I’ve been watching a few religious videos on YouTube and a lot of them quote Paul’s words as ‘scripture’ and what should be followed. Paul wrote this in this letter and he wrote that in that letter and for this reason there should be no women priests and women should not be in authority over men and ya da ya da.
And I’m thinking…who the heck is Paul that his words should matter? Isn’t it Jesus who is the messiah? Paul wasn’t even an original apostle and never even met Jesus, amirite?
For Christians, why are anyone’s words followed if that person isn’t Jesus?
if we can pick and chose what parts of the bible we peoclaim true and proclaim any bit of it false then it is not truth. if it is not truth then there is no point in being a Christian. So the path of saying Paul’s words are false is the path to nullification and that is why people that do this do it. it’s why people declare the Pauline gospel misogynist when actually Paul relied on women to do what thier husbands couldn’t and why he named certai women as prophets. but if you can call him a misogynist you nullify of render false the word of God.
In general when there appears to be a contradiction in is either not in its proper context or a mis-translation or a overlooked Hebraism or euphemism or figure of speech. that too is a tool of scoffers. for example some athiests and scoffers say “Jesus said to get to heaven you must hate your father and mother” therefore he did not fulfill the commandment to honor thy father and mother. when actually in context the passage means you must love everyone and everything less than you love God. If you love anything more than God you will not be admitted.
We can take a look at all the women and Paul’s ministry and a look at all the women in Jesus’ ministry. Did they differ? What were the roles of the men? Did the men’s roles differ in Paul’s time?
Rather than asking questions, please just answer them. Starting with why Jesus’ words, as said in the New Testament, weren’t the be all and end all of Chistian teachings. Why the add ons?
The questions were rhetorical as women were involved in both ministries. Paul was answering a question that had been posed to him. If someone asks a question about policies in the workplace, and an employee answers, does it then become the policy of that employee, or is it as it always was–the policy of the workplace? (Again rhetorical. )
I don’t discuss religion with the non religious. There is no point. I am happy to let people believe what they choose without having to justify it to anyone. Your approval is not required.
Let me tell you how you are coming off. You are coming of as someone who want’s to cast doubt among Christians as to whether or not their faith is legitimate. Do you understand why this is?
People have been picking and choosing which of the Bible best advance their agendas for centuries. If we really went by everything it says bats would be classified as birds in all the science texts, and we’d all be hellbound for bringing ham biscuits to the church potluck.
My interest in Paul was “triggered” if I may use that word, by a poster who used to post in this folder up until a few months ago - an abrasive person who pointed that in his religion - gnosticism - Paul was a false apostle. No one wanted to interact with him - I assumed because he was unneccesarily rude.
So I’ve been doing a bit of reading - well, actually viewing of videos by Southern Seminary - and now I ask the religious here to discuss something religious - why believe in Paul instead of Jesus?
Do you understand why this is?
I don’t really understand it, no.
Someone asks you a simple question, you automatically get defensive. It’s like you don’t want to have a discussion about religion, you only want to talk about religion with people who believe the same as you do.
That’s why you don’t discuss religion with the non-religious. I postulate that you don’t discuss religion at all. You just talk in an echo chamger with those who believe the same as you.
Don’t you think it unfortunate that people are able to pick and choose from the Bible? First it was Catholics, then Protestants, then Lutherans, all springing up because the Bible isn’t clear.
And yet the Bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of God.
I ask - not in the spirit of making you doubt your faith but in the spirit of inquiry - how could so many interpretations of the Bible form if it is the inerrant word of God?
Whose interpretation is right and how are we to know?
Since certain religious people believe that our immortal souls hang in the balance of getting this right - isn’t it an important thing to discuss?
Paul was assigned to be the teacher of the Gentiles. It is not either Paul or Jesus, it is both Paul and Jesus. Acts 9:16, '“Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;.” What Paul writes is Scripture, what Jesus spoke is Scripture, what Peter, John, wrote are Scripture. It is not either Jesus or Paul, it is Jesus and Paul as well as the others who wrote Scripture.
Here is what I think. You have already decided this. And you are definitely not here to gather information about Christianity for critical thought… You are here to convince Christians that their religion is a folly. It’s plain as day.
I’m trying to find out why things that puzzle me don’t puzzle believers. If you regard that as me trying to convince you that Christianity is a folly, I can only conclude that it’s because my questions puzzle you too, but you don’t want to think about them.
There were no witnesses to his “call,” were there?
That’s what this Gnostic guy used to say when he was here. According to him there’s supposed to be two witnesses to everything. Of course he then contradicted himself and said he believed Revelation unreservedly even though there was no witness to that.
Starting with why Jesus’ words, as said in the New Testament, weren’t the be all and end all of Chistian teachings. Why the add ons?
The questions were rhetorical as women were involved in both ministries. Paul was answering a question that had been posed to him. If someone asks a question about policies in the workplace, and an employee answers, does it then become the policy of that employee, or is it as it always was–the policy of the workplace? (Again rhetorical. 