Eternally Unforgiven: St. Paul’s View of Women and Its Influence on the Rest of the New Testament

Apart from the four Gospels, Paul’s theology of women forms the main historical and theological reason women have suffered for their gender under conservative evangelical Christianity…a theology which has suppressed Christian women for two thousand years.


A case in point here is what has happened in the largest conservative evangelical Protestant body in the United States - the Southern Baptist Convention, which is, in all likelihood, going to elect the very conservative Dr. A. Albert Mohler, Jr. (Now president of their Southern Seminary in Louisville, Ky.) as its next convention president this summer. Also, Under the leadership of Paige Patterson (President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dallas Texas) the Southern Baptist have forced out all women professors in their seminaries following the Biblical command drawn especially from the Pauline corpus in the New Testament that demands that women are to be second class humans and totally submissive to men. In light of this fact, it’s time to review this evangelical denomination’s view of women as they under stand their roll in the New Testament.

To understand the position of the Southern Baptist Convention on this issue, one needs to understand the Apostle Paul and his theology of women as drawn form the Old Testament; mainly Genesis 2: 21 – 3: 24.

For the Jewish Saul turned Christian and renamed Paul (Acts 13), only men are created in the image of God as a literal reading of Genesis 2: 21 – 24 makes clear. From this Hebrew text, we find that women were made, not in the image of God, but in the image of man from whose body she was taken. This creation story forms Paul’s bases for church order in 1 Corinthians 11: 7b “…he (the man) is in the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”

As such, the man must have short hair to reveal the image and glory of God shown forth in him alone. For a man to have long hair, which might cover up this fact, it is a shame: “14. Does not even nature itself teach you, that if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him?” Thus, for Paul, it is a shame or sinful for the man to cover up his face because only he alone is in the image and glory of God as the creation account in Genesis 2 states.

However, for a woman to have short hair and show her face in the assembly or church, it is to her “shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, but let her be covered.” (Verse 11: 6) For the woman, long hair is nature’s way to provide a covering for her face should she be found without a cloth veil: “but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given as a covering.” I Corth. 11: 15. It is very important that the woman cover her face (again, with her hair if necessary) doing worship for, who knows, there maybe angels present (verse 10) in the assembly also who would be offended should they see the face of a non-Godly image; that is a woman’s face.

Paul continues this natural theology and builds it into a divine hierarchy (verse 3) “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.”

Again, Paul has Genesis 2 in his mind when he declares in I Corth. 14: 34 “Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. 35 And if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

For the deutero-Pauline author that wrote the Pastoral epistle of I Timothy, this is the doctrine that was to develop into what has come to be called “Original Sin”. This is the direct result of the woman speaking (Genesis 2: 6 & 16) as he restates it in I Tim. 2: 11 - 14 : “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.”

Thus, for conservative denominations like the Southern Baptist, to allow women to teach men in religious studies (such as seminaries) would be in direct violation of each of the three natural and divine prohibitions: A. The divine order of creation. B. The divine hierarchy. C. The fact that women can be mentally shallow so as to mislead men (if given a place of leadership over men) just as Eve did Adam (verse 14).

However, all is not lost on the woman as I Timothy 2: 15 understood Genesis 3: 16. The woman can earn her salvation by bearing children, which may imply that male babies who are created in the image of God who will continue to fulfill the divine plan and will keep future women submissive.

This topic is again built upon in the deutero-Pauline letter of Ephesians 5: 22 – 24 which bases its reading on the divine hierarchy in I Corinthians 11: 3.

Finally, the New Testament closes with the apocalyptic book of Revelation were the 144,000 are celibate men who follow the lamb (Christ) where ever He goes because they are kept pure by not having defiled themselves sexually with women (Rev. 14: 3 – 4).

While Christians debate just what composes the “Unforgivable Sin” of Matthew 12: 32, one thing is for sure; women, who were created out of man will never be forgiven this fact as based on the story of Genesis 2 and expounded not only by Paul, but repeated in the deutero-Pauline schools and kept alive today in the Southern Baptist Convention by their complete elimination of all women professors in their seminaries and crushing any hope for women being ordained in this denomination’s ministry. It is indeed an unforgivable “sin” of gender.

125 comments:

Flora said...

Funny thing is, so many Christians say they're up for equality. But, if they were, why would they call themselves Christians?

Jason said...

This as a good post pointing out the different roles between men and women but many of the conclusions are wrong.

For example, Scripture never says women are "eternally unforgiven" or "second class humans".

Revelation is a book of prophecies and symbols. Are you confident you know both well enough to determine that the 144,000 are actually literal celibate men...?

The unforgivable sin in Matthew 12:32 is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure what the debate would be about or where you get the idea that men can somehow be forgiven of the unforgivable sin while women can't.

Vinny said...

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Genesis 3:16

I had always been baffled (although grateful) that women find men sexually attractive until I realized that it was part of their punishment for Eve’s sin.

Harry McCall said...

Jason: The terms “eternally unforgiven” and “second class humans” are used in the context of Paul’s theology of women. If the past was truly deleted by the forgiveness in Christ Jesus, I would accept Paul to let go of the past. He just can not. However, the fact is that now the outcome of Paul’s blame is that women are held responsible for their fate and condition both in Paul’s Hellenistic churches and across two thousand years later by the Southern Baptist to day.

In my view, St. Paul has more in common with the way women are treated in the conservative Middle Eastern Moslem world than a post modern United States, but the Southern Baptist Convention agrees with at least half of what Paul blames women for (they don’t force a veiled face in church).

As to you next point, I’m reading Revelation at face value and even if it’s some sort of prophetic code, John hits a very sore spot in the way he uses the two terms “men” and “women”. I know you can read Revelation many ways, but my point is to take it as written at face value.

If women are indeed as “new creations in Christ” and “all old things have past away, behold, all thing have become new” I would expect all the conservative churches (including the Catholic Church) to stop their second class treatment of women. Until that happens, Jason, the text speaks for itself and DOES affect women just as the first commenter has seen it and expressed it.

Scott said...

Revelation is a book of prophecies and symbols. Are you confident you know both well enough to determine that the 144,000 are actually literal celibate men...?

While I would agree that the entire book of Revelation is quite symbolic, whether these men were actually celibate isn't the issue. It's how men who were described as being celibate were perceived.

In other words, the conclusions drawn from the men's status wouldn't change if their celibacy was symbolic or not.

And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb.

Jason said...

Harry said: The terms “eternally unforgiven” and “second class humans” are used in the context of Paul’s theology of women.

My point is that neither of these terms are ever used. Instead, consider that Paul’s ‘theology’ on women consists of commendations and salutations given to women, an open admittance that women “laboured with him in the gospel” and the very Biblical concept that Christ died for everyone’s sins, even the sins of women. This isn’t the sort of behaviour one would expect if Paul was truly the kind of misogynist you’re painting him out to be.

If the past was truly deleted by the forgiveness in Christ Jesus, I would accept Paul to let go of the past.

Why would the past be deleted by the forgiveness in Christ Jesus. The history of the Jews wasn’t suddenly done away because of what Christ accomplished. I also don’t see what forgiveness has to do with the fact that God created man first and then created woman for man.

However, the fact is that now the outcome of Paul’s blame is that women are held responsible for their fate and condition both in Paul’s Hellenistic churches and across two thousand years later by the Southern Baptist to day.

Men and women are held responsible for the same fate and condition. It’s called “the wages of sin is death”.

As to you next point, I’m reading Revelation at face value and even if it’s some sort of prophetic code, John hits a very sore spot in the way he uses the two terms “men” and “women”. I know you can read Revelation many ways, but my point is to take it as written at face value.

If you’re reading Revelation at face value then that would explain some of the problems. You’re suggesting that countries will literally drink the wine of the wrath of Babylon’s fornication (14:8) and an angel will literally gather the vine of the earth, crush it up and make blood to come out (:18-19). You’ll find that the vast majority of Christians, including Christian women, don’t accept this ‘face value ‘ stance, and for good reason.

If women are indeed as “new creations in Christ” and “all old things have past away, behold, all thing have become new” I would expect all the conservative churches (including the Catholic Church) to stop their second class treatment of women.

It would appear then that your issues are with the conservative churches, not with Scripture.

Until that happens, Jason, the text speaks for itself and DOES affect women just as the first commenter has seen it and expressed it.

The text doesn’t speak about an unforgiveable sin that only applies to women so why would anyone assume the rest of text is actually speaking in the way that’s being suggested?

Jason said...

Scott said: While I would agree that the entire book of Revelation is quite symbolic, whether these men were actually celibate isn't the issue. It's how men who were described as being celibate were perceived. In other words, the conclusions drawn from the men's status wouldn't change if their celibacy was symbolic or not.

It doesn’t matter. My point is that Revelation doesn’t support the idea that Paul, or deutero-Pauline schools, believed women were second-class human beings. There isn’t enough there to draw that sort of conclusion.

thoughtcrossed said...

yeah, before christianity women never suffered... christianity sucks that way :-P

goprairie said...

jason - you are picking at those two terms which harry used to summarize all the verses about women keeping covered and submissive to men. tose terms are not there but harry does not say they are. stop picking at them and address the verses that say women are less than men and must remain covered and so on. quit picking at harry and defend your bible verses. and rev is easy to pick at to - go to corinthians and defend THAT!!! can you???

Harry McCall said...

Thanks for aiming Jason in the right direction, goprairie.

Jason, as long as Paul or some deutero-Pauline school blames women for starting the state of “The Fall” and as long as there is a canonized text called the New Testament, the term “eternally unforgiven” as a sin does not have do occur in the text any more then the terms “Trinity” or “Original Sin” has to occur, their theology is still there as read by churches today.

Women have not lost their jobs at Southern Baptist seminaries because: “Men and women are held responsible for the same fate and condition. It’s called “the wages of sin is death”. And “It would appear then that your issues are with the conservative churches, not with Scripture.”
Women are signaled out because of Paul’s chauvinistic reading of Genesis 2 and creating the commentary on this section as he does in I Corinthians 11.

Conservative churches are known as “Bible Believing” churches. Denominations such as the Southern Baptist proudly proclaim only the Bible as their creed. I should know as I was a Baptist preacher back in the 70’s. Hey, don’t take my word, go online and check the Southern Baptist “Faith and Message”.

As far as Revelation is concerned, why should Christians “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. For if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (I John 2:15) Then only to be enticed by the same things of the world in Revelation 21: 10 – 21 where the writer of this book uses gold and precious stones to lure readers to the New Jerusalem. Even if this language is simply figurative, it is in direct violation of I John’s theology!

Finally (and simply put again), as long as there is an eternal canon of scripture, women will be “eternally unforgiven”.

Jason said...

Goprairie,

Let’s be clear: the terms and conclusions Harry is using and coming to are incorrect. Scripture most certainly does not ‘summarize’ that women are second-class humans or unforgiveable. There is a difference of roles between men and women but in no instance is it ever recorded that women, among other things, will have a more difficult time having their sins forgiven.

What exactly would you have me defend in Corinthians?

Jason said...

Harry said: Jason, as long as Paul or some deutero-Pauline school blames women for starting the state of “The Fall”…

Actually, Paul blames man for bringing sin into this world, not women.

…and as long as there is a canonized text called the New Testament, the term “eternally unforgiven” as a sin does not have do occur in the text any more then the terms “Trinity” or “Original Sin” has to occur, their theology is still there as read by churches today.

Then your issue isn’t with the Bible, it’s with churches who teach false doctrine.

Women are signaled out because of Paul’s chauvinistic reading of Genesis 2 and creating the commentary on this section as he does in I Corinthians 11.

What’s chauvinistic about his reading of Genesis 2?

Conservative churches are known as “Bible Believing” churches. Denominations such as the Southern Baptist proudly proclaim only the Bible as their creed. I should know as I was a Baptist preacher back in the 70’s. Hey, don’t take my word, go online and check the Southern Baptist “Faith and Message”.

Relevance?

As far as Revelation is concerned, why should Christians “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. For if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (I John 2:15) Then only to be enticed by the same things of the world in Revelation 21: 10 – 21 where the writer of this book uses gold and precious stones to lure readers to the New Jerusalem. Even if this language is simply figurative, it is in direct violation of I John’s theology!

Red herring. The book of Revelation doesn’t speak about or reference women as being second-class humans. You’ll also find that the vast majority of Christians, including Christian women, don’t read this book at ‘face value‘, and for good reason.

Finally (and simply put again), as long as there is an eternal canon of scripture, women will be “eternally unforgiven”

Where does Scripture say women are eternally unforgiven?

ZAROVE said...

This is simply Harry McCall oncde again attackign the Bible and Christianity, based upon a narrow view, and looking for reasosn to support his prejudices.


If some group treats women badly and is a Christain group, all Christians are to bare the blame. If Harry disagrees with a practicce, then its obvious that the practice is Discriminatory and wrong.


His constant critisism of Cahtolcis is telling. As a former Baptist, he certiably likes to condemn the Cahtolics.

But, there is a Logical reason why WOmen arne't Ordaiend in Cahtolisism, that ties into their theology. Namly the fact that a Priets acts as Ex Persona Christi, and is CHrist itnhe Flesh whilst administering the Sacraments.

THis detailed theological view of the Ordaiend Preisthood, however, is lost, as Harry see sit as simply a job and htinks women shoudl be admited ot it, whilst remaining Ignorant of why their not.

That said, even the Apostle Oaul, who wa snot a Mysoginist, is critisised as a Mysoginist. And this is supported itn eh same fashin as a Tabloid. Quots that do not support Harry's assertion wll be ignored, discarde din faovur of those hhe can use to justify his ends. Historical context iwll be ignroed as well, as will the way the Pagans treated their women inthe word Paul lived in.

Who cares that Oaul was beter to women than the surroudnign Culture? He eas evil becaue Harry said so.

The Aposlte Pauls words are twisted beyind what they originally sai dby Harry to justify his contemlpt, which relaly rests in perosnal emotional rage, and not in thought. THis is just an excuse.

The Bible doens't denegrate owmen, rendr it a sin to be a woman, and certianly not an unforgivable oen, and doesn't relaly indicaste that women shoudl be treatedl badly.

Harry is just distortign the text to support his hatred, nothign more.

Shygetz said...

zarove, I have one word for you...spellcheck. Seriously, I don't mind occasional typos, but your comment was truly difficult to puzzle out in places.

Harry, I seem to remember reading in one of Prof. Ehrman's books that modern Biblical scholars largely think that the most misogynistic parts of Paul's epistles were later additions, and not truly in the original letters. For example, the verse which forbids women from speaking in church, which directly contradicts Paul's earlier naming of female prophets.

However, if you believe that the epistles as we currently have them are purely Pauline in nature, then I don't see how you can deny their misogyny.

jason said: There is a difference of roles between men and women but in no instance is it ever recorded that women, among other things, will have a more difficult time having their sins forgiven.

Seriously? A difference in roles? Women can't speak, must cover their heads, willingly submit to their husband, etc.? You may as well say that slaves weren't oppressed, they is just a difference in roles.

I do agree with jason in one sense, however. I don't think that Paul made a particularly bigoted interpretation of Genesis 2. That passage is bigoted in its very nature; there is no way to read it in a non-bigoted fashion without picking and choosing.

And did all of the Christians on this thread miss the days in school in which they discussed metaphor? "Unforgivable sin" refers to the fact that women are punished solely for being women, a fact that no amount of repentance can erase. Second-class humans is accurate as-is.

ZAROVE said...

I've said this before but... I am Dyslexic.


And, I have read the Epistles of St. Paul, and do not see the mysogany. Then again, I've also readd them in context, and did not attemot to take segment sut of context and distort them.

Most people who make htis tired old cliam about hwo the Bible is anti-women, or that St, Paul was a Mysoginist, don't dven read the Epistles themselves, they simply quote others who have said htis, and erely on the wquotes taken form others.


Although Harry may have read the Episltes, the wya he is arguing suggests he is dopign the same. He is relyign on an old argument, and basing his statements on what others have said Paul said.

Look at hsi statement about a womans face being ungodly to look at. Harry claims that Paul said women shuld be veiled because the Angels may be preasent and see an ungodly face, that of a woman.

This is sheer stupidity. Paul didn't say this. He did say women shoudl be veiled, but not because their appearance is ungodly, and if you look at the cultural signifigance of the vel in Jewish ( and even Muslim) culture, you'd realise that the reason for the veil is not beause women are seen as ungodly, but because it is a mark of humility and strengrth.

The way Harry, and other critics, read Pauls epistles is to look for verses that denegrate women, or verses that they can ue to claim he did, and to ignroe those verses which don't fit into this pattern.

Its just distortion ofthe reading that leads to his appaulingly innacurate claim about the Epistles writtne by Paul.

Its pretty easy to Deny that Pauls letters are Mysoginistic, sicne he is the same writer who said that there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Greek or Jew. This is the same Paul who gav salutaiton to women and call dhme fellowlabourers.The same Oual who addressed womens isues in an age when no one was relaly expected to.

It becoems extremely difficult to ke the cliam of Mysogany if you don't twist his words and take verse sout fo context to ditort, and even less crdible is this claim when you try to examine it in the terms of the world he lived in, rather than try to project modern cultur onto the letters as if they whre writtne in 1995 int he Bronx.

Harry McCall said...

Shygetz, I have read several of Zarove’s comments not only here, but at several other posts and I thought he might have been a foreigner learning English. Some times his English seems to have been selled checked, then at other times his comments read as if he is speaking in tongues.

Yes, Genesis 2 is indeed a bigoted myth to blame women for human woes and, I should have made that clear; sorry. What I wanted to point to is that Paul’s Jewish commentary is just more gas on a burning fire.

The standard text on Paul’s letters and life in many Protestant seminaries is by Calvin Roetzel, “The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context”, 4 edition.

Roetzel claims also (following Robin Scroggs) that I Corth. 14: 33-36 was added by a deutero-Pauline school, but as you implied, the canonized text remains and is read as scripture by Bible believers.

I know liberal theologians try and pick and choose what is really Paul’s theology or not, but as Hector Avalos makes clear in his book “The End of Biblical Studies”, that excuse will not work and we just need to reject to whole out dated myth.

Jason, the difference between us is that as a Christian you want it to work, that is, all New Testament theology must work together in harmony: That’s apologetics 101.

I’m looking at the end product and what it has done to women today. Now they can work, vote, run for president this despite Christianity (and Judaism) which was taken as truth for 2,000 years.

In this case I’m throwing the baby out with the bathwater and saying: “Good riddance!”

ZAROVE said...

Isn't it interesting, Harry, tha htose things you mentioned, that happeend dispite Christianity, emerged within the ocntext of Christian cultures?

It is also interestign to ask, how where women treated int he Early Church? And how did htis differ from their Pagan surroundings?"

The way you tlak, the Pagans treated women ever so much better, but they didn't. The early Churhc treated women far better than did he Pgans, who treatedthem as Chattle.

The Ealry Churhc is also filled with somethin very uncommon in the Pagan cultures of Greece and Rome. Praise for women.

A few, select, rare womenw her enotable to the Male-cdominated Greeks and Romans, but the supposeldy oppressive Christians had numorus Saints, even int he earliest days of the CHurhc, who where women.

These Saints where Venerated and respected both in their lifetime and after as true examples of virtue and obedience.


Yet, somehow, Christians have oppressed owmen for 2000 years and itrs all Christaunitys fault an donly after we got rid of Christiantiy did hey achieve this level fo freedom ad success?

Harry, your quotign a Bigoted myth.

Speakign fo which< genesis 2 isnt a Bigoted myth either, and you relaly shoudl stop tryign to fidn fsault, and beleivign everythign you read.

Harry McCall said...

Zarove: My original post still stands and that's why I used so many quotes directly from the epistles.

Your hermeneutics require a forced harmonization of all the epistles to keep theology happy and believers happy. That’s not my problem.

I’m not out to sell the product of Christianity to the world. I rating it as Consumers Report would rate any product and Paul’s chauvinistic views give this product a failing mark. In fact, it is a defective product that needs to be recalled.

Scott said...

It doesn’t matter. My point is that Revelation doesn’t support the idea that Paul, or deutero-Pauline schools, believed women were second-class human beings. There isn’t enough there to draw that sort of conclusion.

On what grounds do you claim that "It doesn't matter."

Are you saying that the perception of men who are celibate, which is an interpretation of a fact, is the equivalent to a symbolic "fact" that countries will literally drink the wine of the wrath of Babylon’s fornication? Clearly, these are two very different things since it is physically possible for men celibate and it's impossible for countries to "drink wrath."

The very nature of presenting symbolic "facts" is to use a commonly held perspective or interpretation to provide insight into something else. The example you mentioned only works because of the common value and perception of wine, vines and blood. If there was no commonly held perception of these things, then the entire symbolism would be meaningless jumble of works.

Men who are celibate are pure. Celibate men were considered pure because they did not "defile" themselves with women. Therefore, if it is a symbolic reference, the use of celibate men would be to show that only pure men could be one of the 144,000.

In addition, it's seems quite clear that Paul sees men as being made in God's image. However, women are not.

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. [5] And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. [6] If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. [7] A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. [8] For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; [9] neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [10] For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

Men who pray with their heads covered dishonor themselves because they are made in God's image. As such, if women were made in God's image covering their heads would dishonor them as well. But what do we find? Women that do not cover their cover their heads are a disgrace! It is shameful for her to show her head. Clearly, this is much more than a simple pecking order. When praying to God, the very presence of a women's uncovered head, which is not in God's image, is a disgrace.

Paul goes on to say...

[14] Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, [15] but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. [16] If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

The very "nature of things" is the order of creation described in Genesis, which he seems to think is a justification of his views.

Jason said...

Shygetz said: Seriously? A difference in roles? Women can't speak, must cover their heads, willingly submit to their husband, etc.?

Yes, a difference in roles. Read the context of the points you mentioned and be honest with the text – you’ll see that in each case, the situations are quite specific (e.g. head coverings aren't expected to be worn 24/7).

“Unforgivable sin" refers to the fact that women are punished solely for being women, a fact that no amount of repentance can erase.

It most certainly does not. Read the verses.

ZAROVE said...

Harry-

I've not presented any Hermunetics or attemtoed Harmonisations.

I have noted that the Early Church did not view Oauls writing as meanign men where superior to women, and gave women equel status in the Churhc. ( Equel not beign Identical, and even though you don't undersand tis, the roles in society where different.)

Many of the Early Christian Martyrs and Saitns where Women. They where always held in high esteem, and regarded alongside the men.

I hve also noted that the Pagan culture surroundign he early Churhc was far more brutal.

I have also noted that only in a Christian culture did women gain any freedom and rights.

I have also said that you ar takign verse sout of conext and distortign their meaning in order to demonise the text by depictign it as somethign negative.


But I have not used any Hermunetics.

Jason said...

Harry said: Genesis 2 is indeed a bigoted myth to blame women for human woes and, I should have made that clear;

Adam is blamed for bringing sin into the world, not Eve.

Jason, the difference between us is that as a Christian you want it to work, that is, all New Testament theology must work together in harmony

Actually, I’m just trying to figure out where you read in the Bible that women are eternally unforgiven. You’re trying desperately to prove the Bible says this is the case but the lack of evidence, or the inability to provide evidence, proving your point is rather telling.

Harry McCall said...

Zarove, I have satellite radio in my car and I listen to the EWTN (The Global Catholic Radio Network). I listen to the Mass as well as the Rosary which is said over and over (like you people are trying to convince yourselves its real). I also list to the Catholic channel and the Christian evangelical channel.

Every time I come away knowing that I have been re-enforced in my atheism and Secular Humanism.

I’ve listen to poor old Mother Angelica who started EWTN and is now paralyzed from a major stroke. I understand she also has diabetes’s and all this from serving God in the Catholic faith. Hey, the Blessed Virgin Mother sure blessed her!

On the other hand, had she thrown away her Rosary, quit talking to herself in prayer, she could have exercised more, gone to a doctor and not let herself be tricked by Canon Law and Rome into thinking some Saint or Jesus would keep her healthy.

Remember, I drive a lot and when I’m not listening to National Public Radio, I listen to the above Christian channels to try an see if I have EVER missed anything that is not proven true by atheism. I have not and the Catholic radio talk shows such as “The Doctor is In” and several apologetic forums where believers call in and talk to a priest. I have never heard anything that supports any belief that God, The Blessed Virgin Mary or any Saint is real. Fact is, if I could cut out all references to religion, I would have a talk show where listeners would think the callers and radio host are purely secular.

Since you must first have faith to believe, you people are totally engaged in Circular Reasoning.

Jason said...

Scott said: On what grounds do you claim that "It doesn't matter."

On the grounds that Revelation doesn’t make any claim whatsoever that women are ‘second class humans beings’.

Are you saying that the perception of men who are celibate, which is an interpretation of a fact, is the equivalent to a symbolic "fact" that countries will literally drink the wine of the wrath of Babylon’s fornication? Clearly, these are two very different things since it is physically possible for men celibate and it's impossible for countries to "drink wrath."

The two things aren't different. The other instances in which the word “defiled” is used in the NT is in reference to idolatry and sin. Considering the rest of the chapter refers to fornication and sin (aka Babylon’s fornication), there’s no reason to think celibacy is anything other then a symbol of cleanliness, which makes sense considering these people are referred to as “virgins” and “redeemed”. The same symbol is used throughout Isaiah and Jeremiah to describe the Israelites (men and women alike), who committed 'adultery' with the countries around them. Had they symbolically remained virgins, the Israelites would have been spared from the wrath of God.

The very nature of presenting symbolic "facts" is to use a commonly held perspective or interpretation to provide insight into something else. The example you mentioned only works because of the common value and perception of wine, vines and blood. If there was no commonly held perception of these things, then the entire symbolism would be meaningless jumble of works.

And the commonly held perception of ‘defiling’ ones self with another woman is that it’s symbolic of sin and idolatry (Jeremiah 3:9, Ezek 20:7,18, 43, 23:7,17, etc.). It’s a symbol used time and again throughout Scripture.

In addition, it's seems quite clear that Paul sees men as being made in God's image. However, women are not.

I'm not sure what this proves but nonetheless it's an argument from ignorance. The reference to image is incidental to Paul's purpose, and therefore not mentioned with respect to woman.

The very "nature of things" is the order of creation described in Genesis, which he seems to think is a justification of his views.

It’s great justification. This way, everyone can examine for themselves where exactly he’s drawing his conclusions from. Would you have preferred Paul justify his views by quoting from an obscure book no one else was aware of existing?

Michael Ejercito said...

Do men and women have equal power?

Equality is a function of power.

ZAROVE said...

bceZarove, I have satellite radio in my car and I listen to the EWTN (The Global Catholic Radio Network). I listen to the Mass as well as the Rosary which is said over and over (like you people are trying to convince yourselves its real). I also list to the Catholic channel and the Christian evangelical channel.

Every time I come away knowing that I have been re-enforced in my atheism and Secular Humanism.




It is also tellign that you'd spend an inordinate amount fo time listenign to Christian radio stations, or wathcuign Christian broadcasts.



I do not tend to do the same for Secular Humanism. Oh sure, to study it I buy books on it, or read websites, but, I don't devote a good deal of time to Humanist materials, outside the venue of studies, and if I wheren't a student of Religion I'd have no real time for such endeavours.



As tot he above reinforcign your Secular Humanism and Athiesm, I'd suggest that htis is CHildish. You again prove that you simply wan tot find fault, so expose yourself to soemtign in the hopes of findign fault with it.




I’ve listen to poor old Mother Angelica who started EWTN and is now paralyzed from a major stroke. I understand she also has diabetes’s and all this from serving God in the Catholic faith. Hey, the Blessed Virgin Mother sure blessed her!




Actually her Stoke and Diabetes arne't really related to her service tot he Church. They ar eindependant medical conditiosn that affect oen as one grows older. To somehow use these instances agaisnt her is simply foolish.



That said, you are still only seekign to hihglihgt hte negative instances in order to present a distorted picture of things. THis same Mother Angelica has become a promenant vpice int eh Catholci Churhc, is seen globally, and has won acclaim, and by all measures is a successful Entrepenure.



I don't relaly see how those thign shoudl be ignroed, only to rpesn her health problems in her twilight years.



But then, the same is odone for CHurhc hisotry, where all the good is neve rmentioend, and the bad not only highlighted but exagerated.



On the other hand, had she thrown away her Rosary, quit talking to herself in prayer, she could have exercised more, gone to a doctor and not let herself be tricked by Canon Law and Rome into thinking some Saint or Jesus would keep her healthy.



Are you seriosuly suggestign that Nuns can't excersise, eat right, and see Doctors by Cnanon law?



You do realise that Recent health studues have shown that soem orders of CLoistered Monsk acutlaly see fewer instances of diseases and lead healthier lives, right?



Likewise, even those who excersise can have strokes, ther eis no gurenteed way to avoid this, only ways to lessen the chances.



Yur critisism here is just moronic and absurd.



Even Famed Atheists have contracted Diabetes or had storkes. Whats your excuse for them?



Remember, I drive a lot and when I’m not listening to National Public Radio, I listen to the above Christian channels to try an see if I have EVER missed anything that is not proven true by atheism. I have not and the Catholic radio talk shows such as “The Doctor is In” and several apologetic forums where believers call in and talk to a priest. I have never heard anything that supports any belief that God, The Blessed Virgin Mary or any Saint is real. Fact is, if I could cut out all references to religion, I would have a talk show where listeners would think the callers and radio host are purely secular.


Well, you seem to be proving the Bible right a htis post.



Your' also not relaly addresisng anyhtign about the Letters of St. Paul, and instead still carryign on attacking the Cahtolic Chruhc with needless critisisms of an old womans health problems which you blame on her religiosu life een though you have no evidence.



Of coruse you won't find anythign convencing, you have determiend not to. You want Christianity to be false so simply seek arguemnts htta udnermine it, and hold tot hem n matter how stupid they happen to be.



Incedentllay I scarcly listen to anyhting btu NPR.


Since you must first have faith to believe, you people are totally engaged in Circular Reasoning.




Actually, Faith comes by Hearing, and Hearign by the word of God.



And, I've not engage din Circular reasoning, btu you surly have.



And what does any of this have to do with Paul beign a Sexist?

Harry McCall said...

Zarove, you continually take one of my points of debate, run it to an extreme by reworking it your way and then claim I don’t know what I’m talking about (well see my debates below), plus you continually try to psychoanalyze me. You are sure not a psychologist! Case in point:

“As tot he above reinforcign your Secular Humanism and Athiesm, I'd suggest that htis is CHildish. You again prove that you simply wan tot find fault, so expose yourself to soemtign in the hopes of findign fault with it.”


Another problem for you are statements like the ones below:

“I hve also noted that the Pagan culture surroundign he early Churhc was far more brutal.

I have also noted that only in a Christian culture did women gain any freedom and rights.

I have also said that you ar takign verse sout of conext and distortign their meaning in order to demonise the text by depictign it as somethign negative.”

Hey Zarove, you have “noted” nothing! Give me some quotes from the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3 edition! Don’t “note” something, document it with facts. Well, maybe this is how you Church of Christ believers think.

In 1989, I debated the Church of Christ minister here in Greenville. He claimed the Church of Christ was the true church Jesus started. But, like you, his facts “went south” fast with no documentation.

“Actually her Stoke and Diabetes aren’t really related to her service tot he Church. They are eindependant medical conditiosn that affect oen as one grows older. To somehow use these instances agaisnt her is simply foolish.”

Come on Zarove, go to Mother Angelica’s website and look a her last pictures before her stroke: Fat, flabby and in general poor physical health. Too much time praying to an imaginary Mother Mary.

“Even Famed Atheists have contracted Diabetes or had storkes. Whats your excuse for them?”

Nothing which proves my point: Since a religious Mother Angelica, who spent about half her live in prayer and service to God, suffers with the same illnesses that atheist suffer from; there is no God.

Zarove, I listen to Christian radio (as I have for 47 years) to help me stand firm in my debates with ministers and believers. I have personally challenged churches in my city to debate me at a church service. As I told the Pastor of Faith Free Presbyterian Church here in Greenville, you can pray to God for divine help for a month or more. Hell, if it will help you beat me, I’ll even represent Satan, after all, the Bible says God is greater than Satan.

He told me that would never happen. Smart preacher! He knew he would be beat before his congregation and lose many of his members.

Now, Zarove, I’m sure you’ll psychoanalyze this and have some lame-brain and wacked-out reason the preacher backed out.

Go ahead, I’m waiting!

Anonymous said...

So Harry....

What's your sin?

Lorena said...

"a theology which has suppressed Christian women for two thousand years."

I would have to add that because Christianity is such a widespread religion, its doctrines have become part of many cultures, even some secular ones.

So, we owe to Paul the lowly position of women in all cultures that have been influenced by the evils of Christianity.

Harry McCall said...

Jason: Actually, I’m just trying to figure out where you read in the Bible that women are eternally unforgiven. You’re trying desperately to prove the Bible says this is the case but the lack of evidence, or the inability to provide evidence, proving your point is rather telling.

Jason, it’s called deductive logic. If I asked Paige Patterson just why women professors where removed form all their seminaries, what do you think he would could up with? … Quotes from the N.T. epistles.

So Jason, why men can teach and not women? Did they do something in Biblical history wrong? That’s the point of my post. Does the phase that women are “eternally unforgiven” occur in the Biblical text, no! But if one pushes the Southern Baptist seminary’s policy back via deductive logic to Paul as he reads Genesis 2, there is NOTHING women can to get forgiveness for what Genesis and Paul says happened.

Fact is, liberal churches forgive women simply for being born the wrong gender (this despite Paul), thus females are ordained.

Fact is, liberal churches forgive the homosexual for simply being born the wrong sexual orientation (this despite Paul rhetoric in Romans 1), thus they are church members in good standing.

Anyway, I can simply defeat your above claim by moving it to another Biblical area (salvation) by asking you: Will all women in the world be “saved”?

According to Jesus: “Broad is the road that leads to hell”, which proves that most of the world’s women (along with men) will be eternally unforgiven.

Are we on the same channel now? Do you understand the Lake of Fire?

ZAROVE said...

Lorena, you think that Christianity has lead otthe suppression of owmen. But, before CHristianity, where women treated well? What about cultures that idnt emerge from Christianity, did htye teat women well?

I'm sorry, but the treatment of women in socities that arne't based on Christianity is not good.

In fact, Christian societies are preicely the sociewties that womens rights meerged in.

This blaming of Christianit for hte suppresison of women ignroes the fact that women where neer treated as highly under non-Christian societies as under CHristian ones, and dons't look at the facts.


Harry, Not only does Mother Angelicas Health not play any sort of role in demonstratign Paul the APostle was Sexist, but just because she suffered form the same illnesses mist peopel do doens't prove God doens't exist.

Your logic is meanignless because it doens't relaly provide evidence.

Keep inmind, there was a recent survey and several monks and Nuns where shown to be healthier on average than the general popualce due to their diet and lifestyle.

According tot he study, their lifestyle was healthier because tye ate better than average peopel and had a better disiplned life and schedual.

Mother Angelica may have beeded to tak ebetter HEalth precautions, but it was not the result of her Faith.

Yoru essentual argument is that God doesn't exist because People have healthproblems.

Worse, sicne Cahtolcis run Hostitals, and acutlaly teahc thir followrs to see Doctors int he case of illness, you can't argue that her woes where broguth on by the teahcigns of the CHurhc.

As for the CHruhc of CHrist Preahce rloosing a debate to you, thats hard ot imagine. Your debate sttyle seems to be o make broad, irraitonal claims with no foundaiton.

You still haven't demonstrated anyhting beyind a tendancy to make ridiulous conclusions based upon nothing a all.

Harry McCall said...

Lorena: Right on!

It's nice to hear a woman voice her opinion openly without the suppression and punishment of medieval Christianity.

Sad to say, the Southern Baptist and Catholic are still 500 years behind as true “Bible Believing Christians”!

Harry McCall said...

Zarove. Reveal your real name and address. I'll contact several Church of Christ in my area and we'll se up a debate.

If they won't do it, then I'll rent the county library public forum room.

If you are so sure you can bet me, reveal yourself! I’ll rent the building, set up the debate by sending out flier (I know 30 members of my humanist group will come) and all you have to do is get your butt down here.

Hey, according to you, I should be the one worried…well, bring it on!

John W. Loftus said...

Harry, I've been reading Zarove's stuff and I just don't see much by way of substance to comment on. You'd tear him up. So come on Zarove, what d'ya say? You talk big, so why not?

Harry McCall said...

Zarove: I went to your Blog and found this rambling:

Monday, January 03, 2005
OPENING
This is my first Blog entry, made on the 3rd of January, 2005.

Thus I enter the world of Blogging, and have created a Blog.

Though I havent muhc to say now, this shall chnage as time goes on.

i intend to ad much more to ublic record, btu do not knwo how often I shall blog.


Noentheless, here I open with a prayer.

Thank thee God, who has given man existance, and thank thee for our capacity to invent Computers and the internet, and for my prvidenc eint his new Blog.

Amen.
Zarove, is this a Blog or a daily diary?

Harry McCall said...

John, I just don't think Zarove is playing with a full deck of cards.

Scott said...

On the grounds that Revelation doesn’t make any claim whatsoever that women are ‘second class humans beings’.

If you're implying that Revelation doesn't explicitly come right out and say so, I'd agree. But that's not the argument being made.

And the commonly held perception of ‘defiling’ ones self with another woman is that it’s symbolic of sin and idolatry (Jeremiah 3:9, Ezek 20:7,18, 43, 23:7,17, etc.). It’s a symbol used time and again throughout Scripture.

The King James:
4These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.

New American Standard:
4(P)These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste

New Century:
4 These are the ones who did not do sinful things with women, because they kept themselves pure.

It seems we've gone from virgins who abstained from sexual intercourse to morally pure men who could have been married. Looks like a good PR move to me.

The New American standard provides a cross reference to Matthew 19:12

12For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.

Which cross references to 1 Corinthians 7, in which Paul suggests that "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

He goes on to say...

But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.

9But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.


So it appears that Paul thinks marriage is merely a "compromise" for those who cannot control themselves, which is better than "burning with passion."

And let's not forget that Paul uses the idea that Jesus is returning soon to motivate everyone to adopt his views.

ZAROVE said...

John, I dont' see how Harry coudl tear me up in a debate. His arguments here certianly aren't very viable.

I htink that, instead, your just reading what he sauys as powerful, and what I say as lackign substance, because he is an Athiests and argues agaisnt Christianity, and I am a Christian critisising his arguments.

But come off it, Harry's not even makign valid arguments, he's making critical rmarks oftne supporte dby nothing.

And HJohn, your comment is still an Ad Hominim attack.


Harry-

Zarove. Reveal your real name and address. I'll contact several Church of Christ in my area and we'll se up a debate.

I don't even know where your area is. And aren't we debatign here?



What, exaclty, woudl I profit form such an eterprise that I don't get form this?




If they won't do it, then I'll rent the county library public forum room.


But, if you debat em eint he same way you debate her eon this blog, their wudl be littel to debate. Your open with some topic, liek if Paul the Apsotle was Sexist, and then dealv einto randomly sleected complaitns htta make no snece, such as how horirel the Cahtolci Churhc is and how Mother Angelica proves God doesnt eixts because she had had a storke.



THis is the sort of Arugment I seem to get form you.



I know John thinks you'll Tear me apart, but, I just don't see your argumetns as really that profound.





If you are so sure you can bet me, reveal yourself!


I've already beaten you, Harry. You won't amdit this, nor will john Loftus, but, your arguments are pretty well demonstrated as false. I'm not even th eonly one who notes this.



And I did reveal myself, I'm here arne't I?



But if you liek toyou can email me at Zaroff3@yahoo.com.





I’ll rent the building, set up the debate by sending out flier (I know 30 members of my humanist group will come) and all you have to do is get your butt down here.



How owuld I do that, Harry? I can't drive.





Hey, according to you, I should be the one worried…well, bring it on!




Well, you Certianly act worried as yu now feel the need to try to ddbate me in a formal setup.

Harry McCall said...

Looks like I'm in big trouble now!
Zarove has misstated my post to try and get support from the pious priest, nuns, monks and believers:

Author Message
ZAROVE
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 2495

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: Harry McCall On Mother Angelica.


ON a blog I was asked to vie and respnd to, called "Debunking Christianity", a man named Harry McCall pened a threa to post the usual old argumen that St. Paul the Apostle was Mysoginist.

Thinking I am a Cahtolic, he ignroed evrythign I said agaisnthis porposition, to instead attack Mother Angelica, for no apparent reason.

He critised her health concerns and mockignly said "The Virgin Mary has vlblessed her" and attacked her and the Catholci CHruhc in other ways. ( For some reason he thinks Im Catholic.)


I'll post what he said below, which had nothign to do whatsoever with the Apostle Paul and looks like its sheer meanignless. Then my responce.

ZAROVE said...

I also posted a link to the original Blog entry.

Golly gee whiz Harry, if I misrepresentd you, then they'd surley know it since I replicsted yoru enture post, and they can come see for themselves.

By the way, its nice to know I have you so riled that your now pursuing my posts on internet forums and the like. Cyberstalking can be fun.

Harry McCall said...

Zarove, plainly I’m wasting my time with you. Your email address is useless as I can get all I need to know from you here, which is very little.

Now you even want to debate me on the formal debate. Hey, transportation is your problem buddy.

If you are as good as you say you are, I’m sure the Church of Christ, or maybe yours friends at Angelqueen.org will finance your trip by air here. Since you can’t drive, I have to assume either you are too young to get a driver license or you have some disabilities which makes you physically handicapped.

You sound like a person really wanting acceptance. I hope the Catholics, Anglicans and Episcopal at Angelgueen.org (For Purity and Tradition in Catholicism) find a place for you and your logic.

Anyway, I’ll “beating a dead horse” to continue any meaningful debate with you so I’ll declare you “Anathema” and move on.

Jason said...

Harry said: Jason, it’s called deductive logic. If I asked Paige Patterson just why women professors where removed form all their seminaries, what do you think he would could up with? … Quotes from the N.T. epistles.

So the Bible doesn’t say women are eternally unforgiven…?

So Jason, why men can teach and not women? Did they do something in Biblical history wrong? That’s the point of my post.

The answers you want are already answered in Scripture. I’m surprised you didn’t choose to look there first.

Does the phase that women are “eternally unforgiven” occur in the Biblical text, no!

Ah, well then I’m glad we can agree on this.

But if one pushes the Southern Baptist seminary’s policy back via deductive logic to Paul as he reads Genesis 2, there is NOTHING women can to get forgiveness for what Genesis and Paul says happened.

And what does Genesis and Paul say happened that women can’t be forgiven for?

Fact is, liberal churches forgive women simply for being born the wrong gender (this despite Paul), thus females are ordained.

So the liberal churches must be right when they do something the Bible says in wrong...? Of course. It makes perfect sense.

Fact is, liberal churches forgive the homosexual for simply being born the wrong sexual orientation (this despite Paul rhetoric in Romans 1), thus they are church members in good standing.

Paul condemns the sin, not the sinner (e.g. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, etc. etc.).

Anyway, I can simply defeat your above claim by moving it to another Biblical area (salvation) by asking you: Will all women in the world be “saved”?

No, and neither will all the men of the world. Fortunately, it’s not gender that dictates salvation.

According to Jesus: “Broad is the road that leads to hell”, which proves that most of the world’s women (along with men) will be eternally unforgiven.

Hold on, I thought only women were unforgiven. Now men are unforgiven as well? Fortunately, the only thing this verse actually proves is that the road that leads to destruction is broad. I don’t see anything here about men and women committing unforgiveable sins, do you?

Are we on the same channel now? Do you understand the Lake of Fire?

I sure do: The lake of fire is the second death (Rev 20:14). Wait, let me guess: the lake of fire proves women are second-rate humans who will burn for eternity because they can bear children?

Harry McCall said...

Jason, You NEVER explained why women were remove as professors from all Southern Baptist Seminaries.

Just what did they do wrong?

ZAROVE said...

Zarove, plainly I’m wasting my time with you. Your email address is useless as I can get all I need to know from you here, which is very little.



Harry, your still makign Ad Hominim attacks, and not addressing the actual arguments that have been made. If, as John Loftus says, I have no substance, you coudl surely exose the erros of what I say wihtout resorting to attacking me in this fashion.



Now you even want to debate me on the formal debate. Hey, transportation is your problem buddy.




I beleive your the one hwo issued the challenge.



If you are as good as you say you are, I’m sure the Church of Christ, or maybe yours friends at Angelqueen.org will finance your trip by air here. Since you can’t drive, I have to assume either you are too young to get a driver license or you have some disabilities which makes you physically handicapped.




Isn't that nice.







You sound like a person really wanting acceptance. I hope the Catholics, Anglicans and Episcopal at Angelgueen.org (For Purity and Tradition in Catholicism) find a place for you and your logic.




How do I dsound like I want acceptance? I am posting, after all, on an Atheist sit designed to critisie my beleifs, whole at the same tiem enduring attacks agaisnt my Charecter.



By the qay, Angelqueen is for Traditional Cahtolics, not Anglicans. ( And EPiscopalians are Anglican.)




Anyway, I’ll “beating a dead horse” to continue any meaningful debate with you so I’ll declare you “Anathema” and move on.




But, Harry, you haven't even tried ot address my actual arguments. Instead you went off on tangents about unrelated things and then attacked me on a peronal level.



By the way, the reaosn no one addressed the Southern Bapitst COnvention and it acitosn is because I doubt many ehre belogn tot he SBC.



So its moot to them.

Harry McCall said...

Jason stated: “So the Bible doesn’t say women are eternally unforgiven…?” N

Neither does the Bible say demons are eternally unforgiven, thus, the church father, Origen, claimed no one is eternally damn, but all will be made whole in Christ.

So Jason, why men can teach and not women? Did they do something in Biblical history wrong? That’s the point of my post.

“The answers you want are already answered in Scripture. I’m surprised you didn’t choose to look there first.”

Circular reasoning: Rejected!

“Does the phase that women are “eternally unforgiven” occur in the Biblical text, no!”

Did I ever say it was a Biblical term, NO! But neither is “Trinity”, Theology” or the word “Bible”.

“Ah, well then I’m glad we can agree on this..”
“And what does Genesis and Paul say happened that women can’t be forgiven for?”

Loosing their jobs at all Southern Baptist Seminaries, no matter how much they plead forgivness and mercy in the atoning blood of Jesus: Unforgiven. You have NEVER explained by women can not teach men other than “Begging the Question” with “the Bible says so”. Why does the Bible say so? Why are Women second rate here?

“So the liberal churches must be right when they do something the Bible says in wrong...? Of course. It makes perfect sense.
Paul condemns the sin, not the sinner (e.g. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, etc. etc.).”

So did the Jews with Jesus. For all pious Jews, Jesus was a major Torah violator. He earned to hatred of the Priest because he broke Torah.

“No, and neither will all the men of the world. Fortunately, it’s not gender that dictates salvation.”

Not my point at all! I said that there will be women eternally damned and unforgiven in the Lake of Fire. My point plain and simple. But this was only a side point of my discussion.

“Hold on, I thought only women were unforgiven. Now men are unforgiven as well? Fortunately, the only thing this verse actually proves is that the road that leads to destruction is broad. I don’t see anything here about men and women committing unforgiveable sins, do you?”

Now you have rephrased me to mean “sinS”. Again, just what did women do to be kicked off their jobs athe Southern Baptist Seminaries?

“I sure do: The lake of fire is the second death (Rev 20:14). Wait, let me guess: the lake of fire proves women are second-rate humans who will burn for eternity because they can bear children?”

Again, you’ve got me out in left field without a glove on. The Southern Baptist prove, by their very action of firing innocent women who did nothing wrong that they are - in their book eternally blamed / unforgiven, and, inturn, are place behind the dumbest male professor simply because of gender and are second class citizens in this respect.

The Southern Baptist see women eternally condemed / unforgiven base of Paul's theology.

Harry McCall said...

Jason stated: "Let’s be clear: the terms and conclusions Harry is using and coming to are incorrect. Scripture most certainly does not ‘summarize’ that women are second-class humans or unforgiveable."

Really now Jason! Then just why does the Torah in Leviticus require the postpartum period of impurity for a woman to be only 8 days for a son, but 40 days for a daughter? Second class straight from birth!

Jason said...

Scott said: If you're implying that Revelation doesn't explicitly come right out and say so, I'd agree. But that's not the argument being made.

Revelation was used as a reference to support the opinion the women are second-class humans, that somehow John was hitting a ‘sore’ spot by referencing women. I disagree on the grounds there's nothing to substantiate this.

The King James…New American Standard…New Century…It seems we've gone from virgins who abstained from sexual intercourse to morally pure men who could have been married. Looks like a good PR move to me.

Relevance? ‘Defiling’ ones self with another woman is often used as a symbol of sin and idolatry (Jeremiah 3:9, Ezek 20:7,18, 43, 23:7,17, etc.). Considering Revelation 14 is filled with symbolic references to fornication, I can’t see why there’s an argument about whether or not the one verse in this chapter classifies women as being something less then human. Celibacy is a symbol for purity, adultery is a symbol for sin. That's it.

So it appears that Paul thinks marriage is merely a "compromise" for those who cannot control themselves, which is better than "burning with passion."

You guys are all over the place with this. Paul isn't referencing only women here and he's certainly not saying women are unforgiveable or second-rate.

And let's not forget that Paul uses the idea that Jesus is returning soon to motivate everyone to adopt his views.

Er, let’s not forget that every writer in the NT states Jesus is returning. Heck, Christ himself states he’s returning. And considering Christ returning is part of the promise of salvation, I hardly think it’s a surprise it’s mentioned so often.

Jason said...

Harry said: Jason, You NEVER explained why women were remove as professors from all Southern Baptist Seminaries. Just what did they do wrong?

I was never asked to explain why. Nontheless, I'm prepared to discuss and defend the Bible, not the religious practices of other denominations.

Neither does the Bible say demons are eternally unforgiven, thus, the church father, Origen, claimed no one is eternally damn, but all will be made whole in Christ.

So the Bible doesn’t say women are eternally unforgiven. Just wanted to clarify one final time.

So Jason, why men can teach and not women? Did they do something in Biblical history wrong? That’s the point of my post.

That’s not the point of your post at all. The point of your post is to criticize Paul and paint him out to be a misogynist, thereby somehow debunking Christianity. You’re also attempting to prove women are eternally unforgiven even though you admit the Bible is silent on such a claim. Let’s be honest, the point of this post isn’t to educate or understand, it’s to criticize.

Nonetheless, the answers to your questions can be found in Scripture. Start in Genesis, read up on why Eve was created, the relationship between Adam & Eve, and the roles of both, move on to the Mosaic law, then the Gospels, then the rest of the NT.

Loosing their jobs at all Southern Baptist Seminaries, no matter how much they plead forgivness and mercy in the atoning blood of Jesus: Unforgiven. You have NEVER explained by women can not teach men other than “Begging the Question” with “the Bible says so”. Why does the Bible say so? Why are Women second rate here?

Red herring. What does Genesis and Paul say happened that women can’t be forgiven for? Please answer the question.

So did the Jews with Jesus. For all pious Jews, Jesus was a major Torah violator. He earned to hatred of the Priest because he broke Torah.

Relevance?

Not my point at all! I said that there will be women eternally damned and unforgiven in the Lake of Fire. My point plain and simple. But this was only a side point of my discussion.

No, that’s not what you said. You asked if all the women in the world will be saved. Which they won’t. Likewise, not all women will be condemned. So what’s this plain and simple point you’re attempting to make?

Now you have rephrased me to mean “sinS”.

lol You're absolutely right. How’s this: I don’t see anything here about men and women committing an unforgiveable sin, do you? Now then, if men are also unforgiveable, then obviously this unforgiveable thing isn’t a gender issue, it’s a sin issue. Which really shouldn’t be all that surprising considering that’s what myself and others have been trying to explain to you from the start.

Again, just what did women do to be kicked off their jobs athe Southern Baptist Seminaries?

Maybe they stole cars from seniors and chain smoked during their sermons. I really have no idea – have you tried asking a Southern Baptist?

Again, you’ve got me out in left field without a glove on. The Southern Baptist prove, by their very action of firing innocent women who did nothing wrong that they are - in their book eternally blamed / unforgiven, and, inturn, are place behind the dumbest male professor simply because of gender and are second class citizens in this respect.

Right…so the lake of fire is the second death and Southern Baptists think women are eternally blamed. Wait, maybe all Southern Baptists will be eternally blamed for hiring eternally unforgiven women in the first place. Better yet, the second-class unforgiven Southern Baptist women should have known what they were and refused the job in the first place. My oh my, the fun we could have...

The Southern Baptist see women eternally condemed / unforgiven base of Paul's theology.

Surely then this particular Christian denomination should consist entirely of men. Because what would be the point of allowing a woman into the midst who couldn't ever be saved?

Really now Jason! Then just why does the Torah in Leviticus require the postpartum period of impurity for a woman to be only 8 days for a son, but 40 days for a daughter? Second class straight from birth!

1st stage: Uncleaness

After birth there is a period of uncleaness - the woman is separated and whoever touches her will become unclean, as with menstruation.

Boy child: 7 days, concluded with circumcision
Girl child: 14 days, concluded with sacrifice

2nd stage: Purification

After this, the mother continues to be impure - cannot touch holy things or enter sanctuary.

Boy child: 33 days
Girl child: 66 days

Time of impurity ended with a sacrifice whereby the priest makes atonement for her. The boy is circumcised at the halfway mark, which brings an end to the time of purification, hence the difference in duration.

Which part of this little equation makes baby girls second-rate?

Harry McCall said...

Jason stated: “Red herring. What does Genesis and Paul say happened that women can’t be forgiven for? Please answer the question.”

Here is where you missed the ship. My original post started with a complaint about the Biblically base Southern Baptist Convention.

A. I referenced the unforgiveness of women to their firing of women professors from their jobs and that 2,000 years has not replaced the blame Paul places on women.

B. Jason, here is where you got lost in your theological semantics. There is salvation (forgiveness: who can go to Heaven and who can not) and then there is earthly unforgivness over 2,000 years (Who, according to the Bible Believing Southern Baptist can hold a job in their seminaries and who can not). You are trying SOOO hard to defend the doctrine of Soteriology, you completely missed my original point.

Apart from the excurision on the Lake of Fire: Quote me from my original post (copy and past), at what point EVER did I claim that women were eternally lost? Come on now, copy and past on your next comment.

C. Southern Baptist are a Biblically base denomination; it is their creed. You claim to believe in the Bible as an authority. Yet, how is it that the largest "Bible as creed only" based denomination fires women form careers in their schools and you just sit at your computer and say, “Duh, beats me.”
You either agree or you disagree with their actions.

My personal view is that you want to avoid the subject and try to force a view totally unfounded in my original post (that is: women are eternally unforgiven / lost) is simply your red herring thrown up to avoid the theme of my original post on Paul and his theology of women as enacted by the Southern Baptist. And, you know what, you had me side tracked for a time into you little game of “bate and switch” it almost worked, but you know Jason, it’s time to “copy and paste”. (I see you work in Advertising: Slick as a car sellsman!)

D. No Jason, my original post’s theme remains as it stands: Women are eternally unforgiven via Paul’s theology in this life for over 2,000 years as proof of the Southern Baptist’s firing of them and not because they were not doing their jobs, not because they are Soteriologicly lost, but because they were born as simply as women.

The above ends my defense of my original post. Jason, remember to please “copy and past”. You appear to me to be such a zealous apologetic Biblical defender, that when it comes to atheist, you have run outside to do battle with only your shirt on. Get your pants, son! Need proof of your recklessness: Copy and Paste your facts from my original post! Can you do that with out getting side tracked Jason?


Now totally apart from the above topic (Jason, please don’t confuse this debate with the above original post) and on the topic of cultic cleanness you again just don’t seem to see just why daughters require the mother more time to be cleansed after their birth (80 days total) compared to the birth of a son, (40 days total)(Leviticus 12: 1-6).

You stated “Time of impurity ended with a sacrifice whereby the priest makes atonement for her. The boy is circumcised at the halfway mark, which brings an end to the time of purification, hence the difference in duration.”

Jason, it does not take a genius to see you are quoting from or rewriting from a secondary source on Leviticus, but what I don’t under stand is, you quote Leviticus 12: 1-6 only show the Priestly author is not comparing apples (sons) to oranges (daughters). Then you ask:

“Which part of this little equation makes baby girls second-rate?”

I could simply say: Why does it take longer for a female baby and shorter for a male baby?

Or, I could ask, based on the amount of the time involved (40 to 80 days or twice the time for daughters to sons), why the inequality?

Then you would say: “Well the Bible does not say daughters are second class humans…you can’t prove that form the Bible!”

Hey Jason, with a thought process like that, you’d make one hell of a southern segregationist doing the Jim Crow period.

Lets see now: One water fountain says “Whites Only”; the other water fountain says “Colored Only” and by your logic, Colored people are not second class citizens (How do you get that idea)? Hey, it’s simply the old Southern Jim Crow law: Separate, but Equal!

See Jason, there is nowhere in any written Jim Crow period in the south that says blacks are “Second Class Citizens”. Just: “Separate, but Equal”.

Humm, You know Jason is right!

Lets see now: Separate water fountains, schools, restaurants, hospitals (if there were any for blacks) and laws based on one's skin color in the old Jim Crow South, but nowhere – never, ever – was it written that Blacks are “second class” humans. By God, Jason right. You can’t prove Jim Crow is degrading them Niggers! (But I wonder just what all that Civil Rights fuss was about anyway?)

But, wait! This is off the topic of the sons and daughters in the Hebrew Bible and Jason is ONLY defending the Bible. Sorry, Jason. You got to watch us old atheist! We are always up to no good when it comes to the Bible!

I simply thought I had a comparison here, but I’m sure you’ll see the “red herring” in the comparison between the Jim Crow segregated South and “Separate, but Equal” cultic laws of impurity between the birth of sons and daughters in the Hebrew Bible.

Lets see… the term Jim Crow is not in the Hebrew Bible, but surely the cultic ritual laws of purity only promoted “Separate, but Equal” and not putting a daughter as any un-cleaner than a son. And they did not…

Yep, Jason! There an’t no “second class” niggers here!

Women in the Hebrew Bible. “Second Class” Israelites…NO WAY!

Lets see Deuteronomy 25: 11 – 12, Men can fight to the death, but if a wife of one helps her husband (who maybe loosing the fight), crushed the other man’s nuts, “then you shall cut off her hand; you shall show her no pity.”

Deuteronomy 22: 13 – 21, Men can screw around before marriage, but if a woman does, she is stoned to death.

Numbers 5: 18 – 22, Test for adultery only eats out the stomach of the woman. No such test for a man.

Exodus 20:17, Deut. 5:21, women are property of men.

Deut. 24: 1-4, Women could not devoice, but men could.

I could go on, but I sure you’ll see that women in the Hebrew Bible are not “second class” humans and the above should be entirely rejected since nowhere are women see as “Second Class” Israelites.

Sorry, my mistake… Yep, Jason! There an’t no “second class” niggers here!

Jason said...

Here is where you missed the ship. My original post started with a complaint about the Biblically base Southern Baptist Convention.

You said: “…there is NOTHING women can do to get forgiveness for what Genesis and Paul says happened.” I asked: “What does Genesis and Paul say happened that women can’t be forgiven for?” What’s the answer, Harry?

Jason, here is where you got lost in your theological semantics. There is salvation (forgiveness: who can go to Heaven and who can not) and then there is earthly unforgivness over 2,000 years (Who, according to the Bible Believing Southern Baptist can hold a job in their seminaries and who can not)...

So if women can be eternally unforgiven but still be forgiven…who cares?

Apart from the excurision on the Lake of Fire: Quote me from my original post (copy and past), at what point EVER did I claim that women were eternally lost? Come on now, copy and past on your next comment.

I never said you claimed women were eternally lost.

Southern Baptist are a Biblically base denomination; it is their creed. You claim to believe in the Bible as an authority. Yet, how is it that the largest "Bible as creed only" based denomination fires women form careers in their schools and you just sit at your computer and say, “Duh, beats me.”

Beats me.

You either agree or you disagree with their actions.

My opinion on the doctrines of Southern Baptists isn’t the topic. We’re trying to figure out if Paul ever claimed women were eternally unforgiven, which we’ve since discovered he didn’t. Then we tried to find out if Scripture in general made the same claim – we quickly found out it didn’t either. Was there anything else you wanted to bring to the table?

No Jason, my original post’s theme remains as it stands: Women are eternally unforgiven via Paul’s theology in this life for over 2,000 years as proof of the Southern Baptist’s firing of them and not because they were not doing their jobs, not because they are Soteriologicly lost, but because they were born as simply as women.

Right. Now show me where Scripture states women are eternally unforgiven, what “eternally unforgiven” means and what the outcome of living with such a label exactly entails.

Yep, Jason! There an’t no “second class” niggers here!

Great job, Harry. I’m sure you’re doing all the atheists around the world proud.

I could go on, but I sure you’ll see that women in the Hebrew Bible are not “second class” humans and the above should be entirely rejected since nowhere are women see as “Second Class” Israelites.

Precisely. Men and women each had laws to follow and each were punished if they broke the law. On the flip side, men and women both have exactly the same opportunity to be saved. Alls well that ends well.

Sorry, my mistake… Yep, Jason! There an’t no “second class” niggers here

Behold, the intelligence of atheists.

John W. Loftus said...

Harry, I'm glad it's you and not me who is beating his head against the wall with Jason. Been there, done that. I have the bruises to show for it too. I'm better off not doing it with him again.

Jason said...

Hi John,

Do you know where the Bible says women are eternally unforgiven?

Harry McCall said...

Jason: “Right. Now show me where Scripture states women are eternally unforgiven, what “eternally unforgiven” means and what the outcome of living with such a label exactly entails.”

OK. Notice you used the term “Scripture” and not the Canonized 66 books of the Protestant Christian Bible. Since Paul had no canonized text (or a Bibleas you read from), you just opened you self up for attack here.

Yes I’m an atheist, but both you and the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan have one thing in common: You both are Bible Believers.

I’ll responded in total tomorrow.

Jason said...

Harry: OK. Notice you used the term “Scripture” and not the Canonized 66 books of the Protestant Christian Bible. Since Paul had no canonized text (or a Bibleas you read from), you just opened you self up for attack here.

Harry, considering we've been using the Bible as reference thus far, I'm asking you to show me, using the Bible (that is, the book which the common Christian uses and that happens to start with Genesis and ends with Revelation), where it's stated that women are eternally unforgiven, what “eternally unforgiven” means and what the outcome of living with such a label exactly entails.

Jason said...

Seeing John's not answering, can any other atheist out there show us deluded Christians where the Bible says women are eternally unforgiven and what this term actually means?

Harry McCall said...

Jason stated: “Harry, considering we've been using the Bible as reference thus far, I'm asking you to show me, using the Bible (that is, the book which the common Christian uses and that happens to start with Genesis and ends with Revelation), where it's stated that women are eternally unforgiven, what “eternally unforgiven” means and what the outcome of living with such a label exactly entails.”

In my answer below, I’ll address both Jason and other readers accordingly.

Jason, you never defined your terms such as “the Bible” that “the common Christian uses”. Just who is a “common Christian” and what is their Bible? Only your bigoted as a Protestant? “Common Christians” are evidently, not the Catholics; evidently, not the Orthodox and evidently, not the Armenian Church.

Can any Christian out there show me where the above named groups are not “the common Christian” believers? Or, as Jason narrow view of the term “Christian” reveals, these groups should be labeled as “false Christianities” or heresies since their Bibles have extra books; especially the ones known as the Apocrypha, are usually located between Malachi and the New Testament.

This very statement is reminisced to a product of some Protestant Sunday School class. It’s little wonder you, Jason, can not grasp the central theme in my argument.

So, According to Jason, Christianity really had its start in the sixteenth century ONLY when the Protestant reformers redefined the Canon to 66 books.

Really, Jason! If you want to debate, PLEASE use a historical and objective term for Christianity that does not show your bias grounded in ignorance!

In his first misguide attack on my article, Jason responded with:
“For example, Scripture never says women are "eternally unforgiven" or "second class humans".

Now let me restated my title: Eternally Unforgiven: St. Paul’s View of Women and Its Influence on the Rest of the New Testament

As stated above, at what point EVER did I claim that Paul used the verbatim phase “Eternally Unforgiven”? Never! But Paul is not off the hook yet (see below).
The term “Eternally Unforgiven” is mine alone and used to describe what has happened to women for 2,000 years. Here, Jason, you have simply fabricated evidence to have some reason to attack me.

Again, Jason, at what point (as stated in your commit to by main post) did I EVER use the term “second class” to describe women? NEVER! Jason you have perjured himself again, which, as a Christian, places you in Paul’s list of depravity (Romans 1: 28 – 32).

What is interesting is that all the women who commented on my post totally agree with me since they (unlike our male Jason) has experienced first hand the affect Paul’s theology of women has had on Christian females in the church such as the firing of women professors at all Southern Baptist seminaries.

Although I continued to quote a number of passages from the Hebrew Bible which does indeed support Jason phase “second class” humans, he refuses to reply to these facts and demands that I prove Paul used the term “unforgiven” for women. As pointed out above, Jason had no bases to attack me, so he distorts my topic into something I never said. He gave me a fabricated theme then he demands me to defend it!

In objection to Jason’s demand “the book which the common Christian uses and that happens to start with Genesis and ends with Revelation)” I submit the book of The Wisdom of Ben Sira, or better know as Ecclesiasticus. The book is included in the Septuagint as read by the Hellenistic Paul and the western early Christian churches of Asia minor and is accepted as part of the biblical canon used Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, but not by most Protestants or by Jason as used in his attack on me.

Now this popular Apocryphal book states: “From a women sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die.” Ecclesiasticus 25: 24.

The evidence plainly shows that from Genesis, to the number of quotes from the Hebrew Bible degrading women in my second to last reply to Jason, to Ben Sira, to Paul’s theology of women which is still felt today in the Southern Baptist firing all female professors (based entirely on gender); plus, when we consider the short 5,000 – 6,000 years the Biblical authors believed the earth’s age and history to be, women are, up to this modern age (and in light of the Southern Baptist action), totally and eternally unforgiven and are made to suffer for it.

By Jason’s reasoning, the New Testament must state verbatim that “women are “eternally unforgiven”, is like demanding that a man who walks into a bank and shots an unarmed employee, that he must plainly state to all present: “With this action of killing this teller, I here by state that I’m a murderer and are now subject to the laws concerning murder.”

Thus, if this man did not use the sentence “I’m a murderer”, there is no way a court of law could bring him to trail and convict him since the statement “I’m a murderer” was NEVER stated.

Listen to Jason’s retort: “…can any other atheist out there show us deluded Christians where the Bible says women are eternally unforgiven and what this term actually means?” By this Jason want’s to win this debate by a concordance only reference where the phase “eternally unforgiven” occurs in some reference to women in his 66 book Bible. Thus, like our bank robber who just shot a teller, unless he makes the statement “I’m a murderer.” we have no way to prove anything against his. Both his act and actions based to the evidence mean nothing. As such, Jason’s refusal to engage my quotes from the Hebrew Bible and his denials to address the actions of the very conservative “Bible as creed” only based Southern Baptist firing of women is simply a denial of the facts and evidence in favor of his red herring “direct confession only rule as proof” comparison.

I would suggest that Jason use “Blacks Law Dictionary” and look up the term “evidence” and justify his attack based on logic.

As to Paul’s theology of women providing evidence for women being “eternally unforgiven”, I would point out the legal term in this law dictionary “Clear and Convincing Evidence” which Blacks defines as: Evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.

Jason, the “highly probable” and “reasonably certain” is all that is required in a court of law, not some verbatim confession. Paul does not have to do this since women are openly known throughout Jewish history as the gender holding this blame.

If Jason was a lawyer he would be debarred for making the claim that, unless this killer made an open and verbatim statement, he is innocent is totally ludicrous!

Finally, Jason your whole objection was blatantly fabricated and, from an apologetic stance, a meager performance at best.

I don’t have time to wast educating a Protestant Sunday School Bible student who has more zeal than knowledge. Thus, my original post stands: Women are eternally unforgiven based on my view and the Biblical theological history concerning cultic and legal codes for women.

Any further response from you on this point is simply a waste of my time as your limited one tract mind has left you completely illogical and perjured.

In light of my criticisms as listed above, I don’t think either John or any educated atheist has as thing to be concerned with when it comes to you.

Harry McCall

Jason said...

**Harry, what I’m most interested in is what “eternally unforgiven” actually means because Biblically, there's only one unforgiveable sin. What exactly are you claiming God refuses to forgive every woman of?**

Again, Jason, at what point (as stated in your commit to by main post) did I EVER use the term “second class” to describe women?

Harry, I’m not suggesting you personally believe women are second-class humans. I’m simply trying to figure out how you can justify claiming the Bible says these things about women when the evidence quite clearly states the opposite? For example, you state that “the Pauline corpus in the New Testament…demands that women are to be second class humans.” By your own admittance though, this "demand" isn't explicit, it's only based on context. It’s not difficult, however, to show you that Paul, and God, value women – it's no more as clearly proven in the simple fact that for women, the requirements for salvation and the promises of eternal life are no different then their male counterparts. In fact, Paul goes through great lengths to describe how believers in Christ Jesus are “one” and members “one of another”. This is hardly language befitting a misogynist. As Zarove put it: “It is pretty easy to deny that Paul’s letters are Misogynistic, since he is the same writer who said that there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Greek or Jew. This is the same Paul who gave salutations to women and called them fellowlabourers.”

...the affect Paul’s theology of women has had on Christian females in the church such as the firing of women professors at all Southern Baptist seminaries.

Two points: 1. Paul's theology can't be that strong considering the women were hired for the jobs in the first place. 2. Zarove’s question on this topic was ignored: “…Before Christianity, were women treated well? What about cultures that didn’t emerge from Christianity, did they treat women well?” It’s a valid question that deserves an honest answer.

Although I continued to quote a number of passages from the Hebrew Bible which does indeed support Jason phase “second class” humans, he refuses to reply to these facts and demands that I prove Paul used the term “unforgiven” for women.

I’ve replied to the passages. If you’d like to discuss them further, I’d be more then happy to do so.

As pointed out above, Jason had no bases to attack me, so he distorts my topic into something I never said. He gave me a fabricated theme then he demands me to defend it!

Harry, for someone who just finished comparing me to the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, you're not really in a position to complain about being attacked... :)

“From a women sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die.” Ecclesiasticus 25: 24. The evidence plainly shows that from Genesis, to the number of quotes from the Hebrew Bible degrading women in my second to last reply to Jason, to Ben Sira, to Paul’s theology of women which is still felt today in the Southern Baptist firing all female professors (based entirely on gender);

Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

Harry, do you find this verse degrading to men? Based on your interpretation of the Ecclesiasticus reference, I can only assume you believe this verse is proof Paul is misandric and thinks men are also eternally unforgiven. Is this correct?

plus, when we consider the short 5,000 – 6,000 years the Biblical authors believed the earth’s age and history to be, women are, up to this modern age (and in light of the Southern Baptist action), totally and eternally unforgiven and are made to suffer for it.

Both men and women die. What are women being eternally unforgiven for that men have somehow managed to get out of, even though they ultimately suffer the same fate as their female counterparts?

Women are eternally unforgiven based on my view and the Biblical theological history concerning cultic and legal codes for women.

This entire topic is based on your "view"…? Why then are you surprised to have been met with resistance?

Nonetheless, I would sincerely like to continue this discussion because I’m truly curious what eternally unforgiven actually means and how it can be supported in light of the common Biblical teachings of forgiveness.

Harry McCall said...

Jason: “It is pretty easy to deny that Paul’s letters are Misogynistic, since he is the same writer who said that there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Greek or Jew. This is the same Paul who gave salutations to women and called them fellowlabourers.”

OK: “ev xpistos” is not “ev ekklesia”. Women are NOT equal here on earth, just in the spiritual realm of the risen Christ (Notice Paul does not used the word Jesus). As proof, this same verse (Galatians 3:28) states there are “there are no longer slave or free” and yet Paul supports slavery by telling the slave to be a faithful slave. As such, Gal. 3:28 is only used in a spiritual sense ONLY and not in reality as Corinthians 7:24 (especially see: Ephesians 6: 5-9, Col. 3:22, and the dialogue in Philemon).

In the metaphysical Christ ONLY are women equal (who Paul ONLY knew in a metaphysical sense) and freed form the curse of the law in “ev xpistos” and not in the Corinthian church.

Jason: “Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

Harry, do you find this verse degrading to men? Based on your interpretation of the Ecclesiasticus reference, I can only assume you believe this verse is proof Paul is misandric and thinks men are also eternally unforgiven. Is this correct?”

You are correct. Men are the “Imago Dei” applies to men ONLY. They alone are in God image. Women are only a consequence of the creation of the man and are there ONLY for the man (Genesis 2: 18, 21 – 24).

Paul’s order of theology is correct (1 Corinthians 11:3) women have NO HOPE for salvation (I Timothy 2:5 “For the is one God (a male), and one mediator also between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (again, a male).” Women are saved, as Paul understands theology, ONLY though the man and thus she can earn it in child birth which implies bearing male children (I Timothy 2: 15).

Jason please note: The word “man” (as used in 1 Corth. 11:3 (avep / aner) and 1 Timothy 2:5 (anthropos) is not some “gender neutral term”, but a gender explicit term.

Both Paul’s theology of women and the New Testament itself are both human products (the canon of books, the theology of Paul as expanded in Duetro-Pauline schools and finally, the birth of Jesus into the Christ).
My point of women in the “here and now as being unforgiven” stands.

It’s only when churches become liberal and DENY the authority of Scripture that women can be ordained, preach and are truly equal to men in fact and not “in Christ”.

Paul is highly inconsistence on his view of Israel and the law (I can quote chapters and verses). He’s building theology here…working it out as he thinks…as he holds the LXX as inspired and authoritative.

Harry McCall said...

Jason, stated: “Zarove’s question on this topic was ignored: “…Before Christianity, were women treated well? What about cultures that didn’t emerge from Christianity, did they treat women well?” It’s a valid question that deserves an honest answer.

Zarove problem is (besides his terrible spelling) he footnotes nothing. Jason, Zarove “questions”, as you reworded them, were actually statements that Christianity treated women better than other “pagan” societies.
I got tired of his “I’ll make a statement off the top of my head and you prove me wrong.’ Or, everything I said was wrong because Zarove feeling were hurt.

As for as you statement: “It’s a valid question that deserves an honest answer.” An honest answer can only be given with notes referenced to works such as the Lobe Classical Library or the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3 edition. Other than that, Zarove had a lot of closed minded opinions with no proof of facts.

Zarove reminds me of J.P. Holding when I debated him for over 4 months two years ago. If Holding does not like you, there is NOTHING you can say that will ever justify your logic, and Zarove is in the boat as Holding.

By the way, I’m presently working on a critic of Holding’s logic to be placed at DC as a main post for comments. I hope to have it posted in about a week.

zilch said...

I'm not really qualified to say exactly what Paul meant about women (it looks like another case of "battling Scripture citations" to me), but I'll put in my € 0.02 about Zarove's question:

Before Christianity, were women treated well? What about cultures that didn’t emerge from Christianity, did they treat women well?

Now, it might well be that the New Testament was ahead of its time in its treatment of women. But what does this prove? In the first place, many cultures have moved on in the last two thousand years, and see men and women as equal, not "separate but equal". Nowadays women are often allowed to speak in church, for instance, or to wear their hair short.

In the second place, while human politicians may be forced to make moral compromises in order to attain power, and achieve acceptance for any progress at all, we might reasonably expect God to say what is right and wrong, and not make allowances for cultural inertia. He's already got the knowledge and the power, one might suppose. Or perhaps the Bahá'í's are right, and there is a new prophet every so often who updates the message, so as to break it to us otiose humans more gently?

We've had this same argument here about slavery, and it doesn't hold water: on the one hand, Christians are perfectly willing to say that it's hard to follow God, and that everyone falls short, when talking about, say, turning the other cheek. But they excuse God from forbidding slavery on the grounds that it would have been "too hard" for His Flock to give up their slaves back then.

Can some Christian tell me the answer to this question: are God's commandments "zeitgerecht" as they say here- that is, do they apply only to the particular time and peoples to whom they are issued? Or are they binding for all peoples and all times? If some of both, how can you tell which are which?

Harry McCall said...

Thanks for the interesting post Zilch.

As for as Zarove’s statement about women being treated better as Christians in the formative years of Christianity than its "pagan" neighbors; it doesn’t “hold water”.

I spent several hours last night reading in the Oxford Classical Dictionary under “women” and “religion” in both the Greek world Roman worlds. Both women in the New Testament and Classical world were under male domination as to what they could do in society and in public. The problem is that all the sources are written by men for the Classical era and reflect their side.

The major difference is in worship. Where as Christianity, under Paul, restricted women in the assembly / church, Greek women in Athens served as priestesses at temples such as Delphi as the oracle voice for Apollo.

So, while Paul blamed women for leading men astray in Genesis 2 and must remain silent in church, Greek women priestesses directed governments who inquired via the oracles at the different temples staffed by women priestesses.

Although the Roman religions were more restricted on women than the Greeks were, the place of women in Greek religions in Asia minor and the fact that Paul’s letters to his churches restricting women rights were address to the same area, proves that Zarove’s statement that women had more freedom in Christianity is a “red herring” an TOTALLY UNFOUNDED!

Jason said...

Harry,

You still haven’t answered my question: What is the sin God refuses to forgive women for - keeping in mind the only unforgiveable sin that’s mentioned is blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

Women are saved via baptism in the same way men are. Hence, women AND men were all baptized “unto Moses in the cloud and the sea” (1 Cor 10:2). Galatians 3:28 states that all are one in Christ – Jews, Greeks, male, female. From a God’s perspective, there is no difference in gender or race when one is baptized into Christ. Women, Jews, Greeks, etc. etc. all have the same hope and are all part of the same promises – no exception is made. 1 Timothy 2:15 isn’t exclusive – nothing is said here about childbearing being the only way women can be saved.

So, while Paul blamed women for leading men astray in Genesis 2…

Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

the dank said...

You still haven’t answered my question: What is the sin God refuses to forgive women for - keeping in mind the only unforgiveable sin that’s mentioned is blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

Good grief man, are you still on about this? Harry has repeatedly expounded on what he meant by "eternally unforgiven". Stop being so obtuse.

Forgive me for bringing up an earlier post, but you say:

This as a good post pointing out the different roles between men and women but many of the conclusions are wrong.

For example, Scripture never says women are "eternally unforgiven" or "second class humans".


LOL! Different roles and responsibilities? Women had to keep their mouths shut and submit to men, and you see this as a difference in roles?

This is tantamount to saying, "I view blacks as equals, I just don't think they should have the same rights as whites."

It is pretty easy to deny that Paul’s letters are Misogynistic, since he is the same writer who said that there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Greek or Jew. This is the same Paul who gave salutations to women and called them fellowlabourers.

Look, if you're going to pick and choose which verses you want to represent Paul's stance on women, then this discussion is never getting any further. At least try to reconcile the conflicting writings, don't just dismiss the ones you don't like altogether; it does not speak well of your intellectual integrity.

A side note: I know you didn't personally type the last quote, but you certainly endorsed it.

Jason said...

Dank said: Good grief man, are you still on about this? Harry has repeatedly expounded on what he meant by "eternally unforgiven".

Unfortunately, he hasn’t. ☺ If you know the answer though, I'd love to hear it.

LOL! Different roles and responsibilities? Women had to keep their mouths shut and submit to men, and you see this as a difference in roles?

Absolutely. In the NT, believers are asked to submit to God, workers are asked to submit to their bosses, citizens are asked to submit to the laws of man, and the younger is asked to submit to the older. Would you consider any of these four parties to be ‘second class’ simply because they’re “submitting”? As for women keeping their mouths shut, let’s qualify exactly what’s being requested. Read 1 Cor 14:34,35. Silent 24/7 or only in a specific instance?

Look, if you're going to pick and choose which verses you want to represent Paul's stance on women, then this discussion is never getting any further. At least try to reconcile the conflicting writings, don't just dismiss the ones you don't like altogether; it does not speak well of your intellectual integrity.

Which writings have I dismissed?

A side note: I know you didn't personally type the last quote, but you certainly endorsed it

You’ll have to be a little more specific. Which quote are you referring to?

the dank said...

Absolutely. In the NT, believers are asked to submit to God, workers are asked to submit to their bosses, citizens are asked to submit to the laws of man, and the younger is asked to submit to the older. Would you consider any of these four parties to be ‘second class’ simply because they’re “submitting”? As for women keeping their mouths shut, let’s qualify exactly what’s being requested. Read 1 Cor 14:34,35. Silent 24/7 or only in a specific instance?

Ah, I get it now. You don't view the way Paul described the role of women as misogynistic. That's OK, I guess. But you clearly have a warped view of what is misogynistic. It is OK for the man to dominate over women so long as they receive the same salvation from God. OK, got it. Because the bible never comes out and literally states that Paul viewed women as second class citizens, that means they are not.

Suppose I said blacks should submit to the will of whites, would that make me a racist? I would not presume to speak for anyone, but I hope you would say yes.

Then why is Paul not a misogynist for writing that women should submit to men?

A lifetime of submission because they were born without a penis, what an absurd notion.

Michael Ejercito said...

The weak submit to the strong.

Did that not over occur to you? Why else should people love and obey God, aside from His absolute power?

Harry McCall said...

Thanks “The Dank” for some logical sanity. I think Jason appears to have a position he thinks everyone has missed. I’ve gone over and over comparing women and blacks (even as slaves which the Bible totally supports) as sub-humans and Jason responses like a kid in a food store who wants that piece of candy and no amount of reasoning can convince him he should not have it.

Hey Jason, I noticed you dropped Zarove’s question from your demand. Sorry that Zarove did not do his homework (see my defense above on women in the Classical world as priestesses at temples).

OK Jason, let me put you on the defensive.

Prove to me that women are not “unforgiven” by quoting me from a New Testament book (or books), chapter and verse where there are ANY women stated as BENING IN HEAVEN TODAY!

Gal. 3: 28 does not prove anything here since all groups listed (Jew, Greek, slave, free, male and female) are just that: a universal groups of humanity of the world with any reference to salvation.

Again Jason, prove to me that there is any woman in “Heaven” today! Go ahead, prove it!
ETERNALLY UNFORGIVEN!!!!

Jason said...

Dank said: You don't view the way Paul described the role of women as misogynistic. That's OK, I guess. But you clearly have a warped view of what is misogynistic. It is OK for the man to dominate over women so long as they receive the same salvation from God. OK, got it. Because the bible never comes out and literally states that Paul viewed women as second class citizens, that means they are not.

Misogynistic = hatred of women. Paul didn’t hate women any more then he hated young people.

Suppose I said blacks should submit to the will of whites, would that make me a racist? I would not presume to speak for anyone, but I hope you would say yes.

Of course. However, if I said children should submit to their parents, what does that make me? Or that citizens should submit to the laws of the land? Are both somehow inherently negative because one group is submitting to the next? I would hope you say no.

Then why is Paul not a misogynist for writing that women should submit to men?

Because Paul doesn’t hate women any more then he hates believers for submitting to God.

A lifetime of submission because they were born without a penis, what an absurd notion.

It’s an unfair world, isn’t it.

BTW, did you find out what sin women are being eternally unforgiven for...?

zilch said...

I won't presume to answer for Dank, but I simply must comment here. Dank said:

You don't view the way Paul described the role of women as misogynistic. That's OK, I guess. But you clearly have a warped view of what is misogynistic. It is OK for the man to dominate over women so long as they receive the same salvation from God.[...]

To which Jason replied:

Misogynistic = hatred of women. Paul didn’t hate women any more then he hated young people.

Dank goes on:

Suppose I said blacks should submit to the will of whites, would that make me a racist?[...]

And Jason answers:

Of course. However, if I said children should submit to their parents, what does that make me? Or that citizens should submit to the laws of the land?[...]

So, according to Jason, expecting women to submit to men is analogous to expecting children to submit to their parents, or citizens to the laws of the land. Since parents love their children, then men who expect submission from women, if they love them, are not misogynistic- they are simply being good Christians. Right so far, Jason?

In that case, picture a slaveholder in the antebellum South. He loves his niggers, as long as they know their place- they are his bread and butter. Is the slaveholder a racist? Not by your reasoning.

You can't have it both ways: if racism and misogynism are analogous, then if Paul is not a misogynist, my slaveholder is not a racist.

Dank said:

A lifetime of submission because they were born without a penis, what an absurd notion.

Jason replied:

It’s an unfair world, isn’t it.

It is indeed an unfair world. But some kinds of unfairness can be fought, and luckily, some people have progressed beyond the sexism of the Bible (among other sources) and have recognized that we are only free if everyone, black and white, man and woman, is granted equal rights. Another good reason to toss the Bible.

Jason said...

Harry, what sin are women being eternally unforgiven for?

Hey Jason, I noticed you dropped Zarove’s question from your demand. Sorry that Zarove did not do his homework (see my defense above on women in the Classical world as priestesses at temples).

You answered the question, did you not?

Prove to me that women are not “unforgiven” by quoting me from a New Testament book (or books), chapter and verse where there are ANY women stated as BENING IN HEAVEN TODAY!

John 3:13 “And no man hath ascended up to heaven…”

Eternally unforgiven or forgiven? Luke 7:48 “And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.”

Gal. 3: 28 does not prove anything here since all groups listed (Jew, Greek, slave, free, male and female) are just that: a universal groups of humanity of the world with any reference to salvation.

Here's the next verse: Gal 3:29 “And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Promise = eternal life = salvation. Women, Jews, Greeks, etc. etc. all have the same hope and are all part of the same promises – no exception is made.

Again Jason, prove to me that there is any woman in “Heaven” today! Go ahead, prove it! ETERNALLY UNFORGIVEN!!!

John 3:13 “And no man hath ascended up to heaven…” Are men also eternally unforgiven, Harry?

Jason said...

Firstly, Zilch, your language is extremely inappropriate. I would appreciate it if you stopped with the racial slurs - quite frankly I'm shocked the administrators of this blog are allowing this sort of comment to be posted.

Zilch, if the slaveholder had white slaves, is he still racist? Your slaveholder is only racist if he’s using skin colour as a basis to determine who’s a slave. If he isn’t, then he’s not racist and Paul isn’t a misogynist. Paul is simply using Biblical references to show the people there’s a difference in roles between groups of people, whether it be man and woman, young and old, worker and master, believer and unbeliever, citizen and state, church and Christ, Christ and angels, etc. etc.

It is indeed an unfair world. But some kinds of unfairness can be fought, and luckily, some people have progressed beyond the sexism of the Bible (among other sources) and have recognized that we are only free if everyone, black and white, man and woman, is granted equal rights. Another good reason to toss the Bible.

I’d agree if women were eternally unforgiven and if God hadn’t promised them exactly the same thing, using exactly the same process, as their male counterparts.

the dank said...

Zilch, if the slaveholder had white slaves, is he still racist? Your slaveholder is only racist if he’s using skin colour as a basis to determine who’s a slave. If he isn’t, then he’s not racist and Paul isn’t a misogynist. Paul is simply using Biblical references to show the people there’s a difference in roles between groups of people, whether it be man and woman, young and old, worker and master, believer and unbeliever, citizen and state, church and Christ, Christ and angels, etc. etc.

I'll try to answer this one since zilch and I appear to be on the same wavelength.

You're right, if the slave is of the same race then that doesn't make him a racist. It just makes him oppressive. Whether Paul hated women or not, his writings indicated that he clearly thought that women did not deserve the same rights as men. And I find it disturbing that you would even suggest this is a good thing, or even OK. You can go on and on about how they will receive the same salvation, but it is clear that here on earth women are inferior to men according to the Bible.

stu said...

hmmm, lost my first post....anyway, I appreciate this great site.

I wonder if Paul's attitude towards women stems from his dualistic beliefs. He seems to believe that anything physical is corrupt, and that the spiritual is pure...He longs to shed his despised physical parts to take on a glorious spiritual form.

I wonder if he envisions a spiritual heirarchy where women are under( more physical)than men....afterall men are created in God's image and women are made out of man.

Perhaps that explains why women are to submit to men, not speak in public about spiritual matters, and are saved through childbearing.It might also explain his apparent aversion to the sexual act.....the most spiritual are the ones that can deny their physical lusts....which emanate from women.

Jason said...

Whether Paul hated women or not, his writings indicated that he clearly thought that women did not deserve the same rights as men.

The role of man and woman was clearly, and firmly established in Genesis, long before Paul existed.

You can go on and on about how they will receive the same salvation, but it is clear that here on earth women are inferior to men according to the Bible.

Women have different roles then men because this is the way God established things. The fact of the matter is that God created woman for man, which means of course man was created needing the assistance and guidance of a woman. Inferior? No. Essential? Absolutely.

stu said...

consider how the bible is predjudiced against women.

If a man on his wedding night wants to rid himself of his new wife and claims that she is not a virgin, the bride's parents must produce the evidence...presumably a blood stained sheet.

A number of questions arise here....

Is a blood stained sheet proof of virginity? What is the probability that a blood -stained sheet represents virginity....as opposed to a raging case of gonorrhea(smile). Is the lack of a bloody sheet strong enough evidence of non-virginity such that stoning should occur? It seems to me that this law is based upon a false assumption...that a blood stained sheet is evidence of virginity.It may be consistent with virginity, but is certainly not specific to it.

reminds me of the rape laws that assume that a woman being raped in a public place can always be heard screaming...yet I can easily think of circumstances where she would not be heard.

Imagine a young girl at her wedding night aware that she must bleed in order to prove her virginity if her new husband does not find her sexually attractive. She might wish that her husband is excessively rough and ejaculates before she is lubricated to increase her chance of bleeding.

And why did God not provide provision for the woman to determine if the man is a virgin?

Similarily, if a man suspects his wife of adultery, he is provided a provision to check...he can take her to a priest and force her to take a potion( alchemy?). Somehow the potion can tell if she is lying..if So she will become barren....

Why is there not provision to check if the man is unfaithful?

The virginity, adultery, rape laws seem to me to be very biased...it is as though it were written by primative patriarchial men.

zilch said...

Jason- I did reply to you right away, but Blogger ate it- something about a duplicate post- and I didn't have time to submit it again.

Meanwhile, Dank has pretty much said what I would have. I'll just add this: you say

Firstly, Zilch, your language is extremely inappropriate. I would appreciate it if you stopped with the racial slurs - quite frankly I'm shocked the administrators of this blog are allowing this sort of comment to be posted.

So even mentioning racial slurs, in a context where it's obvious that I disapprove of them, is a no-no? Slaveholders called blacks "niggers"- that's a fact. I don't. See the difference?

Your slaveholder is only racist if he’s using skin colour as a basis to determine who’s a slave. If he isn’t, then he’s not racist and Paul isn’t a misogynist.

Is Paul using sex as a basis to determine who submits to whom? Then he is a sexist. If someone expected blacks to submit to whites in the same way that Paul, and you also apparently, expect women to submit to men, you wouldn't hesitate in calling them a racist, would you?

Paul is simply using Biblical references to show the people there’s a difference in roles between groups of people, whether it be man and woman, young and old, worker and master, believer and unbeliever, citizen and state, church and Christ, Christ and angels, etc. etc.

I would be the last to deny that there are differences between men and women- having raised a girl and a boy makes it pretty obvious, among other observations I've made. What we're talking about here is not identity, but rights. And if you say, following Paul, that women should submit to men, and should be restricted in all kinds of other ways mentioned in the Bible, then it doesn't really matter whether one calls that misogyny, or sexism, or oppression: in any case, it's a mindset which is already on the way out in many civilized societies, despite what the Bible commands. And it's about time, if you ask me.

I said "But some kinds of unfairness can be fought, and luckily, some people have progressed beyond the sexism of the Bible (among other sources) and have recognized that we are only free if everyone, black and white, man and woman, is granted equal rights. Another good reason to toss the Bible."

You replied:

I’d agree if women were eternally unforgiven and if God hadn’t promised them exactly the same thing, using exactly the same process, as their male counterparts.

So you're saying pie in the sky when you die makes everything better? Suffering on Earth is meaningless, as long as virtue is rewarded in the afterlife? I've come across this kind of reasoning before from Christians, and I find it scary: it can be used to justify just about anything, whether it's skewering Amalekite babies or pouring weed killer down the drain.

This is a good example that shows why debunking fundamentalist religion is not just an academic exercise, but might well prove to be vital for our survival.

Harry McCall said...

Prove to me that women are not “unforgiven” by quoting me from a New Testament book (or books), chapter and verse where there are ANY women stated as BENING IN HEAVEN TODAY!

Jason: “John 3:13 “And no man hath ascended up to heaven…”

This is what I call “A proof text out of context.”

This is a statement made by Jesus about himself ONLY and countered since Enoch (Genesis 5:23), Elijah (2 Kings 2: 11-12), Paul (2 Corth. 12: 2-4), plus the stories of Daniel and Baruch prove otherwise as they went to Heaven.


Jason: “Eternally unforgiven or forgiven? Luke 7:48 “And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.”

ONLY TEMPERAL SINS and NEVER for the so-called “Original Sin” of Gensis 2 which Paul says brings death to all.

Gal. 3: 28 does not prove anything here since all groups listed (Jew, Greek, slave, free, male and female) are just that: a universal groups of humanity of the world with any reference to salvation.

Jason: “Here's the next verse: Gal 3:29 “And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Promise = eternal life = salvation. Women, Jews, Greeks, etc. etc. all have the same hope and are all part of the same promises – no exception is made.”

Wrong! Just how do you get that “promise” of Gal.3:19 Greek = “epaggelellomai” means eternal life “aionios zoe” means salvation “soteria”?
That is totally eisegesis or reading subjective theology INTO the text.

Again Jason, prove to me that there is any woman in “Heaven” today! Go ahead, prove it! ETERNALLY UNFORGIVEN!!!

Jason: “John 3:13 “And no man hath ascended up to heaven…” Are men also eternally unforgiven, Harry?”

Again, A proof text out of context.

Jason said...

Zilch said: Is Paul using sex as a basis to determine who submits to whom? Then he is a sexist.

Paul isn’t saying anything that wasn’t already established in Genesis, the roles were already been clearly defined in the Garden.

If someone expected blacks to submit to whites in the same way that Paul, and you also apparently, expect women to submit to men, you wouldn't hesitate in calling them a racist, would you?

Which of the following is actually recorded in Scripture, Zilch: That God made black people for white people or God made women for men?

And if you say, following Paul, that women should submit to men, and should be restricted in all kinds of other ways mentioned in the Bible then it doesn't really matter whether one calls that misogyny, or sexism, or oppression: in any case, it's a mindset which is already on the way out in many civilized societies, despite what the Bible commands. And it's about time, if you ask me.

Paul’s instructions and explanation of the roles of men and women were established long before he existed. Your argument isn’t with Paul, it’s with God. :)

So you're saying pie in the sky when you die makes everything better? Suffering on Earth is meaningless, as long as virtue is rewarded in the afterlife? I've come across this kind of reasoning before from Christians, and I find it scary: it can be used to justify just about anything, whether it's skewering Amalekite babies or pouring weed killer down the drain.

I’m not sure what killing babies and weed killer have to do with suffering…? Nonetheless, suffering on earth is meaningless. Romans 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.

Jason said...

Harry, what’s the sin women are being eternally unforgiven for?

This is a statement made by Jesus about himself ONLY and countered since Enoch (Genesis 5:23), Elijah (2 Kings 2: 11-12), Paul (2 Corth. 12: 2-4), plus the stories of Daniel and Baruch prove otherwise as they went to Heaven.

Neither Enoch, Elijah nor Paul went to heaven. Hebrews 11:13 “These all died in faith…” The list includes Enoch. Rom 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” and Rom 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Elijah and Paul sinned which means Elijah and Paul died. Sorry Harry, there’s no more proof these three men are living eternally in heaven then there is women are eternally unforgiven.

ONLY TEMPERAL SINS and NEVER for the so-called “Original Sin” of Genesis 2 which Paul says brings death to all.

Of course. So if original sin does exist, and brings death to all, then men and women are both eternally unforgiven. Harry, what's the sin only women are being eternally unforgiven for?

Wrong! Just how do you get that “promise” of Gal.3:19 Greek = “epaggelellomai” means eternal life “aionios zoe” means salvation “soteria”? That is totally eisegesis or reading subjective theology INTO the text.

1 John 2:25 “And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. Titus 1:2 "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;"

So like I’ve been saying, women, Jews, Greeks, etc. etc. all have the same hope and are all part of the same promises – no exception is made

Again Jason, prove to me that there is any woman in “Heaven” today! Go ahead, prove it! ETERNALLY UNFORGIVEN!!!

lol No one’s in heaven, Harry, except for God, Christ and the angels. You’re asking me to prove something the Bible doesn’t support.

What’s the sin women are eternally unforgiven for?

Again, A proof text out of context.

Acts 2:34 “For David is not ascended into the heavens…” Is David eternally unforgiven, Harry?

Harry McCall said...

“Harry, what’s the sin women are being eternally unforgiven for?”
Jason, if Genesis 2 & 3 are correct (as a no-believer and as Herman Gunkel noted; Genesis is a composite of near ancient Near Eastern stories built on myths) one notes that P’s reworking chapter one is to place blame eternally on women.
The woman ate the fruit first, so why immediately were her eyes not opened? Why, as soon as she ate it, did she not have knowledge “like God, knowing good and evil”? Why did the fruit have a “time delay” affect and only when the man too ate it, it triggered the knowledge in the woman?
The text plainly states the talking serpent spoke ONLY to the woman and NEVER to the man who must have been elsewhere. Since the woman was created after the command not to eat of the tree (Genesis 2:16 & 17 to the creation of the woman latter a verse 22) the myth falls apart in that the man already had direct knowledge of good and evil via God, thus the man had to teach the woman what NOT to do to be good or do and be / wrong / evil.


Jason: “Neither Enoch, Elijah nor Paul went to heaven. Hebrews 11:13 “These all died in faith…”
Read the text of Hebrews 11: 11 &12 in context Jason. That statement about faith is placed after the universal primordial history after Genesis 11. Enoch WALKED with God, he did not have metaphysical faith as the entire chapter of Hebrews 11 teaches. Hebrews 11: 5 CLEARLY states Enoch did not die.
Jason, the Septuagint (LXX) is worded to show that, as in the case of Elijah, Enoch went to heaven without first dying (Compare Heb. 11:5 and the apocryphal book Sirach 49:14). Thus, Hebrews follows the LXX. However, the Masoretic text states he simply was taken by God, by which the LXX uses “metetheken” as a verbal clause that God “changed him over or translated Enoch”.
Hebrews 11:5 is in harmony with textual tradition of both the Masoretic and the LXX and Jason, you are NOT!
Jason: “The list includes Enoch. Rom 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”
The Greek word “pantes” means “all” including Jesus who NEVER denied he was a sinner and he thus died.
Jason: “and Rom 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Elijah and Paul sinned which means Elijah and Paul died. Sorry Harry, there’s no more proof these three men are living eternally in heaven then there is women are eternally unforgiven.”
I’ve discussed Enoch above. As for as Elijah, the Masoretic text of 2 Kings 2: 1-11 uses to phase “LSHMAEM” or “to Heaven”. How do you read the Hebrew?
In 2 Corth. 12: 2 – 4 Paul did not stay, but he went there in spirit. What does being a sinner matter here anyway?

ONLY TEMPERAL SINS and NEVER for the so-called “Original Sin” of Genesis 2 which Paul says brings death to all.

Jason: “Of course. So if original sin does exist, and brings death to all, then men and women are both eternally unforgiven. Harry, what's the sin only women are being eternally unforgiven for?”
The sin of Genesis 3: Talking to unclean animals (serpent), then eating forbidden fruit. The man simply followed.




“Wrong! Just how do you get that “promise” of Gal.3:19 Greek = “epaggelellomai” means eternal life “aionios zoe” means salvation “soteria”? That is totally eisegesis or reading subjective theology INTO the text.”

Jason: “1 John 2:25 “And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.” Titus 1:2 "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;"
Wrong again Jason! What a promise is (that trusted) and what it given by this trust in are not the same thing.
Fact is Jason, everyone has eternal life: EVERYONE!!! The Lake of Fire: Souls burn forever. Everyone has eternal life!
God can and does lie: Genesis 2: 17b “but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the DAY (HEBREW “YOM”) that you eat from it you shall SURELY DIE.”
The talking serpent (who is latter identified as Satan) tells the truth. Genesis 3: 4 “You surely shall not die.”
Fact is, the day “YOM” they ate of it, made God into a liar, who, like the label given to Satan in John 8:44 makes God a liar: “…for he is a liar and the father of lies.” The father as in that God told the first lie in history in Genesis 2:17b.

Jason: “So like I’ve been saying, women, Jews, Greeks, etc. etc. all have the same hope and are all part of the same promises – no exception is made.”
Heaven or Lake of Fire, they ALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, EXPCEPT UNFORGIVEN WOMEN WHO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE IN THE LAKE OF FIRE!

“Again Jason, prove to me that there is any woman in “Heaven” today! Go ahead, prove it! ETERNALLY UNFORGIVEN!!!”

Jason: “lol No one’s in heaven, Harry, except for God, Christ and the angels. You’re asking me to prove something the Bible doesn’t support.”
Let’s see, Enoch and Elijah for starters. Unforgiven have eternal life women in Hell then thrown into the Lake of Fire.

Jason: ‘What’s the sin women are eternally unforgiven for?’
Genesis 3. Blamed FOREVER!

Jason: “Acts 2:34 “For David is not ascended into the heavens…” Is David eternally unforgiven, Harry?”
David is not Enoch or Elijah is he?
“David eternally unforgiven, Harry?”
Sorry to say, unlike women, he is not unforgiven.
Jason, how are things at the Kingdom Hall? Has a Pioneer come by lately to make sure your theology is kosher with “Awake” or the “Watchtower”?
Do you want to discuss some major problems in the “New World Translation”?

Jason said...

Read the text of Hebrews 11: 11 &12 in context Jason…

Start up a new topic on this and I’ll be happy to walk you through the reasons why Enoch is dead and buried.

Hebrews 11:5 is in harmony with textual tradition of both the Masoretic and the LXX and Jason, you are NOT!

Harry, you’re an atheist. These accusations mean nothing to me. ☺ Nonetheless, please show me where Scripture says Enoch “went to heaven”. Let me save you the trouble - it doesn't. Not even once.

The Greek word “pantes” means “all” including Jesus who NEVER denied he was a sinner and he thus died.

I don’t see how this helps your position. What’s the difference between man (who has sinned and come short of the glory of God) and woman (who has also sinned and come short of the glory of God)? Being eternally unforgiven seems to be of no consequence whatsoever.

I’ve discussed Enoch above. As for as Elijah, the Masoretic text of 2 Kings 2: 1-11 uses to phase “LSHMAEM” or “to Heaven”. How do you read the Hebrew?

“Sky”. Yes, it’s the same Hebrew word that’s used for that big place where the birds fly (Gen 1:26).

The sin of Genesis 3: Talking to unclean animals (serpent), then eating forbidden fruit. The man simply followed.

1. Where does Scripture say Eve was eternally unforgiven for talking to an unclean animal?
2. Where does Scripture say it’s a sin to “talk to an unclean animal”?
3. The problem you’ll find is that Paul says it was through one man that sin entered the world. On what logical and intellectual grounds are you claiming Paul thinks women are eternally unforgiven when he clearly lays the blame for sin (and death) at the feet of Adam?

Wrong again Jason! What a promise is (that trusted) and what it given by this trust in are not the same thing.

Harry, you’re getting yourself all worked up here. God promises eternal life to those who are judged worthy – men, women, Jew, Greek, bond or free. It’s right there in 1 John and Titus. You’re not going to win this one. Sorry ☺

Fact is Jason, everyone has eternal life: EVERYONE!!! The Lake of Fire: Souls burn forever. Everyone has eternal life!

Harry, you’re an atheist. You’ve lost the right to legitimately instruct Christians on Bible doctrine. The lake of fire is nothing more then the “second death”. Scripture never says everyone has eternal life – in fact, Scripture says people die and when they’re dead, they know nothing (Ecc 9:5). If you’d like to start up a topic discussing what the Bible teaches about the death state, I’d be more then happy to continue this discussion.

Heaven or Lake of Fire, they ALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, EXPCEPT UNFORGIVEN WOMEN WHO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE IN THE LAKE OF FIRE!

So in this lake of fire of yours, would one find only women…?

Genesis 3. Blamed FOREVER!

God blames every woman ever created for talking to an unclean animal in the Garden…? Supporting verses please. It’s strange because Paul doesn’t mention anything about this in his writings. Hm, what does Paul think women are eternally unforgiven for?

Sorry to say, unlike women, he is not unforgiven.

So if David’s not in heaven but he’s not unforgiven, then women can also not be in heaven and not unforgiven as well. Hmmmm… It would seem that heaven-going doesn’t have anything to do with being eternally unforgiven or not.

Jason, how are things at the Kingdom Hall? Has a Pioneer come by lately to make sure your theology is kosher with “Awake” or the “Watchtower”? Do you want to discuss some major problems in the “New World Translation”?

Sorry Harry, you’re mocking up the wrong tree. ☺

stu said...

Jason, you might be correct that in heaven, Paul promises that women will be included as equals.

But do you think that biblically speaking women are thought of as spiritual equals to men on earth?Because there seems to me to be many passages that suggest less worthiness wrt women than men. Females are considered property of males and the law seems to be biased against females.....consider for a minute the slavery, virginity and adultery laws. Laws and edicts confur power, freedom and opportunity.

But the role of women in the bible seems to be one of submission to men. But in fact, observation tells us that women can teach and occupy positions of authority over men quite functionally. They can also occupy positions of spiritual authority over men....no?

Do you not see that the bible has been responsible for providing authority for the subjugation of women?...to humanity's loss.

Jason said...

Stu,

If women and men weren't spiritual equals, Scripture would have outlined the different requirements on how both groups of people would not only attain salvation, but also please God. The fact though is that that God has exactly the same expectations of men and women when it comes to worship, faith, prayer, etc. There's no question there's a difference in roles between men and women (as setup in the Garden), but we need to separate "submission" from "second class", as tough as it may be. Consider: If God truly created women to be 'second-class', why do you think He established equal opportunity for salvation?

stu said...

Hey Jason, hope you are having a great Saturday eve.

Same requirements?

women must be submissive to their men.

spiritually equal?

but cannot speak in church? Are saved through childbearing? Can ask her husband at home if she has any questions? more unclean than male counterparts? created out of man.
hmmmm

and can you explain to me why thare are no provisions for the female to determine if her husband is a virgin or an adulterer(sp?). It seems that the female has a special role to submit to males, be virgin, and faithful. No role to teach men in public though.

Jason said...

Hi Stu,

The points you're making, women being submissive and not speaking in church, have to do with the difference in roles, not a difference in spirituality. God requires both men and women to be baptised, to have faith, pray, etc. There is no difference in these fundamental requirements. For example, Adam & Eve each had different roles as dictated by God but there's no indication either one had to work harder then the other to please God - this would only make sense if the spiritual requirements were the same for both.

and can you explain to me why thare are no provisions for the female to determine if her husband is a virgin or an adulterer(sp?). It seems that the female has a special role to submit to males, be virgin, and faithful. No role to teach men in public though.

There are undoubtedly differences between the roles of males and females but they should not be confused with worth (as Harry is trying to do by claiming women are eternally unforgiven). Males take the lead in communication with God and His angels and there is an obvious hierarchy between male and female.

That being said, I would hope every Christian acknowledges the important place of women such as Eve, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, Rachel, Rahab, Deborah, Elizabeth, etc., all without whom God’s purpose would not have progressed along the path that it did. However, this does not alter the reality that males and females have different God-given roles.

That man has been given the leadership role indicated in Eden becomes obvious throughout Old and New Testament history by seeing who God calls, appoints and anoints and whom he communicates with and through. Males take the lead. However, women such as Deborah and Miriam prove that God could have chosen and worked through women in any cultural or social context. The reality is, He chose not to, despite the fact that there were many great women of faith who have earned the admiration of generations of Christians. If He could choose one female judge He could have chosen many. He could have anointed female leaders in Israel like the Queen of Sheba, but He chose not to. He could have chosen six male and six female apostles but He chose not to. There is no truly valid reason why He could not have done so but He did not do so. This is in harmony with what was established in Eden.

God makes the arrangements in His moral universe and men and women are required to abide by them.

It was by God’s direction, God’s appointment and God’s choice that Noah, Abraham, Moses and other males were given leadership. It wasn't about unlawful male dominance or the battle of the sexes as an outcome of the fall. It was God’s work. It was God’s decision (not Paul's, as many here are trying to assert).

Under the Law of Moses, the same thread of thought continues. Man and woman are equal as far as salvation, worth as human beings and responsibility to God are concerned but the role distinctions are even more obvious.

The NT writers understood this and they understood what Genesis was saying about the role relationships of men and women.

It's a worthwhile exercise to go through the OT laws and instead of looking for the differences, note the number of laws that teach equality between the sexes and even the laws that maintain a hierarchy between men and men.

stu said...

Jason, thanks for the comments. I would have to say that the requirements for salvation may be the same...although I would appreciate you explaination for the statement that women are saved through childbearing. What does that mean?

Anyway, I have argued that on earth women are considered to be spiritually inferior to men. I would argue that this is because women are viewed as being more earthly(reference to mother earth?).

Women are not given spiritual authority over men because they are viewed as being born spiritually inferior. Their role is to submit. Like a caste system they are cosmically born that way. Their use to the scheme of things is to provide the man with children to pass on his seed and be loyal and obedient to her husband or father.

You say" Males take the lead in communication with God and His angels and there is an obvious hierarchy between male and female."

Yes, I would argue that on earth there is a spiritual heirarchy...begins with the father, then the son, then angels, then man, then woman. From the spiritual to the physical. That is why they were the first to fall into temptation and lead man into the doomed existence governed by " you reap what you sow".

Sure, you show the occational example of positive women in the bible....but mostlt the biblical authors do not concern themselves about women, except to define their subjugative roles and their place in the spiritual heirarchy.

Women are listed among man's property.

I agree that the new testament argues for a better view of women...salvation is equally for them( as with other subjugated people), but Paul reaffirms the role of women and slaves. Pity he did not have the vision to emancipate them from their traditional submissive duties. Pity God always chose men.

Would have been great.

stu said...

Jason, while we are on the subject of women can you explain something to me. You know when Moses commands his army to go back to the town they just destroyed and kill all of the inhabitants including pregnant women, male children and men, why does he allow the men to take the virginal women for themselves?

And how would the men know whether the women were virgins? Do you think it pertains to post coital bloody sheet? Do you think they would post-coitally have killed those girls who did not produce a bloody sheet?

Do you think that this passage assumes that women do not carry any genetic information? After all, if the intent were genocide of a race (disturbing in and of itself) you would have to kill all of the people, including all of the males and females…unless you believe that females do not possess heritable information…in which case virginal women could be kept to be your wives and act as vessels for your seed.

Just a thought.

Also, do you suppose that Jesus was composed of cells containing Mary’s DNA…or was Mary another vessel into which God’s spirit seeded her…in this case a pure vessel?

Michael Ejercito said...

Jason, while we are on the subject of women can you explain something to me. You know when Moses commands his army to go back to the town they just destroyed and kill all of the inhabitants including pregnant women, male children and men, why does he allow the men to take the virginal women for themselves?

It was a demonstration of mercy, as the women would reside as strangers in Israel.

stu said...

Michael....a demonstration of devinely inspired mercy? Hmmmm

It seems that the soldiers had already demonstrated mercy to include all civilians...it was God, through Moses. who sent them back to kill the rest, except for the virginal women...great demonstration. Imagine the thoughts of the soldiers who were ordered by God to kill children and possible pregnant women.

Michael Ejercito said...

It seems that the soldiers had already demonstrated mercy to include all civilians...it was God, through Moses. who sent them back to kill the rest, except for the virginal women...great demonstration. Imagine the thoughts of the soldiers who were ordered by God to kill children and possible pregnant women.
At least those women who never got laid got to live in Israel as resident aliens, with all the legal protections resident aliens are entitled to.

stu said...

ah..yea..good thing. Guess they got to get "laid" too.

Michael Ejercito said...

Of course.

zilch said...

That does it. Michael, now I know that you're a deadpan atheist satire of a Christian. You had me going for a while, but you're the Debunking Christianity version of the Landover Baptists. C'mon now, fess up.

stu said...

It seems that numbers 31 gives another reason why female vigins are valuable.....thay make good SACRIFICES to God. At least 32 of these young spoils of war got that mercy administered to them.

Jason said...

Stu said: ...I would appreciate you explaination for the statement that women are saved through childbearing. What does that mean?

There are several possibilities here, though the first three can be readily dismissed (cf. D. Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” TJ 1 [1980]: 70-73).

(1) Christian women will be saved, but only if they bear children. This view is entirely unlikely for it lays a condition on Christian women that goes beyond grace, is unsupported elsewhere in scripture, and is explicitly against Paul’s and Jesus’ teaching on both marriage and salvation (cf. Matt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:8-9, 26-27, 34-35; 1 Tim 5:3-10).

(2) Despite the curse, Christian women will be kept safe when bearing children. This view also is unlikely, both because it has little to do with the context and because it is not true to life (especially life in the ancient world with its high infant mortality rate).

There are two other views that have greater plausibility:

(3) “It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood” (Moo, 71). In this view, the Greek word for “saved” is seen as a synecdoche in which child-rearing and other activities of motherhood are involved. Thus, one evidence (though clearly not an essential evidence) of a woman’s salvation may be seen in her decision to function in this role.

(4) The verse may point to some sort of proverbial expression now lost, in which “saved” means “delivered” and in which this deliverance was from some of the devastating effects of the role reversal that took place in Eden. The idea of childbearing, then, is a metonymy of part for the whole that encompasses the woman’s submission again to the leadership of the man, though it has no specific soteriological import (but it certainly would have to do with the outworking of redemption).

Anyway, I have argued that on earth women are considered to be spiritually inferior to men. I would argue that this is because women are viewed as being more earthly(reference to mother earth?).

I strongly disagree because firstly, men are never referred to as being ‘more spiritual’ and secondly, sin is sin – anyone who broke the law, man or woman, suffered the consequences (i.e. men weren’t punished differently then women in cases of murder, idol worship, etc.)

Women are not given spiritual authority over men because they are viewed as being born spiritually inferior. Their role is to submit.

Unfortunately, Genesis doesn’t agree with this interpretation. God didn’t create Eve to be spiritually inferior, God created Eve to be a helper for Adam.

Like a caste system they are cosmically born that way. Their use to the scheme of things is to provide the man with children to pass on his seed and be loyal and obedient to her husband or father.

Neither providing men with children nor being loyal implies women are spiritually inferior. It indicates there’s a role difference, not a spiritual difference. Remember, in terms of salvation, men and women are both promised exactly the same thing

You say" Males take the lead in communication with God and His angels and there is an obvious hierarchy between male and female. That is why they were the first to fall into temptation and lead man into the doomed existence governed by " you reap what you sow".

Adam is blamed for bringing sin into this world, not Eve. Adam is blamed for the introduction of sin into the world because he was the last line of defence. If he had not succumbed to temptation, sin would have remained the personal property of Eve and it would have died with her. Both are equally to blame.

Sure, you show the occational example of positive women in the bible....but mostlt the biblical authors do not concern themselves about women, except to define their subjugative roles and their place in the spiritual heirarchy.

The Bible supports a hierarchy of roles and authority - it doesn’t support a spiritual hierarchy in the sexes. Women didn’t have to tithe more then men did, women didn’t have to offer more animals for a sin offering, etc. There’s no evidence in the old law that more was expected and required from women because they were spiritually ‘less’ then men.

Women are listed among man's property.

Some women are, yes, but they’re not listed as being spiritually inferior.

You know when Moses commands his army to go back to the town they just destroyed and kill all of the inhabitants including pregnant women, male children and men, why does he allow the men to take the virginal women for themselves?

Great question. What do you think?

And how would the men know whether the women were virgins? Do you think it pertains to post coital bloody sheet? Do you think they would post-coitally have killed those girls who did not produce a bloody sheet?

I don’t know and I don’t care to speculate ☺

Also, do you suppose that Jesus was composed of cells containing Mary’s DNA…or was Mary another vessel into which God’s spirit seeded her…in this case a pure vessel?

Jesus was Mary’s son so I think it’s safe to say he had his mother’s DNA. ☺

stu said...

Hey Jason.

First of all, do you really believe in an Adam and Eve?

Anyway, we may have to agree to disagree. I have outlined an argument that suggests that women were regarded as spiritually inferior. This view explains a lot…Women are certainly, to my view, not given the same value as men and this explains why, for example, fathers who offer there daughters to be raped instead of men guests are held in esteem.

Saved through adopting their “proper” role as mothers. Heaven forbid (forgive the pun), a woman is barren, or seeks other roles.

As to why God allows the virginal women to survive…. because they have not been defiled. If they had had sex already, there is no guarantee that any offspring are your own. Guarding one’s loins is important. That is why there are such strict virginity and adultery laws for women.

Also, God would not allow a non-virgin to be sacrificed or work in the temple with priests. If they have had sex, they have been defiled. Are not considered pure. Also, as outlined above, keeping the virginal women for themselves would not jeopardize the genocide goal, if women were not thought of as possessing any genetic material

anyway, got to go to work.

Jason said...

First of all, do you really believe in an Adam and Eve?

Yes.

Anyway, we may have to agree to disagree. I have outlined an argument that suggests that women were regarded as spiritually inferior.

Stu, there is no argument that suggests women are spiritually inferior. The arguments you've been providing have to do with roles and authority but neither deal with spirituality. Perhaps you'll need to define 'spiritually inferior' because I'm just not getting where you're coming from. From God's perspective, men and women have identical opportunities to be saved - this simply doesn't make sense if God thought women were spiritually inferior.

Saved through adopting their “proper” role as mothers. Heaven forbid (forgive the pun), a woman is barren, or seeks other roles.

There's nothing wrong with a woman being barren or seeking other roles. The commandment is still to remain faithful and fulfill the commandments of God - the same thing that's required of male believers.

As to why God allows the virginal women to survive…. because they have not been defiled. If they had had sex already, there is no guarantee that any offspring are your own. Guarding one’s loins is important. That is why there are such strict virginity and adultery laws for women.

Bingo.

Harry McCall said...

Hebrews 11:5 is in harmony with textual tradition of both the Masoretic and the LXX and Jason, you are NOT!

Jason: “Harry, you’re an atheist. These accusations mean nothing to me. ☺ Nonetheless, please show me where Scripture says Enoch “went to heaven”. Let me save you the trouble - it doesn't. Not even once.”
So, since your theology does not match any major established theology (such as Catholic or Protestants) you are a HERETIC, and, according to Christian tradition, worst than an atheist!
Secondly, Jewish theology set by the Masoretic text and confirmed by the LXX is the bases for all Christian theology being that all New Testament quotes come from the LXX.
Jason, ever hear of the Septuaginta-Unternehmen in Gottingen? This LXX text is a critical edition which exceeds that of the LXX by A. Rahlfs 1935 text. The major LXX scholar, John William Wevers edition the volumes on the Pentateuch and published in conjunction with the Society of Biblical Literature’s “Septuagint and Cognate Studies” the five volumes of which of interest here is “Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis” which sells for $75.00 which I have. On page 71 of this volume, Wevers make clear that the Masoretic is re-enforced by the translators of the LXX that Enoch went to heaven: “The reason given is that God “metetheken” him, i.e. “changed him over, translated him.” Presumably this translation meant that as in the case of Elijah he went to heaven without dying; comp Hebr. 11:5 and Sir. 49:14…” Page 72 as quoted by Wevers.
Jason, just who are you to rewrite theological history because you have some special hermeneutical insight better know today as heresy!

The Greek word “pantes” means “all” including Jesus who NEVER denied he was a sinner and he thus died.

Jason: “I don’t see how this helps your position. What’s the difference between man (who has sinned and come short of the glory of God) and woman (who has also sinned and come short of the glory of God)? Being eternally unforgiven seems to be of no consequence whatsoever.”
My original post speaks for itself. My next 3 replies to your commits are clearly stated.

I’ve discussed Enoch above. As for as Elijah, the Masoretic text of 2 Kings 2: 1-11 uses to phase “LSHMAEM” or “to Heaven”. How do you read the Hebrew?

Jason: “Sky”. Yes, it’s the same Hebrew word that’s used for that big place where the birds fly (Gen 1:26).
“SHMAEM” or “samayim” is the abode of the gods in the anceint Near East.
Let me quote from a major source: Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD), edited by Karel Van Toorn, Bob Becking and Pieter Van Der Horst. Under “Heaven” on page 388 – 390 we find on page 389:
“Another aspect of heaven (samayim) is its role as the abode of God. God is in heaven where he dewells on his throne (cf Ps 2:4, 11:4; Ikgs 8:30), surrounded by the Host of heaven and all his angles (Gen. 28:12; I Kgs 22:19; 2 Chr. 18:18; Pss 89:9-9; 103:21; Neh 9:6; Dan. 7:10; cf. Job 1:6; 2:1). An ancient idea of God being in heaven has been preserved in Duet. 33:26 and Ps. 68:34 where he is called the “rider upon the heavens” which can be compared to the idea of God being the “rider upon the clouds” (Ps 68:5; Isa 19:1), a term which can be used in a similar way in connection with Baal, the Rider upon the Clouds.”
Enoch is established as being in heaven both in ancient Jewish sources (such as the book of I Enoch 14 and Jewish mystical text or “Hekaloth”).
Again, the same for Elijah (Yahweh is God). “On account of his ascension (2 Kgs 2:11) he is considered to have been transferred to heavenly existence and accordlingly his return could be expected (Mal4: 5-6) DDD p. 282.
Until you, Jason, are recognized as an authority on the Jewish theological tradition and can sight read Hebrew and Greek, your opinions are left of main stream scholarship and heretical.

The sin of Genesis 3: Talking to unclean animals (serpent), then eating forbidden fruit. The man simply followed.

Jason: “1. Where does Scripture say Eve was eternally unforgiven for talking to an unclean animal?
2. Where does Scripture say it’s a sin to “talk to an unclean animal”?”
Fact is that this section of Genesis was edited in the Exilic period and the Priestly editor re-injects the cultic code / Torah on to the woman as noted by Harvard’s Frank Moore Cross in his “Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel” in Chapter 11 “The Priestly Work” pp.293 -325.
Jason, taught a calls at Harvard yet?

Jason: “3. The problem you’ll find is that Paul says it was through one man that sin entered the world. On what logical and intellectual grounds are you claiming Paul thinks women are eternally unforgiven when he clearly lays the blame for sin (and death) at the feet of Adam?”
Once more hard head! My original post speaks for itself. My next 3 replies to your commits are clearly stated!


Wrong again Jason! What a promise is (that trusted) and what it given by this trust in are not the same thing.

Harry, you’re getting yourself all worked up here. God promises eternal life to those who are judged worthy – men, women, Jew, Greek, bond or free. It’s right there in 1 John and Titus. You’re not going to win this one. Sorry ☺
This is simply Paul’s theology replied by 1 John and Titus as breaking down the Covenant that God made exclusively to the Jews. Paul’s way of saying: “Every one can play! Every one can win!” Now the promise only to the seed of Abraham is now a universal and politically correct.

Fact is Jason, everyone has eternal life: EVERYONE!!! The Lake of Fire: Souls burn forever. Everyone has eternal life!

Jason: “Harry, you’re an atheist. You’ve lost the right to legitimately instruct Christians on Bible doctrine. The lake of fire is nothing more then the “second death”. Scripture never says everyone has eternal life – in fact, Scripture says people die and when they’re dead, they know nothing (Ecc 9:5). If you’d like to start up a topic discussing what the Bible teaches about the death state, I’d be more then happy to continue this discussion.”
Yes, but you are a heretic which established Christian tradition says is worst than an atheist. Fact is, I could walk in a teach a Sunday school class in most any Protestant church. You could try until they found out your heretical doctrines and then gave you the boot.
Ecc. 9:5 is simply a restatement about after life in Sheol. Get a Hebrew Lexicon and look up Sheol: “abode of the dead”, thus Saul can call up Samuel from Sheol (1 Samuel 28: 8 -25).

Heaven or Lake of Fire, they ALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, EXPCEPT UNFORGIVEN WOMEN WHO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE IN THE LAKE OF FIRE!

Jason: “So in this lake of fire of yours, would one find only women…?”
Again, not my theme of my original post an that’s what’s the topic here.

Genesis 3. Blamed FOREVER!

Jason: “God blames every woman ever created for talking to an unclean animal in the Garden…? Supporting verses please. It’s strange because Paul doesn’t mention anything about this in his writings. Hm, what does Paul think women are eternally unforgiven for?”
The Pentateuch is a redacted document edited by “P” in exiled. Any major commentary (Anchor Bible, Interpretator’s Bible, International Critical Commentary and so on) all support this. Jason, you would not be so subjective if only you read more objectively!

Sorry to say, unlike women, he is not unforgiven.

Jason: “So if David’s not in heaven but he’s not unforgiven, then women can also not be in heaven and not unforgiven as well. Hmmmm… It would seem that heaven-going doesn’t have anything to do with being eternally unforgiven or not.”
David is in Sheol: “Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David” 1 Kings 2:10.
Genesis 3 and Paul’s use of it stands. Eternally unforgiven. Heretic just can not grasp this.

Jason, how are things at the Kingdom Hall? Has a Pioneer come by lately to make sure your theology is kosher with “Awake” or the “Watchtower”? Do you want to discuss some major problems in the “New World Translation”?
Jason: “Sorry Harry, you’re mocking up the wrong tree.” Oh, I see. Just the average heretic.” ☺

Hey Jason! Lets discuss the FACT that God told the first lie in recorded Biblical history (Genesis 2:17). Since God lied first, then your God is the “father of all lies” while the talking serpent told the truth. A Biblical FACT!!!!

stu said...

Jason, hope you are having a good day.

We will have to disagree.....what you call simply roles, I call subjugation.

I have found it particularily interesting to think about Paul's edict for women to be quiet at church and to ask her husnad at home if she should have any questions.You see I believe that the most powerful weapon to emancipate women throught the world is through education. Knowledge confers power and freedom from dependency.

Paul's edict ensures that women would be dendendent upon men. His command for women to stay silent at church is to cut them off from conversations about the most important topics of the day. In this way, the woman is dependent upon her husband to teach her knowledge and wisdom. This will ensure that she will always be less powerful than man.

Yep, I recognise subjugation when I see it. But then again, I am free to call the kettle black.

Jason said...

Hi Harry, perhaps you missed it but as I said in my last post, start up a new topic on Enoch and Elijah and I’ll be happy to walk you through the reasons why they’re both dead and buried.

I’d also like answers for the following questions:

1. Where does Scripture say Eve was eternally unforgiven for talking to an unclean animal?

2. Where does Scripture say it’s a sin to “talk to an unclean animal”?”

3. On what logical and intellectual grounds are you claiming Paul thinks women are eternally unforgiven when he clearly lays the blame for sin (and death) at the feet of Adam?


Seeing as you know your Bible so well, surely you have answers for these.

This is simply Paul’s theology replied by 1 John and Titus as breaking down the Covenant that God made exclusively to the Jews. Paul’s way of saying: “Every one can play! Every one can win!” Now the promise only to the seed of Abraham is now a universal and politically correct.

That's great! If everyone can win then women can win too. What a relief for the masses of female Christians. Issue resolved!

Yes, but you are a heretic which established Christian tradition says is worst than an atheist. Fact is, I could walk in a teach a Sunday school class in most any Protestant church. You could try until they found out your heretical doctrines and then gave you the boot.

Fact is, the lake of fire is still the “second death”.

Ecc. 9:5 is simply a restatement about after life in Sheol. Get a Hebrew Lexicon and look up Sheol: “abode of the dead”, thus Saul can call up Samuel from Sheol (1 Samuel 28: 8 -25).

Again, if you’d like to start up a topic discussing what the Bible teaches about the death state, I’d be more then happy to continue this discussion.

Heaven or Lake of Fire, they ALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, EXPCEPT UNFORGIVEN WOMEN WHO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE IN THE LAKE OF FIRE!

You just finished explaining that according to Paul’s politically correct theology, everyone wins, women included.

The Pentateuch is a redacted document edited by “P” in exiled. Any major commentary (Anchor Bible, Interpretator’s Bible, International Critical Commentary and so on) all support this. Jason, you would not be so subjective if only you read more objectively!

Commentaries aren’t doctrine. I’ll ask again:

1. Where are the supporting verses that state God blames every woman ever created for talking to an unclean animal in the Garden?

2. Where does Paul state women are eternally unforgiven for talking to an unclean animal?


Hey Jason! Lets discuss the FACT that God told the first lie in recorded Biblical history (Genesis 2:17). Since God lied first, then your God is the “father of all lies” while the talking serpent told the truth. A Biblical FACT!!!!

Sorry Harry, this isn’t the theme of your original post and that’s what’s on topic here.

Jason said...

Stu,

Then we agree to disagree.

Harry McCall said...

Jason, it's little wonder heretics were either banned from orthodox chruches or killed.

Your heretical views are not my problem.

Main stream issues and objections to your views are discussed in the books and by the scholars I mentioned.

My post stands as is. End of discussion here!

Jason said...

Harry,

My heretical views aren't the topic. Your 'Eternally Unforgiven' is.

These are basic questions that deal with the fundamental issue of your topic. If you can't answer or refuse to answer them, I'll have no choice but to assume your whole 'eternally unforgiven' theory is nothing more then uninformative baseless banter.

You've spent a lot of time using the Bible to support your other views, I don't see why these would be causing you problems.

1. Where does Scripture say Eve was eternally unforgiven for talking to an unclean animal?

2. Where does Scripture say it’s a sin to “talk to an unclean animal”?”

3. On what logical and intellectual grounds are you claiming Paul thinks women are eternally unforgiven when he clearly lays the blame for sin (and death) at the feet of Adam?

4. Where are the supporting verses that state God blames every woman ever created for talking to an unclean animal in the Garden?

5. Where does Paul state women are eternally unforgiven for talking to an unclean animal?

Harry McCall said...

Jason, Again, I see no use in a scholastic dialogue with you unless you reference your statements to a major academic tool or tools such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Commentary, Fortress’ Hermeneia series, The International Critical Commentary, Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, any publication by academic publisher: E.J. Brill, The Society of Biblical Literature, or any major academic journals such as Revue de Qumran, or either of Brill’s Vetus Testamentum, Novum Testamentum or any books published by Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or the University of Chicago presses.

Until then, you are asking me to educate your unwilling mind on the past 150 years of academic research. I frankly don’t have the time nor do I have to justify to you well know positions of Biblical studies for your approval.

When you finally bring an academic position to the comment section based on more than religious opinions, I’ll be glad to consider it.

Jason said...

Harry,

I find it incredibly ironic you're refusing to use the Bible to support your position and instead are now choosing to rely on "major academic tools". Consider: In your opening post on this subject, you quote from Scripture 11 times. Not bad. However, you reference "major academic tools" a grand total of zero times. How ironic indeed.

Taking into account the cold, hard fact that the Bible never says Eve's sin was for talking to an unclean animal or that Paul doesn't ever refer to this as the reason why women are eternally unforgiven, you have no choice but to distance yourself from the book you have continuously claimed to know so well. In fact, your theories are so empty, you've resorted to character attacks in an attempt to hide the fact you have no idea what you're talking about - hardly the behaviour expected from a self-proclaimed Biblical expert.

Refusing to be held accountable for the views you've put forth here, you're now slinking off to hide behind what you consider to be a more Scripturally knowledgeable group of authors and researchers then even Scripture itself, in the process proving you're no more fit to educate Christians about Biblical matters then you are to teach Sunday school.

Tell me Harry, do any of the commentaries and books you reference actually support your position that Eve's sin was for talking to an unclean animal and that all women are eternally unforgiven as a result?

Harry, you take great pride in rambling off and referencing books with fancy names, trying to convince everyone how knowledgeable you are, but all the while, you say nothing of any significance or importance. You have no answers for my questions because the response to every one of them quite clearly is "I don't know".

I'm looking forward to your next topic.

Harry McCall said...

I find it incredibly ironic you're refusing to use the Bible to support your position and instead are now choosing to rely on "major academic tools". Consider: In your opening post on this subject, you quote from Scripture 11 times. Not bad. However, you reference "major academic tools" a grand total of zero times. How ironic indeed.

Re: Can you prove from the Bible Jesus ever took a dump? Quote me chapter and verse! So it looks like no one in the Gospels EVER TOOK A DUMP!
Jason, why have you not discussed this fact as a miracle? I dare you to prove that Jesus or his apostles ever took a dump or even pissed!


Taking into account the cold, hard fact that the Bible never says Eve's sin was for talking to an unclean animal or that Paul doesn't ever refer to this as the reason why women are eternally unforgiven, you have no choice but to distance yourself from the book you have continuously claimed to know so well. In fact, your theories are so empty, you've resorted to character attacks in an attempt to hide the fact you have no idea what you're talking about - hardly the behaviour expected from a self-proclaimed Biblical expert.

Re: Lets see. I proved your God is a liar in Genesis 2. And Jason, has no discussion. Hey Jason, how does it feel knowing the God you try and defend is a liar? Again, Genesis 2 when compared to Genesis 3 is clear… God is the first liar in Biblical history.

Refusing to be held accountable for the views you've put forth here, you're now slinking off to hide behind what you consider to be a more Scripturally knowledgeable group of authors and researchers then even Scripture itself, in the process proving you're no more fit to educate Christians about Biblical matters then you are to teach Sunday school.

Re: Deal with the Witch of Endor and Saul. Deal with the book of 1 Enoch.

Tell me Harry, do any of the commentaries and books you reference actually support your position that Eve's sin was for talking to an unclean animal and that all women are eternally unforgiven as a result?

Re: “Eve's sin” Stop misquoting me. Your words, not mine. Can you find ANY SUPPORT AT ALL that Jesus or his apostles ever took a dump! WWJD = hole it … since dung is unclean, the Gospels prove that Jesus never took a dump. Again, quote me some verses, Jason.


Harry, you take great pride in rambling off and referencing books with fancy names, trying to convince everyone how knowledgeable you are, but all the while, you say nothing of any significance or importance. You have no answers for my questions because the response to every one of them quite clearly is "I don't know".

RE: Sorry Jason, it sounds like your personal library is really small. That’s not my problem. I still do not see why John had a problem with you. I find this a fun topic to make you prove that God was NOT the first liar in Biblical history. Go ahead, Jason, prove that the Bible proves Jesus took a dump. What’s wrong, Jason? Seems that your Bible verses only approach is not helping you now. TOOOO BAAAAD!

I'm looking forward to your next topic.

Re: It’s been posted for two days.

Re: Hey, don’t stop posting here. I’m really getting in to this proof from the Bible discussion. I debated J.P. Holding until he blocked my email, why should I EVER stop with you????

Jason said...

lol Sorry Harry, Jesus' bathroom breaks aren't the theme of your original post and that’s what’s on topic here.

Off you go now, hiding behind your commentaries and academic tools.

Harry McCall said...

lol Sorry Harry, Jesus' bathroom breaks aren't the theme of your original post and that’s what’s on topic here.

Re: My point exactly. You have NO BIBLICAL PROOF of your above claim. Jason, where does it EVER say Jesus ever took a dump? Since Scripture provides no verses that say Jesus ever took a dump, then by your same logic I can not prove women are eternally unforgiven!

Off you go now, hiding behind your commentaries and academic tools.
Re: Jason, I don’t need to. Let’s do this. I’ll start a new post called God vs. the talking serpent… God the first known liar in Biblical history against the talking serpent the truth teller. Since we have verses to prove this (Genesis 2:17 vs. Genesis 3: 3-4) you’ll have the basic tools you need (quoted Biblical verses) and I’ll have my proof.
What do you say Jason? A topic such as: “Bible Believers Must Face the Fact that Their God is the Father of all Lies”. Or can we continue our debate here and you will not run off?

Jason said...

Harry, as far as I can tell, I didn't post a topic claiming Jesus ever went to the bathroom. You however posted a claim that Paul thinks women are eternally unforgiven. You're obviously unable to answer basic questions to support your theory (from the book you claim to be an expert at) and are now desperately trying to save face. Sorry Harry but this was a miserable attempt at debunking Christianity.

Start whatever topic if you'd like. If your opinions are as baseless as this one was, I don't think Christianity has anything to fear.

Harry McCall said...

So, let's see now, Jason is the ONLY one than can't seem to understand the basic logic on my post. Jason has a problem. Since you are at DC to challenge any atheist, I would expect exactly this type of reasoning.

All the women can, all the men (expect for maybe poor old Zarove who can seem to make progress with anyone at DC).

Hey, Jason, check out my post on J.P. Holding and let's go with the verse that Holding tried, but failed to explain. 3rd post from the latest. Lets Go!

Jason said...

The "basic logic" of your post? Harry, you're unable to answer even the simplest of questions - where does Scripture say Eve's sin was talking to unclean animals? So yes, of course I have a problem - your theory can't be substantiated.

I've yet to see anyone else here, man or woman, support your claim about Eve's I 'shouldn't have talked to the snake' wrongdoing or, at the very least, provide the Scriptural evidence you seem incapable of finding yourself. You're flying solo on this one, friend.

Harry McCall said...

Jason, my main original post still stands.

My commits about Jesus taking a dump not being recorded in the Gospels is proof that not every thing is stated directly in verses. The more you try and defeat my ORIGINAL post about women being theologically unforgiven by Judaism and Paul, the more you have to prove Jesus did in fact breath and did a number of bodly functions not recorded in the Gospels. Fact is my point was proved by the number of pro-post commits I got.

In light of the above, your statement: "Revelation is a book of prophecies and symbols. Are you confident you know both well enough to determine that the 144,000 are actually literal celibate men...?" is an attempt by you to demand I prove my thesis that women are "Eternally Unforgiven" while, at the same time, you want to question what Revelation states as about "celibate men". If John sated "celibate men", that's what he said!

As for a Priestly use of a ritual unclean snake talking to Eve, that's not in my original post and since you are not into Hebrew Form Criticism, the point was wasted on you.

Anyway you stated that "Revelation is a book of prophecies and symbols." makes any opinion I make just as valid an interpretation as yours. So, at face value, “celibate men" means just that: Undefiled by women.

Jason said...

Harry,

The whole problem with this revelation of yours is that you had no problem using Scripture to prove your point right up until a few comments ago. If the Bible never directly states Paul thinks women are eternally unforgiven because Eve spoke to an unclean animal, then just come out and say it. Say it: "There's no Biblical evidence that Eve's sin was for speaking to an unclean animal."

See, I don't need to defeat your original post. Incredibly, you've done it yourself. You've had no support from anyone here that Eve's sin was for talking to an unclean animal and now you've just compared the lack of evidence for your eternally unforgiven claim to evidence of whether or not Jesus ever went to the bathroom. Since Christians don't consider Jesus' bathroom breaks a matter of Biblical importance, this theory of yours isn't worth a second thought.

If John sated "celibate men", that's what he said!

Did John state women are eternally unforgiven because Eve spoke to a snake?

Anyway you stated that "Revelation is a book of prophecies and symbols." makes any opinion I make just as valid an interpretation as yours. So, at face value, “celibate men" means just that: Undefiled by women.

That's great. Did John state women are eternally unforgiven because Eve spoke to a snake?

Say it Harry and we can be done with this: "The Bible never directly says women are eternally unforgiven. I have no evidence to support my position that Eve's sin was for talking to an unclean animal and I have no idea why Paul's letters don't mention it either."

Harry McCall said...

“Since Christians don't consider Jesus' bathroom breaks a matter of Biblical importance, this theory of yours isn't worth a second thought.”

If the Catholic or Orthodox churches could get either piss or dung, the faithful could use it as a divine relic to be prayed too. So your claim is just hot air!

“That's great. Did John state women are eternally unforgiven because Eve spoke to a snake?

Say it Harry and we can be done with this: "The Bible never directly says women are eternally unforgiven. I have no evidence to support my position that Eve's sin was for talking to an unclean animal and I have no idea why Paul's letters don't mention it either."

I never will, because I consider you a heretic. If you are not, then exactly what denomination are you a member of. If you can not tell me, then you as a heretic and I as an atheist can meet at my next post.

Jason said...

If the Catholic or Orthodox churches could get either piss or dung, the faithful could use it as a divine relic to be prayed too. So your claim is just hot air!

Who cares? Where does the Bible say Eve sinned for talking to an unclean animal?

I never will, because I consider you a heretic. If you are not, then exactly what denomination are you a member of. If you can not tell me, then you as a heretic and I as an atheist can meet at my next post.

Your considerations are irrelevant. You're an atheist - no Christian cares what you think of them. Do you have evidence to support your position that Eve's sin was for talking to an unclean animal? Do you know why Paul's letters fail to mention this?

Harry McCall said...

If the Catholic or Orthodox churches could get either piss or dung, the faithful could use it as a divine relic to be prayed too. So your claim is just hot air!

“Who cares? Where does the Bible say Eve sinned for talking to an unclean animal?”
Genesis 3 “Original Sin”. Face it. You flat out wrong! Heretic are easy to beat!

I never will, because I consider you a heretic. If you are not, then exactly what denomination are you a member of. If you can not tell me, then you as a heretic and I as an atheist can meet at my next post.

“Your considerations are irrelevant. You're an atheist - no Christian cares what you think of them. Do you have evidence to support your position that Eve's sin was for talking to an unclean animal? Do you know why Paul's letters fail to mention this?”

Genesis 3.
Your God is a lair, Jason. Face it! You’ve trusted the first liar in Biblical history for you salvation. And like father, like son. Jesus is a liar too in to no one has cast a Mt. into the sea with the tiniest of faith (Mtt. 17 :20)

So you must have been KICKED out of you denomination: “Your considerations are irrelevant. You're a HERETIC- no Christian cares what you think of them.”

Jason, do you have evidence to support your position that your God is not a LAIR?

I'm waiting on proof!

daniel said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgWklUj-cd4

Your interpretation is highly spurious and there are a number of holes.A literal reading of genesis 1 makes it clear that men and women were formed instantaneously and that both sexes were created in God's image.

"A. The divine order of creation."
The Paul was not speaking of the order of creation but the order of instruction.The man was the first to receive instruction from God and it was his responsibility to give it to the woman
"B. The divine hierarchy."
This divine heirachchy exists only in your head not christianity
Galatians 3:28=There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Paul was speaking of the role of women in the church not any kind of hierachy
"C. The fact that women can be mentally shallow so as to mislead men (if given a place of leadership over men) just as Eve did Adam (verse 14)."
Paul never implied that women were shallow.A look at the rest of the Pauline epistles show that there were female apostles who worked and ministered with Paul.

Jason said...

Genesis 3 “Original Sin”. Face it. You flat out wrong! Heretic are easy to beat!

Genesis 3 doesn't mention anything about Eve sinning because she spoke to an unclean animal. Genesis 3 also doesn't talk about women being eternally unforgiven either. So once again Harry, you're avoiding the question: Where does the Bible say Eve sinned for talking to an unclean animal? Either it does or it doesn't. Which is it?

Genesis 3.

Genesis 3 doesn't record that Eve's sin was for talking to an unclean animal. Do you know why Paul fails to mention this "sin" in any of his letters?

Jason, do you have evidence to support your position that your God is not a LAIR? I'm waiting on proof!

Harry, the topic is whether or not women are eternally unforgiven. So far, you've been unable to offer any shred of Scriptural evidence that all women are eternally unforgiven because Eve spoke with an unclean animal. I'm prepared to discuss whether or not God is a liar in another post where that's actually the topic of discussion.

1. Where does Scripture say Eve was eternally unforgiven for talking to an unclean animal?

2. Where does Scripture say it’s a sin to “talk to an unclean animal”?”

3. On what logical and intellectual grounds are you claiming Paul thinks women are eternally unforgiven when he clearly lays the blame for sin (and death) at the feet of Adam?

4. Where are the supporting verses that states God blames every woman ever created for talking to an unclean animal in the Garden?

5. Where does Paul state women are eternally unforgiven for talking to an unclean animal?


If you really do know Scripture as well as you claim, why can't you answer these simple questions?

Harry McCall said...

Since the key word here is “Scripture”, I have provided “Scripture”.


1. Where does Scripture say Eve was eternally unforgiven for talking to an unclean animal?

The Life of Adam and Eve 18:1.

2. Where does Scripture say it’s a sin to “talk to an unclean animal”?”

Apocalypse of Abraham 23: 5-9.

3. On what logical and intellectual grounds are you claiming Paul thinks women are eternally unforgiven when he clearly lays the blame for sin (and death) at the feet of Adam?

The life of Adam and Eve: Chapter 3; Psalms of Solomon 16:7; Testament of Reubin 6:2; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: Chapter 5 and 17:1-3; Gospel of Philip 17: 1-3. It’s ONLY in 4 Ezra 3:20, 7:118 that Adam is finally blamed.

4. Where are the supporting verses that states God blames every woman ever created for talking to an unclean animal in the Garden?

I Enoch 69:8

5. Where does Paul state women are eternally unforgiven for talking to an unclean animal?

Jason, now it’s time for you to do some study. Read the “Acts of Paul”.

daniel said...

"Blogger Harry McCall said...

Since the key word here is “Scripture”, I have provided “Scripture”."
I am sorry but when I heard scripture.I assumed it meant Christian scripture that would be considered part of the Christian Canon.So since no Christian scripture was provided from the CHRISTIAN bible to support this assertion. I now realise that the blog did not speak about Christianity at all.This applies only to the practising adherents of the scripture you quoted.

Jason said...

Harry, don’t take this the wrong way but you’re a pitifully poor excuse of a ‘Biblically educated atheist. Trying to weasel your way out of quoting from the Christian Bible, you can’t even find evidence for your theory in so-called “Scriptural” books.

1. Where does Scripture say Eve was eternally unforgiven for talking to an unclean animal?

You said: The Life of Adam and Eve 18:1.

Here's the verse: 18:1 "Then the serpent said to me, "As God lives! I am grieved on your account that you are like animals, for I would not have you ignorant. But arise, (come) hither, hearken to me and eat and perceive the value of that tree."

I don’t see anything here about Eve being eternally unforgiven for talking to a snake, do you?

2. Where does Scripture say it’s a sin to “talk to an unclean animal”?”

You said: Apocalypse of Abraham 23:5-9.

Here’s the whole chapter – “Now look again in the picture, who it is who seduced Eve and what is the fruit of the tree, [and] thou wilt know what there shall be, and how it shall be to thy seed among the people at the end of the days of the age, and so far as thou canst not understand I will make known to thee, for thou art well-pleasing in my sight, and I will tell thee what is kept in my heart.” And I looked into the picture, and mine eyes ran to the side of the Garden of Eden. And I saw there a man very great in height and fearful in breadth, incomparable in aspect, embracing a woman, who likewise approximated to the aspect and shape of the man. And they were standing under a tree of (the Garden of) Eden, and the fruit of this tree was like the appearance of a bunch of grapes of the vine,10 and behind the tree was standing as it were a serpent in form, having hands and feet like a man’s,1 and wings on its shoulders, six2 on the right side and six on the left,3 and they were holding the grapes of the tree in their hands, and both were eating it whom I had seen embracing. And I said: “Who are these mutually embracing, or who is this who is between them, or what is the fruit which they are eating, O Mighty Eternal One?” And He said: “This is the human world, this is Adam, and this is their desire upon the earth, this is Eve; but he who is between them representeth ungodliness, their beginning (on the way) to perdition, even Azazel.” And I said: “O Eternal, Mighty One! Why hast Thou given to such power to destroy the generation of men in their works upon the earth?” And He said to me: “They who will (to do) evil—and how much I hated (it) in those who do it!—over them I gave him power, and to be beloved of them.” And I answered and said: “O Eternal, Mighty One! Wherefore hast Thou willed to effect that evil should be desired in the hearts of men, since Thou indeed art angered over that which was willed by Thee, at him who is doing what is unprofitable in thy counsel?”

Harry, where exactly do you see anything about talking to an unclean animal is a sin? In this account, Abraham spoke with an "unclean bird" but he wasn't punished because of it. Why would Eve?

3. On what logical and intellectual grounds are you claiming Paul thinks women are eternally unforgiven when he clearly lays the blame for sin (and death) at the feet of Adam?

You said: The life of Adam and Eve: Chapter 3; Psalms of Solomon 16:7; Testament of Reubin 6:2; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: Chapter 5 and 17:1-3; Gospel of Philip 17: 1-3. It’s ONLY in 4 Ezra 3:20, 7:118 that Adam is finally blamed.

How many of these books did Paul write, Harry?

4. Where are the supporting verses that states God blames every woman ever created for talking to an unclean animal in the Garden?

You said: I Enoch 69:8

Here’s the verse in question: 1 Enoch 69:8 “And the fourth is called Pênêmû; he has taught the sons of men the bitter and the sweet, and taught them all the secrets of their wisdom.”

You’ll have to explain this one to me, Harry. I don’t see anything about women, blame, or unclean animals. Do you?

5. Where does Paul state women are eternally unforgiven for talking to an unclean animal?

You said: Jason, now it’s time for you to do some study. Read the “Acts of Paul”.

lol Have you read it, Harry? Thecla (a woman) prays to God to give Trifina’s (a woman) daughter, Falconilla (a woman), eternal life. Adding to this, there’s no mention of women being eternally unforgiven and no mention of an unclean animal in the Garden.

Seriously Harry, was this whole thing a joke?

Harry McCall said...

Jason,

This is a side track to my original post. My original post still stands. I do not need your approval any more than I need J.P. Holding's or Tekton Apologetic Ministry. Holding would reject your views too, so too bad!
I’ll post a new topic and see what you can do.

Again, my original post still stands and has ONLY 2 objection: You and Zarove.

The points I made on these text were from notes on the Pseudepigrapha.
I NEVER EVER considered convincing you no more than I could convince Holding.

I showed your views on Heaven to a conservative Pastor and he exclaimed: “Who is this nut!”


Daniel: Sorry, but the 66 books are a late canonization of text.
Please read James H. harlesworth's Introduction to the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. These were the inspirited text of their day.

Jason said...

Harry,

Your latest post only shows how desperate you are to avoid providing real evidence for your theory. You've quoted obscure references in an attempt to appear intelligent and in the know but then brush off the questions regarding the true relevance of these references. What exactly were you trying to prove by quoting 1 Enoch 69:8? Whereabouts in the Life of Adam and Eve 18:1 do you see anything about Eve being eternally unforgiven for talking to an unclean animal?

Do you expect people to blindly follow what you're saying because you're quoting from a book that isn't commonly referenced?

Providing these kinds of false references is a sad testimony to how knowledgeable you really are when it comes to defending your claim that women are eternally unforgiven because Eve spoke to an unclean animal. It's not in the Bible and it's not in any version of Scripture. It exists only in your head.

Harry McCall said...

Let see Jason: I stated the Bible proves God is a lair. I even quoted chapter and verse. You can not comment since it’s a know fact!

I said Jesus is also a lair. Cast any Mountains in to the sea lately, Jason? So either Jason is a lair about his faith in God / Jesus (you don’t even have the smallest faith as in a mustard seed) or Jesus just flat our lied! Which is it?

My point about Jesus “taking a dump stands”. It’s not recorded in the Bible, just as not every thing Paul said about women is recorded. Paul’s world was shaped by what came before him…these text.

My references to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha stand as scriptural influences on Paul. If you bothered to check out all my references, you’ll note the serpent is now an angel. Biblical views and theology change.

Since Paul was not present in Genesis, all opinions he had are created and based on what he read and my references to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (especially in Greek) helped created his views on women. That’s my point…women at often hated in these text.

Since you have been so busy here, John latest post cites you: “The question was raised in a somewhat different context, “Did God need to create a physical universe at all?” Jason flippantly and callously responded by quipping, “Who cares? He did.” It still surprises me at the simplistic non-answers we get from some Christians.”

I’ve noticed you have yet to make a single reply to John in the above post in 33 comments.

John W. Loftus said...

Harry, I think I'll do you a favor and close this thread. Jason won't quit and you have more valuable things to write about. If you think otherwie let me know and I'll re-open it.

Cheers.