On ” the day called Sunday,” says Justin, “all who live in cities or in the country assemble in
one place, and the memoirs of the Apostles, or the writings of the Prophets, are read as long as time permits ; and when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying, Amen : and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given ; and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. They who are well to-do and willing give what each thinks fit ; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who sends assistance to the orphans, and widows, and the sick, and those who are in bonds, and strangers, in a word to all who are in need.” — Edward Backhouse, Early Church History to the Death of Constantine

On “Sunday” all the money that was collected was given to the orphans, widows, the sick, those who are in bonds, strangers, and those who were in need. The monies, food, water and wine that was brought by all was distributed amongst the families within the assembly including those who could not make the assembly. (Notice there is NO CHURCH BUILDING).

IT WAS NOT:

• Given to the President of the assembly for his salary and needs.
• Given for the salaries and needs of those on staff.
• Used to pay for a building of worship.
• Used to pay for the church’s Christian school.
• Given to missionaries that came through to preach.
• Used to buy a new car, new house or other luxuries for the president of the assembly.

All monies collected were given to those inside and OUTSIDE of the CHURCH assembly that were poor and in need. The corruption that came with the collection of monies is just another reason that we should question everything that a church does with our money. Why give money to a church when you can give to those in need yourself. God never commanded us to give to a religious institution. He commanded us to give to the poor and needy. When you give to a religious organization and they control where the money is spent, you are just throwing your money into the pockets of the leadership, and the majority of it, will never reach those who truly need it. Think about it. Who REALLY benefits the most from your giving? The church and its leader, or the poor and needy? The church and its leader, or those within the assembly that are poor and in need of it?

If you have not read my book, The Truth About Tithing, I would highly recommend one do so and learn the reason why churches push Tithing for the Gentile populous that were never under the Old Testament covenant that included tithing. Only the Jews were under that law and that covenant has been annulled through Christ and his sacrifice on the cross.

“That the Apostles generally made use of water-baptism cannot however, be doubted; although Paul’s thanksgiving for having himself baptised so few of the Corinthian converts is significant.

At first the act was of the simplest kind and might be per formed by any one.

“Even laymen have the right to baptise, for what is equally received can be equally given.”  – Tertullian.

How soon a superstitious value began to be attached to it we have seen in the story of the Apostle John and the robber. The earliest description of the rite to be found in any Christian author is contained (as in the case of worship) in Justin Martyr’s first Apology (A.D. 138). Probably by that time the new converts were required to pass through a course of religious instruction in preparation for it, whence they were called catechumens, i.e. persons under oral instruction. We have seen in the last chapter how great progress ritualistic ideas had made in Justin’s time, in regard to the bread and wine. The same is apparent in his manner of treating baptism.

Tertullian’s treatise on baptism was launched against the followers of a woman named Quintilla, a preacher of the Gospel at Carthage a little before his time. He is very severe and even scurrilous against the members of this sect, who rejected water baptism as useless, and held that faith alone is now, as it was in Abraham s time, sufficient for salvation. There were other sects at the same period who rejected both water-baptism and the Eucharist. Such were the Ascodrutae, who held, “that the divine mysteries, being images of invisible things, are not to be accomplished by the things which are seen, or the incorporeal by that which is visible and corporeal, but that the true knowledge of that which exists is complete redemption.” They were said to be “a sort of Gnostics,” and the truth which they held may perhaps have been largely mixed with error; but it is also possible that they may have incurred undeserved censure on account of their protest against the encroachments of ritualism. The Seleucians and Hermians, again, rejected water-baptism, maintaining that it was not instituted by Christ, and laying stress on John the Baptist s words : “I indeed baptise you with water,” etc. The number of such dissidents may have been much larger than history declares, and the fact of their existence indicates that even in this early age, there was not wanting in the Church a spirit of protest against the leaven of formality and ceremonial observances.”

— Edward Backhouse, Early Church History to the Death of Constantine, 1903

From the very early ages of Christianity, ceremony and “formality” began to creep into the early church (corruption). What came to mankind as “simple and easy to administer” became rallying points for religious men to elevate themselves and their “uninspired” interpretations into ritualistic observances and rules for early Christians to follow.  Also notice that there WERE women preachers of the Gospel, that were thus “labeled” by these early religious leaders to defame them and stop people from listening to what they had to say.  Nothing has changed much since that time. Women are still being “labeled” and castigated for preaching the Gospel by men who refuse to admit that God gave women “freedom” in Christ to do so as his redeemed. “We are neither male nor female in Christ Jesus.”

Men’s interpretations and preconceptions fill the anals of history with rhetoric regarding women and their service within the body of Christ; all of which, is designed to degrade and humiliate them, causing their words to fall on deaf ears. Throughout early history, the corruptions of men are well shown; as are the “attitudes” regarding women.  Every opportunity to “change” the simplicity of Christ into something only the “elite” can do, is well documented. Man has always taken advantage of what God has given to interject his own ideas, opinions and preconceptions.  Leaven is leaven. There is much leaven in the “church systems” of the world that have resorted to “rules,” “observances,” “rituals,” and religious dogma, to constrain people into a mold and belief system, that is not of God.

This topic of “obedience” to one’s spouse, co-mingled with “submission” to one’s spouse, has been a weapon the church has used throughout history to subjugate women to men. Throughout the many articles on this blog, I have consistently exposed the many “lies” that have been inserted into the English translation of the Bible in order to direct women everywhere to these two things. Religious men of old have consistently written women out of places of autonomy, equality, honor and dignity in the scriptures. As a result of this, women have borne the brunt of some of the most atrocious abuses known to man – sexual exploitation, rape, incest, murder, mutilation, isolation, psychological abuse and trauma, physical abuse, emotional abuse, etc.  Inequality will always lead to abuse. Knowing this, it is very important that the twisting of scripture, the lies, the preconceptions and the opinions of men be rooted out of the scriptures and the REAL TRUTH exposed regarding women. This said, the next topic I wish to cover is this: Must Women Obey their Husbands?

As Christian women, we have been taught from an early age that we MUST obey our husbands. Men interchange “obey” with “submit”. Because of this teaching, women have been domestically abused throughout history by their husbands. Many religious sects, like the one I came out of – –  the Independent Fundamental Baptists – – teach this very concept. Not only this, because of this teaching, this sect is filled with egotistical and self-centered men that throw their weight around and “bully” their wives into submission to them.  They have adopted the attitude of, “It’s my way or the highway!”  Or, worse, “Do as I say, or else!”  The pride and arrogance of these men lead them to publicly degrade women and treat them as though they are ignorant, subhuman beings that MUST have them and their “wisdom” and “direction” in order to exist.  Ignorantly, we have blind leaders leading the blind and, as a result, they both fall into the ditch. So, let’s talk about this subject.  Once again, I quote a Greek and Hebrew Scholar, Katherine Bushnell from 1923:

MUST WOMEN OBEY?

The word “obedience” hupakoe, is quite different from the word “subjection.” Its corresponding verb from which it comes, is hupakouo, and means literally, “to listen to,” with the derived sense of “to obey.” It has always been translated “obey” in the New Testament excepting at one place, Acts 12:13, where Rhoda comes “to listen to” Peter’s knocking. This word has been used nowhere in respect to the wife’s duty to her husband, with one safe exception, in an illustration. In 1 Pet. 3:6 the Apostle points women to the example of Sarah, who “obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord,” or “Sir,“ as the same is often translated (Matt. 13:27; John 12:21, etc.). So did Jacob call Esau “lord,” though it was God’s revealed will that Jacob should hold the place of superiority; and Aaron called Moses, his younger brother, “lord,” and Moses called the striving Egyptians “lords” (Gen. 33:8, 14; Exod. 33:22; Acts 7:26). There was a rabbinical saying which Peter may have known and quoted here: “The wife of Abraham reverenced him and called him lord.” It is to be noted that Peter’s admonition is “subjection;” his illustration is subjection carried to the point of obedience. When giving a pattern for incitement we are very apt to take an extreme case, “Be unworldly; as Francis of Assisi, a wealthy young man, who renounced all his inheritance, and lived on alms.” By these words the spirit of Francis is the point urged; not the literal copying of his acts. So with Peter’s words here. And that spirit becomes all Christians alike. “In honour preferring one another.”

As far as Abraham and Sarah are concerned, we are left in no doubt as to this relation of obedience and respect being mutual and reciprocal; God commanded Abraham to call Sarah by the very respectful name of “Princess,” Gen. 17:15; and the strongest passage in the Bible seeming to enjoin obedience, as between husband and wife, is at Gen. 21:12, “And God said unto Abraham. . . in all that Sarah saith unto thee, obey her voice.” The Hebrew verb used here, translated into English, “hearken unto,” is the same word translated “obey” at Gen. 22:18. It means “to listen to,” as does the Greek word “to obey,” but it has been translated “obey” in 89 places in the Old Testament, and carries the sense “obey” as proved by the context, in scores of other places, just as it does in this passage, concerning which there is no doubt that Abraham was to obey in what Sarah told him to do,– “Cast out the bondwoman and her child.”

The question naturally asked: “But in the unique relation existing within the marriage bond, is not the wife bound to unquestioning obedience?” We do not so read the Bible. Turn to Lev. 20:18, where exists a commandment to prevent unhygienic conduct within the marriage relation. There is no question here but that God held both man and woman equally responsible for trampling upon this hygienic law; and this could not have been the case had the wife been bound to unquestioning obedience to her husband in this matter. In both the Greek and the Catholic Church, we understand that in the marriage service the conditions laid upon the bride and bridegroom are identical. In the United States the word “obey” is seldom used in the marriage ceremony. If, under the Mosaic law, the obligations and responsibilities of the matrimonial relation were identical for man and woman, as the passage cited from Leviticus seems to prove, it is exceedingly difficult to believe that the Gospel message is meant to place women on a lower plane of moral responsibility than the Mosaic law did.

To sum up: It seems clear that Jesus Christ MEANT WHAT HE SAID in the words, “No one CAN serve two masters.” It amounts to an impossibility, and God never demands the impossible. Mutual respect, honour, humility, meekness, forbearance, and the yielding of one’s preferences, are incumbent upon all believers to be exercised under all circumstances short of making allegiance with man such as one owes to God only. Sarah made a greater declaration than her limited intelligence in that age could have fully grasped, but God ordered Abraham to act in accordance with its inexorable law: “The SON of the bondwoman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” Let us pass over the circumstances that led to that decision in the Household of Faith,– and an utterance on Sarah’s part that has been misunderstood and misjudged, but we have not space to enter into it now,– and learn the lesson of the words themselves. God establishes no covenant relations with one in bondage. Moses’ words to Pharaoh knew no variation: “Thus saith the Lord, Let my people go, that they may SERVE ME.” They could not BOTH serve the Egyptians as bondsmen, and God. “No one CAN serve two masters.” God would not take them into full covenant relations with Himself until they were FREE. It is so today. Thousands of Christians, held in bondage by human companions, are crying out for a clearer realization of covenant relations with God, and God’s demand is ever the same: “Let my people go, that they may serve me.” God may remember His covenant with our fathers, but nevertheless we are NEVER in full covenant relations with Him until FREE. And this applies to women as well as to men. The freedom or bondage of the mother, moreover, both Sarah and St. Paul declare, shall determine the status of the son. No son of a bond-woman, because her spirit in him, can, as such, enter into full covenant relations with God. Fathers of sons, who hold their wives in sensual bondage, doom those sons to a personal sensual bondage. It is God’s own law, then, that one sex cannot get free and the other sex remain in bondage. It is impossible to understand the enormous extent to which all Christendom has been morally crippled in its progress by the attempt to keep the female sex in bondage, especially to the husband’s sensuality.

Let us remind ourselves again that when the women of apostolic times, who laboured with Paul in the Gospel, either listened to, read, or taught others from the text, Gen. 3:16, they must have understood and taught it as meaning, “Thou art turning away to thy husband, and he will rule over thee,”–for this is the reading of the Septuagint version, which they universally used, and this is the way early Church Fathers invariably quote the verse. These women would not have read, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”  (a corruption I have already exposed on this blog). Now without this verse, translated as we have it, and used as an index to Paul’s meaning when he talks on the “woman question,” we may well inquire how these women would have interpreted his words. What sense would Paul’s language about women have conveyed to women who had not been taught “the curse of Eve?” To women who never knew that Genesis taught (?) that God subordinated woman to man at the time of the Fall? To women who had never heard the Bible taught the wife to obey the husband, because Eve brought sin into the world? Or to a woman who had never heard that, according to the Bible, her “desire” must be under the husband’s control. Such was the condition of mind of the Gentile women, at least, who heard Paul’s letters read. They knew that their heathen religions taught that woman was her husband’s subordinate. But they did not have this teaching from Gen. 3:16, and if not from there, then they found it nowhere in the Old Testament. How differently they must therefore, have construed Paul’s language!

In place of such teachings as this about woman’s “desire,” they would have, rather, the recently uttered sayings of our Lord, standing out to their minds with startling clearness, because so unlike their Gentile teachings: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them: and they that exercise authority over them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so.” They were not to look upon this exercise of authority as a benevolent thing, but quite the contrary. “No one can serve two masters,” then how could a woman “serve” her husband and her God? And how could her husband be a “benefactor” to her, while exercising authority over her? “Be not yet called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ. . . Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased.” What a totally different sense have such words as these! And these are the teachings which would be much in the mind and thought of those early Christians, because so recently uttered by their Divine Master.

– – Katherine Bushnell, 1923

The magnitude of the corruption in scripture regarding “women” is mind-boggling. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out WHY MEN have made these changes to write women out of power and authority, honor and dignity….they are self-serving and self-seeking. They desire all power and control. They want their sexual desires met however they so desire and want their women to shut up about it. Self-serving and self-centered men, show no mercy, compassion, ethics or morality when it comes to women. Not all men are this way, but enough are, and have been, this way, that it has cost women everywhere their FREEDOM in society, in marriage, and in the “church.”

Marriage is a partnership where there is equality, honor dignity and respect shared between partners. It is not a dictatorship that produces abuse and bondage. The church is the same way; yet, has become a dictatorship to the point of using unethical means to silence and shame women everywhere and keep them in bondage and out of leadership.

There’s a lot of sexual abuse going on underneath the shroud of “religion.”  It’s time we all became aware of it so we can watch out for ‘signs of abuse’ and protect women and children from this abuse. Also keep in mind that domestic abuse is a HUGE part of religious abuse, especially, in fundamentalist religious sects. It’s time we became aware of what the WARNING SIGNS of abuse are.

Recognizing the warning signs of domestic violence and other abuse

It’s impossible to know with certainty what goes on behind closed doors, but there are some telltale signs and symptoms of emotional abuse and domestic violence. If you witness any warning signs of abuse in a friend, family member, or co-worker, take them very seriously.

General warning signs of domestic abuse

People who are being abused may:

• Seem afraid or anxious to please their partner
• Go along with everything their partner says and does
• Check in often with their partner to report where they are and what they’re doing
• Receive frequent, harassing phone calls from their partner
• Talk about their partner’s temper, jealousy, or possessiveness

Warning signs of physical violence

People who are being physically abused may:

• Have frequent injuries, with the excuse of “accidents”
• Frequently miss work, school, or social occasions, without explanation
• Dress in clothing designed to hide bruises or scars (e.g. wearing long sleeves in the summer or sunglasses indoors)

Warning signs of isolation

People who are being isolated by their abuser may:

• Be restricted from seeing other family members and friends regardless of beliefs.
• Rarely go out in public without either their partner (adult) or parent or guardian (child)
• Have limited access to money, credit cards, or the car
• Be restricted from going places (like the movies or the park) with friends, family or, other adults

The psychological warning signs of abuse

People who are being abused may:

• Have very low self-esteem, even if they used to be confident
• Show major personality changes (e.g. an outgoing person becomes withdrawn)
• Be depressed, anxious, or suicidal
• Become afraid of others, especially, of the authorities that are there to help them
• May result to cutting themselves or hurting themselves
• May result to drugs and alcohol

Speak up if you suspect domestic violence or abuse as a result of a religious organization

If you suspect that someone you know is being abused, speak up! If you’re hesitating—telling yourself that it’s none of your business, you might be wrong, or the person might not want to talk about it—keep in mind that expressing your concern will let the person know that you care and may even save his or her life.

If you suspect that someone you know is being abused, speak up! If you’re hesitating—telling yourself that it’s none of your business, you might be wrong, or the person might not want to talk about it—keep in mind that expressing your concern will let the person know that you care and may even save his or her life.

Do:

Ask if something is wrong
Express concern
Listen and validate
Offer help
Support his or her decisions if an adult

Don’t:

Wait for him or her to come to you
Judge or blame
Pressure him or her
Give advice
Place conditions on your support

If an adult: Talk to the person in private and let him or her know that you’re concerned. Point out the things you’ve noticed that make you worried. Tell the person that you’re there, whenever he or she feels ready to talk. Reassure the person that you’ll keep whatever is said between the two of you, and let him or her know that you’ll help in any way you can.

If a child: Call Child Protective Services or the Police right away! Child abuse and Child Sexual Abuse is rampant in this country and we must protect our children from it. Your silence may cost a child his life in the aftermath of the abuse.

Remember, abusers are very good at controlling and manipulating their victims. People who have been emotionally abused or battered are depressed, drained, scared, ashamed, and confused. They need help to get out, yet they’ve often been isolated from their family and friends. By picking up on the warning signs and offering support, you can help them escape an abusive situation and begin healing.

If you can think of other warning signs to add to this list, please feel free to do so by leaving your comment.

Lately I have been covering the topic of Sex Bias in translation and how it has affected “meaning” of passages of scripture. These changes in translation have affected women throughout history in a very abusive way by subjugating them to men and their abuses. One of the many  teachings to help in subjugating women and taking away their power and authority and autonomy, is the following that I have been covering these last couple of weeks:  1 Cor. 11: 1-16

I would sincerely ask that you please click on these links to read the eight MISFITS of these verses by Hebrew and Greek Scholar, Katherine Bushnell: Part 1 and Part 2 and Part 3 and Part 4.  Also read, Paul’s Real Teaching as to Unveiling – Part 1

Picking up where I left off in part one, we notice that Paul considers it his duty,  to go further, and tear away any remaining prejudice among Christian men, against women unveiling. Verses 7-9 are intended for this purpose, showing what “headship” in Christ means to the believer, and that woman’s relation to man is not unlike man’s relation to God (and woman’s to God also, for that matter), so that the same argument that would lead to his unveiling before God applies to her unveiling before man.

Verses 7-9 mean,–

7. For a [Christian] man ought not to veil the head because he is the image and glory of God. But woman is [also] the glory of man.

8. For man is not originally from woman [as from a despised and inferior source], but woman is from man.

9. Nor was the man created for the woman [to help her], but the woman for the man [to help him,–will cover what this means later.]

Poor, fallen, sinful man does not bear God’s image and likeness simply because he is a male! God is not male or female, so that one SEX bears His image more than the other. It is the glorified Jesus Christ who bears that image and manifests that glory (Heb. 1:3). It is only in HIM that humanity takes that standing before God. He is our Representative, our Head. It is because Christ, the Head of the redeemed man, is in heaven, there “to appear in the presence of God for us” (Heb. 9:24), that man is permitted to cast aside all tokens of guilt and condemnation on earth. As for us, “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” “But woman is the glory of man,” for she reflects credit on him. This is what the Apostle meant when he said of the Thessalonians, “Ye are our glory” (1 Thess. 2:19, 20); “glory” means “an outshining,”–the very opposite state of a veiled person. Read its Scriptural import in Prov. 17:6; 20:29; Psa. 3:3; Isai. 13:19; 20:5; 60:19; Ezck. 20; Luke 2:32; etc.

But why is Paul so interested in this matter as to veiling or unveiling in worship? In what way did it dishonour Christ? 2 Cor. 3:16-18, gives interesting light as to Paul’s teaching and Jewish practice. The Jew was expected to wear the tallith, in worship, as a sign of guilt and condemnation before the law; but Paul tells us that “When it (the Jewish nation) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.” It was not the veil itself, but what the veil signifies to Jewish converts, that  made it objectionable. The atonement of Jesus Christ had removed guilt and condemnation, from the heart of those who trusted the sufficiency of the atonement. And growth in grace depended upon trust in the removal of these, and hence the unveiled face. “We all with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror, the glory of the Lord are changed into the same image, from glory to glory.” This truth applies to women as well as to men.

Verses 10-16 —

10. For this [additional] cause ought the woman to have authority over head [to unveil it] because of her angels [ who always behold God’s face].

11. Nevertheless, in the Lord, [i.e. among believers,] the woman is not [to be legislated for] apart from the man, nor the man from the woman.

12. For just as woman came out of man, so is man [born into the world] through woman and all Christians born of God. Judge of this matter among yourselves.

13. It is proper for a woman [at least] to pray unto God unveiled.

14. Nor is there anything in the nature of hair itself that teaches you that if a man wear it long it is a dishonour to him, while if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her, for her hair has been given her instead of a veil.

16. But if anyone thinks to be contentious [in defence of such a custom as either men or women veiling for worship], let him know that “we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.”

We come now to the 10th verse, of which Dean Stanley says: “In the difficulty of its several parts, it stands alone in the New Testament, unless we except, perhaps, Rev. 13:18, or Gal. 3:20.” But the only difficulty encountered is to MAKE Paul say the precise opposite to what Paul clearly says here. That has indeed proved a difficult task. The real sense can be found through humility of spirit, where egotism fails. When the disciples asked the Lord which of them would be greatest in the kingdom of heaven, Jesus set a child in their midst, and informed them that until they humbled themselves as such they could not even enter that kingdom. From the child He transferred the lesson to “one of these little ones that believe on Me,” i.e. to the believer humblest in rank among them, saying, “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father who is in heaven,” Matt. 18:10. The words in verse 10 bear the translation, “because of her angels,” the definite article in Greek often having the force of a possessive pronoun, and thus the verse should have been rendered. Paul taught that “angels” were inferior in rank to redeemed man, 1 Cor. 6:3. They are ministering spirits to us, Heb. 1:14. Yet the most despised women’s angels stand before God, with no intervening veil, and behold His face. Shall not woman be permitted to do as much as her “ministering spirits” are allowed to do? Man unveils because Christ, his Head, is unveiled before God. woman “ought to have the right” to unveil because not only is Christ, her spiritual Head, unveiled before God, but man, her matrimonial head, also; and, if this were not enough, then her ministering spirits “do always behold the face” of God. This is the Apostle’s argument. Shall man attempt to require that woman veil out of respect for his authority (?) over her? Not when God does not require man to veil out of respect for God’s authority over man.

To meet the prejudices of man against woman, the Apostle has been obliged to discuss the sexes apart from each other, as though set in contrast, and he must now renounce this conception as unchristian. Verses 11 and 12 declare there is no such disunion “in the Lord,” but, as he says in Gal. 3:28, “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (R.V.).

(Verse 13) Then the Apostle declares: “It is proper that a woman pray unto God uncovered.” This is Paul’s simple statement of fact, and not a question. Greek does not alter the order of the words of a sentence to distinguish a question from a simple statement, as we do in English. We only need to altar the punctuation (of uninspired and recent invention), to change from one to the other, since there is no interrogative word in the sentence.

(Verse 14) “Nor doth even nature itself [of hair] teach you,” etc. Our idiomatic English would say, to express the same idea, “There is nothing in the nature of hair itself to teach you,”–a simple statement that appeals to everybody’s common sense, while, as a question, this is an absurdity. The entire Chinese nation of men disproves the statement of theologians that Nature gives women long hair and men short hair. No artist would dare paint a portrait of Jesus Christ with short hair. Is His hair “a shame” to Him?

But why does Paul discuss hair here? Because he has just said it was a fitting thing for a woman to uncover the head in prayer, and Jewish women would find it most difficult to overcome a false sense of shame in doing so, or in seeing other women do so, since uncovering the hair in public amounted to proof of adultery in Jewish estimation (see Paul’s Real Teaching as to Unveiling – Part 1).

Then comes Paul’s concluding statement, that if anyone is going to contend for either sex veiling for worship, or women for modesty, “We have no such custom”–veiling,–though we may have to make allowance for it, out of regard for the welfare of women, to save them from “disgrace.” John Stuart Mill has wisely remarked: “To pretend that Christianity was intended to stereotype existing forms of government and society, and protect them against change, is to reduce it to the level of Islamism or of Brahmism.”

— Katherine Bushnell, 1923

Men have changed scripture to “force” women into a place of servility and submission to them. The Bible has been used for centuries to subjugate and control women only because MEN have translated their preconceptions and opinions into them for dominance and control. Power, control, Ego, pride and arrogance are the root causes for these changes, pointing women toward subjection and abuse.  It’s time for the truth to be told and the lies exposed. Women need to have their honor, dignity and autonomy restored and all the many “labels” placed on them by religious, self-centered and self-seeking men, removed once and for all. Do any of these changes “look to the benefit” of women? Think about it. Answer: No. They have all been done to the benefit of men.