His listeners were still living and that today I am no longer a fish but a new creation.
    5. Is the Bible still authoritative? Like even Patrick said, the Bible was not written TO US but FOR US; to convince us of sin, to convince us of Jesus’s power, authority, love, grace, hope etc. Moreover, what the NT describes as about to be, today is. If we simply want to replace a list of rules (OT) with another (NT) then we might have missed the point of “God being with us”- Emanuel.
    Merry Christmas.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  robert_buna.
  • #2883
    Profile photo of Matt Dabbs
    Matt Dabbs
    Keymaster

    1 Timothy 2 doesn’t have to be chalked up to culture in order to explain it or apply it today. 1 Timothy 2 tells women to be “silent”. That same word is used throughout the NT to mean anything from complete silence to not being boistorous.

    Did you know that same word is used earlier in the chapter in 2:2?
    “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” Here is it translated peaceful. Is Paul saying Christians are to be completely silent in the world? No. Does that have any bearing on how he uses the word 10 verses later? I very well might. By the way, no one is saying women are to be completely silent…they can sing, right? So where is the line?

    Paul draws the line in 2:12-15,

    “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

    Here he says women are not to teach or have “authority” over a man. What does that mean? First, lets look at the word “to have authority.” First the verb is present active indicative…that means Paul very well can be saying “I am not permitting women to…” which would not be an eternal prohibition but would be in this situation (I will get to the potential situation in a moment). The word “authority” is not the word that is used 90 times in the NT for authority. This word is only used here in the entire NT (that is called a hapax legomenon). It is used roughly 6 times in the church fathers, once even for husbands to not do that to their wives (Chrysostum said that). The words means to dominate or domineer authority over another. It is an abusive word that no Christian should do to another whether male or female. So you have to know what that word actually means. KJV got this one right.

    Then there is the situation. What is going on in Ephesus that we can see in 1 Timothy that the women are teaching and what does that have to do with childbearing?

    Guess what? Paul talks about women bearing children another time in 1 Timothy over in chapter 5:11-15. In that instance he is saying that the younger widows ought to marry and bear children because they have gotten idle and have gotten in the habit of foolish talk (in the context of 1 Timothy, probably passing on what the false teachers are saying). Paul is saying it would be better for them to have kids and raise a family so that they don’t get caught up on teaching these sorts of things…so, 1 Tim 2:12, Paul is not permitting women to teach at this time…I believe that is what Paul is saying in part because there are other times women taught a men that Paul was aware of (Priscilla and Apollos) that Paul never condemned. So Paul obviously believed there were times a woman could teach a man…so why is he saying this here? I believe the context of the whole book of 1 Timothy informs bot the word “silence” and why he condemns them teaching and the reason he gives on 1 Tim 2 & 5 tying their need to not teach to childbearing, etc as I have already explained. That fits with pointing back to the deception of Eve paralleled with the deception of these young widows as described in 1 Tim 5:11f.

    Maybe that ties up some loose ends for you to see that context actually helps inform this discussion.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Profile photo of Matt Dabbs Matt Dabbs.
  • #2885
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    I didn’t realize Priscilla taught Apollos. Wasn’t her husband there? I guess we just assume SHE did the teaching.

    Check out Dr. Daniel B. Wallace’s views. He wrote my advanced Greek grammar book, so I assume he knows some Greek words too. He believes the prohibition in 1 Tim. 2:12 is best understood by its plain meaning and is still authoritative today.

  • #2886
    Profile photo of Matt Dabbs
    Matt Dabbs
    Keymaster

    Acts 18:26 – “When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.”

    Explained is a plural verb. They explained.
    Do you have a citation on Wallace. He is a very well respected scholar

  • #2887
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    Dr. Wallace reference:
    https://bible.org/article/did-priscilla-teach-apollos-examination-meaning-acts-1826

    A husband and wife together “taking someone aside to explain the way of God more accurately” is not the same as a woman teaching or having authority in a public assembly where men are present.

    There are many denominational scholars who do not agree with the current trend of the feminist movement and influence on the church. Of note is that the current Baptist confession of faith speaks against the ordination of women.

  • #2888
    Profile photo of Matt Dabbs
    Matt Dabbs
    Keymaster

    I will have a look at the link. And yet in 1 Tim you are making a distinction that is not made in the text. Based on what I assume your view to be Paul would say women shouldn’t teach men. Then you say except if they do it privately. Help me get that from what Paul said. You are making distinctions that aren’t made in tbe text when you rationalize what Priscilla did. By the way, church met in homes. So Priscilla doing that in a home is the same setting in which the church met.

  • #2889
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    I believe the text means whatever Paul originally intended to communicate to Timothy about this matter. (Incidentally, many non-evangelical scholars believe the book to be written after Paul’s death, perhaps by his community, but nonetheless reflects the teaching and order of the early churches.)

    Paul’s flow in Tim. 2 goes from instructions about men, women, elders, and deacons. Then says in 3:14-15 “… I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God…”

    Sound to me like he’s talking about how men and women should “behave” or observe their roles within the church. The church is the people, whether assembling at home or in a public building.

    In Acts, you keep leaving out Aquila.

    “taking someone aside” = privately

    Priscilla and Aquila “taking Apollos aside” (Acts) for teaching together is a far stretch from Priscilla “teaching or having authority over a man” (Timothy) in the assembly of a church.

  • #2890
    Profile photo of Matt Dabbs
    Matt Dabbs
    Keymaster

    I am not leaving Aquila out. I said in Acts 18 explained is plural. Did you read my above explanation of the teachings going on in Ephesus by the young widows and what the word for authority means in 1 Tim 2?

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Profile photo of Matt Dabbs Matt Dabbs.
  • #2892
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    Just read 1 Timothy again. Whole book.

    I read your earlier explanation. Disagree. It’s not consistent with the plain, natural meaning of the text in context.

    1 Tim. 5:11- says younger widows should not be enrolled because of “their passions”, not giving the devil a foothold.

    Not sure what this has to do with the general instruction to women in 2:12-. Paul makes no connection with the widows there. Surely you don’t think he was only talking to younger women?

    The reference to childbearing is somehow related to the O.T. reference to Adam and Eve. Go read the story in Genesis. Childbearing is discussed.

  • #2893
    Profile photo of Matt Dabbs
    Matt Dabbs
    Keymaster

    Paul says in 5 that it is the younger widows who are being deceived and passing along foolish talk.

  • #2894
    Profile photo of Matt Dabbs
    Matt Dabbs
    Keymaster

    I really appreciate you taking the time to read all of 1 Timothy. That really helps. Appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

  • #2895
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    So you think Timothy thought Paul was only talking in 2:12- about the young women? I don’t see that.

    In ch. 5, the young widows are susceptible to “passions”, then only secondarily may have issues with gossip etc. Not enough to overthrow the force of ch. 2 to all women.

    In the end, I believe Paul wanted Timothy to teach the women that they should not teach or exert authority over a man in the church. I believe Timothy would have understood it that way. No scripture gymnastics necessary to explain it away just because a modern culture, in the most wealthy and worldly nation on Earth, may find it offensive or archaic.

  • #2897
    Profile photo of Matt Dabbs
    Matt Dabbs
    Keymaster

    It really isn’t necessary for you to assume or assign motive to me on my approach or conclusions. I am completely respectful of you and yours and I would appreciate you returning the favor.

  • #2898
    Profile photo of Matt Dabbs
    Matt Dabbs
    Keymaster

    It is these sorts of things that make these conversations fall apart. We start judging each other’s motives and intentions rather than working in the scriptures. What I am about to say is said in completely love and respect. You really don’t know me or how long I have studied these things. You don’t know my upbringing or background you don’t know my attitude toward the church or my relationship with the Lord. Accusing me of scriptural gymnastics and being in bed with the culture if the word really distracts from the great conversation we have been having. So let’s take a deep breath, a step back and go back to exegesis done in kindness and respect owing each other only the debt of love. God bless you as you continue to study these issues and come to your conclusions and live in accordance with that.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Profile photo of Matt Dabbs Matt Dabbs.
    • #3887
      Profile photo of Thomas Dohling
      Thomas Dohling
      Participant

      I was surprised by a disconnected discussion casting aspersions on the God of the Bible which started in December 2014 and abruptly ceased [terminated?] in January 2015. Couldn’t understand why it was allowed to drag on since it was so irrelevant to the posted topic.

  • #2900
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    No offense or accusations intended. I know nothing about you or what country you are from. I do know that many in the modern US culture find it offensive to think of women having different roles than men in the church or home. This has a strong influence on the desire to explain away troublesome texts. This may not be you, I don’t know.

    I don’t know if you have to do scriptural gymnastics or not. My comment was simply to imply that I was having to do that in order to follow your thought. I simply take Paul at his word: men should pray together without disputing (raising “holy” hands as a symbol of that unity would be appropriate), women should dress modestly, without flashy dress (gold jewelry, elaborate hairstyles, and the like) in the church, and women shouldn’t be teaching men in the church. Etc.

    If a woman and her husband teach a man together in a private setting, there is no contradiction, and is biblically approved in Acts. A private setting is not the assembly. A place of business is not the assembly where Timothy would have the authority to instruct the women in this regard. A school or university is not the assembly. Etc.

    I make no claim as to WHY Paul writes these things, only that he did. There should be little drama when discussing what the text actually says.

    Incidentally, Dr. Everett Ferguson (ACU) has valuable research that uncovers clues to the early church practice, many 2nd century sources. Though not recognized as authoritative or inspired, it’s a good check on whether one is correctly interpreting the early Christian understandings of the text. I.e., their culture is closer to that of the 1st century Greco-Roman world than 21st century America.

  • #2901
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    The bible is such a confusing mess that you can’t just read it and understand it you have to, according to Matt, have read works from the church fathers that were written hundreds of years after the New Testament so that you can accurately interpret the meaning of a verse that uses a hapax legomenon. What percentage of people 500 years ago knew what a hapax legomenon is and also knew that the word translated “authority” here was used in the writings of the early church fathers six times and had a different meaning from the 90 other times in the NT that another word translated “authority” was used? What percentage today do you think are aware of this? I would guess an extremely small percentage. I find it odd though that every major translation that I have looked at translates it simply as “authority” without the “dominate” or “domineer” part. Maybe they’re not aware of the hapax legomenon/church fathers translation as well?

    But for most people they’re going to read it as women should not usurp authority over a man and they’re going to use that to restrict women from having a position of authority over a man and that means they will fight to prevent women from preaching at church. This will cause division between them and the people who understand the ‘hapax legomenon/church fathers’ translation and those who like Galations 3:28, “…there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” And that’s why there are 35,000+ denominations!

    That’s just one division that I’ve picked up from the conversation above that could easily split a church where reasonable people could be on either side of the division. There are many more, just in this one conversation about this one chapter in the bible.

    Then when you factor in the consequences of being wrong about the bible which is eternal torment in hell, you can really start to see why people’s nerves are frayed over divisions in the interpretation of the bible. People remember the story of Uzzah and how tyrannical God was in dealing with Uzzah when he simply touched the ark to prevent it from falling to the ground and was killed for it and is probably going to hell as well. That’s got to always be in the back of their minds, wondering that if they get it wrong even though they’re trying to do the right thing, that God is just going to send them to hell for it.

    Imagine the thought process of poor Uzzah. He knows that he’s not supposed to touch the ark and that he’ll die if he does but then it starts to fall and he must have thought: “If I touch the ark I’ll die but if I let it crash to the ground I will probably die as well!” God could’ve easily justified killing him for letting the ark touch the ground and be destroyed in the process. This is the same God who justified the killing of babies, innocent women, and the rape of young virgin girls (Numbers 31:17-18, “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.”

    So yeah, he could’ve easily justified killing Uzzah no matter what choice Uzzah made. This has to be in the back of the mind of every Christian – knowing the nature of their god.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Profile photo of jay9920 jay9920.
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Profile photo of jay9920 jay9920.
  • #2904
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    The Bible is a lot more “understandable” if you take it for what it says. Try to hear it the way the original audience would have heard it. One finds that this God is not quite as user-friendly as the god we may have wanted to find. He does not reveal himself as a tame god. Unsearchable are his ways.

    By the way, Gal. 3:28 taken in context (plain reading) is most likely referring to the issue of circumcision, rather than Paul trying to make a statement about women’s roles.

  • #2910
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    “Unsearchable are his ways”? Is that how you dismiss the atrocities that his own bible claims he committed?

  • #2911
    Profile photo of Rudy Schellekens
    Rudy Schellekens
    Participant

    One of the most enlightening personal studies I have undertaken in the past two years was in answer to a challenge by elders, “Help us understand the biblical model of preachers…”
    Was I ever surprised by the outcome! It has changed my opinion entirely about the idea of “Preachers as we know them in the 21st century.”
    And this, of course, will also have an impact on the issue discussed in this thread.
    First of all, the words used for preaching in the NT both apply to proclaiming the (good) news to outsiders Nowhere do we see the terms “preaching,” “preach” used in congregational context. So, when Priscilla and her husband taught together, 1 Tim and 1 Cor were not penned. Nor, by the way, was Paul’s letter to the Romans, with the extensive list of women referred to as co workers, fellow soldiers etc.
    There is no NT example of any preaching done to believers. The role of the modern “preacher” in all it’s forms is not sustainable from the NT – it’s really that simple.
    Within our own history we have developed a professional clergy – something we have always decried as un-biblical. Can’t use the word “reverend!” Can’t refer to a man as “Father.”
    But “Lead minister,” “Senior minister,” Management minister,’ “Youth-minister,” “Outreach minister,” “Children’s Minister?” Without any biblical support for any of these ‘professions!”
    Neither 1 Cor nor 1 Tim refer to ‘preaching.’ Preaching, in the pages of the New Testament, refers to outreach to non believers – evangelism. That is, always has been, will be, a responsibility for all members! And obviously, what counts as “rules” for the church has no impact on outsiders.
    when reading about what happens when believers come together, there is a whole different set of words used – and very specifically, not the “evangelism” and “proclamation” words!
    There was no “preacher” for the congregation. There was “edification,” “teaching,” and “encouragement.” Those are “assembly” words. And within the context of those “assembly words” we then find the 1 Cor and 1 Tim passages placed.
    Like Dr. Mead, I too, have re-read the Bible and have reached some conclusions other than what I have been taught – and have actively practiced and taught for about 20 years (in missions). I even went through 24 months of solid, in-depth Biblical training, and was taught by men for who I have enormous respect as fellow believers, teachers and scholars. I was fortunate to learn from some amazing men, whose lives were dedicated to educating, preaching, learning… and yet, here I am, 36 years later, and have drawn different conclusions.
    I have a lot of respect for the examples I see in the lives of Christian women. But, unlike the Abilene professor who defends a changing of biblical passages re. the role of women in local congregations, I believe that women can do amazing things for God – within their limitations as seen in 1 Cor and 1 Tim.
    Those limitations do not place them as “second class” citizens of God’s Kingdom! for example, I have two amazing sons. But neither one of them can be an elder. One has just 3 months ago become a parent, the other has an 8 and 10 year old. Are they therefore to be considered 2nd class citizens? surely not! I cannot be an elder, for the very simple reason: I do not desire that role. Am I now a 2nd class citizen? If so, I don’t feel that way!
    and yet, according to the new explanation of the 2 passages related to the subject, I should!
    How many women do YOU know of who follow the statements of Paul a few chapters later – about teaching the younger women…? How many women do you know who evangelize by themselves or with their husband, for that matter? How many women do you know who use their talents as speakers to work with groups of women?
    Mead and others read quite a few things into the passages listed – and do a bad job with context. THE ‘Praying, lifting up holy hands…” The adornment of women – awkward conclusions are shared! “People will look at you and wonder what has gotten into these men, lifting up their hands…” “that means women cannot wear jewelry…” really? Is that the best you can do with these texts?
    What about: if the command is to “lift hands…” we should practice that! Whether or not people look at me as if… But what about the idea that the quality of the hands (holy – not defiled) is the weightier matter? and what of the woman is known for her exemplary lifestyle, does it matter if she wears jewelry or not?
    For the majority of the readers, those are far more plausible approaches to the text than the forced outcomes advocated by Dr. Mead.
    And choosing Jesus over Paul – does it really come down to such a low view of Scripture/ That what Paul says is of less value then what Jesus has said?

  • #2919
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    From what I can tell from the Old Testament, God really doesn’t like it when people worship other gods/idols. So much so that worshipping an idol is worse than dying. That concept seems to bother a lot of people in today’s emotionally fragile society. If one thinks that God has commited an “atrocity” then take it up with him. God doesn’t need me to defend him.

  • #2920
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    As far as Mead goes, he’s acting like the little brother who pokes and prods his big brother to get a response. Then when the big brother punches him, the little brother goes whining to mom with fabricated tears to get sympathy and get the big brother in trouble.

    With my kids, the big brother gets a light reprimand about hitting his brother, but the little brother gets the harder spanking for being an instigator of strife and discord in the family.

    There’s no way Mead didn’t know what the response would be. And all the “I’m a victim” posts by him are juvenile.

  • #2921
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    If God is described as being perfectly loving, merciful, and just in the bible and he acts in a way that is just the opposite of these attributes then those verses are untrue. If those verses are untrue then the bible isn’t the word of a higher power and the god of the bible does not exist. For this reason a rational person would need to reconcile these verses in order to continue believing. You don’t seem interested in that.

    God commanded the killing of babies, innocent women, and the rape of young virgin girls (Numbers 31:17-18, “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.”

    He also killed Uzzah for doing what any reasonable person would have done and could have easily justified killing him if he had chosen the other option. How are any of these things loving, merciful, or just? If they are not, which they clearly are not, then the bible is a lie.

  • #2922
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    “If God is described as being perfectly loving, merciful, and just in the bible…”

    You forgot the Bible’s descriptions of God as jealous and wrathful. Even the new testament says “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men…” Rom 1:18

    The Numbers 31 reference is in the context of a war. (How many innocent women and children did the US kill in dropping the bombs in WWII?) The Israelites were re-claiming the land (that had been theirs to begin with before their slavery in Egypt). The Midianites (including their women) had deal “treacherously” with the Israelites. I didn’t read anything about “rape” only that they took the un-married women as wives. Note that this was a specific event and circumstance in history. I hope you don’t think this is some sort of example being presented for you to follow today.

    Uzzah made a mistake. The rule was (described in Numbers) that if you touch the ark, you die. It was supposed to have poles to carry it. David and Uzzah decided to use a cart and oxen instead. Uzzah acted sincerely, but against God’s law. Notice that David thought it was unfair too.

    I don’t see the contradiction that you are describing. Sounds like somebody painted a picture of a god for you that is not the one revealed in the Bible.

  • #2923
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    I didn’t forget those descriptions. Those descriptions just show another contradiction from the bible. He’s characterized as being perfectly loving, merciful, and just but he’s also jealous and wrathful. That’s not quite a complete contradiction but it certainly is somewhat contradictory. Someone who is merciful isn’t also going to be full of wrath. All you’ve done here is bring up another contradiction.

    How can you possibly compare collateral damage in WWII by America with the Israelites committing genocide and rape of a people that they had already defeated? A more accurate comparison would be what the Americans did in WWII after we defeated Germany and Japan. Did we then go in and slaughter all of their children and babies and their women and then kidnap their young girls? No! Not even close. What a terrible, terrible analogy you bring up here.

    YOU: “…they took the un-married women as wives.” What?! Where did it say that? They took the “women children”. Do you know what “women children” are? They’re not adult females. They’re young girls. Young virgin girls to be exact. Are you suggesting that they didn’t rape them and that that wasn’t the intent when he told them to “spare for yourselves” the young virgin girls? How can you possibly make that claim with any attempt at sincerity?

    Even if they had married them. What difference does that make? It’s not like these young girls – who just had their entire families slaughtered in front of their eyes – had any choice about who they married or whether or not they wanted to have sex with their husband after they were forcibly married. It’s still rape. How can you possibly suggest that it isn’t?

    YOU: “Note that this was a specific event and circumstance in history.” What difference does that make?

    YOU: “Uzzah made a mistake”, “Uzzah acted sincerely”. Yet you still think it’s just for God to have killed him for making a sincere mistake? Seriously? How is that not the perfect definition of unmerciful, unloving, and unjust??

    Where does it say that Uzzah decided to use a cart and oxen? David was the king and he was the one who made that decision. Besides, when God does strike Uzzah dead there is nothing mentioned about him being upset about them using a cart and oxen. It simply says, “God struck him down there for his irreverence.” It says this right after Uzzah touched the ark to prevent it from falling. We have no reason to believe it had anything to do with them using a cart and oxen from the text here and every reason to believe that it only had to do with him touching the ark. You’re just trying to find a way to justify this terrible act by your god.

  • #2924
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive,
    11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife,
    12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails.
    13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
    Deuteronomy 21:10-13

    The above gives some further discussion about general rules during the conquest. Probably more proof that this God is imaginary. Sounds like you don’t read much ancient near east literature. These customs are not foreign to the 1400-1200 BC context. Maybe you are suggesting that a merciful god has to fit some post-modern definition of societal values anachronistically. WWII reference is just to show that even modern society justifies things in war that are not justified outside that context. Current US public opinion wouldn’t even support the WWII collateral damage in today’s context.

  • #2925
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    What makes you think I think they’re foreign to this time period? These are exactly the same types of things that many of the other nations were doing to other nations which makes perfect sense if their god was just imaginary and all of his reported commands simply came from their tribal warlord.

    Collateral damage in war when you’re trying to target military objectives and those objectives are surrounded by civilians is understandable and justified. When is the rape of young girls ever justified in any context?

    You just gave another great example of God supporting the kidnap and rape of women and then criticize me for thinking that it’s wrong because you claim that I want the god of the bible’s morals to fit with ours today. Explain to me how the rape of young girls and women is something that a loving and just person would do. Explain to me how executing someone for a sincere mistake, as you described it in Uzzah’s case, is something that a merciful person would do.

    If you can’t explain that then your god’s nature, as described in the bible, is contradictory to his nature as described elsewhere in the bible and that invalidates the bible as a whole and means that your god isn’t real.

  • #2926
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    So you would describe the compete destruction of two Japanese cities with atomic bombs as military targets with some civilian collateral damage. It wiped out the whole cities. The civilians were the target!

    Haven’t found the word “rape” yet in what the Israelites were told to do.

    Are you saying that you don’t believe the God of the bible exists because he doesn’t correspond to your morals or the fact that he is described as having both mercy and wrath?

  • #2927
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    I was just describing what collateral damage is. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan were actually dropped on military targets but they obviously knew that the collateral damage would be severe so yes you could argue that civilians were being targeted as well but you could also argue that they saved more civilians lives by using the atomic bombs because if they hadn’t, they would’ve had to make a ground invasion that would’ve likely created even more collateral damage and killed a bunch of US troops as well.

    In the case of the Midianites – they were already defeated! They didn’t have to kill any civilians let alone kill their children and rape their young girls. They also supposedly had God on their side who could’ve performed all kinds of miracles to prevent the slaughter of their civilians.

    To answer your question, I’m saying that I don’t believe that he exists because his actions clearly contradict his claimed attributes, namely those of being loving, just, and merciful.

    I noticed you avoided all of my questions. I would like you to answer them. Here it is again:

    Explain to me how the rape of young girls and women is something that a loving and just person would do. Explain to me how executing someone for a sincere mistake, as you described it in Uzzah’s case, is something that a merciful person would do.

    If you can’t explain that then your god’s nature, as described in the bible, is contradictory to his nature as described elsewhere in the bible and that invalidates the bible as a whole and means that your god isn’t real.

    I also noticed that you avoided practically all of my questions from the post previous to the last one. If you’re not interested in engaging in a discussion here then just let know instead of ignoring everything. I’ll ask you the same question I asked of you earlier since you didn’t answer it:

    Are you suggesting that they didn’t rape them and that that wasn’t the intent when he told them to “spare for yourselves” the young virgin girls? How can you possibly make that claim with any attempt at sincerity?

    Just because you don’t find the word rape doesn’t mean they weren’t raped. You could reasonably infer rape without the word being used, couldn’t you?

  • #2928
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    Sorry, didn’t realize you were serious about the questions.

    Answer: I do not believe “spare for yourselves” necessarily implies rape. In the context, I believe it is most likely saying “don’t kill them, but take them as wives”. Those taken as wives would then be subject to the Sinai laws and protections concerning wives and divorce. Even today there are societies with arranged marriages against the will of the daughter. Is this rape by your definition?

    My view of God’s justice vs mercy as expressed in the old testament:
    Humans sin. Humans are evil. A just God would not allow evil to exist right? He should wipe out humans (cf. flood story) since they are evil. But he sometimes lets humans exist. Thus, he sometimes shows mercy. In Exodus he says to Moses, “I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy”. He showed mercy on David but not Uzzah. He shows mercy on me. I don’t know why. I’m not God.

    I completely disagree with your assumption that being “loving, just, and merciful” means God is always nice and safe and “fair”. In the Bible, God is pictured as a God of wrath just as much, if not more than, as a God of mercy. Wrath is an execution of his justice right?

  • #2932
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    Today, the Islamic State is doing the exact same thing that the Israelites did back then: They kill everyone in a city but spare the young virgin girls for themselves. In this case they make them their wives which the Israelites POSSIBLY did as well though we really have no idea in this case.

    You wouldn’t call that rape simply because they forced these girls to marry them? Islamic State kidnapped and raped these young girls just like God’s army did to the Midianite girls. But guess what, it doesn’t matter what you think because by definition that is rape. So the question is: why are you defending rape?

    An arranged marriage can be a similar situation depending on the circumstances. Oftentimes both the male and female are coerced into the marriage so it would be hard to blame anyone but their parents. But if a man pays for a man’s daughter and they both force her into marriage then yes, it’s rape. It’s also slavery. Why? Because she is forced to marry and therefore forced to have sex with him. That’s rape. She’s also forced to do whatever he wants because she’s now his property. That’s slavery. That’s certainly the case for the young girls who were taken “for yourselves” by the Israelite men.

    YOU: “Humans sin. Humans are evil.”

    What a warped way of thinking. So you believe that God would be morally right for killing anyone at any time because we are all evil and deserve to be killed. What about babies? Do they deserve to be killed by God at any time? Because he killed a lot of them, didn’t he?

    You don’t believe that being just means you have to be “fair”? Being fair is the definition of just. So you don’t understand the definitions of rape and you don’t understand the definition of just. I see why your thinking is so warped. But I know that you understand what the definitions are you’re just trying to change the definitions so that your god doesn’t look so evil and contradictory.

    By the way, humans aren’t evil. Some do evil things but humans are not evil as a whole and they certainly don’t deserve to all be slaughtered as you believe. Seriously, what a disgusting idea you have in your head. Humans are perfectly human and that means we make mistakes. If we didn’t make mistakes we wouldn’t be human. And if your god created us, which he obviously didn’t, then he created us to be perfectly human. He didn’t create us to be a creature that doesn’t make mistakes obviously because we all do make mistakes. So why would any loving, merciful, or just god blame us for being perfectly human when he made us that way! If I create a computer program that starts spitting out data that I don’t like, I don’t blame the computer program, I blame myself for creating it incorrectly or in a way that I don’t like. It’s basic logic.

  • #2933
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    Take a few deep breaths man. You’re hung up on this invented rape topic that the text says nothing about. You’ve inferred quite a bit from a single phrase and are obsessed with talking about it. Furthermore, surely you are not suggesting that God told the Islamic State to do what they are doing today!?

    Humans sin. Sin is evil. The wages of sin is death. This is the “sinful nature” language that Paul uses in the new testament. All have sinned and fall short… etc. Maybe you don’t sin. I sin because God gave me free choice, and I choose sin. You think he shouldn’t have given me that choice? You think I should behave like a computer program? You must come from a different generation than me.

    God can’t tolerate sin because he is just and righteous. God can kill. God can spare life. (cf. book of Job) God has the right and power to do whatever he wants. I do not. I am created. I had no say in the beginning of my existence. I likewise can’t control my ultimate destiny.

    The whole point of the Bible is that Jesus, God in the flesh, came to take care of our sin problem and give us a way to be justified in his sight. He doesn’t force you to believe it. You are free to choose.

  • #2934
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    There it is! YOU: “God has the right and power to do whatever he wants.” I bet you probably think that the Islamic State killing, kidnapping, and raping women is an immoral thing but the only thing that determines whether those actions are moral or immoral is if God told them to do it. If God did tell them to do it then it’s moral and just, if he didn’t, then it’s evil because… “God has the right and power to do whatever he wants.”

    So if God told his people to kill an entire ethnic group and rape their young girls then you don’t feel that you have to defend it. You think it’s moral and just because he commanded it and that’s all that matters to you.

    YOU: “You think I should behave like a computer program?” You have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?

    YOU: “the text says nothing about [rape].” You just make these assertions and yet you won’t engage in a discussion about it. If the Islamic State kidnaps and forces young girls to marry its soldiers we must naturally assume that they had sex with these girls and that would be rape, would it not?

    Likewise, when the Israelites did the exact same thing and kidnapped and then forced young Midianite girls to marry them we must naturally assume that they had sex with these girls and that would be rape, would it not?

    I’m guessing that even if you admit that it was rape you will just dismiss it by claiming that “God has the right and power to do whatever he wants” and if God wants his people to rape other people then it is completely just and moral.

  • #2935
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    I will now “engage in a discussion about it”…

    I do not think it was rape.
    I do not think it was rape.
    I do not think it was rape.
    I do not think it was rape.
    I do not think it was rape.
    I do not think it was rape.
    I do not think it was rape.
    Well, maybe it could have been, but it doesn’t say anything about sex, so…
    I do not think it was rape.

    God has the power to do anything he wants… except tell the Israelites to rape.

  • #2936
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    I asked you two specific questions about rape. Answer them please.

  • #2937
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    Sorry, I couldn’t keep up with all the interspersed commentary. What were the 2 questions specifically?

  • #2938
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    C’mon you’re just playing games to avoid the questions but here they are:

    YOU: “the text says nothing about [rape].” You just make these assertions and yet you won’t engage in a discussion about it. If the Islamic State kidnaps and forces young girls to marry its soldiers we must naturally assume that they had sex with these girls and that would be rape, would it not?

    Likewise, when the Israelites did the exact same thing and kidnapped and then forced young Midianite girls to marry them we must naturally assume that they had sex with these girls and that would be rape, would it not?

  • #2939
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    Question 1:
    “If the Islamic State kidnaps and forces young girls to marry its soldiers we must naturally assume that they had sex with these girls and that would be rape, would it not?”

    Answer: I don’t know anything about the Islamic State, so I’m not willing to “naturally assume” anything about them. But if you say that they force girls to have sex without consent, then yes that would be rape.

    Question 2:
    “Likewise, when the Israelites did the exact same thing and kidnapped and then forced young Midianite girls to marry them we must naturally assume that they had sex with these girls and that would be rape, would it not?”

    The Israelites were told to “spare for themselves” those women who were not married. This would include females ages 0 to 14 or 15 perhaps. Remember the text says nothing about sex or rape or relations. You say “naturally assume”. I strongly disagree with this assumption because “rape” would go against the Covenant Laws that the Israelites had already been given. Note that the Midianites were being punished because of their disobedience. This is an important difference compared to your attempted Islamic State analogy. The Islamic State doesn’t have the same law restricting their behavior. For Israel, the ones who were old enough to marry should have been able to marry under the same conditions as the existing Israelite women. I see nothing in the text to contradict this. Some specifics: A 1 year old Midianite girl would have been spared for the Israelites. To me, I naturally assume this means she was cared for, raised in an Israelite home, and eligible to marry once of age. A 13 year old, on the other hand, may have been eligible to marry immediately, but maybe not. She would have been spared for the Israelites to raise, care for, and marry once of age. These are the things I “naturally assume” from the biblical context in question.

    This topic is getting old. However, I am curious as to what you use as your basis for establishing right and wrong in judging the character of the Israelites, god of the bible, and the Islamic State?

  • #2940
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    The two examples are exactly the same and yet you do everything you possibly can to make them sound like they’re completely different.

    The only time I used “naturally assume” is in relation to the assumption that people have sex when they’re married. That’s it! Would you not naturally assume that? Yes, you would. Yet you use that phrase to assume all kinds of things about things you have no reason to assume. You’re just playing a game. You know your position is a terrible one – one that cannot be defended – and you’re just trying to find a way to avoid the questions and deliberately misunderstand what I’m saying.

    It’s reasonable to assume that when people get married they will have sex, correct?

    In both examples, the Islamic State example and the Israelite example, young girls were forcibly married to men and we therefore can naturally assume that they had sex, correct?

    If they had sex in a forced marriage it is rape, is it not?

    I’ve asked you three questions. Please answer all three.

  • #2941
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    The text doesn’t say anything about marraige. I originally assumed that, but I was wrong. For example, I don’t think the 1 year old girl who was spared for them was married or raped. Islamisist may do that sort of thing. Jews don’t.

    Your questions are not relevant.

  • #2942
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    lol playing games again I see. You know you’re not a very good advocate for your faith. You’re so obviously trying to avoid the consequences of your logic and it must be embarrassing for other Christians to see this.

    You argued with me for quite a while claiming they married these girls and now that you understand the trap I’ve got you in you admit that you were wrong about them marrying them in order to try prevent the admission that you’re wrong about them being raped. It’s like when you said, “God has the right and power to do whatever he wants.” And then after I cornered you on that you say, “God has the power to do anything he wants… except tell the Israelites to rape.” LOL! You’re just making it up as you go along; sliding out of whatever corner I’ve got you in through any desperate means you find available, no matter how ridiculous.

    Let’s just imagine, hypothetically that “spare for yourselves” means that they could marry them – which it obviously does by the way – and now please answer the three questions.

  • #2943
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    Who said I was an “advocate for my faith”? I’m a historian who has studied the Hebrew Bible in an academic setting (secular) for a decade. I’m engaging in your banter because it remimds me of the silly conversations we used to have late at night in the academy.

    • #2944
      Profile photo of jay9920
      jay9920
      Participant

      Are you not a Christian? Because if you are then you’re clearly advocating for your faith here.

      Also, you seriously just ignored all of my questions again? You’re not even going to try?

  • #2945
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    I’m not a Christian. Jewish background. My wife is Christian. I know a lot of Theology. I take the kids to a Catholic Church because (ironically) they teach them not to rape.

    Toward your point, if I had sex with my wife and she didn’t want to, you would call that rape? The state doesn’t agree with you there.

  • #2946
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    Wrong again. Any non-consensual sex is rape and it is illegal to have sex with your wife without her consent:

    It’s illegal in all 50 states. (http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/marital-rape-laws.html)

    And what is wrong with you that you think it’s ok to have sex with your wife without her consent, AKA rape?

    Also, still not going to answer the questions, are you?

  • #2947
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    I didn’t say without consent, I said “didn’t want to”.

  • #2948
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    I have two Indian coworkers who had arranged marriages. Their wives didn’t want to marry them. I will tell them you think they are raping their wives.

  • #2949
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    We are off the topic. The book of Numbers in the Old Testament was written by whom again?

  • #2950
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    Don’t say Moses.

    Just noticed that the word rape was derived from raptio from which we get the word rapture. The rapture is actually a rape by God of humans, without their consent. You should go down that path for your argument.

  • #2951
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    There’s no point in continuing here for two main reasons: 1.) You repeatedly refuse to answer the questions that I’m asking. 2.) You’re deliberately misunderstanding what I’m asking in order to avoid answering the questions.

    You’re equating an arranged marriage with a forced marriage by invaders to their “spoil” as these young girls are called in other parts of the bible. I’ve already gone over the major differences between the two. You’re ignoring what was previously stated. A person is not forced to marry another person in an arranged marriage today. There might be pressure but they can legally not marry the person.

    Could your Indian coworkers wives have refused to marry them? Yes. Can they get a divorce now? Yes. They are not there against their own will. Now if we’re talking about the kind of arranged marriages in Afghanistan where a 48 year old man marries a 14 year old girl then this isn’t just an arranged marriage, it’s a forced marriage and yes it is rape. You also attempted to claim that your wife not being in the mood and you talking her into having sex with you is the same thing as what the Israelites did to these young girls who had absolutely no choice in what happened to them.

    The fact that you are trying to say that these things are the same thing as the Israelites invading another nation and killing everyone except the young virgin girls who they then made their property and undoubtedly raped is disgusting. You’re a disgusting, vile person to go through such lengths to defend rape. This is why your religion – whether it be Judaism or Christianity – is dying amongst people who have a decent education. Your defense of slavery, rape, and murder is repulsive to rational, moral people.

  • #2952
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    In all seriousness, you have a blatant lack of objectivity. You won’t engage with what the text actually says or doesn’t say. You have a prosyletizing or anti-prosyletizing agenda as the case may be that is full of assumptions and stereotypes drawn from times and cultures far distant from the one under consideration. I’d be glad to look at the text by setting aside my judeo-christian influences and evaluate it as a piece of ancient literature. That, my friend, is what an educated person would do. But you are not interested in that. It’s only after that can one then decide implications for questions of faith and ethics in a modern setting.

    Rape is an interesting discussion as it relates to war, conquest, and the status of women in ancient cultures. I can keep giving you the run-around some more if you want me too, but the game’s getting old. I’d rather engage in a serious discussion of an ancient text. But it has to deal with the text itself, not what your buddy or some website says the “obvious” meaning is.
    Otherwise, your nonsensical rants and responses will never gain any following.

  • #2953
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    YOU: “I can keep giving you the run-around some more if you want me too, but the game’s getting old.”

    A game created by you because you know that you cannot defend your position. I’m glad you admitted that and I’m glad you admitted that you were giving me the run-around. It was obvious. And that is why we cannot have a discussion.

  • #2954
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    I didn’t create the game. I’m just playing along with the one you invented. I’m not sure you know what “run-around” means.

    Let’s see if I can summarize the rock-solid position that you no longer want to discuss. Numbers 31 has a phrase implying God supports or perhaps commanded rape of young girls. Thus, God is not consistent with ideas presented by others (reference?) who claim God should be loving, just, and merciful. Thus, God doesn’t exist, and as a result Numbers 31 is fiction. There is no God, no Numbers, and no rape of the Midianites. And you think it is very important that Christians know your view that the God they’ve imagined did not command the rape of anyone.

    Seems like there is a logic flaw in there somewhere, but I was having trouble following all the details. What did I miss? Maybe something about Uzzah not being treated fairly.

  • #2955
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    You’re a liar. I asked you questions and you refused to answer them and it’s all right there in the text of this thread for anyone to see. I’ll just leave the questions here and you can answer them if you’re done playing your little avoidance game. Since you changed your mind on them being married in Numbers 31 I’ll provide Deut 21:10-13 as an example of women being forced into marriage.

    Deut 21:10-13, “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.”

    ME: It’s reasonable to assume that when people get married they will have sex, correct?

    In both examples, the Islamic State example and the Israelite example, young girls or women were forcibly married to men and we therefore can naturally assume that they had sex, correct?

    If they had sex in a forced marriage it is rape, is it not? Not an arranged marriage where a person can choose not to marry the other person but a forced marriage where one person has no choice.

    I’ve asked you three questions. Answer them all if you want to continue. I have no faith that you will. You will instead play your little game and avoid the questions entirely.

  • #2956
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    Oh, so now we’re going to finally look at an actual biblical text. I’ll play.

    Yes, couples have sex when they’re married.

    No, nothing definitive from the text that these were forced marriages. (What Islam does today has no bearing on the text under consideration.)

    Yes, of course it’s rape if the woman is forced.

    Good thing that there are rules for marrying the captives given in Deuteronomy. If a captive doesn’t want to marry, she shouldn’t shave her head etc (vs 12-13). This is her duty not his. If she doesn’t do the things required of her, and he marries her anyway or does them for her or forces her to do them, then he is violating the law.

  • #2957
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    lol playing more games again, right? You’re not seriously that illogical, are you? YOU: “nothing definitive from the text that these were forced marriages.” LOL! Did you forget to read the text? The man owns her, doesn’t he? In verse 14 it reads, “but you shall certainly not sell her for money”. You can’t sell someone for money if you don’t own them. These women were taken as captives and God said, “take her as a wife for yourself”. What choice would a captive have in any of this?

    YOU: “If a captive doesn’t want to marry, she shouldn’t shave her head…”

    What does the text say? Verse 12: “then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails”. “she SHALL shave…”. She has no choice! Do you not know what the word “shall” means? She’s a captive. Did you forget that? She has no choice. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It isn’t hard, you just are close minded to the possibility that you might be wrong. You have no interest in the truth.

  • #2958
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    He absolutely does NOT own her. The reason he can’t sell her is precisely because he does not own her. This is the plain, logical meaning from the text. Verse 14 says “you shall let her go WHERE SHE WANTS”. Sounds to me like she has a choice.

    SHE shall shave her head, trim her nails, mourn her family if the marraige is to be legal. SHALL means that it is required for a legal marraige. If she doesn’t want to, she should not do these things.

  • #2959
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    You left out the first part of the verse because you’re a highly deceptive person who has no interest in the truth and I enjoy exposing you as that. What does the first part of verse 14 say? “if you are not pleased with her” THEN “you shall let her go where she wants.” She has no say in anything until after he let’s her go.

    What part of captive do you not understand? A captive is a prisoner or slave. They have no choice in anything and this text gives no indication whatsoever that she has any choice in anything! It doesn’t matter if she’s the one who has to shave her own head. You think that means she’s free to decide if she wants to marry him being a captive? If a Japanese soldier in WWII told his men that the American POW’s shall shave their heads do you think it means that if they don’t shave their heads that they go free? That is so laughably stupid!

    So, you were wrong about verse 14, clearly, and you deliberately left out the first part of the verse in some lame attempt to distort the truth. And you tried to read something into the word “shall” that makes absolutely no sense at all. I’m honestly starting to feel like I’m arguing with the crazy homeless guy on the street who’s trying to convince me that he’s the CEO of Apple. At some point you just have to feel sorry for him and feel embarrassed for arguing with him as if he were at your level mentally.

  • #2960
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    In all other Cannanite cultures of the day the captives would be treated as slaves/property. Not the Jews. Jews are different. They have a higher ethic. In this passage the men who want to marry (they are not allowed to rape) a captive have to follow the rules. It includes a month long waiting period. She is required to do things as well before the man is permitted to marry her. The text says NOTHING about what happens if she refuses. If he wants a divorce, then he can NOT treat her like a slave or property. Remember that even though she was a captive, he cannot treat her like one. She can then go where she wants. The text does not address what happens if she wants a divorce first. Although the rights afforded to the captives in their most vulnerable moment (when the man is not pleased with her and wants a divorce) says it’s logical to assume rights before marriage.

    I’m not as smart as you to be sure, but we are a long way from your original assertions about the Jewish practice in ancient times.

  • #2961
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    YOU: “The text says NOTHING about what happens if she refuses.”

    So in your mind if the text doesn’t describe what happens to a captive if they refuse to do something that they’re ordered to do it means that they’re not a captive anymore and can freely choose what happens to them. lol… wow, your logic is just so painfully bad.

    You’re right, you’re clearly not as smart as me. That’s possibly the only thing you’ve been right on in this little debate. I mean, who can possibly be so illogical in their thinking and still function in society?

    YOU: “In all other Canaanite cultures of the day the captives would be treated as slaves/property. Not the Jews. Jews are different. They have a higher ethics.”

    Oh, yeah I’m sure they did /s. Earlier you said, “God has the power to do anything he wants.”

    After I cornered you on that you changed it to, “God has the power to do anything he wants… except tell the Israelites to rape.”

    But what about slavery? You said, “In all other Canaanite cultures of the day the captives would be treated as slaves/property. Not the Jews. Jews are different. They have a higher ethics.”

    So only the other Canaanite cultures had slaves, not the Jews? But you said God can do whatever he wants – except rape – so if he wants his Israelites to have slaves, why can’t he?

  • #2962
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    Not so fast my friend. I didn’t say what happened to the women who refused marriage, whether freed or remained with the unmarried captives. I don’t know because the text does not say. You are filling in the blanks with your bias. The biblical passage you’ve introduced seems to point towards favorable treatment of women rather than promoting rape.
    We are not moving on to slavery until we finish with your rape allegations. So where does the bible say that Jews can rape those captured or spared in battle? Neither this text nor Num. 31 support your assertion.

    You are smarter than me because you seem to know what really happened back then even though the text doesn’t say. I don’t have that ability. I’m limited to textual evidence.

  • #2963
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    The women are captives. A captive doesn’t have a choice in anything unless specified. This text doesn’t specify that they could make any choices. You are making an assumption that maybe they had the right to make a choice about who they married. The text does not indicate that they were anything but captives before marriage was forced upon them, therefore you cannot assume the possibility that they could have made a choice about anything. Therefore, based on the text, we can infer that they were forced into marriage and sex in a forced marriage is rape.

    Now I’ll just let that fly right over your head and then laugh at your inane, nonsensical response, as usual.

    You made a claim about the Jews not having slaves unlike other Canaanite cultures so I’ll repeat my questions for you about that topic from my previous comment that you refused to answer:

    ME: “But what about slavery? You said, “In all other Canaanite cultures of the day the captives would be treated as slaves/property. Not the Jews. Jews are different. They have a higher ethics.”

    So only the other Canaanite cultures had slaves, not the Jews? But you said God can do whatever he wants – except rape – so if he wants his Israelites to have slaves, why can’t he?”

  • #2964
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    I said captive women wouldn’t be treated like slaves, not that Israel didn’t have any. They wouldn’t be treated like slaves because the husband was forbidden from treating his wife as a slave upon divorce.

    You read too much into the word captive. That only means that they were “captured” in battle and probably didn’t have the freedom to leave. Where would they go? Why would they necessarily not have any freedoms or rights granted by the Jewish law?

    Your opening paragraph was very confusing to me, but nonetheless I’m sure you are right and others will understand. I will forward that paragraph on to my Christian and Jewish friends so they will have proof that their religion is a sham.

  • #2965
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    I’m not surprised in the least that you were confused by my first paragraph since logic is confusing to you. Go look up the definition of “captive” since you have such trouble with the definition of basic english words. It’s a noun meaning “a prisoner” or “a person who is enslaved or dominated; slave” (dictionary.com)

    A person who is captive, or a slave, or a prisoner, is under complete control by their master, owner, or warden. The only choices they get to make are those choices granted to them by the person who controls them. There is nothing in the text here that shows that these captive women were granted the right to refuse marriage therefore we must infer that, as a captive, they were forced into marriage and therefore forced to have sex with their husbands, which is rape.

    Where does it say that foreign women who have been captured would not be treated like slaves? No where. You just make stuff up because you can’t defend your monster of a god.

    You said the Israelites wouldn’t treat captive women as slaves. How do you know this? Are you suggesting that they wouldn’t treat anyone as a slave or just not women?

  • #2985
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    Deut. 21
    “10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, NOR SHALL YOU TREAT HER AS A SLAVE, since you have humiliated her.”

    Prisoners can get married, at least in the U.S., and I don’t think it’s rape. But that’s not the intent of the law allowing them to get married.

    I’m not assuming they had the freedom to refuse marriage. I’m also not assuming that they did not have the freedom to refuse. I don’t know because the text doesn’t say. You’re the one assuming and accusing. I think this is because your logic is far superior to mine. As for me, I can only reason with what the text actually says. I’m not smart enough to make things up.

  • #2986
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    YOU: “I’m also not assuming that they did not have the freedom to refuse.”

    By definition of the word “captive”, they did not have the freedom to do anything. It’s like saying, “I’m also not assuming that these captives did not have the freedom to leave”. The only reason your comment could possibly be reasonable is if the word captive meant something other than what it means. In other words, you’re wrong.

  • #2987
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    You looked up dictionary.com for the definition of captive. I looked at Wikipedia and a number of other “reputable” online sources **snicker snicker** and found that captive can also be translated prisoner.

    Sometimes prisoners are shackled together and have no freedom. Other times prisoners are given many freedoms. The only thing for sure is that they can’t leave, because at that point they wouldn’t be captive. Minimum security or maximum security, held in enclosed prison cells or an open courtyard, forced or unforced marriage, etc are all assumptions. Also, dictionary.com may not be the best authority on a Hebrew word from the 1400’s B.C. Just sayin’.

  • #2994
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    Yeah, no kidding, captive can mean prisoner. I said that just a couple of comments ago: “Go look up the definition of “captive” since you have such trouble with the definition of basic english words. It’s a noun meaning “a prisoner” or “a person who is enslaved or dominated; slave” (dictionary.com)”

    Prisoners can be granted rights. We see no indication that these captive women were granted the right to choose who they married, therefore, you can infer that they did not have that right since they were captured by the Israelites. Why would a god who wants people to believe in him and believe that he’s just, merciful, and loving have something in his bible that gives every indication that he allowed women to be raped? You earlier said, “I’m not assuming they had the freedom to refuse marriage. I’m also not assuming that they did not have the freedom to refuse.” In other words, you said: I’m not assuming they weren’t raped. I’m also not assuming that they were raped.

    And that, you think, is your best defense against this obvious atrocity. You just deny that you know what happened either way because it doesn’t explicitly say that these men forced these women to have sex with them even when the text says things like this: “But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.” (Num 31:18)

    ‘Spare for yourselves the virgin girls’. Yet you don’t know if they were raped or not raped, you say. What kind of a god would allow this in his bible knowing that so many people would reasonably infer that he commanded rape and not give a clear explanation for why it wasn’t rape so that his delusional followers like you could, at the very least, confidently say that he didn’t command rape and here’s why… instead of taking the dishonest position that you have taken which is: ‘I don’t know if they were raped, maybe they were, maybe they weren’t.’

    Here’s another great example of Yahweh commanding rape: Zechariah 14:1-2, “Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. 2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of…”

    Go ahead, defend your rapist god some more.

  • #3008
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    Well, looks like I should’ve just used that verse earlier. Not much wiggle room around that one, eh?

    Zechariah 14:1-2, “Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. 2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of…”

    Yahweh clearly deliberately caused women to be raped.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by Profile photo of jay9920 jay9920.
  • #3013
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    Sorry, I was doing other things. I just read the verse. Sounds like the bad guys did the ravishing.

  • #3014
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    Yes, they did as deliberately caused by Yahweh. I’ll repeat it again: Yahweh clearly deliberately caused women to be raped.

    And you didn’t even attempt to refute that. Your god is a monster and so are you for defending rape.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by Profile photo of jay9920 jay9920.
  • #3021
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    “deliberately caused women to be raped”
    Are you claiming that God told these non-Jewish nations what to do during the battle with Israel and they believed and obeyed? Or are you saying that God didn’t prevent the bad things that happened during battle and therefore he should be held responsible?

  • #3022
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    I’m claiming exactly what is said in the two verses. It’s self-explanatory. Yahweh gathered “all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished…”. He gathered the nations to attack Israel knowing that the result would be a captured city, plundered houses, and ravished women. Yahweh deliberately caused their city to be captured, their houses to be plundered, and their women to be ravished. Of course he should be held responsible. It was all his doing! The non-Jewish nations didn’t even have free will in this case.

  • #3023
    Profile photo of Rudy Schellekens
    Rudy Schellekens
    Participant

    I bet you do not have children.

  • #3024
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    Rudy, looks like our previous discussion in another thread was deleted for some reason.

    Why would you say that?

    While you’re here, go ahead and explain to me why the two verses that I quoted above from Zechariah don’t say exactly what they do say.

  • #3025
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    I think you’re going to have to find a different verse. This one says God gathered the nations for battle and then predicted what would happen. Nothing is said about them not having “free will”. God didn’t tell them to do evil.

  • #3026
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    lol. Watching you try to wiggle out of this is so entertaining for me. It’s two verses, just two verses, and yet you managed to ignore the first verse. However, even if you do ignore the first verse, as you have, you’ve still confirmed exactly what I just said. If God gathered the nations to battle Jerusalem what choice did they have in whether to go to battle against Jerusalem? If God caused this thing to happen which he clearly did by gathering them to battle and he predicted the outcome then how could he not be responsible for the outcome?

    Also, here’s the first verse that you ignored, “Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you.” This event was for him (the Lord).

  • #3027
    Profile photo of duneslacker
    duneslacker
    Participant

    Ahh, how refreshing. :-/

  • #3028
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    You didn’t read the rest of the chapter. God fights against the nations (v.3) and the spoils are returned to Jerusalem. Of course it was for him, because he wins. He defeats the wicked and their evil deeds. Nowhere in this text does it imply that the nation’s evil deeds were approved by God. That’s absurd. I was expecting more from you.

  • #3029
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    How typical of you, you didn’t answer my questions. I’ll repeat them: “If God gathered the nations to battle Jerusalem what choice did they have in whether to go to battle against Jerusalem? If God caused this thing to happen which he clearly did by gathering them to battle and he predicted the outcome then how could he not be responsible for the outcome?”

    Here’s a new question in response to your latest comment: Does any of that mean that these women weren’t raped in the battle deliberately caused by God?

  • #3030
    Profile photo of Rudy Schellekens
    Rudy Schellekens
    Participant

    I noticed you still have not answered the question about children, so let me enlighten you. As a parent, we warn our children of the negative results some decisions carry. We do not cause the results. We do not like the results. Yet, the results are there.
    Way back in Exodus, God made an agreement with the people. I will be your God, and you will be my people. If you do what I ask you, I will bless you. If you go against that, you will be disciplined (pick any other word you like, but I think disciplined is by far the best!).
    The results of disobedience are stated, clearly. Even in Eden God made it clear: Don’t eat from that tree. The day you do, you will die. Simple. Clear. You break the law, this is the result.
    Through the book of Judges, same cycle: Israel breaks the contract, God fulfills his part, Israel comes back to the contract – 490 years long!
    Then, as they move into the land, they still decide from time to time to ignore God, and He warns them – several 100’s years. And then finally, God says, “Enough is enough!” He called for repentance. Sent prophets. Sent warnings. Ignored.
    So He tells them, “Unless…” Or, if you want it in other terms, “If… then” statements. The people had lots of time to change their ways. But since you do not listen, I will send… Or, as Habakkuk said, “We know that we have been bad, but sending the Assyrians – isn’t that a bit much?”
    And then the punishment comes, and the enemy goes too far, and are held accountable for their deeds, too.
    So, all of this to say, “God is a patient, loving and forgiving God.” He is a Father whose patience goes on, on, and on. God is a God who loves to love, but hates to punish. A God who would rather bless than curse.
    If you want to draw a portrait of the God of the Bible, at least have the intellectual honesty to look at the complete picture of God, and not the few parts you happen to like better.
    As a parent, you know exactly how God feels. If one of my kids is involved with crime, he/she will at one point in time, have to do the time. And as a parent you warn, and warn, and describe the results. You will end up in jail, and be there for a long, long time. And when you are in jail, you will get in trouble, and you may even be sexually molested, or wounded, or killed. Do you as a parent want that? Surely not! Do the authorities want that? Of course not! But does it happen? You bet! And will the perpetrators be punished for that? Hopefully! But will that bring back your child? NO!
    If you really want to make an argument against the God of the Bible, at least do a better job than just sending cheap shots.

  • #3031
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    @Rudy: You asked if I had any children and I asked you “why would you say that”? It’s a very odd question so don’t accuse me of not answering your question when it was so out of place that I had to ask why you were even asking.

    Yes, I have children and no I would never discipline them by torturing them, enslaving them, killing them, or causing them to be raped… which is exactly what God did to his “children”. Would you do any of those things to your children to “discipline” them? Of course you wouldn’t. What a stupid analogy.

    Rudy: “If you want to draw a portrait of the God of the Bible, at least have the intellectual honesty to look at the complete picture of God, and not the few parts you happen to like better.”

    I’m sure Saddam Hussein was nice to his wife and kids sometimes but how does that change the fact that he was also a sadistic killer? Same with Yahweh. Yeah, he did some nice things, so what? Every evil person throughout history has done some nice things but that doesn’t excuse the evil things that they’ve done.

    In the case of Zechariah 14, the enemy didn’t go “too far” as you say. It’s not like God didn’t know they were going to rape the women. He predicted they would and yet he still gathered those “nations against Jerusalem to battle” knowing the consequences which means that he deliberately caused these women to be raped among all of the other horrors he caused against his “children” in just this one instance alone.

    If God caused this thing to happen, which he clearly did by gathering them to battle, and he predicted the outcome, then how could he not be responsible for the outcome?

  • #3032
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    What does it mean to “gather the nations for battle”? Literally, how does that work?

    Of course the nations had a choice. They were gathered for battle, that’s all. They could have refused. They could have chosen to fight honorably. They didn’t have to rape or take the spoils of war. But they did. They’re evil. And God wiped them out (read the rest of the chapter).

    God foretold what would happen. He knows the evil of the nations. He knew they would make an evil choice. So you’re suggesting the “right” thing for him to do was punish them BEFORE the crime? Interesting theology.

  • #3033
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    You didn’t answer my questions… yet again. Are you playing games again as you admitted you were doing earlier?

    Grape: “They were gathered for battle, that’s all.”

    No, that’s not at all. You left out the most important part. They didn’t gather themselves together. God gathered them together. Why do you keep ignoring the text? It reads, “For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle…”. God gathered the nations against Jerusalem to battle, didn’t he?

  • #3034
    Profile photo of GrapeJuiceSkins
    GrapeJuiceSkins
    Participant

    My 2nd paragraph above is the answer to your 1st question. The 3rd paragraph is the answer to your 2nd question. Didn’t realize you needed me to spell things out for you.

  • #3035
    Profile photo of jay9920
    jay9920
    Participant

    My 1st question: “If God gathered the nations to battle Jerusalem what choice did they have in whether to go to battle against Jerusalem?”

    Your answer: “Of course the nations had a choice. They were gathered for battle, that’s all. They could have refused. They could have chosen to fight honorably. They didn’t have to rape or take the spoils of war. But they did. They’re evil. And God wiped them out (read the rest of the chapter).”

    How could that be an answer to my question when you completely ignored the first part of the question as if it didn’t happen? “If God gathered the nations to battle Jerusalem…” You act like that’s not even in the text when you say, “They were gathered for battle, that’s all.” No, that’s not all. God gathered them, they didn’t gather themselves on their own accord.

    My 2nd question: “If God caused this thing to happen which he clearly did by gathering them to battle and he predicted the outcome then how could he not be responsible for the outcome?”

    Your answer: “God foretold what would happen. He knows the evil of the nations. He knew they would make an evil choice. So you’re suggesting the “right” thing for him to do was punish them BEFORE the crime? Interesting theology.”

    How is that an answer to my question? It doesn’t even respond to what I asked. Is English hard for you?

    You ignored the question from my previous comment. I’ll ask it again:

    —————————-

    Grape: “They were gathered for battle, that’s all.”

    No, that’s not at all. You left out the most important part. They didn’t gather themselves together. God gathered them together. Why do you keep ignoring the text? It reads, “For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle…”. God gathered the nations against Jerusalem to battle, didn’t he?

    —————————-

  • #3039

    kens
    Participant

    The document claims that “most churches” agree that Paul’s instructions for men to pray with holy hands and for women to not have elaborate hairstyles or jewelry is only directed towards the people that he was writing to

    I have read Patrick’s data and am reviewing the elders credo. The problem with me putting together some new device is that I hate to read the instructions.

    They say that Paul didn’t say it was God’s view but his opinion. Paul states just the opposite.

    They say that it based on a short period of Greek culture. But Paul references it back to Eve. The story of Eve is Moses refuting the Babylonian–to which they were sentenced–triple godesses.

    Reading the context, the elders are correct that the prayer of everyone was that everyone be quiet and sedentary. The command is not for men to LEAD people in prayer which is pretty impossible.

    The men might unleash wrath which is defined as an orgy.
    In three examples Paul examples the singular purpose when the ekklesia assembles as synagogue was “that everyone be saved.” Saved always means SAFE FROM something and then “come to a knowledge of the Truth.” Jesus defined truth as Word or Logos which is defined as the Regulative principle opposite any performance beyond education.”

    Then, Paul reminded especially the women who had always been contact agents from Babylon onward that.

    1Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
    1Tim. 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
    1Tim. 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

    Paul commanded the elders to “teach that which had been taught” and reprove anyone who did not “teach that which had been taught.”

    Why wouldn’t both male and female obey Christ’s command for the synagogue in the wilderness onward to PREACH the Word by READING the Word. Paul passed the command on to Timothy.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.