That doesn't stop theologians for claiming "aramaisms" as a convenient excuse for parts of the Bible that are theologically inconvenient. The classic example is the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is seemingly contradicted by the Gospels' many references to Jesus having brothers. Catholic theologians claim that the term brothers actually refers to cousins because in Aramaic the term for brothers can mean cousins in some contexts even though the Greek term is not ambiguous. This type of mix up doesn't seem to occur outside of the Gospels but that doesn't stop people from claiming it.

Gays and trans have no sexual urges confirmed

Strong desires for garlic bread

They are the joke to Catholics

*Rolls big stone away* (rest of script like Kill Bill)

IDK who down voted you but you got a solid snort from me.

Yes, no, it's complicated. Early Christianity did push back against some masculine norms of the time. For example, Jesus saying that you should only divorce in cases of cheating was a help for women at the time. Men were divorcing their wives for whatever reason and leaving them destitute. However, now it's flipped around by fundamentalist churches to say that's the rule for all time, and that means women can't leave an abusive husband. So what was intended as help for women is now a harm.

1 Corinthians 14:34,35 ("women should remain silent in churches") was probably stuck in there later on. The passage around it reads more naturally without it. From verse 26 on, it has an egalitarian outlook in saying that anyone who feels inspired should be allowed to stand up and speak their mind until someone else has an inspiration. Then it hits verse 34, and suddenly it's "but not women".

And it's interesting that a fundamentalist church might not approve women to even speak in church, citing this scripture as the reason, but not running their service in any other way that passage says.

The Malpais Legate.