Are there any gay relationships in the Bible?

[Checkpoint]

I do not find any, but others do.

Some say David and Jonathan were in love, had sex, and were even married.

They also cite Ruth and Naomi as being similar.

How do you read David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi?

[Yahu]

I do not find any, but others do.

Some say David and Jonathan were in love, had sex, and were even married.

They also cite Ruth and Naomi as being similar.

How do you read David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi?

I see David and Jonathan as a close friendship and nothing more.

The story of Ruth does contain sexual references that some find offensive but there is no indication of any sexual contact between Ruth and her mother-in-law. It all pertains to the rights of a levirate widow to have sex with a relative of her former husband.

The only reference to an anal homosexual act specifically mentioned is kind of hidden in the translation. It isn't between two men but as a man going to the groves to appease the pagan gods by use of an asherah pole. The passage translated into English is like 'behind one tree in the midst of the garden' when in actuality it is a reference to 'a tree (asherah pole) in the midst of the behind in the garden (pagan grove)'. Of course it is condemned.

All other references are just forbidding the acts. Now there is a case where men of the town tried to drag off a Levite to the local grove for sexual purposes but took his concubine instead. Basically she is raped to death there. The tribe of Benjamin in nearly destroyed as a result of that evil in their midst.

To my knowledge, there is never a homosexual relationship mentioned in scripture.

Now Paul is very specific in his teachings to the Greeks. Now you have to understand the Greek culture to understand the scripture. In Greece, it is considered normal for a man to use other men sexually IF you give BUT NOT if you receive. They have separate terms for it. So the scripture gets translated as being opposed to both sodomy and homosexuality. The sodomy is a reference to a man giving to another man while the homosexuality is being the effeminate, ie behaving as a woman for a man to receive from another man as a woman would. Paul tells the Greeks that BOTH are evil and forbidden.

When I lived in Greece, they still call each other a 'pustay malakah' as one of their greatest insults. It basically means 'easy faggot'. Malakah is the term for effeminate disease, a man that receives. The funny thing is basically Malakah is Hebrew for 'queen'.

[tam]

I do not find any, but others do.

Some say David and Jonathan were in love, had sex, and were even married.

They also cite Ruth and Naomi as being similar.

How do you read David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi?

I read David and Jonathan as being two men who loved each other dearly. That does not mean that they were gay or that they had a sexual relationship with one another. Ruth and Naomi are the same... in fact Ruth and Naomi love each other as mother and daughter. There is no reason to suggest that there is anything sexual between them.



**

For Strider, who is assuming that the apostles were unmarried and without children. There is no reason to suggest that the apostles were not married and did not already have children, just because some of those children and wives may not have accompanied them on their journeys with Christ.



Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? 1Corinth 9:5


I don't care if someone is or is not gay. It does not prevent anyone from belonging to my Lord. I was just responding to the OP.


Peace to you both,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by Checkpoint]

The bible was written by men in a male dominated society. Once beliefs (especially of a supernatural nature) become part of one's societal group, sexuality comes up and, many time (it seems) gets contorted into all kinds of scary stuff.
We shouldn't look into the Old Testament bible for answers to complicated issues (sexuality, evolution, tolerance, etc) unless of course one likes to be stoned (with rocks not herb) and the like.
Other things we shouldn't look to the bible for:
UFOs
Dinosaurs
Chemistry
History
Bigfoot
Recipes

Even IF one wants to look into the bible for gay relationships, that fact that we don't see any open gay relationships listed should come as no surprise consider the bible has been edited numerous times (edited meaning change or, in some cases, sections or entire books removed altogether) so we shouldn't expect to see anything that we, today, would think the people of that time didn't like OR what we today think is wrong. When we DO see these things in today's world, we make excuses for them and sream 'context' and it's fine.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 12 by tam]

That does not mean that they were gay or that they had a sexual relationship with one another.

No more so that it does not mean they weren't gay (or bi or poly or whatever). Men are sexual and even in today's world, religious people are straight and gay.
So if they were gay or not it should matter only to those who truly don't understand that people are way more than whom they sleep with.

[OnceConvinced]

For Strider, who is assuming that the apostles were unmarried and without children. There is no reason to suggest that the apostles were not married and did not already have children, just because some of those children and wives may not have accompanied them on their journeys with Christ.

Tam raises a very valid point here.

We know that through reading the bible that women were generally not considered important. They were more the property of the men. Women were generally not mentioned at all. I mean, you read about all the sons of various famous bible characters, but you don't hear about the daughters. Yet, they surely had daughters!

A few wives were mentioned, yes, but there were others like Lot's wife who were not even important enough to be given a name.

The disciples could have been married. It's just that their wives would not have been deemed important enough to mention, after all they would have just been the property of the disciples, nothing more. There to provide food, house cleaning, sex and offspring.

We could even argue that Jesus may have been married. However his wife would have not been deemed important enough by the sexist writers of the gospels to be mentioned.

[tam]

Peace to you OC.

However, I must say, no, that was not at all my point.

[Replying to post 15 by OnceConvinced]


Alternatively, not giving names for wives of apostles might have been done in order to protect those wives and children. Paul was concerned with safety as well; even though people think Paul was just instructing how the 'church' should be run, there were specific issues of the day with specific people that he (felt he) had to address.

We only get one half of that 'telephone conversation', but he was concerned about not giving others an excuse to persecute them. He would know the ins and outs of that, since that is what he was doing as Saul. For instance, he did bring up the fact that women would be kept safe through childbirth. I know most people think that somehow has something to do with Eve and punishment, but how does that make sense? I don't know if the Romans worried about harming the unborn during execution or harm of the mother; but Israel should have known to take care not to harm the unborn.

**
Another reason is that perhaps some did not want to be named... or the writer did not have permission to use a name, for whatever reason. Or there names simply were not known... along with a slew of male disciples who were also not named.

For instance, Paul speaks of the man who was caught up to the third heaven (and no, Paul is not speaking about himself). He does not name that man because it is not his place TO name that man. Just as the revelation that man received was not Paul's to share.


So there are multiple reasons why the wives and children of any apostles might not have been named.



**

All that being said, there certainly were women both named and praised and even singled out from the men to be praised. If the reason that more women were not named was because women were insignificant, then none of these women would have been named either: Mary and Elizabeth, Mary and Martha, Johanna, Priscilla, Saphirra. I'm sure there are others that I am not recalling.

Christ revealed Himself first to women after He was resurrected. He praised Mary for choosing what was right ( listening to Him with the rest of the disciples, instead of serving and preparing for those disciples with her sister Martha in the kitchen).


Some men in Christendom have chosen to 'lord' themselves over women and wives, perhaps even diminish them. But my Lord does not do this; not even in what is written. Both men and women make up His Bride. He shares His rule with both men and with women.

The twelve apostles might have been men, but the rest of the Body consists of both. Anyone who hears the call and comes, and is chosen.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[OnceConvinced]

Peace to you OC.

However, I must say, no, that was not at all my point.

Wasn't your point that just because the bible doesn't mention these wives doesn't mean the apostles didn't have any?

I was simply giving the obvious reasons I could see why they weren't mentioned.

[Replying to post 15 by OnceConvinced]


Alternatively, not giving names for wives of apostles might have been done in order to protect those wives and children. Paul was concerned with safety as well; even though people think Paul was just instructing how the 'church' should be run, there were specific issues of the day with specific people that he (felt he) had to address.

We only get one half of that 'telephone conversation', but he was concerned about not giving others an excuse to persecute them. He would know the ins and outs of that, since that is what he was doing as Saul. For instance, he did bring up the fact that women would be kept safe through childbirth. I know most people think that somehow has something to do with Eve and punishment, but how does that make sense? I don't know if the Romans worried about harming the unborn during execution or harm of the mother; but Israel should have known to take care not to harm the unborn.

**
Another reason is that perhaps some did not want to be named... or the writer did not have permission to use a name, for whatever reason. Or there names simply were not known... along with a slew of male disciples who were also not named.

For instance, Paul speaks of the man who was caught up to the third heaven (and no, Paul is not speaking about himself). He does not name that man because it is not his place TO name that man. Just as the revelation that man received was not Paul's to share.


So there are multiple reasons why the wives and children of any apostles might not have been named.

The most obvious reason was that they weren't deemed important enough. They were simply the possessions of the men nothing more. The rest of the bible makes it obvious they were deemed nothing more than men's possessions.

All that being said, there certainly were women both named and praised and even singled out from the men to be praised.

And they were far and few between. Even those tended to be the property of men.

If the reason that more women were not named was because women were insignificant, then none of these women would have been named either: Mary and Elizabeth, Mary and Martha, Johanna, Priscilla, Saphirra. I'm sure there are others that I am not recalling.

I never said ALL were considered insignificant. I said the GENERALLY they were considered insignificant. The numbers of women mentioned in the bible compared to men is very minimal. They were generally ignored. You can't escape that fact.

Christ revealed Himself first to women after He was resurrected. He praised Mary for choosing what was right ( listening to Him with the rest of the disciples, instead of serving and preparing for those disciples with her sister Martha in the kitchen).

You can quote a handful of stories of women in the bible who were significant, but the majority weren't. It's quite obvious by reading the bible that women were generally considered the property of man. Which is why they get little representation.

Some men in Christendom have chosen to 'lord' themselves over women and wives, perhaps even diminish them. But my Lord does not do this; not even in what is written. Both men and women make up His Bride. He shares His rule with both men and with women.

Where does Jesus ever put women on an equal footing to men? Where does he ever raise them above being simply a possession?

The twelve apostles might have been men, but the rest of the Body consists of both. Anyone who hears the call and comes, and is chosen.

The fact that Jesus never chose even one female disciple is inescapable evidence that he did not see them as equal to the men.

Just ONE woman, Tam! But not even that. Not even one. Why were they not important enough? Were they not worthy? Were they not capable? He never even sent any out on missionary journeys!

See, even Jesus didn't think they should be given that sort of responsibility. He clearly did not see them as equals to the men. It's no wonder Paul continued with that same sexist attitude.

I've started a new thread on this one. Maybe you might like to take that discussion up there:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 541#785541

[tam]

Peace to you OC.

However, I must say, no, that was not at all my point.

Wasn't your point that just because the bible doesn't mention these wives doesn't mean the apostles didn't have any?

Correct.

I was simply giving the obvious reasons I could see why they weren't mentioned.

Just because you find something to be obvious does not mean that what you see is true. Might I suggest that one possible reason your pov seemns obvious to you is because you see with the eyes religion gave you?

When you were once convinced, did you ever ask Christ for the truth on the matter?

[Replying to post 15 by OnceConvinced]


Alternatively, not giving names for wives of apostles might have been done in order to protect those wives and children. Paul was concerned with safety as well; even though people think Paul was just instructing how the 'church' should be run, there were specific issues of the day with specific people that he (felt he) had to address.

We only get one half of that 'telephone conversation', but he was concerned about not giving others an excuse to persecute them. He would know the ins and outs of that, since that is what he was doing as Saul. For instance, he did bring up the fact that women would be kept safe through childbirth. I know most people think that somehow has something to do with Eve and punishment, but how does that make sense? I don't know if the Romans worried about harming the unborn during execution or harm of the mother; but Israel should have known to take care not to harm the unborn.

**
Another reason is that perhaps some did not want to be named... or the writer did not have permission to use a name, for whatever reason. Or there names simply were not known... along with a slew of male disciples who were also not named.

For instance, Paul speaks of the man who was caught up to the third heaven (and no, Paul is not speaking about himself). He does not name that man because it is not his place TO name that man. Just as the revelation that man received was not Paul's to share.


So there are multiple reasons why the wives and children of any apostles might not have been named.

The most obvious reason was that they weren't deemed important enough.

I think you have to ignore things to find this to be the obvious reason. Such as the things that I suggested. Such as the fact that Christ deemed the women important enough to reveal Himself to FIRST after his resurrection. Spending time with the Samaritan woman at the well. Praising Mary for choosing to learn as a disciple rather than do what is often referred to as 'womens work'.

Praising the woman - Mary again - who anointed Him before His death and resurrection.

But these things I stated already.

They were simply the possessions of the men nothing more.

Christ never treated women that way, nor taught or even suggested such a thing.

The rest of the bible makes it obvious they were deemed nothing more than men's possessions.

Some things may make it appear that way, and I am certain that there were men - perhaps even many men - who abused their authority over women.

You will note that Sarah told Abraham what to do when Abraham was wrong, and God told Abraham to listen to his wife.

Just sayin'

All that being said, there certainly were women both named and praised and even singled out from the men to be praised.

And they were far and few between. Even those tended to be the property of men.

Women were not deemed the property of men by Christ. His Bride - again I have already stated this - is made up of men and women. They all have Christ as their head. They are all servants to one another. Male or female.

Even Paul wrote that there is no male or female, nor slave of free, in God.

If the reason that more women were not named was because women were insignificant, then none of these women would have been named either: Mary and Elizabeth, Mary and Martha, Johanna, Priscilla, Saphirra. I'm sure there are others that I am not recalling.

I never said ALL were considered insignificant. I said the GENERALLY they were considered insignificant. The numbers of women mentioned in the bible compared to men is very minimal. They were generally ignored. You can't escape that fact.

Well, since my response pertained to those in Christ, I will leave you to your comments on other women to you and whomever wishes to discuss that with you.

If some women were clearly honored... then it is not a matter of women being insignificant. There were many men not named as well. That does not mean that those not named or mentioned were insignificant.

Christ revealed Himself first to women after He was resurrected. He praised Mary for choosing what was right ( listening to Him with the rest of the disciples, instead of serving and preparing for those disciples with her sister Martha in the kitchen).

You can quote a handful of stories of women in the bible who were significant, but the majority weren't.

Not being mentioned in what is written does not equal insignificant.

Obviously Christ did not think women were insignificant.

Some men in Christendom have chosen to 'lord' themselves over women and wives, perhaps even diminish them. But my Lord does not do this; not even in what is written. Both men and women make up His Bride. He shares His rule with both men and with women.

Where does Jesus ever put women on an equal footing to men? Where does he ever raise them above being simply a possession?

Really?

When He revealed Himself to them first. When He specifically praised Mary for choosing to learn as a disciple instead of doing 'women's work' with Martha.

Those are two obvious examples.

But perhaps the question you should ask yourself is, where did He ever treat them as simple possessions of men?

The twelve apostles might have been men, but the rest of the Body consists of both. Anyone who hears the call and comes, and is chosen.

The fact that Jesus never chose even one female disciple is inescapable evidence that he did not see them as equal to the men.

No it isn't. You are ignoring any other consideration. Perhaps (in fact most likely) the people - male and female - could not have handled that kind of a drastic change. After all, in the temple and priesthood set up, only men could serve in that role and speak in synagogues.

Note though, that Christ also did not tell His apostles that Gentiles were going to be brought into Israel, and be part of the Body as well. Not until after His ascension. They could not have handled it yet.


But it does not matter. Because Gentiles were brought into the vine; and women are called to be in Christ, the same as men. It does not depend upon gender; but upon faith.

Just ONE woman, Tam! But not even that. Not even one. Why were they not important enough? Were they not worthy? Were they not capable? He never even sent any out on missionary journeys!

See, even Jesus didn't think they should be given that sort of responsibility.

Perhaps it was not safe. Perhaps there were none willing. Whatever the reason for it at that time, are you only willing to see consider that it has to do with Christ thinking women are unequal to men?

Even though He gave clear examples that it was what one chooses that makes one worthy or not?

My Lord does send those who belong to Him - men and women - on assignment, today, as He has done in the past. It is faith to hear and willingness to 'obey' that counts.

Though I can imagine that it would have been harder and more dangerous for women to go out without men at many times in the past because of the various laws of the land.

He clearly did not see them as equals to the men. It's no wonder Paul continued with that same sexist attitude.

I have suggested the reasons for Paul's concerns and statements in a former post above. Paul is in fact the one who said that there is no male or female in God. Yes?


Male or female, it does not matter. This is not about any of us to begin with. This is about Christ.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[OnceConvinced]

Just because you find something to be obvious does not mean that what you see is true. Might I suggest that one possible reason your pov seemns obvious to you is because you see with the eyes religion gave you?

Err, no. As a Christian I was blind to the sexism of the bible. I never questioned why there were no female apostles. Now that I look at the bible without the Christian rose-colored glasses, I can see the rampant sexism. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

When you were once convinced, did you ever ask Christ for the truth on the matter?

it was never an issue.

I think you have to ignore things to find this to be the obvious reason. Such as the things that I suggested. Such as the fact that Christ deemed the women important enough to reveal Himself to FIRST after his resurrection.

His own mother? It would seem only logical that Jesus would look up to his own mother. That he might want to reveal himself to her first.

Does revealing himself first to women mean he sees them as equals of men? Perhaps he might have been looking for a good feed and some pampering first? He was probably hungry and aching from the suffering he went through.

Spending time with the Samaritan woman at the well.

So he spent time with a woman? How is that showing that he saw them as equal to men? Sexist men still like to spend time with women. Perhaps if he'd said to the woman "Come, be my disciple", then you might have a good argument. It would have also shown that Jesus wasn't racist too. But no this woman, was never given a spot alongside the elite 12, was she?

Praising Mary for choosing to learn as a disciple rather than do what is often referred to as 'womens work'.

But yet he didn't make her one of his chosen 12. Perhaps if he had, then we might have an instance of Jesus treating a woman as an equal to the men. But we don't.

In fact there seem to be more instances of women being treated as servants, like when Mary Magdeline busted that bottle of alabaster perfume on his feet. Talk about putting yourself in a servile position.

Praising the woman - Mary again - who anointed Him before His death and resurrection.

How is praising a woman, putting them at equal footing with a man?

They were simply the possessions of the men nothing more.

Christ never treated women that way, nor taught or even suggested such a thing.

There were very few stories about him and his interaction with women in the bible. We don't really know how he treated them in general. We do know that he sat by and had one wash his feet with her own hair and a bottle of perfume though. That doesn't sound like respect for women.

n.

You will note that Sarah told Abraham what to do when Abraham was wrong, and God told Abraham to listen to his wife.

Just sayin'

Such examples are far and few between in the bible.

All that being said, there certainly were women both named and praised and even singled out from the men to be praised.

And they were far and few between. Even those tended to be the property of men.

Women were not deemed the property of men by Christ. His Bride - again I have already stated this - is made up of men and women. They all have Christ as their head. They are all servants to one another. Male or female.

That is more Paul's teaching than Jesus. Please identify any words of Jesus where he speaks of women as being equal to men.

Even Paul wrote that there is no male or female, nor slave of free, in God.

Since when did you take Paul seriously?

If the reason that more women were not named was because women were insignificant, then none of these women would have been named either: Mary and Elizabeth, Mary and Martha, Johanna, Priscilla, Saphirra. I'm sure there are others that I am not recalling.

I never said ALL were considered insignificant. I said the GENERALLY they were considered insignificant. The numbers of women mentioned in the bible compared to men is very minimal. They were generally ignored. You can't escape that fact.

Well, since my response pertained to those in Christ, I will leave you to your comments on other women to you and whomever wishes to discuss that with you.

If some women were clearly honored... then it is not a matter of women being insignificant. There were many men not named as well. That does not mean that those not named or mentioned were insignificant.

Just because a few women were honored does not mean that they were being seen as equal to men.

Christ revealed Himself first to women after He was resurrected. He praised Mary for choosing what was right ( listening to Him with the rest of the disciples, instead of serving and preparing for those disciples with her sister Martha in the kitchen).

You can quote a handful of stories of women in the bible who were significant, but the majority weren't.

Not being mentioned in what is written does not equal insignificant.

Sure it does. It meant they were not deemed important enough to be mentioned.

Obviously Christ did not think women were insignificant.

Not insignificant maybe, but equal to men? Very doubtful.

Some men in Christendom have chosen to 'lord' themselves over women and wives, perhaps even diminish them. But my Lord does not do this; not even in what is written. Both men and women make up His Bride. He shares His rule with both men and with women.

Where does Jesus ever put women on an equal footing to men? Where does he ever raise them above being simply a possession?

Really?

Yes really. So far your examples have not indicated in any way that women are equal to men in Jesus's eyes.

When He revealed Himself to them first. When He specifically praised Mary for choosing to learn as a disciple instead of doing 'women's work' with Martha. Those are two obvious examples.

All those in no way indicate that Jesus sees women as equal to men. Just that there were times where Jesus honored them.

But perhaps the question you should ask yourself is, where did He ever treat them as simple possessions of men?

There is so little written in the gospels that show Jesus's attitude to women. But when he had Mary prostrate herself and wash his feet with her hair, that showed a real bad attitude to women. He even insisted that he should get that treatment. Now no man did that to Jesus. He wouldn't have expected it!

He clearly did not see them as equals to the men. It's no wonder Paul continued with that same sexist attitude.

I have suggested the reasons for Paul's concerns and statements in a former post above. Paul is in fact the one who said that there is no male or female in God. Yes?

He also said that he does not permit a woman to teach and that they should be seen and not heard. I'm guessing you and Paul would have been at loggerheads.

[tam]

Peace to you OC,

Just because you find something to be obvious does not mean that what you see is true. Might I suggest that one possible reason your pov seemns obvious to you is because you see with the eyes religion gave you?

Err, no. As a Christian I was blind to the sexism of the bible. I never questioned why there were no female apostles. Now that I look at the bible without the Christian rose-colored glasses, I can see the rampant sexism. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

They're your thought processes. I only made a suggestion.

When you were once convinced, did you ever ask Christ for the truth on the matter?

it was never an issue.

So no, then.

I think you have to ignore things to find this to be the obvious reason. Such as the things that I suggested. Such as the fact that Christ deemed the women important enough to reveal Himself to FIRST after his resurrection.

His own mother? It would seem only logical that Jesus would look up to his own mother. That he might want to reveal himself to her first.

Does revealing himself first to women mean he sees them as equals of men? Perhaps he might have been looking for a good feed and some pampering first? He was probably hungry and aching from the suffering he went through.

Who is talking about His mother, or a feed, or pampering?

I am speaking of Mary of Magdalene.

He revealed Himself to her before any of the men.

Also, my response above was to your claim that the most obvious reason the wives or children were not named, is because they were not deemed important enough to be mentioned.

Spending time with the Samaritan woman at the well.

So he spent time with a woman? How is that showing that he saw them as equal to men? Sexist men still like to spend time with women. Perhaps if he'd said to the woman "Come, be my disciple", then you might have a good argument. It would have also shown that Jesus wasn't racist too. But no this woman, was never given a spot alongside the elite 12, was she?

Again, this was in response to whether women were important or not to Christ.


And quite honestly, sexism is your accusation. So if you are going to accuse Christ of sexism, you need to back that up. Just because the apostles were men, does not that Christ was sexist. The rest of the disciples consisted of men and women; and Mary of Magdalene, for instance, was a disciple.

Praising Mary for choosing to learn as a disciple rather than do what is often referred to as 'womens work'.

But yet he didn't make her one of his chosen 12. Perhaps if he had, then we might have an instance of Jesus treating a woman as an equal to the men. But we don't.

In fact there seem to be more instances of women being treated as servants, like when Mary Magdeline busted that bottle of alabaster perfume on his feet. Talk about putting yourself in a servile position.

Both men and women in Christ are supposed to serve - Christ, one another, and others.

Christ Himself came to serve. Christ Himself got down on His knees and washed the feet of His apostles; leaving instruction that they (and so also all of us) are to do the same for one another.

Praising the woman - Mary again - who anointed Him before His death and resurrection.

How is praising a woman, putting them at equal footing with a man?

Still responding to the not 'not important' charge.

They were simply the possessions of the men nothing more.

Christ never treated women that way, nor taught or even suggested such a thing.

There were very few stories about him and his interaction with women in the bible. We don't really know how he treated them in general. We do know that he sat by and had one wash his feet with her own hair and a bottle of perfume though. That doesn't sound like respect for women.

Since we have few stories about his interaction with women, your accusation of sexism seems to be based mainly upon supposition. As does your accusation that He considered women to be insignificant, unimportant, and/or mere property of men.

Especially since the examples that we DO have show Him praising a women for choosing to do the work of a disciple - rather than 'women's work'. As well as other examples I am not going to repeat.


And yes, He allowed His feet to be washed by Mary. He allowed HER to show her love for Him. Mary did not need to be told to serve, or to wash His feet, or even the feet of others.

She already knew this. She did so out of love. What love on his behalf if He rebuffed her?

Especially when some time later He was going to tell the 12 that they must also do this?

Christ Himself taught - by word and by deed - that we are to wash the feet of one another.

Because we ARE to serve one another.

n.

You will note that Sarah told Abraham what to do when Abraham was wrong, and God told Abraham to listen to his wife.

Just sayin'

Such examples are far and few between in the bible.

Yes, that may be so. But they paint a different picture than what you are painting.

All that being said, there certainly were women both named and praised and even singled out from the men to be praised.

And they were far and few between. Even those tended to be the property of men.

Women were not deemed the property of men by Christ. His Bride - again I have already stated this - is made up of men and women. They all have Christ as their head. They are all servants to one another. Male or female.

That is more Paul's teaching than Jesus. Please identify any words of Jesus where he speaks of women as being equal to men.

Please identify any words of [Jesus] where He speaks of women as being less than men.

Even Paul wrote that there is no male or female, nor slave of free, in God.

Since when did you take Paul seriously?

I take truth seriously. Paul spoke truth here.

If the reason that more women were not named was because women were insignificant, then none of these women would have been named either: Mary and Elizabeth, Mary and Martha, Johanna, Priscilla, Saphirra. I'm sure there are others that I am not recalling.

I never said ALL were considered insignificant. I said the GENERALLY they were considered insignificant. The numbers of women mentioned in the bible compared to men is very minimal. They were generally ignored. You can't escape that fact.

Well, since my response pertained to those in Christ, I will leave you to your comments on other women to you and whomever wishes to discuss that with you.

If some women were clearly honored... then it is not a matter of women being insignificant. There were many men not named as well. That does not mean that those not named or mentioned were insignificant.

Just because a few women were honored does not mean that they were being seen as equal to men.

But it should show you that they were not insignificant. I think that has been established.

Christ revealed Himself first to women after He was resurrected. He praised Mary for choosing what was right ( listening to Him with the rest of the disciples, instead of serving and preparing for those disciples with her sister Martha in the kitchen).

You can quote a handful of stories of women in the bible who were significant, but the majority weren't.

Not being mentioned in what is written does not equal insignificant.

Sure it does. It meant they were not deemed important enough to be mentioned.

No, again, it does not. The man Paul spoke of who had been taken to the third heaven was not named in Paul's letter. Not because the man was insignificant, but because it was not Paul's place to name him.

That being said... those who are in Christ are not (or know that they should not be) worried about 'fame' for themselves. It is not about any of us. It is about Christ.

Obviously Christ did not think women were insignificant.

Not insignificant maybe, but equal to men? Very doubtful.

Well, this particular discussion has been to argue against your claim of insignificance.

The fact that the Bride is made of male and female should suggest that it does not matter to Christ if one is male or female. They both make up the bride; they both are to serve one another, including washing the feet of one another; they both - as one- rule with Him in His Kingdom.

Christ never gave one set of rules for men who belonged to Him - and a separate set of rules for women who belonged to Him. Both received gifts of the spirit; both had access to the Father through Him.

There is no difference.

Some men in Christendom have chosen to 'lord' themselves over women and wives, perhaps even diminish them. But my Lord does not do this; not even in what is written. Both men and women make up His Bride. He shares His rule with both men and with women.

Where does Jesus ever put women on an equal footing to men? Where does he ever raise them above being simply a possession?

Really?

Yes really. So far your examples have not indicated in any way that women are equal to men in Jesus's eyes.

I think they have, especially considering the above.

You have not shown that women are insignificant to my Lord.
You have not shown that women are unimportant to my Lord.
You have not shown where my Lord speaks of them as being less than men.

When He revealed Himself to them first. When He specifically praised Mary for choosing to learn as a disciple instead of doing 'women's work' with Martha. Those are two obvious examples.

All those in no way indicate that Jesus sees women as equal to men. Just that there were times where Jesus honored them.

Praising someone for doing the work of a disciple instead of the work of 'a woman', does not show that he did not consider women as equal to men in discipleship?

But perhaps the question you should ask yourself is, where did He ever treat them as simple possessions of men?

There is so little written in the gospels that show Jesus's attitude to women. But when he had Mary prostrate herself and wash his feet with her hair, that showed a real bad attitude to women. He even insisted that he should get that treatment. Now no man did that to Jesus. He wouldn't have expected it!

Actually, it was courtesy, to wash the feet of a visitor into your home. Remember when Simon invited Christ to dinner? Simon should have done it, but 'the woman' did it instead.


So there is no bad attitude toward women at all in this. He in fact did it Himself for His apostles and instructed that they do it for one another; which means all who are in Christ - men and women - are to do this for one another.

To be in Christ is to serve; just as He Himself served. But there would be no love in rebuffing one who was showing her love and her gratitude and even her knowledge of how we are to treat one another.

He clearly did not see them as equals to the men. It's no wonder Paul continued with that same sexist attitude.

I have suggested the reasons for Paul's concerns and statements in a former post above. Paul is in fact the one who said that there is no male or female in God. Yes?

He also said that he does not permit a woman to teach and that they should be seen and not heard. I'm guessing you and Paul would have been at loggerheads.

First... that is a bit of an elaboration on what Paul said. Second, I think Paul stated those words for some of the reasons that I shared. Third, we do not know in what is written what particular situation or concern of the times that Paul might have been responding to. I do not think we would be at loggerheads. However, even if we would have been... if we keep our eyes upon Christ, listening to Him, remember that what we owe one another is love, then hopefully that 'loggerhead' would be resolved, or at least be set aside as we continue to follow and serve Christ.


However, I do not think it would have been an issue. I think Paul was responding to a specific danger of the time; and if I had been there I might have understood that; and if he were here in this time, that issue would likely not exist to begin with.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy