Paul's view of women

[Shuttlecraft]

..The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by about 80% of scholars:
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
Ephesians
can you show why or where they are wrong ?

Ha ha, every one of those letters begins with "Paul to...", so why on earth should we believe the conspiracy theory that claims Paul didn't write them?
As for "80% of scholars", where did you get that percentage from?
Don't read too much into it anyway, as most of them are probably just atheists with a grudge..

Paul the ex-bounty hunter and tentmaker in action-

Tents of the 'Occupy London' protesters pitched in front of the great cathedral that was named after Paul-

WIKI- "Occupy London is an activist group, stemming from the non-violent protest and demonstration against economic inequality that took place in London in 2011-2012"
I'm sure Paul would have been proud of them-
Paul wrote in Ephesians 6:12-"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil"

 

[james2ko]

Stop hating education and knowledge and stop quoting out of context

Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by about 80% of scholars:

First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
Ephesians


can you show why or where they are wrong ?

:help: Why are you wasting bandwidth by double posting? Did you not see my rebuttal to your post? Or is it just another fallacious tactic:

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.​

 

[fantome profane]

Ha ha, every one of those letters begins with "Paul to...", so why on earth should we believe the conspiracy theory that claims Paul didn't write them?
As for "80% of scholars", where did you get that percentage from?
Don't read too much into it anyway, as most of them are probably just atheists with a grudge..

Right, 80% of Biblical scholars are Atheists . Where do you get that from?

 

[fantome profane]

When Biblical scholars say that these letters were not written by Paul they are not just making stuff up, or saying things randomly. And they are not just saying it to annoy Christians, most of these guys are Christians.

They study the words used, the phrases, the style of writing. And just like a scholar of English literature can tell the difference between Mark Twain and Emily Dickens Biblical scholars can distinguish between the writing of Paul, and "notPaul".

Not only the style, but also the substance changes. You can see theological and eschatological differences. You can see differences in other areas as well, like Paul's view of women (remember the OP?) and his view of the family. Paul never actually talks about children or starting families, but that seems to be a major concern of "notPaul".

Argue and disagree if you want, but at least try to understand that there are good reasons for thinking that certain letters that claim to be written by Paul were not.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..there are good reasons for thinking that certain letters that claim to be written by Paul were not.

What "good reasons"? Why on earth should anybody want to write something and then try to pass it off as Paul's work?
MOTIVE is always where a lot of atheist arguments fall flat..

 

[james2ko]

When Biblical scholars say that these letters were not written by Paul they are not just making stuff up, or saying things randomly. And they are not just saying it to annoy Christians, most of these guys are Christians.

1. I believe they are. You can't get famous or acquire a big reputation by defending the traditional position that Paul wrote these books. There's been a rapidly growing Conservative Christian skepticism over the last decade or so, someone had to capitalize on that.

They study the words used, the phrases, the style of writing. And just like a scholar of English literature can tell the difference between Mark Twain and Emily Dickens Biblical scholars can distinguish between the writing of Paul, and "notPaul".

2. There are various explanations each equally plausible. One is that Paul wrote to difference audiences in different contexts. The vocabulary, style, and phrasing used could vary dramatically. He himself implied to changing his approach depending on his audience:

1Co 9:19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.
1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
1Co 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
1Co 9:23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (ESV)​

Not only the style, but also the substance changes. You can see theological and eschatological differences.You can see differences in other areas as well, like Paul's view of women (remember the OP?) and his view of the family. Paul never actually talks about children or starting families, but that seems to be a major concern of "notPaul".

3. The differences you speak of are easily understood if we recognize the context of the subject matter, audience, specific congregational issues, and time of writing are different. One of their arguments counts words used in one book say Galatians, but not Ephesians and conclude that it is obvious Paul did not write this because he used word x in 1 Corinthians x amount of times, and only uses the same word x amount of times in Colossians. This is supposed to be evidence of two different authors?? If that's the case, then CS Lewis was not the author of several of his books, even though he is listed as the author. His literary style and word usage varied greatly depending on his target audience.

Argue and disagree if you want, but at least try to understand that there are good reasons for thinking that certain letters that claim to be written by Paul were not.

4. Just as there are equally good reasons for thinking they were ultimately authored by Paul. But that doesn't sell books or make one distinguishable.

 

[fantome profane]

1. I believe they are. You can't get famous or acquire a big reputation by defending the traditional position that Paul wrote these books. There's been a rapidly growing Conservative Christian skepticism over the last decade or so, someone had to capitalize on that.



2. There are various explanations each equally plausible. One is that Paul wrote to difference audiences in different contexts. The vocabulary, style, and phrasing used could vary dramatically. He himself implied to changing his approach depending on his audience:

1Co 9:19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.
1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
1Co 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
1Co 9:23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (ESV)​

3. The differences you speak of are easily understood if we recognize the context of the subject matter, audience, specific congregational issues, and time of writing are different. One of their arguments counts words used in one book say Galatians, but not Ephesians and conclude that it is obvious Paul did not write this because he used word x in 1 Corinthians x amount of times, and only uses the same word x amount of times in Colossians. This is supposed to be evidence of two different authors?? If that's the case, then CS Lewis was not the author of several of his books, even though he is listed as the author. His literary style and word usage varied greatly depending on his target audience.



4. Just as there are equally good reasons for thinking they were ultimately authored by Paul. But that doesn't sell books or make one distinguishable.

But you don't get famous or make a name for yourself by agreeing with what the majority is saying.

But you acknowledge that there are differences in style and in substance. I will consider that progress enough for the moment.

 

[fantome profane]

What "good reasons"? Why on earth should anybody want to write something and then try to pass it off as Paul's work?
MOTIVE is always where a lot of atheist arguments fall flat..

I am sure I have explained motive to you, and I will happily do it again. But please before I explain it to you one more time, take a moment and really think about it yourself. Can you not imagine any possible motive that someone who is not really Paul could have for claiming to be Paul, can you not imagine any possible gain or advantage such a person would gain in doing so. Really, take a moment, and really think about it.

If you can't think of anything then either you have not really tried, or you suffer from a sever lack of imagination.




So let me explain it one more time.

If I wanted to convince you of the correctness of my view, well I might claim to be a famous biblical scholar. But then again that might not carry much weight with you. So I might claim to be a famous preacher. If I was trying to convince a Catholic of the correctness of my view I might claim to be a high ranking Bishop, or even the Pope. The motive is clear, I want to convince people of the correctness of my view.

Now imagine you are living in an early Christian community, and you are having an on going debate about what role women should play in the Church. And you think it is wrong for women to teach men or have authority over men. So you go and write a letter under the name of a prominent respected church founder. And then you simply "find" a letter by Paul which confirms everything you have been saying all along. This goes a long way to convincing people of the correctness of your views, and even raises your standing in the community.

Finding motive for forgery is not difficult at all.

What "good reasons"? Why on earth should anybody want to write something and then try to pass it off as Paul's work?
MOTIVE is always where a lot of atheist arguments fall flat..

And this is not an "atheist argument". The vast majority of Biblical Scholars who agree that the pastoral epistles are not written by Paul are Christians. This is not an atheist vs theist argument.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

The vast majority of Biblical Scholars who agree that the pastoral epistles are not written by Paul are Christians..

Prove it..

[re forgeries]..you simply "find" a letter by Paul which confirms everything you have been saying all along..

Nice conspiracy theory mate, but it falls completely flat because people would have immediately said "hey that's not Paul's handwriting so it must be a fake!"..

 

[james2ko]

But you don't get famous or make a name for yourself by agreeing with what the majority is saying.

That would depend on the size of the market. Apparently, it's very large.

But you acknowledge that there are differences in style and in substance. I will consider that progress enough for the moment.

Of course. Good authors alter their style and substance based on their audience. Paul implied to doing just that.

 

[fantome profane]

Nice conspiracy theory mate, but it falls completely flat because people would have immediately said "hey that's not Paul's handwriting so it must be a fake!"..

Handwriting? Are you serious? Most people in the ancient world could not read, much less analyses hand writing. That is just ridiculous.

And we know from Paul's own "writing" that he did not actually write it in his own hand. Paul could write, but poorly, he tells us that himself. So he had scribes write for him. On some rare occasions he would actually take the quill and scribble out a few words and sign his name, but that would be rare. Even in the first Century examples of Paul's hand writing would be extremely rare.


But anyways, whether you agree or disagree, from this point forward you can no longer claim that there would be no motive. I have explained it to you.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

[re forgeries]..from this point forward you can no longer claim that there would be no motive. I have explained it to you.

Nah mate, all you've done is trot out the usual string of consp-theories..
You'll be telling us next that Shakespeare never wrote his own plays!
(Oh wait that consp-theory already exists and has been doing the rounds for years!)

 

[outhouse]

Prove it..

Appeal to severe ignorance.

 

[outhouse]

Nah mate, all you've done is trot out the usual string of consp-theories..

No conspiracy theory.

It is accepted as common knowledge, and your denial is noted.

But you a carry no credibility, and he is trying t tell you what is actually known through study.


Why do you hate study? fanaticism have a hold on you?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

No conspiracy theory.
It is accepted as common knowledge..

Prove it!
I wish you consp-theorists would post credible links to prove you're not making things up as you go along..

 

[Norman]

Although 1 Corinthians is one of the books that most scholars believe was written by Paul, I remember reading somewhere that some think that particular verse in Corinthians may have been added by a later scribe.

If I can remember where I read that and if I can find it I will give the source then.

Hello fantome profane,
Since you are on line I would like to share something in response to this topic.

In regards to 1 Corinthians 14:34, may I give a humble The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints response, I am not trying to proselytize, just sharing to try and shed some light on what Paul said.

The contribution of Joseph Smith’s New Translation: “Let your women
keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to rule
. . .” (14:34; JST)
“May women speak in Church? Yes, in the sense of teaching,
counseling, testifying, exhorting, and the like; no, in the sense of
assuming rule over the Church as such, and in attempting to give
direction as to how God's affairs on earth shall be regulated: ‘A woman
has no right to found or organize a church—God never sent them to do
it.’ (Teachings, p. 212.)
Paul is here telling the sisters they are subject to
the priesthood . . . that the bishop's wife is not the bishop.” (McConkie
DNTC, 2: 387)
The issue may have had more specific application than the Prophet or
we realized!
Some of the women of the “Christian elite” in Corinth, feeling rightly
empowered by the gospel, might have taken it too far and sought to
usurp a leadership role to which they had not been called
Others, perhaps innocently, were interrupting the service with
questions, either because they were new converts who were not yet
adequately instructed
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints look upon LDS women with all due respect and honor. They have their own organization with-in the church called ‘Relief Society.’ There is the General Relief Society President and she has two counselors. Relief Society serves many purposes and is a vital role with the woman and young women of the church. It is the largest women’s organization in the world. They do not hold the priesthood as the men in the LDS church, however, they receive the blessings of the priesthood. I hope this helped. God Bess you.

We cannot afford to be arrogant or self-righteous. It is our obligation to reach out in helpfulness, not only to our own but to all others as well. (Gordon B. Hinckley; President and Prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.)

 

[outhouse]

Prove it!
I wish you consp-theorists would post credible links to prove you're not making things up as you go along..

I already have in this thread by posting credible sources and a link to said source.


80% of all professionals state there are factually disputed epistles.


From your COMPLETE lack of education and criminal past, you carry no credibility to denounce professional historians

 

[outhouse]

Hello fantome profane,
Since you are on line I would like to share something in response to this topic.

In regards to 1 Corinthians 14:34, may I give a humble The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints response, I am not trying to proselytize, just sharing to try and shed some light on what Paul said.

The contribution of Joseph Smith’s New Translation: “Let your women
keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to rule
. . .” (14:34; JST)
“May women speak in Church? Yes, in the sense of teaching,
counseling, testifying, exhorting, and the like; no, in the sense of
assuming rule over the Church as such, and in attempting to give
direction as to how God's affairs on earth shall be regulated: ‘A woman
has no right to found or organize a church—God never sent them to do
it.’ (Teachings, p. 212.)
Paul is here telling the sisters they are subject to
the priesthood . . . that the bishop's wife is not the bishop.” (McConkie
DNTC, 2: 387)
The issue may have had more specific application than the Prophet or
we realized!
Some of the women of the “Christian elite” in Corinth, feeling rightly
empowered by the gospel, might have taken it too far and sought to
usurp a leadership role to which they had not been called
Others, perhaps innocently, were interrupting the service with
questions, either because they were new converts who were not yet
adequately instructed
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints look upon LDS women with all due respect and honor. They have their own organization with-in the church called ‘Relief Society.’ There is the General Relief Society President and she has two counselors. Relief Society serves many purposes and is a vital role with the woman and young women of the church. It is the largest women’s organization in the world. They do not hold the priesthood as the men in the LDS church, however, they receive the blessings of the priesthood. I hope this helped. God Bess you.

Apologetics noted.

But not credible.

Some ignore 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, because they consider it an interpolation, so if you would like to address this with credible sources. I would debate this with you.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

I already have in this thread by posting credible sources and a link to said source.
80% of all professionals state there are factually disputed epistles.
From your COMPLETE lack of education and criminal past, you carry no credibility to denounce professional historians

I mentioned my 3-month jail sentence (vigliante rap) in another thread to show I never hide anything, THAT proves my credibility..
As for my "complete lack of education", you're wrong again, I got exam passes in College of Preceptors General Science, Advanced Science, English language and English literature..
Incidentally you mentioned "bible scholars", well technically I'm one of them too because I'm a bible tract-writer for Christian Waymarkers UK and am a clever-clogs internet evangelist, so yah-boo to you..

 

[outhouse]

I mentioned my 3-month jail sentence

Yet you have no education on these topics, my bad for not clarifying

But you cannot dodge what credible professors teach in every credible college around the world, appealing to ignorance the way you do