Paul on Women, Sex and Dress

[Simplelogic]

Yes but there are other reasons to think that some of the letters are not written by Paul. Not only do they contradict themselves, but there are also significant stylistic differences in the writing. Different use of words, use of the same words to mean different things, different sentence structure etc. Some even address issues that did not exist in the lifetime of Paul. They refer to church structures that did not exist in the time of Paul. There are many good reasons to think that at least some of these letters were not written by Paul.

Can you elaborate on the stylistic differences/words/sentence structure. I have heard many people say this but few who can prove it.

 

[Storm]

Mary was never one of Yeshua's chosen twelve apostles. It seems evident that she was one of Yeshua's disciples though. There were only twelve apostles of the lamb according to Yeshua himself.

More accurately, according to Christ as portrayed by those who opposed her authority, yet couldn't quite get rid of all the texts calling her the "Apostle to the Apostles."

It's certainly not proof, but let's not pretend it's beyond reason. The student of history must never forget that history is written by the victors.

Paul's bipolar mentality is evident in most of his epistles.

As a side note, the trend of diagnosing historical figures with various psych disorders and variations has always been deeply suspicious to me, even when done with the noblest of intentions like combating stigma. Any mental health professional worth their salt will tell you that you can't diagnose someone you've never even spoken to face to face.

 

[Kolibri]

also significant stylistic differences in the writing

I need to go back an recheck this, but I seem remember that, just as with the two letters of Peter, there were times when Paul orally transmitted his thoughts to a secretary to do the actually writing.

Alas I am leaving now and will have to make this a personal study project when I get back from lunch.

 

[Storm]

Pardon my skimming.

But the point still stands. If you disregard the "deutero-pauline" sources then Paul's view on women becomes much more positive. Some have even described Paul as a feminist.

Yet at the same time by looking at only the authentic Pauline letters you see that Paul did have a very negative attitude towards marriage, sex, and family. And even if you find this attitude objectionable it should not be considered misogynistic. His negative attitude towards marriage and sex had more to do with his apocalyptic outlook then anything else.

Excellent point. It wasn't so much a hatred of women as mortal life itself.

Which, while just as repugnant and damaging to my mind, is not an uncommon pitfall of dualistic theology. Not just Paul or Christianity or Abrahamism - all of dualism.

 

[Storm]

No. We are not talking about authority really. We are talking about equality. Men were always meant to be spiritual leaders. Deborah was put in place during a time when all the men had tucked tail spiritually. It was the sign of a curse.

Then whence Miriam?

 

[Simplelogic]

More accurately, according to Christ as portrayed by those who opposed her authority, yet couldn't quite get rid of all the texts calling her the "Apostle to the Apostles."

It's certainly not proof, but let's not pretend it's beyond reason. The student of history must never forget that history is written by the victors.


As a side note, the trend of diagnosing historical figures with various psych disorders and variations has always been deeply suspicious to me, even when done with the noblest of intentions like combating stigma. Any mental health professional worth their salt will tell you that you can't diagnose someone you've never even spoken to face to face.

Regarding the twelve apostles:

How Many Apostles of Jesus Christ are in the Bible

I am drawing obvious conclusions to Paul's statements. He was nuts.

 

[Simplelogic]

Then whence Miriam?

Not one of the twelve apostles. Neither was Paul.

 

[Pegg]

No. We are not talking about authority really. We are talking about equality.

thats really strange to hear you say that after that discussion we were having about polygamy.

If there is anything more demeaning and misogynistic its the practice of polygamy.

Men were always meant to be spiritual leaders. Deborah was put in place during a time when all the men had tucked tail spiritually. It was the sign of a curse. Thankfully Deborah was a righteous woman, under the authority of her husband, who rose to the occasion!

The Tanakh does speak of different roles between men and women. Paul clearly talks negatively about women "speaking in church" which the Torah doesn't say anything about! Paul is almost single handedly responsible for such a negative view of YHVH's commands concerning male/female roles. Because everyone has Paul's misogynistic concepts in their heads they end up interpreting YHVH's commands as the same!!

In Romans Paul is speaking about Authority in church, not equality.

Yes, men are meant to be spiritual leaders and that is why Paul says that women should not speak in church...if they have questions they should debate them with their husbands at home, not in the church. He was speaking about Authority, not equality.

Why does he say that? Because the 'head of every woman is the man' and the Apostle Peter agrees with Pauls sentiment for he said:
1 Peter 3::1 In the same way, you wives, be in subjection to your husbands,+


Let me tell you that Paul does not agree that polygamy is ok. He thinks that a man should have only one wife because it dignifies woman and their role. Paul is no misogynist... only a true misogynist would think polygamy is appropriate.

 

[Simplelogic]

thats really strange to hear you say that after that discussion we were having about polygamy.

If there is anything more demeaning and misogynistic its the practice of polygamy.



Yes, men are meant to be spiritual leaders and that is why Paul says that women should not speak in church...if they have questions they should debate them with their husbands at home, not in the church.

Why does he say that? Because the 'head of every woman is the man' and the Apostle Peter agrees with Pauls sentiment for he said:
1 Peter 3::1 In the same way, you wives, be in subjection to your husbands,+


Let me tell you that Paul does not agree that polygamy is ok. He thinks that a man should have only one wife because it dignifies woman and their role. Paul is no misogynist... only a true misogynist would think polygamy is appropriate.

Then I guess you assume God to be a misogynist.

 

[Simplelogic]

Pegg. Your argument is not with me. I simply believe in the scriptures and what YHVH says about men and women. Your argument is with YHVH Himself.

 

[Pegg]

As to marriage itself, contrast Jesus who speaks of celibacy as something for some but not all disciples. It is not a command or even an exhortation. Matt. 19:12.

1 Corinthians 7:8 Now I say to those who are unmarried and to the widows that it is better for them if they remain as I am.+ ... 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be inflamed with passion.
10 To the married people I give instructions, not I but the Lord, that a wife should not separate from her husband.+11 But if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled with her husband; and a husband should not leave his wife.

1 Cor 7;25 Now concerning virgins,* I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion+ as one who had mercy shown him by the Lord to be faithful.26 Therefore, I think that it is best for a man to continue as he is in view of the present difficulty. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Stop seeking a release.+ Are you freed from a wife? Stop seeking a wife. 28 But even if you did marry, you would commit no sin. And if a virgin married, such a person would commit no sin. However, those who do will have tribulation in their flesh. But I am trying to spare you.

Please stop making baseless claims about Paul and what he taught. You are twisting his words and making false accusations. Isnt that against the mosaic law?

 

[Pegg]

Pegg. Your argument is not with me. I simply believe in the scriptures and what YHVH says about men and women. Your argument is with YHVH Himself.

do you think its right for us to pick and choose which scriptures we want to include in our theology.

I can understand why some people dont include them all...its because their views shape the way they read those verses and if a verse does not agree with their view, they simply discard it.

For example, Divorce is permissible under mosaic law, yet Jesus said "whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her" So really Jesus is teaching us that divorce is not acceptable to God even though the Mosaic law allows it. Divorce is tantamount to adultery.

Wouldnt it be better for us to allow those verses to shape our views?

 

[Pegg]

Then I guess you assume God to be a misogynist.

Not at all. I know that it was not God who instituted the practice of polygamy.

I know it was the son of Lamech who began the practice. I know that murderer did not survive the flood of Noahs day.
I know that God instructed the Kings of Isreal not to practice polygamy.
I know that Noah, the most righteous man in the earth, did not practice polygamy.
I know that Abraham did not practice polygamy.
I know that Jesus spoke of Adam and Eves marriage as being the divine standard for marriage.
I know that the christian congregation promoted a 'one wife' rule for any man who desired to be in spiritual oversight of a congregation.

to me, all this is evidence that polygamy is bad. It is against Gods standard for marriage and it amounts to adultery on the part of men who do not seek the righteousness of God because righteousness begins with how we treat our closest companions and how we demonstrate our love for God and his laws.

 

[Storm]

Mary was never one of Yeshua's chosen twelve apostles. It seems evident that she was one of Yeshua's disciples though. There were only twelve apostles of the lamb according to Yeshua himself.

Repetition is not rebuttal. I have pointed out that there's legitimate historical doubt to that claim. If you want me to agree that there isn't, then you're going to have to present an actual counter-argument, not just repeat the original assertion as if it hasn't been called into question.

I am drawing obvious conclusions to Paul's statements. He was nuts.

If you were qualified to draw the conclusion, you'd be aware that it's not that simple. Call him nuts if you want, but bipolar disorder is a devastating illness, not a cute insult to sling at anyone you dislike and damn the truth.

Not one of the twelve apostles. Neither was Paul.

Not what I asked. Your claim was that men are the spiritual leaders, which you tried to support with the claim that Deborah was only allowed authority because the men betrayed their duty.

But the mere existence of Miriam, daughter of Yoheved, sister of Aaron and Moses, and a Prophet in her own right (no mere Apostle) completely invalidates that claim. Unless you want to add Moses to the list of unfit men who "tucked tail spiritually."

 

[Simplelogic]

Repetition is not rebuttal. I have pointed out that there's legitimate historical doubt to that claim. If you want me to agree that there isn't, then you're going to have to present an actual counter-argument, not just repeat the original assertion as if it hasn't been called into question.


If you were qualified to draw the conclusion, you'd be aware that it's not that simple. Call him nuts if you want, but bipolar disorder is a devastating illness, not a cute insult to sling at anyone you dislike and damn the truth.


Not what I asked. Your claim was that men are the spiritual leaders, which you tried to support with the claim that Deborah was only allowed authority because the men betrayed their duty.

But the mere existence of Miriam, daughter of Yoheved, sister of Aaron and Moses, and a Prophet in her own right (no mere Apostle) completely invalidates that claim. Unless you want to add Moses to the list of unfit men who "tucked tail spiritually."

I never challenged the ability for females to be prophets. I thought you were referring to Mary earlier…not Mariam. That is my fault.

 

[Simplelogic]

Not at all. I know that it was not God who instituted the practice of polygamy.

I know it was the son of Lamech who began the practice. I know that murderer did not survive the flood of Noahs day.
I know that God instructed the Kings of Isreal not to practice polygamy.
I know that Noah, the most righteous man in the earth, did not practice polygamy.
I know that Abraham did not practice polygamy.
I know that Jesus spoke of Adam and Eves marriage as being the divine standard for marriage.
I know that the christian congregation promoted a 'one wife' rule for any man who desired to be in spiritual oversight of a congregation.

to me, all this is evidence that polygamy is bad. It is against Gods standard for marriage and it amounts to adultery on the part of men who do not seek the righteousness of God because righteousness begins with how we treat our closest companions and how we demonstrate our love for God and his laws.

I have already proven the opposite to be true to you on another blog. I won't rehash the argument. It is a very simple one according to the Torah.

 

[Pegg]

I have already proven the opposite to be true to you on another blog. I won't rehash the argument. It is a very simple one according to the Torah.

and yet Jesus himself refuted the practice of polygamy. I follow Jesus. You are following a practice started by a murderer who's descendants* did not survive the flood, yet the 4 men who did survived the flood were monogamous. That's enough for me.

* i corrected this to be more accurate... it is not likely that Lamech (cains son) would still have been alive at the time of the flood so its not really accurate for me to say that he personally did not survive the flood. But it is more accurate to say that none of his descendants survived the flood. And if thats the case and Lamech is resurrected in the future, then i think its safe to say that he will not be permitted to practice polygamy at that time.

 

[Storm]

I never challenged the ability for females to be prophets. I thought you were referring to Mary earlier…not Mariam. That is my fault.

Fair enough, but you were confused.

I was talking about the legitimate historical doubt that Mary Magdalene was "never an Apostle," based on surviving texts that plainly say she was.

Along another line, you posted about Deborah in response to Pegg, with the claim that, basically comes down to 'women are only allowed to lead when men can't or won't.' I brought up Miriam in challenge to that.

 

[Simplelogic]

Fair enough, but you were confused.

I was talking about the legitimate historical doubt that Mary Magdalene was "never an Apostle," based on surviving texts that plainly say she was.

Along another line, you posted about Deborah in response to Pegg, with the claim that, basically comes down to 'women are only allowed to lead when men can't or won't.' I brought up Miriam in challenge to that.

My opinions of the twelve apostles are based of of the most reliable accounts of how Yeshua defines them. Mary was not on the list. Judas was replaced by Matthias in Acts and Yeshua confirms these twelve in the Revelation. Seems like a simple one to me but I understand if you don't hold those texts as reliable.

Yes, I stand by on my views of Deborah. She had authority, but only because she was under the authority of her husband as well. No conflict there. The same with Mirium being under Aaron. Though Mirium and Aaron are not the best examples for your case. They are wonderful examples of people who thought they had more authority then they really did. It took YHVH to come down and remind them who was really in charge….Moses.

 

[Simplelogic]

and yet Jesus himself refuted the practice of polygamy. I follow Jesus. You are following a practice started by a murderer who's descendants* did not survive the flood, yet the 4 men who did survived the flood were monogamous. That's enough for me.

* i corrected this to be more accurate... it is not likely that Lamech (cains son) would still have been alive at the time of the flood so its not really accurate for me to say that he personally did not survive the flood. But it is more accurate to say that none of his descendants survived the flood. And if thats the case and Lamech is resurrected in the future, then i think its safe to say that he will not be permitted to practice polygamy at that time.

So Yeshua corrected God in the NT….right.