|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Paul and Women
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I find the idea of questionable authorship in the bible, and its implications, so interesting that i thought I'd start a thread on it. Basically, if we're discounting the works as forgeries, what are they doing in the bible in the first place? Why do we still read them, and what meaning if any do they have to what we presume to be God's inspired work?
I figure these issues are somewhat distinct from the issue itself of Paul's opinions on women's roles, so I figured I'd start a new thread and see how it played out. Hosts, please forgive me if this gets too close to inerrancy turf. I'm specifically curious about the utility of questionable texts in the bible.
You can reach the new thread here.
[official] looks good to me, Mirrizin. And thanks for redirecting.[/official]
[Host hat off]
Also I agree with every word you said about the Mary/ Martha reading. Religious instruction wasn't as silent and passive then as it is now, as I understand it. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
That's one of the reasons I became a Martha devotee-- I finally figured out she was getting a bad rap. She wasn't a jealous shrew resenting her sister getting praise and attention, she was a frightened woman worried that her sister was getting herself into trouble. The "many things" that Jesus warned her to not worry about were not things like biscuits burning, but more like hostility from the neighbors if they learned a woman was being taught along with men.
Even the passive scenario-- which I don't buy, given what I understand to be the traditional method of rabbinical study, which is loud and aggressive and students pouring all over their masters with questions-- was a gauntelet. I read somewhere- Jim Bishop, I think-- that certain religious leaders at the time taught that conversing with a woman (let alone teaching her) was a literal "waste of words", that it was as much a sin as throwing away food. Maybe some of y'all Biblical historians out there might have some more info on that.
As for Paul-- I see him as a politician.In a functional sense, understand, no perjorative intended. He was trying to achieve harmony in a very eclectic group of people, while at the same time asserting this group's very right to exist before both the Temple authorities and the Roman government. While some of his parenthetical statements seem to indicate that his actual dealings with women were a bit more eglatarian than his rhetoric, IMO he simply didn't see the issue of women's rights as a "hill to die on." Survival in a hostile environment, without abandoning the Gospel, was much more important.
The cool thing about Paul is that he built in a specific loophole for us to figure some of this stuff out for ourselves-- he said, essentially, "Some of you guys have questioned whether my teachings are in line with Christ's. Just to clear that up, if anything I say does not match what Christ said, to Hell with me."
Some read this as a bold statement of confidence in the infallibility of the doctrine, but I tend to think (if you'll forgive me) that it's a classic CYA statement (Cover Your Ass). I also think , given the flurry of arguments between the apostles evident in the epistles themselves, it was very smart to include that statement. As Peter said (in reference to Paul), the rhetoric got very heated at times, and the epistles should be read with that in mind.
[ 28. May 2007, 17:11: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I think the epistles make much more sense if you see Paul as a politician rather than as a prophet. And agreed, I actually get bugged by how often "politician" becomes an insult. It's really just a ridiculously impossible job, at least in the states.
And then it gives you liberty to take all of his writings, political or otherwise, with a grain of salt. But then...how big of a grain? I mean, he's supposed to be "inspired" (however the hell you define that word) by God, right?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I think the epistles make much more sense if you see Paul as a politician rather than as a prophet. And agreed, I actually get bugged by how often "politician" becomes an insult. It's really just a ridiculously impossible job, at least in the states.
And then it gives you liberty to take all of his writings, political or otherwise, with a grain of salt. But then...how big of a grain? I mean, he's supposed to be "inspired" (however the hell you define that word) by God, right?
Paul himself admits that he doesn't have all the answers: knowledge is imperfect, he says, and prophecy is imperfect. He knows only in part, and in a mirror, dimly.
He takes himself with a grain of salt, IOW....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I think the epistles make much more sense if you see Paul as a politician rather than as a prophet. And agreed, I actually get bugged by how often "politician" becomes an insult. It's really just a ridiculously impossible job, at least in the states.
And then it gives you liberty to take all of his writings, political or otherwise, with a grain of salt. But then...how big of a grain? I mean, he's supposed to be "inspired" (however the hell you define that word) by God, right?
Well, for me the "inspiration" is how doggedly and joyfully he pursued his course despite the volatility of the in which time he was pursuing it.
To me, also, the epistles are a fascinating record of the beginnings of Christian theological discourse. I see them (the epistles)as talking as much to each other as to us.It shows a marriage of the traditional Jewish exploration of scripture and the kind of wonder and excitement about discussing thought itself that was being demonstrated by the great philosophy schools of the time.
Perhaps this is a thread unto itself, but as a person who takes the story of the Incarnation at face value, it intrigues me that the Incarnation came smack in the middle of the Greco-Roman philosophy craze. I personally don't think it's a coincidental placement-- although I haven't really thought enough about the connections.
[ 28. May 2007, 19:32: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin
Also, Jesus interacted with women, even disreputable women, in public places, which, if I recall, would have been downright scandalous by local standards.
I have read an analysis of Jesus's dialog with the woman at the well which said that Jesus conduct on that occasion was very shocking on a number of counts.
First, the Jews considered all Samaritan women ritually unclean all the time. Yet Jesus got close enough to her to engage in a conversation.
Second, pious Jewish men did not engage in conversation with women they had never met. I believe they did not engage in conversation with women they had met when they were out in public.
Third, Jesus knew that this woman had a socially unacceptable sex life. This is one more reason why he should have run away from her.
Fourth, he asked this woman, who was unclean by her ethnicity and very objectionable by her own behavior, to give him a drink of water. By drinking it, he became ritually unclean.
Fifth, he chose her to be the very first person to whom he announced that he was the Messiah.
I read this in The Upside-Down Kingdom by Donald Kraybill. I highly recommend it.
Moo
[ 06. June 2007, 12:17: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Inspiration - if Paul is anything to go by - seems to be more a result of a person’s deep reflection on God (especially as he is reflected in the Jewish Scriptures). As such, Paul seems to me to be more of a theologian than a politician or prophet: though theologians are meant to be prophets, aren’t they? And prophets become politicians as soon as they opened their mouths in public. Paul’s use of the Scriptures is in itself inspiring, but he demonstrates that point that inspiration is 90% perspiration: he had to train and immerse himself in the Scriptures first. It provided the source of all his thinking and was the launch pad for the way he developed theology in the light of Jesus’ resurrection.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
As such, Paul seems to me to be more of a theologian than a politician or prophet: though theologians are meant to be prophets, aren’t they?
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Ok. forgive me from quoting Wikipedia for this general definition:
quote:
Theology finds its scholars pursuing the understanding of and providing reasoned discourse of religion, spirituality and God or the gods. The origin of the word theology comes from late middle English (originally applying only to Christianity) from French théologie, from Latin theologia, from Greek: θεολογία, theologia, from θεός, theos or God + λόγος or logos, "words", "cause", "sayings," or "discourse" + suffix ια, ia, "state of", "property of", "place of". It is widely understood to mean literally "the study of God."
By that definiton, a theologian does not need to be a prophet -- unless your church tradition defines 'theologian' that way-- but simply somebody who facilitates the discussion of God.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Oh forgot to address the "politician' part:
Again, some definitions:(from Wiki)
quote:
1.A person who is active in party politics.
2.In a state, a member of the executive branch of government, or the office of Head of State, as well as the legislative branch, and regional and local levels of government. [obviously an American perspective]
3.Any person influencing group opinions in his or her favor can be termed a politician. For example, a worker participating in office politics is a politician, but only so far as the operations of his or her workplace are concerned.
Some members of law enforcement, such as sheriffs, and many judges who are elected or appointed because of their political views or popularity.
I would vote that Paul was a politican according to Definition 3: along with preaching the Gospel, one of the things he was doing quite frequently was defending his right to preach the Gospel in the first place, and part of this was reassuring the Powers That Be that his doing so should pose no threat to them.
And I was discussing this in relation to women with my mom this afternoon-- I was talking about the law of pater familius which pretty much gave men rights over thier children and female relatives that pretty much decided their fates, for better or worse. This was seen as both a duty and a priviledge, but in practice it meant that a fatherless/ husbandless/ patronless female was a scarily vulnerable thing. Paul's leaning toward female "suppression" may have simply been his way of ensuring that individual women or groups of women would not do anything that would get them arrested, tortured or killed under Roman law.
[ 28. May 2007, 23:45: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
By that definiton, a theologian does not need to be a prophet -- unless your church tradition defines 'theologian' that way-- but simply somebody who facilitates the discussion of God.
Ah, Kelly! I was trying to break theology back out of the ivory tower into which it had been placed especially since the Enlightenment (when dictionaries became fashionable). Those who study God - whatever tradition - should put their feet where their mouth is, methinks; as they did before 'theology' became respectable in the academy. Which does rather make them politicians, or perhaps ‘rhetoricians’ would have been an acceptable term for it in the Greek academy?!.
Actually, I see that I have not been much of a politician on this thread, because I successfully avoided coming down on any side re: Paul’s view of women in 1 Timothy. I fail to be “Any person influencing group opinions in his or her favor”!
Darn. Back to the ivory tower...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
We’ve taken a look on this thread at questions of authorship (as Anselm feared would happen!), but I see from the OP that the issue noelper was concerned about was whether Jesus’ stance on the role and standing of women was taken up properly by Paul and the Church or not. In effect this means that authorship becomes somewhat irrelevant, because the issue falls between Jesus and everyone else – whether Paul or A. N. Other. The issue for noelper, I suspect, is more about how ‘church’ interprets biblical teaching and puts it into practice – or perhaps how ‘church’ practices and then seeks to back up the practice with Scripture.
As it’s been nearly a year since this thread started I’m not sure if PaxChristi is still on board to reflect on the posts thus far, but the point has been made more than once that Paul (or whoever!) was quite progressive for his time. Moo also pointed out a disconnect between some of the words attributed to Paul and his actions.
Rossweisse referred to the passage in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 –
quote:
“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” [NIV]
Just to pick up a little more on PaxChristi’s explanation of this passage last year: the earliest and best manuscripts place these verses as they appear in most English translations – between 33a and 36. Sometime in the 6th century AD a few scribes started putting them at the end of the chapter. On the basis of this discrepancy Gordon Fee, in his commentary on this book in the NICNT series (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; 2Rev Ed edition, Jul 1987), argued that we should remove these verses from the bible. I’m not convinced this is the right thing to do. No manuscript actually omits these verses and there are no scribal indications to suggest that there was doubt concerning their authenticity. This is probably a case where we have to avoid the danger of reading Paul in the way we wish he should be read – in a way that accords with our worldview – and instead bite the bullet to see where that leaves us.
So; Paul wrote (or dictated) this passage as it reads. PaxChristi referred to one possible alternative to the view that this is an opinion of Paul’s. I’ll throw it out here to see what people think - I’m not 100% sure it fits, but....
Paul spends some time in his letter responding to issues that have arisen in Corinth and he appears to quote verbatim words the Corinthians were using. For example, the ‘who follows who’ list in 1:11-12; “everything is permissible” in 6:12-13; and social divisions in 11:18. He follows these references up with rhetorical questions: “Is Christ divided...?” (1:13); “Don’t you know your bodies are members of Christ himself?” (6:15); and “Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?” (11:22). In chapters 7 & 8 he deals specifically with issues the Corinthians have written to him about (“Now for the matters you wrote about...” 7:1). After spending chapters 7 and 8 on this, he reverts to more rhetorical questions in 9:1 (“Am I not free...?”). So – how about this: in 14:34-35 Paul is once more quoting something he has heard the Corinthians say. His response is the series of rhetorical questions in verse 36: “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” In this interpretation, Paul is combating the Corinthian church’s view that the Jewish Law is clear on the role of women: they should be silent. Paul queries their interpretation of the Law.
This reading has the merit of agreeing with Paul’s statement in 11:5 – clearly he envisaged that women would indeed be speaking in church. On the flip side it is not so clear that 14:34-35 is a quote (direct or indirect) and it opens new questions in respect of other passages in 1 Corinthians. However, there it is.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
By that definiton, a theologian does not need to be a prophet -- unless your church tradition defines 'theologian' that way-- but simply somebody who facilitates the discussion of God.
Ah, Kelly! I was trying to break theology back out of the ivory tower into which it had been placed especially since the Enlightenment (when dictionaries became fashionable). Those who study God - whatever tradition - should put their feet where their mouth is, methinks; as they did before 'theology' became respectable in the academy. Which does rather make them politicians, or perhaps ‘rhetoricians’ would have been an acceptable term for it in the Greek academy?!.
Actually, I see that I have not been much of a politician on this thread, because I successfully avoided coming down on any side re: Paul’s view of women in 1 Timothy. I fail to be “Any person influencing group opinions in his or her favor”!
Darn. Back to the ivory tower...
Theoretically, you can facilitate discussion of God anywhere, even over lunch. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) I dunno, maybe I was reading you wrong, but I thought requiring theologians to be prophets did kind of put them in an ivory tower; by simply being folk who made it easier for the subject of God to come onto the table they become (in my mind ) more mobile and functional.
quote:
I fail to be “Any person influencing group opinions in his or her favor”!
The troublemaker in me wants to point out that steering away from promoting an opinion about a subject might reflect an opinion in and of itself. (That is; "Is this issue really important right now?" ) I don't say that becasue i think that's what you were doing, but I do wonder sometimes if that wasn't what Paul was doing.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Honestly, I'm much more comfortable with Paul as politician than as law-giver. It makes him less the authoritarian bastard that the evangelicals make him out to be (Do this! Don't do that! I say so, therefore God said so!) and more as an organizer who was trying, with a passion that sometimes borders on awkwardness, to keep a movement alive amidst hellish conditions. quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel M:
So – how about this: in 14:34-35 Paul is once more quoting something he has heard the Corinthians say. His response is the series of rhetorical questions in verse 36: “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” In this interpretation, Paul is combating the Corinthian church’s view that the Jewish Law is clear on the role of women: they should be silent. Paul queries their interpretation of the Law.
I also am tempted by the idea that when he talked about the "role of women" stuff he was citing things that the various folks had said to him rather than speaking for himself. I'm tno sure how neatly it fits into the syntax if the surrounding verses, but I think I've heard some of his other infamous lines as being spoken ironically, or as quotations of previous scriptures to be later torn down or built upon.
Though there's also those bits in Peter that say very similar things about submission. And I'm not sure how easy it is to work every single instance of this style of verbiage in the bible, though we also know that Peter and Paul seemed to have disagreed before on other topics... quote:
Originally Posted by Moo:
I read this in The Upside-Down Kingdom by Donald Kraybill. I highly recommend it.
My church did a bible study on that book a few months ago! I did find it most useful, and that's where I get a lot of my Jesus-as-feminist stuff from. Definitely an informative interpretation of scripture, at least to my admittedly liberal eyes.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Honestly, I'm much more comfortable with Paul as politician than as law-giver. It makes him less the authoritarian bastard that the evangelicals make him out to be.
But do you see Paul in that way because you want him to be that way, or because he actually was that way? I think that's the catch - taking care we don't look down that deep well only to see a reflection of ourselves!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
This is true. I'm also reminded that politicians, in a way, are lawgivers...but not in the same way some see God as a lawgiver. He was speaking from his own soapbox on God's behalf, not speaking as God incarnate.
And it is curious how one reads those letters, and how one fits them in the bible, given that they were mostly intended for particular times and places.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Honestly, I'm much more comfortable with Paul as politician than as law-giver. It makes him less the authoritarian bastard that the evangelicals make him out to be.
But do you see Paul in that way because you want him to be that way, or because he actually was that way? I think that's the catch - taking care we don't look down that deep well only to see a reflection of ourselves!
Tue, but Mirrizin's description of Paul as a" an organizer who was trying, with a passion that sometimes borders on awkwardness, to keep a movement alive amidst hellish conditions" does seem to fit not only Paul's description of himself, but Luke and Peter's descrpition of him.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
...Mirrizin's description of Paul as a" an organizer who was trying, with a passion that sometimes borders on awkwardness, to keep a movement alive amidst hellish conditions" does seem to fit not only Paul's description of himself, but Luke and Peter's descrpition of him.
Yes, that’s a neat summary of Paul’s activity. It was his motivation, though, that was catching my eye in all this – did his passion arise from a desire to promulgate a set of opinions and convince people to follow them (a political act), or was he being authoritarian in his approach? By ‘authoritarian’ I don’t mean in the sense that mirrizin referred to – I agree that being tyrannical is something different – but rather an imparting of a message with authority because it contained authority. This places that message higher, to my mind, to an opinion; Paul genuinely believes he has warrant for much of his message. The sort of thing I’m thinking of are those passages prefaced by the likes of: “...in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”; “...what I received from the Lord I passed on to you...”; “I declare to you...”; etc., etc. Here he sounds much more like the someone “examining the status quo, pronouncing judgement and calling for repentance” (Phyllis Trible’s definition of a prophet – rather apt in the context of this Paul and Women thread!). It’s that forthtelling of God’s Word that I was trying to get at in Paul’s motivation, based on the background of his intense study of the Jewish Scriptures as a theologian (hence the theologian => prophet => politician model).
Having mentioned Phyllis Trible, I should go on to say that my eye was caught by her description of one version of feminist hermeneutics that re-interprets the role of Eve. I’ll quote directly, because this is interesting: -
quote:
...when the serpent talks with the woman (Genesis 3:1-5), he uses plural verb forms, making her the spokesperson for the human couple – hardly the pattern of a patriarchal culture. She discusses theology intelligently, stating the case for obedience even more strongly than did God: “From the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said: ‘You shall not eat from it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.’” If the tree is not touched, then its fruit cannot be eaten. Here the woman builds “a fence around the Torah,” a procedure that her rabbinical successors developed fully to protect divine law and ensure obedience.
Speaking with clarity and authority, the first woman is theologian, ethicist, hermeneut and rabbi. Defying the stereotypes of patriarchy, she reverses what the Church, synagogue and academy have preached about women.
The section comes from her article, “Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies,” Christian Century 3-10, February 1982. The pages from 116-118 include both this section and her definition of a prophet given above.
Of course, we are still left with Paul’s reference to the deceiving of Eve in 1 Tim. 2 (assuming Paul as author for the moment) and this gets right to the nub of a hermeneutical issue here.
* Did Paul somehow fail to recognise the aspect drawn out by the feminist interpretation when he based chunks of his teachings on the creation passages (Genesis 1-3)?
* If he did, was it because he was held captive by a patriarchal picture, or was such an interpretation never there in the mind of the author (and interpreter – Paul)?
* Has the feminist interpretation glossed over the deception and sin that Paul draws attention to because it reflects an unwarranted cultural understanding?
* Which is the authoritative interpretation? Is it an either/or situation, or can it be both?
Mirrizin’s question on the related thread pops up here: “Is it time to start putting together a new bible?” And at that point, I will leave off because this is the wrong thread.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think it's important to remember that Paul was writing letters. He wasn't writing systematic theology, and he wasn't writing laws of Christian polity. He wasn't even writing a rule for Christian community. What he's writing in his letters is mostly responses to problems that have come up in particular communities - who may well have written to him to ask his opinion. He might well never have volunteered an opinion on e.g. eating meat offered to idols if he hadn't been asked to sort out problems arising.
Personally, I'm convinced that the only ostensibly anti-feminist passage that is uncontroversially by Paul himself is the 1 Cor 11 passage about head-coverings. Paul seems very concerned there to give both sides of an argument, and the upshot is certainly that woman should have authority to pray and prophesy in the church.
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think it's important to remember that Paul was writing letters. He wasn't writing systematic theology, and he wasn't writing laws of Christian polity. He wasn't even writing a rule for Christian community. What he's writing in his letters is mostly responses to problems that have come up in particular communities - who may well have written to him to ask his opinion.
I agree with this - that Paul was responding to specific issues - but I can see a further development here. What intrigues me is that he seeks to ground his responses in the Jewish Scriptures and most particularly in Genesis (this applies to most of his letters, not just Corinthians). It’s as though he goes back to first principles and in that way justifies his response. As such, much of what he says does feel like a ‘rule’ for the Christian community. The basis is that if a first principle applies in one place, it should apply everywhere.
In fact, I have been quite astonished at the fact that he references Genesis far more often than he pulls on the teachings of Jesus for support. Clearly this needs qualifying: there are instances of his drawing on Jesus’ teachings – the tradition surrounding the Last Supper comes to mind most readily. Otherwise, however, he focuses on Jesus’ resurrection and vindication.
So his approach seems to be to go back to basics in the Jewish Scriptures and then, in the light of Jesus’ vindication, apply his findings to specific issues. That seems to me to be his hermeneutic and suggests that there may be a ground for drawing out community-wide teachings. What do you think?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Well, if the Gospels weren't written until after many of Paul's letters (as historians seem to agree), then would it less surprising that Paul didn't cite them?
It's interesting that Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, to his own admission. Why, then, would he cite Jesus' teachings?
Then again, this might be another tangent...
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Well, if the Gospels weren't written until after many of Paul's letters (as historians seem to agree), then would it less surprising that Paul didn't cite them?
It's interesting that Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, to his own admission. Why, then, would he cite Jesus' teachings?
The oral background to the gospels would have been circulating since, well, Jesus, I guess. Paul's conversion seems to have involved a direct confrontation with Jesus; he spent some time reflecting on that life-changing event before launching off into his ministry and part of the reflection was, according to Luke, spent with the Jerusalem Christian leaders. He seemed to know enough of Jesus' teachings to refer to the Last Supper and he accepts the gospel as something he received (1 Cor. 15). So he seems to be imbued with the Jesus traditions and messages that later came to form the written accounts. It’s with that background that I find it interesting Paul doesn’t jettison the OT just because his earlier interpretation of it was found to be askew. Rather, he adjusts his interpretation and interpretive technique. Quite brave of him!
Another tangent? Keep 'em coming!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Well, that's an interesting way of looking at it. Rather than being an absolutist religion, Christianity is more like a system that can sort of infiltrate itself into its surroundings, sort of like what the Jesuits tried to do in China with Confucianism (and would have done had the Pope not had a cow).
And this explains a lot of Paul's inconsistencies. He was simply working from the cultures he was shown, speaking in their tongues and working from their particular philosophies/creeds into a new faith.
And it wasn't until later that they had to sort out which aspects of the new faith worked and which ones needed to be discarded as heresies.
I wonder how this would connect with his writings on women...whether he was speaking to them from Christ or speaking their words to Christ, so to speak. Fascinating.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Well, that's an interesting way of looking at it. Rather than being an absolutist religion, Christianity is more like a system that can sort of infiltrate itself into its surroundings, sort of like what the Jesuits tried to do in China with Confucianism (and would have done had the Pope not had a cow).
And this explains a lot of Paul's inconsistencies. He was simply working from the cultures he was shown, speaking in their tongues and working from their particular philosophies/creeds into a new faith.
And it wasn't until later that they had to sort out which aspects of the new faith worked and which ones needed to be discarded as heresies.
I wonder how this would connect with his writings on women...whether he was speaking to them from Christ or speaking their words to Christ, so to speak. Fascinating.
Nothing to add, really... just thought this post was excellent, and really solidifies a lot of stray thoughts I've had im my head for quite a while.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Glad to be useful. It always creeps me out a little when people take me seriously. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Actually, a preacher once gave a sermon on this story and explained that "sitting at the feet of a rabbi" was an expression for taking up the role of a student. The point of the story was that Mary was assuming a better role by taking the time to learn from Jesus rather than being a mere household servant.
I think you're missing the point. Of course Mary was taking up the role of a student, which proves that Jesus had female disciples.
Paul also had female disciples, so the two are alike at this point.
But then Paul appointed his female disciples as teachers, which Jesus never did.
quote:
I think there's a case for Jesus being a radical feminist for his time, though I'll admit I don't know the whole story.
Fine, but you have to apply the same standard equally, in which case Paul is the Andrea Dworkin of first-century Palestine.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Why Andrea Dworkin in particular?
ETA:
Actually, based on wikipedia, I can see the analogy, though I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there...
[ 04. June 2007, 20:56: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Why Andrea Dworkin in particular?
ETA:
Actually, based on wikipedia, I can see the analogy, though I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there...
Simply that Paul practised a more pro-woman theology than Jesus, so if Jesus is a radical feminist, more is more so.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by SteveTom:
Simply that Paul practised a more pro-woman theology than Jesus, so if Jesus is a radical feminist, more is more so.
I can see that in some verses (as cited above), but then...how do you square that with all of the "headship" stuff?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qupe
Shipmate
# 12388
|
Posted
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that most of what Paul said about male headship was in the context of marriage rather than general male-female relationships. Therefore headship has nothing to do with women's contributions to ministry.
Of course the whole concept of wives submitting to their husbands has been much maligned down the ages and has led to some appalling behaviour by men. However this quote from Ephesians puts it in context:
Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord...husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...so husbands ought also to love their wives as their own bodies.... (Eph. 5, vv. 22 - 28)
So male headship is about sacrificial love in the context of marriage and it is a real challenge!
By the way I just found this definition for the word used for 'be subject' (upotasso - sorry, I haven't figured out how to type in Greek yet!) -"a voluntary attitude of giving in, co-operating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden". (From the Crosswalk website.)Hmmm....not exactly passive, is it? Just recently I heard the viewpoint that to equate submission with self-esteem is a very modern assumption to make - after all Jesus submitted himself to Mary and Joseph...
--------------------
'Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.'
Posts: 802 | From: Down the road from the chocolate factory | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by SteveTom:
Simply that Paul practised a more pro-woman theology than Jesus, so if Jesus is a radical feminist, more is more so.
I can see that in some verses (as cited above), but then...how do you square that with all of the "headship" stuff?
You go back to the beginning, attempt to shrug off the effect of years of patriarchal interpretation which our culture is heir to, and take another close look at the texts as N.T.Wright attempts to do in Women's Service in the Church. He takes a fresh look at 'headship' about two thirds of the way down the page.
[ 05. June 2007, 15:47: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by SteveTom:
Simply that Paul practised a more pro-woman theology than Jesus, so if Jesus is a radical feminist, more is more so.
I can see that in some verses (as cited above), but then...how do you square that with all of the "headship" stuff?
Male "headship" is mentioned in two places in the Pauline letters:
1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Ephesians 5:23.
The first is in the context of regulating what women wear when they are preaching. It's a hideously complicated area, the question for the church involving not just gender roles but sexual morality, class oppression, culture clashes and the matter of rights versus obligations. And what exactly Paul means by man being woman’s ‘head’ is not clear - but certainly not quite what it sounds in English.
The main point though must be that in regulating what women wore to preach to mixed congregations, he was supporting, not opposing their preaching.
Here and in the Ephesians passage Paul is simply saying what everyone knew about the relationship between the sexes. But in practice he went far further than others.
If you can cite a contemporary of Paul (any person from the ancient world in fact) who had more liberal attitudes to women than that I'll be impressed. And in the face of such widespread agreement, we cannot take a person's silence on the subject as disagreement.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
If you can cite a contemporary of Paul (any person from the ancient world in fact) who had more liberal attitudes to women than that I'll be impressed.
Luke
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I [...] was struck by the number of times ("not a few", Luke would have said) that women crop up not only to support Paul but to get him out of trouble.
Another thing that caught my attention was that some of them were already successful in their own field, acknowledged leaders, who would not have needed Paul's support.
If you believe that the "we" passages of Acts mark the start of Luke's personal involvement, it is even more striking. After a dozen chapters of Acts in which women rarely appear other than as passive recipients of healing or condemnation, or as comic relief (Rhoda at the door). the narrative switches to "we" at 16.11. In verse 13 we come across a prayer meeting run by women for women. Lydia pops up in the next verse - a businesswoman and international trader who runs her own household and invites Paul to come and stay with her. Then we get the slave girl later in the chapter, various "prominent women" listeners in different Greek cities.
Much later, towards the end of the book, the Roman governors and local rulers suddenly have intelligent proactive wives with names. Yes, of course all the other NT writers knew that rich men had wives with names. But Luke remembers them. He actually seems to notice women more than the other NT authors (maybe with the exception of John who includes women in a rather different way.
Acts has a two-part link story between the Gospels and the Church. First in chapter 1 Jesus recaps his direction to the apostles - wait till the Spirit comes in power and then take the Good News to Jerusalem and to all the ends of the Earth, Then in Chapter 2 the Spirit does come and Peter explains the plot of the story to the gathered people of Jerusalem - God says I will pour out my spirit in the last days on both men and women and your sons and daughters will both prophesy. Reminiscent of "male and female created he them". The New Creation is for both men and women who both prophesy, both are filled with the spirit and both participate in Christ's heavenly priesthood.
That's Lukes explanation for the whole existence of the church. There is no hidden agenda in favour of women's ministry. Its on the published agenda, right there on the first or second page.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
flickeringflame
Apprentice
# 12703
|
Posted
"If you can cite a contemporary of Paul (any person from the ancient world in fact) who had more liberal attitudes to women than that I'll be impressed."
I think Epictetus qualifies. His dates are ca 50 AD to 120 AD. He said he was sad that women (girls) could have been good scholars and students of philosophy but unfortunately at the age of 14 or so saw that all that mattered was their marriageability. I think that's quite liberal, if we have to talk two thousand years ago!
Posts: 46 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Acts has a two-part link story between the Gospels and the Church. First in chapter 1 Jesus recaps his direction to the apostles - wait till the Spirit comes in power and then take the Good News to Jerusalem and to all the ends of the Earth, Then in Chapter 2 the Spirit does come and Peter explains the plot of the story to the gathered people of Jerusalem - God says I will pour out my spirit in the last days on both men and women and your sons and daughters will both prophesy. Reminiscent of "male and female created he them". The New Creation is for both men and women who both prophesy, both are filled with the spirit and both participate in Christ's heavenly priesthood.
That's Lukes explanation for the whole existence of the church. There is no hidden agenda in favour of women's ministry. Its on the published agenda, right there on the first or second page.
Ho-lee shit, Ken! I can't believe I missed that!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by flickeringflame:
I think Epictetus qualifies. His dates are ca 50 AD to 120 AD. He said he was sad that women (girls) could have been good scholars and students of philosophy but unfortunately at the age of 14 or so saw that all that mattered was their marriageability. I think that's quite liberal, if we have to talk two thousand years ago!
Welcome to the Ship posts, flickeringflame!
What would Epictetus' response have been, do you think? Would he have counselled that women put up with society's expectations, or would he have suggested striving to change? I gather a saying attributed to him is "All philosophy lies in two words: sustain or abstain."
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by flickeringflame:
I think Epictetus qualifies. His dates are ca 50 AD to 120 AD. He said he was sad that women (girls) could have been good scholars and students of philosophy but unfortunately at the age of 14 or so saw that all that mattered was their marriageability. I think that's quite liberal, if we have to talk two thousand years ago!
Hello flickeringflame. I agree that that is liberal for the ancient world, but compared to someone who not only wanted to teach women but did so, and not only taught them but made them teachers and worked alongside them as teachers - that hardly makes Epictetus the more liberal, does it?
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qupe
Shipmate
# 12388
|
Posted
Let's not forget that some of Paul's biggest financial supporters were businesswomen. (Bit of a tangent!)
--------------------
'Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.'
Posts: 802 | From: Down the road from the chocolate factory | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Doulos:
Let's not forget that some of Paul's biggest financial supporters were businesswomen.
If this is the case, then was Paul's support of women a matter of financial convenience or necessity rather than ideals? Was Paul just being pragmatic?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by Doulos:
Let's not forget that some of Paul's biggest financial supporters were businesswomen.
If this is the case, then was Paul's support of women a matter of financial convenience or necessity rather than ideals? Was Paul just being pragmatic?
I suppose the test case is Phoebe. A quite common interpretation of this passage is that the reason for Paul's (unique in scripture) commendation of Phoebe is that she is the bearer of the Epistle. Paul introduces her, urges support of her, and commends her service and her value to him and the church. I don't think this is pragmatism. He entrusted her with the carrying of an important letter (over which which he had clearly laboured long and hard). This strongly suggests a very high level of respect for her trustworthiness as a person.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This strongly suggests a very high level of respect for her trustworthiness as a person.
And the level of respect she probably already commanded within the receiving community.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doulos:
Let's not forget that some of Paul's biggest financial supporters were businesswomen.
As were some of Jesus's.
Both following the decription of the perfect woman in Proverbs - she goes out to work to support her menfolk.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
BroJames
<tangent>
I'm not sure if you know this but there has been a good deal of analysis about the destination of the version of the Epistle to the Romans that contains the commendation of Phoebe. I tend to favour the hypothesis that Romans 1-15 represented the original letter to Rome and Romans 16 was an addendum to a copy sent to the church in Ephesus. (It is easy to see why the letter might be made an Encyclical, in view of its contents) Phoebe's church at Cenchrea was about 20 miles away from Corinth and appears to have been settled during Paul's second missionary journey. It is also thought by many that Romans was written during Paul's stay in Greece (probably in or around Corinth).
The Ephesus hypothesis does make it more likely that Phoebe was known (by reputation and/or by some members) in the receiving church. Also the trip from Cenchrea to Ephesus, albeit a shortish sea crossing, would have been significantly less fraught than the trip from Cenchrea to Rome.
</tangent>
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
BroJames
<tangent>
I'm not sure if you know this but there has been a good deal of analysis about the destination of the version of the Epistle to the Romans that contains the commendation of Phoebe...
</tangent>
No I didn't know this, Barnabas 62, thanks for the heads up. I was going on the general issues in the ancient world surrounding the relative trustworthiness of written and spoken communications, and the need to validate written communications - examples in the Pauline corpus being writing in his own hand and using couriers who were/would be trusted by the recipients.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
BroJames
I don't know if you've got access to a Peake's Commentary, (1962 Revision edited by Matthew Black). It contains a commentary on Romans by Rev T W Manson and the issue is covered neatly in the introduction, under the subheading The problem of the last two chapters . The following comment, in support of the Ephesus hypothesis, has some force.
quote:
The commendation of Phoebe would carry more weight ... if it came from the Apostle to a church in which he was already well known and respected.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
flickeringflame
Apprentice
# 12703
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by flickeringflame:
I think Epictetus qualifies. His dates are ca 50 AD to 120 AD. He said he was sad that women (girls) could have been good scholars and students of philosophy but unfortunately at the age of 14 or so saw that all that mattered was their marriageability. I think that's quite liberal, if we have to talk two thousand years ago!
Welcome to the Ship posts, flickeringflame!
tWhat would Epictetus' response have been, do you think? Would he have counselled that women put up with society's expectations, or would he have suggested striving to change? I gather a saying attributed to him is "All philosophy lies in two words: sustain or abstain."
Hi Nigel M, thanks for the welcome! And for the interesting question. Of course we assume Epictetus taught only young men - but he taught them to analyse the prevailing society and to be highly critical of it; they were to apply the Stoic approach to the prevailing social mores of the day and be different from the "crowd". Maybe he never addressed females directly (but then again, how would we know? - half of his lecture notes are 'lost'- read: "destroyed" by the early church?) - but anyone who reads his discourses sees his approach to life and can imagine that he would counsel females to do the same. He had been a slave and knew the degradation of that life - read his words and you see his empathy with the lowest levels of society. He knows what abuse is - he has taken it himself - so would he not have empathised with what it meant to be female? He argues with upstart young Roman men as regards their slaves:" Do you not know they are sons of Zeus as you are?" This to me is a man who is very modern - in ways that relate to me actually more so than St Paul.
There ARE legends that he married in very old age so that his wife could look after a female child he saved from being 'exposed' - a practice of the Romans to do away with unwanted girl babies. This speaks for itself, in my opinion, as regards his response to the question of male and female importance in the first century.
Posts: 46 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
(makes mental note to learn more about this Epictetus guy...)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
flickeringflame
Apprentice
# 12703
|
Posted
Hi Kelly Alves. Hope you do look Epictetus up - you'll like him!
He's got a sense of humour (something apparently lacking in the Hebraic tradition).
Posts: 46 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by flickeringflame:
He's got a sense of humour (something apparently lacking in the Hebraic tradition).
Actually there is lot of humor in the Old Testament. See this thread.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by flickeringflame:
Hi Kelly Alves. Hope you do look Epictetus up - you'll like him!
He's got a sense of humour (something apparently lacking in the Hebraic tradition).
(after Googling) ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif) Many, many thanks for that one. Talk about somebody I would have loved to meet!
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
bump
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
bump
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
