DavidM wrote: > We addressed this already in the past and it is discouraging > to have to repeat it yet again. The Mishnah was not written > until hundreds of years later.
Judy wrote: > I can empathize after a fashion DavidM because it discourages > me to read such legalism coming from a man with influence over > a wife and five daughters. Legalism is a term with mixed meanings and is many times used in a disparaging way. Is that how you are using it here, or are you trying to complement me for sticking with what the Bible teaches? Judy wrote: > Apparently I used the wrong word, it was not the Mishnah - > it is the Oral Law I am speaking of ie: over the centuries > various interpretations of the Law had been added to the > religious literature of Judaism. These often added > regulations were intended to protect the pious Jew from > unintentionally violating any Mosaic statute or ruling. > By Jesus time this oral law was considered to be as > binding as Scripture itself and some even argued that God > had given both oral and written law to Moses at Sinai > (Revell Bible Dictionary p.624) and it is this 'oral > law' that so discriminates against women. Fair enough history about the oral law, but you are making a huge stretch to argue that Paul supported the oral law as being authoritative for us to follow today. I simply hold to the more parsimonious viewpoint that Paul was quoting the Torah. This seems very clear when we consider the actual Torah portions that Paul quotes in 1 Timothy 2. DavidM: >> I suspect you got this from a book that was wrong and >> you erroneously trusted it and believed it to be true, >> but it is an anachronistic statement made in ignorance. Judy: > Wrong DavidM. I have given this topic hours and hours > of study because of the contradictions in scripture > if the surface meaning is taken at face value. I > suggest you give it more time and attention. Surely you did not make it up. If you did not make it up out of thin air, then you read it somewhere. I see no contradictions in Scripture if taken at face value. DavidM: >> Paul was teaching about what the Torah itself teaches. >> He even specifically teaches from the Torah on this >> matter in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 when he touches on this >> same subject. Judy: > Where do you find this in the Torah? How do you know > this statement did not originate with the Judaizing > party in the church at Corinth who were quoting from > the Talmud? Here you go again, repeating what you keep being told is false. There was no Talmud at the time that this was written by Paul. You admitted in this very email to making a mistake about the Mishnah (the authoritative part of the Talmud), yet here you go again claiming that some hypothetical Judaizers were quoting from the Talmud which had not yet been written! Let me quote 1 Timothy 2 for you and then quote some Torah portions that correspond to it. This is pretty basic, but for some reason you seem to be having some kind of tunnel vision that keeps you from seeing the obvious. 1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife 1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. So when Paul said in 1 Cor. 14, "as also saith the Torah," he really meant the Torah and not the oral law of the Rabbi's. Judy wrote: > God does not want man to be "as God" to woman and usurp > Christ's place of authority over His own servant. > Even in the sphere of marital relations the woman is > not to be irresponsibly submissive to her own husband; > she was to be punished as severely as he if she submitted > under unsuitable conditions (see Leviticus 20:18). Equal punishment is always given to those under one's authority. Look how many died because of David's sin with Bathsheba. If I make a poor decision, my children suffer because they are under my authority. Arguing that my children have equal authority with me simply because they will be punished the same as me is illogical. The New Testament Scriptures clearly teach that the man is the head of the woman just as Christ is the head of every man. But I would have you know, that THE HEAD OF EVERY MAN IS CHRIST; AND THE HEAD OF THE WOMAN IS THE MAN; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV) Furthermore, the Scriptures teach for women to be in subjection to their husbands, even to unbelieving husbands, arguing that their husbands should won WITHOUT THE WORD. Likewise, YE WIVES, BE IN SUBJECTION TO YOUR OWN HUSBANDS; that, if any obey not the word, they also may WITHOUT THE WORD be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: EVEN AS SARA OBEYED ABRAHAM, CALLING HIM LORD: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. (1 Peter 3:1-7 KJV) Judy wrote: > Oh! So you do like the idea of a man being "as God" > to his wife DavidM and you like the idea of ruling > your household rather than being partners and joint > heirs of the grace of God? Whether I like it or not has nothing to do with it. It is a responsibility that the Lord puts upon husbands. We have no choice in the matter. Husbands answer to God for how we lead our wives. Selfishly, I would wish to only care about myself and be responsible only for myself, but God has put upon me the care of my wife and children. My job is easier when my wife subjects herself to me in the way that the Scriptures instruct her. If she acts rebelliously and independently, then my job is much harder. David Miller wrote: >> Did Sarah tell Abraham what to do? In one sense, yes, >> but not in the sense of ruling him. I'm just trying >> to point out that Sarah walked in submission to Abraham >> in this example. She did not rule over Abraham. Rather, >> Abraham ruled over Sarah. Judy wrote: > Hmmmm - if this is so then why did he get himself > into such a mess to start with? Because Abraham also submitted unto secular government and the secular government had penalties for a barren wife who did not provide a way for her husband to have children. David Miller wrote: >> I only express my viewpoint, and then the decision >> is in their hands and I must submit to it. Judy wrote: > You are still living under the law DavidM; you might > want to learn about the new covenant/new wineskin and > new wine in Christ. I've been set free to serve Him > in love and am not about to get entangled again in > that yoke of bondage. Submission to authority is not a yoke of bondage. Those who understand authority and walk in subjection to authority also understand faith and will be great in faith. I am not under law. I am under Christ's authority. There is a difference. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
