If Paul's books are wrong than so are

[Storm]

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.

1) Those things were included in his agenda, yes. Basically, he claimed the authority of Christ to make people do things his way with no regard for the actual teachings of Christ.
2) It wasn't so secret.

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.

Discussing the misogyny of the Bible as a whole would totally derail this thread. Suffice to say, I consider it yet another example of author bias.

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

I'm not quick to judge, really. I always bear in mind that I haven't made careful study (yet). But, as I believe I've told you elsewhere, in a culture so permeated by it, one can't help but form a few opinions.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

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.

Which will be accounted for in the end. That is the reason God did it, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Wookiemonster]

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



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


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.

How is asking for quotes to back up your statements showing an unwillingness to discuss?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

1) Those things were included in his agenda, yes. Basically, he claimed the authority of Christ to make people do things his way with no regard for the actual teachings of Christ.
2) It wasn't so secret.

It would be nice if you presented where he had no regard for Christ's teachings.

I'm not quick to judge, really. I always bear in mind that I haven't made careful study (yet). But, as I believe I've told you elsewhere, in a culture so permeated by it, one can't help but form a few opinions.

Precisely why you shouldn't form an opinion until you study.

Think about it, here you are discrediting Paul's teaching based of "some study" (which I don't discount at all) and opinions from our culture. The aspects in our culture were formed from the type of study you admit is not healthy to form such an opinion.

The sexist views by these teaching you view in culture are wrong and would not be present if these people did not have agendas of their own. Which is why I say don't bash the book, but those who teach it or implement it in our culture.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

How is asking for quotes to back up your statements showing an unwillingness to discuss?

Because I gave you a verse, and then you replied with an opinion. So now we have a verse and your opinion, what do we really have?

 

[Storm]

It would be nice if you presented where he had no regard for Christ's teachings.

I did: his discouragement of treating women as equals.

Precisely why you shouldn't form an opinion until you study.

Not at all.

Think about it, here you are discrediting Paul's teaching based of "some study" (which I don't discount at all) and opinions from our culture. The aspects in our culture were formed from the type of study you admit is not healthy to form such an opinion.

The sexist views by these teaching you view in culture are wrong and would not be present if these people did not have agendas of their own.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. :sorry1:

Which is why I say don't bash the book, but those who teach it or implement it in our culture.

I don't bash the book.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I did: his discouragement of treating women as equals.

OK so we are off the hair thing. Without studying all of his writings, you are taking isolated and very popular anti bible rhetoric verse and saying "this is the way it is" Paul hijacked the truth. Not much for me to go on if you don't want to study more or discuss in more depth.

Not at all.

Why would you say not at all? I pointed out that our culture and many other cultures implement horrible treatments for women based off vague notions of things they know little about. I then said you are doing the same thing about a person you no little about.

As a result we end up with cultures that are horrible to women and Storm with misconceptions. That is OK with you? I know the culture part isn't but what about the other?

 

[Storm]

OK so we are off the hair thing. Without studying all of his writings, you are taking isolated and very popular anti bible rhetoric verse and saying "this is the way it is" Paul hijacked the truth. Not much for me to go on if you don't want to study more or discuss in more depth.

Why would you say not at all? I pointed out that our culture and many other cultures implement horrible treatments for women based off vague notions of things they know little about. I then said you are doing the same thing about a person you no little about.

As a result we end up with cultures that are horrible to women and Storm with misconceptions. That is OK with you? I know the culture part isn't but what about the other?

As I said, in a culture permeated by the writings in question, one can't help but form opinions. One can only bear in mind one's expertise or lack thereof, which I do.

 

[gwk230]

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.

　
Maybe a poor analogy to use a king and his subjects. Oh that’s right. To be a subject one would have to be in subjection and in your understanding a king would have no such authority as to have RULE over anyone. Most that I have read of history shows most kings getting their way when it comes to the ones that he rules over. Nine times out of ten most that didn’t bow to the king were either put in the dungeon or lost their heads. I would say this would pretty much keep most under subjection. I see Elohim in this verse giving power to man over the woman. She was the one who first failed to adhere to the command of Elohim pertaining to the fruit of the tree of knowledge and Adam was guilty of listening to her. Sounds to me like she took it upon herself to exhort some sort of authority over Adam to eat the fruit. Probably threatened to withhold some sort of physical affections, if you know what I mean, to get her way. There’s nothing new under the sun. Women have been using their natural talents to sway the minds of men ever since “Bere****” and will continue until the end. If only the men would grow some and not allow them to control them. No but that would be putting things back as they were intended and we all no that mankind is not going to allow that to happen as long as they have a choice. In any case, the Hebrew word “Mashal” does not have the meaning that you have offered. There are other commandments that man has to fulfill when having a wife but what was ordered here in Bere**** 3:16 wasn’t them. This was a punishment for disobeying Yah. Its not a gift for doing right. Eve messed up and this is her punishment and as even today she doesn’t like it and fights against it tooth and nail. I say when she does fight against it then she is fighting against Yah. Its not the man that made the rule but Yah. If a woman has a problem with having man over her then it isn’t the man she has a problem with but it is with Yah.

 

[Heneni]

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.

I try to remember that the letters that paul wrote was not a complete collection of what he said to timothy or the congregations that paul established and visited. Whether he knew his letters would be canonized, I do not know.

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Junia was a female apostle, a kinsmen of Paul. Kinsmen can mean blood related, of the same race or of the same tribe of Benjamin which Paul was from. If junia was a women apostel it follows that she must have been allowed to teach! The name junia was changed to junias after 1298 by, and I guess we could have seen this coming, Aegidus in Rome, a contemporary of Pope Boniface VIII. Pope Boniface was an evil man who was, according to the catholic encyclopedia imprisoned after king Phillip IV of france brought these charges against him: Infedelity, heresy, gross and unnatural immorality, adultery, magic and so forth.


The greek name for Junia is IOUNIAN and earlier manuscripts support reading IOUNIAN as junia not junias.

Infact the latin name JUNIAS did not exist. The name Junia was a common latin female name at the time.

Early commentators from 185- 1108 wrote about junia as a female apostle.

So I guess in the end it was all up to the old pope who figured he knew better. And it does not surprise me that the catholic male dominated religion was the one to change the name. This is not the fault of all Catholics, but it just takes one to mess things up.

One quote from the pope is ‘’it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff’’

 

[Riverwolf]

　
Maybe a poor analogy to use a king and his subjects. Oh that’s right. To be a subject one would have to be in subjection and in your understanding a king would have no such authority as to have RULE over anyone. Most that I have read of history shows most kings getting their way when it comes to the ones that he rules over. Nine times out of ten most that didn’t bow to the king were either put in the dungeon or lost their heads. I would say this would pretty much keep most under subjection. I see Elohim in this verse giving power to man over the woman. She was the one who first failed to adhere to the command of Elohim pertaining to the fruit of the tree of knowledge and Adam was guilty of listening to her. Sounds to me like she took it upon herself to exhort some sort of authority over Adam to eat the fruit. Probably threatened to withhold some sort of physical affections, if you know what I mean, to get her way. There’s nothing new under the sun. Women have been using their natural talents to sway the minds of men ever since “Bere****” and will continue until the end. If only the men would grow some and not allow them to control them. No but that would be putting things back as they were intended and we all no that mankind is not going to allow that to happen as long as they have a choice. In any case, the Hebrew word “Mashal” does not have the meaning that you have offered. There are other commandments that man has to fulfill when having a wife but what was ordered here in Bere**** 3:16 wasn’t them. This was a punishment for disobeying Yah. Its not a gift for doing right. Eve messed up and this is her punishment and as even today she doesn’t like it and fights against it tooth and nail. I say when she does fight against it then she is fighting against Yah. Its not the man that made the rule but Yah. If a woman has a problem with having man over her then it isn’t the man she has a problem with but it is with Yah.

Well, if Yah wants to punish all subsequent women for the mistake of the child Eve, then I support their fight.

I will NOT dominate any women just because of what a child did thousands of years ago.

 

[gwk230]

Well, if Yah wants to punish all subsequent women for the mistake of the child Eve, then I support their fight.

I will NOT dominate any women just because of what a child did thousands of years ago.

See, now thats the great and wonderful thing about freedom of choice now isn't it?

 

[McBell]

Because I gave you a verse, and then you replied with an opinion. So now we have a verse and your opinion, what do we really have?

Two opinions.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

:cheer:

Two opinions.

You got it!

 

[McBell]

:cheer:
You got it!

Though I could see where one could argue that there are three....
Possibly even more.

 

[Riverwolf]

See, now thats the great and wonderful thing about freedom of choice now isn't it?

Indeed.

And nothing I do is independent of God.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Paul is completely disconnected from the OT by Time, He was writing Post Jesus. After his conversion he was sent to preach to the gentiles and was a tireless worker for the new Church.

However he never had the benefit like the other apostles to have been taught by Jesus as he had never met him in person.

He was perhaps the best organised of the apostle and wrote a multitude of letters, No one knows how many are now lost, or were discarded when the Bible books were selected.

Many of his letter contain things that I feel have little resonance with Jesus Ideas and teachings, and seem to be written from a more Traditional Jewish standpoint.

He was very well versed in Jewish law so it is not surprising that it coloured his teaching to the gentiles. At that time there was still some argument whether Christianity should only be taught to the Jews; and also if gentiles should be converted to Judaism first.

The net result is that it is easy to get mixed messages from Paul’s writings.

If his letter and writings were removed from the NT It would be a very slim edition indeed.

If he had not undertaken his journeys, it is unlikely Christianity would have spread the way it did, and would have become a minor Jewish sect.

All the other apostles were remarkably unsuccessful in spreading the word outside Israel.

Saying all that… His writings should be considered very carefully when trying to establish what relevance they have to Jesus teachings.

 

[gwk230]

Indeed.

And nothing I do is independent of God.

If you say so. As long as we understand that it is your god your speaking of and also it is your own understanding of this so called god. :yes:

 

[Riverwolf]

If you say so. As long as we understand that it is your god your speaking of and also it is your own understanding of this so called god. :yes:

"My" god? I don't own any gods, as nothing can be owned, save by God. Why do you think one of the commandments is about not coveting what someone else has?

 

[gwk230]

"My" god?

Yes, the one that you have chosen to be the deity you worship and obey, if in fact that is all a part of whatever way you understand it to be.

I don't own any gods, as nothing can be owned, save by God.

I never made the statement that you owned anything. Sorry you misunderstood what I was simply trying to convey to you.

Why do you think one of the commandments is about not coveting what someone else has?

Well, my El being the Elohim of Avraham, the Elohim of Yitz'chak and the Elohim of Ya'akov which gave said command did so that man would not commit an act of sin. An example of that would be that man wanted something that someone else had so bad that he made the conscience decision to steal that item for himself.