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?

[marco]

The sexism I can kind of excuse. After all the bible God himself seems very sexist. So Paul was just following his lead. However he was completely wrong about the return of Jesus.

Yes, there are two kinds of Christianity, one advocated by Christ and a different one advocated by Paul. It would seem that Paul outshone his master in getting his views into mainstream religious thought.

The immanent return of Christ, in the lifetime of his listeners, was probably a belief of the Lord himself. Matthew records:

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

But the wise exegetes will tell us that Christ did indeed fulfil his prophecy if we play with the words properly.

[JehovahsWitness]

Your generous explanation of Paul's meaning would suggest that Paul was deficient in making his point clear [...]

Well he made it abundantly clear to me, and I hazard a guess I'm not the only one on the planet. In the end if the writings of Paul have touched one person then in my opinion it was worth his effort and like I said, I don't think I'm being unreasonable in saying that they are appreciated by more than one.

JW

[marco]

Your generous explanation of Paul's meaning would suggest that Paul was deficient in making his point clear [...]

Well he made it abundantly clear to me

That was uncommonly decent of him so to phrase his ambiguities that you were able to make sense of them

and I hazard a guess I'm not the only one on the planet.

That proposition hardly requires guesswork. Look out of the window for verification.

In the end if the writings of Paul have touched one person then in my opinion it was worth his effort JW

An interesting observation. I wonder if it applies equally to Mein Kampf.

[JehovahsWitness]

That was uncommonly decent of him so to phrase his ambiguities that you were able to make sense of them

Well I don't personally see what he said as ambiguious so I would say that he was extraordinarily decent to make the point as clear as day to me and others like me. I'm happy to agree to disagree on that though.


Peace out,

JW

[Elijah John]

I think Paul was wrong on the role of women. He was wrong about Christ's impending return. And he is wrong about his blood atonement theology. He was wrong about a literal Adam and original sin, and hence the need for a "2nd Adam" to redeem us.

But we can still take Paul seriously for chapters like 1 Corinthians 13 and others. For his emphasis on love over law, on Spirit over letter. And for expanding entrance into the fellowship of ethical monotheism by dropping ritual requirements.

We cannot take Paul seriously as a prophet, nor as a theologian, nor as a social authority.

Nor even as an entirely accurate ambassador of Jesus' teachings.

But we can take him seriously as a Wisdom teacher. a practical advisor for living the Christian life and a devout poet.

The fact that Paul was wrong on some things does not invalidate the good and true things he did have to say.

[marco]

We cannot take Paul seriously as a prophet, nor as a theologian, nor as a social authority.
The fact that Paul was wrong on some things does not invalidate the good and true things he did have to say.

No book is so bad we can learn nothing from it...... so too with Paul. I am sure that Christ would not recognise his message in Paul's writings. In fact Christ was uncommonly clear in what he said, but Paul introduced a theory of sin, guilt and atonement and a god-becoming-man that would have stunned Christ.

[Elijah John]

We cannot take Paul seriously as a prophet, nor as a theologian, nor as a social authority.
The fact that Paul was wrong on some things does not invalidate the good and true things he did have to say.

No book is so bad we can learn nothing from it...... so too with Paul. I am sure that Christ would not recognise his message in Paul's writings. In fact Christ was uncommonly clear in what he said, but Paul introduced a theory of sin, guilt and atonement and a god-becoming-man that would have stunned Christ.

I would agree in this, the real, historical (Jewish) Jesus would not have recognized nor accepted Paul's theology of vicarious-blood-atonement through Christ. No good Jew taught human blood sacrifice.

And the historical Jesus (being a good Jew) would been horrified at the thought of anyone worshiping him, or any other human being, or putting him on a level with God. Even in Pauline, nascent "high Christology" form.

But some of Paul's ethical and Wisdom teachings do echo Jesus' own. Such as "love fulfills the law" being reminiscent of Jesus "Love of God, love of neighbor" being the "law and the prophets".

And Paul's "all foods (things) are lawful" mirrors Jesus "it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but (idle words etc) that comes out of a man.

[ttruscott]

In my mind the biggest reason not to take Paul seriously is that he truly believed he was living in the end times. He even made the claim that the gospel had been preached to every living creature under the sun.

He believed he had preached the gospel to the ENTIRE world. He was clearly deluded.

Colossians 1:23 ...if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Unless you have a verse wherein Paul claims this preaching to all under heaven was by himself, then Colossians 1:23 conforms to the pce contention that in Romans 1:20 all had seen the proof of YHWH's divinity and power so were without any excuse of ignorance,

and also supports the contention that we all knew the gospel before we made our free will decision to accept YHWH as our GOD or to reject HIM as a false god and the first liar. These are the truths we rejected for lies because we loved sin more.

Since it is frankly impossible to have Colossians 1:23 fulfilled on earth from the moment Adam And Eve left the garden to the end items, it was obviously fulfilled before the earth was filled and maybe before it was even created as hinted in Rom 1:20.

[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?

Why should it?.
Plus, the Greek meaning for a "Woman", also means a "Wife", and the meaning of
1 Tim 2: 11--12, is,, "Let not the Wife, instruct, dominate or usurp authority over her husband".

Also in 1 Cor 14: 34---35, The meaning is,
"Let not the wife shout down from upstairs to their husband who would have been down stairs. But wait till they got home, then ask their husbands.

[marco]

Plus, the Greek meaning for a "Woman", also means a "Wife",

As it does in many languages.

"Let not the wife shout down from upstairs to their husbands who would have been down stairs. But wait till they got home, then ask their husbands.

That's a fine rendering of Corinthians. I'm not sure that Paul would have approved of polyandry, though.