All of you have been weighing heavy on my mind (2 Viewers)

[SystemShock]

This is one of those context matters verses. But, most people who I've talked to, have no idea what they're talking about when using this to justify women not having a voice in the church. It drives me batty because that wasn't at all what the author's intent was.

But yeah, context matters. Regardless, here isn't the time or place for a Bible lesson, and apparently, someone here didn't get the memo.

Which context would that be?

 

[UndeadSnoopy]

This is one of those context matters verses. But, most people who I've talked to, have no idea what they're talking about when using this to justify women not having a voice in the church. It drives me batty because that wasn't at all what the author's intent was.

But yeah, context matters. Regardless, here isn't the time or place for a Bible lesson, and apparently, someone here didn't get the memo.

I know most Christians don't practice that anymore. That was aimed at an intolerant few.

 

[DaveXA]

Which context would that be?

Historical, cultural and literary. I would even add situational and the intent of the author. There's a lot of considerations when reading Scripture, and it's not always obvious or clear at the surface.

 

[DaveXA]

I know most Christians don't practice that anymore. That was aimed at an intolerant few.

Indeed, just making it clear that most don't for those reading. There actually are quite a few I've met over the years who still believe that sort of thing.

 

[MTDB1983]

piqued
it's taken from the french 'pique' (which is where we get 'pike' as in a lance or sharp stick)
so the idea is the your curiosity is lazing around like some bear and the idea comes along and pokes it

I used voice to text. But thank you.

 

[MTDB1983]

It’s not a lie. That the Gospels are not eyewitnesses and copy from each other is well documented, mainstream biblical scholarship. That most of the epistles are forgeries is mainstream biblical scholarship. That the figures and stories of the OT are non-historical mythology is mainstream biblical scholarship.

There isn’t any eloquent way to put it, but Christianity is just as made-up as every other religion.

It isn’t mainstream biblical scholarship. You’re simply parading untruths as fact.

 

[Brennan77]

It’s not a lie. That the Gospels are not eyewitnesses and copy from each other is well documented, mainstream biblical scholarship. That most of the epistles are forgeries is mainstream biblical scholarship. That the figures and stories of the OT are non-historical mythology is mainstream biblical scholarship.

There isn’t any eloquent way to put it, but Christianity is just as made-up as every other religion.

I'm going to dip my toe on a singular point that you usually lead with. Let's address for a moment your usual leading claim that the gospels are anonymous. You state it as a matter of fact, but there's literally no evidence to back up such a claim.

There are many manuscripts of all four gospels from differing regions from the first five centuries. Even the earliest texts from the second century are simply not anonymous. Every one of them have the same formula of 'gospel according to x'. What we don't have is a single example of a gospel manuscript that is not attributed to an author.

To hold that the gospels were anonymous is to believe that there were not one but four different anonymous gospels that were copied many, many times and dispersed throughout the reaches of the Roman empire over many decades and only later were the names added. And somehow they all matched up and the different versions were not attributed to the wrong guy. You'd expect to see some disagreement but it simply isn't there. For an example of an actual anonymous text, you could look at the early manuscripts of the letter to the Hebrews. The manuscripts either claim an unknown author or attribute it to differing writers later on in the centuries. This isn't the case with the gospels.

Additionally, if the authors were falsely attributed for the purposes of authority, why use Luke and Mark who were not eyewitnesses? Why not use someone else that was known to actually be with Jesus? Why not use Jesus himself?

It just doesn't make sense and only became popularized in very recent history by the likes of Bart Ehrman.

 

[Icon]

 

[MTDB1983]

If Bob E has joined this fray, then I’m prepared to say that this thread has jumped the shark.

 

[DaveXA]

If Bob E has joined this fray, then I’m prepared to say that this thread has jumped the shark.

Well, technically, it jumped the shark from the opening post...but, yeah, since BobE graced us with his presence, I'm not deleting the thread for sure now.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I have 2 college degrees.

I have 2 MFAs. Do you have some time to talk about Martha Graham?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I guess you're not game.
It's too bad, I was rather looking forward to it.

 

[Booker]

It isn’t mainstream biblical scholarship. You’re simply parading untruths as fact.

I am not. Outside of apologetics and fundamentalists those are widely accepted positions.

 

[CapitalCitySaint]

I have 2 MFAs. Do you have some time to talk about Martha Graham?

College degrees do not make one immune from mental illness. (Not directed at you)

 

[DaveXA]

I am not. Outside of apologetics and fundamentalists those are widely accepted positions.

Source please.