Thou shalt not #kill. (Exodus 20:13) / Thou shalt not [be complicit in #genocide]. More than 14,500 #children killed in #Gaza. The latest #death toll stands at 35,287 #Palestinians and 1,139 people killed in #Israel since October 7. (2024.05.07)
This sounds like a hogwash to me. First off they kinda end by talking about the meaning behind the head coverings women were required to wear as if this is a mystery. Paul was originally Jewish. Head coverings for married women is a Jewish tradition of modesty and a sugn of marriage. You can find rabbis still discussing this with a quick search even as a young Christian in a church that did not practice head coverings for women we still had an understanding of the general purpose it was done. Then we have the statement that was writing the New Testament. Paul never wrote for the New Testament. He wrote to teach others, usually small community churches about proper worship and dogma that was being developed at that time. Writing to keep those faithful to his area of teaching faithful. People should also note the use of pagan ideas incerted to justify the idea that a head covering is symbolic of the womb used to fore in this idea that head coverings could represent the circle of reliance they were promoting. Instead of using biblical teachings or references to ancient traditions. It seems to me we have a verse that is problomatic for women who do not wish to live is subservience to men. Then we have some renegotiating of the bible and its meaning to counter the Christians that use their own renegotiations of the bible to place women benith men. That isnt the real problem though. The problem is really with the way Christians want to make the Bible equal to the other members of the trinity. The way the want it to speak with one voice, have one meaning, been seen as having no flaws. The bible is none of these things. If you abandon these requirements most the issues fall away. The bible is a collection of documents and traditions written down ny numerous men over long periods of time where the majority of works started as oral traditions. Some were written for political change. Those stories tell the relationship certain people had with God and were set in the context of their time and culture. There is no reason to obscure the fact that in the time all Bible stories were taking place and with in the cultures writing them women were little better than the property of men and under the power and authority of men in all things. Even in areas of sex and reproduction it was under the agency of men. Head coverings were used to show modesty and married status to show they were compliant, under the authority of a man, and not available for marriage. Is this a problem for modern women? Only if you deify the Bible. There is no biblical law Paul is referencing but a Jewish tradition. Modern people have other traditions to show modesty, marriage status, etc. The head covering tradition is problomatic by today's standards, but as we are not of that time and culture there is no reason to worry about it. The real issue, I feel they danced around in their need to make the Bible say something it doesn't is that in Biblical times women were to he subservient to men. Short of Genesis 1 where men and women are created at the same time the bible places women beneath the rule of men. This is a very astute question for a child to ask. Chdren are not stupid & they have enormous access to information. The answers given here may placate her for a time, but if she starts looking past the apologetics this answer will lose it's truth quickly. A bible that isn't perfect, that is contextualized for the time and cultre it is in is a truth. Does the bible place women beneath men? Yes. Then you can answer how much of that is directly from God's law or the traditions of man.
As a (female) seminarian, I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis. The "New Testament" is a group of writing and letters written within specific contexts, for people of a certain time. Can we learn from it? Yes, but not without context, like it's a rulebook, and NOT like it was written with the intention of guiding people of the future.
I love this. I use to be so unclear about certain passages of scripture and when I asked about them, I was Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to God.
It's so fun, to hear you guys jump through hoops you try to make scriptures say something that it doesn't. It's misogynistic. I am not a believer, but you cannot read this and not see misogyny unless you are absolutely blind. The fact that the Bible is filled with misogyny, is one of the reasons I am not a believer. Hence, and watch over Christians come out of woodwork to beat me up, we have evolved to a greater morality then that which is talking the Bible, or the Quran, or the Torah, etc.
Sorry cant take your statement seriously, especially since you have a built-in put down of anyone who disagrees with you, 'wait and see all the bullies come out and beat me up! Victims are always right!' But since I don't want to fall into the trap of assuming you're just trolling and just want reactions, I'll ask some questions. Have you studied(not just read it once or twice) the Bible, and or the Qu'ran in their entirety? Please give examples of current 'secular' morality of which we should be proud, I don't see it but I'm willing to be taught.
Absolutely no one should ever diminish the value of nor negate the value that women have as image bearers of God. Like ethnicity, one’s gender has no role to play in their salvation, per Galatians 3:28. Scripture, post apostolic history, and our contemporary times today are rich with godly women who our daughters should look to as godly examples of image bearers of God; once sinners but saved by grace. Mary the mother of Jesus. Mary Magdalene. Hannah. Sarah. Ruth. Rachel. Lady Jane Grey. Amy Carmichael. Elizabeth Elliot. Corrie ten Boon. Harriet Tubman. Phillis Wheatley. Alisa Childers. Joni Eareckson Tada. Doreen Virtue. Marcia Montenegro. Michelle Lesley. Megan Basham. Erin Coates. Allie Beth Stuckey. Laura Klassen.
Paul was telling this Generation of people, #CuriouslyKaitlyn, to become Holy Spirit Led as we "Study to Show Ourselves Approved By God We Are Workers (Holy Spirit Guides So) We Can't Be Made Ashamed For Rightly Dividing The Wold Of YHVH." So follow My Reasonings with what's Written. Genesis 1:26-29s reading suggests God called both Genders "Mam" but called them "Male" (minds able to comprehend all things) and Female" ("fe" = price paid to) man. That is revealed where Jacob worked for his wives. In chapter 2 Adam was fromed out of earth and Eve was made from Adam's Rib and called "woven from man" pronounced "woman." Therefore Paul was instructing "The Called Out Of The World People" to stop using "Female" and "Woman" for genders and "Human" (hewed from man) as our Specie and return to "Man" to describe our "Specie," for our "offsprings" use "Baby and Children" and for all of our Genders we're to use "Girls" and "Boys."
It is true that when interpreting scripture, it is paramount that we have an understanding of the culture and mindset of the authors to get the best understanding of what they were saying and why. All too often do we "westerners" interpret through our own view the words and thoughts of people who don't think, act, or process information the way we do. People from a different country and time. In Genesis 1: 27 the scripture says God created 'man' (adam: aw' dawm - meaning man/mankind/humanity) in his image. So just from the information we have there alone the author COULD be saying that the male was created in God's image, but it could also be speaking of both the male AND the female since the word used there was 'adam' which wasn't used as a name for the male but a description of the species being spoken of. Whenever there's a case where something in scripture may be unclear, always use what IS clear to get a better picture of the unclear. Both the old and new testaments teach that both men and women were created to work together and have dominion over the earth. Galatians 3: 27-28 is just one of many scriptures that states how in Christ both men and women are equal in value. However, there is an intended authority structure which is what Paul was speaking about in 1 Corinthians 11 which was established already even in the creation account. Paul starts the chapter speaking about this by saying "Follow me as I follow Christ." Then goes on to speak about the head (authority) of man (Greek word; aner - pronounced an'-ayr; meaning the same as adam, man/mankind/humanity) is Christ; and the head (authority) of woman (Greek word; gyné - pronounced goo-nay'; meaning woman/wife) is the man; and the head (authority) of Christ is God. From that foundation Paul begins to break down the relationship between this authority structure and having one's "head" covered or uncovered in their culture, indicating that when we don't submit ourselves to our proper position in the authority structure, we "dishonor our heads." In verse 10 Paul specifically points out that "That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head..." hinting that a woman having her head covered is as much a symbol of the authoritative covering of her husband as the man's uncovered head is a symbol of his authoritative covering of Christ. In conclusion, the man and woman are both equally valuable in the kingdom of God and one of the ways we reflect His image is by submitting to His established authoritative structure.
- the sons of God, in which, man was made in the image of ... were the governance over estates within the heavens.. ... and some became perverse as in their estates So as than they would be mattered into a full existence in so to be fully judged
- woman, is the reflection and glory of her a manchild :and woman, was made in the image of the morning stars - there was and is a God and Goddess in as the Holy Place and they were married
The way I understood that verse goes back to Proverbs 11 where the husband and children praise her and she's praised even at the city gates by other people. When Paul says that the woman is the glory of the man, it's talking in the context of marriage. Otherwise it would use the plural. What he's saying is that the wife is someone for the husband to be proud of and praise. If she acts like a fool, it reflects badly on him. The man stands alone judged by God and society whether there is something to cheer about. He has to show his face. She doesn't. Nobody gets to judge her. In a patriarchal society, she is shielded by her husband who should be shouting her praises. This isn't a statement of her relationship to God, it's a description of a societal arrangement. One which doesn't apply to single women. And one that has no basis in God's ideal. Which when you go back to the garden, neither were covered. They both showed their face. Nobody should be aspiring to a broken system where men rule over women. That was a consequence of the fall and is evil.
Thou shalt not #kill. (Exodus 20:13) / Thou shalt not [be complicit in #genocide].
More than 14,500 #children killed in #Gaza.
The latest #death toll stands at 35,287 #Palestinians and 1,139 people killed in #Israel since October 7. (2024.05.07)
This sounds like a hogwash to me. First off they kinda end by talking about the meaning behind the head coverings women were required to wear as if this is a mystery. Paul was originally Jewish. Head coverings for married women is a Jewish tradition of modesty and a sugn of marriage. You can find rabbis still discussing this with a quick search even as a young Christian in a church that did not practice head coverings for women we still had an understanding of the general purpose it was done.
Then we have the statement that was writing the New Testament. Paul never wrote for the New Testament. He wrote to teach others, usually small community churches about proper worship and dogma that was being developed at that time. Writing to keep those faithful to his area of teaching faithful.
People should also note the use of pagan ideas incerted to justify the idea that a head covering is symbolic of the womb used to fore in this idea that head coverings could represent the circle of reliance they were promoting. Instead of using biblical teachings or references to ancient traditions.
It seems to me we have a verse that is problomatic for women who do not wish to live is subservience to men. Then we have some renegotiating of the bible and its meaning to counter the Christians that use their own renegotiations of the bible to place women benith men. That isnt the real problem though. The problem is really with the way Christians want to make the Bible equal to the other members of the trinity. The way the want it to speak with one voice, have one meaning, been seen as having no flaws. The bible is none of these things. If you abandon these requirements most the issues fall away. The bible is a collection of documents and traditions written down ny numerous men over long periods of time where the majority of works started as oral traditions. Some were written for political change. Those stories tell the relationship certain people had with God and were set in the context of their time and culture.
There is no reason to obscure the fact that in the time all Bible stories were taking place and with in the cultures writing them women were little better than the property of men and under the power and authority of men in all things. Even in areas of sex and reproduction it was under the agency of men. Head coverings were used to show modesty and married status to show they were compliant, under the authority of a man, and not available for marriage. Is this a problem for modern women? Only if you deify the Bible. There is no biblical law Paul is referencing but a Jewish tradition. Modern people have other traditions to show modesty, marriage status, etc. The head covering tradition is problomatic by today's standards, but as we are not of that time and culture there is no reason to worry about it.
The real issue, I feel they danced around in their need to make the Bible say something it doesn't is that in Biblical times women were to he subservient to men. Short of Genesis 1 where men and women are created at the same time the bible places women beneath the rule of men.
This is a very astute question for a child to ask. Chdren are not stupid & they have enormous access to information. The answers given here may placate her for a time, but if she starts looking past the apologetics this answer will lose it's truth quickly. A bible that isn't perfect, that is contextualized for the time and cultre it is in is a truth. Does the bible place women beneath men? Yes. Then you can answer how much of that is directly from God's law or the traditions of man.
As a (female) seminarian, I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis.
The "New Testament" is a group of writing and letters written within specific contexts, for people of a certain time. Can we learn from it? Yes, but not without context, like it's a rulebook, and NOT like it was written with the intention of guiding people of the future.
I love this. I use to be so unclear about certain passages of scripture and when I asked about them, I was Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to God.
Thank you sisters
It's so fun, to hear you guys jump through hoops you try to make scriptures say something that it doesn't. It's misogynistic. I am not a believer, but you cannot read this and not see misogyny unless you are absolutely blind. The fact that the Bible is filled with misogyny, is one of the reasons I am not a believer. Hence, and watch over Christians come out of woodwork to beat me up, we have evolved to a greater morality then that which is talking the Bible, or the Quran, or the Torah, etc.
Sorry cant take your statement seriously, especially since you have a built-in put down of anyone who disagrees with you, 'wait and see all the bullies come out and beat me up! Victims are always right!'
But since I don't want to fall into the trap of assuming you're just trolling and just want reactions, I'll ask some questions. Have you studied(not just read it once or twice) the Bible, and or the Qu'ran in their entirety? Please give examples of current 'secular' morality of which we should be proud, I don't see it but I'm willing to be taught.
This was beautiful! I cried at the end. Thank you!
I to ❤ NO butt news. Thanks so much for your work.
Nothing on should we support Israel?
I love this podcast! So real.
Why is the bible written in such a way that the most clear readings are the ones that diminish the value of women?
Part of that is the fault of translators. Part of that is because it was written in an ancient context.
@@asdfrozen no doubt! It's funny how god mostly agreed with the prevailing wisdom at the time that each book was written 🤔🤔🤔
It's really not. That's just patriarchy brain.
Absolutely no one should ever diminish the value of nor negate the value that women have as image bearers of God. Like ethnicity, one’s gender has no role to play in their salvation, per Galatians 3:28. Scripture, post apostolic history, and our contemporary times today are rich with godly women who our daughters should look to as godly examples of image bearers of God; once sinners but saved by grace. Mary the mother of Jesus. Mary Magdalene. Hannah. Sarah. Ruth. Rachel. Lady Jane Grey. Amy Carmichael. Elizabeth Elliot. Corrie ten Boon. Harriet Tubman. Phillis Wheatley. Alisa Childers. Joni Eareckson Tada. Doreen Virtue. Marcia Montenegro. Michelle Lesley. Megan Basham. Erin Coates. Allie Beth Stuckey. Laura Klassen.
@@patrickc3419 thinking about the law codes that list women as possessions and literally assign a lower monetary value to them
Paul was telling this Generation of people, #CuriouslyKaitlyn, to become Holy Spirit Led as we "Study to Show Ourselves Approved By God We Are Workers (Holy Spirit Guides So) We Can't Be Made Ashamed For Rightly Dividing The Wold Of YHVH." So follow My Reasonings with what's Written.
Genesis 1:26-29s reading suggests God called both Genders "Mam" but called them "Male" (minds able to comprehend all things) and Female" ("fe" = price paid to) man. That is revealed where Jacob worked for his wives.
In chapter 2 Adam was fromed out of earth and Eve was made from Adam's Rib and called "woven from man" pronounced "woman." Therefore Paul was instructing "The Called Out Of The World People" to stop using "Female" and "Woman" for genders and "Human" (hewed from man) as our Specie and return to "Man" to describe our "Specie," for our "offsprings" use "Baby and Children" and for all of our Genders we're to use "Girls" and "Boys."
It is true that when interpreting scripture, it is paramount that we have an understanding of the culture and mindset of the authors to get the best understanding of what they were saying and why. All too often do we "westerners" interpret through our own view the words and thoughts of people who don't think, act, or process information the way we do. People from a different country and time.
In Genesis 1: 27 the scripture says God created 'man' (adam: aw' dawm - meaning man/mankind/humanity) in his image. So just from the information we have there alone the author COULD be saying that the male was created in God's image, but it could also be speaking of both the male AND the female since the word used there was 'adam' which wasn't used as a name for the male but a description of the species being spoken of.
Whenever there's a case where something in scripture may be unclear, always use what IS clear to get a better picture of the unclear. Both the old and new testaments teach that both men and women were created to work together and have dominion over the earth. Galatians 3: 27-28 is just one of many scriptures that states how in Christ both men and women are equal in value.
However, there is an intended authority structure which is what Paul was speaking about in 1 Corinthians 11 which was established already even in the creation account. Paul starts the chapter speaking about this by saying "Follow me as I follow Christ." Then goes on to speak about the head (authority) of man (Greek word; aner - pronounced an'-ayr; meaning the same as adam, man/mankind/humanity) is Christ; and the head (authority) of woman (Greek word; gyné - pronounced goo-nay'; meaning woman/wife) is the man; and the head (authority) of Christ is God. From that foundation Paul begins to break down the relationship between this authority structure and having one's "head" covered or uncovered in their culture, indicating that when we don't submit ourselves to our proper position in the authority structure, we "dishonor our heads." In verse 10 Paul specifically points out that "That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head..." hinting that a woman having her head covered is as much a symbol of the authoritative covering of her husband as the man's uncovered head is a symbol of his authoritative covering of Christ.
In conclusion, the man and woman are both equally valuable in the kingdom of God and one of the ways we reflect His image is by submitting to His established authoritative structure.
- men, as meaning, there was more than one man created ;but instead, three
- the sons of God, in which, man was made in the image of ... were the governance over estates within the heavens.. ... and some became perverse as in their estates So as than they would be mattered into a full existence in so to be fully judged
- the song JIMMY/Tool
- woman, is the reflection and glory of her a manchild :and woman, was made in the image of the morning stars - there was and is a God and Goddess in as the Holy Place and they were married
- 'woman is the glory of man' :Revelation chapter 12 verse 5^...
So women are not of God but lesser beings under the rule of men.
- and a full existence as to meaning in that of matter and so of physic a l l y b o d i e d
- the Priests have placed and presented polluted bread on the so of table
- the she'd blood of God
??? ChatGPT stop trying to trick ppl into thinking you're a real person!
The way I understood that verse goes back to Proverbs 11 where the husband and children praise her and she's praised even at the city gates by other people. When Paul says that the woman is the glory of the man, it's talking in the context of marriage. Otherwise it would use the plural. What he's saying is that the wife is someone for the husband to be proud of and praise. If she acts like a fool, it reflects badly on him.
The man stands alone judged by God and society whether there is something to cheer about. He has to show his face. She doesn't. Nobody gets to judge her. In a patriarchal society, she is shielded by her husband who should be shouting her praises. This isn't a statement of her relationship to God, it's a description of a societal arrangement. One which doesn't apply to single women. And one that has no basis in God's ideal. Which when you go back to the garden, neither were covered. They both showed their face.
Nobody should be aspiring to a broken system where men rule over women. That was a consequence of the fall and is evil.