Women speak in Bible

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Such is a gross Job to get through it without understanding metaphysical things that are defined by some as nothing ... like gods of great emotions ... erected in empty space?
 
Waterfall said:
Oui, you're bringing up some very good points. So I searched for examples how God is speaking to women, rather than point to examples of how men interpreted God speaking to them.

For example:
The Bible states we should submit to one another and to God.
When the adulteress is brought to Jesus, does He not point out that it takes two to tango?
God's people are referred to as female....."the daughters of Zion" in the OT
The church is referred to as female.
There are examples of women teaching with authority within the church.

So it makes me wonder, is God sexist or has the Bible been continuously abused by men's interpretations as an effect of living in a patriarchal society?

How often do we women hear sermons about women having authority?
Click to expand...
What examples are there Waterfall of women teaching with authority in the early Christian church ⛪?
 
There was de-bore-awe in that case where the ephemeral jinn (genre) screwed up the Hebrew race for peace ... and this popped up on the other side of Jordan when Gabriel (dark jinn; eve angelist) who delayed Jacob in the ultimate of mud wrestling ... right down in de mire ... bottomland ferme ... some humis required so the ultimate wisdom found a source ... takes some man hours or chitty time to get this into a difficult domain ... the god head that's determinate ... the jinn is yetindeterminate ... if you read intuit! Such is the genre of the myth ... that which's out there ... beyond closed souls!
 
Oui said:
Personally, I expect equality. Is it limited to black & white? If we read only out of scripture, then we have a male centric view, if we read into scripture its considered opinion/interpretation.
Click to expand...

So expectations trump. And what we hear someone or something say is vastly more informative that what that someone or something was trying to say?

Oui said:
Scholars generally agree the old testament came from 4 different sources and time periods, and was subjected to editing and redaction over time, seems like lots of room for interpretation there.
Click to expand...

Documentary Hypothesis isn't new, nor is it overwhelmingly compelling. Imagine assuming that an entire group of people are limited to one expression of the deity they worship.

Yes we see evidence of editing. That isn't an activity the text engages in. At most it is something the text is subjected to. We are still left with the text and if we decide that it is more important to study what the text doesn't say rather than what it does say we are not interpreting text but rather what we imagine the text ought to have said.

Added together we are interpreting, by means of our imaginations what our egos have decided is more important.

Oui said:
"Most scholars agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be composed, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke used it plus a second document called the Q source when composing their own gospels."
Click to expand...

The hunt for source material is also more about how the gospels were brought together. It is necessitated by the amount of material the synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) appear to share. John the odd gospel out doesn't fall into the hunt for Q (Quelle or source).

Here again this is more of a historical search rather than interpretation. Interpretation concerns itself with what the text says.

Oui said:
The years of work these women put into the project points to the desperation of women looking for something to identify with in scripture, plus the fact they stated that such research had never been done.
Click to expand...

That isn't even interpretation. That is pure presupposition. It is more about your imagination of their thoughts or feelings than it is any thoughts or feelings they themselves have expressed.

Oui said:
Its not my intention to dismiss or demean the project, its to dig deeper, to explore the roots of the origins of scripture and women's role in that.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. That isn't the job of the interpreter. The interpreter works with what exists, not with what they wished existed.

Oui said:
Obviously, the texts are what they are, but they can now be viewed in a completely new light with the illumination of knowledge and awareness.
Click to expand...

Within reason yes they can.

That reason does not extend to the realm of imagination or presuming that because our contemporary culture is so enlightened God is that much more so and by extension scripture that fails to measure up to our contemporary standards fails because it has been stifled and deliberately distorted to suit the purposes of a culture we consider not only to be primitive but backward.

As we uncover more and more about the culture that existed at the time of composition we become able to see ancient texts through an understanding that is less our contemporary perspective and more their ancient perspective.

Oui said:
The genuine feminine views of the world/life/death/existence/spirituality/everything are absent. Women had no tools, they were not provided with them.
Click to expand...


In an oral culture where the only tools are talking and remembering only the mute is disadvantaged.
Oui said:
The male views are all present, their tools were the pen, scroll, education and an entirely male institutionalized support system.
Click to expand...

Only if one presumes all males are equal. When gender is not in play there is still economics. Not all males are present and represented.

Oui said:
In general, men & women think quite differently about a lot of important life matters.
Click to expand...

Which nobody denies. My testimony is my testimony. My being male and your being female ordinarily do not enter into it. What is the more pressing concern about our respective testimonies is their veracity.

Oui said:
What would the bible look like if it had been written exclusively by women?
Click to expand...

That is an impossible question to answer. We could easily ask what the bible would look like if an entirely different group of men had taken control of it and the answer would be every bit as uncertain.

Would it be different? Maybe, maybe not.

I suspect that our presumptions lead us to conclude precisely how it would be different and that is less discovery than it is imagination.
 
Inannawhimsey said:
the notion of "the authors rarely interpret" sounds quite modern to me -- like a journalist or camera...again, i think the reason why someone would think that is not for reality reasons but rather for the care & keeping of their worldview, to trust the authors more, which, therefore, lends to trust of jesus etc etc etc more...
Click to expand...


Fair point.

We are still left with what impressions are presented, preserved and recorded vs. what impressions were not had and why, what was not preserved and why, and what was not recorded and why.

If you know what I mean by what I do not say more than what I do say then you are a rare breed and I would be delighted to see such evidence play out in a court of law.

The man is guilty your honour based on the fact that he refuses to admit his guilt.

Why even waste time with a trial.
 
@Oui

what do you think of Jesus being male as well ?, do you think God should have had a daughter instead to balance gender equality in scripture ?

what is your view ?
 
Pr. Jae said:
That I'm aware of, however, there's nowhere in the Bible that states that she did so in an official capacity within a church ⛪ setting.
Click to expand...

Well point 1 for literalism.

Acts 18: 26 is interesting. It does state that both Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos. That part isn't particularly interesting, unless Luke's narrative trumps Paul's command in 1 Timothy 2: 12. If that is so literalism is ejected from the game and arguments from silence may score both ways.

Literalism 1 non-literalism 1

What is interesting is that the text mentions Priscilla before Aquila. Consult your Bible for where this happens with any other couple. Six times Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned and four of those six times Priscilla is mentioned first.

I'm not sure if it proves anything. It certainly is worthy of notice.

Outside of the book of Acts there are three references to Priscilla and Aquila all of which place the couple high-up in the greetings department and two of the three times reference is made to the Church in their house. It would be a huge stretch to argue that after having assisted in teaching Apollos, Priscilla refused to assist in the teaching of others.

Still arguments from silence result in a draw. Literalism 2 non-literalism 2

First are the apostles, next the prophets and then the teachers writes Paul in 1 Corinthians 12: 28. Are we going to presume that Paul only recognizes Priscilla as a Patron of a Church and that she doesn't function as a teacher in that Church?

I suppose it doesn't help that years ago it was argued that Prscilla is really Prisca and Prisca is a man. Even though we later learned that Prisca is a woman's name and Priscilla a derivation thereof.

There is also a theory that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (the only book of the New Testament which makes no claim for authorship, was written by Priscilla. An idea first proposed by Adolf von Harnack in 1900. This idea is also embraced by Gilbert Bilezikian who was a professor at Wheaton College (Pretty evangelical place once upon a time), a Baptist Pastor and co-founder alongside Bill Hybels of Willow Creek.

It is still a minority position, all things considered.

The only argument that can be made against Priscilla being a teacher and being recognized as one by Paul or the Early Church is 1 Timothy 2: 12. Where Paul says, "I permit no woman . . ." and maybe he personally didn't but failed to object to God granting that permission.

Paul also forbade marriage to anyone unless they are burning in lust. Oddly few reflect that teaching today, even in the denominations bound and determined that women not be given authority over men.
 
Could we take a cue (Q) from this as a sign (Semite) from god (everything) for people that don't believe in nothing or the infinite case?

Perhaps this comes in the mute Psyche ... chi who speaks to ethereal cases that are considered beyond normal? Is that like a silent "Q" that could represent the prick of a penne as one fifth of the symbols given? This may have presented as "phi" in earlier icons which powers have destroyed in iconoclasm (destruction of signs)?

This is possibly a sign of sophistication too great for those of determinate simplicity like pricks of pede ... an Irish nudge on this following dais ...
 
I think we are always to some extent going to be interpreting what's important. It's all about interpretation, as bits of allegorical history are carried into the present. The question is, "what's important?" is it preserving strictly what the church forefathers interpreted in their place and time that's important to us now? Because...as they did so, they left women largely out of the texts and the selection process (and education and most non-domestic aspects of society) - we were fairly unimportant.
 
Now could someone tell me by whose authority did the apostle Paul become an apostle? According to the Paul it was the will of God?
Is this any more than some woman could justly claim as a requirement for a deacon or being an apostle?
 
Kimmio said:
I think we are always to some extent going to be interpreting what's important. It's all about interpretation, as bits of allegorical history are carried into the present. The question is, "what's important?" is it preserving strictly what the church forefathers interpreted in their place and time that's important to us now?
Click to expand...
Well for half the world it might be important. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oui
Waterfall said:
Now could someone tell me by whose authority did the apostle Paul become an apostle? According to the Paul it was the will of God?
Is this any more than some woman could justly claim as a requirement for a deacon or being an apostle?
Click to expand...

She likely wouldn't have faired very well making such a claim - and she couldn't write it down nor could the women who came after her for hundreds of years because they weren't educated to write! And Paul instructs that they shouldn't speak either! So, that's why the views of women and their testimony is largely missing.
 
Last edited:
But, it's only two women and we have Paul speaking for them telling them what to think and do. If that wasn't the case - and they spoke for themselves, we have no record of their own voices and thoughts. We have no "books" of the bible seen through the eyes of women and if there were any the church fathers did not find them worthy to include - and that was their interpretation of matters!

Rev John asks if it's our egos and imaginations and expectations doing the interpreting - but it seems to me it was also their egos and imaginations and expectations doing the interpreting, too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oui
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top