Don't Talk Religion At Garage Sales

The son of one of the leading families in your synagogue is married to a woman rabbi. We now call him the "rebetzin" (Yiddish for wife of a rabbi). He is a big, bearded fellow.

That said, I have met male and female rabbis and while there are more male than female rabbis (and among the orthodox rabbis are, with very few exceptions, always male) I never saw a difference in spiritual leadership. There is a difference between orthodox and reform rabbis and their respective styles, but there is little difference between reform male and female rabbis.

G-d possibly gave man and woman distinct innate abilities but He also gave all of us the ability to learn. And while a man cannot learn how to give birth, I am sure a woman can learn Jewish law and be a legitimate judge because no special male qualities are needed to know the law.

Perhaps this applies to Christianity, perhaps it doesn't. It is true that Jewish priesthood is exclusively male. But then it was created at a time when almost everything was exclusively male, for the simple reason that women had a high risk of not surviving child birth and were thus simply not suitable for any career that would take longer than a few years.

God gave men and women different roles.  They are equal but different.  According to his word and his choosing he chose men to be the leaders of their families both in a physical and spiritual sense.  When we reverse or go outside the parameters God has for us (no matter what it is) it's not the best.  It's not His way but our way. 

In the garden after the fall it was predicted (by God himself) that Eve's desire would be to rule over her husband.  So no surprise there.  It's been happening since the beginning of time.  Are you familiar with Miriam and what happened to her when she grumbled against the leadership of her brother Moses? 

Women have great roles to play in the ministry no doubt.  I love to learn and teach scriptures (as you probably know) but I also realize it's not in my best interest or in the interest of those around me that I become the head of a church.  It's in direct defiance of what God has ordered.  Not only is it clear teaching in both the OT and NT the examples are plenty that the leaders have according to God's purpose and plan been men.  I think women, who tend to be more verbal and communicative tend to push men aside and when that happens quite often men let them.  Usually men have to be prodded to lead and when they do and understand the whole concept behind it they make better leaders in the churches.  The very worse churches I've ever been in are usually run by women with very little strong male leadership.  The men might be there but they are not leading like they should be. 

This has nothing to do with culture as some say because it was from the beginning when no culture had yet been formed.  Paul addresses this in his letter to Timothy (2:13).  Adam was responsible for the headship of his family and that's why it's said that thru one man sin entered in and thru yet another this sin was forgiven even though it was Eve who first sinned. 

So Chrisitianity and Jewish History is quite on the same page with this topic.  But both, in modern days,  have turned away from God's ideal and gone in the opposite direction exactly as predicted in Genesis 3. 

Did she want her stuff back?

@ Nitro...it didn't look that way.  Actually she was so excited that I had some knowledge about authors, preachers, etc that she was trying to get me to buy more stuff, but that was before she got a bit huffy with me.  I actually bought the most stuff from her sale that day, but she was asking way too much for her many boxes of CD's. 

The Adam and Eve story is far too complicated for a quick discussion like this. I have yet to learn so much before I can analyse it. It's too old and I haven't yet read about all the Sumerien legends it is based on. (Yes, the Bible tells the truth, but that doesn't mean that the stories were't already known before the Torah was given to Moses.)

Some things I did find/figure out and that I want to list here since they might be of interest and since I enjoy listing things:

1. "Eden" comes to us from the Hebrew, as we all know. In Hebrew the word is spelt Ayin Dalet Nun. It does not start with a vowel or a glottal stop (like "Adam") but with a pharyngeal fricative, a consonant that doesn't exist in European languages and was usually transliterated as either "g" or as a vowel. In Hebrew the word means "pleasure" or "delight".

2. According to Wikipedia the word derives from a Semitic root Dalet Nun (DN) which allegedly means "abundant", but I could not find such a root in Hebrew or Aramaic and nor am I aware of a general mechanism of adding an Ayin to a root to create another word. There are letters that do that (Alef, Shin, He etc.) but Ayin is not among them as far as I know.

3. Wikipedia also says that "Eden" might ultimately derive from Sumerian *edin (reconstructed word) which means "steppe" or "wilderness". I am myself not sure how this could be because as far as I know Sumerian didn't have pharyngeal consonants, which was a problem for speakers of the ancient Assyrian language who used the Sumerian syllabary. Hence Sumerian *edin really only matches two of three letters (like in English "Eaten" would partially match "Eden").

4. According to several sources I read the locations referred to in the story are the Shatt El-Arab region and the (then dry) part of the Persian Gulf closes to Iraq and Kuwait (Eden) and the Iranian steppe just north of it (outside Eden). Whether and how this is relevant I don't know yet but it would put the locations squarely into ancient Sumer and hence into Assyrian mythology (the Assyrians took their mythology from the Sumerians).

5. The oldest biblically stable (i.e. directly deducible from reading the Bible) location we have for the story as told in the Torah is Assyria (northern Iraq).

6. Both Adam's and Eve's ("Hava") names are much newer than the story. The real names of the protagonists cannot be found in the Bible. It is impossible for "Adam" and "Hava" to be their real names as those are Hebrew words from 3500 years ago and didn't exist in that form in Iraq, not in Assyrian ("Hava" at least) nor in Sumerian (which is a totally unrelated language).

While my faith does not allow women Priests/pastors, I really have no problem with them.

People want to pick and choose when it comes to the Bible.  They want to mold the church to their own sensibilities rather than what scripture dictates.  That's why there are so many non-denominational churches now.  There is a lot of confusion over tolerance vs acceptance.  I have a lot of tolerance for the lifestyles of others...I just don't have to accept it as right.  

I don't know how many times I've been approached to join "churches" that are described as "not religious but more of just a place to have a relationship with Jesus"...huh?  They have convenient service times like Saturday evenings for those who want to sleep in on Sunday morning or have kids that have sporting events.  I'm only 39 and I can't believe how much things have changed since I was a kid! Heck, I remember when EVERYONE wore their "Sunday best" to church...now anything goes.

exactly right on Jill.  This role of women in the church is a hotly debated topic today.  Unfortunately the debate has left the scriptures to resolve the issue as did the lady I spoke to at the garage sale.  We noticed her argument was entirely based on her opinion not the scriptures. Traditional doctrines are being done away, in this case, for radical feminism.   This is one of the "new" truths seeping into our churches and seminaries today.  Under the pressure of feminism biblical accuracy has been abandoned in favor of the culture. 

In many instances (this subject included) biblical passages are being culturally reinterpreted or ignored in favor of making the scriptures be what they want them to be to suit their own agendas. 

The ultimate source of these attacks is the archenemy of God.  His plan has been right from the beginning to overthrow God's plan and corrupt His plan for mankind.  "Did God really say" he asked Eve on that day in the Garden.  Satan's bag of tricks are the same old, same old...because they work so well.  He's still whispering in the ears of many these days. 

that's because it's now more about man than it is about God.  Sad.  We're seeing it too.  What better way to corrupt man than by using his own kids they would do anything for?  We ran smack into this when our kids were pre-teens/teens and had to make hard decisions to walk the talk.   You just brought up a memory for me.  I may write about this next now that you mentioned this. LOL 

First I have to ask you...how can your "faith" say one thing and you another?  What is faith to you?  Don't you mean to say "your religion?" 

I know you're coming from the RCC and this is one area especialy where I believe the RCC is right on.  Having a problem with them, woman leaders in the church, isn't the issue.  It's not about our acceptance of them that matters. Does God accept this?  The real question is do we accept what HE dictates or what man dictates? 

I say it all the time but the direct center of the bible (for good reason) is Psalm 118:8.  It's a good one to memorize. 

I agree. I just recently decided to go back to church and I have noticed how even a church has had to cope with today's cultural changes just to stay alive. The Catholic church I am attending not only has a book that allows people to follow what was chosen to be part of mass that day (for those too busy to know this stuff I guess) but they also created a section specially designed for people with children so they can attend church without disturbing those who i guess find childrens inability to stay still and quiet annoying. Throw in all the iPods, iPhones, smart phones and portable gaming devices and you basically get yourself a building full of people who most barely hear or pay attention to what the Priest says but thinks it's good enough that at least they went to church.

And what some women wear these days (no necessarily Catholic churchs only) I'm amazed most men even pay attention to the mass.

It's really not that complicated Leauki.  We tend to make things much more complicated than they really are don't we? 

God created, male and female.  He gave Adam, as head of his family orders as to what he was to do and not to do.  He created for him a helper, Eve, to help him in his keeping of the earth.  Satan, approached Eve, who was the weaker of the two to corrupt them both by turning them away from their Creator.  The example of Adam and Eve is still, in many ways applicable to us all. 

Paul, much later expounded on this in his letter to Timothy which I mentioned to you earlier. Eve, was not suitable, by nature, to assume the position of ultimate responsibility.  She was not created to be the head but the helper and when she stepped out from under the protection and headship of Adam she was very vulnerable and fell.  Adam, in turn, violated his leadership role and followed Eve.  This is a perversion of what God created.  It's backwards.  It's exactly what Satan intended.  The Fall resulted from violating God's appointed roles for man and woman leading to disobedience.  Adam bore more of the responsibility because he was put in leadership by God himself and failed in that role. 

Headship by man is God's design right from the beginning.  I can clearly see the wisdom of that design everytime I listen to a woman Pastor.  My meeting that lady at the garage sale only confirmed to me the wisdom of God's design even more clearly as her emotional tirade was made quite evident. 

As for religion at garage sales, I'm smart enough to avoid discussion with people face to face about religion, regardless where. Online is fine for me.

It's simple.

The Catholic Church has lots of rules that are simply that: church rules. They do not necessarily have any basis in scripture nor are they meant to have.

Good question, and I did not really want to get into a religious discussion as I have gotten in trouble on those forums before.  But I will answer this one and leave it at that.

First, I am aware that my faith is not the only faith.  My step father was not of my faith and married in another (not to my mother, but after the divorce) by a woman Pastor.  I thought she did an excellent job of the service.  So from a strictly logical perspective, I see woman as pastors not being a hindrance to faith leadership and fulfilment, regardless of what my faith states about their practice.

Second, there is a concept of "doubting in, doubting out".  Basically what that means is that a person can share a faith with others, but not be in lock step agreement on all the nuances of it.  There are central tenets that cannot be disagreed upon, and that is why they share the same faith, but there are others that can be.  And not only disagreed upon, but debated openly and vigorously.  In my faith, the Immaculate conception is a doubting out.  If you doubt it, you are not of my faith.  But the demographic make up of the priesthood is a doubting in.  We can debate it and still be of the same faith.  indeed, the restriction on woman priests/pastors was not always the case.  In an earlier period, there were woman Pastors/Priests.  It is more a modern qualification than a part of the creed of the church.

That is why I can believe woman can make good priests/pastors, and yet my faith forbids it.  They have their reasons, that I am free to disagree with, and I have mine.  I will tell you that my priest and I had a long discussion on this at one time.  We disagreed not on the rules, but on which one the church would change first - married priests or woman priests.  He thought the former and I the latter.  As he is more in the heirarchy than I, he is probably going to be right.  If so, I will lose 2 lottery tickets (our standard bet)  if we are both around to see either change.

Finally, knowing you were once Catholic, you also know that the RCC is not a strict constructionist of the bible.  The bible is the most important tome of the religion, but it is not the Creed of our faith (The Nicean and Apostle's Creed take those).  To us, the Bible is a history of our faith, but the creed is the expression of our faith. So we treat the bible differently than your faith does.  I dare say (other than the fact we have been in the past) that we would be hypocrites if we took a literal interpretation of the bible, and yet had women (and married) priests in the past.  Of all the Christian religions, only RCC predates the bible.  So how can our faith be based upon a document that had not be written?  it has to be based on something more.

And here I spent 15 minutes writing out a bunch of stuff, and you cut straight tothe heart of the matter.  One of the reasons I do enjoy your writing!

no, not just the RCC but many churches now have this problem.  This also was addressed by Paul when he said:

"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly..." 

the word adorn is from the Greek "kosmeo" which we get our word "cosmetic."  It means "to arrange" "to put in order." 

A woman must arrange herself appropriately in order to worship God.  A proper adornment on the outside reflects what's going on inside the heart.  Are they going to church to pray to God or prey on man? 

When a woman dresses for church to attract attention to herself she has violated the purpose of worship.  In the 4th century church father John Chrysostom wrote:

"And what then is modest apparel?  Such as covers them completely and decently, and not with superflous ornaments; for the one is decent and the other is not.  What?  Do you approach God to pray with broidered hair and ornaments of gold?  Are you come to a ball?  to a marriage-feast?  to a carnival?  There such costly things might have been seasonable; here not one of them is wanted.  You are come to pray, to ask pardon for your sins, to plead for your offenses, beseeching the Lord, and hoping to render him propitious to you.  Away with such hypocrisy!"

I found that the story became more complicated the more Hebrew I learned and then even more so when I started learning Sumerian mythology and reading about the ancient Assyrian language.

As a child, knowing the story in native tongue only, I thought it was a simple version of a more complicated truth.

Now I am beginning to realise that it is the summarised version of a gigantic mythology which was taught to the Children of Israel but has its basis all over Mesopotamia (Iraq), Aram (Syria), and Canaan (Lebanon and Israel).

The Sumerian and Semitic mythology that was before the Bible (remember the Bible was only given to Moses _a long time_ after many of the events it tells of) has only been written down in distinct versions much later. And I believe that to understand the Bible correctly we have to know all of that mythology so we can know what it was the Bible was correcting.

I'll give you an example.

This article tells the story of no X signs. (You don't have to read the entire article. It is about software development.)

When you go into a restaurant and you see a sign that says "No Dogs Allowed," you might think that sign is purely proscriptive: Mr. Restaurant doesn't like dogs around, so when he built the restaurant he put up that sign.

If that was all that was going on, there would also be a "No Snakes" sign; after all, nobody likes snakes. And a "No Elephants" sign, because they break the chairs when they sit down.

The real reason that sign is there is historical: it is a historical marker that indicates that people used to try to bring their dogs into the restaurant.

Most prohibitive signs are there because the proprietors of an establishment were sick and tired of people doing X, so they made a sign asking them to please not. If you go into one of those fifty year old ma-and-pa diners, like the Yankee Doodle in New Haven, the walls are covered with signs saying things like "Please don't put your knapsack on the counter," more anthropological evidence that people used to put their knapsacks on the counter a lot. By the age of the sign you can figure out when knapsacks were popular among local students. 

Sometimes they're harder to figure out. "Please do not bring glass bottles into the park" must mean that somebody cut themselves stepping on broken glass while walking barefoot through the grass once, and it's a good bet they sued the city.

It looks like an esay one. Why is there a "No Dog Allowed" sign in the restaurant? As the author says, it's not merely because bringing dogs to the restaurant is not allowed. Otherwise there would be a "No Elephants" sign as well. No, it's because people brought dogs to the restaurant (and not elephants).

This is the first point: rules are written down not because we don't want people to break them but because people have broken them in the past. (They might also have broken them before they actually became rules. For example Abraham has probably eaten food forbidden to his descendants later.)

But more interesting (and surprising) is the second part of the story. There are actually more prohibitions as history proceeds as people are over time more likely to do things that one might eventually want to prohibit.

Either way, there is information missing in the written version. Some information is missing because people at the time knew it (but we do not any more). Some information is missing because it was implicit at the time and isn't any more (i.e. people then learned it immediately and we can't). And some information was missing then but we have it now.

So in order to understand the written rules, we HAVE to know the context in which which they were written.

What was it those originally addressed would have known which we don't? What was it those originally addressed would have understood immediately which we can't? And what was it those originally addressed didn't know which we now do?

In Judaism we have the Oral Torah, which is a number of told stories, later written down in parts of the Talmud, that tell us some of the stories related to the laws that explain what people then knew or would have assumed.

But we also have the imperative to study the world as well as the Bible.

The Oral Torah does a bit to solve the first problem. Study of natural sciences does a bit to solve the third. (It can explain to us why we know what we know and so allows us to figure out what our ancestors didn't know.) But the second problem can only be solved by study of ancient texts and mythology apart from the Bible.

If there are no dogs allowed, we have to find out if elephants were common pets. Otherwise we won't know whether elephants are disallowed as well. And since the written rules don't tell us that, we have to look elsewhere in order to understand the full truth of scripture.

Who told you this and where are you getting this from? 

Christianity is first outlined in the book of Acts.  The first scriptures read in the churches (homes) were the OT scriptures. Read Acts 2, which is a sermon by Peter.   The NT is basically, for the most part, a collection of letters to the Saints (Christians) in these churches on how to conduct themselves as Christians and of course, the reason for doing so (Christ the Messiah had come). 

When I say Faith, to me it means "Forsaking All I trust Him."  It's not about religion or creed.  It's about a relationship I have with God himself similiar to what Adam and Eve had before the fall.  We were reconciled to him by the death, burial and resurrection of the one he sent to die in our place.  That has nothing to do with which religion one attends.  The invitation is open to all. 

Like I said read Ps 118:8.  I respectfully disagree Leauki only agreeing that looking elsewhere should drive us to read scripture because that's where we will find the answers for the what, when, why, where and how questions we have so often.  The world cannot answer these questions that the word of God can.  All I can say is I'd love for you to spend as much time in the book as you have done outside the book! 

Just to be clear, you do understand that I do not consider the OT to be mythology don't you?  You keep bringing that up but I want to be clear that just as Jesus and the other NT writers confirmed and verified the OT so too do I believe it's filled with history, poetry, and prophetic writings that have borne out to be absolutely right on. 

The Hebrew Bible is technically mythology. The fact that we both believe that it's also true doesn't change the fact that it is Hebrew mythology.

Myths are not true or false, they are just stories that belong to a certain people or tradition.

There is a Greek mythology and a Hebrew mythology. If you believe that one is false and the other true, even if it were proven fact that one is false and the other true, both remain mythology.

But that wasn't even my point. I used the term "mythology" to describe stories older than Exodus (set in about 1300 BCE) and recorded in the Hebrew Bible as well as other writings.

I haven't even really started with outside the book. I am only beginning to study the ancient Middle-East and Sumerian mythology. But ever since I did the Hebrew Bible made more sense.

The word for "I" used by G-d is "anoki" rather than Hebrew "ani"? I know why. The history of Abraham's brethren in Mesopotamia explains it.

The word "Elohim" is grammatically plural but refers to only one real "person"? I know why. Studying some ancient Phoenician answers the question.

The weird grammatical constructs translated like "the Lord spoke and said"? I know where they came from. Differences in tenses in two branches of Semitic languages explain them.

None of these things are obvious from just reading the text. And all of them give us important hints as to the meaning of it.

When a lot of people say, "I can tell you don't want to hear what I have to say", they often mean, "I can see you don't want to heed what I have to say".  Which is to say, they want you to listen to them, but they don't really care what you believe.  To them, religious discussion is about changing other people. 

She's right, there are many flavors of ice cream and each of us get to decide which flavor is "right" for us.  If "what's right for us" was the point, then this lady would have a point.  However, if she is a Christian then she shouldn't be looking for "what's right for us", she should be seeking "what is right".

I can say, "I'm right" and leave out the "You're wrong" part.  However, truth isn't a matter of interpretation or popular vote. 

The truth is the truth. Nothing more.

I will not get into a bible debate with you.  However, it only goes to reason.  The early Church - which at the time was the RCC - wrote the bible.  Whether it was divinely inspired or not is immaterial.  That the faith predates the Bible is a given.  The old Testament is only part of it and comes from the Jewish Torah. 

The early Christians were practicing their faith and religion 400 years before the Bible came to pass.  Parts were written earlier, but the Bible (in the books we know of today) was not completed until the late 4th century.

pretty much you nailed it. 

right on you two!  Truth is truth. 

no, Jews wrote the bible.  Jewish Christians.  Every single one of them but Luke who was a gentile Doctor.  It was NOT RCC but I do understand that's what they teach.  The RCC didn't start until the 4th century. 

Agree

yes, of course.  Faith goes all the way back to Abraham and before. 

The whole bible was written by the end of the first century.  They were gathered together later and bound together into what we have today but they were regarded as scripture right from the get go.  You can read Peter's letter (3:16) and see that (written in the 1st century).  The very first council was just a few years after Christ was crucified (Jerusalem Council) you can read that in Acts 15 attended by the men who walked with Christ.

By AD 200 one basic Canon was recognized although there were some continuing debates about a few books.  I think you must be referring to Jerome who transcribed the bible into Latin from Hebrew and Greek in the 4th century?   

KFC,

I can see this garage sale scene happening as you describe it!

I would have told her the same.

Almighty God established an all male Aaronic priesthood in the Old Covenant and  Christ established an all male priesthood (in the order of Melchisedech) in the New Covenant.

Women who become pastors do their own thing instead of being obedient to Christ. He is the Truth and calls us to pick up our cross and follow Him. And ignoring or circumventing Truth to pursue their desires is a grave offense to Him.