[continued from previous message]   
      
   [265] Judges 16:16-22; 1 Corinthians 11:1-15.   
      
   Actually this whole section of Corinthians is quite amusing, for Paul ends his   
   argument with an extraordinary plug for the then-fashionable Roman hair style   
   of “short back and sides” for men. Says Paul, “Doth not even nature itself   
   teach you, that, if a    
   man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” Obviously, Paul knew nothing   
   about lions, but it's indeed strange that he would have forgotten about   
   Sam-son. Yet, most curious of all is what Paul apparently had to say about the   
   popular image of Jesus, for    
   can it be that all of the portraits of Jesus with shoulder-length hair (and   
   longer) are nothing but an insult to the man?   
      
   [266] Mark 10:1-12.   
      
   [267] Deuteronomy 24:12.   
      
   In an examination of the English language, we notice this same type of word   
   discrimination. The word, “divorcee”, is used to refer to a woman who is   
   divorced, but there is no word to denote a divorced man except “bachelor”.   
      
   [268] Even today the system of divorce in Judaism maintains a man-oriented   
   bias. Although, strictly speaking, Jewish religious law permits only the man   
   to secure a divorce, and allows this divorce for almost any reason and at   
   almost any time, in practice    
   a similar right has been accorded to the woman. Hence, the only basic   
   requirement nowadays for a Jewish divorce is the mutual agreement between the   
   two parties. However, the form of the divorce proceeding as well as certain   
   exceptions to the rule still    
   operate to suppress women. For example, the divorce takes effect only after   
   the man grants and obtains a get, a Jewish bill of divorce, from the rabbinic   
   court, and then drops this document into the cupped hands of his wife, in   
   front of appropriate male    
   witnesses. In special circumstances, one party may compel the other party to   
   accept a divorce, but generally this is not possible. In such a situation,   
   Mosaic law permits the man to remarry without a get, but the woman cannot   
   remarry without incurring    
   the stigma of adultery, and having the additional curse that her subsequent   
   offspring be declared to be bastards. And so it comes as no surprise that   
   women tend to be more reluctant than men to go through the humiliation of a   
   Jewish divorce proceeding,    
   and that quite a few men still exercise their right not to appear before the   
   beth din, the Jewish divorce tribunal, as a means of unduly pressuring their   
   wives into continuing with the marriage, or as a form of revenge against them   
   for having sought the    
   divorce.   
      
   [269] Herod Antipas and Philip were both sons of Herod the Great, but Antipas'   
   mother was a Samaritan lady named Malthrace, whereas Philip's mother was a   
   woman called Cleopatra.   
      
   [270] Matthew 14:1-13; Mark 6:14-32; Luke 3:19-20, 9:7-9.   
      
   [271] Matthew 5:31-32.   
      
   It may be noted that, according to this pronouncement of Jesus, a man may   
   divorce his wife and marry again without committing adultery, whereas the   
   woman who has been divorced cannot remarry without automatically committing   
   adultery. The rationale for    
   this may be that the man, according to Jewish law, always had the right to   
   marry more than one wife but, in any case, the effect of Jesus' words was   
   discriminatory against women.   
      
   [272] Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-38.   
      
   Actually this law also discriminates against women since its sole purpose was   
   to carry on the patrilineal dynasty, not to give support to the unfortunate   
   widow. And this law has special significance with respect to the New Testament   
   story, because it    
   provides the basis on which Boaz married Ruth and begot Obed, the paternal   
   grandfather of King David, from whom Jesus himself was said to be descended.   
   See Ruth 1:1-5, 1:11-17, 2:1-2, 3:1-14, 4:1-22; Matthew 1:5-6; Luke 3:31-32.   
      
   [273] Deuteronomy 21:15-17.   
      
   [274] Leviticus 20:21.   
      
   [275] Mark 10:1-12.   
      
   [276] Genesis 3:1-24.   
      
   [277] Genesis 2:16-17.   
      
   [278] Genesis 3:16.   
      
   [279] Genesis 3:33.   
      
   [280] Genesis 3:8.   
      
   [281] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.   
      
   [282] Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:9-15; 1 Peter 3:1-6.   
      
   [283] 1 Timothy 2:11-14.   
      
   [284] Deuteronomy 22:28-29.   
      
   [285] Deuteronomy 22:13-21.   
      
   Note here that the burden of proof was shifted onto the shoulders of the   
   defendant.   
      
   [286] Numbers 27:1-11.   
      
   [287] Deuteronomy 23:17-18.   
      
   Even though men may have been cautioned against encouraging prostitution,   
   there was never any punishment when they violated this injunction. This Jewish   
   tradition was preserved religiously in high hypocritical fashion by the   
   Church. To cite just one    
   small example, Pope John XII is reputed to have kept his private harem right   
   inside the Vatican.   
      
   [288] Deuteronomy 23:2; Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35.   
      
   Jesus was perhaps one of the most famous bastards in all of history, due in   
   part to the ingenuity of his mother, Mary. She, being faced with the   
   unenviable life of a complete social outcast, may have given the only   
   honorable excuse to her dishonorable    
   position – “It was no man, but rather God who impregnated me.” If she had   
   somehow convinced Joseph of this story, then no doubt she also told it to the   
   child, Jesus; and that would have been a strong psychological cause for any   
   “delusions of grandeur”    
   which he expressed in later life. Of course, the whole story in Matthew and   
   Luke may have been a later device to enhance the prestige of Jesus as the son   
   of God, in which case Mary would most probably have been a respectable Jewish   
   lady all along and    
   Jesus the first-born and legitimate son of Joseph.   
      
   [289] Leviticus 12:1-5.   
      
   [290] Numbers 5:11-31.   
      
   [291] Deuteronomy 24:1.   
      
   [292] Exodus 21:7-11, 22:16-17; Deuteronomy 22:28-29.   
      
   [293] Deuteronomy 22:13-19.   
      
   [294] 1 Corinthians 11:9.   
      
   [295] In England there have been many Queens, and now even a female Prime   
   Minister, who have ruled the country. Queens, however, were never an index to   
   the real status of women there.   
      
   In India at present (1984), the Prime Minister is a woman. But women in that   
   country are still found who self-immolate upon the death of their husbands   
   and, in addition, there are more than a few brides who are simply murdered for   
   failing to please their    
   new husbands or their new mothers-in-law.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)