วีดีโอ

I post as an Egalitarian every day. I can paste up my free informal essay on Deborah, should you wish a study. I go to multiple Old Testament books, not just Judges 4 and 5.

My pleasure.

the NIV Study Bible is a bit more neutral, and the NRSV Study Bible is egalitarian, also the Common English Bible.

@earlychristianhistorywithm8684 Thanks.

@@earlychristianhistorywithm8684 There are CEB study Bibles. One has notes from the scholars who produced the CEB, and another has Wesleyan notes.

If anyone knows I suggest you check with Divine Dissident channel. I'm a Christian who sees that the church has problems. I'm committed to shaking up the status quo within Christianity in service of a deeper understanding of Jesus. We will challenge traditional interpretations of scripture, question established religious authorities, and advocate for women who are marginalized within the faith. -partial explanation of her channel _________________________________________________________________ I have written a free informal postable essay on Deborah. Not sure if I mentioned that yet. This is where you start. I've looked at much of Paul's writings. He is all over the place on multiple subjects. You wrote "...bible that includes an Egalitarian POV?" Paul didn't believe in Egalitarianism. I don't know if there is a study bible that would help in this, but I don't know what is out there either. Paul's version of Christianity was hierarchical. Men over women. ALSO men over men. Totally in opposition to the equality teachings of Jesus and God's action of making a women and wife a Judge over Israel. A Judge could teach men scripture and even execute. If you want more on Paul teaching that Christianity was hierarchical, I have a lot I can paste up. It's clear that he believed that. It's clear he didn't place himself at the lowest position in the hierarchy, but at the very top of it.

That part isn't "in Genesis" as such. Payne suggests the grammar refers to the birth of Christ. Belleville suggests the verse is a refutation of Asian Artemis as midwife goddess. Given the various complications of the passage, I don't know that any explanation can really be "adequate."

Michael Heiser has a good explanation

My post on this is below. Basically what Norrin said. Paul might be stating that women would be assisted and helped when giving birth, by God. And not by the pagan goddess Artemis. This goddess supposedly would help in the birthing process. The text below is unclear on this matter however regarding the possible application of Jus trium liberorum or Artemis. ...and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came, and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety. -excerpt 1 Timothy 2 YLT And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer. But women will be preserved through childbirth-if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation. -NASB

I was beginning to think that Paul was just a misogynist for a while too (in response to your last point). But then I realized I was doing what so many gender hierarchists also do--read what I wanted to see into a text. Honest and careful reading is much harder, but infinitely more rewarding.

​@@alyssa_trulytreeI wasn't calling him a misogynist, I was calling the writers misogynists, "by today's standards." It was very unlikely that they viewed women as equal to men, and if they did, they very obviously failed to unequivocally point it out. Let's face it, they were unlikely to hold modern views on what is inappropriate sexual behaviour by a man to a woman. I'll be honest, I didn't watch much of the video, for the reasons I made in my post. 1. He was probably going to interpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it probably meant to the vast majority of his co-religionists. 2. It's a drop in the ocean of a book strewn with error, ridiculous stories, and obvious flaws. No rational person, free from childhood indoctrination or its product, can take it seriously.

I'm way too short to play basketball.

@earlychristianhistorywithm8684 😆😆

The unstated hermeneutical starting point is that here and indeed in many places in the Epistles, Paul is responding to questions or problems in specific congregations. So in this passage, in v. 8 he addresses men, but surely the exhortation to pray and the admonition to do it without anger or dispute applies to women also, even though not stated. In vv. 9-10, surely not only women are to dress with propriety and in a way not flaunting wealth or status, but only women are addressed directly. In vv. 11-12, the principle would apply to men also, but the party exhibiting the particular misbehavior is the party directly addressed.

Yep. You got it. I also wrote likewise on this one. He misses the scriptural reasons for this. Not the "don't be a bossy woman" reason.

Perhaps because it was only certain wives abusing their authority? Hence, the gendered prescription for the Ephesian church. It's not a massive stretch to conclude at all. Paul's argument is a little odd because he says "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a sinner." But we KNOW that Adam was also deceived because he ate the fruit too. And Adam also sinned. So what is he trying to say then? Paul is helping Timothy remind domineering women that they are not the be all and end all, that they can mess up too, and so they should learn humility. Paul would have said the same thing to men and found a different analogy for them if abusive, domineering men had been the issue in Ephesus. But it clearly wasn't. Norrin777 makes a great point on this in a comment below.

​@ I've never really found that convincing. Elsewhere in the Pauline epistles he's perfectly happy to either call groups out more directly or simply chastise the entire church for behaviours exhibited by a portion that would be sinful or negative regardless of who was doing term, if there were. Here, we have a behaviour that, for the reading to work, would be sinful if done by anyone regardless of gender, but Paul only makes the point in respect of one gender group, not all. He does not make a overriding principle out of it. Artemisian and similar readings at once ask us to take the author here as being at once specific enough that he's addressing specific pagan doctrines or other background issues, while also being vague enough that transcultural readings are the plainest ones. But in reality one has to be convinced of a specific construct of the Ephesian church before one cann even begiun to be convinced that this is reading is what the text actually says. In order to take this kind of reading, e.g., I also have to surmise that these domineering women were specifically ONLY using their negative authority towards men, and were NOT acting in the same way towards the women. Entities are then multiplied for which there is at best speculative evidence. If the authority in view is semantically a negative one, why not then say "I do not permit a woman to have authority αὐθεντεῖν", or "I do not permit a person to be an αὐθέντην" or even "I do not permit a person to have authority αὐθεντεῖν,, especially the women amongst you", which is at once much clearer and provides a clear moral principle. αὐθεντέω = bad, at least when it's people. Which theological college graduate would miss the opportunity to make the overarching broadly applicable point, and then zoom in to apply it to an example? A number of assumptions have to be sustained to get to what I think is a fairly tortured reading. And I've never shaken the feeling those are to support prior commitments to what the text *should* or *has to* say,, rather than what its early church writer thought.

How so?

That's assuming Paul's reason for citing the Creation account is to "root" the theology. That would be exegetically silly, since the Creation accounts do not show hierarchy between man and woman. More likely Paul's point is along the lines of "Don't follow the example of Eve, who became deceived and in turn led Adam to sin."

It helps to understand what occurred in the garden. Also to understand how this same (the actual occurrence) teaching is continued / shown through scriptures and in modern history... God continues to show this idea of one being in authority over the other as wrong... Yet we continue to try and gain authority over fellow humans... We were never meant to have authority over humans, that belongs to God. Here's what happened in the garden. God created the man (the male Adam) from the dust of the earth... This was prior to giving life to the earth and organizing the chaos and darkness. This was when the man was formed and what he was formed out of... In his flesh anyway. God breathed into him the breath of life... This word is the same as the name of Eve, keep that in mind. He becomes a living soul. Then he is placed in a garden planted by God... It's God's garden, this is where God creates and feeds life to the earth... It's a heaven. God gives the man (before the female is made) all the trees of the garden freely except one... Which the man was warned he would eat from and die.... But he shouldn't eat it because of this... In other words heed God's warning. God sees that alone the man is not complete, (truly made in his image)... It's not good, God creates the creatures of the earth from the earth just like he did the male Adam From the dust God forms all the animals and gives them life too and brings them to the man to name... This is an authorized by God authority over the creatures of the earth. They were brought to Adam because there was No suitable help that was found among them. God puts the man into a deep sleep and removes something that we have translated to rib but is a word meaning inner chamber... And fashioned that into a female Adam... As in the equal but opposite of the man.... It's my understanding that she formed from the life inside Adam and given flesh... Adam however saw only the flesh and determined that he had authority because he was given the authority over all flesh of the earth with the breath of life in it... This didn't include her, that's not what she is or was made by God to be... It's what man redefined her as when he named her in his own image. God created her as an EZER which is the same word used to describe the helper aspect of God in many locations in Scripture. Now you have to go back to the description of the trees in the middle of the garden and back to the command given to the man. In the midst of the garden was the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil... Man was told no to only one of these however it is described here to actually be two options for the same tree. We can understand this by the rest of Scripture, wisdom is a tree of life, desire wisdom, wisdom is more precious than anything... Get wisdom, though it will cost you everything you have get understanding... Okay what is eternal life, well eternal life is to know God and the one he sent. The woman was seen as belonging to the man, made in the image of man and subordinate to the man because he was first, made in God's image and she was made for the man. This is highly misunderstood and therefore leads to the fall. His pride here is already present and he leans on this idea of her being his own servant wife... He remembers the warning that he would eat from the tree and die... This is why she is given a command that is far more restricted than the command given to the man by his God... She was only allowed to eat and feed him from the fruits of the trees, not freely eat from the trees themselves (this was so the man could prevent her from feeding him from the tree and him not recognizing it) to ensure this an additional restriction was given for the tree itself, not to touch it... Only this isn't the only things changed about God's command, the name of the tree was removed. The serpent targets the female instead of Adam... Why? This is in the question. Did God really say that you couldn't freely eat from every tree of the garden.. Just a reminder, God actually said the opposite of that, he said that you could freely eat from every tree of the garden except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil... But this warning of death wasn't given to her by God, it was given by Adam... The godlike one, the one who had special council with God, God's special possession... All of these are the same word for God (Elohim) and this is important to understand the wisdom that she saw and sought when she ate... She realized that she didn't belong to man, she belonged to God... This tree was her way to be like the godlike one and have special council with God as his special possession. This is why we are informed that she saw the fruit as good and desired for wisdom... The question is why he ate... And the answer is different depending on the time, in this case however it's because the serpent seemed quite knowledgeable about the command, the tree, and gave an alternate purpose for the command which resembles the reason he gave her the command that she had. Why didn't Adam recognize that the serpent was actually referring to being like Adam? Why didn't Adam correct her, or confess so she wouldn't eat? Why didn't he eat first to save her? He let her eat because he humanized God in his mind and determined that God was keeping him from being like God but to be sure, he sacrificed the woman to see if she died like God said... By the way, God never claimed that she would die... She didn't die so he ate. Why did she give it to him? She found out who she was and thought he was simply ignorant of who she was too, so she wanted him to know her... This is the wrong reason to give him the tree, you should give him the tree to know God... But he already spoke to God and therefore couldn't righteously eat the fruit. Now where does the serpent come from and what is it? Where it comes from is inserting yourself as an authority over humans making an idol of God's creation to be seen as god.. trying to dethrone God by altering his command to give you authority over others and keep them from knowing God themselves... Deciding to alter the command of God even if you are doing it in order to save yourself, it is the embodiment of the deception of the authority of man over woman. This is the serpent that will forever be at odds with the woman who will have a seed that will finally get rid of the serpent and bring the truth to all of humanity, that they are all equal and authority over anyone is in God alone... We still fear this idea because we humanized God's ability to guide. Our only job is to subdue the earth for God by spreading the truth in faith and love because every knee will bend and everyone will confess that God is God... I hope this helps clear up some things

What did Paul mean by saying she'll be saved through childbearing? Is it not having faith in Jesus that saves us? If she gets saved through childbearing, what about a woman who's infertile?

@@ndumisomahlaba9597 you should read my comment above yours. It may help

It's especially easy to read this passage as describing women as inferior and more easily deceived if that is something someone already believes about women. Which is exactly why this passage was interpreted that way for so long. Virtually everyone at one time thought women were mentally, morally and intellectually inferior to men. Now that so many people (men and women) are recognizing women's worth and skill and ability, it is getting harder and harder to read that meaning ("women are by nature inferior and weak compared to men") into this passage.

@@alyssa_trulytree So most people interpret their own beliefs into the bible?

@@Thundawich If our ego is at stake, I think we often do.

@ If people are just interpreting their own beliefs in to the bible, what is the point of having these sorts of topic in the bible in the first place then?

@@Thundawich I guess we didn't have much say in what went into it in the first place, haha? I think it's also possible to read the Bible openly and honestly without always letting our feelings dictate what we see. The Holy Spirit can help us.

Coffee drinkers are so spiteful.

Well, the fact is that people do dispute the authorship, you can't pretend it's not happening.

Jesus taught of equality. Paul repeatedly taught that Christianity was hierarchical. Men over women and also men over men.

@@Szpak-123 men and women can have different roles and still be equal

@@davewhite756 Men and women are stated to have been made in God's image. A Judge could judge men of their sins. Even homicide. A Judge could teach scripture. This is all covered in my informal postable essay on Deborah. you wrote: men and women can have different roles and still be equal Complementarianism The priesthood of the New Covenant is a 2-tiered priesthood based on birthright. That false and confusing teaching, that states Christian women are less than Christian men in a spiritual way, but they really aren't, but they really are. The complementarian teaching prohibits a Christian woman from holding certain positions in a church. They can't be elders neither can they teach men. So why is that? The false teaching makes it clear that the priesthood of the New Covenant is tiered. There is a hierarchy. Those that are higher, the men, can be in leadership positions, like elder. They can teach other men. Those in the lower tier can not be in leadership positions, like elder. They are prohibited from teaching men, because the men are in the higher tier. It wouldn't make any sense. A new believer is automatically assigned their level, higher or lower, at the moment of salvation, as a birthright. Their gender determines their tier. A Christian can not move to a higher or lower tier. A Christian that is in the lower tier (woman) is not allowed to complain of the tier she was placed in. That would be sin, because God made her a woman by His choice. She should accept and also embrace her position in the lower tier. A church, is either a group of Christian men or a group of Christian men and women. A church can never be a group of Christian women, because it would be a group of only those in the lower tier. It would have no elders. But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. -excerpt 1 Peter 2 Since the teaching states that women are spiritually inferior to men, but they aren't, but they are, when did that start? But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer. -excerpt 1 Timothy 2 It started with the first woman. She was deceived, and sinned because of it. So we have a teaching that accepts that men and women are fallen beings. Both genders are sinful by nature. However women are different. They are lacking the ability that men have to judge if some situation, some concept or teaching is sinful. This inability was passed down from Eve to all women. It remains to this day. A woman in our time was 'lacking' from birth, even from the womb. So what can be done? Nothing according to Complementarianism. The teaching states that even an anointing of that powerful masculine being called the Holy Spirit, is just not sufficient. It states that even the Holy Spirit can not elevate even one Christian woman to the spiritually superior level of a Christian man.

Well, it gaves back as gar as Genesis 6 and the tradition develops into the Book of Watchers in 1 Enoch.