Dearest PSacto... peace to you... and thanks for the Wiki thoughts. As you can see, not everyone is in agreement. Which is why I would exhort everyone to just go the Source... if you've the faith to do so.
Dearest Donuthole... peace to you, and HUH??
Shelby - why are you always talking down about men?
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean, truly. Let's take a look, if that's okay:
2. "John" didn't play fast and loose but Lazarus himself did.
Okay, not sure how this talks down about men. I mean, I just responded to what dear PSacto offered...
Very few men mention their infirmities outright.
Which is entirely true. We women not only talk about our infirmities, but what was discussed with our doctors, etc. Men, however, tend to keep such things to themselves. So, not sure how this talks down men...
Those who might not like them so much (i.e., foster a bit of jealousy) would, however.
If you think the disciples... no, the apostles... didn't have jealousies among themselves, you are seriously fooling yourself. Omigosh, they had a great deal (and I only alluded to a "bit"!)... as well as strifes, etc. And they didn't all "like" one another... but that wasn't required. The requirement was that they LOVE one another, which was lacking... and why our Lord counseled them about loving one another on more than one occasion. Heck, they even had a problem with a man going around healing the sick and casting out demons on the basis of our Lord's name... because he wasn't one of them. Not, "Hey, LOOK, Lord... someone's been HEALED! Look! That man is no longer tortured by demons! PRAISE JAH!!" Nope, they were concerned that, "Well, who does he think HE is? Why is he doing that?" The man was doing a loving thing and although they walked directly with our Lord (which the man apparently did not)... they didn't see the GOOD in his acts first, but were jealous of what he was doing ("he ain't one of us, so....").
If you read other writings, outside of the Bible accounts, you will "see" this.
BUT... my statement had nothing to do with MEN... but with the disciples/apostles. That they happen to be men is... well... what it is. So, I am not sure, dear one, why you feel a little "slighted" (which it how it appears to me, but I could be wrong)... on behalf of men. Oh, wait. Uh-oh. Oh, please, dear DH, ... please... I am truly hoping that you are not taking such "offense" (even slightly)... on behalf of men... because you "identify" with Paul's teachings as to women?? Oh, dear one, please... say it ain't SO! If it is, I exhort you to look to Christ when it comes to how women were to be regarded... and treated... and not to Paul, good-intentioned though misguided (by Jewish TRADITION and Roman law) he might have been.
Particularly, the account regarding the disciple's reaction when they came upon our Lord speaking to the Samaritan woman. Under Jewish TRADITION at the time, women weren't to be considered with much regard. Even she was taken aback when our Lord addressed her... NOT because she was a WOMAN... but because she was a SAMARITAN. But that is NOT the Law of the Christ, nor of the Father, not at all... when is why our Lord disregarded his disciples' curiosity about it.
Now, I understand that there are some men who need teachings like Paul's to... well... "validate" their... what, authority... superiority... or women's "requirement" to be "in subjection" and/or "submissive." And some women who need it, as well. But, in Christ, there is neither male... nor female.
But... I could be... and truly hope I am... wrong... that your... ummmmm... perception... isn't based on this.
I bid you both peace!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,