Why no women Biblical authors?

[Haven]

Note: this thread operates under the assumption that the Christian god exists and conservative Christianity is true. For the sake of argument, please limit your criticisms to internal critiques of conservative Christian belief.

The Bible, which contains 66 books (Catholics have a few more), is believed by conservative Christians to be the inerrant, inspired word of God. Despite this, conservative Christians believe that humans wrote the Bible while being guided by God. All of the authors who contributed to the Bible are believed to be men; not a single woman was involved in the process.

Debate questions: Why weren't women tasked with writing the Bible? Why are there no women Biblical authors? Does the Christian god have a bias against women writing his words? Is the Christian god misogynistic for not including women in the writing process?

[ttruscott]

...

Debate questions: Why weren't women tasked with writing the Bible? Why are there no women Biblical authors? Does the Christian god have a bias against women writing his words? Is the Christian god misogynistic for not including women in the writing process?

My Christian pov is not the ordinary pov and neither is my speculation of the status of women in fallen but elect society.

IMPCECO
Before the creation of the physical universe, the spirits were created, given their free will choices and some chose to rebel against GOD while others did not. The ones who chose to accept YHWH as their GOD were given the free gift of election to heaven by the salvation found in HIS Son. The ones who rejected by their free will both HIS deity and HIS promise of election to heaven by salvation from all future sin became the eternally evil demons.

When the time came to bring judgment upon the demons, YHWH asked all HIS elect to come out from among them in their hearts so the judgement on the demons would pass them over but a few of the elect sided with the demons that eternal hell was too big a penalty for disbelief, a sin of little consequence, that it was not loving for a GOD of love etc etc. By this choice they too self created themselves as evil in HIS sight and in need of the salvation HE had promised them. This caused the postponement of the judgement because it would have destroyed HIS sinful elect too and that must never happen.

Then HE asked HIS still faithful elect to come out from these newly sinful elect and then some of the faithful elect sided with the sinful elect, not trusting YHWH to deal with them in mercy and wanting to keep a loving solidarity with their newly sinful friends. Thus they too became sinful in GOD's sight and needed the redemption from their sin that was in the promise of election given to them. When all the decisions were made then GOD proved HIS deity by the creation of the physical universe with the Earth becoming the prison planet for all sinners with a rehabilitation clinic within it to help with the redemption of HIS sinful elect. Thus the sinful elect must live with the sinfulness of themselves and the reprobate until they learn the true nature of evil that it is much more than of little consequence but causes ceaseless suffering and will never repent.

So, in the garden we have a play in the garden that would seem to follow this script about the fall. First the serpent arrives evil with evil intent to turn the others against YHWH (to postpone the judgement). Then we have Eve engaging in theological discussion with the serpent as if he was her pastor or mentor or at least her friend which
resulted in her eating, following the same order of operations of the pre-earth fall. Lastly then did Adam eat, due to his friend eating, not because of the serpent's arguments nor friendship.

The parallel is obvious and if is the true meaning then the serpent stands for all the eternally evil reprobate, Eve stands for all those who followed the demons into sin out of idolatry of them over GOD and Adam stands for all those who chose to enter into sin out of a (loving) idolatry of their elect but sinful friends over GOD.

The Status of Women:
Since Eve was beguiled by the serpent she was put under Adam's protection who sinned for love for her and lost her right to hold high position. The pain of her childbirth was increased, not physically but because every birth reminds her that if she had not led others astray by her idolatry some of the other "Eves" and the "Adam's" would not have fallen and needing to be born into this life of suffering, that is, every birth was a reminder of the effects of her sin.

Was this symbolism actually enshrined into our genetic code with all elect Eves being women and all elect Adams being men and that is why the rules are different for them in Church? I think the symbolism cannot extend to the reprobate who are willy-nilly either sex which confuses our speculations about reality.

Of course at this time there is no proof that this is anything more than imagination so if anyone is inclined to believe it, they must believe it by an unproven faith.

[historia]

Yet according to Paul, women are not allowed to preside over meetings or teach. Why? because Paul takes the Adam and Eve story literally, and claims that EVE was created FROM Adam, a faulty premise.

In Paul's defense -- your reference here is to a verse in 1 Timothy, a text Paul almost certainly did not write.

[puddleglum]

[Replying to post 9 by Clownboat]

Not all Christians reject same sex marriages. You must ignore this fact in order to make your claim.

Those who accept same sex marriage are rejecting the clear teaching of the Bible when they do so. There are many who profess to be Christian but don't actually believe what the Bible says. Jesus warned about false prophets who appeared to be sheep but were actually wolves. These false prophets have won a lot of converts.

Here are two good places to get a Christian perspective on this subject:

http://truefreedomtrust.co.uk/start_here

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/12/14149/

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 9 by Clownboat]

Not all Christians reject same sex marriages. You must ignore this fact in order to make your claim.

Those who accept same sex marriage are rejecting the clear teaching of the Bible when they do so. There are many who profess to be Christian but don't actually believe what the Bible says. Jesus warned about false prophets who appeared to be sheep but were actually wolves. These false prophets have won a lot of converts.

Here are two good places to get a Christian perspective on this subject:

http://truefreedomtrust.co.uk/start_here

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/12/14149/

Let's talk more about these false prophets shall we?

Luke 21:8 Jesus says: Take heed that you are not led astray, for many will come in my name saying, 'the time is at hand!' Do not go after them.
Romans 13:12 Paul says: the night is far gone, the day is at hand.
It's almost like Jesus is warning us about Paul.

Paul in Romans 14:9 says: For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord of the dead and of the living.
Jesus in Luke 20:38 says: Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living.
Who is right here? Paul or Jesus?

Paul in Ephesians 1:7 says: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.
Jesus in Matthew 6:14 says: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you.
How are we forgiven? Do we listen to Paul or Jesus?

Perhaps you are mistaken and you are rejecting the message of Jesus. You seem to be great follower of Paul by your blanket statement about same sex marriages, and if Paul is your teacher and not Jesus, then I guess I understand how you arrived at the conclusion you did. Many followers of Jesus will disagree with you though.

Jesus warned about false prophets who appeared to be sheep but were actually wolves. These false prophets have won a lot of converts.

Wait! Now you care about what Jesus has to say? Oh the irony!

More from Jesus perhaps?
“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.� (Matthew 19:11-12)
This shows me that Jesus was accepting. Should we follow the example from Jesus, or focus on what Paul has to say? Whom do you (generic you) really serve?

So, back to my original claim:
Not all Christians reject same sex marriages. You must ignore this fact in order to make your claim.

Personally, I wish there was a church of Jesus and a separate church of Paul. Not some mishmash of the two. This mishmash makes it far to easy to pick the teachings from either that personally resonate with yourself.

If a person has issues with homosexuality or perhaps they struggle with those feeling themselves, then the words of Paul might be attractive.
Others are more loving and accepting, thus the teachings of Jesus might be attractive.

IMO, to believe that Jesus and Paul had the same mission is just wishful thinking or as in my case, indoctrination.

[puddleglum]

Let's talk more about these false prophets shall we?

Luke 21:8 Jesus says: Take heed that you are not led astray, for many will come in my name saying, 'the time is at hand!' Do not go after them.
Romans 13:12 Paul says: the night is far gone, the day is at hand.
It's almost like Jesus is warning us about Paul.

Read the context of Paul's statement:

Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.
(Romans 13:11-12 ESV)

He is stressing the importance of doing God's work because the opportunity to serve God will soon be over.

Paul in Romans 14:9 says: For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord of the dead and of the living.
Jesus in Luke 20:38 says: Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living.
Who is right here? Paul or Jesus?

Both are right.

But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.�
(Luke 20:37-38 ESV)

Jesus is pointing out that the death of the body doesn't end a person's existence. Those we regard as dead are still alive as far as God is concerned.

Paul in Ephesians 1:7 says: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.
Jesus in Matthew 6:14 says: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you.
How are we forgiven? Do we listen to Paul or Jesus?

I listen to both of them. Jesus was speaking to people who had already received the redemption Paul spoke of and was talking about sins we commit after we have been saved.

Perhaps you are mistaken and you are rejecting the message of Jesus. You seem to be great follower of Paul by your blanket statement about same sex marriages, and if Paul is your teacher and not Jesus, then I guess I understand how you arrived at the conclusion you did. Many followers of Jesus will disagree with you though.

Jesus taught that marriage was only between a man and a woman.

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?� He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.�
(Matthew 19:3-6 ESV)

More from Jesus perhaps?
“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.� (Matthew 19:11-12)
This shows me that Jesus was accepting. Should we follow the example from Jesus, or focus on what Paul has to say? Whom do you (generic you) really serve?

This doesn't contradict anything Paul has said so I do both; I follow the example and also focus on what Paul said. It is easy to find contradictions in the Bible is you take statements out of context.

This statement by Jesus shows the relationship between his teaching and that of Paul.

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."
(John 16:12-15 ESV)

Paul was one of the people through whom the Holy Spirit revealed these new truths. He never contradicted what Jesus said but explained it and added to it.

So, back to my original claim:
Not all Christians reject same sex marriages. You must ignore this fact in order to make your claim.

I don't have to ignore this fact. It simply proves that some Christians don't study their Bibles as much as they should and are deceived by false teaching.

Personally, I wish there was a church of Jesus and a separate church of Paul. Not some mishmash of the two. This mishmash makes it far to easy to pick the teachings from either that personally resonate with yourself.

You should not believe something on the basis of how you feel about it but on the basis of whether or not it is true.

Test everything; hold fast what is good.
(1 Thessalonians 5:21 ESV)

Sometimes things that we don't like may in fact be true.

If a person has issues with homosexuality or perhaps they struggle with those feeling themselves, then the words of Paul might be attractive.
Others are more loving and accepting, thus the teachings of Jesus might be attractive.

Did you check the links in my previous post?

[bluethread]

All of the authors who contributed to the Bible are believed to be men; not a single woman was involved in the process.

This is not quite correct. (Prov. 31) "The sayings of King Lemuel--an oracle his mother taught him: ....." Though King Lemuel is credited as the one who wrote it down, it was his mothers advice. So, there was at least one woman in the process.

[Haven]

[Replying to post 16 by bluethread]

This is trivial at best. One paragraph in an entire anthology of religious reflection spanning nearly a thousand years. That's not exactly representative.

[jeager106]

When the books of the Bible were being written 2,000-3,000 years ago, only a very small percentage of people would have been able to read and write. Of those, even fewer women would have been educated. That is not to say that women couldn’t have written parts of the Bible or contributed to its compilation, just that they would have been in the extreme minority.

Even for those books that are attributed to male names (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Peter, Timothy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc) we don’t know precisely who the writers were. It was common in ancient times for literature to circulate anonymously and later be attributed to a public figure to give it more clout. Such was the case with the gospels. They weren’t named until several decades after they were written.

From:
http://bustedhalo.com/features/were-the ... -the-bible

It's unknown if their were women that wrote some of the Bible we know.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 16 by bluethread]

This is trivial at best. One paragraph in an entire anthology of religious reflection spanning nearly a thousand years. That's not exactly representative.

You may consider it trivial, but it is sufficient to show your statement; "not a single woman was involved in the process" to be false.
Would you consider it trivial if I said that no one is transexual simply because the they make up only .2% of the world population?

[Clownboat]

Let's talk more about these false prophets shall we?

Luke 21:8 Jesus says: Take heed that you are not led astray, for many will come in my name saying, 'the time is at hand!' Do not go after them.
Romans 13:12 Paul says: the night is far gone, the day is at hand.
It's almost like Jesus is warning us about Paul.

Read the context of Paul's statement:

Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.
(Romans 13:11-12 ESV)

He is stressing the importance of doing God's work because the opportunity to serve God will soon be over.

This does nothing to refute that it seems like Jesus was warning us about people like Paul. Sorry.
I spent years trying to justifying the words of Paul myself.

Paul in Romans 14:9 says: For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord of the dead and of the living.
Jesus in Luke 20:38 says: Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living.
Who is right here? Paul or Jesus?

Both are right.

But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.�
(Luke 20:37-38 ESV)

Jesus is pointing out that the death of the body doesn't end a person's existence. Those we regard as dead are still alive as far as God is concerned.

I fear you attempt to justify this a bit to hard.
Readers, determine if you can if the Bible god is the god of the dead or not from the words of Jesus.
"he is not God of the dead" - Jesus
Puddleglum would have you believe that he is a 'god of the dead' so it seems.
Should we be inclined to listen to Jesus, Paul or Puddleglum?

Paul in Ephesians 1:7 says: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.
Jesus in Matthew 6:14 says: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you.
How are we forgiven? Do we listen to Paul or Jesus?

I listen to both of them. Jesus was speaking to people who had already received the redemption Paul spoke of and was talking about sins we commit after we have been saved.

If this is true you should be able to show Jesus making claims about redemption through his blood. Now a follower of Paul will out of necessity be required to try to make the two fit like you seem to be doing here.

What you are doing it just, "what Jesus really meant" or "who Jesus was really talking to".... I want to see where Jesus stated these things that Paul believers must attribute to him.

Perhaps you are mistaken and you are rejecting the message of Jesus. You seem to be great follower of Paul by your blanket statement about same sex marriages, and if Paul is your teacher and not Jesus, then I guess I understand how you arrived at the conclusion you did. Many followers of Jesus will disagree with you though.

Jesus taught that marriage was only between a man and a woman.

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?� He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.�
(Matthew 19:3-6 ESV)

Is it logical to ask Jesus if a MAN can divorce his WIFE and then be amazed as to why Jesus didn't talk about homosexual marriages?

Show me where Jesus was asked about whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his husband. Then you would have a point.

More from Jesus perhaps?
“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.� (Matthew 19:11-12)
This shows me that Jesus was accepting. Should we follow the example from Jesus, or focus on what Paul has to say? Whom do you (generic you) really serve?

This doesn't contradict anything Paul has said so I do both; I follow the example and also focus on what Paul said. It is easy to find contradictions in the Bible is you take statements out of context.

I am pointing out that Jesus was accepting and that Paul was not. Yes it does happen to be a contradiction from my point of view, but that is not what I am highlighting here.

This statement by Jesus shows the relationship between his teaching and that of Paul.

Please demonstrate how Jesus could have known Paul for him to show some relationship that I fear you are just inventing out of the blue in order to maintain your belief.

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."
(John 16:12-15 ESV)

Paul was one of the people through whom the Holy Spirit revealed these new truths. He never contradicted what Jesus said but explained it and added to it.

Or he suffered from religious paranoia where he believed he was some special messenger of a god concept.
I can show you that religious paranoia is true, but you cannot show us that the Holy Spirit is anything more than your imagination. Please forgive me if I don't trust your imagination at this point.

So, back to my original claim:
Not all Christians reject same sex marriages. You must ignore this fact in order to make your claim.

I don't have to ignore this fact. It simply proves that some Christians don't study their Bibles as much as they should and are deceived by false teaching.

Perhaps like Paul, you are just another messenger that Jesus was warning us about?
If this is true, you would be the one that is deceived, not all these other Christians you now claim are deceived. Do you happen to believe that you are a special messenger of the god of the Bible by chance?

Personally, I wish there was a church of Jesus and a separate church of Paul. Not some mishmash of the two. This mishmash makes it far to easy to pick the teachings from either that personally resonate with yourself.

You should not believe something on the basis of how you feel about it but on the basis of whether or not it is true.

And you should not believe things based on whether they taste like 'blue' or not. I hope this confuses you as much as your statement above did me.

Sometimes things that we don't like may in fact be true.

Like how perhaps Jesus was warning us about people like Paul? Something like that perhaps, right?

If a person has issues with homosexuality or perhaps they struggle with those feeling themselves, then the words of Paul might be attractive.
Others are more loving and accepting, thus the teachings of Jesus might be attractive.

Did you check the links in my previous post?

I'm not sure. Do they have anything to do with how a believer can focus on the teachings of Paul or the teachings of Christ? Whichever they are more inclined to feel in line with. If not, then you will need to explain what you think they suggest again I fear.