Paul's view of women

[fantome profane]

It's obvious, somebody was hoping to cash in on Paul's good name by pretending to be him!
I was giving you the opportunity to acquaint us with some other startling new theory of your own that we might have overlooked..

Great, thank you very much.

So now if you understand what motivated someone for create the forgery of third Corinthians, can you also understand what could have possible motivated someone to create the forgeries known as the Pastoral Epistles?

 

[Alt Thinker]

Guys, guys, the early church leaders realised 3 Cor was a fake so they binned it, you should be GLAD that it couldn't get under their radar..

" Let men know that in Asia the presbyter who compiled that document, thinking to add of his own to Paul’s reputation, was found out, and though he professed he had done it for love of Paul, was deposed from his position"

Why was St Paul’s third letter to the Corinthians prohibited from submission to the Bible by Bishop Athanasius? | Emmaus At Twilight

So it is possible to say that a work claiming to be written by Paul was not actually written by Paul. Good, thank you.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..can you also understand what could have possible motivated someone to create the forgeries known as the Pastoral Epistles?

Aarghh I knew a consp-theory would crop up sooner or later!
PROVE they're forgeries and we'll take it from there mate; you wouldn't want people to think you're making it up as you go along..

 

[Shuttlecraft]

So it is possible to say that a work claiming to be written by Paul was not actually written by Paul. Good, thank you.

No mate, only 3 Cor was a forgery and couldn't get past the early church experts firewall, they had no beef with the stuff genuinely penned by Paul..

PS- Likewise there's a youtube vid (lyrics only) purporting to be Elvis singing 'The Old Rugged Cross', but it's been quickly spotted to be a fake by Elvis fans, right Elv?
"Uh-huh"..

 

[fantome profane]

Aarghh I knew a consp-theory would crop up sooner or later!
PROVE they're forgeries and we'll take it from there mate; you wouldn't want people to think you're making it up as you go along..

Ya got me. I can't prove anything. Can't even really prove third Corinthians is a forgery. Can you prove Third Corinthians is a forgery?

But as for the Pastoral Epistles as I said before the writting style is different. The theological content is different. The eschatology is different. And back on topic, the view of the role women is different. And that is the kind of evidence that scholars give to show that they are most likely not written by Paul.

It is exactly the same kind of evidence and reasoning for thinking Third Corinthians was not written by Paul.

And btw, many early Church Fathers argued that the Pastoral Epistles should not be in the Canon.

 

[Ingledsva]

Stop making up that fantasy stuff or it's the naughty step for you..
NOWHERE does the Bible say Saul/Paul killed anybody!
And he never changed Christianity, because he said straight out-
"Follow Christ, not me, I wasn't crucified for you" (1 Cor 1:12/13)

Act 22:4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

He was at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7.

He tells us he set out to DESTROY the church.

Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havoc/destroyed the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.


As for that "follow Christ" - "Saul/Paul" tells us he did NOT get his information from Jesus' apostles! He claims a vision, and takes the church into pagan ideas. In other words he did his job and diverted/destroyed it.



*

 

[Alt Thinker]

Guys, guys, the early church leaders realised 3 Cor was a fake so they binned it, you should be GLAD that it couldn't get under their radar..

" Let men know that in Asia the presbyter who compiled that document, thinking to add of his own to Paul’s reputation, was found out, and though he professed he had done it for love of Paul, was deposed from his position"

Why was St Paul’s third letter to the Corinthians prohibited from submission to the Bible by Bishop Athanasius? | Emmaus At Twilight

Athanasius lived in the 4th century. ‘Early church leaders’ is a relative term. The fact that Athanasius had to explicitly exclude the Acts of Paul shows that it was still around despite Tertullian.

From your source:

The main reason that the Third letter to the Corinthians was not included in the New Testament is because it was not historically reliable. The Acts of Paul, of which the Third Letter to the Corinthians was apart, was discredited by Tertullian (c.155 – 220 A.D.).

Why was St Paul’s third letter to the Corinthians prohibited from submission to the Bible by Bishop Athanasius? | Emmaus At Twilight

They are using Tertullian as an authority?

Sometime before 210 Tertullian left the orthodox church to join Montanism -- a new prophetic sectarian movement founded by the 2nd-century Phrygian prophet Montanus -- which had spread from Asia Minor to Africa. Jerome says he was 'distressed by the envy and laxity of the clergy of the Roman church', so he found the Montanist message of the imminent end of the world, combined with a stringent and demanding moralism, congenial. Tertullian gave himself fully to the defense of the new movement as its most articulate spokesman. Even the Montanists, however, were not rigorous enough for Tertullian. He eventually broke with them to found his own sect, a group that existed until the 5th century in Africa.

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Tertullian

Montanism was a heresy. Tertullian was a heretic. We should accept his authority on which writings are real?

Tertullian thought that Thecla – a major character in Acts of Paul - was fictional. Yet a great many people, even today, considered her real and a saint. (Ref) Apparently a lot of people disagreed with Tertullian.

Again from your source:

…on some theological themes of the Acts of Paul are in contradiction with the general thrust of the New Testament. For example, the issue of sex. The Acts of Paul champion sexual abstinence and singleness, which was a popular idea in early Christianity. However, this contradicts Paul’s writing recorded in the New Testament

Why was St Paul’s third letter to the Corinthians prohibited from submission to the Bible by Bishop Athanasius? | Emmaus At Twilight

On the contrary, Paul in undisputed 1 Corinthians champions abstinence and singleness.

1 Corinthians 7

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. .
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
25 .Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that .it is good for a man so to be. .
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. .Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. .
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; .
30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. .
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40 But she is happier if she so abide., after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

The arguments against 3 Corinthians do not seem all that strong.

 

[Desert Snake]

Act 22:4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

He was at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7.

He tells us he set out to DESTROY the church.

Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havoc/destroyed the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.


As for that "follow Christ" - "Saul/Paul" tells us he did NOT get his information from Jesus' apostles! He claims a vision, and takes the church into pagan ideas. In other words he did his job and diverted/destroyed it.



*

But the 'church' wasn't destroyed, was it. You have failed again. The New Jerusalem existed always in the "living faith" of the true Christians.


Nice try..

 

[Ingledsva]

Act 22:4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

He was at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7.

He tells us he set out to DESTROY the church.

Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havoc/destroyed the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.


As for that "follow Christ" - "Saul/Paul" tells us he did NOT get his information from Jesus' apostles! He claims a vision, and takes the church into pagan ideas. In other words he did his job and diverted/destroyed it.

But the 'church' wasn't destroyed, was it. You have failed again. The New Jerusalem existed always in the "living faith" of the true Christians.


Nice try..

You miss the point. The church of today IS NOT the Church Jesus preached.

It is the church Saul/Paul the assassin turned it into.


*

 

[outhouse]

The church of today IS NOT the Church Jesus preached.

Agreed.

jesus never taught about anything in modern Christianity as he was a jew.


he was anti church

It is the church Saul/Paul the assassin turned it into.

Factually in error


Paul started nothing. he only addressed a few houses out of possibly hundreds.

There was already scripture in existence by others, some of which were probably parts of the gosples.


We would have Christianity as we know it without paul.


He started nothing and was only responsible for a few houses, him stating how popular he was is simple rhetoric

 

[BTROD]

Your vid is about by a known quack who carries no credibility what so ever.

While shuttle does not know what is going on, either do you.

I do this for fun!

I actually do know quite a bit! One thing for sure is millions of people are controlled by these stories - bundled together into a book called the Bible.

if folk carried out due diligence they'd leave this illness called religion well alone! Or at the least they'd keep their beliefs private, because their isn't anything within religion to be proud of!

 

[outhouse]

I do this for fun!

Ah POE.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes Carrier is


What are you talking about I have never endorsed him other then give him a little respect for actually trying to provide a replacement hypothesis for the evidence we have about a historical Jesus, of which I do not agree. I follow a historical Jesus


Could you put me back on ignore?

Lmao! You really need to calm down. Stop being so flabbergasted when people disagree with you over the most miniscule things.

Why don't you put me on ignore, if I bother you so.

 

[outhouse]

Lmao! You really need to calm down. Stop being so flabbergasted when people disagree with you over the most miniscule things.

Why don't you put me on ignore, if I bother you so.

I don't like being places as a student of a nut job like Carrier. At one point I respected his knowledge, now I only see lies and holes in his work.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

I do this for fun!

I actually do know quite a bit! One thing for sure is millions of people are controlled by these stories - bundled together into a book called the Bible.

if folk carried out due diligence they'd leave this illness called religion well alone! Or at the least they'd keep their beliefs private, because their isn't anything within religion to be proud of!

Do you think that morals can be accessed without religion
Give you an example
When the discovery of America
Find where human beings like us
But do those people who enjoy the same ability to distinguish in ethics
Have had their way in alnfakir
And life
But they are not like your grandparents
Then the TRUE RELIGION is a school of ethics
Christianity is a school of ethics
You believe your freedom and true and wonderful
But you come to you the values of vacuum
Religion Act tame and moved from one life to another
But I'm not all religions enjoy these same qualities
I invite you to explore the religion according to the standard of ethics

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

I don't like being places as a student of a nut job like Carrier. At one point I respected his knowledge, now I only see lies and holes in his work.

I wish I could not shake your confidence
The Christian religion is honest
St Paul's real personality
Is Jewish origin like all the other disciples
Did not believe in Christ during the life of Jesus
His faith in Christ was after his trip to Damascus
Studies challenge the validity of faith Saint Paul
Charge is not in Christianity
This is not true
Because Christianity is derived from Judaism
If in the words of St. Paul to suggest Jewish influence is clear in his word that no stranger
It is the original
And all the words of St Paul corresponds to the words of the other Apostles
This is the Christian
I speak according to my profile
Without any deep search
Only my sources are simple Christian faith

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Factually in error


Paul started nothing. he only addressed a few houses out of possibly hundreds.

There was already scripture in existence by others, some of which were probably parts of the gosples.


We would have Christianity as we know it without paul.


He started nothing and was only responsible for a few houses, him stating how popular he was is simple rhetoric

Please provide evidence that what we call Pauline Christianity existed before Paul and would've existed anyway if he never came onto the scene. I'm honestly asking. That's quite a bizarre claim to say the least, imo.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Guys and gals, you seem fixated on Paul, what exactly is your beef with him?
Perhaps you've misunderstood what he said or taken it out of context?
Remember, he said-
"Follow Jesus, don't follow me or anybody else, I wasn't crucified for you!" 1 Cor 1:12/13),
which speaks volumes for his integrity and trustworthiness..

 

[BTROD]

Do you think that morals can be accessed without religion
Give you an example
When the discovery of America
Find where human beings like us
But do those people who enjoy the same ability to distinguish in ethics
Have had their way in alnfakir
And life
But they are not like your grandparents
Then the TRUE RELIGION is a school of ethics
Christianity is a school of ethics
You believe your freedom and true and wonderful
But you come to you the values of vacuum
Religion Act tame and moved from one life to another
But I'm not all religions enjoy these same qualities
I invite you to explore the religion according to the standard of ethics

religion is a conditioning tool and a toxic one.
shall we seek morals from the child abusing priests.........

I was brought up by two wonderful caring parents who were not religious, and I have morals. People who know me call me a gentle giant, a well mannered one at that.

As for freedom - none of us are free. Their is no free will, their is an illusion of free will as there is an illusion of choice when you go to the voting booth!!!

 

[sojourner]

I have the text in front me with Paul introducing himself in the beginning of his epistles. That is a fact. You have liberal scholars speculating it was not Paul. That is an opinion based on conjecture.

No, that is an opinion based upon peer-reviewed scholarship. What you have before you in the text has reasonable explanations (which the scholastic exegetical process brings out) which you patently choose to ignore in favor of your vapid, "if the bible says it, it must be true" apologetic. What's factual in the text is that someone was writing in the name of Paul, and was not Paul, himself.