Modern philosophies.....or just different than what one believes?

[mkgal1]

We were discussing what Biblical texts said and a bit about history/archeology. You went in a very personal direction with this last post. That wasn't the direction I was looking for in my last post.

But I do see why you wouldn't want to argue the point. There isn't really much to argue in favor of female bishops in the church, nothing in the New Testament, and arguing that 'episcopa' refers to female bishops on a tapestry rather than to the wife, widow or mother of a bishop. And there is 1950 years of tradition against it and about 20 or 30 in favor of it in your own tradition.

You are free to believe what you wish, Link---there's no [good] reason to goad. Some people are wise to know when their words are requested not for honest discussion, but more as an opportunity to defend their own beliefs (not truly listening to the other's).

 

[mkgal1]

Just some food for thought:

Bailey's background has allowed him to understand more adequately the stories of the Gospels in the light of Middle Eastern culture. For sixty years, from 1935-1995, Bailey's home was in the Middle East. Since most of us have grown up in Western culture we naturally interpret Scripture through "Western" eyes. But let's suppose you had been brought up and educated in the Middle East. You would naturally see and understand things in Scripture that those of us in the West do not see and understand.

Jesus and Women (In Which Mary goes to Seminary):

Fourth, in Luke 10: 38 Jesus enters the house of Martha. Luke says, “And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching” (v. 39). In Acts Paul describes himself as having been “brought up . . . at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts 22: 3). To “sit at the feet” of a rabbi meant that one was a disciple of a rabbi. Mary thus became a disciple of Rabbi Jesus. Martha, we are told, is “distracted” (not burdened) with much serving. To be distracted one must be distracted from something by something.
Clearly Martha is distracted from the teachings of Jesus by her cooking. In the account, Martha then asks Jesus to send Mary to the kitchen to help her. The point is not Martha’s need for someone to peel the potatoes. In our Middle Eastern cultural context, Martha is more naturally understood to be upset over the fact that her “little sister” is seated with the men and has become a disciple of Rabbi Jesus. It is not difficult to imagine what is going through Martha’s mind. In all likelihood she is thinking: This is disgraceful! What will happen to us! My sister has joined this band of men. What will the neighbors say? What will the family think? After this who will marry her? This is too much to expect!
Jesus does not reply to her words but to their meaning. In context his answer communicates the following:
Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things. I understand the entire list. One thing is needed. What is missing is not one more plate of food but rather for you to understand that I am providing the meal and that your sister has already chosen the good portion. I will not allow you to take it from her. A good student is more important to me than a good meal.
The word portion can mean a portion of food at a meal.[ 7] Jesus is defending Mary’s right to become his disciple and continue her “theological studies.” The traditional cultural separation between men and women no longer applies.

Bailey, Kenneth E. (2009-09-20). Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (pp. 193-194). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[LinkH]

The word portion can mean a portion of food at a meal.[ 7] Jesus is defending Mary’s right to become his disciple and continue her “theological studies.” The traditional cultural separation between men and women no longer applies.

I don't know any Christians who believe in a male bishopric who believe in this based solely or primarily on pre-Christian cultural traditions.

Apostolic teaching still applies. Christ also chose men to be in the 12. He valued women and made use of their ministry as well. Paul twice instructed his coworkers that the bishop be a man.

 

[mkgal1]

I don't know any Christians who believe in a male bishopric who believe in this based solely or primarily on pre-Christian cultural traditions.

Maybe that's good evidence that you could benefit from broadening your circle of influence?

Apostolic teaching still applies. Christ also chose men to be in the 12. He valued women and made use of their ministry as well. Paul twice instructed his coworkers that the bishop be a man.

I'm going to look for a writing about that as well (why Paul instructed his coworkers that the bishop be a man). As I recall, it had much to do with the "audience" he was speaking to and the heavy influence of Artemis and Cybele surrounding them (also--as I can imagine---there was already enough controversy surrounding Jesus' followers....bucking the culture of the time would only add unnecessarily to that).

 

[LinkH]

I'm going to look for a writing about that as well (why Paul instructed his coworkers that the bishop be a man). As I recall, it had much to do with the "audience" he was speaking to and the heavy influence of Artemis and Cybele surrounding them (also--as I can imagine---there was already enough controversy surrounding Christ's followers....bucking the culture of the time would only add unnecessarily to that).

I've read the Artemis line of reasoning before. It's rather weak, especially considering that Paul appeals to the creation of man and woman in his letter to Timothy.

And why would Crete have the exact same problem?

We also need to keep in mind that, in city after city, Paul nearly always ministered to a core of Jews, proselytes and Gentile God-fearers who were familiar with Old Testament scripture and who did not believe in idolatry. In some cities, like Corinth, believers had come in from pagan backgrounds as well. Paul addresses and warns against idolatry in his letter to the Corinthians. Why wasn't he sounding the alarm as strongly in his letter to Timothy if pagan influence was his main concern? Why isn't it alluded to in the epistle?

One of the problems with the way the cultural and historical approach is used... honestly by liberals with a social agenda.. is that they often take some bit of historical or archeological information and try to filter the Bible through that lens, no matter what the text says. The academic also wants to make the text to be all about his or her theory to make his or her theory important, which usually isn't going to hurt many people, unless we are talking about the Bible (though medicine, psychology, math, and education can be harmed by this as well.) I read an article by some guy who wanted to make the Horites out to be worshippers of the pagan Egyptian false god Horus. He had made Job and Abraham out to be pagan followers of his Horish religious theory.

It bothers me how quickly people with an agenda will hold on to any scrap of evidence. It's a different topic, but a similar practice. My Hebrew Bible professor in college commented on the fact that Ancient Near Eastern scholar would take some little scrap of an Egyptian papyrus and give it so much credence, but discount the Bible, even though the Bible is so detailed, has so much information, and is really unique in it's 'court records' in that it tells so much about David's sin in a candid way unlike other ancient literature.

In this case, we have what the Bible actually says, and Paul's arguments leading up to it (e.g. Paul's arguments about Adam and Eve in the end of I Timothy 2 prior to his instruction that a bishop be a man in the opening of chapter 3.) But some scholar writes something about an Artemis female priesthood in a city and then the passages about men in the bishop role are interpreted through that person's theory. It's not reasonable.

 

[Paidiske]

I think, though, that we also need to acknowledge that there isn't a neat line between the overseers of the NT and the bishops of today. The understanding of ministry, of orders and ordination, and of the organisation and functioning of Christian communities have all undergone radical change (several times) since then. Even if you think that Paul describing the qualifications of a male overseer means that overseers are limited to being male, that doesn't necessarily mean that a bishop in the contemporary church is functionally the same thing as a NT-era overseer.

 

[mkgal1]

One of the problems with the way the cultural and historical approach is used... honestly by liberals with a social agenda.. is that they often take some bit of historical or archeological information and try to filter the Bible through that lens, no matter what the text says. The academic also wants to make the text to be all about his or her theory to make his or her theory important, which usually isn't going to hurt many people, unless we are talking about the Bible (though medicine, psychology, math, and education can be harmed by this as well.) I read an article by some guy who wanted to make the Horites out to be worshippers of the pagan Egyptian false god Horus. He had made Job and Abraham out to be pagan followers of his Horish religious theory.

It bothers me how quickly people with an agenda will hold on to any scrap of evidence. It's a different topic, but a similar practice. My Hebrew Bible professor in college commented on the fact that Ancient Near Eastern scholar would take some little scrap of an Egyptian papyrus and give it so much credence, but discount the Bible, even though the Bible is so detailed, has so much information, and is really unique in it's 'court records' in that it tells so much about David's sin in a candid way unlike other ancient literature.

In this case, we have what the Bible actually says, and Paul's arguments leading up to it (e.g. Paul's arguments about Adam and Eve in the end of I Timothy 2 prior to his instruction that a bishop be a man in the opening of chapter 3.) But some scholar writes something about an Artemis female priesthood in a city and then the passages about men in the bishop role are interpreted through that person's theory. It's not reasonable.

Link, why do you have to resort to comments like this? Is there any reason you couldn't refrain from doing that?

It's about *context*---not "agenda". It's not "filtering the Bible through the lens of a social agenda---no matter what the text says"---it's putting the text into its proper context. That's not ignoring text.

I'm sure you know I'm not a scholar or a historian.....but it's important for me to understand the backdrops of the text of the Bible. We also can't just go by "what the Bible actually says", because we make wrong assumptions that way as well.

For instance: since I'd not been to Israel and the surrounding lands....whenever I read Psalm 23 (The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside still waters.....) it was just a nice little poem about lambs and rolling green pastures and a nice still pond (and I often related it to death/funerals, because that was my typical experience with that passage). Then I heard more about this---about how the context of this is in the desert wilderness and there are few [safe] sources of water. The "green pastures" aren't *my* idea of green pastures.

Actually---I found a short video of what I'm referring to....it changed my whole perception of that verse (and makes it so much more meaningful---IMO---knowing what that David was referring to when he described a shepherd's leading):

And the "lead me to still waters"? There are wadis that the sheep are drawn to, but that can be deadly (without much warning). From what I've read--more people in the desert die from *floods* than they do from dehydration. When it rains in the hills, water rushes through the wadis, creating flash floods that can’t be seen or heard until it’s too late to escape. The shepherds lead to still and safe water.

Context matters a great deal! That's where I was going with all that.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

All of the bible is "filtered through a lens" - ours, and those of the particular editors of whatever version we happen to be reading. There is an agenda behind every single word. I rather enjoy the ESV. It makes for easy reading for me, and I appreciate some of the attempts on the part of the editorial staff to avoid gender neutral bent that is present in other versions. That's my particular bias. There are versions I just can't connect with, but are best sellers and are in about every church pew these days. Are they any more or less the word of God? But (more important) when we speak of 'culture', we have to recognize that culture is not something "out there". Our particular church culture shapes and molds our understanding of our faith, our cultural norms as Christians, and what we perceive to be 'right' as far as gender roles in the home. Piper and Grudem made it clear that culture was very significant in their worldview, else why start a theological treatise with anecdotal stories of how things were growing up at home? It's all based on a cultural mindset that's been presented to them, and to all of us, that we accept and take on as true. The mindset can be so pervasive that we refuse even a discussion about the 'other side' without resorting to a discussion on feminism, LGBTQ topics, gay marriage, and others that have no bearing on the OP.

*As an aside, this site has a 'Formal Debate' forum. Link, I am inviting you to have a debate regarding the Complementarian/Egalitarian discussion. The guidelines are here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/formal-debate-proposals-guidelines.7799195/

Let me know.

 

[mkgal1]

All of the bible is "filtered through a lens" - ours

True---that's a good point. Like Nietzsche said, "there's no immaculate perception".

 

[mkgal1]

In this case, we have what the Bible actually says, and Paul's arguments leading up to it (e.g. Paul's arguments about Adam and Eve in the end of I Timothy 2 prior to his instruction that a bishop be a man in the opening of chapter 3.) But some scholar writes something about an Artemis female priesthood in a city and then the passages about men in the bishop role are interpreted through that person's theory. It's not reasonable

But there's a context to Paul's letter to Timothy---and that's also "what the Bible actually says". 1st Timothy 1 says, :

I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine, 4 and not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine training that is known by faith

So....the reasonable question is: what is Paul referring to with "certain people" and what "different doctrine" is being taught? Also....what's meant by "myths and genealogies that promote speculations"? That's all important to know in order to put that all into proper context. The whole letter should be framed by this introduction.

Many scholars claim Artemis and Cybele to be the main goddesses that were worshiped in this area:

During the formative years of the Roman Republic, especially after its territorial acquisitions following the Four Macedonian Wars, contact with the Greek culture -- especially their religion -- left a lasting imprint on the Roman way of life. Along with other aspects of the Hellenic civilization, the Romans adopted the pantheon of Greek gods, although they changed many of their names. However, besides this array of deities, they also acquired several of their cults, and cults were not always welcomed by those in authority, a concept that would carry through into the Empire. While Bacchus (Dionysus to the Greeks) was the most notable of these cults and to those in authority, and considered the most threatening to social order, this contact also brought a less menacing sect: the Cult of Cybele.

~http://www.ancient.eu/Cybele/

That could be an answer to your question (because it seems that Greece was the origin of this cult):

And why would Crete have the exact same problem?

 

[mkgal1]

Paul nearly always ministered to a core of Jews, proselytes and Gentile God-fearers who were familiar with Old Testament scripture and who did not believe in idolatry

I wanted to comment on this as well (the part about "who did not believe in idolatry"). "Idolatry"---as I see it---wasn't an outlying belief system (for instance, to put into today's western culture....to say "they didn't believe in L. Ron Hubbard's belief system"...as a comparison to what you're suggesting. It wasn't like that, I don't believe).

Idolatry--from what I'm understanding---was prevalent in most aspects everyday life. That's why the Israelites resorted so easily to worshiping the golden calf. Old habits die hard. They were entrenched in this.

 

[LinkH]

I wanted to comment on this as well (the part about "who did not believe in idolatry"). "Idolatry"---as I see it---wasn't an outlying belief system (for instance, to put into today's western culture....to say "they didn't believe in L. Ron Hubbard's belief system"...as a comparison to what you're suggesting. It wasn't like that, I don't believe).

Idolatry--from what I'm understanding---was prevalent in most aspects everyday life. That's why the Israelites resorted so easily to worshiping the golden calf. Old habits die hard. They were entrenched in this.

Before the exile, Israel was entrenched in idolatry. After the exile, the Judean returnees were probably much less likely to be idolatrous. That doesn't mean it never happened, of course. Gentile converts to Christianity may have been more difficult in this regard. In later time periods nations weren't discipled as thoroughly as they should have been. Some people treat statues of Mary like an idol, and there are places in the world where there is synchretism between previous pagan religions and Christian beliefs. And that doesn't even account for subtler things, like the greedy treating gold as an idol without making an image.

 

[LinkH]

Piper and Grudem made it clear that culture was very significant in their worldview, else why start a theological treatise with anecdotal stories of how things were growing up at home?

Preachers often choose analogies and stories they think their audiences will relate to.

*As an aside, this site has a 'Formal Debate' forum. Link, I am inviting you to have a debate regarding the Complementarian/Egalitarian discussion. The guidelines are here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/formal-debate-proposals-guidelines.7799195/

Let me know.

I'll consider it. Does anyone else typically read these debates? I don't want to spend a whole week online. What time frame between posts are you considering? What would the question be? It's one thing to be able to make a post here and there as I like, but I'm trying to avoid a time sink.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I'll consider it. Does anyone else typically read these debates? I don't want to spend a whole week online. What time frame between posts are you considering? What would the question be? It's one thing to be able to make a post here and there as I like, but I'm trying to avoid a time sink.

Typically the admins will set up a 'peanut gallery' for discussion. There is also leeway for how the debate can be structured, time limits for responses (i.e. 2-3 days, 1 week, etc.), as well as how many posts/responses until the debate is considered 'finished'. The guidelines link covers most of it. I started a thread here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/egalitarian-vs-complementarian-views-on-marriage.7945345/

So you can see if it's your cup of tea. If not, maybe someone else will agree to it.

 

[mkgal1]

Before the exile, Israel was entrenched in idolatry. After the exile, the Judean returnees were probably much less likely to be idolatrous.

It didn't stop there (at the exile). Paul wouldn't have to be writing to Timothy about "false teaching and myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations" if the influence of false gods and goddesses had ceased to influence the Christians. Paul also wrote (in 1 Timothy 4:1): "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons". The cult of Cybele lasted until the fourth century (http://www.ancient.eu/Cybele/).

If anyone is interested, this short book sheds light on what's most likely the context of 1 Timothy and what "false teaching" Paul is warning Timothy about: Apostles-Warning-Restoring Paul's Original Message in his First Letter to Timothy
and:

https://apostleswarning.wordpress.c...the-language-and-context-of-1-timothy-212-15/

 

[mkgal1]

I was watching a video this morning that the speaker (Richard Rohr) actually mentioned something along the lines of the title of this thread. There's a LOT in this video (for anyone interested in watching)....but mainly what I'm bringing up is what he said around the 4:18 mark--about how the Franciscans have always held to an alternative view of atonement.He also brings up how theology hasn't quite remained the same over the years......it develops, unfolds, and you can go to a different century or culture and things are said a little differently. Because Rohr's views aren't in line with a lot of other's......many would claim he's a heretic. But....as he said in the video....his beliefs are in line with the Franciscans from 800 years ago (and based on a desire to remain true to Scripture).

Here's the video:

 

[LinkH]

It didn't stop there (at the exile). Paul wouldn't have to be writing to Timothy about "false teaching and myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations" if the influence of false gods and goddesses had ceased to influence the Christians. Paul also wrote (in 1 Timothy 4:1): "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons". The cult of Cybele lasted until the fourth century (http://www.ancient.eu/Cybele/).

And of course there were hundreds of different types of idols with their own mythologies the Greeks worshiped and Jews even had fables that weren't true. And archeologist and philologists happen to have a bit more about one cult or another that the pagans followed in the first century. The idea that whatever cult a particular author wrote his or her dissertation on is THE issue Paul wrote about in I Timothy--even though he is clear that he bases his argument on Genesis--seems rather unlikely. Of course the scholar wants the text of scripture to be about that particular pagan cult. And if your only tool is a hammer, you see stuff to hit with the hammer. The Cybele cult specialist may see evidence for the Cybele cult all over the place.

I read one academic theory on a website that Job's family were worshipers of Horus because of a reference to Horites in the book (never mind that there are so many ethnic designations, and it's a stretch to make such a connection across languages.) He explained Abraham and Sarah's marriage and relationships through the lens of the Horus priestly system and Egyptian marriage customs. But it didn't really fit what we knew of Abraham in the Bible, and it made Abraham and Job out to be worshipers of a false detestable god of the Egyptians, the type of false religion that the true God shamed with the plagues. But that Horus stuff was this guys pet religious theory.

Then you get Hindus who claim that Jesus went to India and learned to do miracles there, because, from their world view, that's where miracles come from. Of course, this is ridiculous, because Jesus did miracles by the power of God, not some evil demon, and Hindu paganism is antithetical to Judaism and the Torah.

 

[Hoghead1]

And of course there were hundreds of different types of idols with their own mythologies the Greeks worshiped and Jews even had fables that weren't true. And archeologist and philologists happen to have a bit more about one cult or another that the pagans followed in the first century. The idea that whatever cult a particular author wrote his or her dissertation on is THE issue Paul wrote about in I Timothy--even though he is clear that he bases his argument on Genesis--seems rather unlikely. Of course the scholar wants the text of scripture to be about that particular pagan cult. And if your only tool is a hammer, you see stuff to hit with the hammer. The Cybele cult specialist may see evidence for the Cybele cult all over the place.

I read one academic theory on a website that Job's family were worshipers of Horus because of a reference to Horites in the book (never mind that there are so many ethnic designations, and it's a stretch to make such a connection across languages.) He explained Abraham and Sarah's marriage and relationships through the lens of the Horus priestly system and Egyptian marriage customs. But it didn't really fit what we knew of Abraham in the Bible, and it made Abraham and Job out to be worshipers of a false detestable god of the Egyptians, the type of false religion that the true God shamed with the plagues. But that Horus stuff was this guys pet religious theory.

Then you get Hindus who claim that Jesus went to India and learned to do miracles there, because, from their world view, that's where miracles come from. Of course, this is ridiculous, because Jesus did miracles by the power of God, not some evil demon, and Hindu paganism is antithetical to Judaism and the Torah.

Where on earth did y u get the idea that the scholar wants Scripture to be about a pagan cult? I'm a scholar and I don't.

 

[LinkH]

Where on earth did y u get the idea that the scholar wants Scripture to be about a pagan cult? I'm a scholar and I don't.

I am not talking about all scholars. In some cases, a scholar wants a text of scripture to be about his or her topic of interest. I do not mean it is a conscious thing either. People with doctorates can be very excited about their theories. In my field, my research probably isn't going to mess up someone else's interpretation of the Bible. If I made a big mistake in my research, at the most I could probably only mess up other scholars in my field and maybe have some small smidgen of an effect on some aspect of business. But even that is probably an unrealistic level of influence.

And, of course, a lot of good has come out of research, too, including Biblical and cultural research.

 

[mkgal1]

The idea that whatever cult a particular author wrote his or her dissertation on is THE issue Paul wrote about in I Timothy--even though he is clear that he bases his argument on Genesis

That's pretty far out there, Link. Especially since it's not one solo scholar that writes about the history of Cybele, Artemis, and the Essenes.

Here're a couple of other sources, if you're still believing this is about a scholar using their dissertation as the basis of history:

It is widely held that cult prostitution in connection with fertility rites was commonly practiced throughout the NT world. This idea seems so clearly established in the minds of many people as to need little proof. The current of NT scholarly opinion seems to flow inexorably in this direction, which lends the idea of Greco-Roman cult prostitution weighty authority. For instance, Everett Ferguson, whose scholarly work deserves high regard, writes:

All kinds of immoralities were associated with the [Greco-Roman] gods. Not only was prostitution a recognized institution, but through the influence of the fertility cults of Asia Minor, Syria, and Phoenicia it became a part of the religious rites at certain temples. Thus there were one thousand "sacred prostitutes" at the temple of Aphrodite at Corinth.[1]

Understanding the Ephesian Culture
The Ephesians were well known across the Greco-Roman world for their enthusiastic devotion to the goddess Artemis, and for their magnificent temple dedicated to her. The temple was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. It “was the largest building in the Greek world, about four times larger than the Athenian Parthenon.” (Baugh 2005:19) Made of solid marble, the dimensions of this monumental building were 115 metres by 55 metres.

As well as being a place where religious rituals were performed, the temple served as one of the largest banks of the ancient world. Furthermore, it was “internationally recognized as the place of refuge” for those seeking protection and asylum. (Murphy-O’Connor 2008:44) The temple was “filled with great works of art” (Rogers 2012:7), and it attracted many thousands of visitors each year, bringing wealth into the city.

Paul visited Ephesus several times. In around 57–58 AD, he stayed there for over two years as part of his third missionary journey. (See Acts chapter 19.)[12] Paul’s effectiveness and success in spreading the gospel in Ephesus meant that some people were turning away from the cult of Artemis and converting to Christianity. Some Ephesians were also turning away from magic: “A number who practiced magic collected their books and burned them publicly; when the value of these books was calculated, it was found to come to fifty thousand silver coins (Acts 19:19).

This defection from the Artemis threatened the businesses of the people who made shrines and statues of Artemis.
~http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/1-timothy-212-in-context-2/

We were discussing 1st Timothy....correct? Remember the opening of Paul's letter ("As I urged you when I was leaving for Macedonia, stay on in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to spread false teachings")?

Paul was concerned because people[1] within the Ephesian church were teaching false doctrines, and so he wrote to Timothy—who was ministering in the Ephesus at that time—and advised him about how to handle the false teachers and their false teachings. It is possible that these false teachings involved myths about the goddess Artemis. Paul may have been referring to these myths when he told Timothy to “shun the profane and old-womanish myths” (1 Tim. 4:7).[2] It could be that the pure and sincere faith which Paul had brought to Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:5) was being tarnished and corrupted by the merging of Artemis mythology with the gospel.

Wherever the gospel has gone, many new believers have found it difficult to quickly and completely let go of long-held beliefs and superstitions. These difficulties were due to the fact that religious practices were usually closely tied and interwoven with the local culture and customs of community life.~http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/1-timothy-212-in-context-3/

Explain how it's "clear" that Paul was writing about Genesis (am I understanding you correctly? Who bases their argument on Genesis?).