The apostle Paul

I have noticed on these threads that the aposlte Paul has gotten a bad wrap. That is, he has gotten a bad wrap for those who do not identify themselves as Christians. It seems he has been blamed for creating the modern day Christian faith rather than carrying on the Christian faith. Therefore, it is understandable that those who are opponents of the Christian faith would single out Paul as the "bad guy". After all, Paul is credited with writing a good bit of the New Testement. However, this does not explain the rest of the New Testament that Paul did not write. In fact, from what I have read, every book in the New Testament points to the resurrection of Christ as the focal point of the faith. And there lies the rub. Why is the focal point of the faith the ressurection of Christ if such an event is inconsequential? What are the implications for him having resurrected?

Originally posted by whodey
I have noticed on these threads that the aposlte Paul has gotten a bad wrap. That is, he has gotten a bad wrap for those who do not identify themselves as Christians. It seems he has been blamed for creating the modern day Christian faith rather than carrying on the Christian faith. Therefore, it is understandable that those who are opponents of the Chris st if such an event is inconsequential? What are the implications for him having resurrected?

I will give you a hint and I hope you will accept what I say as Just a discussion no more:

From what I know Paul's writting (or at least most of them) precede the four Gospels (or at least two of them). So what I see that we can say that the teachings of Paul's were there when thos gospels were written, and so the same ideas were inserted inside them.

The other point is Paul himself admits that he start preaching for a long period of time without meating any of the 12 aposltes. And he has his own gospel that was different from what the 12 aposltes know.

From this point, and the previous one, I can say that the gospel that paul used and the gospel that the 12 aposltes used were totally different, and they are not among the 4 gospels we know now. May be Matthew will be an exception because I know the Hebrew original was there before but where is it? and is it the same as the one we have? I don't know, but I know it was used by many sects those denays Jesus divinity.

Also you know that 2 of the gospels are not from 12 apostles, which means they are not eye witnesses. Also one of them is a student of Paul (if we assume that the name on the gospel is the name of the writter which no one knows for sure).

In summary , you can't say that Paul was following the remaining of the NT but the remaining parts of the NT actully follow Paul's.

EDIT: When I said follow , I mean they follow in the idea of Jesus crucifixion and salvation. But other parts of faith, like trinity, and the divinity of Jesus, are not there. From what I see from Paul's writting, he didn't believe that Jesus was GOD, and he didn't believe in trinity.

Originally posted by whodey
I have noticed on these threads that the aposlte Paul has gotten a bad wrap. That is, he has gotten a bad wrap for those who do not identify themselves as Christians. It seems he has been blamed for creating the modern day Christian faith rather than carrying on the Christian faith. Therefore, it is understandable that those who are opponents of the Chris ...[text shortened]... st if such an event is inconsequential? What are the implications for him having resurrected?

You are correct: the resurrection of Christ is the focal point of the faith. But also the life and teachings of Christ are a focal point of the faith. Now let's get back to Paul. What in your opinion does women having to be silent in the church have to do with the focal point of the faith? How about having their heads covered or having long hair? Paul gets a bad wrap because he speaks from the culture of his time and some of what he says is foreign to the culture of this time, at least in some places.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I will give you a hint and I hope you will accept what I say as Just a discussion no more:

From what I know Paul's writting (or at least most of them) precede the four Gospels (or at least two of them). So what I see that we can say that the teachings of Paul's were there when thos gospels were written, and so the same ideas were inserted inside them.
...[text shortened]... Paul's writting, he didn't believe that Jesus was GOD, and he didn't believe in trinity.

I suppose it is permissible to speculate on the origin of any document. In fact, they can't even decide who wrote the Shakespearean plays. Who is to say? All you can do is examine how old certain documents are and then compare writing styles to ascertain who wrote what. Yet this does not really prove anything either. I mean, just because one document may have been written earlier in no way means that that particular document is more credible than a document written later. You would have to agree with this because the Quran was written 600 years after the time of Christ! Conversly, the gospels were written about 70 years after the time of Christ.

So here we come to your beleif and the writings of the Quran. As a Muslim, you believe that Christ did not actually die on the cross, is this not right? Why? I say it is because it creates theological problems. If God did allow him to die on the cross, why did he? What was accomplished by it? Conversly, if Christ did die and was resurrected, then why was he? What was accomplished by it? In terms of Islamic theology there are no answers to these questinos. Therefore, Islam comes up with another answer. They say that someone else was crucified in his place. But still the nagging question remains as to why? Was God trying to decieve us into believing that Christ was crucified and later resurrected from the dead? Did he not know what sort of deception that would play out later if, in fact, Christ was not raised from the dead? Also, what of the poor soul that God allowed to die in place of Christ? Is this fair to him? He must have been a pretty bad person to deserve this, no?

If Christ was, in fact, not crusified, then what documents other than the Quran indicate this?

Originally posted by kirksey957
You are correct: the resurrection of Christ is the focal point of the faith. But also the life and teachings of Christ are a focal point of the faith. Now let's get back to Paul. What in your opinion does women having to be silent in the church have to do with the focal point of the faith? How about having their heads covered or having long hair? Pau ...[text shortened]... time and some of what he says is foreign to the culture of this time, at least in some places.

I can't say I can disagree with any of this.

Originally posted by kirksey957
You are correct: the resurrection of Christ is the focal point of the faith. But also the life and teachings of Christ are a focal point of the faith. Now let's get back to Paul. What in your opinion does women having to be silent in the church have to do with the focal point of the faith? How about having their heads covered or having long hair? Pau ...[text shortened]... time and some of what he says is foreign to the culture of this time, at least in some places.

Paul's writings have nothing to do with what culture he was in. His writings reflect the will of God, and are grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted.

As to woman remaining silent, it is simply about order and the structure of the local assembly. Only men are allowed to occupy spiritual leadership in the structure of any institution created by God.
This in no way diminishes the role of women in any way as some might suggest.

Originally posted by josephw

This in no way diminishes the role of women in any way as some might suggest.

yes it does, it says men are better than women.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
yes it does, it says men are better than women.

Ignorance is bliss.

Originally posted by josephw
Paul's writings have nothing to do with what culture he was in. His writings reflect the will of God, and are grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted.

As to woman remaining silent, it is simply about order and the structure of the local assembly. Only men are allowed to occupy spiritual leadership in the structure of any institution created by God.
This in no way diminishes the role of women in any way as some might suggest.

If a woman is precluded from assuming a role of spiritual leadership, how is her role not diminished?

Would you believe the following proposal?:
"Only non-Christians will be allowed to occupy political office. This in no way would diminish the role of Christians in any way as some might suggest."

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
yes it does, it says men are better than women.

Men are not better than women. Don't be silly.
We are equal in sole, but not in role. And nobody is really equal. We all have strengths and weaknesses.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If a woman is precluded from assuming a role of spiritual leadership, how is her role not diminished?

Would you believe the following proposal?:
"Only non-Christians will be allowed to occupy political office. This in no way would diminish the role of Christians in any way as some might suggest."

You're mixing your apples with your oranges. In the political process (at least in these united states), service is open to citizens as part of protocol. And while all citizens have access, even here protocol limits citizen's opportunities according to age and criminal record. To date, no one has balked citing diminished opportunities.

In the administration of church functions, only one position (pastor) is gender-bound, and even then the position is not open to all believing males: there are qualifications which must be met. Forbidding a woman to be a pastor of a local body is not a picture of misogyny, but a picture of reality, as the woman was deceived but the man deliberately chose against God. By no means are the restrictions of that position indicative of prejudice.

Not understanding reality will seriously hamper one's ability to understand church protocol.

Originally posted by whodey
I have noticed on these threads that the aposlte Paul has gotten a bad wrap. That is, he has gotten a bad wrap for those who do not identify themselves as Christians. It seems he has been blamed for creating the modern day Christian faith rather than carrying on the Christian faith. Therefore, it is understandable that those who are opponents of the Chris ...[text shortened]... st if such an event is inconsequential? What are the implications for him having resurrected?

If every book in the New Testament points to "the resurrection of Christ as the focal point of the faith", it's because the Pauline, proto-orthodox Christians simply picked the books they liked to include in the bible. All the other books that were around at the time that disagreed with their interpretation were discarded. If the Gnostics or the Ebionites had gotten to choose what to include in the bible, I'm sure they would have left Paul on the cutting room floor and included their own sacred texts.

The Gnostics, for example, did not believe that salvation comes through the death and resurrection of Christ. They had a docetic christology which maintains that Christ was wholly spirit and that his physical body was a mere illusion. Therefore he did not really die when they crucified him. For the Gnostics, salvation comes from correctly understanding the "secret knowledge" that Christ made available.

But its the Ebionites that I have found particularly interesting lately. Many scholars think that they may be the ones who were closest to the original teachings of Jesus. They were Jewish Christians, led by Jesus' brother, James, and who believed in keeping the Law of Moses. They clashed with Paul over many things and held him in low regard. The Ebionites had an "adoptionist" christology, which maintained that Jesus was wholly human but that God later "adopted" him and infused him with the spirit of Christ. They rejected the divinity, virgin birth, atoning death, and physical resurrection of Jesus. But what has been of particular interest to me has been the fact that they had a communal lifestyle with all goods held in common.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If a woman is precluded from assuming a role of spiritual leadership, how is her role not diminished?

Would you believe the following proposal?:
"Only non-Christians will be allowed to occupy political office. This in no way would diminish the role of Christians in any way as some might suggest."

You're reading too much into this.
Just because women are excluded from leadership IN THE LOCAL ASSEMBLY does not diminish them in any way. As a matter of fact, if properly understood, the bible does not make one person better than another. But there must be order in the church, or else we get what is so obviously apparent in the church today. Disunity.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're mixing your apples with your oranges. In the political process (at least in these united states), service is open to citizens as part of protocol. And while all citizens have access, even here protocol limits citizen's opportunities according to age and criminal record. To date, no one has balked citing diminished opportunities.

In the adminis ...[text shortened]...
Not understanding reality will seriously hamper one's ability to understand church protocol.

Read my post again. It's speaking against the assertion that "This in no way diminishes the role of women in any way...".

Be that as it may:
Do you have any idea what the word "prejudice" means? It's quite a leap to say that since the first woman was deceived it means that it's an inherent flaw in all women. I'm thinking that throughout history there's been at least a few men who have been deceived, so there's some evidence that both sexes are capable of being deceived. Aside from that I'm thinking that deliberately chosing against God doesn't exactly put one on higher ground than being deceived into going against God.

Originally posted by josephw
You're reading too much into this.
Just because women are excluded from leadership IN THE LOCAL ASSEMBLY does not diminish them in any way. As a matter of fact, if properly understood, the bible does not make one person better than another. But there must be order in the church, or else we get what is so obviously apparent in the church today. Disunity.

Perhaps you don't understand the definition of 'diminish':
diminish
verb [I or T]
to reduce or be reduced in size or importance:

Excluding women from spiritual leadership of the church by definition diminishes the role that a woman can have in the church.

"We're all equal. It's just that some are more equal than others."

I'm afraid to ask about your views on race.