Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

While written by Paul himself, Galatians is not the oldest.

I Thessalonians was first.

I & II Timothy and Titus are believed to have been written by a loyal disciple
of Paul who combined several previously unpublished writings and expanded on
them.  Writing in the name of a teacher was very common at that time.

Some scholars also think Ephesians and Colossians were written by disciples
and consider II Thessalonians to be by an unknown author.

That leaves I Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, I & II Corinthians,
Philippians, and Philemon as Paul's own writings.

Paul is frequently taken to task for the advice he gave concerning the role
and status of women.

As tradition has it, Paul taught that women are not to wear gold or pearls
(I Timothy 2:9) and that women are never to have authority over men and
are to be submissive and silent.  (I Timothy 2:11-12)

In one of the letters to the church at Corinth, Paul indicated that women
should be silent in church meetings and that if the women had questions, they
should ask their husbands about it later (I Corinthians 14:34-35).  He also
said that women should keep their heads covered (I Corinthians 11:6).

Paul was a man of his time.

Peace,
Richard

    Re: .2,
    
    Grrrr...don't get me started.
    
    ;-)  
    
    Karen

re .2

 Hi Richard,

;As tradition has it, Paul taught that women are not to wear gold or pearls
;(I Timothy 2:9)

 Some tradition's may teach this, but is this what Paul was saying?. Looking
 at the Bible will help us see.

 1 Tim 2:9,10 NWT reads "Likewise I desire the women to adorn themselves in
 well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles
 of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb, but in the way
 that befits women professing to reverence God, namely through good works."

 The point that Paul was trying to get across is that Christian women should
 be balanced in their dress. A Christian woman or even a man or should not
 be drawing attention to their outward appearance by wearing very expensive
 lavish clothes or lots of expensive jewelry. But their charm should be the
 person they are inside, their heart condition as it were. How God feels
 about this is brought in 1 Peter 3:3,4 NWT "and do not let your adornment
 be that of the external braiding of the hair and of the putting on of gold 
 ornaments or the wearing of outer garments, but let it be the secret person 
 of the heart in the incorruptible [apparel] of the quiet and mild spirit, 
 which is of great value in the eyes of God." How would God view a person if 
 they wore no jewelry or expensive clothing and yet lived an immoral life 
 style? Jehovah's view is expressed in 1 Samuel 16:7 NWT "For not the way man 
 sees [is the way God sees], because mere man sees what appears to the eyes; 
 but as for Jehovah, he sees what the heart is." 

 So Paul was not saying that there is anything wrong with wearing jewelry,
 however a Christian's primary adornment should be their godly qualites
 and Christian conduct.

 I myself encourage my wife to wear jewelry especially the rings that I have
 given her, for it brings both of us pleasure. However, this should be in
 a balanced manner with primary emphasis on who we represent.

 BTW Paul's exhortation can be viewed for both men and women.

 Phil.

    My gut reaction to Paul is very negative.  He is attributed with that
    passage that states that only men are created in the image of God and
    therefore women should cover their heads in church, be quiet, and
    submit to their husbands.  If this is viewed as a prejudice of the age
    this is comprehensible.  To try to apply it today is immoral. For any
    church to use it as a means of descriminating against women is immoral.
    
    I must balance this gut reaction against Paul with the wonderful
    Universal statement
    
    "In Christ there is no Male or Female, Jew or Gentile, Slave or
    Freeperson"  (I quote from memory not source)
    
    I interpret the message of Jesus as a very revolutionary, egalitarian
    love ethic.  I interpret Paul as also containing a
    counterrevolutionary message.  It is not Jesus' life that interests
    Paul but his interpretation of Christ as experienced by him on the road
    to Damascus.
    
    Paul's sense of oppressive sexual urges unfortunately begins a long
    Christian tradition of hating the body and distrusting human sexuality.
    On the other hand Paul's sense of Christian Grace freeing him from this
    "albatross" that he carries around with him can point to  the Gift of Grace
    which is so wonderfully freeing of whatever sense of oppression we
    feel.
    
    Paul has much that he can teach us if we accept his message and his
    example  as but one persons faith journey.  Paul's message binds us to a
    very narrow sinister view of Christianity if we accept it as a direct
    revelation from God.
    
    peace and love
    
    Patricia

	Wasn't it also Paul who wrote about his opinion? How does an opinion
get into a book that was supposed to be the written Word of God? Makes one
wonder about the validity of it all.....



Glen

    So when is the public book-burning of the letters of St. Paul?

    Patrick .7,
    
    	Is that where you believe critical thinking leads?
    
    Richard

re Note 544.7 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     So when is the public book-burning of the letters of St. Paul?

        Is that what you would do with a book with which you might
        have a disagreement?

        Bob

Re:  .6

  >Wasn't it Paul who wrote about his opinion?

No, although some choose to believe this.  This question has
been answered numerous times before.  Is it that you don't
remember the answer or that you choose not to accept it?

Collis

I'll give you solid Biblical backing of Paul and his writings.  If you
won't believe Paul, how about the Apostle Peter who actually walk,
lived, and worked beside Jesus.  People were always trying to pit Peter 
against Paul and visa versa.  They were the 2 greatest "missionaries" of 
the early church.  Peter to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles.  Paul even 
rebuke Peter for bringing Hebrew traditions to the uncircumsized because 
they were not under the Law.  Yet, here's what Peter says about Paul:

II Peter 3:14-17 NIV

"So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make 
every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, JUST AS OUR
DEAR BROTHER pAUL ALSO WROTE YOU WITH THE WISDOM THAT gOD GAVE HIM.
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of 
these matters.  HIS LETTERS CONTAIN SOME THINGS THAT ARE HARD TO
UNDERSTAND, WHICH IGNORANT AND UNSTABLE PEOPLE DISTORT, AS THEY
DO OTHER SCRIPTURES, TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION.  

Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, BE ON YOUR 
GUARD SO THAT YOU MAY NOT BE CARRIED AWAY BY THE ERROR OF LAWLESS
MEN and fall from your secure position.  But grow in the grace and
knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  To him be glory 
both now and forever!  Amen."

Jill
    

    Jill,
    
    ARe you implying that I am ignorant and unstable or am I overreacting. 
    
    
    
    Patricia

    I think Jill is implying that you were implying that Paul does not
    teach what Christ taught.

    
    

I'm defending my God and His Word and the tools He used to record it.  
Not that He needs my help.  Regardless of what anyone says about The 
Word, it still stands yesterday, today, and forever!  And we will
all be judged by it regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

To quote the Bible and to say that it's immoral while you embrace 
things that you say are moral, yet the Bible calls immoral is offensive.   
Also, just because people have done abuses and other sins and given
Biblical references for them, doesn't mean that the Bible teaches them
that immorality.  They twist the Scriptures for their own selfish desires.
Paul called sin, sin and did not distort the teachings of his Savior 
whom He suffered immensely for.

Peter declares that Paul's writing were given to him from God.   On what 
authority do any of you say otherwise?  

Jill

    

    
    RE: 8
    
    Richard, is it really critical thinking or is it blasphemy?  We could
    go back through this notesfile and find hundreds of notes where you
    dispute the Word of God.   I think it odd, no contradictory, that a 
    self-proclaimed Christian would do that.   Again I ask the question
    with whose authority do you dispute God's Word?
    
    Jill
    
    
    

   Jill,

   I don't find it odd at all.  If find it entirly consistant that
   Christians question themselves and their beliefs as if it were a 
   challenge to understand God a bit better.

   Since we know God through the words of many imperfect men would it
   not be wise to be critical in our thinking?

   Would it be blasphemy to wonder if Paul is only a trivial postscript
   in the much larger letter God is writing to us?

   Peace,
   Allison

    I find it consistent that some participants in CP deny that Paul
    taught what Jesus taught.

    I find it consistent that some participants in CP deny that the Bible
    is the revealed word of God.

And is that the Christian Perspective?

    Okay, okay...I hear you calling me, Patrick. :-)
    
    > I find it consistent that some participants in CP deny that Paul
    > taught what Jesus taught.
    
    That's good.  For when it came to women, Paul "teachings" were
    inconsistent with Jesus', according to the Bible.
    
    Jill,
    
    Though some of us appear rather blasphemous and offensive to you,
    it's an unintended effect.  And it's not meant personally.  It's the 
    type of inquiry many of us like here -- for good or ill.  (I happen 
    to think it's good, and is certainly vital to my faith journey.)  
    It's not likely to cease anytime soon.  In any event, don't worry. 
    God is dealing with each and every one of us.  
    
    Karen     

    RE: .15  Jill,
    
    			Was Thomas not being "critical" when he asked to
    feel and see the scar's on Jesus hands?  Or was he "blasphemous"?
    And either way you see it, think on how Jesus handled that situation.
    With love and compassion.  Are we not supposed to emulate his actions?
    Its easy to quote words but without actions those words ring hollow
    indeed.  I find it healthy and normal for people to question,
    how else will they find the truth?  
    
    Dave

    
    RE: .16-.20
    
    Is it blasphemous to say "How does the Scripture relate to my life?" or
    "How can we apply this Scripture to our lives?"  No, and I would said
    that is critical thinking...critical to my walk with Christ.
    
    However, that isn't what's been said here.  It's been said that Paul's
    writings are immoral and narrow and sinister when apply to today's
    world.  That Paul's writings conflict with the teachings of Jesus and
    that they don't belong in Scripture and are invalid, and maybe the whole 
    Bible is invalid.  I think that's blasphemy.  
    
    BTW:  Karen, I want a Scripture to back you claim that Paul's writing
    conflict Jesus'.  I can't find any.
    
    You say that Paul was just a man writing about an mystical experience
    on a road and not about Jesus.  If you believe that, it is you who
    conflict with Our Lord because Jesus is recorded in Act 9:15,16 as 
    saying,
    
    "But the Lord said to him (Ananias), "Go for he is a chosen instrument
    of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of
    Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's
    sake."
    
    Did Paul know he was chosen by Jesus...I Cor. 1:17..."For Christ did
    not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..."  I urge you to
    read on...Chapter 2 is great too.  Paul knew where his message came
    from.  
    
    Not only did Peter back him, but Jesus chose him.  Does not God have
    control of all things.  When He chose Paul and gave him His wisdom,
    is it not Spirit-filled then?  I rebuke you who say that Paul's writing
    is not the work of God and I pray God will, as Karen said, be dealing 
    with each of you on this and many other issues as He is with me.
    
    As for Doubting Thomas, Jesus knew Thomas' fault and showed him the truth.
    The difference with Thomas and many here, is that once shown the truth
    Thomas believe and surrender his doubt to Jesus.  The truth is recorded
    for us in Scripture and further revealed but never contradicted through 
    the workings of the Holy Spirit in our lives.   
    
    I Timothy 6
    
    Jill

Note 544.15
    
>    Richard, is it really critical thinking or is it blasphemy?  We could
>    go back through this notesfile and find hundreds of notes where you
>    dispute the Word of God.   I think it odd, no contradictory, that a 
>    self-proclaimed Christian would do that.   Again I ask the question
>    with whose authority do you dispute God's Word?
    
Jill,

	It's apparent to me that some people hold the belief that one
cannot take exception to anything that is included in the Bible and be
a Christian at the same time.  I can see how I might present something
of a paradox, perhaps even a threat, to people who possess such a paradigm.

	My own perception, by contrast, is that people who elevate the Bible
beyond the arena of critical thinking and questioning are really bibliolators.

	I personally grant the highest authority to the Spirit of Living
the God through Christ Jesus, the Sovereign, rather than to the Letter.

Peace,
Richard

    There's a difference between asking to see the wounds of Christ in
    order to know the truth, and rejecting the truth when it is presented
    to you.

    I say to the readership of CP what Jesus said to Thomas (Jn 20:26)

    STOP DOUBTING AND BELIEVE!
    
    Jesus said "Beacuse you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are
    those who have not seen and yet have believed."  Jesus was silent on
    those who do not believe.  But to his believers he said
    
    FOLLOW ME!

.23> .. rejecting the truth when it is presented to you.

"Truth"?  Is there only one truth?

.23> I say to the readership of CP what Jesus said to Thomas (Jn 20:26)
.23> STOP DOUBTING AND BELIEVE!

And I say that God gave me a brain.  I intend to use it!!  I have a unique
ability (which theoretically separates me from some lower forms of life) to
reason and to analyze.  May I be permitted to do that? Or do I simply follow
as a lamb to the slaughter?

What do you want me to do .. simply sit down and let someone else tell me
what the "truth" is?  Great - I don't need a brain for that - I can just
sit in a field somewhere and vegetate.  When I have any questions I can
just consult a "Christian" he/she can just whip out a copy of the Bible,
tell me what the "truth" is and I can go on my happy way blissful in the
thought that I didn't have to use my brain.

To what extent am I permitted to *think* on my own?

Thank you,
Bubba

    Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6) He didn't
    say "I am one of many ways, many truths, and many lives."
    
    Jesus us gave us Paul to preach and to write.  Paul used his brain to
    reach the brains of the gentiles and made disciples of them.  The great
    Christian missionary who is my namesake used his brain to bring Jesus
    to the Irish.
    
    If you allow a Christian to use his or her reason and experience and to
    witness to Christ, you will not be led, no, you will pick up the cross
    and follow Jesus of your own free will.

Note 544.6

>	Wasn't it also Paul who wrote about his opinion? 

Read I Corinthians 7.12a (and surrounding verses) and see what you think.

Richard

    RE: 544.21   Jill,
    
    			Ok.  If you believe *SO* much in the Pauline
    scriptures, and they relegate women to a silent role in spiritual
    matters, then your participation here can be thought of as
    "blaphemous".  I believe this was Patricia's intention when she wrote
    her reply's in this string pointing out that traditional
    interpretations are no longer viable in todays society.  The fact that
    you are not being silent and are speaking authoritatively on spiritual
    matters suggests you don't accept the traditional interpretations
    either.  Personally, neither do I. :-)
    
    
    Dave
    

I think you misunderstand the traditional interpretation.

Jill is letting you know what she has been taught by the Church fathers,
and that is the traditional interpretation of Paul's advice to women.

They are not to interpret scripture and develop doctrine, but are free
to proclaim the truth of what they have been taught.

/john

    RE: .7
    
    Childish Pat......I thought that you could follow a discussion.
    
    Marc H.

    It is worth pointing out that many scholars do not believe that the
    apostle Peter was the author of II Peter.
    
    -- Mike

Yes, but they also hold that the author was a disciple of Peter who
was expressing Peter's views.

/john

    Certainly, the author did claim to speak for Peter--which would have
    been the justification for pseudonymous authorship--and he probably did
    come from a "Petrine" wing of the church.  Whether he was indeed
    expressing the dead apostle's views is another question.
    
    -- Mike

    Wasn't Paul's writing influenced strongly by the fact that he felt
    that the second coming of Christ was to happen *IN HIS LIFETIME?*
    As such, he was asking people to adopt a lifestyle that was almost
    "temporary" in nature. In this content, Paul told the people to
    change their sexual habits......
    
    If you knew that the second coming was going to happen in your
    lifetime, I'm sure that we all would change somewhat. 
    
    Marc H.

Whether or not the parousia occurs within our lifetimes, the second
coming is relevant to the end of each of our lives.

Live your life as if He were coming soon.

/john

    Sure....but...Paul really felt that Jesus was going to re-appear
    within his life. There is a difference.
    
    Marc H.

>    Sure....but...Paul really felt that Jesus was going to re-appear
>    within his life. There is a difference.
 
	But should there be a difference? I think not. I don't know when
	Jesus will come again but it's as likely tomorrow as 100 years
	from now.

			Alfred

    Alfred,
     Sure, I also believe that Jesus will come again...at amy moment.
    But, Paul was writing knowing that Jesus will appear at any moment
    for real...no fooling....like next year! There is a difference
    between faith and knowing that Jesus will give the speach at the
    graduation ceremony.
    
    Marc H.

    Jill .21,
    
    Please reference 9.451 for my submission of scriptural evidence showing
    the ways in which Paul's edict concerning women's involvement in spiritual
    matters grossly contradicts Jesus's teaching and living example.
     
    /john .34,
    
    > Live your life as if He were coming soon.
    
    Good advice -- I do.  But even better, live your life as if He 
    weren't coming soon... that is the more revealing of the two.
      
    Karen

    I agree with those who are making the point that Paul believed that the
    Rapture was imminent in his lifetime.  More to the point, though, would
    be the religious and philisophical background Paul came from.  He was a
    Pharisee.  Before his "conversion" experience he was a member of the
    governing body of one of the strictest, most dogmatic Jewish sects. 
    They were the lawmakers and enforcers.  Many of the Pharisiacal
    teachings are apparent in his letters to the various church's.  
    
    Yes, I believe Paul changed Christianity.  Paul's primary mission was
    to convert both the Jews ands the Gentiles but he tended to focus on
    the Gentiles, those who had no Judaical background.  His starting place
    was the Pharasiacal law that he was so familiar with. 
    
    I think it's interesting that what we know historically about the man 
    Paul, Saul of Tarsus, is that he was 1-2 generations removed from the
    historical lifetime of Jesus and yet his writings are the ones
    closest to the time period in which Jesus lived.  Even the surviving 
    gospels were written after Paul's letters.  I also think it's
    interesting that more of Paul's writings are included in the approved
    Biblical cannon than anyone else's.  If God really wanted us to get the
    word directly, why didn't He do it through Jesus who was supposedly His
    mouthpiece?   
    
    I also understand that historically there was quite a bit of a power
    struggle between followers of the apostle Peter and those of Paul of
    Tarsus.  These two opposing factions eventually formed an alliance in
    order to stand united against the Essenes and Gnostics.  
    
    My point is that there are many historical reasons to doubt the
    accuracy of Paul's representation of God's intentions.
    
    Nanci  

    So Nanci,

    Where do you stand?

    Do you believe that Paul taught what Jesus taught, or that the Essenes
    taught what Jesus taught, or that the Gnostics taught what Jesus
    taught?  None of the above, all of the above?
    
    Or are you simply affirming that Jesus Christ was born, suffered, died,
    rose from the dead, returned to heaven without leaving a reliable
    source for his teaching for his followers to follow?

    Pat

re: Note 544.40 by Pat "Annoy the media. Vote for Bush" 

>    Or are you simply affirming that Jesus Christ was born, suffered, died,
>    rose from the dead, returned to heaven without leaving a reliable
>    source for his teaching for his followers to follow?

Actually, I have occasionally wondered why Jesus simply didn't write 
everything down himself, so everybody could know *exactly* what he 
wanted us to do and there'd be no mistake about it.  Then we could refer 
to it as simply as a driver's manual to know if we just passed that car 
illegally.

But the New Covanent is written on hearts; not stone, papyrus, paper, or iron 
oxides.  Did God use an inheritently unreliable medium?  And if so, why?

Peace,

Jim

    A 'soon' that nearly spans two thousand years can hardly be called
    'soon'.

    Pat,
    
    I believe that Paul adhered to some of Jesus teachings with a lot of
    Paul's own life-experience mixed in...too much, in my opinion.  I agree
    with Jim, that God's intent for us is written more on our hearts than
    in the book called the bible.
    
    I think that what Jesus taught and what God intended was not kept pure 
    in any of the early Christian sects.  By the time the second generation
    of Christians came along there had already been too much infighting and
    individual political agendas within all of the sects for the teachings
    to remain really pure.  So I don't think that any of the sects had a
    cornet on the truth but I think that elements of the truth can still be
    found in the teachings of all of these groups.  That is why I study all
    of the early writings, not just those approved by the "official church"
    at any given point in time.  What I retain or base my spirituality on
    are those parts which speak to my heart.  I believe that, in a more
    direct way than just believing what some self-proclaimed authority
    says, God speaks to me through those teachings which reach my heart.
    
    I don't believe that God meant for us to draw the lines that have
    divided Christians from Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and pagans and
    even from each other.  I believe that the truth and glory of God was
    deliberately left vague so that we would all have to make an individual
    effort to learn and grow in alignment with that divinity that we call
    God/Goddess/All That Is/The Divine Mind/Yaweh/Jehovah.  There are many
    names but only one divinity as there are many of us but only one source
    from whence we come.
    
    Nanci              
    
     

    That should read "corner on the truth", not "cornet on the truth"
    although maybe it was almost a freudian finger slip.  :-)
    
    Nanci

re: Note 544.42 by Pete "Gimme a whoosh or wot... 
                                      you only get a whoosh with a wotsit" 

>    A 'soon' that nearly spans two thousand years can hardly be called
>    'soon'.

Of course to God, a second is as a year.  Reminds me of a folk song I heard a 
comedian sing...

Man said to God, "What's a million years to you?"
  God said, "It's a second."
Man said to God, "What's a million dollars to you?"
  God said, "It's a penny."
Man said to God, "Will you give me a penny?"
  God said, "Yes, I will......in a second."

More seriously, I think some difficulty with Paul's belief in the second coming 
is more a difference between hope and expectancy.  I see Paul as *expecting* 
Jesus' second coming in his lifetime, not hoping for it.

Peace,

Jim

| <<< Note 544.10 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON "Pro-Jesus" >>>


| >Wasn't it Paul who wrote about his opinion?

| No, although some choose to believe this.  This question has
| been answered numerous times before.  Is it that you don't
| remember the answer or that you choose not to accept it?

	Collis, the question has always been answered in the following manner:

What Paul said was his own opinion but it didn't go against Scripture so it was
ok.

What Paul said was from the Holy Spirit but Paul didn't know this and mistook
it as his own opinion. It doesn't go against Scripture so it is ok.

	This is hardly decisive in my opinion. Also, if it were the first case,
then that would mean that human opinion has gotten into a book that is supposed
to be 100% God breathed. If the latter, then Paul made a mistake and either
wasn't listening to the Holy Spirit and using his own mind or he just took the
credit. Either way that letter seems to contradict the makings of the Bible.
One thing everyone agreed on was if there is one mistake in the Bible, then you
can't expect the rest of it to be true either. This is one of many mistakes.




Glen

RE: .22-.43  (I tried to cover it all.  Hope I didn't miss anything.)

I agree that Jesus taught that all people, male and female, had equal
access to the gospel and to God.  Jesus also taught the women that travelled
with them, right alongside of the apostles.  However, look at how the
women served with Jesus, they ministered to Him and the disciples, a 
submissive role.  They were not out there proclaiming the gospel.  However, 
when asked or faced directly with a situation, I believe they could respond 
to it with the knowledge Jesus had given them.  God has always bestowed
blessings on godly women.  Jesus highlighted the quiet examples of women like 
the old woman who gave the pennies.  I don't see Jesus promoting women to be 
leaders in the church or equal as defined by today's feminist movement.
Regardless of what happened after His death with Mary or any other women,
show me were Jesus promoted women taking the teacher roles.  Was there
a women in the twelve that he chose as his disciples...now that would be
proof!  But, there wasn't.

I don't see how Paul's ministry differs.  I believe he shows that both
men and women have equal access to the gospel and to God.  I believe
the women at the church in Corinth were taking on roles that were not
theirs and Paul spoke to that.  Like it or not the entire Bible supports
a hierarchy of power on earth, and women have a submissive role.  Not
that women are less valuable then men, but we round out the plan.  We're
equal parts that serve the whole.  I think of it like the Trinity, all
3 parts of God have equal, but different roles, each is submissive to the
others and together they form the One Perfect God.  One of the greatest
Christian women of our time is Sister Theresa and she has used her 
submissive role to impact lives for God.  

Now, I believe it was Dave who asked me if I then was not out of line
to speak out here.  Last I checked this is not a church.  Also, as my
brothers have pointed out I'm not making revelations of my own, but
what I have been taught by the leadership of the church.  When faced
with defending my faith, I can, as I have been taught and equipped to
do so.

Once again Richard, I am not a literalist.  However, I do believe that
the Bible is our owner's manual and is the fully inspired Word of God.
I believe God is the highest authority and He has revealed Himself
in Scripture.  The Word is God.  The Spirit does not reveal things
contradictory to the Word but in accordance with the Word.  If you teach
a different doctrine, you're not a Christian.  I Tim 6.  God did give us a 
    brain to understand and to choose if we would follow Him or choose 
    to follow Satan.  Those are the only 2 choices.  Life and Death.

Paul may have thought Christ was returning soon, but I hardly think
that it was his intent to adopt a "temporary" lifestyle as if we 
could fool God with a last ditch effort.  Even Jesus talked in different 
parables about being prepared for nobody knew when the Master or Bridegroom 
would come.  For that fact, it doesn't matter when He's coming, because 
we could die this very day in a car accident or of a heart attack and we 
still need to be prepared.  Not knowing when He's coming back should not 
have any affect on how we live our lives, we should live daily preparing 
for it.

I love Jim's question of did God use an inheritently unreliable medium?
You bet!  I believe He did it to make us choose to believe that He can do
all things, even use the most unreliable tool, and still control what
His Word said.  Could not an omnipotent God place what we see as original
thoughts in a person's mind?  Even God's foolishness is more than all of 
man's wisdom!  He will confound those who seeking their own wisdom, rather 
than His.  I Cor 1.

Jill
    

    Re: .47
    
    In line with the thought that Jesus was just "around the corner",
    I have read that Paul's suggestion to abstain from sex was related
    to this notion...i.e. why start a family if the world is going to end?
    
    My reference is in the Harpers' Commentary.
    
    
    Marc H.

    
    Marc,
    
    I'd be interested in the Biblical reference in Paul's writing that
    tells all Christians even those that are married to abstain from
    sex because the world was ended any day now.  I've never read that.
    
    Paul did say a single person has more time to devote to God.  That
    a married person has their family and that take time from God.  But he
    also said that either was acceptable because not all were called
    to a life of singleness.  He did talk quite alot about abstaining
    from sexual immorality, which is entirely different from sex itself.
    He talked about unmarried people abstaining from sex, but I don't
    recall him calling all Christians to abstain from sex.  Where is
    that please?
    
    Thanks, Jill

    Re: .49
    
    Jill,
     I'll check at home for the passage I read. 
    
    Marc H.

    
    Thanks Marc.
    
    Jill

    re 544.39
    
    Nanci,
    
    I found your reply to be very thoughtful and thought provoking. 
    Sometimes I find it hard to remember that Paul's writings were the
    first writings that have survived regarding Christianity.  That each of
    the Gospels are in fact even further removed from that moment in
    history.   Paul was certainly a fundamentatlist too.  Believing that he
    knew the truth better than anyone else.  He did get into some very
    bitter battles with the other disciples regarding things that he "knew
    to be the absolute truth"  Paul certainly is a enigma.
    
    peace and love
    
    Patricia

Re:  544.46 

    >>>Wasn't it Paul who wrote about his opinion?

   >>No, although some choose to believe this.  This question has
   >>been answered numerous times before.  Is it that you don't
   >>remember the answer or that you choose not to accept it?

  >Collis, the question has always been answered in the following manner:

  >What Paul said was his own opinion but it didn't go against Scripture 
  >so it was ok.

I no longer hold out much hope that we can actually communicate.
This answer, which fits your world view but is not what was being
communicated, is an example of why I believe this.  But thanks
anyway for sharing what you got out of the attempted communication.

Collis

In reference to 544.49  My comment about sex was ~partly~ correct. This was
    the passage I read......Comments?
    
From "Introducing the Bible", by William Barclay

Pg. 136-137

"There are occasions when a man who studies Scripture has to exercise a 
judgment and a choice as to which of two parts of Scripture he is to follow. 
This is specially true in regard to Paul's teaching on marriage. In 1
Corinthians 7 Paul writes of marriage, and he is on the whole against marriage.
If people are married, he does not want them to separate; if they are married
they are to carry out to each other the duties and the obligations of
marriage. But marriage for Paul, when he wrote that chapter, was a second best
. It is well for a man not to touch a woman, but marriage is approved as a 
defense against the temptation to immorality (verses 1 and 2). It is better
that people should remain unmarried. But if they cannot exercise self-control
, then they may marry, because it is better to marry than to be aflame
with passion (verses 8 and 9). The whole attitude is that marriage is only
justifiable when it saves a man from a worse fate! Why this attitude? Because
Paul at this time was expecting the coming again of Jesus Christ at any moment,
today,tomorrow, within weeks; he therefore wishes a man to have no distractions
at all, and to concentrate on the coming end."

........"But about eight years passed, and Paul wrote to the Ephesians.
He knows now that he and his fellow-Christains are living in a much more
permanent situation, and in a great chapter he likens marriage to the 
relationship between Christ and his church....... (Ephesians 5:21-33)."


Marc H.

Thanks for following up Marc.  

I really don't feel see where I Corinthians 7 says that Paul suggested
that all people abstain from sex and why bother having a family since
the world is going to end.  I do concur that Paul believed Jesus' return
would be in his lifetime, so he talked with a sense or urgency, but 
Jesus also taught that since you don't know when He'll return, you should
always be prepared.   Now, I must tell you I'm not big on commentaries.
I go to the source, the Bible.  Here's what I see:

First I think it's important to remember who Paul is talking to, the 
church at Corinth.  They had accepted the message of the gospel, but 
had stopped living according to God's will.  Therefore they had stopped 
growing in God's grace. 

The verse I believe you refer to is I Cor. 7:29:

"What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short.  From now on those who have 
wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not;
those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if
it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if
not engrossed in them.  For this world in its present form is passing away."

Paul doesn't state that he is against marriage, if you read all of Chapter
7, he states that a person that marries faces many troubles in this life 
and that a single person is free from those concerns.   An unmarried person 
can serve God more fully.  In verse 29, he's reminding them that the things 
that are important are those that relate to the world in its future form 
after Jesus returns.  Don't be overly caught up in this life, it's not 
going to last.  It's an attitude he says they need to adopt.  Paul doesn't 
say that it's wrong to marry.  It's right to marry, but it's better not to.

Paul reminds them that God has called Christians to a "place in life".  
God has assigned a plan for our lives.  Stay with it.   This is not only 
for the church at Corinth, but all churches.   Keeping God's commandments 
is what counts.  Christians are bought at a price.  We are Christ's slave not
mens'.  God has a will for each of your lives and you are responsible
to God for it.

Jill
    

Re:  544.54

  >From "Introducing the Bible", by William Barclay

William Barclay does not accept that Scripture is God-breathed
and innerant.  I found this out the hard way after buying one
of his commentaries which contradict what Scripture says.

  >It is well for a man not to touch a woman, 

The word translated "to touch" only appears once in the Greek New
Testament, and not very often in outside literature.  One of my
professors at seminary did a word study on this and presented the
results to our class.  It was his conclusion (and I agreed with him
based on his research) that this word means "engage in immoral
sexual actions" since it was always and only used in contexts where
the sexual activities (not necessarily intercourse) were outside the 
bounds stated in the Bible.

  >The whole attitude is that marriage is only justifiable when it saves 
  >a man from a worse fate!

Personally, I think that Paul's total emphasis is on serving the
Lord Jesus Christ and he sees marriage (as well as many other things)
as a possible impediment to that total devotion.  It is not that
Paul is anti-marriage; it is rather that he is pro-total-servanthood -
which is not possible when married.

  >Why this attitude? Because Paul at this time was expecting the coming 
  >again of Jesus Christ at any moment, today, tomorrow, within weeks; 
  >he therefore wishes a man to have no distractions at all, and to 
  >concentrate on the coming end."

Pure speculation as far as I can tell.  The reason that I hold to
has the advantage of being standard exegesis out of the text.

  >"But about eight years passed, and Paul wrote to the Ephesians.
  >He knows now that he and his fellow-Christains are living in a much more
  >permanent situation, and in a great chapter he likens marriage to the 
  >relationship between Christ and his church....... (Ephesians 5:21-33)."

Yes, Paul does change and grow.  But God does not.  The truth that
the Holy Spirit spoke through Paul in I Corinthians is just as true
as the truth that was spoken through Paul in Ephesians.  The reasons
that William Barclay provide for reconciliation of these passages
are not well-based in my opinion.

Collis

    
    Thanks for the info Collis.  Like I said, I like the original
    source myself.  The commentary appears to have been written with
    a definite bias.
    
    Jill

>Paul at this time was expecting the coming again of Jesus Christ at any moment,
>today, tomorrow, within weeks; he therefore wishes a man to have no
>distractions at all, and to concentrate on the coming end."

    Marc .54,
    
    	This statement is consistent with New Testament history.
    I don't know of even a single theologian or biblical scholar,
    conservative or otherwise, who would disagree with this -- though
    doubtlessly there are.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    The connection of Paul's expectations of the Second Coming of Christ to
    his exposition of what Christ taught hasn't been established.

    The teaching of Christ, Paul, and the constant teaching of Christian
    churches affirms chastity and marriage.  Chastity is practiced by the
    unmarried in abstention from sexual intercourse and by the married in
    faithful love for ones spouse.

    Jill .47,
    
    Women played much more than submissive roles with Jesus and in early 
    Christianity.  There is evidence of Mary Magdalene preaching and being 
    Jesus' disciple.  There are also other women who Paul recognized and 
    addressed as apostles, as I already noted.
    
    For further information I would recommend _The women around Jesus_ by
    Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel, a theologian who researches and discusses 
    the roles of several women in the Bible.  I'd also suggest looking 
    into the early Gnostic movement, which shares the same tap root as 
    traditional Christianity.  You'll find its organization was based 
    upon the egalitarian principles Jesus taught where men and women 
    performed the same roles.  The information contained in the suppressed 
    Gospels would be another source worthy of contemplation.
    
    Karen         

    RE: .56 and others
    
    Thanks for the info. I'm not a Biblical Expert, and I'm still learning
    /growing. This Notes file is yet another source of info. I found the
    Book by Barclay to be excellent and , in my opinion, written from
    a view point that the Bible was " God-breathed". Curious about
    your point, Collis.
    
    My point here is that you need to understand all the background around
    Paul's writting to understand what he is saying.
    
    Marc H.

    Marc .61,
    
    	I've read dozens of books about the Bible - all of them supporting
    the holiness and God-inspired characteristics of the Bible - yet
    because they do not necessarily conform to a multitude of conservative
    teachings about the Bible, they are frequently dismissed.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    Richard .62,

    Perhaps it's because Christians are reluctant to put their faith in the
    wisdom of man rather than God.  Or perhaps it's because the contradict
    the teachings of the Bible.  

    Jill
    

    .63  That's not it.  The part about Paul believing Christ's second
    coming was imminent, for example, does not contradict the teachings
    of the Bible, and yet because Paul failed to make a direct connection
    with that motivation in his advice about marriage and sexual relations
    to the church at Corinth, it's dismissed, pooh-poohed and tossed out.
    
    Not all Christians believe that God can be so neatly bound between the
    covers of a volume not officially unified until more than 370 years AD.
    
    Richard

    re: .64
    
    Are you saying then that there is no unifying belief that Christians
    share regarding the nature of marriage or for that matter, anything
    else?

    RE: .65
    
    Come on Pat! All thats being said is to study the Bible with knowledge
    of when and how the events were recorded. Stop looking for a
    "conspiracy" when it doesn't exist.
    
    Give it a rest...eh?
    
    Marc H.

    Your reply doesn't engage in dialog with the serious issues of unifying
    Christian beliefs.  It is demeaning and trivializing.

    The word "conspiracy" doesn't appear in my reply but it appears in
    yours.  Is this more distortion, snide comment and sarcasm?

    "Give it a rest...eh?"  Is this intimidation or what is meaning I am
    supposed to take from such demands?                        

    RE: .67
    
    Huh????
    
    "Give it a rest...eh?" is not intimidation, by any means. What it means
    is that I have been trying to discuss Paul's scriptures with others
    here, where as your replies tend to be argumentative. I would like
    to discuss this matter with you and others. Can we????
    
    And yes, I value your comments, but...look....I'm trying to learn
    here by having a discussion...not a debate. 
    
    The "conspiracy" word is one that has been brought out by yourself
    when you talk about a C-P "agenda" and similar comments. Again,
    Pat, can we just talk here???
    
    I'm trying, really.
    
    Marc H.

    What are we discussing here, whether "give it a rest" is intimidation
    or not? I think it is.  Why do you seek to defend it as part of the
    discussion?  If stating here the Gospel and quoting the Bible is
    argumentative then so be it.

    "Can we just talk here?"

    Sure.  Did Paul teach what Jesus taught?  What unifying beliefs do
    Christians have regarding marriage or anything else for that matter?

    I affirm that Paul taught was Jesus taught.  The unifying Christian
    belief on sexuality is chastity.  The virtue is practiced in single
    people in abstention from intercourse and in married people in faithful
    love for ones spouse.
                                

Richard, RE: 64

>>  .63  That's not it.

It is it for some of people.  All over this file there are notes telling
people you don't know how other people feel, don't project your beliefs
onto them.   How about following your own advice?

>> yet because Paul failed to make a direct connection with that motivation 
in his advice.....it's dismissed, pooh-poohed and tossed out.

Oh give me a break.   Jesus (God) said to live your life like He was 
returning anytime, because we didn't know when it would be.  I agree
Paul did have an added sense of urgency, but I don't believe that if he
didn't, the message would have been any different.

>> Not all Christians believe that God can be so neatly bound between the
    covers of a volume not officially unified until more than 370 years AD.

And not Christians don't believe that God isn't capable of using imperfect
tools in His own timing to get the exact result He wants.

Jill
    

    RE: .69
    
    Pat,
     You and I are mostly in agreement...but...I freely admit that I don't
    know all the answers and I am looking for more understanding about 
    God and what it means to be a Christian. As such, I welcome other
    peoples' idea's and slants on Biblical readings. I'm looking for
    a discussion. The problem I have with your replies is that they
    take on a "debate" type quality. Am I wrong here? If so, then
    I do apologize for my remark about "give it a rest". 
    
    One more thing.......how about addressing me with my name? I have
    no problem calling you...Pat. How about it?
    
    Marc H.

re: Note 544.69 by "Patrick Sweeney in New York" 

>    I affirm that Paul taught was Jesus taught.  

Thanks, Pat.  A statement that made me think.  Some questions...

Did Paul teach anything that was extraneous to what Jesus taught?
In other words, did Paul teach exactly what Jesus taught, no more and no less;
less than the sum of what Jesus taught, or more than what Jesus taught?
If more, are we to accept such additions as God's Word?
Certainly the gospel quotes of what Jesus said are hardly complete, John 
conclused his Gospel saying as much.
So Jesus may well have taught more than what we are aware of.
Did Paul use any sources that have been since deemed non-canonical?
If so, how are we to treat that?

No agenda, just honest questions.

Peace,

Jim

Re:  544.61
    
  >I found the Book by Barclay to be excellent and, in my opinion, 
  >written from a view point that the Bible was "God-breathed". 
  >Curious about your point, Collis.

I will look into the commentary I have on Matthew (I think it is)
and share some commentary that I have problems with.
    
  >My point here is that you need to understand all the background around
  >Paul's writting to understand what he is saying.

I agree with you, Marc.

Re:  .64

Richard,
  
Actually, I don't have a problem with this theory, so long as it
is considered a *possible* explanation.  What I object to (and
probably objected too strongly to) is this being stated as THE
reason - particularly when another reason which I view to be
more obviously relevant is right there in the text.

Collis

    Paul's commission comes from Ananias:

    The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and see the
    Righteous One and hear the words from his mouth.  You will be his
    witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.  And now what are
    you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on
    his name.  Acts 22:14

    .73,
    
    Why, thank you, Collis.  I am willing to concede that it is a
    possibility, and not necessarily *the* total explanation.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    .60
    
    Also Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels; and an article (somewhere in
    Signs), "What Became of God the Mother?"
    
    Dorian

    Thanks very much for adding that, Dorian.
    
    Karen

    Well, I got out my commentary by William Barclay over 2 weeks ago and
    have had it at work, but haven't had a chance to look at it until
    now.
    
    On page 36 in William Barclay's commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
    (Volume 1), he writes,
    
      We shall see, again and again, that this is typical of Matthew's
      use of the Old Testament.  He is prepared to useecy
      about Jesus any text at all which can be made verbally to fit,
      even although originally it had nothing to do with the question
      in hand, and was never meant to have anything to do with it.
      Matthew knew that almost the only way to convince the Jews that
      Jesus was the promised Anointedof God was God was to prove that he
      was the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy.  And in his eager-
      ness to do that he finds prophecies in the Old Testament where
      no prophecies were ever meant.  When we read a passage like this
      we must remember that, though it seems strange and unconvincing
      to us, it would appeal to those Jews for whom Matthew was writing."
    
    Given this quote from William Barclay, perhaps you can see why I
    clearly proclaim that he is not an innerantist and that what he
    says needs to be taken in that light (i.e. his opinion is placed
    above the claims of the Bible).
    
    On the other hand, I do find much of the background material he gives
    to be very good, although I'm not very impressed with the fables and
    old stories that he brings up which quite obviously have no basis
    in fact (and, in my opinion, only serve to divert attention from
    *studying* what the Bible actually says).  The other complaint I
    have about his commentary is the constant assumption that his
    opinions are indeed the truth rather than couching them in ways
    such as to indicate that this is what he considers the most
    likely possibility.
    
    The primary complaint remains the same - and it is a very serious one
    as far as I am concerned.  Since he is willing to dismiss what the
    authors say, he naturally enough does not go into detail on trying to
    reconcile difficult parts of the Bible with other parts of the Bible -
    a study which in my mind is most useful.
    
    Collis

    Thanks Collis for the info. I didn't find Barclay's writing to be "this
    way" in his book "Introduction to the Bible".....almost seems like
    two different people!
    
    Marc H.

    
    Thanks for the follow-up Collis.  I appreciate it.  We really need
    to be cautious of relying too much on other documentation.  
    
    Jill

Yeah, Paul had his rough spots.  He was far from blemishless.  He may have
undergone a radical transformation on the road to Damascus, but I'm certain
it didn't instantaneously wipe away his entire upbringing and enculturation.

Paul was a Pharisee.  That he admits.

He didn't judge slavery to be wrong.  He supported the subordination of
women.  Portions of his letters are frequently cited to perpetuate
the suppression of homosexual love.

Paul is often quoted to buttress obediance to authority.  Ironically,
Paul spent time in jail himself.

But Paul had some redeeming qualities, too.  He was tireless in his mission.
He had great zeal.  And every so often, he had a breakthrough of insight.

Peace,
Richard

Of course, most importantly, Paul was available for God
to use to breathe inerrant Scripture.

Recognizing that your objections to Paul's writings are
objections to what God wrote puts it all in perspective IMO.

Collis

    Paul was writing to the people of the early church.  His writings are
    simply letters.  Letters written by an God-inspired man, I concur,
    but certainly not edicts engraved by the hand of the Almighty in
    stone tablets.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

> Letters written by an God-inspired man, I concur,
>    but certainly not edicts engraved by the hand of the Almighty in
>    stone tablets.

	So what you are saying is that those letter have no place being
	in the Bible? Or that they are contrary to God's Words? Or mearly the
	opinions of a good man no more worthy than say Billy Graham or Richard
	Jones-Christie?

			Alfred

Note 544.84

>	So what you are saying is that those letter have no place being
>	in the Bible?

I believe the letters do provide valuable insight.  And certainly they are
a part of our rich heritage.

>	Or that they are contrary to God's Words?

Not necessarily.  But I think it's important when reading the letters to
remember that the author intended them for different addressees than who
reads them now.  One might ask, "Would Paul have written the identical things
were he alive and writing today?"  I certainly believe some of the things
he said then would be the same.  I'm not so certain that *all* of it would
be the same.

>	Or mearly the
>	opinions of a good man no more worthy than say Billy Graham or Richard
>	Jones-Christie?

I don't think I'm *that* good of a good man, Alfred.  But it's an honor to be
lumped in there with Paul and Billy.

Paul was early church leader.  It's certainly reasonable that his writings
would carry more weight than Billy's or mine.  At the same time, I would be
hesitant to say that Billy and I are less God-inspired now than Paul was
then.

I'm certain I've not answered your questions adequately.  I regret that I can
think of no way to say what I want to say more clearly.

Peace,
Richard

    Paul sure has some "interesting" things to say. We went around this
    subject in the past.....I still think that the points raised in the
    book "Introduction the Bible" by Barcley are helpful. IN our church,
    the Holy Spirit is to be used when you study the Bible, to help
    gain insight into the meaning of the holy scriptures.
    
    I haven't spent enough time to have a clear message about Paul's
    writtings...but....I'm currently leaning towards Richard's view.
    
    Marc H.

	
	Given Paul's place in the establishment of the churches, the place of
his writings in scripture, and the authority that the Lord passed onto him, I
think he is the authority in all such matters.

	On the other hand, I hardly know Richard. 8*) 8*) 8*)

ace 

    RE: .87
    
    Including a "women's place"???
    
    Marc H.

re.88

	Perhaps you could be more specific.

ace

    RE: .89
    
    I Timothy  2:11-12
    
    Marc H.

	re. 90

	1 Timothy 2:11-12 also is the inspired word of God through the Apostle 
Paul.

	
ace

    RE: .91
    
    Then do you believe that women should be quiet and should not teach?
    
    I don't...and I also find that upon reading Paul's works, there are
    clear parts where he says that this is what I think, rather than this
    is the word of God. Pauls writing also has to be read with the history
    of the time and place in mind. Just reading the passages "straight",
    would give you the wrong message. 
    
    You really need a good comentary/minister/lay people/Holy Spirit
    when reading Pauls letter's!
    
    Marc H.

    You know, with Paul's letters we only have one side of the story.  We
    don't really know what correspondence Paul was receiving from the early
    churches of his time.  For all we know Paul was speaking to a specific
    problem at a specific church.  Perhaps at this church the women were
    being a bit gabby and disruptive.  Perhaps they were nagging their
    husbands throughout the service.  To this end Paul may be saying "shut
    up, sit quiet and listen... submit to the instruction being given".  I
    don't think we know the complete context in which this instruction was
    given.

    Furthermore, Paul says "*I* do not allow women to teach...".  He
    doesn't say that Christ doesn't want women to teach.  I don't know if
    this is of any consequence to some people since the argument could be
    made that Paul is acting on God's will when he prohibits women form
    teaching.  I just thought it was curious.

    > You really need a good comentary/minister/lay people/Holy Spirit when
    > reading Pauls letter's!

    I find that aspirin works best....

    

    It's a joke, already!  Don't beat me up too much! (ok, maybe just a
    little)

    Eric 

    ER: .93
    
    I prefer old Granddad and soda water!
    
    :)
    :)
    Marc H.

	Eric, let's not forget that in one of the letters Paul wrote he said,


    " What I am about to say is not from God, but my (Paul) own opinion."


	Between this and the other things you mentioned it sounds like Paul was
a bit independent at times. :-)



Glen

re.92

	Concerning the church, Paul has the authority. Yes, there may be
certain circumstances he was addressing. That should be understood as well.
However, it is human nature to try to excuse oneself from adhering to God's
word by explaining it away or trying to convince themselves that it doesn't
apply to them. People who do this will have a difficult time of ever knowing
the Lord because they can't be honest with themselves or they don't 
acknowledge or confess their true motivations. A sincere heart is first needed.

re.95

>	Between this and the other things you mentioned it sounds like Paul was
>a bit independent at times. :-)	

	What I like about Paul is that he had a sincere heart and would 
indicate when he felt it was his speaking and maybe or maybe not the Lord's.
What this indicates is that his being had become so one with the Lord's that
he, at times, concerning a certain matter, could not separate Lord's will
from his own. Can anybody here claim the same thing?


ace

    RE: .96
    
    Maybe I missed your answer. Should women be quiet and not teach?
    
    Marc H.

| <<< Note 544.96 by LEDS::LOPEZ "A River.. proceeding!" >>>



| What I like about Paul is that he had a sincere heart and would
| indicate when he felt it was his speaking and maybe or maybe not the Lord's.
| What this indicates is that his being had become so one with the Lord's that
| he, at times, concerning a certain matter, could not separate Lord's will
| from his own. Can anybody here claim the same thing?

	Who would want to? The Lord's will should belong to Him, no one else.
If one has a hard time seperating their will from the Lord's really can't be
too close to Him?



Glen

    
    Glen,
    
    The goal of a Christian is to give up our will and live by
    God's.  So the answer to "Who would want to?" is a Christian
    would.
    
    Jill

| <<< Note 544.99 by CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers" >>>




| The goal of a Christian is to give up our will and live by
| God's.  So the answer to "Who would want to?" is a Christian
| would.

	Jill, if you can't distinguish your will from God's, does this mean you
have acheived your goal?



Glen

re. 97

	Correct. That is a sister in the Lord is not to teach with *authority*
over a man or decide the meanings of doctrines concerning divine truth. Rather 
they should be willing to learn in silence from God's deputy authority.

	If you disagree with Paul, then you'll have to take it up with him. And
if you think these words in Timothy don't belong in the Bible, then you'll
have to take that up with God. Now you may disagree with my interpretation, in 
which case you may take it up with me. 8*) But if you think for one itsy-bitsy 
moment that I'd select your opinion over Paul's, then you're spinning your 
wheels. You might however get a small following of converts from this
conference 8*).

ace 

re.100

Glen,

	I don't think you want to understand.

ace

    Ace.....you sure have a way with words!
    
    My opinion on Pauls' writing is that it is his opinion about the role
    of women to teach and speak. I think that as an earlier reply
    indicated.....you need to know the history of *why* Paul was sending
    a letter to the early church.
    
    Your opinion is fine...for you. Lets just leave it at that, since I'm
    not about to change your mind.
    
    Marc H.

    >        "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,
    >        for there is no authority except that which God has
    >        established.  The authorities that exist have been
    >        established by God.
    >        "Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is
    >        rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do
    >        so will bring judgment on themselves."  (Romans 13:1-2 NIV)
    
    
    OK guys this is a little far out for me but picking up on the quote
    from Bob in the gun control, anyone care to help me figure out exactly
    what Paul does say about authority and why?
    
    I have made a commitment to myself to understand Paul, what he says,
    why he says it, whether any of it makes sense, and whether he really is
    the MCP that he has the reputation among many woman for being.  
    
    Thurday night I start a class at Andover Newton Theology School on
    Paul's letters to the Corinthians.  Last week I was reading an article
    by a UU Christian writer about whether Paul really did advocate a
    conservative ethic or not.  The contention was that we really cannot
    understand Paul unless we understand the eschatological setting.  I.E.
    Paul had a profound belief that the world would end in his own life
    time.  If the world is going to end in the now, and current authority
    will be supplanted by God's authority, there is no sense in wasting our
    time rebelling against current authority.  What he says requires
    radical reinterpretation in light of 1900 years have passes and the
    world is still here.  What are all the implications about what Paul
    says about authority in light of the proven incorrectness of his basic
    assumption, i.e. that the world would end within his lifetime?

    .104 Patricia,
    
    Paul was a funny bird.  I like Paul.  He was a lot like me -- less than
    perfect, but that shortcoming didn't stop him from being vocal.
    
    Paul's remarks about authority to the church at Rome suggest, at a
    superficial reading, that no one should ever contradict the established
    governing authorities.  Funny thing though -- Paul had plenty of
    run-ins with the law.  Some of his most beloved letters were written
    from a jail cell; Philippians, for example.  My guess is that Paul
    wasn't arrested for being submissive and conforming.
    
    What did Paul have in mind when he wrote what he did to the Romans
    then?
    
    Well, I can't say.  I'm not Paul.  However, I know this much.  If
    one accepts Christ as Sovereign, then one might feel impelled to
    reject all other authority.  The potential result?  Chaos.  I suspect
    Paul was attempting to avert some threat of disorder, social chaos,
    subversion for its own sake.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Richard,
    
    I enjoyed your reply.  I have sort of the same feeling about Paul as I
    attempt to understand him and dig below the neurotic, sexist,
    stereotype into what is this guy really all about.
    
    It is clear that he had an experience which he defined as the
    experience of Christ Jesus which radically and dramastically changed
    his life.  His theology is based on that radical experience.  His
    passion and fervor is self evidence.  His arrogance and nerdiness is
    also self evident.  Through his letters, varied and inconsistent and
    ambiguous we get a peak at early Christianity or at least his version
    of early Christianity.  My intellectual challenge right now is to
    understand this man and his contribution.  A second step will follow
    which will be to understand how his disciples and the church
    appropriated his theology and teaching.
    
    I need to test my assumption that the church misused his teaching to
    establish a very hierarchal and Patriarchal institution which still
    uses Paul's Theology to blatantly discriminate against women.  I do
    realize that the problem may not be with Paul but with the whole idea
    of inerrantcy and "God-breathed" scriptures which supports taking the
    assertions that may or may not be written by this one man and making
    them the basis for church dogma.  Thus the Church can say that women
    cannot be priests based on scripture that says women should remain
    silent in church even when scholars cannot agree whether this
    statement was written by Paul and even though Paul's other writings
    identify that women were Deacons, teachers, and leaders within early
    Christianity.  Regardless of the conclusion that I reach, The questions
    are fascinating.
    
    Patricia

Patricia,

I think it's great that you wish to understand Paul better.

Unfortunately, I think you will wallow in the mire until
you attempt to understand him from the framework in which
he and others viewed himself - as a prophet of God who
wrote God-breathed Scripture.  The more you attempt to
understand him while denying this framework, the further
off you will be in your understanding.

Note that I didn't say you have to accept this framework
as true (something I recognize that only God Himself will
be able to change in your life), but use this framework for
understanding Paul.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    I do agree with you.  Paul clearly understood himself to have a direct
    revelation from God.  He based his interpretations of Christianity and
    his insistence that the churches accept his doctrine on that experience
    of direct revelation.
    
    Now two questions.
    
    Do you assume as I do that Timothy and Ephesians were not written by
    Paul?
    
    Do you believe that there are pieces of Corinthians that may not be
    written by Paul?  Particularly the passage that states women should be
    silent in church.
    
    How would Paul respond to the things in those two letters which may be
    different than things in his letters?
    
    Patricia

No, I assume the letters claim to be written by Paul
were actually written by Paul.  Not only do we have
the claims from the letters themselves, but we also
have very strong historical support from early
Christians.  Against this, there is primarily textual
evidence that some claim indicates Paul is not the
author since it is not in his style.  However, this
methodology is unproven and has very little credibility
in my opinion.

After understanding the great lengths that Jews went
to to preserve the Scriptures letter for letter, I find
it hard to believe that letters have been significantly
modified by others as you suggest (with no copies of
the original as well).

In terms of the differences espoused in the letters, I
need more specifics to give my views on them (which may
or may not reflect reality :-) ).

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Your answer helps me understand your perspective.  All of the reading
    about the source of the Bible suggests that some of the letters are in
    fact written by Paul and others are written by disciples.  Subtle
    difference appear to exist.  I am a feminist and that influences the
    questions I ask as I try to make sense out of Paul(and all other
    Biblical texts).  
    
    Contradictory messages about the role of women in the church are
    presented both within the text of the letters that scholars assume to
    be written by Paul and even more so between the disputed and undisputed
    letters.  For instance how do you reconcile the instruction for women
    to be silient in church with the obvious acceptance by Paul of women
    disciples(i.e. Prilla).
    
    My readings have indicated that there are thousands of different
    handwritten manuscripts with different parts of the new testament and
    different versions.  When the text is different than the context of the
    surrounding texts, experts wonder if it was a editors note that ended
    up in the text.  The biblical commentary I was reading suggested that
    the assertion in 1 Corinthians that women be silient in church was such
    a editiorial addition.
    
    I do recognize that I assume a human process in the
    collection of the writings into the Bible whereas you assume a "God
    Breathed" process.  
    
    Patricia

Personally, I see no contradiction by the acceptance of
Priscilla and Paul's specific command the women by silent
during the worship service.  That is, there is no evidence
that I know of that supports the presumption that
Priscilla was in fact acting contrary to Paul's advice
in I Timothy 2.

The study of manuscripts has been (and continues to be) a
major effort, particularly in conservative Christian
circles.  The fact that almost all Christians have come
to agree on one particular Greek text (Nestle-Aland v.26
which is the same as UBS v.3) for the New Testament
indicates to me that any kind of serious deviation from
this text is highly unlikely to be supportable given the
evidence.  From my own studies (and I have the definitive
book on textual criticism of the NT at my desk entitled "A 
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" by Bruce Metzger
who was a very influential committee member that determined
what was in N-A v.26 and UBS v.3) as well as from what
the aforementioned book detail on I Timothy, I very much
doubt that there is much basis to your claim that the
I Timothy passage was simply an addition.  (I wrote my term
paper on this very passage and did work outside of the
books I have right at my desk.  There was no suggestion of
such an editorial comment at all in any of the works I looked
at.  Since textual criticism is independent of conservative/
liberal viewpoint, this is not explained by bias on part of
the authors.)

Thank you for listening and finding areas of agreement.

Collis

    Patricia,
    
    	I would add Hebrews to your list of non-Pauline letters.
    Some still attribute the book of Hebrews to Paul.  Many don't.
    
    	Some still attribute the Torah (The first 5 books of the Bible)
    to Moses.  But since a number of things which are recorded in the Torah
    occured after the time of Moses (including an account of Moses' own
    death) it would make Moses' authorship a pretty neat trick.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Collis
    
    I have read that the whole of Timothy is considered non pauline.  The
    comments about the text editing was in the similiar quote in 1
    Corinthians.
    
    I will look for more info on Bruce Metzger.  The name sounds familiar.
    
    Patricia

Most who attribute the Torah to Moses do so not out of
some arbitrary allegiance to Moses, but rather because
the author claims to be Moses in a number of places
(mostly indirectly).

Most, as well, do not claim passage was written by Moses.
Indeed, I do not believe that Moses wrote the passages
describing his burial.  :-)  It is indeed an oversimplication
to say that Moses write the Torah.  As a generalization,
however, it is quite accurate.

Collis

    .114,
    
    Nice straddle, Collis. :-)
    
    Richard
    

Wasn't meant to be a straddle - it was meant to explain
exactly what I (and many others) believe.  The claims of
something being written by someone did not just come out
of thin air.  In the vast majority of cases, we have the
witness of Scripture as to who wrote something - such as
in this case where the Torah is claimed to be written by
Moses.  It is indeed unfortunate (in my opinion) that the
last chapters of Deuteronomy (apparently) written after Moses'
death can cause confusion about authorship of the whole.
Traditionally, this portion of Scripture is given the
same authorship as Joshua.

Collis

Note 783.18
       
>    I site Paul even though I do not hold him to be authoritative because
>    he has much of importance to say.  I accept his definition of the
>    Spirit living in each of us.  I accept that with the Spirit one does
>    not need laws because a superior law is governing from within.  I am
>    aware that there are passages in Paul that conflict with passages in
>    the gospel and in other books of the Bible.  That is not a problem for
>    me because I see it as  part of the process by which the bible was
>    written and collected.  In the gospels there are also many examples
>    where Jesus was severely annoyed by the Preachers trying to literally
>    enforce the laws.  Particularly the sabbath laws.
    
I quote Paul, too.  But that should not be interpretted as a carte blanc
acceptance of everything that Paul (or letters attributed to Paul) said.

Much of what Paul said is profound and useful.  Some of what Paul said is
garbage.  Sorting out which is which is a real challenge.  And some take
great delight in ridiculing the contemporary Christian who accepts that
challenge.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard
    
    Your thoughts parallel mine on Paul.  
    
    Patricia

    Paul was contradictory regarding the role of women in the church, the
    eating meat sacrificed to idols, the role of the Christian in judging
    others, the greatest of all spiritual gifts(love or prophesy).  These
    are just some instances I recall from Corinthians.  Was Paul known for
    being able to go into a society and become as they are or did he
    perceive himself that way.  I do agree that he was pretty single minded
    in his faith, which I guess means he did not compromise it.  I think he
    also did a pretty good job of balancing between a spiritualistic
    position and a gnostic position without adopting some of the more
    distasteful gnostic concepts.
    
    BTW.  I do not consider my  ethics situational ethics.  Actually Paul's
    ethics are situational ethics.  All things are lawful as long as they
    are for building up.  Jesus' ethics are situational.  The sabath is
    meant for humankind and not humankind for the sabath.
    
    Patricia  
    

    Since you just finished the study in Corinthians do you have the
    scriptures or the time to post the references to the scriptures you
    believe are contradictory?  I realize and understand if you can't but
    it would help me immensely to be able to read the correct scriptures in
    their context.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy