Hello KFC,

Neither was riding a donkey unusual.  The Talmud is chock full of references to donkeys and other livestock. As to "the multitudes throwing down their clothes" I'm sorry but this is, in my humble opinion, more hyperbole from text authors who wish to make their guy "the guy".

Your evidence is always from believers and this always makes it suspect. Its rather like UFO people pointing to the texts of other UFO people for documentation of sightings.

I believe you believe and I am happy for you.

 

Be well.

 

I did not see that aspect of Paul's comment as being related to tongues. I think it was Paul not wanting women to have a voice in church matters. And I think you are clearly making my point when you say "women were not to usurp the men's positions sanctioned by God". Who says men's positions are sanctioned by God?  Men. That is sexism plain and simple. And if you think God is a sexist, and it turns out he is (which I don't believe is possible), then I would say to both you and God that you are wrong to take that position. 

 

See ya.

You are only capable of ignoring me except when I goad your self importance. Then you have no problem responding. It should make you wonder, but it probably won't. As Jesus said "one can not serve two masters." You can either serve "God" or you can serve yourself. The choice is yours of course.

But don't think that I won't keep goading yourself importance either. I will, and hopefully you will see it for what it is. As to insane, well the bible talks about that one too.

St. John Chapter 15 Verse 18-27

The Worlds Hatred

"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before you. If you were of the world, the world would love that which is its own. But because you are not of the world, tbut I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I have spoken to you: No, servant is greater than the master (God is the only master). If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also. But for all these things they will do to you for my name's sake, because they DO NOT KNOW HIM who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin. But now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them works such as no one else has done, they would have no sin. But now they have seen, and have hated both me and my father; but that word written in their Law may be fulfilled. They have hated me and without cause.

But when the Advocate has come, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness concerning me. And you also will bear witness, because from the beginning you are with me."

I can ask my Catholic friends, if you like. But I am pretty sure they will hardly know the precise story.

It also doesn't matter how many people believe it. It's still a stretch.

What happened to your literal interpretation of the Bible? Whenever you see Christ somewhere in Jewish scripture, you go to any lengths to interpret words as metaphors, but when the Bible makes a claim that we can demonstrate is wrong, you insist that it must be taken literally.

So what is it? Do you take the Bible literally or not?

And remember that if you do not, you have to look for explanations elsewhere.

Nightshades,

You know what you keep reminding me of?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=D8WmvMCTW_g

This is the problem with Christianity trying to convert others.

There are four ways to convert people: convince, lead by example, use violence, and cite scripture.

Convincing people is the hardest. Leading by example is difficult. Using violence isn't real. And citing scripture doesn't work.

A Christian cannot cite scripture to a Jew and explain that the Jewish way of reading a text written by Jews for Jews is wrong.

Nightshades posts #437



LEAUKI POSTS:

I have already given my thoughts regarding your statement that no one religion possesses the truth in an earlier posting. In that, I am referring to revealed truth.

Yes, it's true that all peoples of the ancient world have a flood story and I think this goes a long way in defending the historcity of the Flood as described in Genesis, especially that it was worldwide.

NIGHTSHADES POSTS #458



The fact that it is the women who were there is quite in keeping with St.Paul's teaching of the man as the head. There are reasons for things, NIghtshades...and the Gospels must be read carefully. Along with the Virgin Mother Mary, Mary Magdalene along with other holy women, provided for the needs of Our Lord Jesus Christ throughout his journeys during His public ministry. They supported Him through it all right up until His final moments and they saw the tomb where His body was laid.

You might recall the timing of Christ's death and Resurrection was that of the Jewish Sabbath. Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week, that would be on a Sunday.
Now, after the obligatory Sabbath rest, as soon as the law permits, the holy faithful women, go very early in the morning to the tomb to anoint the dead body of Our Lord.

When they approached the sepulchre, they saw that the stone "door" had already been opened. Angels told them Christ was not there and has risen and to go tell the other Apostles everything they had seen and heard. So, the first people to whom the angel announced the birth of Christ was the lowly shepherds at Bethlehem, and the first to be told of His Resurrection are these devout women (who were looked down upon in those times)which is one further sign of God's preference for simple and sincere souls and the fact that He gives them this honor which the world has no way of appreciating.



St.Peter was definitely the leader of the Twelve Apostles. This instance at the tomb illustrates this. First, the angel tells them to go "tell his disciples and Peter..". Here the desigination of Peter by name focuses the attention that he is head just at the time when they are so discouraged. St.Peter, who Christ had promised to make His vicar on earth, takes the first initiative in checking out the women's story. Even though the women were the first to reach the tomb, it was the men who first entered it and saw clear evidence of the empty tomb and the linen burial cloths. St.John being younger and a faster runner than St.Peter got there first, but out of deference to St.Peter, did not go in. After they saw all this, they went home.

Mary Magdalene, the one whom Our Lord had freed from the 7 demons, responded to that grace humbly and generously, stayed ardently faithful. Here, she stayed behind weeping and Our Lord appears to her and consoles her. Her perseverance teaches us that anyone who sincerely seeks Christ will eventually find Him.

mostly but also from historians who were not believers like Josephus for instance.

In this instance the reference is from an eyewitness who just so happened to be Matthew who wrote during a time when any of it could have been refuted easily since most of the characters were still living.

So yes, I will take an eyewitness account and him being a believer makes it a double plus for me.



Well you'll find it in 1 Cor 14:34 and the context is speaking in tongues and prophecy. How would you reconcile it with Paul's earlier statement in 11:13-16 where he says that women are to have a head covering on while praying and proclaiming the gospel? Besides all that we see woman doing such things in scripture in other instances.

The reason behind all this is the text (1 Cor 11-14) in which Paul deals with problem situations in the context of worship. The Corinthians were a mess spiritually and physically. He dealt with proper decorum of men and women while praying and prophesying, with irregularities of the Lord's Super and finally with the nature, function and abuse of the spiritual gifts which would include tongues and prophesying. The dos and don'ts are listed here including the women needing to be quiet. I'm sure they had something to do with the mess they were all in to begin with.

If Paul believed that women should be silent in the churches in a comprehensive universal sense he would not have spent so much time earlier instructing women what to do with their head coverings and would have simply forbidden their practice of praying and prophesying in worship.

Like I said before I could write a thesis on this...but hey, I'm sure others already have.

Nightshades posts #458




Nightshades posts:

If what you wrote about St.Paul is what you believe is knowledge of truth, then, in honesty, I must tell you that you are absolutely clueless.

My knowledge of revealed truth comes from Sacred Scripture and the ex cathedra teachings of the Catholic Church. I believe every word of Sacred Scripture is true becasue it comes from God Who is Infinite Truth...as is Christ Who is Truth, Life, and the Way. Since its an established historical fact that Christ came to earth and established His Church to teach all nations until the end of the world, and since Scripture says that the Church is the "pillar and ground of Truth", I have no choice but to believe as I do. I figure that Christ not only pointed the destination, but also the road we must travel. Christ never said anything about all beliefs or paths lead to God.

Christ Himself told us the way...He said the road would be narrow and restricted while the way to perdition would be wide, pleasant and easy to those bent on self satisfaction or doing it according to their own way.

KFC POSTS:

Sodaiho posts: #430





KFC POSTS #473



KFC,

Overall, your explanation of St.Paul's teaching and applying to that of today and how that is not being followed is excellent. However, in v. 12, St.Paul specifically bans women from teaching during public acts of worship, i.e liturgical assemblies.

V. 11, "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

This prohibition only refers to public acts of worship, in regard to liturgical assemblies. It is therefore a permanent one that cannot be changed in any age.



Right. St.Paul said this to make it clear that his was not a personal opinion, so he sets the prohibition that women cannot teach in liturgical assemblies into the context of the divine plan of Creation and the biblical account of the Fall. His arguments are not sociological ones, not confined to a particular culture, they are theological agruments.

SODAIHO POSTS: #431


Then comes v. 15, "Yet, women will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith, and love, and holiness with modesty."

There are no grounds for accusing St.Paul of being anti-women. No one of his time spoke more or as vigorously as he did about the basic equality of womanhood. We know that some women like Priscilla and Lydia helped him spread the Gospel. What he's been saying all along is that the essential equality of man and woman does not mean they have identical roles in the Church, however, they can and should teach religion lessons in the context of catechesis and family life.

Here, St.Paul also stresses that married life is a holy callingbut it doesn't mean that motherhood is the only way to salvation, for elsewhere he speaks of the excellence of virginity. While of course, it must be recognized that women have the same right as men to perform various public functions, society is most wise to recognize that a woman who runs a home is rendering an essential service to both family and society. They have an influence for good not only in the immediate family, but also among friends, and all people with whom they come in contact. Sadly, nowadays, there is a tendency to undervalue motherhood when in fact, they are the ones most often who make their children happy and really useful to those around them.

 

Interesting, because he also (I think...I recall reading this somewhere) told men not to cover their heads, contrary to centuries of Jewish tradition.  I don't quite understand you, KFC.  On the one hand you seem to be suggesting that women have a role in the church.  On the other hand, you don't feel they should be clergy or (I assume) leaders in the church. We wouldn't want a woman "usurping" a man's role, right?  How is this not sexist in its mildest form and anti-woman in its worst?

That Paul would ask women to cover their heads (a sign of humility to God) and men to uncover their heads, a sign they were to represent Jesus as heads of the church suggest to me something about the unequal relative roles.

 

I may be wrong.

 

Be well.

 

KFC POSTS:

Another very good exegesis KFC. All I would add to this is that it's a timeless teaching...it was good in St.Paul's day, when women were regarded inferior to men, and good today in that a woman does indeed have a role to perform within the family and this
identifies it. In accordance with GOd's design, authority belongs to the husband, and the man is called upon to ensure harmonious and united development of all the family.

Nightshades posts #480


Nightshades,

Enough already! Apparently you know nothing about Sacred Scripture or how Christians regard it? Now, you may not agree with or believe what I am about to explain, but please after this try to understand where we are coming from when we quote from Sacred Scripture or attempt to explain (from the goodness of our heart) what it means. St. Paul is one of the writers of Holy Scripture and it is he, amongst the other writers, who has told us what Christ actually said and taught.

Now, when I say it is St.Paul who wrote scripture I mean that he did perform the actual task of writing but while under God's (the I AM, WHO AM ) inspiration. To Christians, that means that St. Paul's words are at the same time God's inerrant Word. It's quite within reason to say that anyone who has a good translation has the inerrant Word of God in their possession.

The Holy Bible difficulties that come up most often aren't becasue of mis translation errors. Since the Holy Bible is an intricate book, it's prone to misunderstanding and mis-interpretation and that's where you'll see the perennial conflict and discussion.

KFC, as to 1Cor. 11 etc., please review this link:

http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-1co.htm#11

 

There is some suggestion that Paul might have been a bit confused.

See ya.

it's interesting us two women see this huh Lula? And it's the guys who are saying that Paul is a woman hater..... ;p 



if you're talking about me Leauki you should know better. I'm not at all about converting anyone. If I've said it, I've said it a million times it's not my job to convince anyone.

You said earlier you do what you do for a reason...I do too and it's not about conversion. It's about making sure the truth is told because there is so many misconceptions out there perpetrated by Satan it's not funny. I think my background in various cults over the years has made me very sensitive to this. At one time I threw my hands up because I thought there was no way to find out what the truth was. If I had, Satan would have had me right where he wished me to be...in his grip.

and actually Leauki there is really only one way to convert people and it has nothing to do with people converting another. Only the Holy Spirit convicts. I can try as I might but I cannot convict another person. It's not my job. I may be used by the HS but ultimately it's not me at all.



with the exception of Lula and one or two more I would agree with you because most Catholic laity DO NOT know their bibles. They would have no clue.



now what kind of a question is this?  :NOTSURE: 

I mean are you saying that I'm saying that Abraham and Isaac were NOT literal? Did I say that? Did I even hint at that anywhere? In fact isn't it always me who believes in the real Adam and Eve and NOT you? Just to be clear. I believe all the characters in the OT scriptures were actual people who lived during these times. All of them were real.

Yes I believe in the literal translation of the bible. That's when it makes the most sense.



Christ is all throughout the OT. Like I said read about Joseph. He was favored by his father. His robe was taken from him by his brethren and rolled in blood. He was hated by his own brethren. He was sold by his brothers for so many pieces of silver. He was accused falsely. He was kind and compassionate towards his brothers later when he had the power to execute them for what they did to him but instead he forgave them. He was a Savior to his nation saving them from sure starvation. There's a ton more but this is just the tip of the iceburg. Yes he was a literal figure but he also was a pre-cursor to the real thing. It's like God is giving the Jews so many chances to see the story unfold in their own OT but yet they cannot or will not see it.

Can you give me an example where the Bible makes a claim that you can demonstrate is wrong? I'm not following you here.

ok where? I checked your site which was pretty good btw. Some of the guys they use on this site I've seen around in my research here and there. But let's just look at this one comment which you may be referring to? I underlined the meat of what he's saying.

In verses 7-9, however, Paul raises the theological stakes by introducing a new line of argument based on his reading of the Genesis creation story. A man should not cover his head because man is created as "the image and glory of God" (Gen 1:27), but woman is "the glory of man." Here, regrettably, Paul gets himself into a theological quagmire. Genesis 1:27 explicitly says that humankind is created "in the image of God ... male and female he created them." Paul's interpretation of the test, however, seems to depend on a tradition -- perhaps based on Genesis 2:7 -- that thinks of the male only as originally created in God's image...

Ok let's go to the source. Paul said this exactly.

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God but the woman is the glory of the man." 11:7

Now do you see anywhere Paul saying that ONLY man was made in the image of God? No. What he said was that the woman is the glory of the man. See how misconceptions can get bred? You can't base an interpretation on NON-evidence.

What he does not say is important. He didn't state the obvious. He knew they were both made in the image of God. He said the woman is the man's glory. He is clear that both man and woman have their being utimately out of God's being as a result of God's creative act (11:12). The woman as man's glory is only a recognition of the temporal sequence of God's creative activity since her being is derived from the being of Adam as he says in v8. But no less than man woman is the glory and image of God since she too is "from God." (11:12).

The whole purpose of worship is to glorify God. In contexts where cultural religious norms and customs for proper attire and length of hair were understood as reflecting at least to some extent the order of nature (11:14-15) the rejection of those customs in the worshp of the chuch in Corinth undermned the purpose of worship. A covered man or uncovered woman would bring dishonor rather than glory. It is this concern which motivated Paul to write on this most difficult passage.

KFC POSTS: #477

Nightshades posts #481

SoDaiho and Nightshades,

Let's take these passages from St.Paul and see if we can come to some agreement as to its meaning.

V. 21: "Be subject to one another out of reverence (in the fear of) for Christ."

Here, St.Paul is providing a general principle which should govern all relationships amongst Christian families...they are all bound together and should submit to one another knowing that Christ is their judge. In the previous section, v. 15-20, the thought here of submitting to one another, passes imperceptibly from divine worship to the everyday life of the family. Christian life is one indivisible entity...church and home, Sundays and weekdays, and liturgy and life. The Christian household is built upon subordination of its members (as it should be in every other well-ordered household!) Now, how is this to be done? It reconciles submission with the dignity of the human person...it's imposed in holy reverence for Christ our Lord...in other words...wives and husbands submit to one another out of love of God.

v 22-25: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24: As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Chruch and delivered himself up for it."

Here, StPaul is exhorting the grandeur and dignity of Christian marriage....it lies in the fact that its an extension of the union of Christ and His Church (which is a visible organized society, not buildings). He establishes an analgy where the husband represents Christ and the wife the Church. This teaching has its roots in the OLd Testament where the relationship between Yahweh and His people are expressed in the preaching of the prophets. The husband loves his wife truly, he is completely faithful to her, Hos.1:3; Jer. 2:20; Ezek. 16:1-34. God is forever faithful to the love He has shown Israel, and He is ever ready to pardon her Is. 54:5-8; 62:4-5, Jer. 31: 21-22, and to reestablish His covenant with His people Is. 16:5-63.

Christ also describes Himself as the Bridegroom, and He uses the image of the wedding banquet to explain the significance of His coming. He brings into being the New and Everlasting Covenant which gives rise to the new people of God, His Chruch and so the relationship between Christ and the Chruch appears in terms of husband-wife.

Leauki posts #518

KFC POSTS:

Last week we had houseguests and I was unable to read all the comments, so that's why I'm trailing behind in the discussion.

I don't know if Leauki has responded to this or not...but KFC is 100% right on in saying this.

Last I heard Islam allows men to have 4 wives...and women must cover themselves from head to toe in public. Doesn't the Qur'an's Sura 4:38 state that men are superior to women? Aren't Muslim women still being stoned to death in some countries and divorced simply at the command of their husband?

Nightshades posts #511

Christ told His Apostles to teach all nations and promised that He would be with them until the end of time and the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Chruch. He also told them once He ascended into Heaven, He would send them a Paraclete Who is the Holy Spirit to guide them witnessing in Truth.

Because Christ keeps His promises, we know with certainity what books are contained in Sacred Scripture. In 1546, the fourth session of the Council of Trent declared only those 73 Books inspired of God and therefore they are the only ones that made the OT and NT canon. That means these Books had God as their principal Author.

Pope Leo XIII explains authorship of Sacred Scripture best: "God by His supernatural power, in such a way incited and moved the sacred writers, to write in such a way assisted them in writing, that they should rightly conceive in the mind, and should wish to write faithfully, and should express fitly with infallible truth, all those things and only those things which He Himself should order...the inspired writers were not mere passive instruments in their writings, but under the divine action are intelligent, active and free agents."

So in a nutshell, inspiration means the words were written by humans but the thought was under divine guidance...in that an extraordinary influence by the Holy Spirit that purified, elevated the moral natures of those writers, illumined their understanding and caused them to write the books and letters that are in the Holy Bible.

Btw, the Canon defined by Trent is identical with the lists of sacred books promulgated by the Councils of Laodicea in 367AD, and specified by the Council of Carthage in 397 after being sent to the Pope for confirmation. In the 16th century, Martin Luther caused quite a stir in the religious world by dubbing as apocrypha certain books that were unquestioned for 12 centuries. That's why the Council of Trent deemed it expedient to declare, ex cathedra, that is by the infallible authority of the Catholic Chruch, that the list of books adopted at the earlier councils is the authoritative, finally determined, collection of writings composed under Divine inspiration.

lula posts # 512

Nightshades posts:

I didn't say there were written Gospels at the time of Christ, only that there were writings at the time of Christ...and there were...we know becasue Christ and His Aposltes quoted from some of these. They are the ones that were acknowledged as canonical and in the Old Testament now.

You are quite correct in saying that it would be impossible to judge which books and letters were canonical or inspired without help from the Holy Spirit, or God Himself.

As far as proof as to when the Gospels and Epistles were written, we have been able to extract exact or very close dates...Take St.Paul, we can take St.Luke's writings and connect that with certain data from secular history itself and establish where he was when he wrote and even the time of his death in the year 67.

I'm confident it all went according to God's plan of who He chose to write His Book.

Leauki,

This is new to me. Certainly in Hebraic Judasim, they believed the Messias was a man, right? So, when did that change? Where does this come from?

Leauki posts #527

Leauki,

This is my understanding as well...so we are on the same page here.



You say, Judaism doesn't see itself as a religion? What do you mean by this?

The same question with Judaism doesn't deny other cultures got different instructions from Him. Is this as in others have equal paths to salvation?

I mean that Jews (actually all Children of Israel) are a nation, not a religion.

The Children of Israel were a nation before Moses came to instruct them. Before Moses the Children of Israel believed (those that still did) the same as Ishmael's descendants (those that still did), but Ishmael's descendants are not Jews.

In Hebrew the word for "religion" is "dat" (or "das"). But "das" means not "religion" in the western sense but "law" or "rule". The Tora is a book of laws. Jews know that and that is why the usually read Genesis differently (because the Tora is not a history book).

In 600 CE, the Ishmaeli Muhammed also believed in Moses' prophecies. But he was not a Jew. He believed what Jews believed (until he believed that he himself was a prophet), but he was not a Jew.

Muhammadism has a word for those who, until Jesus' birth, believed what Jews believed. They were called "Muslims" ("those who submit (to G-d's will)", I'll explain the word below). And when a Jew stops believing, he will still be a Jew (a child of Israel). (But such a Jew would no longer have been a Muslim according to Muhammed.)

Judaism doesn't see itself as a religion but a culture. The "religion" is the laws of that culture. But the "Jew" status does not depend on following or even knowing those laws, just as an Arab remains an Arab even if he stops believing in Muhammadism or Christianity.

Word:

SLM (Sin Lamed Mem, in Arabic) is the triconsonantal root for "submission". An M (Mem) before a word makes the word a noun with a certain relationship to the root, usually the "person who..." and (in Hebrew) "from ...".

A "Muslim" is hence a "person who submits". In Arabic the two letters Sin and Samekh collapsed and is therefore difficult to tell if SLM is the same root as Sin Lamed Mem ("peace") or not. In Hebrew "Islam" is spelt Aleph Samekh Lamed Aleph Mem (i.e. as if it is not the same root as "peace"; the second Aleph stands for a long /a/ and is not part of the root).

Examples for the M- method of forming nouns: KTB ("katav") is the root for "write". "Miktav" is a "letter". QDS ("qadosh") is the root for "holy". "Miqdash" is a "temple". 3RB ("erev") is the root for "evening". "Maghreb" (/gh/ is a form of Ayin (3)) is "the west" (in Arabic).





Yes.

Judaism does not believe that you have to be a Jew to walk the path to salvation (or whatever you want to call it). Judaism merely believes that it is (and should be) more difficult for a Jew.

That is why Judaism doesn't evangelise. Jews wouldn't want to do that to innocent people.

There have been lots of floods and flood stories. But there is no reason to believe that a flood that happened in South America is the same as the flood that happened in Mesopotamia.

Incidentally, Genesis doesn't say that the entire world was flooded. Genesis says that "the land" was flooded. The Hebrew for "all the world" is "haKol olam". The word "eretz" used means simply "land" (and "earth" in the "ground" sense, and "territory").

Where do you get that the entire world was flooded?

A quick look at Genesis 6 also didn't show "haKol haAretz" ("the entire land"), but only "haAretz" ("the land"). For all we know there was a flood in "the land" (Mesopotamia). I believe there is good evidence for it even outside Semitic and Sumerian legends.