by OnTheWayOut 21 Replies latest jw friends
OTWO,
Sounds like you did a good job talking with your wife. It's a winding road because you never know how much to let out and it's difficult to have a normal, open conversation.
Of course, women can and shoud teach in religious settings. Even the dubs allow it as a skit. the majority of those teaching are children are women.
Is your mother in law a JW? Why would she have a good friend who is a preacher? Is this preacher a woman, like it sounds?
MIL is an interested one. She goes to more JW meetings than most JW's.
She never became a JW after more than 20 years of that.
Her good friend is a woman. She does have good friends who are not JW's.
So theBibleApostle Paul says "I do not permit a woman to teach".
As a matter of fact, this seems a little strange. In 1 Cor 11, Paul talks about how the congregation should organise their activities, and in verses 4-5 he suggests how men should expose and women should cover their heads whenever he/she "prays or prophesies", typical activities in a congregation. (To prophesy means not only to predict, but also to talk with divine inspiration). It would seem unreasonable that on one hand, Paul should tell how a woman should dress while speaking with inspiration in the congregation, and on the other hand that she should not speak in the congregation. Especially considering Gal 3:28: "there is neither male nor female".
In his book Misquoting Jesus, Bart Ehrman mentions the prominent role of women in the early Christian congregations, and how this has been concealed by minor changes in later manuscripts, e.g. Acts 17:4, where the original wording probably talked about "some of the principal women", although newer manuscripts say "the wives of some of the principal men". (In fact, this is a verse where the NWT actually agrees with many other Bibles in using the "principal women" wording.)
Ehrman also mentions 1 Cor 14:34-35 about women being expected to be silent in the congregation and be taught by their husbands. Not only is it strange for this admonition to appear in a letter where Paul has just told the women how to dress when they speak in the congregation. It is also strange to place this admonition inside a sequence that is actually about the role of prophets in the congregation, it looks like an unmotivated sidetrack. If we remove the two verses and go right from verse 33 to verse 36, then the text flows better. And surprise, the two verses about silent women are absent from some old manuscripts, and in others they are found at a different place (after verse 40). It simply looks like these two verses have been inserted at a later stage by someone who was not Paul. The two verses are rather similar to 1 Tim 2:11-12, and the verses in 1 Cor may originate from a marginal note in an old manuscript, referring to 1 Tim. But according to Ehrman, most scholars today would agree that 1 Tim was not written by Paul.
Ehrman's account is more detailed and has more evidence than I have presented here. The book is relatively neutral to theological discussions, but I'd recommend it because it explains the science of textual criticism in a way that laymen can understand. Of course, fundamentalists don't like books like this one. Even though they base their Bible interpretations on Bible versions that have been edited on the basis of the exact same principles that Ehrman tells us about. :)
As a matter of fact, this seems a little strange. In 1 Cor 11, Paul talks about ..... and in verses 4-5 he suggests how men should expose and women should cover their heads whenever he/she "prays or prophesies", typical activities in a congregation. ........on one hand, Paul should tell how a woman should dress while speaking with inspiration in the congregation, and on the other hand that she should not speak in the congregation. Especially considering Gal 3:28: "there is neither male nor female".
I will have to read more on that and think about adding it while the subject is fresh.
Raising any doubts, whatsoever, with the wife is better than waiting for the right doubts.
I am game to knock the Bible (or the way it was handed down) or WTS.
SCULLY said "This is notwithstanding her ability to do so. Why would having a penis make a man more qualified to teach than a woman?
Well a cynic would probably answer "Well because she ain't got the balls!" I just thought you left ya self wide open there LOL ,but if i think about some of the most stimulating scriptural discussions I've had ,most would be with women especially ones up in years who've put alot of thought into what they believe.
When I was a JW I used to puzzle about men being the only ones in charge and able to teach as say Elders and MS's do.Frankly alot of the leaders were absolute dropkicks who were heavy drinkers and cowards who failed as to the biblical qualifications of a spiritual leader. And yet many women I went witnessing and bible studying and even street witnessing with were great teachers ,comforters and examples and yet alot of men failed miserably in these areas.
The original questions was: What do you think about women on the Pulpit?
The real question is: Why are women not allowed on the Pulpit?
r.
I think that women are capable of leading a congregation.
Being a fundamentalist, I would not choose to do so. Rather I believe too that Adam was not deceived, so I will happily sit back as a daughter of Eve, raise my children to love Jehovah and Jesus.
I do find it funny that Jehovah created the male brain with 1 set of receptors for the right and left side to communicate, but created women with 3 sets. At least he has a sense of humor!
Again we see how all religions will interpret the bible anyway they want it and see fit.
Among JW's why do they allow sisters to teach others in the school? The only difference is they are sitting and not standing but they are still teaching.
There are verses in the bible that will support all opinions.
I don't know about the rest of you but I sure do LOVE the " Man in the pulpit."
Although, I have a feeling that most of you don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about.
(...uhm... don't be so sure about that, Tigerman.)
OTWO, this is a very, VERY good sign.
Cheers and wooHOOOooo!!!
Baba.
