If Paul's books are wrong than so are

[Riverwolf]

I don't think you understand what I am saying, which is probably because I am not explaining it well enough.
I'll try again. To truly find God, God has to find you first. All other paths are purely imanginative attempts.

Why do I say this? Because, God's perfectness requires Him to be responsible for finding Him. And until He intervenes in our lives we will never find him, no matter the path we are on.

I know that's how Christ works.

When I say God, I mean the Supreme Reality, enshrined in the hearts of all. God, or if you prefer, Brahman, cannot interfere with anything, as Brahman IS everything.

The goal is to realize Union with God, which can be done. God doesn't have to find anybody, as God is within everybody.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I know that's how Christ works.

When I say God, I mean the Supreme Reality, enshrined in the hearts of all. God, or if you prefer, Brahman, cannot interfere with anything, as Brahman IS everything.

The goal is to realize Union with God, which can be done. God doesn't have to find anybody, as God is within everybody.

That is where the passivity comes from, because your approach does not deal with Sin.

It's ok though, I understand what you are saying, and if I did not believe in the power of Sin, I would actually be following with you. That is where I started actually years ago.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is where the passivity comes from, because your approach does not deal with Sin.

You sure?

I have not outlined the entire Path that I'm looking to follow, as I'm not sure I'll follow it fully just yet. Suffice to say for now that Sin is, in fact, spoken of in this Path. In this case, sinning is not following one's dharma, which I do all the time.

It's ok though, I understand what you are saying, and if I did not believe in the power of Sin, I would actually be following with you. That is where I started actually years ago.

Well, if you started following me, I'd tell you to stop, because I'm still an aspirant.

 

[gwk230]

Your level of understanding dismisses much the bible has to say.

　
I disagree.
　

Salvation has already come.

　
Salvation has come for those that will obey and believe. This hasn’t changed since the creation of the first man. Nothing new under the sun.
　

The second coming is only going to make our body match our soul. Read Corinthians 1 15 :35 +

　
I also disagree. I read that we will have a new body. Not one of flesh and blood. And what so called “soul” are you speaking of?
　

Also, for your reference to Hebrew 9:28 try starting at vs 26.
This is where our fundamental difference is between you and I. Jesus suffered for our sins before the foundation of the world. What He did at the cross just demonstrated what he had already done for us.

　
I again disagree and will attempt to demonstrate why………
　
My commentary is in ( ).
　
Heb 9:24 For the Moshiach has entered a Holiest Place which is not man-made and merely a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, in order to appear now on our behalf in the very presence of Elohim.
　
(This is stating that Yahshua has been transformed into that new body and has entered into the Temple that is in heaven and not that of the copy/duplicate which we had here on earth. He is now our priest and is there before Elohim to perpetuate for our sins.)
　
Heb 9:25 Further, he did not enter heaven to offer himself over and over again, like the cohen hagadol who enters the Holiest Place year after year with blood that is not his own;
　
(The high priest, here on earth, would enter into the holy of holies once a year on Yom Kippur to over the blood of animals to Elohim for the sins of the people. They were at that time allowed to do this continually for all sin but it did nothing for the conscience of man who continually would sin the same sins over and over again. So as a father gives grace unto his son who continues to disobey his commands, the grace eventually runs out, and now we have only once to get it right. We now have Yahshua on the seen who cannot spill his own blood over and over again for the sins of man.)
　
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer death many times - from the founding of the universe on. But as it is, he has appeared once at the end of the ages in order to do away with sins past through the sacrifice of himself.
　
(This is only simply stating that if Yah had wanted the Moshiach to do exactly as the high priest did here on earth then Yah would have had to raise a Moshiach over and over again to perform this duty which would mean that these Moshiachs would have had to go through all of the pain and suffering that this Moshiach did. But since this is not the way Yah intended it to be he raised up but one Moshiach to do away with all sins past at this point and time for all those that would accept and obey.)
　
Heb 9:27 Just as human beings have to die once, but after this comes judgment,
　
(This is a curse put on all of mankind for Adams sin.)
　
Heb 9:28 so also the Moshiach, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, he will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to deliver those who are eagerly waiting for him.
　
(And this is the first resurrection. He will not be dealing with sin at this point because we cannot have two forms of perpetuation in force at a time so when the Temple is rebuilt the sons of Zadok will be placed in the position of the priest and will begin to offer sacrifices unto Elohim. Those that are raised and or transformed at this first resurrection will have been judged and will not have to go before the judgment seat at the second resurrection.)
　
We do have differences in our understanding and this is all I needed to prove it for myself. Thank you for all that you have offered and I appreciate all of your time and your efforts in responding to me. You have a great evening.

 

[TheKnight]

And until He intervenes in our lives we will never find him, no matter the path we are on.

God created and sustains our existence constantly. Finding Him isn't impossible. It's certainly difficult, but it's not impossible.

 

[Storm]

Reposting for itwillend:

OK, first off, I make no claims to Biblical scholarship. I haven't even read the whole thing. I intend to study it in the future, and perhaps that will change my opinions. Perhaps not. But, anyway, my thoughts on Paul.

As I said in the beginning of the thread, he exploited Christ's authority to promote his own agenda.

The most blatant and ludicrous example is his assertion in Corinthians that men should have short hair, women long, and that nature revealed this to be so. Well, no. Nature doesn't. Males frequently have glorious plumage while females are relatively plain, especially among birds. Paul's laughable claim was really just promotion of Roman fashion. That's the most blatant example, now for the most egregious.

Jesus was, by the standards of his day, a radical feminist. He treated us as equals, and even had female disciples, Mary Magdalene being the most famous. Paul, otoh, said we should sit down and shut up. We should never have opinions not approved by our husbands, much less be so uppity as to (gasp!) attempt to educate a male.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

As I said in the beginning of the thread, he exploited Christ's authority to promote his own agenda.

I am only having trouble understanding your use of Agenda. Are you asserting Paul had a secret Agenda to make all men have short hair, and that all women are at men's beck and call and less than equal? Is that what he was after? I will answer in detail following your examples.

The most blatant and ludicrous example is his assertion in Corinthians that men should have short hair, women long, and that nature revealed this to be so. Well, no. Nature doesn't. Males frequently have glorious plumage while females are relatively plain, especially among birds. Paul's laughable claim was really just promotion of Roman fashion. That's the most blatant example, now for the most egregious.

1st Corinthians 11
"14": Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
"15": But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
"16": But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

These should be the verses that support your position. However when one wants to put forth an agenda one might do well to not counteract the thrust of one's action with a sentence like the one found in verse 16.
Paul did mention this stuff about hair in vs 14 & 15 and if you would like to discuss we can. However to speak of an agenda and then read in vs 16 "he has no such custom" Really doesn't work to well.

Jesus was, by the standards of his day, a radical feminist. He treated us as equals, and even had female disciples, Mary Magdalene being the most famous. Paul, otoh, said we should sit down and shut up. We should never have opinions not approved by our husbands, much less be so uppity as to (gasp!) attempt to educate a male.

I can only speculate on what verses you are talking about, but let me provide some that I am sure you will be suffice with.

1st Timothy Ch 2

"11": Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
"12": But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

There are other verses throughout the NT from other authors and more from Paul as well. However to single handedly cast Paul as the person with an Agenda against women is pretty ridiculous. Unless of course you feel the same about the entire bible.
Sarah, called Abraham her Lord. Being in subjection to your husband is hardly something new Paul came up with.

Of course as a man I know in our day and age how this is perceived, but there is a flip side to this. Peter spoke about it in 1st Peter ch 3.

"1": Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
"2": While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
"3": Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
"4": But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
"5": For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
"6": Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
"7": Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
"8": Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
"9": Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

Please note that I have emphasized a very important section of this passage. The fact is women are not a weaker vessel by nature or any other rational, but by commandment from God. So what is being pointed out here is that the HUSBAND BETTER realize it is ONLY by God's decree this is so, and as such better not not think they are by nature or by any other stretch of the mind better than women, because it is just a commandment of God that structure be this way.

However, what have men done with this? Abused the HELL out of women and used it as a free pass to do whatever they want with women. That comes with a huge price however, because in their ignorance and arrogant flaunting of what they think is some prize from God, is actually going to be something they are judged by in the end.

Point being women are equal to men, but God has a purpose for everyone and that is as far as it goes. Paul knew this so did all the other good men of God.

Because you admit to have not read the whole bible I totally see where you are coming from. You are ABSOLUTELY correct in believing Jesus taught women are equal. Carefully studying the bible will lead to the same conclusion.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge the book, but those that teach it (including me).

 

[Heneni]

About women teachers. Paul was not anti women lol!

To understand this you want to check up if the greek language has a different word for women and wife.

I think you might discover that there is only one word for women and wife in the context of the scriptures that says 'i do not allow women to teach' . The word 'women' there can very well mean 'wife'. And that is exactly what the word means in the context of 'i do not allow a women to teach' because the next statement is...'she is not allowed to excercise authority over her husband'. So paul is not talking about all women he is talking about a married women. AND NOT ALL MARRIED women either.

The problem is...that in those days in that town, if a man was married to a woman who was unsaved, then it would be catastrophic for her to start teaching others. Also in general.

First of all Paul’s concern could have been for women in this group of people who were not saved preaching to the saved...... In that case, he admonished no women i.e wife to have authority over her husband in spiritual matters. It could also be that he was forbidding women to preach until these wives have let go of mythical concepts which they believed in.

What mythical ideas you might ask? The chruch of Ephesus was well, in ephesus, a wealthy Asian city which also housed the great temple of artemis, one of the seven wonders of the world. Artemis is a fertility goddess, who promised protection during child birth. She was also multi-breasted. This is why Paul told women that they would be 'protected' during childbirth, and needed no help in other words from lady DIANA, who Artemis was also known by. Diana was an Asian god, not a Greek god. Now men...no wonder...he he were attracted by a multibreasted goddess. Worshippers at the temple believed that sexual intercourse in the temple linked them to their gods. Back in those days women would be more prone to believe in this goddess due to the childbirth protection issue. But of course a women would probably be married to have kids. Which is why he did not allow these married women to teach, until such time that they had given up on mythical ideas and was saved.

Also, timothy which was very close to paul, would not have received the news of wives not being allowed to teach as new news, he would have known if paul from the start did not want ALL women to teach. Usually when paul said something he had said before he would say...'i remind you'. Paul does not say that he reminds timothy..but rather it seems like this was a specific command for this specific church due to the mythical influence of the temple goddess.

Also do check up on the meaning of the word...silence. Which people believe to mean a women should not open her mouth at all but keep quite. HE HE...The word silence means peaceful in this context. She was to remain peaceful and not get uptight, because she probably would have knowing that her very children’s lives where now at 'risk' if she stopped believing in Diana and she was to listen to her husband instead of her saved husband listening to her. So paul comforts these women by saying..'you will be safe during childbirth' but also admonishes them to remain at peace with their husbands, submit to his authority in spiritual matters in an effort to protect the authenticity of the gospel.


We also know that the bible says that when it comes to those who are saved, there is no jew or gentile, male or female. We also know that paul admonished believers to not marry unbelievers, but in this case some of the men were already married to DIANA followers.

Heneni

 

[Wandered Off]

In that case, he admonished no women i.e wife to have authority over her husband in spiritual matters.

Is there any explanation for why genitalia should determine one's spiritual role? I'm missing the tie-in. The only explanation that makes any sense to me is he has made the common mistake of misinterpreting cultural mores as divine command.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Is there any explanation for why genitalia should determine one's spiritual role? I'm missing the tie-in. The only explanation that makes any sense to me is he has made the common mistake of misinterpreting cultural mores as divine command.

The part you are not understanding is it all is referring to Christ as the bridegroom and his people as the Bride.

These teachings are setup so we can understand how that bigger relationship works, but undertandably people take it personally and emotionally and feel it teaches they are not equal.

 

[Heneni]

Is there any explanation for why genitalia should determine one's spiritual role? I'm missing the tie-in. The only explanation that makes any sense to me is he has made the common mistake of misinterpreting cultural mores as divine command.

Hi jerry. As i explained below, wives who believed in the goddess diana, were married to men that were saved in this asian city where the temple of the goddess diana was situated. The women that paul was worried about teaching others, were the ones who believed and followed the goddess diana. They were already married to saved men. And so paul rightly did not allow any followers of the goddess DIANA to have any say in the spiritual matters of god.

Another indication that paul had some upsetting encounters in the city is when he speaks about Alexander the metal maker.

2 Tim 4:14 Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm.

Metal workers were employed by the temple amongst other things to make idols and artifacts for the temple. You will find that paul addresses the idea of myths in the book of timothy three times. Its the same book where paul addresses the ideas of women not teaching and how they should dress. Women that followed Diana, became known as the amazon women. LOL...i mean no amazon women would want to submit to her husband right? And these women were not very discreet in how they dressed either. So only in the book of Timothy were these women who followed strange customs did paul address the idea of women not teaching and dressing properly. He was addressing a certain kind of women (unsaved) and into mythical gods.

Paul was concerned about mythical gods and goddesses having an influence on the christians of ephesus in particular. And of the four times the word myth is used in the bible...three times it is used in the book of Timothy.

God bless
Heneni

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Hi jerry. As i explained below, wives who believed in the goddess diana, were married to men that were saved in this asian city where the temple of the goddess diana was situated. The women that paul was worried about teaching others, were the ones who believed and followed the goddess diana. They were already married to saved men. And so paul rightly did not allow any followers of the goddess DIANA to have any say in the spiritual matters of god.

Another indication that paul had some upsetting encounters in the city is when he speaks about Alexander the metal maker.

2 Tim 4:14 Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm.

Metal workers were employed by the temple amongst other things to make idols and artifacts for the temple. You will find that paul addresses the idea of myths in the book of timothy three times. Its the same book where paul addresses the ideas of women not teaching and how they should dress. Women that followed Diana, became known as the amazon women. LOL...i mean no amazon women would want to submit to her husband right? And these women were not very discreet in how they dressed either. So only in the book of Timothy were these women who followed strange customs did paul address the idea of women not teaching and dressing properly. He was addressing a certain kind of women (unsaved) and into mythical gods.

Paul was concerned about mythical gods and goddesses having an influence on the christians of ephesus in particular. And of the four times the word myth is used in the bible...three times it is used in the book of Timothy.

God bless
Heneni

Hey Heneni, I think it is important to note however, that women have always had a bit of subjection to their husbands throughout the OT when it came to God's people.
However, we also see Women had great roles from the story of Ruth and others.

So I am not discounting your interesting perspective and one I have never heard of. It sounds perfectly plausible, but at the same time God uses the picture he does about husband and wives to demonstrate what Christ is to His bride.

 

[Wookiemonster]

Hey Heneni, I think it is important to note however, that women have always had a bit of subjection to their husbands throughout the OT when it came to God's people.
However, we also see Women had great roles from the story of Ruth and others.

So I am not discounting your interesting perspective and one I have never heard of. It sounds perfectly plausible, but at the same time God uses the picture he does about husband and wives to demonstrate what Christ is to His bride.

Could you please post exact chapter and verse quotes where the Tanakh states that women are sugjecated.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Could you please post exact chapter and verse quotes where the Tanakh states that women are sugjecated.

Hmm, you have taken me out of context several times in your short stay at the RF, so it is hard to take you seriously.
You seem to have an unwillingness to listen to opposing view points and I suggest you not take things so personally on here.

I will give you one example in the OT of this Genesis 3:16

"16": Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

 

[AlsoAnima]

all the other books in the OT. Thus making the whole bible suspect!

Paul changed the apparent direction of what many thought would be God's direction in the OT. Is this the only reason people bash on him and his books?

As the story goes he got his revelation just as many of the people did in the OT. So what is it? Is it the message the turns "OT only" students off?

Thanks.

In conclusion, the proper word is then, not than.

 

[Heneni]

Hey Heneni, I think it is important to note however, that women have always had a bit of subjection to their husbands throughout the OT when it came to God's people.
However, we also see Women had great roles from the story of Ruth and others.

So I am not discounting your interesting perspective and one I have never heard of. It sounds perfectly plausible, but at the same time God uses the picture he does about husband and wives to demonstrate what Christ is to His bride.

Absolutely, I have no problem at all with a women submitting unto her husband. Its an act of love, in the same way the body submits to the head ...jesus. I just dont think that submitting means you are not allowed to teach or preach.

Heneni

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I just dont think that submitting means you are not allowed to teach or preach.

Heneni

Agreed

 

[Wookiemonster]

Hmm, you have taken me out of context several times in your short stay at the RF, so it is hard to take you seriously.
You seem to have an unwillingness to listen to opposing view points and I suggest you not take things so personally on here.

I will give you one example in the OT of this Genesis 3:16

Bere**** 3:16 Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

Yes rule, in the sense that he is responsible for caring for her needs. Much as a king is responsible for the people who live within his kingdom.

Last time I checked having someone caring for my needs was not subjacation.

Next chapter and verse reference.

Oh and while you're at it...when have I taken you out of context?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Yes rule, in the sense that he is responsible for caring for her needs. Much as a king is responsible for the people who live within his kingdom.

Again it is interpretation. That is all our right to do.

Next chapter and verse reference.

This demonstrates my earlier post about you unwillingness to discuss ideas behind the text.

Oh and while you're at it...when have I taken you out of context?

If you read my OP I said if Paul's writings are wrong the the whol Old Testament is suspect. I never said wrong now did I? I left it open for discussion.
I presume this will fly over your head though as you seem intent in only playing volleyball with me.

Next.

 

[Wandered Off]

The women that paul was worried about teaching others, were the ones who believed and followed the goddess diana.

Why didn't god inspire him to say that? Had he been specific, he might have prevented some of the abuse that has been carried out because of his words.

Maybe he figured it was just some letter that would be discarded soon because it didn't apply beyond the situation - yet we have large churches today that restrict teaching roles because of this.