Posts by Steve J

4

1 Tim 2:11-15 Subjection: Is Paul's reasoning flawed?

by Steve J in

a woman should learn in quietness and full submission.

i do not permit a woman to teach, or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

for adam was created first, then eve.

Steve J

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach, or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (NIV Bible)

Jesus Apostles and disciples obviously believed that God's Spirit was poured out upon them at Pentecost 33 CE, in fulfillment of Joel 2 which talks about sons and daughters prophesying. It would be logical then, for at least those women who had received the Spirit to preach and prophesy in public, (and in the congregation) otherwise there would be little point in them receiving the Spirit.

Paul also writes to the Corinthian's saying that a woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head. This suggests that women did indeed prophesy in public. (1 Cor 11;5) But Paul's argument above, at 1 Timothy 2, seems flawed to me.

1"For Adam was created first, then Eve." What does it matter who was created first? Genesis tells us that Eve was created as a helpmate for Adam and the NWT uses the words "as a compliment of him." In other words she made Adam complete. There is no mention of subjection in the account as far as I can see.

2 "Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." Again the NWT uses the words "thoroughly deceived," and in my understanding someone who is thoroughly deceived is less guilty than one such as Adam who acted willfully, knowing that what he was doing was breaking God's law.

3"But women will be saved through childbearing"Is Paul really suggesting here that a woman's only saving grace is her ability to produce children? If so, what about barren women who are unable to produce children? is there no hope for them?

Steve J

22

Context and Consistency

by DT in

since i was born into the wts, i suffered from a lot a brainwashing before i could even read.

i had a lot of preconceived ideas before i started to read the bible.

i assumed that it was consistent, so when i came across apparent contradictions, i assumed there were reasonable explanations and even tried to make them up.

Steve J

Hi DT,

I actually feel that the Bible is a fairly interesting and culturally relevant book. However, I had to discard the myth of it's consistency to find these limited benefits.

I couldn't have put it better DT.

I don't know about you but I hate to think of the ammount of times I said to interested ones that despite popular opinion the Bible does not contradict itself and is consistent throughout...How I've been made to eat my words...

It was Matthew's genealogy that first got me thinking, as he doesn't only trace Jesus' ancestry through the cursed line of Jechoniah (Jeremiah 22:30) but he also claims;

All the generations from Abraham until David were fourteen and from David until the deportation to Babylon fourteen, and from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ fourteen generations. (Matthew 1:17)

There is obviously some significance in the authors mind with the number fourteen for some reason, but if you count them, you will find there were only 13 generations from the deportation to Jesus.

In David's lineage the author also skips three generations between Uzziah and Jehoram, deliberately omitting Amaziah, Jehoash and Ahaziah to make it fit. (Compare Matthew 1:8 with 1 Chronicles 3:10-12)

Why?

If Jesus was the son of God, then why try to tamper with his genealogy to make him look better, or his birth more spectacular than it actually was?

I'd be interested to see what was the most striking inconsistency that you've found.

Steve J

25

Most people would say that practising any religion is better than not......

by JH in

most believers think that it's better to practise any religion than to act like an animal and not practise any.. even my dad who used to dislike the jw's when he was alive, told me once, "you're better off going back to that religion, than not practising any religion at all".

i'm a believer like he was, but it's funny how most believers will say that practising any religion is better than not practising any.. jw's wouldn't agree, because they think that only their religion is the right one, even though a wrong religion may have a postive influence on somebody's behavior and happiness.. the only thing a jw looks at is the carrot "eternal life".

they won't look at the good that may come out of practising another religion.. after my jw experience, i won't go to any other religion.

Steve J

The problem with practising, or belonging to any religion is that you're expected to tow the line and to a greater or lesser degree not think for yourself. Once you believe you have the "truth," as many religions do, (not only JW's) you are not open to argument, or debate and I feel this is potentially dangerous.

In my opinion, religion tends to enslave rather than bring salvation and speaking personally I feel that I've discovered much more about the truth of the Bible since leaving JW's than in all my years with them.

After my JW experience, I won't go to any other religion. My dad knew this, and that's why he told me back then, I should go back even though he didn't agree with their beliefs and especially their way of breaking up families and screwing up lives.

Why on earth would anyone encourage his son to go back to a religion that breaks up families and screws up peoples lives?

Overall, he felt that practising any religion was better than not practising any, because he felt that you had to gain salvation.

Salvation from what?

It's only when we leave God and the Devil out of the equasion that we become responsible for our own actions but if you still feel a need for religion I'd suggest Paganism. Their ethic "Do as thou wilt as long as it harms no one," is far greater than any other religious ethic that I've come accross, as the "no one" would include all life forms and indirectly the environment too.

Personally I believe "Religion is a snare and a racket"...Now where have I heard that before? Judge Rutherford was it?

Steve J

45

Is there a Universal Issue? Did God cheat....yes and I can prove it.

by oompa in

gen. 3:5 for god knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like god, knowing good and bad.".

(genesis 3:22) 22 and jehovah god went on to say: "here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad, and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite,".

gen 3:22and the lord god said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:i awoke this morning and had an epiphiny.

Steve J

If Jehovah/Yahweh is the creator of all things and the Most High, how on earth, or in heaven come to that could his Sovereignty ever be challenged? Didn't Paul say something about the potter and ask can the thing made say to the potter why did you make me?

If we go by numbers of those faithful to God vs. those not, Satan wins.

What about the Flood? Surely the issue, if there was one, must have been settled back in Noah's day otherwise God would not have destroyed mankind back then would he?

Steve J

34

So what would you find if you only read the Bible?...........

by oompa in

i tried this a few years ago.

i read the gospels right before the memorial.

jesus, i noticed, did not answer some questions his friends asked him.

Steve J

The opening verse is enlightening; "In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth."

Elohim is plural, so should this read; "In the beginning (the) Gods created the heavens and the earth?"

It seems the Hebrew religion didn't start out as a monotheistic faith and interestingly Josephus confirms this as he claims that Abram after making a study of the universe was the first to come up with the idea that there must only be one God.

Steve J

32

Without using the Bible.........

by searcher in

.

.......prove that the bible is true.. .

Steve J

However, the first thought that came to my mind when I saw this question was how I so frequently used 1 Timothy 3:16 ("all scripture is inspired of God") as proof to myself, and others, that the Bible must therefore be true! It had never occurred to me (until a few years ago) the absurdity of taking what a book says about itself as proof of anything!

Good point onacruse, I've been there and got the "T" shirt.

I also realised that Paul was only talking about the Hebrew Scriptures here as the canon of the Greek had not been set when he wrote to Timothy and the word inspired doesn't really mean much does it? I could be inspired to write a piece of music after listening to Beethoven say, but it does'n mean Beethoven communicated his thoughts directly to me, and believe me it wouldn't sound anything like his stuff. Likewise, the Bible might well have been inspired, but it doesn't mean to say that its true.

That was enlightening also, when I read how the canon of the New Testament was decided upon by the church Fathers at the two major councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 and that it wasn't until the Council of Trent (1545-63) that the Apocrypha was dropped from the Protestant Bible.

Evidently the greatest difficulty was in choosing the Gospels and after much debate those we now call Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were decided upon as they were in thematic agreement with Paul's letters and he was seen as the prime interpreter of the Gospels. The number of the Gospels was also important and four were eventually decided upon. Irenaeus, for example, argued in his Adversus haereses just as there are four winds, there must also be four Gospels, for the Holy Spirit is embodied in the wind.

Sound reasoning for the time I suppose.

Steve J

4

The Last Days according to Dead Sea Scroll

by greek in

according to dead sea scrolls 4qmmt(4q397 - 399) the last days transpired during centuries i bc/i ad.

here there is a excerp of the dead sea sroll:"(5) for by reason of these .

because of] violence and fornication [some] (6) places have been destroyed.

Steve J

The thing that struck me the most about the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they show Jesus' teachings were by no means unique and it has certainly made me wonder if he wasn't an Essene, or at least a member of a similar community. Josephs writes in detail about the Essene's and the similarities with the New Testament and the members of "the Way" are striking.

Steve J

10

John19:25-27 Who was the disciple Jesus loved?

by Steve J in

hi guys,.

i've just been reading through john's account of jesus' crucifixion and came accross the following verse;.

near the cross of jesus stood his mother, his mothers sister, mary the wife of clopas and mary magdalene.

Steve J

Thanks Guys,

Thanks for the link Narkissos. Fascinating!

I don't know of anywhere else I can get my questions answered like this. You guys are brilliant!!!

Wishing you all the very best for the New Year

Steve J

10

John19:25-27 Who was the disciple Jesus loved?

by Steve J in

hi guys,.

i've just been reading through john's account of jesus' crucifixion and came accross the following verse;.

near the cross of jesus stood his mother, his mothers sister, mary the wife of clopas and mary magdalene.

Steve J

Thanks Leolaia,

It would certainly make more sense if Lazarus was the disciple whom Jesus loved and I can't fault your reasoning on that. It was certainly something I hadn't thought of before, so thanks for that Leolaia.

Just to pick up on the point Octarine Prince made; "There is a Christian sect that uses this Scripture to base their religion around, saying that it "proves" Christ was gay."

I've heard this before, so just to clear it up, could you please tell me if there's anything in the Greek text here ("the disciple whom Jesus loved" was reclining at the bosom of Jesus ( én anakeimenos en to kolpó tou Iésou , v. 23) to sugest anything other than a deep friendship between the two?

Thanks again

Steve J

10

John19:25-27 Who was the disciple Jesus loved?

by Steve J in

hi guys,.

i've just been reading through john's account of jesus' crucifixion and came accross the following verse;.

near the cross of jesus stood his mother, his mothers sister, mary the wife of clopas and mary magdalene.

Steve J

Hi Narkissos,

Although I'm familiar with the other verses you mentioned where the phrase "the one whom Jesus loved" is mentioned, I hadn't noticed John 11:3 before, where it also refers to Lazarus as the one Jesus loved. Thanks for that.

I've always understood this phrase "the one whom Jesus loved" to suggest affection, as for a close friend, but as I'm not at all familiar with Greek, I wasn't sure which word was used in John 19:25-27 and guessed it was phileo.

I appreciate what you are saying about the gender markers, but this still doesn't explain why John isn't mentioned as being there, if indeed John was refered to on this occasion, as the disciple whom Jesus loved. My understanding is that John, who is believed to be the author of the fourth gospel, was one of the son's of Zebedee and is the same John who along with his brother was referred to by Jesus as "Sons of Thunder," after they asked if they should call down fire from heaven on the inhabitants of a village who didn't listen to their message. This is also the same John who again, along with his brother, asked to be given privillaged positions in the kingdom and on both occasions they were rebuked by Jesus. What we know of John from the Gospels then doesn't suggest any particular reason why Jesus should be especially fond of him. Why then do Bible commentators suggest John was the disciple whom Jesus loved? (Mark 3:17. 10:35-45 & Luke 9:51-56)

I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers as some have suggested and feel the quote below, from Philip, so often used in support of the idea clearly shows that was not the case.

"And the companion of the (....) Mary Magdalene. (....loved) her more that (all) the disciples (and used to) kiss her (often) on her (....) The rest of (the disciples....) They said to Him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in the darkness they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then the one who sees will see the light and he who is blind will remain in the darkness." (Philip 63:35-64:10 James M Robinson "The Nag Hammadi Library in English page 148)

I have read that the gaps in the text have tantalized scholars for some time and that some have interpreted it as a kiss on the lips, suggesting that Jesus and Mary were lovers. When you look at the passage closely though, it shows this wasn't the case at all. If it was, and they were lovers, why would his male disciples have asked him why he loved Mary more than them? Jesus' reply to their question also shows he was speaking about spiritual matters and suggests if anything, that Mary had a deeper spiritual understanding than they did and that was the reason for his love for her.

Steve J