HisChildForever Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 [quote name='Lil Red' post='1837685' date='Apr 16 2009, 06:46 PM']+J.M.J.+ [b]please keep it on topic!! [/b][/quote] I may have started the problem (via Post #11) but I certainly didn't intend for it to go crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1837620' date='Apr 16 2009, 05:04 PM']I was unaware that the Church could ever be called "modern." She is eternal.[/quote] i totally agree with this comment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1837691' date='Apr 16 2009, 04:49 PM']I may have started the problem (via Post #11) but I certainly didn't intend for it to go crazy. [/quote] +J.M.J.+ i know. just a friendly reminder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 [quote][b][u]Leviticus 27:6[/u] A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver."[/b][/quote] This law refers to when a parent wants to "consecrate" a child to the Lord. Not consecrate the way we think of consecration, (setting that person apart) but donating what the "monetary value" of the child. This has nothing to do with subjective value. The "value" assigned is strictly mercenary, whatever the person could be expected to add to the family's overhead. That amount would be returned to the Lord. In the previous verses of chapter 27, older children were assigned higher values; not because an older child is better cherished, but because a young adult "produces" more than a young child. Nowadays people try to assign a dollar number to the work that housewives and mothers do; but in ancient Israel there was no such estimation. Women were not typically found in the marketplace. They simply did not make as much "money." When a woman married, she left her father's house and joined her husband's family. In recognition for the loss of labor that taking a woman from her family means, the husbands family would give the bride's family a dowry. (Interesting that this is inverted of the traditional European idea of dowry.) But the fact of the matter is, all of the children born from their union would belong to the husband's family. And children were the Israelites #1 resource. Many sons = growth for the family, while many daughters=shrinking family. In terms of money, plain and simple, women were worth less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 Again, you have a lot of knowledge and are explaining it real well. Do you happen to have a link or a book recommendation that covers this in full? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
princessgianna Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1837600' date='Apr 16 2009, 04:43 PM']So a woman covering her head because of the presence of the holy angels in the liturgy is a historically conditioned thing? Interesting. In the Byzantine tradition it is still believed that the holy angels are present when the divine liturgy is celebrated, but perhaps that belief no longer exists in the modern Roman Rite.[/quote] No, we Romans still hold that belief! The Saints are also there! Sadly it wasn't being stressed as maybe it should have! Gladly it is coming back, give us time Apotheoun! We are getting back on track! Edited April 17, 2009 by princessgianna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StColette Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I need to find my Biblical Studies notes. I have some great ones on a Biblical lecture about woman being the Jewel of Creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1838566' date='Apr 17 2009, 02:25 PM']Again, you have a lot of knowledge and are explaining it real well. Do you happen to have a link or a book recommendation that covers this in full?[/quote] For reading I would recommend Roland de Vaux. He wrote a number of history books about the ancient Israelites, which I understand are considered classic. I had to read his books when I was in the convent. Really fascinating. He doesn't take a strictly religious approach, but is very respectful. I don't know if I would say he covers this area "in full," because he really doesn't address too much Scripture. He talks about what role women played in that society, which for me made the laws that society produced make more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justified Saint Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1837595' date='Apr 16 2009, 03:41 PM']Which makes me think about the thread regarding head coverings - back then it was historical and cultural.[/quote] There are many instances in the Bible of historical/cultural practices and they should not be construed as ahistorical just because they appear in the Bible. I could easily see how this could also be the case for head coverings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinytherese Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 When scrolling through amazon I found a "Women in the Bible for Dummies" and it's written by Dr. Scott Hahn last time I checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now