1 Timothy 2:12 - What does it mean in context?

[ivory]

A friend of mine is an atheist who becomes very belligerent whenever anything tangentially related to religion is mentioned (or when my very Catholic girlfriend joins the conversation). One topic that he very smugly seems to enjoy mentioning is the language of 1 Timothy 2:12, which of course states:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.”

I’m assuming he thinks this verse is more “evidence” of the Bible being a horrible, backwards, sexist, racist, and homophobic work. More ammo for his anti-theism. I’m sure the verse in actual context doesn’t endorse sexism, but as a relatively new Catholic (in the making), I can’t quite understand what it’s trying to say. What does this verse really say?

Thanks for your time.

 

[bmullins]

This is not an absolute prohibition that applies to all circumstances, but specifically excludes women from the teaching ministry as exercised by the ordained clergy. (1 Cor 14:34-35) Paul is not denying the equal dignity of men and woman in Christ (Gal 3:28) or the propiety of women in praying and prophesying within the context of worship. (1 Cor 11:5) Women perform an invaluable service when they teach the faith in other contexts by their words and Christian example (Tit 2:3-4). According to Church teaching in the Christian assembly (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, , 4* Inter Isigniores*)

Paraphrased from the foot notes of the Ignatius Study Bible.

 

[Julia_Mae]

A friend of mine is an atheist who becomes very belligerent whenever anything tangentially related to religion is mentioned (or when my very Catholic girlfriend joins the conversation). .

People who are your friends don’t behave rudely to purposely disparage things you or your guests or loved ones care about. It has been my experience that nothing you say about any of this will matter to him in the least and he’ll just claim he has a “right” to his opinion. Of course, he also has the “right” to chose to treat others with respect. Because you know he does this, if you value the relationship, I’d suggest avoiding the topic altogether. Scriptural erudition isn’t the issue, I don’t think.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’m assuming he thinks this verse is more “evidence” of the Bible being a horrible, backwards, sexist, racist, and homophobic work. More ammo for his anti-theism.

I think the others are correct in that it is more a reference to the teaching ministry pertaining to priests, who must act in persona Christi who is the bridegrooom (i.e. it can’t be a woman ontologically speaking). If you want to check out ECFs and other commentaries on the verse, check out the Litteral Christian Library on Timothy.

Also, your above comment is strange. Let’s suppose your friend was right and that 1 Timothy demonstrates that God is sexist. How would this be evidence for atheism? Rather, shouldn’t your friend think God is instead just mean? If he was atheist, he wouldn’t believe the verse could be speaking about God anyway. And on what basis can your friend say sexism is “bad”? I think the Christian can provide a basis, but an atheist cannot a truth like that which requires belief in the dignity of the natural, moral law.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

A friend of mine is an atheist who becomes very belligerent whenever anything tangentially related to religion is mentioned (or when my very Catholic girlfriend joins the conversation). One topic that he very smugly seems to enjoy mentioning is the language of 1 Timothy 2:12, which of course states:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.”

I’m assuming he thinks this verse is more “evidence” of the Bible being a horrible, backwards, sexist, racist, and homophobic work. More ammo for his anti-theism.

The NT isn’t racist, but it is mildly sexist. The end of the world is prophesied to come about by a woman taking food/drink without permission based on love and giving it to a man. eg: The image is fulfilled by a woman priest giving the Eucharist to someone without permission just like Eve did…

St. Paul, I think, understands the prophecy of Genesis that way and therefore is doing his part to obey God’s law and encourage others to obey it. Jesus said: Whoever teaches others to break the least of the commandments, will be least in God’s Kingdom.

I’m sure the verse in actual context doesn’t endorse sexism, but as a relatively new Catholic (in the making), I can’t quite understand what it’s trying to say. What does this verse really say?

Thanks for your time.

It is simply acknowledging the prophecy about the end of the world. The woman who is angry at her husband will rise up and destroy the house.
The culture which let’s a perverse woman rise to power will also be destroyed by her. Jesus, the man & son of man, can’t destroy the church; but a certain kind of woman has the potency to destroy.

Notice this passage: (Douay)
Genes 49:24 His bow rested upon the strong, and the bands of his arms and his hands were loosed, by the hands of the mighty one of Jacob: thence he came forth a pastor, the stone of Israel.
Genes 49:25 The God of thy father shall be thy helper, and the Almighty shall bless thee with the blessings of heaven above, with the blessings of the deep that lieth beneath, with the blessings of the breasts and of the womb.
Genes 49:26 The blessings of thy father are strengthened with the blessings of his fathers: until the desire of the everlasting hills should come: may they be upon the head of Joseph, and upon the crown of the Nazarite among his brethren.

Now compare it to this:

Luke 11:24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through places without water, seeking rest: and not finding, he saith: I will return into my house whence I came out.
Luke 11:25 And when he is come, he findeth it swept and garnished.
Luke 11:26 Then he goeth and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself: and entering in they dwell there. And the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.
Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee and the paps that gave thee suck.
Luke 11:28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.

Jesus’ topic is the udder destruction of a man; it is the same topic, for instance, as the prophecy about the “end of the world”, the destruction of the temple; and it is also referring back to the “logic” of God that is found in Genesis. Genesis is a Law by examples; not by pure commands.

Notice how this woman views other women; “Breasts, womb”, she talks like a fertility machine, a thing for making babies. But she never actually mentions who’s anatomy she is talking about (unless it is Jesus’) … (That’s left to the imagination).

It is not all kinds of women that destroy, but a particular seductive kind tries to destroy Jesus’ Church and the powerful and wicked indiscriminately.
St. Paul’s remarks are not generally sexist – but they are anti- uncontrolled “wild” sex.

As Archbishop, Leveda kept a priest, a “Fr. Joe Jacoberger”(sp?) on staff at the Cathedral in Portland, Oregon for some time, The problem that happened there is indicative of the problem St. Paul is attempting to guard against – Fr. Joe’s sensitivity toward women led him to be seduced by one, and leave off of the church’s shepherding.
If she would do that, then what ethics could she possibly Teach in church?

Notice also: Jesus does not directly condemn this woman, but at the same time he denies that all breasts and wombs he touches are blessed. She tried to get him to affirm an unconditional blessing as an interpretation of scripture.

She is therefore making a pornographic picture to Jesus’ ears; eg: pornography leads one to focus more and more exclusively on body parts but not the person and the relationship and their commitment to a COMMON law. Notice, the woman talks over the top of Jesus, remarking this “blessing” in the middle of hearing him talk about the “unclean spirit” and “Beelzebub”.

It’s as if she is saying … oh, you’re soooo ideal… what breasts wouldn’t be blessed by your sucking, and what womb wouldn’t enjoy supporting you down there?
(IT’s TERRIBLY RUDE).

 

[Mintaka]

First point – It’s not a matter of giving someone food without permission.

It’s stealing. The only thing in the whole world that there is a possibility to steal, and they steal it.

What’s more, it’s stupid.

There’s one thing in the whole world that the man and woman are asked not to touch or eat, they’re warned that there’s death in it, and they both steal it and eat it. Just because it turns out to be a matter of uncorking death for the whole human race instead of just stealing and eating poison, doesn’t make it any smarter.

Second point… there’s nothing wrong with mentioning body parts as a reference to the whole person, nor is it a forbidden immoral poetic device in the eyes of God. It’s used in Psalms and throughout the Bible. The woman isn’t being bad; she’s just incomplete and thus old-fashioned in her understanding. The Messiah’s mother isn’t to be blessed by all because she’s the Messiah’s mother, but because she’s Jesus’ perfect follower as well as His mother.

Third point – Paul isn’t sexist. Every five minutes, he’s praising the women of the community. He knows darned well that Timothy was taught Christianity by his mother and grandmother, just the way most Jewish men learned and still learn Judaism at their mother’s knee. He was talking about official clerical teaching, as in church, not being women’s responsibility. They had to do it the rest of the time; in church, they could actually sit down and listen. And some were having trouble with that.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

First point – It’s not a matter of giving someone food without permission.

It’s stealing. The only thing in the whole world that there is a possibility to steal, and they steal it.

What’s more, it’s stupid.

Hm?

Genes 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
Genes 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

There’s one thing in the whole world that the man and woman are asked not to touch or eat, they’re warned that there’s death in it, and they both steal it and eat it.

Adam wasn’t told not to touch it; Besides, he was put in the garden to till and keep it; He would have been expected to pick up any of the fruit of that tree which dropped to the ground.

BUT he was told only not to eat it.

It’s Eve, who WASN’T THERE when God gave the Law to Adam who told the serpent they were not to touch it. She disbelieved her husband who told her what the law was; and in turn, she made him doubt God, for Eve did not die as Adam watched her eat; eg: their eyes did NOT open when SHE ate of the fruit. Reread the passage; It is not until after she GAVE some to Adam who was with her, that their eyes were opened. By tricking the woman, the serpent struck at Adam’s heart and drew him away from the ministry of the sanctuary and into exile.

Just because it turns out to be a matter of uncorking death for the whole human race instead of just stealing and eating poison, doesn’t make it any smarter.

It wasn’t necessarily poison. The Eucharist isn’t poison, but those who eat it without permission (not discerning what it IS) don’t receive life from it; rather they receive sickness as St. Paul notes in his writing. It isn’t “stealing” to receive Eucharist with mortal sin on one’s conscience – but it is death.

I will admit, Judas was stealing when he took the sop with our Lords spit on it…
But he probably thought, oh this piece of bread is already slimy, he won’t mind if I take it from him – I’d be doing him a favor; it’s just a little sin…

Second point… there’s nothing wrong with mentioning body parts as a reference to the whole person, nor is it a forbidden immoral poetic device in the eyes of God. It’s used in Psalms and throughout the Bible.

OK. Find an example that has NO reference to the PERSON who owns the body parts… and which is NOT accompanied by a rebuke for separating the two – and that will help me see your point. In the Vatican there are nudes in the carvings – but NOT faceless ones magnifying only two parts of the body!!!

The woman isn’t being bad; she’s just incomplete and thus old-fashioned in her understanding. The Messiah’s mother isn’t to be blessed by all because she’s the Messiah’s mother, but because she’s Jesus’ perfect follower as well as His mother.

She’s also extremely RUDE; talking out of turn, and mentioning body parts in connection with a conversation about devils… She most certainly IS incomplete!!!
Missing a few “screws” we hope, or else the alternative is ghastly.

Third point – Paul isn’t sexist. Every five minutes, he’s praising the women of the community. He knows darned well that Timothy was taught Christianity by his mother and grandmother, just the way most Jewish men learned and still learn Judaism at their mother’s knee. He was talking about official clerical teaching, as in church, not being women’s responsibility. They had to do it the rest of the time; in church, they could actually sit down and listen. And some were having trouble with that.

Huh, I don’t think I am going to touch that one…

 

[bmullins]

If it is ‘pornographic’ in nature, why does Jesus use the word menounge in his response? (vs 28)

It’s my understanding that menounge does not just mean “yea” but also conveys a sense of “Yes, but in addition.” It’s more as if Jesus is affirming that yes, his mother is blessed but further blessed are those who keep the word of God (which makes Mary doubly blessed.)

I doubt Jesus would reaffirm the woman’s statement if she were being ‘pornographic.’

 

[thistle]

A friend of mine is an atheist who becomes very belligerent whenever anything tangentially related to religion is mentioned (or when my very Catholic girlfriend joins the conversation). One topic that he very smugly seems to enjoy mentioning is the language of 1 Timothy 2:12, which of course states:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.”

I’m assuming he thinks this verse is more “evidence” of the Bible being a horrible, backwards, sexist, racist, and homophobic work. More ammo for his anti-theism. I’m sure the verse in actual context doesn’t endorse sexism, but as a relatively new Catholic (in the making), I can’t quite understand what it’s trying to say. What does this verse really say?

Thanks for your time.

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 12. St. Paul only means in public. See note on ver. 11. of the next chapter. It would appear from this regulation of the apostle, as well as from the writings of the earliest fathers, that the practice and condemnation of women interfering at all in spiritual affairs, in not new. Tertullian says: We do not permit a woman to teach, to baptize, or to arrogate to herself any part of the duty which belongs to man. (De Veland. Virg. cap. 9.) — The woman has tried once to teach, when she persuaded Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, and has wofully failed. Let her now be content to remain in silence, and subjection to man; (St. Chrysostom on this place) as appears also from the order of the creation. See ver. 13. Seduction began with Eve, a subject of profound humiliation for women; but this ought not to deprive them of confidence in God’s mercy, nor take from them the hope of salvation. (Bible de Vence)

 

[Lisa44]

A friend of mine is an atheist who becomes very belligerent whenever anything tangentially related to religion is mentioned (or when my very Catholic girlfriend joins the conversation). One topic that he very smugly seems to enjoy mentioning is the language of 1 Timothy 2:12, which of course states:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.”

I’m assuming he thinks this verse is more “evidence” of the Bible being a horrible, backwards, sexist, racist, and homophobic work. More ammo for his anti-theism. I’m sure the verse in actual context doesn’t endorse sexism, but as a relatively new Catholic (in the making), I can’t quite understand what it’s trying to say. What does this verse really say?

Thanks for your time.

I will step out and say I find these verses to be problematic for me as a woman. I don’t have a problem with being obedient to my husband. He usually has the last say. But I do think that Paul was a little bit prejudiced against women. Maybe he had some hangups. There were women teachers in the early church and it seems like Paul was against this practice. That is why he says “**I **do not allow a woman to teach…”

Not in my church, in other words. So whatever. I just say well that is Paul…and he is who he is. I’m sure there were others who did this when he said that.

And when he starts to tell women how to dress I have problems with that too. Jesus says: Matt 6:25 don’t worry about…what you will wear…

I really think people are big boys and girls and they can dress themselves.

And I disagree that a woman is “saved” through childbearing. Guess all those women who are not able to have children are in hell right now. Rediculous. sorry, but its just a personal opinion if you ask me and not a very sage one. Jesus says it is better to be chaste so again, Paul contradicts Jesus. Women do not have to have sex, (children).

 

[bmullins]

I think we have to realize too that (particularly in the admonishments on dress) Paul was dealing with a much different world than we are today. When the gospel became open to the Pagan groups, there were many who were used to having temple prostitutes, to going into the ‘holy places’ and having intercourse. A lot of flesh was likely exposed, and in many cases the women were lifted above the men (fertility cults etc put women above men, not even on equal ground.) With all of that in mind, there is little wonder that Paul had to say something to get the newer converts to be a little more restrained, allowing those who were supposed to be talking to actually do the talking.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

If it is ‘pornographic’ in nature, why does Jesus use the word menounge in his response? (vs 28)

It’s my understanding that menounge does not just mean “yea” but also conveys a sense of “Yes, but in addition.” It’s more as if Jesus is affirming that yes, his mother is blessed but further blessed are those who keep the word of God (which makes Mary doubly blessed.)

I doubt Jesus would reaffirm the woman’s statement if she were being ‘pornographic.’

Jesus began the statement with “BUT”

Luke 11:28 αυτος δε ειπεν μενουν μακαριοι οι ακουοντες τον λογον του θεου και φυλασσοντες

BUT he said …
Which shows that Jesus is correcting an error of the woman.

I say it is pornographic precisely because of the type of correction Jesus has to make; He has to bring the topic of “law” or “logic” into the mix.
A marriage is a blessed thing; BUT a LAWLESS marriage (logic-less) is called pornea (Harlotry). The difference is simply the law.

If one has the blessings of the breast and the womb ( NOTE: which means a child!!!, do a word search for the phrase “suck”, eg: Luke 21:23, and ESP. 23:29, etc.) That blessing alone does not mean they have it lawfully.

In the passage I quoted in Genesis, the “heavens above” are the “milky way”, the deep below is the womb of the “sea”. The blessing relates to the promise made to Abraham (breast and womb) – “Your children shall be as numerous as the Stars, and as the SANDS of the sea-shore.”

However, we are constantly reminded by St. Paul (And even in Timothy) that not all the BIOLOGICAL children of Abraham are inheritors of the promise (Which is the Christ, Jesus even.).

Again, the reason the devilish woman is painting a pornographic picture of Jesus’ mother is that she is trying to replace a blessing based on Law with one based on Biology alone.

Jesus Christ says, “That what you do to the least” … “you do it to me”.

Recognize that every whore who seduces a man of the cloth, does it also to Jesus.
The woman’s statement, in the context of Devils, then – is equivalent to taunting Jesus with a temptation (Ohh, even when sex is bad — It’s still pretty Good – ISN’T it Jesus – DARLING! You ought to KNOW.).

And Jesus, who can “draw” good out of bad – blesses his mother as you note, by correcting the woman and placing the blessing BACK on it’s correct foundations. Love of the LOGIC of God, even in it’s most trivial seeming aspect.

No one reading the passage walks away with a feeling that Jesus’ mother was blessed on account of being a woman; Either one mistakenly takes Jesus as repudiating even his mother – or they recognize that the blessing is one that depends on a condition not mentioned in Jesus’ correction itself.

Jesus never restricts his statement to “my mother is blessed” … because the statement is also meant to condemn whores.

We know Mary obeyed the law and was blessed because of what the Holy Spirit says:
Luke 1:41 And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.
Luke 1:42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

It is not, blessed are breasts and womb (period) – it is Blessed are YOU among [breasts and wombs…!].

What do you think, then of Luke 23:29 – for what reason is it not a blessing there?

 

[bmullins]

I disagree completely. In the first century people would not have seen the concept of a mother giving birth or a child being fed as pornography. (Nor should we today.)

Here is the Haydock commentary on it.

Μενουνγε , imo vero, yes indeed. Our Saviour does not here wish to deny what the woman had said, but rather to confirm it: indeed how could he deny, as Calvin impiously maintained, that his mother was blessed? By these words, he only wishes to tell his auditors what great advantage they might obtain by attending to his words. For the blessed Virgin, as S. Augustine says, was more happy in having our Saviour in her heart and affections, than in having conceived him in her womb. Tirinus.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I disagree completely. In the first century people would not have seen the concept of a mother giving birth or a child being fed as pornography. (Nor should we today.)

Here is the Haydock commentary on it.

Reread what I said.

If Jesus meant ONLY to affirm what the woman said, he would not have bothered to correct her; but would have just said “YES”. Jesus NEITHER mentions his mother, nor does he affirm what the woman says unconditionally.

Calvin’s slur is a different matter. I disagree with Calvin – but that doesn’t mean the Haydock commentary is good just because it calls Calvin “bad”.

You are also ignoring the other passages I pointed to where the same “blessing” is in fact viewed as a curse. A curse is always associated with something extremely twisted (perverted/pornographic). Nor are you addressing the fact that the blessing is an allusion to Abraham; (eg:although many of Abraham’s children tried to kill Jesus and are trying to do so in that very passage!!!)

Hagar the Egyptian had good breasts and a womb. That’s why Sarai gave Hagar to Abraham; Sarah didn’t think it was pornography EITHER – BUT SHE WAS WRONG. Egyptian fertility is not GOD’s view of the right use of women and sexuality. A woman looking at another woman as a “womb” is not OBEYING God’s law – something more is required.

Hey, I’ll admit it – hookers can be pretty women. (Is that not the title of a movie?)
IF you don’t see pornography when a hooker is involved, well – fine. I do.
It isn’t Jesus’ mother – it’s that “certain” woman in the crowd that’s the problem.

I’ll reiterate; A priest at the Cathedral in Portland, by the name of Joseph Jacoberger (sp?) met a woman with the same kind of blessing. Now, she dressed nicely – went to church – and took Fr. Jacobberger out of the ministry with her.

Archbishop Vlazny, at a MASS, during the Homily, decided to announce publicly exactly what he thought of that priest, Fr. Joe, who was KICKED OUT.
Funny, he never said anything about the pretty woman – but obviously, she was either a mental nutcase or a devil. What she did was WRONG and perverted and pornographic…

(But she thought is was OK…)

 

[bmullins]

Reread what I said.

I am not having trouble comprehending what you are saying. I just disagree with it. I also don’t see a lot of commentaries or study bibles portraying it in the light you are giving it. So I will still say I don’t agree.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I am not having trouble comprehending what you are saying. I just disagree with it. I also don’t see a lot of commentaries or study bibles portraying it in the light you are giving it. So I will still say I don’t agree.

You are entitled to do so; But you are also correcting me based on a point which is not sustainable. Even in Jesus’ response he did not say “Blessed is SHE” he said “Blessed are THEY”.

Clearly, Jesus is including even the woman speaking to him in the “They”.
Yet, there is no evidence Jesus “ACTUALLY” sucked on her breasts, right???

Luke 11:28 αυτος δε ειπεν μενουν μακαριοι οι ακουοντες τον λογον του θεου και φυλασσοντες

You know enough Greek to verify what I have said.

If you don’t want to agree, that’s fine. I’ll let it drop, now. I appreciate that you might not have noticed all these details in the past, and that I am being rather pointed in my remarks. I mean no offense, I just want mutual respect.

 

[Candy6]

I have just joined this forum and I have been trying to make sense of why women can not be ordained as priests.
One answer I found on Catholic Answers is that - A women cannot teach or have authority over a man.
As a catholic, brought up in Ireland, I was led to believe that God made us in his own image and likeness. This is the reason for my confusion - If man and woman were made in his own image and likeness there is no difference between man and woman. So I cannot understand why women cannot become priests
I would like to know based on what evidence or belief was this assumption arrived at?
On anything I have read about what the church fathers had to say on the status and role of women in society in general and in the church in particular, I cannot help thinking that their views were formed coloured by the attitudes (both social and political) of the society in which they lived.
I know my argument sounds simplistic, but sometimes when you overcomplicate an issue you cannot see the real truth

 

[PJM]

=ivory;8728406]A friend of mine is an atheist who becomes very belligerent whenever anything tangentially related to religion is mentioned (or when my very Catholic girlfriend joins the conversation). One topic that he very smugly seems to enjoy mentioning is the language of 1 Timothy 2:12, which of course states:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.”

I’m assuming he thinks this verse is more “evidence” of the Bible being a horrible, backwards, sexist, racist, and homophobic work. More ammo for his anti-theism. I’m sure the verse in actual context doesn’t endorse sexism, but as a relatively new Catholic (in the making), I can’t quite understand what it’s trying to say. What does this verse really say?

Thanks for your time.

Several KEY points:

What Paul was saying here was expected, normal, and TRADITIONAL practice for the Jews, of the time.

If memory serves much of this same “unenlightened” persoanl philsosphy is present yet today is some Muslim religions.

The FIRST point is that this deals with “church PRACTICES”; Not doctrine, and not dogma.

point 2 is: “practices” [even those of the current age] can and do change

point 3. Neither doctrine or dogma can be changed

point 4. The HUSBAND is to be the hed of the family and wife: equal partners; BUT in every organization regardless of size; someone HAS TO BE IN CHARGE. God say’s the man is.

Thus Adam is CREATED B-4 Eve, and Eve acutally comes form Adam

point 5. God has with GREAT consistancy choose men to lead: Abram, Noah, Moses, David, the Prophets, and Christ HIMSELF… ALL Male-gender

THAT SAID THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT AND SIGNIFIANT ROLE OF ANY HUMAN [only] PERSON IS MARY; FEMALE; MOTHER OF JESUS CHRSIT.

point 6. Ephesians 5:33 “Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband.” …2 Ephesians 5:28 “So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself”

There are differences PLANED by God for God’s pruposes. What is…IS!

point 7. [the perfect number] is that to a very profound degree times change and HAVE changed. Women are NOT second class citizens; are equal partners in marriage; BUT the wife is to answer to her husband. THAT cannot change. Not be dictated too;but follow the lead of.

Men were thee PROVIDERS when Paul wrote these thoughts. Further he was expressing Tradition and practice of the time. YET his comment about women “Teaching” still applies to the Homily at the Mass which MUST be given by a Bishop, Priest or Deacon ONLY. All male-gender. That is a role God has assigned and is as valid today as when expressed by Paul.

Women THEN, and now were the main “teachers” in the home, but men were and ARE expected to take the lead role of religious education in the home.:thumbsup:thumbsup:

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Candy6]

One thing that people need to be careful of doing is - reading the ancient texts of the bible literally.
I was looking up if the Church believed in the story of the Garden Of Eden or if the Church now accepts the theory of evolution. It seems the Church does accept the possibility of the theory of evolution with the proviso that God infused a soul in humans. So the idea of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is not a must to believe. So the question is where does that put the belief that Man was created first and Woman then created from man.

On going through various site I also came across this -

I was looking up what the Church taught about evolution and the story of Genesis

That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, “What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East” (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

The people who wrote the bible were influenced by attitudes both social and political of their times - hence the attitudes towards women. The way of thinking and expressing concepts and ideas and the way in which language was used was different to present day

 

[PJM]

=Candy6;10024913]One thing that people need to be careful of doing is - reading the ancient texts of the bible literally.
I was looking up if the Church believed in the story of the Garden Of Eden or if the Church now accepts the theory of evolution. It seems the Church does accept the possibility of the theory of evolution with the proviso that God infused a soul in humans. So the idea of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is not a must to believe. So the question is where does that put the belief that Man was created first and Woman then created from man.

On going through various site I also came across this -

I was looking up what the Church taught about evolution and the story of Genesis

That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, “What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East” (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

The people who wrote the bible were influenced by attitudes both social and political of their times - hence the attitudes towards women. The way of thinking and expressing concepts and ideas and the way in which language was used was different to present day

HI CANDY,

WELCOME TO CAF!

YOUR POINT AS STATED IS INCORRECT.

ONE ALWAYS OUGHT TO CONSIDER A FIRST READING [UNLESS CLEARLY STATED OTHERWISE], AS A LITERAL UNDERSTANDING.

WHY?

BECAUSE WHAT IS IN THE BIBLE IS THERE BY DIVINE PROVIDENCE, AND BECAUSE BY FAR; IT IS THE MOST COMMONLY FOUND FORM IN THE BIBLE. THIS IS BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST DIRECT PATH TO THE TRUTH THE AUTHOR IS SHARING.

THAT SAID: THERE ARE ALSO OTHER WRITTEN FORMS OF COMMUNICATION USED.

Candy you may know this, but not everyone reading this forum likely will.

netfiles.uiuc.edu/k-lee7/www/iccf/docs/blitdevice.htm

Literary devices (figures of speech) other than Literal

Below are the different types of literary devices used in Scripture: THIS SITE DEFINES EACH OF THEM

1. simile
2. metaphor
3. metonomy
4. synecdoche
5. merism
6. symbolism
7. idiom
8. personification
9. anthropomorphism
10. Apostrophe
11. allusion
12. type
13. word play
14. hyperbole
15. paradox
16. alliteration
17. assonance
18. numerology
19. onomastics

We’re delighted you have joined us:thumbsup: