bbqpenguin wrote:
ah, but the New Testament isn't innocent of silly things no one believes any more, either
for instance, Paul says in his first letter to the Corinthians, 14 (34) the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. (35)If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a women to speak in church."
These are often taken out of context. Paul was addressing a specific situation in a specific church. It is not correct for a marriage partner to publically question his/her spouse. In that day and age, men had the predominant public voice. In that culture for a woman to speak up under those circumstances in that manner was wrong because as was said, it would have shamed the husbad. BUT, you have to look at other passages. Are women to be dismissed? No. Husbands are to consider what their wives say. In fact, the other part of that passage says that if the husband cannot answer, then the husband should bring the question to public.
Similar is the reference to slaves. Christ did not tell slaves to just revolt and leave their masters, but was he actually endorsing slavery or was he saying that right now, the best thing for you is to stay with your master ..until things change AND, then turn and begin to get masters to first treat their slaves better and, eventually to free them.
In both cases our society has evolved to a differant point. The principals still apply, but the detailis shift.
It is also an exampe of something that is a guide, rather than a law.
but then again, I never really liked Paul anyway. regardless, there are several more instances like this where the literal interpretation simply doesn't cut it in the New Testament, though this sort of thing surely is more common in the Old
This is getting well off topic and further discussion really needs to be in another thread. I have addressed this before. Part of the answer is above, that you are to read what is said in whole and not just pick out phrases. I forget the exact passage, but this was one of the key admonishments of Christ to the Sadducees. He accused them of knowing the letter of the law, but not its heart.
The other answer is that sometimes there actually is more than one possibility allowed, depending upon the circumstances OR just that it is a detail that really does not matter.
Look at references to hair, for example. It says not that a woman who uncovers her hair is a harlot, but that if you live in an area where only harlots go uncovered, then you should go covered so you are not thought a harlot. Yet, many cite this to mean that women should go covered or be considered harlots in all societies. That is just wrong.
