- This topic is empty.
- Posts
In discussing various topics with people here, one thing that is perfectly clear is that the bible is not to be questioned. Regardless of how bad a natural reading of a particular passage may appear, Christians seem to find some way to ignore it, (e.g. “That's just Old Testament stuff!”), or reason it away. In this thread, I would like to bring up some of the more difficult issues to see if those who profess that the bible is true really believe everything that it says.
First up:
1 Timothy 2:11-12 “ Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.“Is this truth? Do you let women speak at your church, or lead mixed-gender bible studies?
Second up:
Matthew 19:12 “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs [castration?] by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs [castration?] for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.“Keep in mind:
Quote Tertullian, a second century Church Father, described Jesus himself and Paul of Tarsus as spadones, which is translated as “eunuchs” in some contexts. The meaning of spado in late antiquity can be interpreted as a metaphor for celibacy, however Tertullian's specifically refers to St. Paul as being castrated. Is this truth? Do Christians encourage young believers to consider castration “for the sake of the kingdom”?
More to come… .
Third up:
Proverbs 20:30 “Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being.“
This should be an easy one for you “law and order” types.
Do you administer or encourage harsh beatings as a form of correction? Do you consider the possibility that a man who beats a child, until he or she is visibly wounded, is simply trying to purge the child of evil?
And for bonus points: Do you engage in self-flogging as a spiritual discipline?
Quote During the Middle Ages, various ascetic sects within the Mediterranean and Hibernian world adopted the practice of flagellation; ritual scourging of the flesh with a whip for the purpose of cleansing the soul of sin. Among Christian religious communities, where flagellation was most systematically integrated into devotional life, flagellation was performed as a memorial to an act of sacrifice that occurred centuries in the past, the suffering and martyrdom of Jesus Christ. Personal acts of self-immolation by monks, nuns, and other holy people imitated biblical descriptions of Christ's journey to Calvary for crucifixion, the primordial moment of Christian sacrifice, when life beyond the grave was supposed to have been achieved. Mimetic flagellation was done in the belief that bodily suffering atoned for offenses against God and satisfied divine justice. WIT your post brings to mind the Oxford Theologian Richard Swinburne, who is an advocate of the idea that the Holocaust gave the Jews a wonderful opportunity to be courageous and noble.
Arch-atheist Peter Atkins responded on TV that he hoped Swinburne would “rot in hell”.
I'm with Atkins.
Stuart
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 08 2009,09:07) Third up: Proverbs 20:30 “Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being.“
This should be an easy one for you “law and order” types.
Do you administer or encourage harsh beatings as a form of correction? Do you consider the possibility that a man who beats a child, until he or she is visibly wounded, is simply trying to purge the child of evil?
And for bonus points: Do you engage in self-flogging as a spiritual discipline?
Quote During the Middle Ages, various ascetic sects within the Mediterranean and Hibernian world adopted the practice of flagellation; ritual scourging of the flesh with a whip for the purpose of cleansing the soul of sin. Among Christian religious communities, where flagellation was most systematically integrated into devotional life, flagellation was performed as a memorial to an act of sacrifice that occurred centuries in the past, the suffering and martyrdom of Jesus Christ. Personal acts of self-immolation by monks, nuns, and other holy people imitated biblical descriptions of Christ's journey to Calvary for crucifixion, the primordial moment of Christian sacrifice, when life beyond the grave was supposed to have been achieved. Mimetic flagellation was done in the belief that bodily suffering atoned for offenses against God and satisfied divine justice.
(WIT)Quote In discussing various topics with people here, one thing that is perfectly clear is that the bible is not to be questioned. I do not know with whom you have previously discussed such things, but you have certainly come away with a false sense of scripture.
We are told to “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” [John 5:39]
We are told to “..believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”
Faith is not simply a memorizing of scripture with a view toward spewing it out in overpowering ammounts in debate. There should be a logical arrangement of argument, presented in sustainable portions, to build up in agreement or to tear down in rebuttal. But a simple swap of scriptural regurgitation never profits anything.
(WIT)
Quote Regardless of how bad a natural reading of a particular passage may appear, Christians seem to find some way to ignore it, (e.g. “That's just Old Testament stuff!”), or reason it away. In this thread, I would like to bring up some of the more difficult issues to see if those who profess that the bible is true really believe everything that it says.
First up:
1 Timothy 2:11-12 “ Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.“Is this truth? Do you let women speak at your church, or lead mixed-gender bible studies?
If this is an example of what you consider “some of the more difficult issues” I shudder to think what you consider a shallow issue.
Your question, “Is this truth” shows a total lack of understanding as to what it is scripture represents.
Then, you follow with another question that shows lack of understanding as to the real issues of scripture. You ask: “Do you let women speak at your church, or lead mixed-gender bible studies?”
First, it is not MY church, I did not purchase it with my blood, nor was I made its head.
Second, what part of “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” did you not understand? I really have a problem understanding why it is even a question in a believer's mind.Are you a believer? In what do you believe?
If your questions are based on the errors you see happening all over in churches that should know better, well that is one thing, but if your questions really relate to what scripture says, I fail to see where there is any question left after you quote exactly what is said. It eaither says it or it doesn't.
Quote Second up:
Matthew 19:12 “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs [castration?] by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs [castration?] for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.“Keep in mind:
Quote Tertullian, a second century Church Father, described Jesus himself and Paul of Tarsus as spadones, which is translated as “eunuchs” in some contexts. The meaning of spado in late antiquity can be interpreted as a metaphor for celibacy, however Tertullian's specifically refers to St. Paul as being castrated. Is this truth? Do Christians encourage young believers to consider castration “for the sake of the kingdom”?
I have looked all over my bible and still do not find a reference to Tertullian 3:16, or any OTHER reference to Tertullian as a New Testament Author. It doesn't matter WHAT Tertullian has to say about what scripture teaches, I have one obligation, and that is to see what SCRIPTURE says about what scripture has to say. And the scriptures are filled with examples of what other scriptures have to say.
I do not look to Tertullian for understanding, nor to Ceasar for Clarification. If Jesus quotes Isaiah, I look to Isaiah; If Paul quotes Jeremiah, I search through Jeremiah for verification.
And the reason I do this has nothing to do with any sense of disrespect for Tertullian, nor yet for Ceasar. It has to do with the simple fact, all the men who quote scripture leave us a reference to which we can turn for verification, clarification, and understanding. I do not have to rely upon men when I can read the scriptures for myself.
Quote Third up: Proverbs 20:30 “Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being.“ This should be an easy one for you “law and order” types.
Do you administer or encourage harsh beatings as a form of correction? Do you consider the possibility that a man who beats a child, until he or she is visibly wounded, is simply trying to purge the child of evil?
It help
s if you understand that proverbs is part of the law given to the Nation of Israel. It was a Theocracy, and as such, God could tell them how to purge their minds and hearts of all kinds of problematic notions. It was NEVER a law to the nations of the world.This is not just a Christian dismissal of all things “Old Testament.” I believe no one can properly understand the New Covenant without a full and working knowledge of the Old Covenant. But the Old Covenant was replaced with the New. THUS the designation Old and NEW. These designations were NOT made by men.
Quote And for bonus points: Do you engage in self-flogging as a spiritual discipline? During the Middle Ages, various ascetic sects within the Mediterranean and Hibernian world adopted the practice of flagellation; ritual scourging of the flesh with a whip for the purpose of cleansing the soul of sin. Among Christian religious communities, where flagellation was most systematically integrated into devotional life, flagellation was performed as a memorial to an act of sacrifice that occurred centuries in the past, the suffering and martyrdom of Jesus Christ. Personal acts of self-immolation by monks, nuns, and other holy people imitated biblical descriptions of Christ's journey to Calvary for crucifixion, the primordial moment of Christian sacrifice, when life beyond the grave was supposed to have been achieved. Mimetic flagellation was done in the belief that bodily suffering atoned for offenses against God and satisfied divine justice.
Flagellation of the flesh has no value toward edificaton of the spirit. The ONLY bodily suffering which contributes towards atonement, was already done by Jesus, and ended with his death. NO ONE ELSE can contribute one iota to that sacrifice.
Paladin,
Interesting.
So, on issue one, you agree wholeheartedly with the scripture as stated, (i.e. women should have no speaking role in “the Church”).
Fair enough. I applaud your willingness to say so. I just wonder how many other Christians on this board agree with you, especially the women.
On issue two, you went on a tangent about how Tertullian is a nobody, but you failed to actually address the passage. I quoted Matthew 19:12 as the source. Tertullian was merely a reference to the fact that Christians have historically interpreted the passage as having to do with castration.
Read Matthew 19:12 and answer this question: How does one man make another man a eunuch? What was Jesus getting at in this verse?
On issue three, you simply got the facts wrong. The first five books of the Old Testament contain the laws that the OT God gave to Israel, (i.e. the Torah). Proverbs is considered a book of general wisdom, for all peoples of all times. As Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible put's it:
Quote The lessons here given are plain, and likely to benefit those who feel their own ignorance, and their need to be taught. If young people take heed to their ways, according to Solomon's Proverbs, they will gain knowledge and discretion. Solomon speaks of the most important points of truth, and a greater than Solomon is here. Christ speaks by his word and by his Spirit. Christ is the Word and the Wisdom of God, and he is made to us wisdom. These aren't laws, in Proverbs. They are intended to be words of wisdom, hence the name of the book. However, if you would like to disown Proverbs as a book that is profitable for Christians, I certainly won't argue with you.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 10 2009,07:04)
(WIT)Quote Paladin, Interesting. So, on issue one, you agree wholeheartedly with the scripture as stated, (i.e. women should have no speaking role in “the Church”). Well W, Paul DID give us a reason. It is just one of several results of the fall from grace in Eden. “Eve was deceived and in the transgression” is the reason Paul gives us. She was deceived by the Serpent, and refused to abide by her husbands instuctions; thus bringing down the house, and him with her.
(W)
Quote Fair enough. I applaud your willingness to say so. I just wonder how many other Christians on this board agree with you, especially the women. Allow me to state for the record, that women are the main reason men become Christians. So they really have nothing to be upset about. Many Men would be inclined to be much more unruly brutes than they are, except for the love of a good woman. AND they certainly can teach their husbands at home, by their good example.
As well, they also teach their children at home. And any visitors they might entertain. She is not instructed to remain siilent as to teaching her husband, children, and strangers; she is instructed to keep silent in the church.
(W)
Quote On issue two, you went on a tangent about how Tertullian is a nobody, but you failed to actually address the passage. I quoted Matthew 19:12 as the source. Tertullian was merely a reference to the fact that Christians have historically interpreted the passage as having to do with castration. Read Matthew 19:12 and answer this question: How does one man make another man a eunuch? What was Jesus getting at in this verse?
Matthew 19:12 “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”
At that time, men were castrated who were put in charge of important duties, who might be in the position of being tempted to ignore their trust through the lust of the flesh, by the beauty of women. Being in charge of the king's harem, for example, or the treasury. Those are the only ones I really can think of off hand.
Jesus was “getting at” the idea a man can keep himself from women for the kingdom of heaven's sake. That this is the meaning is evidenced by the fact that mothers do not castrate their new born sons. Some new born sons are eunuchs, in that they do not ever develope the ability to beget offspring. Castration is applicable in only one of your questions.
(W)
Quote On issue three, you simply got the facts wrong. The first five books of the Old Testament contain the laws that the OT God gave to Israel, (i.e. the Torah). Proverbs is considered a book of general wisdom, for all peoples of all times. As Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible put's it: Quote The lessons here given are plain, and likely to benefit those who feel their own ignorance, and their need to be taught. If young people take heed to their ways, according to Solomon's Proverbs, they will gain knowledge and discretion. Solomon speaks of the most important points of truth, and a greater than Solomon is here. Christ speaks by his word and by his Spirit. Christ is the Word and the Wisdom of God, and he is made to us wisdom. These aren't laws, in Proverbs. They are intended to be words of wisdom, hence the name of the book. However, if you would like to disown Proverbs as a book that is profitable for Christians, I certainly won't argue with you.
I think I have not made myself clearly understood, for which I apologize. I have not intended to say Proverbs has no value to Christians. I have said it, along with the rest of the Old covenant, was replaced with the New Covenant.
ALL of the old covenant will always have value to Christians who really want to comprehend what Christianity means to mankind. But we are not bound by anything written therein as laws and commandments that were intended for a particular people at a perticular time.
The word that is translated “Proverb” in English comes from at least two Greek words, [parabolee] and [paroimia]. Both are translated “PROVERB” in the Old testament, AND in the New Testament, BUT, both are also translated “PARABLE” in both testaments.
The old testament parables and proverbs are for the old covenant lessons, and the new covenant parables and proverbs are for the new covenant lessons. That does not mean either is of no value, it means each had an historical focus for a people for a time.
I hope this clears that up.
Paladin,
You wrote:
Quote She is not instructed to remain siilent as to teaching her husband, children, and strangers; she is instructed to keep silent in the church. What part of “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” do you not understand? Note that the verse makes an absolute statement, not a qualified one like you have presented.
You wrote:
Quote That this is the meaning is evidenced by the fact that mothers do not castrate their new born sons. Some new born sons are eunuchs, in that they do not ever develope the ability to beget offspring. Castration is applicable in only one of your questions. In all three cases, the person in question is physically incapable of producing offspring. I suppose that in modern times you could opt for a vasectomy, but in those days, it most certainly implied castration. Why run away from the plain meaning of the verse?
You wrote:
Quote The old testament parables and proverbs are for the old covenant lessons, and the new covenant parables and proverbs are for the new covenant lessons. That does not mean either is of no value, it means each had an historical focus for a people for a time. Fine. I think this is a clear case of “the Old Testament is valuable to Christians except when it says something that I can't defend”, but stipulating that you are correct, answer this:
Are you saying that it was once acceptable in God's eyes to beat a child senseless as a positive means of “purging the child of evil” – in a society that you said was to be a shining example for the surrounding nations – but, in modern times, God frowns upon such a practice?
Sounds like a lot of moral relativism going on here.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 10 2009,13:05) Paladin, You wrote:
Quote She is not instructed to remain siilent as to teaching her husband, children, and strangers; she is instructed to keep silent in the church. What part of “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” do you not understand? Note that the verse makes an absolute statement, not a qualified one like you have presented.
You wrote:
Quote That this is the meaning is evidenced by the fact that mothers do not castrate their new born sons. Some new born sons are eunuchs, in that they do not ever develope the ability to beget offspring. Castration is applicable in only one of your questions. In all three cases, the person in question is physically incapable of producing offspring. I suppose that in modern times you could opt for a vasectomy, but in those days, it most certainly implied castration. Why run away from the plain meaning of the verse?
You wrote:
Quote The old testament parables and proverbs are for the old covenant lessons, and the new covenant parables and proverbs are for the new covenant lessons. That does not mean either is of no value, it means each had an historical focus for a people for a time. Fine. I think this is a clear case of “the Old Testament is valuable to Christians except when it says something that I can't defend”, but stipulating that you are correct, answer this:
Are you saying that it was once acceptable in God's eyes to beat a child senseless as a positive means of “purging the child of evil” – in a society that you said was to be a shining example for the surrounding nations – but, in modern times, God frowns upon such a practice?
Sounds like a lot of moral relativism going on here.
Why are you so hostile? I thought you wanted a discussion.Bye!
Paladin,
Hostile? I think that you are misreading my frustration. In my opening post I wrote:
Quote Regardless of how bad a natural reading of a particular passage may appear, Christians seem to find some way to ignore it, (e.g. “That's just Old Testament stuff!“), or reason it away. In your last post, you wrote:
Quote The old testament parables and proverbs are for the old covenant lessons … . You have appealed to the exact argument that I already said that I find frustrating. I am simply trying to get you to go beyond the blanket “That's just Old Testament stuff!” argument to discuss the actual merit of the passage in question.
Beyond that, I have simply asked follow-up questions.
There's no hostility here! I appreciate your willingness to discuss potentially difficult issues.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 11 2009,02:34) Quote Paladin, Hostile? I think that you are misreading my frustration. In my opening post I wrote: Quote Regardless of how bad a natural reading of a particular passage may appear, Christians seem to find some way to ignore it, (e.g. “That's just Old Testament stuff!“), or reason it away. In your last post, you wrote:
Quote The old testament parables and proverbs are for the old covenant lessons … . You have appealed to the exact argument that I already said that I find frustrating. I am simply trying to get you to go beyond the blanket “That's just Old Testament stuff!” argument to discuss the actual merit of the passage in question.
(P) Well I did go beyond when I did not say “Just” old Testament stuff, but explained New Testament applications do not match old testament applications.
I also said that there can be NO dismissal of old testament because we need a good working knowledge of O.T. to understand N.T. How is this just another example of “Just old testament stuff?”
(WIT)
Quote Beyond that, I have simply asked follow-up questions. There's no hostility here! I appreciate your willingness to discuss potentially difficult issues.
(P)Well, I certainly understand your frustration. I just don't think you understand my responses.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
