“Wives submit to your husbands”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

Okay, that’s interesting. But get to the bottom line: Do you reject the authority of the epistles (whether authored by Paul or someone claiming to be Paul)?

You’re well within your rights to do so, but that also puts you outside of every mainline institutional Christian church (and the vast majority of non-denominational churches).

So now what? Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

I'm stating that Christians who don't look at the Bible in context of when it was written (and by whom despite how "inspired" it is by God) are missing the forest for the trees.

Saying that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so is circular logic. Any man can claim that what he says is inspired by God and then stick it in the Bible. That's how cults are made.

I don't disregard everything in the Bible. I just read it with a grain of salt, knowing that it was written in a time when slave owning was legal, and women were considered second class citizens, neither of which we approve of today (though I'm sure some people would love to go back to that).

Or, are you saying that owning slaves is fine? Because the Bible states for "Slaves to obey your masters".

Any faith is going to be circular. That is precisely what makes it a faith! If you outright reject it as a faith or are only viewing it as persuasive philosophy, ok, great.

But then the whole thing collapses on itself. Including whatever parts you like. Poverty in the time of Jesus meant something completely different than it does today. I suppose that one could thus read the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes “with a grain of salt” and dismiss those, right?

I do not read the Bible as saying chattel slavery is fine.

So you pick and choose

Not at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

Okay, that’s interesting. But get to the bottom line: Do you reject the authority of the epistles (whether authored by Paul or someone claiming to be Paul)?

You’re well within your rights to do so, but that also puts you outside of every mainline institutional Christian church (and the vast majority of non-denominational churches).

So now what? Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

Even if you believe that, it was divinely written, you have to understand that it was not divinely translated. Also, it is not divinely taught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

Okay, that’s interesting. But get to the bottom line: Do you reject the authority of the epistles (whether authored by Paul or someone claiming to be Paul)?

You’re well within your rights to do so, but that also puts you outside of every mainline institutional Christian church (and the vast majority of non-denominational churches).

So now what? Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

What do you mean it’s “interesting?” It’s not trivia, it’s a piece of context that puts the entire authority of these texts into question. And it puts whether you should take them literally into question at the very least.

The biblical texts are documents that were chosen in a very specific time and place by a very specific group of people with their own agendas. They didn’t fall out of the sky. Christianity does not require turning off your brain in such a profound way that you ignore context completely. No church determines my relationship with Christ- my own mind and soul do.

Not even sure why you suggest telling the bride and groom anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. Here is the whole verse:

Ephesians 5:22-33 NKJV. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

Fundamentalists take everything literally. Most of us, however, are more balanced with common sense.

ok - reword that in a way that is not horrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

Okay, that’s interesting. But get to the bottom line: Do you reject the authority of the epistles (whether authored by Paul or someone claiming to be Paul)?

You’re well within your rights to do so, but that also puts you outside of every mainline institutional Christian church (and the vast majority of non-denominational churches).

So now what? Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

Even if you believe that, it was divinely written, you have to understand that it was not divinely translated. Also, it is not divinely taught.

“Divinely inspired” is the technical term you’re looking for.

But get to the bottom line: what is your next step?Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

Okay, that’s interesting. But get to the bottom line: Do you reject the authority of the epistles (whether authored by Paul or someone claiming to be Paul)?

You’re well within your rights to do so, but that also puts you outside of every mainline institutional Christian church (and the vast majority of non-denominational churches).

So now what? Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

What do you mean it’s “interesting?” It’s not trivia, it’s a piece of context that puts the entire authority of these texts into question. And it puts whether you should take them literally into question at the very least.

The biblical texts are documents that were chosen in a very specific time and place by a very specific group of people with their own agendas. They didn’t fall out of the sky. Christianity does not require turning off your brain in such a profound way that you ignore context completely. No church determines my relationship with Christ- my own mind and soul do.

Not even sure why you suggest telling the bride and groom anything.

As to your last sentence, this whole thread is about a Bible verse read at a wedding.

To your broader point, that the epistles were determined to be authoritative by a specific group of men in a specific group of time, you are correct. But that’s also true of the Gospels.

If the contextual process for selection into the New Testament undermines the authority of the epistles (a perfectly logical position to take), it does the same for the Gospels and you kind of have a bigger problem to deal with then what Paul may or may not have actually authored and the substance of what the epistles say.

If only your own mind and soul determines your relationship with Christ (perfectly fine position to take) perhaps you can stop telling everyone else what their relationship with Christ and the New Testament scriptures should be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

I'm stating that Christians who don't look at the Bible in context of when it was written (and by whom despite how "inspired" it is by God) are missing the forest for the trees.

Saying that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so is circular logic. Any man can claim that what he says is inspired by God and then stick it in the Bible. That's how cults are made.

I don't disregard everything in the Bible. I just read it with a grain of salt, knowing that it was written in a time when slave owning was legal, and women were considered second class citizens, neither of which we approve of today (though I'm sure some people would love to go back to that).

Or, are you saying that owning slaves is fine? Because the Bible states for "Slaves to obey your masters".

Any faith is going to be circular. That is precisely what makes it a faith! If you outright reject it as a faith or are only viewing it as persuasive philosophy, ok, great.

But then the whole thing collapses on itself. Including whatever parts you like. Poverty in the time of Jesus meant something completely different than it does today. I suppose that one could thus read the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes “with a grain of salt” and dismiss those, right?

I do not read the Bible as saying chattel slavery is fine.

There are two truths in the Bible that we are to follow: "Love God with all your heart, your mind, your soul", and "Love your neighbor". That's all encompassing, IMO. The epistles were letters instructing members of the early church on how to conduct themselves based on Jesus' teachings and within their culture of that time.

The Beatitudes support those two truths above and are blessings for those who suffer for their faith.

I'm not saying none of this applies to us today, but they should be read with the lens of the time.

The passage "slaves obey your master" as written is tacit support of slavery. So, are you saying that slavery is ok? Is non chattel slavery fine, then?

No, slavery is not fine, and no actual Christian would say that it is, but back then, it was acceptable.

Times and culture change, though Jesus' message does not. But, His message had nothing to do with wives obeying their husbands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

Okay, that’s interesting. But get to the bottom line: Do you reject the authority of the epistles (whether authored by Paul or someone claiming to be Paul)?

You’re well within your rights to do so, but that also puts you outside of every mainline institutional Christian church (and the vast majority of non-denominational churches).

So now what? Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

What do you mean it’s “interesting?” It’s not trivia, it’s a piece of context that puts the entire authority of these texts into question. And it puts whether you should take them literally into question at the very least.

The biblical texts are documents that were chosen in a very specific time and place by a very specific group of people with their own agendas. They didn’t fall out of the sky. Christianity does not require turning off your brain in such a profound way that you ignore context completely. No church determines my relationship with Christ- my own mind and soul do.

Not even sure why you suggest telling the bride and groom anything.

As to your last sentence, this whole thread is about a Bible verse read at a wedding.

To your broader point, that the epistles were determined to be authoritative by a specific group of men in a specific group of time, you are correct. But that’s also true of the Gospels.

If the contextual process for selection into the New Testament undermines the authority of the epistles (a perfectly logical position to take), it does the same for the Gospels and you kind of have a bigger problem to deal with then what Paul may or may not have actually authored and the substance of what the epistles say.

If only your own mind and soul determines your relationship with Christ (perfectly fine position to take) perhaps you can stop telling everyone else what their relationship with Christ and the New Testament scriptures should be?

OP made no suggestion of saying anything to the bride and groom. I never suggested telling everyone else what their beliefs should be.

This is an anonymous forum. Not every reply to you is by the same person. I am not the person who has been going to church for 40 years and that person isn’t telling everyone else to believe either. She made it very clear she was just expressing an opinion. You are the only one approaching the line of telling everyone else what to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

Okay, that’s interesting. But get to the bottom line: Do you reject the authority of the epistles (whether authored by Paul or someone claiming to be Paul)?

You’re well within your rights to do so, but that also puts you outside of every mainline institutional Christian church (and the vast majority of non-denominational churches).

So now what? Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

What do you mean it’s “interesting?” It’s not trivia, it’s a piece of context that puts the entire authority of these texts into question. And it puts whether you should take them literally into question at the very least.

The biblical texts are documents that were chosen in a very specific time and place by a very specific group of people with their own agendas. They didn’t fall out of the sky. Christianity does not require turning off your brain in such a profound way that you ignore context completely. No church determines my relationship with Christ- my own mind and soul do.

Not even sure why you suggest telling the bride and groom anything.

As to your last sentence, this whole thread is about a Bible verse read at a wedding.

To your broader point, that the epistles were determined to be authoritative by a specific group of men in a specific group of time, you are correct. But that’s also true of the Gospels.

If the contextual process for selection into the New Testament undermines the authority of the epistles (a perfectly logical position to take), it does the same for the Gospels and you kind of have a bigger problem to deal with then what Paul may or may not have actually authored and the substance of what the epistles say.

If only your own mind and soul determines your relationship with Christ (perfectly fine position to take) perhaps you can stop telling everyone else what their relationship with Christ and the New Testament scriptures should be?

dp.. the entire Bible was put together by a bunch of men who decided which books they wanted to be in the Bible and which they didn't. They were "inspired" by God to do so, but that doesn't make them infallible.

BTW, the Gospels don't talk about wives submitting to their husbands. They mostly talk about what happened with Jesus and what He said.

It was Paul, a zealot, who wrote that in the letters.

[Anonymous]

The reality is that early Christians were proportionately high numbers of women and slaves. This is because Christianity insisted that all people are equal in the eyes of god, all persons are created in gods image and proclaimed that “the weak shall inherit the earth”. It also placed demands on both men and women regarding their responsibilities to one another and their children.

Of course such historical truths are not front of mind for modern women who mistakenly believe that men inherently believe in equality of the sexes. Modern people have little use for Christianity today and fail to see that it is the foundation for their unwavering dedication to moral values such as equality, progress, and freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

I'm stating that Christians who don't look at the Bible in context of when it was written (and by whom despite how "inspired" it is by God) are missing the forest for the trees.

Saying that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so is circular logic. Any man can claim that what he says is inspired by God and then stick it in the Bible. That's how cults are made.

I don't disregard everything in the Bible. I just read it with a grain of salt, knowing that it was written in a time when slave owning was legal, and women were considered second class citizens, neither of which we approve of today (though I'm sure some people would love to go back to that).

Or, are you saying that owning slaves is fine? Because the Bible states for "Slaves to obey your masters".

Any faith is going to be circular. That is precisely what makes it a faith! If you outright reject it as a faith or are only viewing it as persuasive philosophy, ok, great.

But then the whole thing collapses on itself. Including whatever parts you like. Poverty in the time of Jesus meant something completely different than it does today. I suppose that one could thus read the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes “with a grain of salt” and dismiss those, right?

I do not read the Bible as saying chattel slavery is fine.

I have faith in God, not in men. The Bible was written by men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that early Christians were proportionately high numbers of women and slaves. This is because Christianity insisted that all people are equal in the eyes of god, all persons are created in gods image and proclaimed that “the weak shall inherit the earth”. It also placed demands on both men and women regarding their responsibilities to one another and their children.

Of course such historical truths are not front of mind for modern women who mistakenly believe that men inherently believe in equality of the sexes. Modern people have little use for Christianity today and fail to see that it is the foundation for their unwavering dedication to moral values such as equality, progress, and freedom.

That's because men have twisted Christianity to suit their needs.

Jesus was the OG SJW and believed in equality - agree with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

Okay, that’s interesting. But get to the bottom line: Do you reject the authority of the epistles (whether authored by Paul or someone claiming to be Paul)?

You’re well within your rights to do so, but that also puts you outside of every mainline institutional Christian church (and the vast majority of non-denominational churches).

So now what? Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

What do you mean it’s “interesting?” It’s not trivia, it’s a piece of context that puts the entire authority of these texts into question. And it puts whether you should take them literally into question at the very least.

The biblical texts are documents that were chosen in a very specific time and place by a very specific group of people with their own agendas. They didn’t fall out of the sky. Christianity does not require turning off your brain in such a profound way that you ignore context completely. No church determines my relationship with Christ- my own mind and soul do.

Not even sure why you suggest telling the bride and groom anything.

As to your last sentence, this whole thread is about a Bible verse read at a wedding.

To your broader point, that the epistles were determined to be authoritative by a specific group of men in a specific group of time, you are correct. But that’s also true of the Gospels.

If the contextual process for selection into the New Testament undermines the authority of the epistles (a perfectly logical position to take), it does the same for the Gospels and you kind of have a bigger problem to deal with then what Paul may or may not have actually authored and the substance of what the epistles say.

If only your own mind and soul determines your relationship with Christ (perfectly fine position to take) perhaps you can stop telling everyone else what their relationship with Christ and the New Testament scriptures should be?

dp.. the entire Bible was put together by a bunch of men who decided which books they wanted to be in the Bible and which they didn't. They were "inspired" by God to do so, but that doesn't make them infallible.

BTW, the Gospels don't talk about wives submitting to their husbands. They mostly talk about what happened with Jesus and what He said.

It was Paul, a zealot, who wrote that in the letters.

Paul probably didn’t even write those letters. He has a totally different attitude in the ones we are sure he wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

I'm stating that Christians who don't look at the Bible in context of when it was written (and by whom despite how "inspired" it is by God) are missing the forest for the trees.

Saying that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so is circular logic. Any man can claim that what he says is inspired by God and then stick it in the Bible. That's how cults are made.

I don't disregard everything in the Bible. I just read it with a grain of salt, knowing that it was written in a time when slave owning was legal, and women were considered second class citizens, neither of which we approve of today (though I'm sure some people would love to go back to that).

Or, are you saying that owning slaves is fine? Because the Bible states for "Slaves to obey your masters".

Any faith is going to be circular. That is precisely what makes it a faith! If you outright reject it as a faith or are only viewing it as persuasive philosophy, ok, great.

But then the whole thing collapses on itself. Including whatever parts you like. Poverty in the time of Jesus meant something completely different than it does today. I suppose that one could thus read the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes “with a grain of salt” and dismiss those, right?

I do not read the Bible as saying chattel slavery is fine.

There are two truths in the Bible that we are to follow: "Love God with all your heart, your mind, your soul", and "Love your neighbor". That's all encompassing, IMO. The epistles were letters instructing members of the early church on how to conduct themselves based on Jesus' teachings and within their culture of that time.

The Beatitudes support those two truths above and are blessings for those who suffer for their faith.

I'm not saying none of this applies to us today, but they should be read with the lens of the time.

The passage "slaves obey your master" as written is tacit support of slavery. So, are you saying that slavery is ok? Is non chattel slavery fine, then?

No, slavery is not fine, and no actual Christian would say that it is, but back then, it was acceptable.

Times and culture change, though Jesus' message does not. But, His message had nothing to do with wives obeying their husbands.

Biblical slavery was different from chattel slavery of the west…. There is a very fine point to be made here, but this is not the convo for it.

Jesus was shockingly unconcerned with the political affairs of man. He was ultimately rejected as messiah for it and eventually crucified for it.

Jesus also said that we should render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s. Was that tacit approval of dictatorial egomaniacal emperors? Of course not! So, I think you are playing a dangerous game when you (or the historical church) suggest that Biblical orders of obedience and care within the context of [empires/slavery] is a tacit approval of [empire/slavery] (or anything else). I think the most any of us can say is that is was an order to submit to any given station in life (or perhaps that liberation from oppression was not Jesus’s mission).

Yes, Jesus said that to love God and your neighbor were the two greatest commandments. But He did not say they were the only commandments. And He also said immediately thereafter that the whole law and prophets build off the foundation of the two great commandments.

That suggests to me that the two great commandments build a foundation for more. Not that it stops with the timelessness of the two great commandments. Which is what I think you are saying.

But if it is a foundation for more (the law and the prophets) what is that more?