Should we take Paul seriously?

[marco]

Many women love Paul. Here is his advice in 1 Timothy: 2, 9:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly array;

11. Let woman learn in silence with all subjection
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach

Does this advice undermine your confidence in Paul?
Does it make you think twice about his Damascus escapade?
Or does Paul have a point?

[catnip]

Many women love Paul. Here is his advice in 1 Timothy: 2, 9:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly array;

11. Let woman learn in silence with all subjection
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach

Does this advice undermine your confidence in Paul?
Does it make you think twice about his Damascus escapade?
Or does Paul have a point?

The three pastoral letters, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled in 140 CE and so are not considered to be penned by Paul according to most biblical scholars.

So, no, it doesn't undermine my confidence in Paul. Saying that, I don't take Paul without a grain of salt. I think at times he was inspired and at times his confidence lapsed into Pharaseeism and law giving. And while I am at it, unless I clearly see that he is reiterating what Jesus said, I am not sure of his leading.

[Saved75]

Many women love Paul. Here is his advice in 1 Timothy: 2, 9:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly array;

11. Let woman learn in silence with all subjection
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach

Does this advice undermine your confidence in Paul?
Does it make you think twice about his Damascus escapade?
Or does Paul have a point?

The three pastoral letters, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled in 140 CE and so are not considered to be penned by Paul according to most biblical scholars.

So, no, it doesn't undermine my confidence in Paul. Saying that, I don't take Paul without a grain of salt. I think at times he was inspired and at times his confidence lapsed into Pharaseeism and law giving. And while I am at it, unless I clearly see that he is reiterating what Jesus said, I am not sure of his leading.

But they were included in the original manuscripts.

[catnip]

Many women love Paul. Here is his advice in 1 Timothy: 2, 9:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly array;

11. Let woman learn in silence with all subjection
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach

Does this advice undermine your confidence in Paul?
Does it make you think twice about his Damascus escapade?
Or does Paul have a point?

The three pastoral letters, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled in 140 CE and so are not considered to be penned by Paul according to most biblical scholars.

So, no, it doesn't undermine my confidence in Paul. Saying that, I don't take Paul without a grain of salt. I think at times he was inspired and at times his confidence lapsed into Pharaseeism and law giving. And while I am at it, unless I clearly see that he is reiterating what Jesus said, I am not sure of his leading.

But they were included in the original manuscripts.

The "original manuscripts", if you mean the Canon, was first spelled out in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 CE.

What Marcion did was to spell out the Epistles believed to be written by Paul in 140 CE. That the Pastoral Letters were not included in his list at that time is significant.

[Saved75]

Many women love Paul. Here is his advice in 1 Timothy: 2, 9:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly array;

11. Let woman learn in silence with all subjection
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach

Does this advice undermine your confidence in Paul?
Does it make you think twice about his Damascus escapade?
Or does Paul have a point?

The three pastoral letters, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled in 140 CE and so are not considered to be penned by Paul according to most biblical scholars.

So, no, it doesn't undermine my confidence in Paul. Saying that, I don't take Paul without a grain of salt. I think at times he was inspired and at times his confidence lapsed into Pharaseeism and law giving. And while I am at it, unless I clearly see that he is reiterating what Jesus said, I am not sure of his leading.

But they were included in the original manuscripts.

The "original manuscripts", if you mean the Canon, was first spelled out in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 CE.

What Marcion did was to spell out the Epistles believed to be written by Paul in 140 CE. That the Pastoral Letters were not included in his list at that time is significant.

But they were in the original manuscripts.
Don't believe what men says.

[catnip]

Many women love Paul. Here is his advice in 1 Timothy: 2, 9:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly array;

11. Let woman learn in silence with all subjection
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach

Does this advice undermine your confidence in Paul?
Does it make you think twice about his Damascus escapade?
Or does Paul have a point?

The three pastoral letters, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled in 140 CE and so are not considered to be penned by Paul according to most biblical scholars.

So, no, it doesn't undermine my confidence in Paul. Saying that, I don't take Paul without a grain of salt. I think at times he was inspired and at times his confidence lapsed into Pharaseeism and law giving. And while I am at it, unless I clearly see that he is reiterating what Jesus said, I am not sure of his leading.

But they were included in the original manuscripts.

The "original manuscripts", if you mean the Canon, was first spelled out in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 CE.

What Marcion did was to spell out the Epistles believed to be written by Paul in 140 CE. That the Pastoral Letters were not included in his list at that time is significant.

But they were in the original manuscripts.
Don't believe what men says.

The Bible is a collection of books. That is why it is called a "Bible". The original final selection of books to be included in the New Testament Canon was done for Constantine in the 4th century. Until then there were approximately 3,000 other manuscripts circulating in Christian circles. There was never an "original manuscript" for the Bible before that.

This isn't based on what "men says". It is based on historical facts gleaned mostly from what was said by the Church Fathers, just as we know that it was Athenasius, a Church Father, who proposed the list that later became the Canon.

[JehovahsWitness]

The original final selection of books to be included in the New Testament Canon was done for Constantine in the 4th century.

That is not accurate. There exist a number of 2nd and 3rd century catalolues that prove that the books we have today in the Christian canon were essentially fixed by the end of the first century.

#Why can it be said that the CHRISTIANS of the first and second century established bible canon and not later councils?

The Christian bible was essentially a series of books or letters sent to and shared between groups of believers. Thus WHICH letters, gospels or books were accepted as inspired record is reflected in which books were used by the Christian community as recognised authority of leading figures IN that said community (on the outset the writers themselves, the Apostles and the leading men of the FIRST CENTURY Christian community) and verifiable by examining which books where included in various "collections". In other words its the collectors (Christians of the time) that, for all intents and purposes, established the bible "canon" by HAVING/using only certain books !

To illustrate: Who decides what is fashionable? by definition it is, not the designer, or even the specialists (that may "officially" declare for future generation the 'must have' of the season) neither the fashion historian that confirms what young people are wearing it is those that wear a particular style at any given time. Those that later examined what people were wearing "declare" for example flares the most fashionable trouser style of the 70's. do not MAKE the fashion

In a similar way it can be said that it was the church members (including albeit respected members of that community) that decided what was canon and that on a grass roots level.

Further reading
http://michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-fac ... h-council/

Until then there were approximately 3,000 other manuscripts circulating in Christian circles.

Manscripts were simply how the christian community circulated the writings. There was no printing nor any bookstores where they could go and by a copy of the Christian bible. Thus they hand copied and circulated their copies. The existence of thousands of copies therefore is irrelevant to the questions of the establishment of the bible canon as it does not necessarily indicate that these copies were essentially different in content to recognized accepted books of the time.

There was never an "original manuscript" for the Bible before that.

That is correct there were original manuscripts of bible books or letters.

JW

[JLB32168]

I can accept that the skeptic doesnt think we should take Paul seriously since he has little belief that the Church is guided by Christ to this day. The Christian who decides that Paul should be excised from scripture has no concept of how Christs functions w/in the Church. If the Church has accepted Pauls writings as authoritative, then the Christian must accept it.

If Paul is misogynistic then one wonders why he commends several women who have churches meet in their homes or who function as deaconesses. If the two verses are interpreted at a slavishly literal sense then Paul is sending conflicting messages. Of course, this isnt a problem for confessions that are highly liturgical and that have priests that represent Christ on earth. In the Christian liturgy where the Eucharist is served, the priest reenacts the Last Supper " Christ, a man, is giving his body and blood to his disciples. Were a woman to be doing this it would be a distraction. Theres also the problem of the pagan religions that had no problem with women clergy in the pagan religions. The practices of priestesses in Venus/Aphrodite were temple prostitution. We have the various and sundry Oracles that were always women " the Phythia at the Oracle at Delphi being the most famous of all of them. Priestesses were associated with pagan religions, which were inimical to Christianity.

Of note is the letter in which the command for women to be silent is that it was written to Timothy who lived in Lystra where pagan worship was high.

[Elijah John]

I can accept that the skeptic doesnt think we should take Paul seriously since he has little belief that the Church is guided by Christ to this day. The Christian who decides that Paul should be excised from scripture has no concept of how Christs functions w/in the Church. If the Church has accepted Pauls writings as authoritative, then the Christian must accept it..

Have you considered that the skeptic has good reasons for dismissing Paul? Atheist and Theist alike.

And because the Church has built it's dogma on Paul's theological speculation, does not mean it is being guided by Christ.

In fact, Paul conflicts with the teachings of Jesus in some major ways.

Jesus taught atonement through repentance and being willing to forgive others, (the Lord's prayer, the Beatitudes, and the Parables).

Paul taught atonement by accepting the idea that Christ "died to pay for our sins".

Jesus taught the importance of embracing the Law from the heart, from one's interior motives, not just outward observance. And to enter life, "keep the Commandments".

Paul taught that the Law is only prosecutorial, impossible to keep, and only for the purpose of demonstrating our need for a savior.

Paul never even met Christ in the flesh, so all of Pauline doctrine is base on one man's unverifiable "vision".

There are very valid reasons not to take Paul seriously, on some major theological issues.

And why should a Christian accept Paul just because the "Church" does?

The apostles and other primitive Christians were believers, before they even ever heard of the late-comer Saul/Paul!

[liamconnor]

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly array;

Hmm. It would be helpful if you provide the English translation you use. But I am guessing you have used the KJV: a very old translation, using English words with connotations different from current times. Why did you prefer the KJV to modern translations? Is it perhaps because it uses the word "shamefacedness" which will bear a very different connotation for us from what it would have to its original readers?

most modern translations translate as "modesty"

So with that little correction, let us negate the entire passage:

"That women adorn themselves in provocative apparel, haughty and loosely; with sexy hair and lavished with expensive jewelry and dresses; 10 do not commit yourselves to good works, for this does not commend them for the goal of godliness."

Is that the command that Paul should have given in your estimate? Why?

11. Let woman learn in silence with all subjection
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach

This is a good and interesting example. The difficulty is that we do not now the context which provoked the letter. Scholars are agreed (and even a cursory reading would suggest) that Paul's letters were occasional, i.e. addressing very specific circumstances, and not apodicticly.

Thus it is culturally doubtful that Paul meant women should not teach their own children. The context is when the church meets.

But this won't satisfy a feminist.

Paul was not a feminist; nor 99.9% of writers prior to modern times. He was what some call a complimentarian today. It is a complex theology. I am willing to discuss it if you actually care.

Does this advice undermine your confidence in Paul?
Does it make you think twice about his Damascus escapade?
Or does Paul have a point?

This is a strange sequence of questions. If you they conceal a point, the point seems to amount to the following.

Person A states Y and X, Y and X being unrelated (i.e. my brother tells a story about a life-changing event; my brother also holds to political policies which I think are undemocratic).

X is distasteful to me.

Therefore Y is probably false


Let me ask you this: when have you ever employed this line of reasoning in non-religious settings?

[marco]

Hmm. It would be helpful if you provide the English translation you use. But I am guessing you have used the KJV: a very old translation, using English words with connotations different from current times.

The KJV is a respected version. Its purpose was to make an accurate translation, not to pander to modern tastes. Truth doesn't crumble over the years. Modesty, shamefacedness ... what's the argument?

So with that little correction, let us negate the entire passage:

Why do you want to negate the KJV and substitute your own frivolities? Is this an argument?

11. Let woman learn in silence with all subjection
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach

This is a good and interesting example. The difficulty is that we do not now the context which provoked the letter.

When someone says "the horse is brown", do you think context will change the horse's colour? The refutation of what is said is that Paul didn't say it. He did.

Does this advice undermine your confidence in Paul?
Does it make you think twice about his Damascus escapade?
Or does Paul have a point?

This is a strange sequence of questions. If they conceal a point, the point seems to amount to the following.

Person A states Y and X, Y and X being unrelated (i.e. my brother tells a story about a life-changing event; my brother also holds to political policies which I think are undemocratic).

X is distasteful to me.

Therefore Y is probably false


Let me ask you this: when have you ever employed this line of reasoning in non-religious settings?

Let me tell you this: The questions were not intended to form a sequence, far less to indicate any process of reasoning in my psychology. The first two ask about Paul's view and our confidence in him. The third takes the entirely opposite line, to demonstrate fairness.

It would have been helpful had you addressed the OP rather than give an attempt to psychoanalyse the writer.