Fortuna

Andrew, I do agree that these are separate issues but, once again in these passages we see women being relegated to second class status in the church.

That's exactly my point. Other texts indicate that there were women in positions of authority in the early church, this supported by a non-Christian source and Christian ones ( I do consider those early gnostics as Christians).

But I do have to agree with something said earlier in this discussion that this whole chapter looks like what would result from a blind person cutting and pasting document sections in Word. These passages seems very difficult to read. Verse 10 seems to be completely out of place and incomprehensible.

I have no idea what the "this" refers to, and the words "power on [her] head" are strange here, and it is due to angels ? (wtf?). This part seems like there should be a sentence preceeding it that the "this" refers to and introduces something about power and angels. I assume that by this time Enoch's horny angels have all been locked up, bound and punished (parhaps not), so it seems strange. (maybe Paul is afrraid of other angels being tempted, it's difficult to tell just what this is supposed to mean).

But, I note that as a previous poster noted and referenced, that you could remove 3-16 or 17 and it reads better. Further down, 22-29 seems out of place, especially considering what 30 says.(does 30 seem better proceeding 21 or 22 or 29 ?) Consider that 33 seems to refer to 21. At this point I'm just thinking out loud, but it certainly seems to me to be re-arranged and/or perhaps badly translated. Perhaps because of this wierd arrangement the translator was equally confused.

It might be interesting to try some different re-constructions to see how they come out. I'm not very strong in greek either, but if the english translation is accurate, these verses seem somehow to be out of proper sequence.

Very interesting post about ancient physiology. With this in mind, maybe it would help with a reconstruction.

TrueMyth

Hello mammal2878! Thanks for your reply!

I would challenge your definition of "wriggling". For one thing, there is the question of whether or not a prohibition given in the Bible is meant to be universal or only local. Perfect examples abound in the Book of Leviticus. Instructions on what to eat, when to have sex, whom to have sex with, what to wear, and the like, were all given to the Israelites as instructions with a specific local and temporary purpose: to help them understand the Holiness of God. We no longer need that, although some of them might be helpful as a reminder! Therefore, we can conclude that while the text of Leviticus clearly states without equivocation that the children of God should not wear clothes with more than one fabric n them, that this is intended as a local and not a universal prohibition. This is not wriggling, it is defining more clearly. This is but one example of how the "clear meaning" of a verse can be a little less clear and a little more through a glass darkly.

Yes, I am choosing the first option. My reason for choosing not to enforce that prohibition is that I believe it was either culturally encapsulated to the point where it would be meaningless to follow it anymore, or it was stipulated for reasons which no longer apply (or both). Regarding what sort of consequences this commits me to, is outside the scope of this thread. I direct you to a thread which I have begun specifically to address this issue:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...50#post2597450

I look forward to discussing this with you and others!

manimal2878

It is only clearly meant for those people and that time because we have the book of Hebrews which tells us why those laws have been nullified. Unfortunately Paul was a teacher of the new law and his words on every other subject are considered universal and applicable today and his teaching were not rebuked by later scripture as the old testamnet was.


Sweet! I'll be right over, tell mom I'll be back before dark.

TrueMyth

Very true. This, however, does not make Paul's words necessarily universal and infallible, but more difficult to contradict. There are other ways of determining that commands are local besides later revelation (I listed five in an earlier post)

And I will give your mom a call and set a plate of cookies out for you

manimal2878

Awesome, chocolate chip?

Well you said clearly related to that culture, the words of Paul would not be clearly related to that culture only, but yes could be voided by the 5 reasons you said.

andrewcriddle

It is not clear how frequently Gnostic Christians actually did give women positions of authority.

a/ The fact that a 2nd century group used Mary Magdalene as an alleged source for an alternative tradition to the mainstream church doesn't necessarily mean that contemporary (ie 2nd century) women occupied prominent roles in that group.

b/ Orthodox opponents of Gnosticism may have exaggerated the role of Women in Gnosticism as part of their polemic against the gnostics.

c/ Some gnostic groups had strongly anti-women attitudes see for example the final saying in the Gospel of Thomas.

Andrew Criddle

luminous

Although I'm part of a fundamentalist church where the women do wear a covering such as a hat, I always thought hair WAS the covering Paul was talking about. Nobody in church ever agreed with me so I'm glad I found someone! :thumbs:

1 Corinthians 11:15
but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. NASB

So what I always understood from this text was that Paul was saying that women must have long hair and men should keep their hair short.


p.s Since this is my first post, let me introduce myself. My name is Liviu, a 23 year-old guy. I've been raised in a baptist fundamentalist church and am "born-again", but I have doubted christianity for years. Since people from church generally never question anything, my questions have become a nuisance for leaders and peers alike. I've come to the conclusion that the phrase "ignorance is bliss" is true, and sometimes wish I was ignorant. But since I'm not, I seek answers to nagging questions I've long suspected don't have a satisfactory answer. I've read through some threads and am happy to find such knowledgeable people on this form! :notworthy
I'm looking forward to discuss issues and learn from you guys.

Toto

Welcome liviu. Hope you enjoy your time here.

Feel free to drop by the Lounge and introduce yourself to the people who don't hang out in BCH.

Toto

I came across another paper on this topic: Amorous Archons

andrewcriddle

The Hypostasis of the Archons and On the Origin of the World are probably late Gnostic texts On the Origin of the World is probably late 3rd century CE and The Hypostasis of the Archons late 2nd or early 3rd century.

The Apocryphon of John which represents an earlier form of this story has Eve seduced not raped.

Unless one is suggesting a late 2nd century interpolater it is unlikely that Eve being raped is part of the background to the passage.

Andrew Criddle