Paul's view of women

[sojourner]

Hey I'm just the messenger. You'll have to take up your gripe with the One who inspired it.

You're not doing your job with any degree of due diligence, because you're misinterpreting the message!

 

[sojourner]

religion is a conditioning tool and a toxic one.

We've certainly seen way more than our share of that, just within this thread. It certainly can be turned into that. But I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Are you sure that it's "religion" you're against here, or "fundamentalism" and "fanaticism?"

 

[sojourner]

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.

Yeah, I really don't see why the spotlight is on Paul here. There's waaaaaay too much bibliolatry going on here. The bible isn't always factual, and it's not always "right." And, many times, the texts are not what they appear to be on the surface. The "Pauline" texts in question have received waaaay more creedence than they should, and I've already pointed out why early in the thread.

 

[sojourner]

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..

That was done a long time ago, mate! A critical exegesis of the texts shows that they were not written by the same author. Give it up! You're out on a scholastic limb that's not going to hold up.

 

[outhouse]

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.

Pauline Christianity is something that evolved long after pauls death.


We are talking about what was going on in the first century when the movement started.

When the movement started it was running full speed ahead without paul.


Paul is a reflection of Hellenist, of which is the main source of the movement. Without paul we would still have a Hellenized version of Jesus with roughly the same mythos

 

[fantome profane]

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..

um, what thread do you think you are posting in? If you want to talk about somebody else's view on women that is ok, start another thread.

And for the record I am not criticizing Paul. I am actually defending him. I think his view on the role of women was much more intelligent and enlightened that the viewpoint of whoever actually wrote the pastoral epistles.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..I am not criticizing Paul. I am actually defending him. I think his view on the role of women was much more intelligent and enlightened that the viewpoint of whoever actually wrote the pastoral epistles.

Good for you mate, you'll make Archbish of Canterbury yet..
Paul said- "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28 )