heaven is a ball...

[Crackpot]

Geddahwhat?

I believe it was a flawed teaching based on his own personal biases. If Women are not to have authority or the ability to teach How do we explain Deborah? She not only was a Judge but was deemed a Prophet. Interpreted as a "rule" the two contradict.

That being said it is also possible that Paul was speaking situationally.... (I can not be sure at the moment since it apparently wasn't 2Timothy (though it does have a fine example of Paul's questionable remarks about women) and I really should be in bed right now and don't have the inclination to scour Corinthians if IIRC and the rest of his writings if I don't) ...given Early Christianity's minor dictum of not trying reform from whole cloth the societies they're spreading the word to. Unfortunately given his penchant for taking unprovoked swipes at women (2Timothy 3 being a perfect example) I tend to see it as a personal failing rather than a recognition of societies bias. (though I may be wrong)

[Big RR]

Meade--

It cannot be valid to insist, without anything in the Bible saying so, that the passage can only be interpreted to say that God was offended by insults to Elisha and that therefore the passage is must be wrong and rejected. This ignores the multitude of ways in which the passage may be non-contradictory of God's grace without changing a word of it.

OK Meade, point taken; but what I am saying is I can interpret Paul's writings on homosexuality and women on being included to show that even Paul was silly and wrong some times, much as Elisha was when he cursed the children for calling him--gasp--baldhead; indeed, jesus begged for the forgiveness of people who were doing much worse to him. The point is, once you walk down the road of saying "the bible cannot be wrong, therefore I will adjust my interpretation of passages so I can reconcile it with my beliefs" you are not doing much different than I am in saying I reject the teaching. Oh sure, you say you are (and so you say god did not send the bears, etc.), but it's not all that different from me saying I cannot reconcile it, so I reject it.

CP,I cannot argue with your conclusion there.

[MajGenl.Meade]

OK Meade, point taken;

. Graciously done and I do appreciate this discussion.

but what I am saying is I can interpret Paul's writings on homosexuality and women as being included to show that even Paul was silly and wrong some times,

Sure of course you can; I get that. But other than not liking what Paul wrote, what evidence is there that he was either silly or wrong? If Paul was coming up with something uniquely strange – like “Jesus was never crucified” – then you’d have a point that I don’t think anyone would disagree with. The Bible itself would prove Paul wrong. But in your example the Bible states in several places that homosexuality is a sin (and I don’t propose to argue here whether it is or not; that’s not the point).

Presumably you don’t think he was silly or wrong when he wrote “love is patient, love is kind” (although I don't know why not)? As to women, I cannot comment since I don’t know which passages you refer to and what the objection is. CP?

even Paul was silly and wrong some times much as Elisha was when he cursed the children for calling him--gasp--baldhead;

I’d like to get over this exclusively definitive statement you keep making about ‘Elisha being silly and wrong when he cursed the children for calling him baldhead’. (1) they were not children but youths (2) to curse means to “belittle, to dismiss” (3) their insults mocked God, not simply calling Elisha names (4) why was he silly and wrong even if he said “Piss off you arseholes” or “Keep that up and you’ll regret it” or even “You’ve insulted God and He’s gonna get you for it”. Why use the worst possible construction when it isn’t even a very sound construction?

indeed, jesus begged for the forgiveness of people who were doing much worse to him.

.

Yes, of course. I might quibble about “begged” but that’s OK. No relevance at all as to how to interpret 2Kings except to confirm that because God is merciful and good, the explanation that God was being an arse by cruelly killing embryos for no reason MUST BE invalid.

The point is, once you walk down the road of saying "the bible cannot be wrong, therefore I will adjust my interpretation of passages so I can reconcile it with my beliefs" you are not doing much different than I am in saying I reject the teaching. Oh sure, you say you are

.

My belief is the same as yours (I hope?) and it is the basis of all interpretation: that God cannot do wrong and He would not tell falsehoods. You see something wrong with seeking to understand and harmonise Biblical statements with that belief?

I think that is vastly different than saying “God cannot do wrong therefore this piece of the Bible is junk”. I don’t start with “my” interpretation and then change the Bible to comport to it – I start with the Bible and try to understand what it says, why it says it and what light it sheds on God’s relation to man. True further research, perhaps into Hebrew or Greek meanings, might cause me to adjust what I first came up with. That’s good practise. But I know that the Bible, being God's word, cannot conflict with His character but it is God's word.

(and so you say god did not send the bears, etc.), but it's not all that different from me saying I cannot reconcile it, so I reject it.

But I have not said that at all. I have stated that there are a number of ways to understand the passage (including that God sent the bears) without rejecting the words of the Bible and without changing the words or the message that they convey. Why then do you insist on interpreting the passage ONLY in a way that either denigrates God or denigrates the Bible? (In this case, you quite rightly decide that denigrating God is a bad idea so that leaves you only with tossing out 2Kings).

CP,I cannot argue with your conclusion there.

More’s the pity!

Meade

[Crackpot]

You were speaking as you knew them earlier. If the son will give me time tonight I'll look it up (as I sais I belive it's in Corinthians or one of the longer of Pauls epistles (though I'm almost positive it's not in Romans))

[Rick]

The children taunting Elisha were blaspheming a miracle of God.

They were making fun of Elisha telling him to ascend as Elijah did (Bethel had many idolators that did not believe Elijah had ascended at all).

They mocked God and suffered the consequences...

[MajGenl.Meade]

You were speaking as you knew them earlier. If the son will give me time tonight I'll look it up (as I sais I belive it's in Corinthians or one of the longer of Pauls epistles (though I'm almost positive it's not in Romans))

Yes I expect Big RR refers to some familiar passages but I don't want to argue about XXX if he really is objecting to YYY. "Paul's attitude re women" is a rather general area (I'm not quoting anyone) and I'd rather have specifics.

I think I said 2Tim when I meant 1Tim before. Sorry.

Cheers
Meade

[Rick]

ITimothy 2:

[Crackpot]

Interesting. 1Timothy 2:12 uses the pronoun "I" Making it a personal rule and not a divine one.

[Rick]

Interesting. 1Timothy 2:12 uses the pronoun "I" Making it a personal rule and not a divine one.

If Paul was writing of himself it might be an issue.

However since his writing is inspired "I" see no problem...

[Big RR]

Well Keld, that depends on how you believe the "inspiration" came about; I have never seen anyone who argued that the inspiration was dictated word for word by god--many times (the Revalation to John of Padmos, e.g.) the inspiration came through a vision and the writer merely wrote as best he could, hampered by his own (mis)understandings and prejudices. Even leaving aside that the books of the bible were chosen by the votes of men(with their own preconceptions and prejudices), not necessarily the will of god, I think we can make an argument that not every word written should be taken at face value without further inquiry.

And as for your view of the the menacing behind the taunts of the children/youths, that may well be a defensible interpretation, but it it far from clear by the words (and I do think there were many observant jews at the time who did not believe the account of Elijah's acension, much as many christians do not believe the same of Mary while others do).

[Rick]

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[MajGenl.Meade]

And as for your view of the the menacing behind the taunts of the children/youths, that may well be a defensible interpretation, but it it far from clear by the words (and I do think there were many observant jews at the time who did not believe the account of Elijah's acension, much as many christians do not believe the same of Mary while others do).

(a) it is not far from clear. But then neither is it undisputable in connection with the ascent of Elijah.

(b) many people do not believe the Bible but is there info about these particular observant Jews at the time who doubted (likely there were some but perhaps not very observant!)?

(c) "much as"? Not so. There is nothing in God's inspired word that alludes to, mentions or teaches anything about Mary's bodily ascension - nothing at all. That is made up by the Roman church because they didn't like what the Bible said about Mary. (In this case, nothing, just as is the case with the so-called immaculate conception).

Cheers
Meade

[Crackpot]

Keld

Are you saying that it is impossible for one to inject personal non-doctrinal opinion In what has became known as scripture?

[rubato]

The universal method is to start with a conclusion and then cobble together scripture to arrive at that conclusion. When necessary, scripture is re-interpreted as metaphorical, symbolic, or only applying to conditions which existed 'back then'. (mumble mumble mumble)

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

1 Cor 7:12 To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any believera has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you.b 16 Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.
New Revised Standard Version

CP hope you don't mind me commenting. It's a good question: is it impossible for one to inject personal non-doctrinal opinion In what has became known as scripture?

I assume by "one" you mean Paul or Peter or any other author of a biblical book? Paul's statement above sure looks like it. "I say - I and not the Lord" means he is evidently applying scriptural interpretation: Jesus has said that divorce is not God's plan; God hates divorce, according to Malachi (2:16); but new believers in Corinth thought perhaps they should divorce a spouse who was an unbeliever. Paul says "no" - you should not get divorced. Through your faith and good behaviour, your spouse may come to faith also. OTOH if he or she buggers off, well let them go. Later in 2Cor he will amplify that a believer should not marry an unbelieveer, which creates this unequal yoking together.

Paul is making clear that the passage he wrote did not come from a vision, nor a chat with Jesus, nor have these words been handed on to him by apostles, or any other writings or tradition. This is Paul writing advice on a point that is not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture for which he claims no Biblical or divine authority. However, that does not mean he was not inspired by God to write it. He wouldn't be sitting down writing to Aunt Martha and suddenly go "Whoops there's God. I'd better dash off something to the Galatians".

So I must answer "no" it was not possible for the writers of the Biblical books to interject personal non-doctrinal opinion in scriptural books( that is, other than non-doctrinal greetings, farewells, how are yous and those kinds of things). non-doctrinal opinion was left to the pious? frauds who wrote the Gospel of Peter, of Thomas, of Judas, of Daffy Duck etc.

Meade
PS ignore the splashing in the shallow end. Just rube trying out his water-wings

[Crackpot]

THanks for clarifying what I meant by one (upon rereading I too noticed I wasn't exactly clear)

The divine inspiration sword cuts both ways as it can both inspire content and mitigate personal prejudice.

See If evrything is a divinly inspired "rule", how do you square the 1Timothy passage With the Prior Scripural existance Of Deborah? A Woman Not only in a leadership position, (The highest at the time) But, also a prophet who by very definition is to instruct the people of Israel in what they should be doing vis a vis God?

I find the use of the personal pronoun as the source of the 1Timothy authiorative statement interesting because, In My memory at least, it is unlike Paul when speaking of doctorine (forgive my spelling I'm at work and I don't have a spell check feature here) to mark himself as the authority for which he bases his arguments. To be sure It is something I'm going to look further into and if it is a sole or limited appearance I think it will lend creedence to my theory.

[Rick]

Deborah was from a different dispensation.

She also sacrificed animals.

As for the other when it comes to doctrine, I doubt Paul (himself) decided that women should NOT usurp authority over men. In the beginning of that chapter did he not mention his ordination? Who ordained him?

Just askin...

[Crackpot]

The problem is "dispensations" always have become less restrictive not more restrictive.

[Rick]

Yer saying the Mosaic dispensation is less restrictive than the patriarchal dispensation?

Restrictive however is not how I would describe any of the three when it comes to comparison.

All three have their differences...

[MajGenl.Meade]

See If evrything is a divinly inspired "rule", how do you square the 1Timothy passage With the Prior Scripural existance Of Deborah? A Woman Not only in a leadership position, (The highest at the time) But, also a prophet who by very definition is to instruct the people of Israel in what they should be doing vis a vis God?

A slight quibble over "rule" perhaps but no matter. Paul was fully aware of Deborah (and others) but he was not addressing civil authority but religious authority. His practise was not to have female teachers in church - referring to what we'd now call the pastorate. Romans 6 shows his commendation of Phoebe described by him as a "deaconess" of the church (sometimes translated "servant", "helper", "deacon" and in one case "minister"). The word is diakona. She would have had authority IN the church but not OVER the church; deacons had financial and support responsibility for orphans, widows and other worthy causes. In the same passage he also gives thanks for Priscilla, a female evangelist who risked her life for the gospel. She too would have not have had teaching authority in a regular church body.

Deborah herself (one feels certain) despite her status as judge, was never once called upon (or permitted) to peform the religious rites associated with Judaism - the sacrifices at the tabernacle and so on. The religious function was not identical to the non-religious.

I think that the simplistic critical view of Paul's attitude toward women does not actually bear up under scrutiny. I don't doubt he was a product of his time but part of the scandal he caused was (ironically) the far greater liberality of the Christian church in regards to women. tax collectors and slaves, claasses often looked down upon by people of lesser Hebraic background than Paul.

How against the grain it must have been for him to declare: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28).

Regards
Meade