Paul's view of women

[Shuttlecraft]

Another story that was added to the Gospels by latter scribes. But as I said, that is another story.

Wait! who exactly "added" the prossie story, and for what possible motive?

 

[Ingledsva]

Such was not even in our debate, nor would it change in any way what was said. So I don't know why you are adding such?

1. We have to establish the fact Paul authored the epistles you claim were not authored by him, which contains information relevant to the topic. I pointed out where in the text it states he authored them. Now you have to show me where in the text it specifically states Paul did not ultimately author his epistles. I'm waiting.


ING - LOL! Dude! Your circular reasoning that the author of Paul is Paul because the same Bible says so - is ridiculous.

I suggest you Google something like - "When were the gospels written and by whom," and read the ones by scholars, rather then Christian sites.

*

That's great for you. The rest of us require real evidence.

2. Speculation and other fallacious reasoning about the content or authorship of the text is not real evidence.


ING - See above. Your believing the text, is not proof of the texts being true.

*

Just more crap on your part.

3. Now, now...Temper ING. Getting a bit flustered your argument is being picked apart like an Alaskan King Crab at dinner time? What you call crap is the type of bad reasoning used by liberal scholars to hoodwink you and the masses! And you all are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker!


ING - LOL! What fluster or temper? Crap is just crap.

And again these post of yours do not in any way prove your points. Why don't you actually try to refute with logical facts, and scholarship?

The idea that it's true because it's in the Bible, - doesn't hold water.

*

The winners always write the "history!" There is no proof of those people actually writing those texts, let alone the information within them being correct!

4. The proof is in the text in front of me. There is actually zero proof they did not author them. Besides, even if they were not the authors, it does not prove the information within them incorrect. That is yet another fallacy called affirming the consequent. For example, scholars are at odds on who wrote Judges, Ruth, Esther, Kings, and other OT books, does that make the information contained in them incorrect? No! Do you see how these liberal scholars are using these slick tactics to fool you and the masses?


ING - LOL! This is getting old. The book is not proof. See above. There is plenty of scholarship out there disagreeing with you. The fact that you ignore it for - "the proof is in the text in front of me," - speaks volumes to the rest of us!

*

Again you seem to have a comprehension problem. Go back and read # 110 and see what you said, that I was replying to. Hint - the last sentence. As to the "myself" - you both came on around the same time, - same writing, - and argumentative style, - and keeping each other's back. I wondered if you both are the same person?

5. I, like all humans, most definitely have a problem comprehending really bad logic.


ING - Then you had better take a long hard look at yourself and that circular Bible logic!

I was replying to YOUR - "Yet another example of your busted logic which continues to diminish your credibility and place a big question mark behind every word you type, right down to your incessant LOL....." - your last sentence - AS I STATED!

*

Dude, if you haven't bothered to read the exegeses concerning the Bible, and scholarly works doubting authorship, etc. That is your problem.

6. Read them all. And they are all based on pure speculation of the text, poor reasoning, and reflect the world's current liberal agenda. The text plainly states Paul ultimately authored those epistles. The problem of proving otherwise is yours. Well? Are you going to show me where in the text it specifically states Paul did not author the epistles in question?


ING - No you obviously haven't read them all. Nor are they based on "pure speculation" but scientific study of many factors including the text language, age, etc. All of the information is out there - by Biblical scholars - for you to read.

Again - The Bible says so, is no proof of such.

And where does the illogical idea that I should prove the text wrong - by accepting that same text as fact, - come from??

*

MY! MY! You have a real problem with logic, and scholarship, don't you?

7. I most certainly do.....YOURS!


ING - You are using circular logic, the Bible say so - therefore it is, - without any proof of such to show to us, but you think we have the logic and scholarship problem?

*

Dude! You need to reread that. I didn't say you on that one, I said translation. Also, my replies are not wrong.

8. We've proven over the last several pages, without a shadow of a doubt, they are based on "junk" reasoning, so yes they are invalid (wrong).


ING - See above. I am obviously not the only person pointing out problems, including translation problems, in the Bible.


And AGAIN - you have proved nothing! You just keep posting these pages saying I am wrong. PROVE IT!


*

And you are coming off rather Juvenile in your last couple of comments. You are on a debate site - thus we WILL debate what you claim.

9. You spent the last few pages placing LOL in the beginning and end of most of your replies. You refer to me with a colloquial term common to a much younger crowd ("dude") and you have the nerve to call someone juvenile?


ING - YOU WERE making juvenile comments about me. Dude just means a male.



LOL! That's ok, the missing LOL's in your current reply is a sign you are beginning to crack. Of course you'll deny it, but I did give you a fair warning.


ING - Definitely a spot for LOLOLOLOLOL!



I gave Sojourner the same warning. He is one of this site's intellectual authoritative members. He was wise to cut his losses and save his credibility.


ING - I'm sure he's trembling in his boots. NOT!


The reason people give up on you, and put you on ignore, is because of your circular logic. There is no true debate with a person like you. It just goes back around to "because the Bible says so." Why waste their time?



I suggest you follow in his footsteps. If not, I can continue to hammer away at your false reasoning and credibility for as long as you want.

LOL! means laugh out loud. That is my reaction to your circular logic, -

And to your last several sentences.



*

 

[Alt Thinker]

Wait! who exactly "added" the prossie story, and for what possible motive?

The prostitute story in Luke 7 was not added later. What was added was the incorrect perception that the 'sinful' woman who anoints the feet of Jesus was Mary Magdalene, who is introduced a few verses later in Luke 8. But Jesus tells the sinful woman to go in peace and presumably she does. Mary Magdalene is clearly already one of the regular traveling companions of Jesus.

 

[fantome profane]

Wait! who exactly "added" the prossie story, and for what possible motive?

My bad, I am sorry. I thought you were referring to the story of the adulteress from John. Nevermind.

 

[Alt Thinker]

My bad, I am sorry. I thought you were referring to the story of the adulteress from John. Nevermind.

Oops. My bad! The adulteress story in John was indeed a later addition. The prostitute story in Luke is a different story. I just assumed ...

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Sorry, I should have included this verse, Jesus upset the priestly hierarchy by telling them -"The tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you" (Matt 21:31)

And he also had a soft spot for adulteresses-

 

[james2ko]

ING - LOL! Dude! Your circular reasoning that the author of Paul is Paul because the same Bible says so - is ridiculous.I suggest you Google something like - "When were the gospels written and by whom," and read the ones by scholars, rather then Christian sites.

1. Of course it's a circle. For me scripture is the final authority, which will always be a circle! You have a circular argument as well, namely that your scholarly sources are the ones who are correct because they say so! Scripture tells us we are to have faith in what it says. So I guess your scholars ask the same of you?

ING - See above. Your believing the text, is not proof of the texts being true.

2. And neither is believing your liberal sources' speculation about it.

ING - LOL! What fluster or temper? Crap is just crap. And again these post of yours do not in any way prove your points. Why don't you actually try to refute with logical facts, and scholarship?

3. And you seem to have a habit of wallowing in a cess pool of your own logical fallacies...LOL! Prove to me he did not from the scriptures which is my authority. Not a bunch of liberal scholars.

The idea that it's true because it's in the Bible, - doesn't hold water.

4. The idea your sources claim their speculation about the bible is true because it's in their literature doesn't either.

ING - LOL! This is getting old. The book is not proof. See above. There is plenty of scholarship out there disagreeing with you. The fact that you ignore it for - "the proof is in the text in front of me," - speaks volumes to the rest of us!

5. You're right for once. The fact you continue to engage in crappy logic and ignore my question is getting old, "Where in the text does it state Paul is not the author of Timothy and Titus", speaks volumes to the rest of us believers.

ING - Then you had better take a long hard look at yourself and that circular Bible logic!

6. I did and determined faith in the scriptures is not as bad as you skeptics make it out to be. I suggest you take an even harder look at the last several pages where I expose your "pupu" logic that has you and millions deceived.

ING - No you obviously haven't read them all. Nor are they based on "pure speculation" but scientific study of many factors including the text language, age, etc. All of the information is out there - by Biblical scholars - for you to read. Again - The Bible says so, is no proof of such.

7. All that is speculative nonsense to discredit, undermine, and dismiss the text. Although scholars can be helpful, as a Christian, I don't need them to tell me "the bible doesn't really mean what it says because our research says so."

And where does the illogical idea that I should prove the text wrong - by accepting that same text as fact, - come from??

8. From your own delusional thinking...LOL! Because I never asked you to accept the text as fact. All I asked is for you to show me where it states Paul did not ultimately write his own epistles. (looking at my phone clock) I'm still waiting....

ING - You are using circular logic, the Bible say so - therefore it is, - without any proof of such to show to us, but you think we have the logic and scholarship problem?

9. No you have a textual proof problem. If you accuse me of circular reasoning (having faith) in scripture, they only way to refute my argument is by proving it from the same source. Once again you continue to dodge the question: Where in scripture does it state Paul was not the ultimate author of his epistles?

ING - See above. I am obviously not the only person pointing out problems, including translation problems, in the Bible.And AGAIN - you have proved nothing! You just keep posting these pages saying I am wrong. PROVE IT!

10. You claim Paul did not author Timothy and Titus. The beginning of these letters indicate he did. So the burden of proof is on you. Prove he did not from the same source that states he did----scripture. I'm still waiting.

ING - Definitely a spot for LOLOLOLOLOL!

11. Just like I said. You will deny it. That is one of the reasons you skeptics are so easy to refute-- you're all so predictable...LOL!

ING - I'm sure he's trembling in his boots. NOT! The reason people give up on you, and put you on ignore, is because of your circular logic.There is no true debate with a person like you. It just goes back around to "because the Bible says so." Why waste their time?

12. More fallacious refuse because you can't prove it. You utilize the same bad reasoning in your arguments, which I've been exposing all along. The reason people do not like to debate me is because I expose the stinkin' thinkin' (crappy logic) in their argument and strip it down to its core element--and no one likes that. And I can prove it. For example, I've expose plenty of logical fallacies in your argument (even linked you to them) and all you have to say is they are "crap", Why? Because they're not true? Nope...Because you don't like it. :yes:

So are you going to prove to me from my authority Paul was not the author of his epistles or are you going to continue to dodge the question?

 

[fantome profane]

Sorry, I should have included this verse, Jesus upset the priestly hierarchy by telling them -"The tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you" (Matt 21:31)

And he also had a soft spot for adulteresses-

Well now I can say it. I am sorry about my earlier mistake. But it is the story of the adulteress in John that was added by a latter scribe.

 

[james2ko]

The change made by the Masoretes was to add the vowel-signs for Adonai to YHWH as a reminder to say Adonai. If the book you referenced says otherwise, please provide quotes and links/page numbers. If ou cannot do that, please provide a quote from a reputable source that states that the Masorah explicity says that the Masoretes changed YHWH to Adonai. A quote from the Masorah itself would be nice. But first make sure it is really saying what you are saying – that the Masoretes changed YHWH to Adonai – and not what I am saying – that the Masoretes added vowel-signs to YHWH.

They were more than mere vowel signs to remind them to say Adonai. The text was actually altered but noted in the Masorah. Ginsburg writes:

"We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonai in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS and early editions read [have written in them] the Tetragrammaton, and the question arises how did this variation obtain! The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that the incommunicable name is to be pronounced Adonai as if it were written אדני [adni] instead of יהוה.[YHVH] Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbidden to pronounce. This is confirmed by the fact that the Massorah itself in giving the catchword of a passage substitutes אדני [adni] for יהוה.[YHVH] and that the Easterns אדני [adni] read where the Westerns have יהוה.[YHVH] and vice versa.‘ Hence we may safely assume that though the Scribe wrote Adonai for יהוה.[YHVH] he would not insert the incommunicable name instead of אדני [adni]. The reading, therefore, in the conflicting passages is in favour of the Tetragrammaton." CD Ginsburg, The Massorah translated into English, Vol 6, pg 31-32 PDF version [emphasis mine]​

Couldn't find an online version. Here's the PDF version you can download and see for yourself. Seforim Online - Out of Print, Hard to Find Hebrew Seforim for Free Download

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..the story of the adulteress in John that was added by a latter scribe.

Prove it..

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..The idea that it's true because it's in the Bible, doesn't hold water..

What books are on your bookshelf, and why do you believe them and not the Bible?..

 

[Ingledsva]

LOL! Dude! Your circular reasoning that the author of Paul is Paul because the same Bible says so - is ridiculous. I suggest you Google something like - "When were the gospels written and by whom," and read the ones by scholars, rather then Christian sites.

1.Of course it's a circle. For me scripture is the final authority, which will always be a circle! You have a circular argument as well, namely that your scholarly sources are the ones who are correct because they say so! Scripture tells us we are to have faith in what it says. So I guess your scholars ask the same of you?


ING - LOL! Well, at least you know your argument is illogical because it is circular logic, - rather then evidence.


No I don't have a circular argument. I have shown sources, translations, etc. Real Biblical scholarship, etc.

See above. Your believing the text, is not proof of the texts being true.

2. And neither is believing your liberal sources' speculation about it.


ING - Obviously you don't understand how ridiculous that sounds.

You are using Circular Logic = It is so because the Bible says so.

We are bringing in actual scholarship, to challenge your assumptions.

- LOL! What fluster or temper? Crap is just crap. And again these post of yours do not in any way prove your points. Why don't you actually try to refute with logical facts, and scholarship?

3. And you seem to have a habit of wallowing in a cess pool of your own logical fallacies...LOL! Prove to me he did not from the scriptures which is my authority. Not a bunch of liberal scholars.


ING - Let me say it again! Stop posting these huge pages that DON'T actually address the debate points, or challenge with proof, what I said.

The idea that it's true because it's in the Bible, - doesn't hold water.

4. The idea your sources claim their speculation about the bible is true because it's in their literature doesn't either.


ING - Again we are using actual Biblical scholarship information, as well as our own research and translations, you are just using Circular logic. This is not a debate, as you present nothing.

LOL! This is getting old. The book is not proof. See above. There is plenty of scholarship out there disagreeing with you. The fact that you ignore it for - "the proof is in the text in front of me," - speaks volumes to the rest of us!

5. You're right for once. The fact you continue to engage in crappy logic and ignore my question is getting old, "Where in the text does it state Paul is not the author of Timothy and Titus", speaks volumes to the rest of us believers.


ING - I answered your question = Why would I use your own circular logic - that if the bible says so - it is so, - and therefore use the Bible saying Paul wrote something - as actual PROOF that he did? Illogical!

Then you had better take a long hard look at yourself and that circular Bible logic!

6. I did and determined faith in the scriptures is not as bad as you skeptics make it out to be. I suggest you take an even harder look at the last several pages where I expose your "pupu" logic that has you and millions deceived.


ING - You can hold all the faith you want. It is NOT a debate technique! You sway no one by such circular logic.

And again - you need to take off those - Pat-Yourself-On-The-Back-Blinders, - you have proved nothing. You just keep putting up pages like this one - claiming such! I have asked you multiple times to go back to the actual debate and prove me wrong. You don't - so I will assume you can't.

No you obviously haven't read them all. Nor are they based on "pure speculation" but scientific study of many factors including the text language, age, etc. All of the information is out there - by Biblical scholars - for you to read. Again - The Bible says so, is no proof of such.

7. All that is speculative nonsense to discredit, undermine, and dismiss the text. Although scholars can be helpful, as a Christian, I don't need them to tell me "the bible doesn't really mean what it says because our research says so."

ING - What exactly does that have to do with the fact that you lied , saying you had read all the material?

And where does the illogical idea that I should prove the text wrong - by accepting that same text as fact, - come from??

8. From your own delusional thinking...LOL! Because I never asked you to accept the text as fact. All I asked is for you to show me where it states Paul did not ultimately write his own epistles. (looking at my phone clock) I'm still waiting....


ING - Dude - You are being about as illogical as it gets. You are telling me to disprove Paul wrote them - by using the Bible text in question - that says he did!

You are the one using Circular logic - not me. I pointed you to Biblical scholarship debating the authors, and dates.

You are using circular logic, the Bible say so - therefore it is, - without any proof of such to show to us, but you think we have the logic and scholarship problem?

9. No you have a textual proof problem. If you accuse me of circular reasoning (having faith) in scripture, they only way to refute my argument is by proving it from the same source. Once again you continue to dodge the question: Where in scripture does it state Paul was not the ultimate author of his epistles?


ING - Faith is not circular logic. Trying to use the text in question - as proof of its own authenticity - IS!

See above. I am obviously not the only person pointing out problems, including translation problems, in the Bible. And AGAIN - you have proved nothing! You just keep posting these pages saying I am wrong. PROVE IT!

10. You claim Paul did not author Timothy and Titus. The beginning of these letters indicate he did. So the burden of proof is on you. Prove he did not from the same source that states he did----scripture. I'm still waiting.


ING - I've already pointed you to sites showing the authorship and date debates.

Definitely a spot for LOLOLOLOLOL!

11. Just like I said. You will deny it. That is one of the reasons you skeptics are so easy to refute-- you're all so predictable...LOL!


ING - Again - you have refuted nothing - you try to use circular logic as fact, - and continue to put up these long pages that have no debate what so ever in them.

I'm sure he's trembling in his boots. NOT! The reason people give up on you, and put you on ignore, is because of your circular logic. There is no true debate with a person like you. It just goes back around to "because the Bible says so." Why waste their time?

12. More fallacious refuse because you can't prove it. You utilize the same bad reasoning in your arguments, which I've been exposing all along. The reason people do not like to debate me is because I expose the stinkin' thinkin' (crappy logic) in their argument and strip it down to its core element--and no one likes that. And I can prove it. For example, I've expose plenty of logical fallacies in your argument (even linked you to them) and all you have to say is they are "crap", Why? Because they're not true? Nope...Because you don't like it. :yes:


ING - It is truth and you need to take a look at your own posts.


So are you going to prove to me from my authority Paul was not the author of his epistles or are you going to continue to dodge the question?

Circle-Circle-Circle - see 8 and 9 above.

Another few minutes of my time - wasted - because you refuse to actually debate.


*

 

[Alt Thinker]

They were more than mere vowel signs to remind them to say Adonai. The text was actually altered but noted in the Masorah. Ginsburg writes:

"We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonai in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS and early editions read [have written in them] the Tetragrammaton, and the question arises how did this variation obtain! The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that the incommunicable name is to be pronounced Adonai as if it were written אדני [adni] instead of יהוה.[YHVH] Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbidden to pronounce. This is confirmed by the fact that the Massorah itself in giving the catchword of a passage substitutes אדני [adni] for יהוה.[YHVH] and that the Easterns אדני [adni] read where the Westerns have יהוה.[YHVH] and vice versa.‘ Hence we may safely assume that though the Scribe wrote Adonai for יהוה.[YHVH] he would not insert the incommunicable name instead of אדני [adni]. The reading, therefore, in the conflicting passages is in favour of the Tetragrammaton." CD Ginsburg, The Massorah translated into English, Vol 6, pg 31-32 PDF version [emphasis mine]​

Couldn't find an online version. Here's the PDF version you can download and see for yourself. Seforim Online - Out of Print, Hard to Find Hebrew Seforim for Free Download

“in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances… some of the best MSS and early editions read [have written in them] the Tetragrammaton”

That is, most of the “best MSS and early editions” already said Adonai in those instances, not YHWH. As I have been saying we do not know what sources the Masoretes used. But based on the above comment the odds (‘most’ versus ‘some’) are that the sources they used already said Adonai, not YHWH.

I thought I had understood you to say that the Masorah – the notes provided by the Masoretes as distinct from the Masoretic Text itself – stated that they intentionally changed YHWH to Adonai. Perhaps I misunderstood. Rather it is an inference made by Ginsburg. And it ignores the 315 times that YHWH does appear in the MT. Why were those not changed?

In any case, it is definitely not the case that the Masoretes were the first to write Adonai instead of YHWH. And it is not even clear that they did it at all based on what Ginsburg actually wrote.

 

[Ingledsva]

What books are on your bookshelf, and why do you believe them and not the Bible?..

First let me say you shouldn't take just one line of what I said, out of context, I was referring to his circular-logic, that it is correct, because the Bible says so, rather than prove his points.

However, there is far too much myth in the Bible for me to believe it. You know, - dead walking around, etc., though I do like the show, The Waking Dead.


I have far too many books on my shelves (and in my computers) to list them.

I have a library-office in my home. I put a picture of one side of my messy library in my pictures, it goes floor to ceiling all the way around. LOL! It’s the not as messy side. I have books stacked everywhere. I was pretty much raised in a library, where my Grandmother was the Head Librarian.



*

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..there is far too much myth in the Bible for me to believe it..

Prove it..

 

[Desert Snake]

However, there is far too much myth in the Bible for me to believe it. You know, - dead walking around, etc., though I do like the show, The Waking Dead.

There is plenty of 'myth' in secular scholarship as well, they make mistakes keft and right, I'm usually surprised when they get something correct.
That being said, 'circular logic' goes both ways, I would not be so quick to accuse others of employing such, I think you might be overstepping your "correctness quota".

 

[Shuttlecraft]

The atheist's version of how the Bible came down to us-

MEDIEVAL ABBOT - "Father Batholomew, I want you to translate these ancient bible scriptures into english, take them to your room and spend the next 5 years on the task, I'll have wine and hot food sent in to you every day to ensure your comfort"
BART - "Thank you Father" (Abbot exits)
BART'S MATE - "Hey man, why didn't you tell him you can hardly read and write?"
BART - "Not me chum, I know when I'm on to a good thing, i'll make it up as i go along"..

 

[Desert Snake]

The atheist's version of how the Bible came down to us-

MEDIEVAL ABBOT - "Father Batholomew, I want you to translate these ancient bible scriptures into english, take them to your room and spend the next 5 years on the task, I'll have wine and hot food sent in to you every day to ensure your comfort"
BART - "Thank you Father" (Abbot exits)
BART'S MATE - "Hey man, why didn't you tell him you can hardly read and write?"
BART - "Not me chum, I know when I'm on to a good thing, i'll make it up as i go along"..

Lol..

The thing is, I can always tell when something is being treated in a bias manner concerning Scriptural validity, because it has to fit a pre-existing framework of theory...This is why certain books are 'ok' to be labeled interpolations, but others aren't...it's really just a big mess, on the forums however it's obvious when the coherent verses are presented, so many of these 'criticisms' are just made up out of whole cloth, or just off the mark.

 

[Ingledsva]

Prove it..

And why would I need to prove - talking serpents, talking donkey, attendant birds, obedient bears, 3 days in a big fish - and live, a too small Ark, Adam and Chav'vah, world flood and the races and populations we now have from only 3 sons and their wives in under 6000 years, sticks into serpents, magic wand making, fertility magic, magic bowls, sea-splitting, dead rising out of graves and walking around, and on & on & on, are myth?


This is obviously myth.



*

 

[Desert Snake]

And why would I need to prove - talking serpents, talking donkey, attendant birds, obedient bears, 3 days in a big fish - and live, a too small Ark, Adam and Chav'vah, world flood and the races and populations we now have from only 3 sons and their wives in under 6000 years, sticks into serpents, magic wand making, fertility magic, magic bowls, sea-splitting, dead rising out of graves and walking around, and on & on & on, are myth?


This is obviously myth.



*

Didn't you posit in my epic "made in the image of God" thread that the 'talking seerpent' could have meant a person?
Not sure I'm buying the literal presentation of scripture you are stating here...