Paul's view of women

[George-ananda]

In 1 Cor. 13:34, 35 we read "the women should keep silent in the congregations. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak "
In Galatians 3:28 it says " There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
If I'm not mistaken, both were written by Paul. Maybe there is some specific context I'm not aware of, but I find it very confusing that the same person would write verses that downgrade women so much and also write a verse saying God doesn't make a difference between male and female.
Which one is valid?

I think there are two aspects to religion. One aspect is eternal and never changes including love, the golden rule, the evils of greed, selfishness, etc..

The second aspect is applying the eternal aspect to social rules like the role of the sexes, sexual rules, dietary rules, etc.. These things are always the product of the era and culture. It is OK for these things to evolve through collective sincere consideration.

So, I don't buy into the criticism of Christianity based on social rules discussed in Leviticus or Paul. We can intelligently evolve from where these people were at on social issues.

 

[metis]

When one uses the word "forgeries", they're really jumping to unwarranted conclusion when it comes to the books of the Bible. Yes, it definitely appears that certain texts that may be attributed to a certain person may not actually have been that person. But what needs to be taken into consideration is that often a disciple would write on behalf of his mentor and attributing his ideas to the mentor.

 

[fantome profane]

When one uses the word "forgeries", they're really jumping to unwarranted conclusion when it comes to the books of the Bible. Yes, it definitely appears that certain texts that may be attributed to a certain person may not actually have been that person. But what needs to be taken into consideration is that often a disciple would write on behalf of his mentor and attributing his ideas to the mentor.

I have heard this before, and frankly I don't buy it. We are talking about someone claiming to be someone who they are not, with the purpose of deceiving their readers, so that they can give more authority to their own views than would otherwise be warranted. The word "forgery" is not too strong of a word.

And I will again point to 2thessalonians 2:2 as evidence that this practice was not viewed as acceptable in the ancient world.

 

[metis]

I have heard this before, and frankly I don't buy it. We are talking about someone claiming to be someone who they are not, with the purpose of deceiving their readers, so that they can give more authority to their own views than would otherwise be warranted. The word "forgery" is not too strong of a word.

And I will again point to 2thessalonians 2:2 as evidence that this practice was not viewed as acceptable in the ancient world.

It simply wasn't looked at that way back then as giving credit where credit was due was more the norm. Plus, you need to remember that many items were passed orally before being submitted to writing.

By using the word "forgery", one jumps to a conclusion that could very easily be way off. Were there real "forgeries" even then? Undoubtedly. But the problem is that we can't always be certain which is a "forgery" versys which is a disciple writing on the behalf of his mentor.

Like before doing a high-dive into a swimming pool, it's best to know the level of the water first before jumping to conclusions. We often simply cannot be certain of the motivation of the author.

 

[fantome profane]

It simply wasn't looked at that way back then as giving credit where credit was due was more the norm. Plus, you need to remember that many items were passed orally before being submitted to writing.

By using the word "forgery", one jumps to a conclusion that could very easily be way off. Were there real "forgeries" even then? Undoubtedly. But the problem is that we can't always be certain which is a "forgery" versys which is a disciple writing on the behalf of his mentor.

Like before doing a high-dive into a swimming pool, it's best to know the level of the water first before jumping to conclusions. We often simply cannot be certain of the motivation of the author.

It was looked at that way back then. We have many examples of writers cursing those who created forgeries in their name, from that time and that part of the world.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..2 Thessalonians 2:2 seems to have "Paul" referring to the existence of letters written as if by him..

So what? It simply shows he was on the ball and had to warn people not to get taken in by fake letters and stuff..
"Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way.." (2 Thess 2:3)

It's like all this "remastered" pop music junk that's on sale nowadays that's being passed off as "original" Beatles, Stones, Beach Boys etc, it may fool many people, but it doesn't fool "children of the 60's" like me..

 

[fantome profane]

So what? It simply shows he was on the ball and had to warn people not to get taken in by fake letters and stuff..
"Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way.." (2 Thess 2:3)

It's like all this "remastered" pop music junk that's on sale nowadays that's being passed off as "original" Beatles, Stones, Beach Boys etc, it may fool many people, but it doesn't fool "children of the 60's" like me..

Right, it shows that fake letters existed.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Right, it shows that fake letters existed.

They'd only be dangerous if we didn't know they were fakes, but Paul did know, and warned everybody not to be taken in by them.
For example some internet joker used to sign into discussion forums using the nicknames of other users including mine, but people could quickly see he wasn't me because his posts had none of the superhuman wit and intellect that mine had..

 

[outhouse]

I have heard this before, and frankly I don't buy it. We are talking about someone claiming to be someone who they are not, with the purpose of deceiving their readers, so that they can give more authority to their own views than would otherwise be warranted. The word "forgery" is not too strong of a word.

And I will again point to 2thessalonians 2:2 as evidence that this practice was not viewed as acceptable in the ancient world.

I agree, BUT

You missing the fact it wasn't a forgery.

They wrote some epistles as disciples of paul, in his honor.


It was common practice to attribute great men to titles of work as rhetoric to persuade readers and give authority to the work.


It was not outright deception

 

[outhouse]

They'd only be dangerous if we didn't know they were fakes, but Paul did know, and warned everybody not to be taken in by them.

Every aspect of the NT less 7 of Pauls epistles was LATER attributed to perceived famous people.

 

[fantome profane]

I agree, BUT

You missing the fact it wasn't a forgery.

They wrote some epistles as disciples of paul, in his honor.


It was common practice to attribute great men to titles of work as rhetoric to persuade readers and give authority to the work.


It was not outright deception

I completely understand the point. And understanding the point I disagree. Even in the ancient world this was looked upon as a deceitful practice. Yes, it was a common practice, but so is theft, that does not mean that it was viewed as acceptable.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Every aspect of the NT less 7 of Pauls epistles was LATER attributed to perceived famous people.

Well Paul used to be a bounty hunter on the payroll of the snooty priests, rounding up Christians for trial and punishment, but then he did a complete u-turn and became a Christian himself, so it's only natural that the priests and their lackeys would have it in for him and try to discredit him!
Politics then was the same murky business as it is now..

 

[outhouse]

I completely understand the point. And understanding the point I disagree. Even in the ancient world this was looked upon as a deceitful practice. Yes, it was a common practice, but so is theft, that does not mean that it was viewed as acceptable.

Yet is was acceptable. They were all trained to write that way.

Rhetoric was the foundation of how they were trained.

Do you know much of Aristotle's teachings?

 

[outhouse]

Well Paul used to be a bounty hunter on the payroll of the snooty priests, rounding up Christians for trial and punishment,

We don't know who hired him, but I would suspect it was the temple. And they were snooty, they lived on eggshells knowing they were one extreme riot at Passover away from Romans crushing them.

Peace was required and Pilate and Caiaphas life depended on it.

And there probably was no trial, only punishment. Top what extent we do not know.

but then he did a complete u-turn and became a Christian himself, so it's only natural that the priests and their lackeys would have it in for him and try to discredit him!

Paul was loved and hated as he is now. It has nothing to do with politics.

It had nothing to do with priest and lackeys.


Paul was popularized in time, long after his death. He was never popular or really admired while alive.

Paul was a convict and spent quite a bit of time in prison.


His teachings a reflection of one aspect of the early movement that was very wide and diverse. In pauls time his ideas were rogue. It took some time before they were viewed as orthodox. Even then not everyone was on board.

Hell his disciples who wrote epistles in his name were trying to soften up his teachings and views.

 

[fantome profane]

Yet is was acceptable. They were all trained to write that way.

Rhetoric was the foundation of how they were trained.

Do you know much of Aristotle's teachings?

I am not going to claim any great expertise in that area.

Go ahead and make your point.

 

[outhouse]

I am not going to claim any great expertise in that area.

Go ahead and make your point.

I did already.

Aristotle was the major influence for these people and how they wrote.

If you have not studied rhetorical writing, your blind at this point.


I was before I learned this last year. Basically you can lie all you want to make your work sound credible. Its all a matter of persuasion methods, in every aspect of the writing. From building up the authors credibility to the body of the message, intent is persuasion first and foremost.

man it opened my eyes, it was something they taught at Harvard on paul.

 

[fantome profane]

I did already.

Aristotle was the major influence for these people and how they wrote.

If you have not studied rhetorical writing, your blind at this point.


I was before I learned this last year. Basically you can lie all you want to make your work sound credible. Its all a matter of persuasion methods, in every aspect of the writing. From building up the authors credibility to the body of the message, intent is persuasion first and foremost.

man it opened my eyes, it was something they taught at Harvard on paul.

What do you make of 2 Thessalonians 2:2? The author of this (let's call him Paul for now ) is not saying how flattered he is about these fake letters written in his name. He is not praising his disciples for writing fake letters in his name. He is saying "don't listen to these guys, don't let them deceive you." Does that sound to you like this is an acceptable practice to him? Or is it creating a problem that he must warm people about?

Basically you can lie all you want to make your work sound credible. Its all a matter of persuasion methods, in every aspect of the writing. From building up the authors credibility to the body of the message, intent is persuasion first and foremost.

Sounds like business as usual here on RF.

 

[outhouse]

What do you make of 2 Thessalonians 2:2?

Easy.

This is correcting first Thessalonians stance on the soon ending of the world.

They are stating easy easy brothers! its not all woe and gloom, the end of the world is not coming soon.

let's call him Paul for now

Im not in that camp, I do think it was some of his primary disciples.

Correcting pauls hardline stance.


I will say this, people all think Paul wrote alone and this is a huge error.

Paul write in a community and they are almost all co authored.


3 people are stated as responsible for 2 T but we will never know.

. He is saying "don't listen to these guys,

Nope

Just the opposite.

They are saying don't listen to Paul.

Sounds like business as usual here on RF.

Ya fair enough lol


It was one of the best things I learned about paul. Shows how the authors had unlimited artistic freedom in story telling.

 

[fantome profane]

Nope

Just the opposite.

They are saying don't listen to Paul.

I am not sure, but I am leaning that way as well. But if this is "notPaul" he is still speaking about fake letters in a negative way. He is (or they are) still saying that that forged letters are not acceptable. Even if this letter itself is a forgery he is exploiting the negative feelings that people would have had about forgeries to convince them to listen to him (notPaul) and disregard the other (Paul).

Or the other way round, it works either way.

 

[outhouse]

he is still speaking about fake letters in a negative way.

Nope

Check out skeptics bible and their commentary it.

Its reaction to 1 T