Bible Questions?

I do share that sensibility but I try not let it color my understanding of the Bible, not to say you do but just saying sometimes I have to put aside what I've come to understand from other sources, to be able to understand what the Bible is really trying to say.

True, in this case Paul was talking about humans owning other humans but I mentioned this just to show that for Christians, we should not have a hatred for the word slave and should not find it repugnant to be owned by God and Christ.

True, but one would hope this was not the case with Christian masters and the admonition against being harsh was probably directed more to someone who had just converted and perhaps was not use to treating their slaves with christian kindness.

Although the Bible does not say so, I tend to believe that this was an allowance made so the Jews could posper but also that those enslaved would have access to true worship, many of which became Jews themselves. But in any case, there were many laws involving the treatment of slaves and so slavery was strictly regulated.

Although I know that slavery was legal under Roman law, I don't know their law on freeing slaves. In any case, depending on the number of slaves, keeping them on as house guests could have been quite a burden and as for hired help, I don't know for sure but I've heard it said that in some cases the term slave was used to describe anyone who did not work for themseves (take that last with a few grains of salt after all it is just hear say).

 

So the fact that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery outright and seems to accept it as legitmate doesn't bother you?

 

Forgive me, again. I was assuming you and others would share the feeling that the passage seems a tad sexist.

Yeah, that's what Paul seems to be saying, and it seems sexist as all get out. Saying it's "disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation" is a little strong if the point was just to preserve order.

You're makin' it worse for Paul. Why wouldn't the same apply to men? Let me try to clear Paul of the sexist rap. While 1 Corintians was mostly penned by Paul, respected bible scholars (I know that's a red flag for you) are convinced that the sexist stuff was inserted by a scribe who wanted to make it seem that Paul wanted to exclude women from active participation in the worship service. Why do they believe this? (1) only three chapters earlier, Paul instructs women to cover their heads when they pray and prophesy in church (which you quoted), which seems inconsistent with saying they should be silent; (2) the passage about women being silent seems to interrupt a passage in which Paul is speaking about prophets, and (3) there are some manuscripts of 1 Corinthians in which the suspect verses are found in a different place in the text. But I'm sure you won't be convinced.

 

As you know, I believe the whole bible is true and that each account serves multiple purposes. Thus an outright rejection of slavery would not allow for us to be slaves of God and Christ, so much of the slavery pictured shows what it would mean or not mean for us to be slaves of God and Christ or for that matter to be slaves to our Christian brothers.

When the Bible shows cases of harsh slavery, that should teach us that we need to be very careful in choosing who or what we are enslaved to. For instance, the Bible say not to become enslaved to sin, talk about a harsh master.

When the Bible shows accounts of good slavery, that pictures our slavery to God and the Christ and how it can be beneficial to be enslaved to such ones. (Matthew 11:28-30) Come to me, all YOU who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh YOU. Take my yoke upon YOU and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and YOU will find refreshment for YOUR souls. For my yoke is kindly and my load is light.”

 

I always thought that slavery was in the same context as an employeer is the master to his employees or a college professor is a master to his students. Both slave and master should hold respect for each other and take into consideration their positions. The master is said to not mistreat their slaves and to be considerate.

It's like me trying to claim that I know more than Ukr does about the Bible. If I suggest this, I can end up looking silly and it can be a sign of disrespect and can bring with it disorder.

God gives us our positions and he can take it away.

 

You always thought slavery was the same as employment, agency, and professor-student relations? Being on the subordinate end of those relationships, I've sometimes had the same impression, but come on man, you know what slavery was--ownership of humans, even as inheritable property. Even OWB, in his discursive fashion, admitted that.

Well, my debate isn't with UKR, and if it were, I wouldn't hold back, and if I know him, he wouldn't expect or want me to. The notion that it's a sign of disrespect and can bring disorder to question or debate could be applied to the entire Hip Forums and suggest it should be shut down. Does OWB show me disrespect when he continues to defend his interpretations which I regard as indefensible? If you take that kind of deferential attitude, you might as well turn in your mind and make yourself vulnerable to any authoritative-sounding televangelist who comes done the pike with a collection plate.

 

No Problem, but I didn’t fully address sexism in my comments, I kind of missed the point a bit but I’ll try to correct that as I try to answer your questions.

Yes, it is sexist as all get out but that is what the Bible says and I make no apology for it.

When looking at animals creation one can see that when animals mate they have, male and female, certain roles that do not change and those roles are not the same. The question is, did God want to denigrate female ducks or raccoons? Some how I don’t think so, to me it seems more like they were designed to have complimentary roles so the job of being a family can be taken care of most efficiently.

I believe men and women were designed to have complimentary roles and with minor variations are happiest when filling those roles.

To a certain extent it does apply to men as well but the assignment was given to men to teach in the Congregation, not to women.

Although I had not heard #3 before and will have to look into it, you are correct in assuming I would not be convinced.

As I stated before, in order for us to understand why Paul said;
“As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak.” (1 Corinthians 14:33, 34),
it is helpful to consider the context of Paul’s counsel.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 14, Paul discussed matters relating to meetings of the Christian congregation. He described what should be discussed at such meetings and recommended how they should be conducted. (1 Corinthians 14:1-6, 26-34) Further, he stressed the objective of Christian meetings—“that the congregation may receive upbuilding.”—1 Corinthians 14:4, 5, 12, 26.

Interestingly women were not the only ones Paul told to “keep silent”, please note;
Paul’s instruction to “keep silent” appears three times in 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Each time, it is addressed to a different group in the congregation, but in all instances, it is given for the same reason—that “all things take place decently and by arrangement.”—1 Corinthians 14:40.

First, Paul said: “If someone speaks in a tongue, let it be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns; and let someone translate. But if there be no translator, let him keep silent in the congregation and speak to himself and to God.” (1 Corinthians 14:27, 28) That did not mean that such a person was never to speak at meetings but that there were times when he should be silent. After all, the objective of the meetings—to upbuild one another—would not be attained if he spoke in a language no one understood.

Second, Paul stated: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern the meaning. But if there is a revelation to another one while sitting there, let the first one keep silent.” This meant, not that the first prophet was to refrain from speaking at meetings, but that he had to be silent at times. Then the one having the miraculous revelation could address the congregation, and the objective of the meeting—that “all be encouraged”—would be achieved.—1 Corinthians 14:26, 29-31.

Third, Paul addressed Christian women only, stating: “Let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection.” (1 Corinthians 14:34) Why did Paul give this command to sisters? To preserve order in the congregation. He says: “If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation.”—1 Corinthians 14:35.

Perhaps some sisters were challenging what was said in the congregation. Paul’s counsel helped sisters to shun such a disorderly spirit and humbly accept their position within Jehovah’s headship arrangement, particularly with regard to their husbands. (1 Corinthians 11:3) In addition, by keeping silent, sisters would show that they did not aspire to be teachers in the congregation. When he wrote to Timothy, Paul showed that it would be improper for a woman to assume the role of teacher: “I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.”—1 Timothy 2:12.

Does that mean that a Christian woman must never speak during a congregation meeting? No. In Paul’s day, there were occasions when Christian women, perhaps impelled by holy spirit, prayed or prophesied in the congregation. On such occasions, they acknowledged their position by wearing a head covering. (1 Corinthians 11:5) Further, in Paul’s day and today, sisters along with brothers are urged to make a public declaration of their hope. (Hebrews 10:23-25) Besides doing this in the field ministry, sisters declare their hope and encourage others during congregation meetings by giving well-thought-out comments when invited to do so and by accepting assignments to share in demonstrations or student talks.

Hence, Christian women “keep silent” by refraining from trying to assume the role of a male and instruct the congregation. They do not raise argumentative questions that could challenge the authority of those who teach. By fulfilling their proper role in the congregation, Christian sisters greatly contribute toward an atmosphere of peace in which “all things [at congregation meetings] take place for upbuilding.”—1 Corinthians 14:26, 33.

So as Paul was saying not that women could never talk in the congregation but that rather than tying to usurp the headship principle it would be better for them to remain silent.

 

Have I been being discursive again?

Seemed like when I was more succinct, people were starting to call me an overbearing know it all trying to force my opinions on others. Oh well, sometimes you can win for losing.

 

You sometimes had that impression, but I am getting that right now. I was just saying that it could be that, not that it was. I can readily admit slavery, just that it is a different kind of slavery than the slavery we had in America. At least becoming equals was a possibility or am I wrong?

lol man, I didn't mean that we should all just start holding on to each others curtails and follow blindly. All I am saying is to hold respect for each other. Sometimes one person will know more than another and that should be respected, but I'm not suggesting to never question and that we should submit to each others authority. It's more of a Luke to Obi-Wan kinda thing. Luke can disagree and question, in fact it's encouraged. Just saying that there is respect between the two is all.

 

Under Roman law, it was possible for slaves to earn, buy,or be given their freedom, and it was also possible for slaves and ex-slaves like Epictetus to attain postions of influence. But it pretty much depended on luck and their masters. By definition, they weren't free. It's true that the Hebrews had different forms of slavery, and treated Jewish slaves better than non-Jewish slaves. To suggest that it was a relatively benign institution is, in my opinion, to whitewash it in an attempt to explain away the fact that nowhere in the Bible is slavery really challenged or criticized.

I can certainly agree with that. I may seem a little caustic and uninhibited in these discussions, but I don't mean to disrespect anyone. I know that OWB is sincere, and I respect that. I also understand the merits of his approach to the Bible in relation to what the two of you identify as the doctrinal approach, and I agree with you. OWB has come to many of the same conclusions from reading the Bible that I have coming from a different direction, and some of our common beliefs set us apart from Christians who follow the doctrines of their churches. Remember, the Apostles were not always uncritical of each other, nor were their interactions always that pleasant. Paul's relations with James and Peter weren't too different in tone with what you've been seeing here lately in my exchanges with OWB. You and OWB are saved, I'm sure of that. I regard you, OWB, and UKR as my brothers in Christ, as I regard Relaxx, Rudenoodle, J.C. and Hoatzin as brothers, but brothers sometimes quarrel. Yes, we can learn from each other. I've learned from all of you. That's what it's all about. Namaste.

 

So we now, as Christians, also have to accept the notion that taking a human life when it seems completely disproportional to the act concerned must be justified because the Law of Moses says so. I prefer Jesus' postions on that subject.
Matthew 12:1-12: "Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." Did Jesus kill them? Did Jesus even rebuke them? No. He said "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread — which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests" (verses 3-4). He also went into a synagogue and encountered a man with a shriviled hand. The Pharisees asked "is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? (verses 9-10) Jesus pointed out that they would rescue a sheep on the Sabbath, so why not a man? Summing up in Mark 2:23-3:6, Jesus says "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

 

Remember I said if you didn’t like my answers, feel free to answer the question yourself, so again, what is your suggestion on how to understand what happened at Numbers 15:32-36 or are you saying that it is to be ignored and thus the mans death was pointless.

Also why would you say his death was disproportional to the act seeing when he agreed to it, he himself didn't think was disproportional to the act.

 

I assume you're talking about the poor guy who got stoned to death. How did he agree to it? Are you inferring that he accepted that fate by gathering firewood knowing it was against the rules? Did Jesus' followers accept the same fate by gathering grain on the Sabbath? My answer would be that Jesus seems to be refuting the mentality that would exact the death penalty for a Sabbath infraction. Your defense of the action seems to be in keeping with the position of the Pharisees--the inevitable result of biblical literalism. The Moses story reflects a need at an earlier point in Jewish history to emphasize the Sabbath as a means of holding the Jewish nation together in the face of assault.

 

See, the first line of this post is pretty telling. The fact that you can explain all of that in so much detail and still have to ask what's offensive about it... I mean, it's breath-taking, really.

 

Sorry, I don't understand. How would saying, for example

"Be not slaves unto any master except for God and Christ."

be confusing?

What you seem to be saying here is that we cannot expect the Bible to just say what it means because that does not allow for these "multiple purposes". What purpose do these "multiple purposes" serve, other than to permit a reader to insert any meaning they like into the text?

 

Don't want to divert you from answering Hoatzin's last question, but when you're finished with that one, what do you think about the following passage in 2 Kings 2: 23-24? "as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, ‘Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead! So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths."
I know what you're gonna ask. Why do I think this passage is "offensive"? Well, coz it seems way harsh to maul forty kids because, being kids, they mocked Elisha, mean as it was. Do you think the forty kids deserved to be mauled?

 

I'm guessing that, like the guy who worked on the Sabbath, God was making an example of them. It's apparently totally okay for God to just fuck with people's lives to make a point. See also: Job.

 

Since I set this thread up so anyone can ask Bible questions and anyone can feel free to answer them.

So, seeing as both Hoatzin and Okiefreak seem to be experts on the Bible, perhaps they can answer a Bible question for me.

What did Jesus mean when he said at Matthew 7:6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw YOUR pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip YOU open.

 

Probably one of the most misinterpreted ( ) quotes in the entire bible, and often a crutch for people who would like to feel superior and "holier than thou".

My understanding of it was that you should not try to force your knowledge (and I use that word very, very tentatively) on those who are unwilling to listen.

 

Sounds good to me. I notice Brother OWB hasn't answered our questions before he asked one of his own. I was hoping to be enlightened. What about Jesus and picking grain/healing on the Sabbath? Or those 40 kids mauled by the bear? Or are we changing the subject?