10 Comments


    1. Thanks, Jason. I’ve had it linked for a while – just got around to posting it

      Reply
  1. jun

    “Of course, some cannot separate interpretation OF and creation FROM”

    Without some very good independent verification, why should we? We have nothing speaking of Jesus as a historical figure other than the gospels and things dependent on the gospels. Tacitus is dependent on the gospels, seeing he knows nothing except that a man named Christ started the sect. That’s not what he read in some official document of the crucifixion. He got his info from Christians on the street and they got theirs from the gospels. How do you know that you aren’t the one who has it backwards? That it is creation FROM and not interpretation OF?

    Reply
  2. jun

    “I can see several prophetic hues in this section which, at least to me, places the Person of Wisdom as God’s prophet.”

    Really? You aren’t literate enough to see Personification of the concept of Wisdom? Wow. You might as well be a Muslim as be a Christian. I’m sure they see Mohammed here. But what of the necessity of the femine gender? Is your prophet, whether Mohammed of Jesus, a woman? why is it female? especially when good king Paul says women are not allowed to teach!!!

    Reply

    1. First question – Um, what? As I said, I can easily easy that Wisdom is personified. Duh. Not sure about your craziness about being a Muslim.

      Paul actually didn’t say that. Further, you miss the point of the entire article. Your previous comments on this forum have been welcomed, and enjoyable, but these? Not sure while left field they came out of…

      Reply
  3. jun

    When you say “Paul actually didn’t say that” what do you mean? If the argument is that Timothy is deutero-Pauline and not authentically from Paul, then may I suggest that any attempt to turn Sophia or Chakmah into Jesus or any other man is also inauthentic and deutero-something. If the argument is that “I do not allow a woman to teach” doesn’t mean that he doesn’t allow a woman to teach, well…I’ll leave you to it.

    Reply

    1. My argument is that Paul’s statement there must be contexted and it has been very well by such as N.T. Wright and others.

      Reply
  4. jun

    The context is that Paul says since Adam was made first and was not deceived but the woman was made second and was deceived, therefore women are not allowed to teach. Nevertheless, he says, they will be saved if they bear children that remain faithful. There is nothing in the context to limit or explain away what he says. He clearly views women as incapable of teaching due to some systemic flaw in the female nature that makes them more deceivable than men, and on top of that they can’t be saved by faith alone like men can but they are so bad they can only be saved by childbearing if their children remain faithful.

    Reply

    1. I would disagree, and note that context is not woodenly literal words but what is going on off the page. Further, note that the translation is now criticized and is being explored differently.

      Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!