Are women inferior to men?

[Johnnz]

Rule is never the point in the NT. Jesus redefined authority as servanthood - "not as the Gentiles do", which is rooted in power over another.

John
NZ

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus never gave Paul a different gospel, Paul is/was a fraud. Jesus told his followers to go and preach the gospel to all nations and that this gospel, referring to Jesus's gospel must be preached to all nations and that then the end of the world would come. Paul was/is a heretic.

Jesus didn't give Paul a different Gospel because there is only one.
Paul was not a fraud. As someone said, it is derailing the thread to discuss this or go into detail, but it is important. Apart from anything else, if you think that Paul was a fraud and a heretic then you are saying that the word of God contains heretical writings; that the Holy Spirit allowed untruths and heresies into the Bible.

 

[Achilles6129]

I can give you a number of reasons for why they are superior to men. .. Paul was a bigot who both spoke and acted contrary to the teachings of Christ.

So you would throw out a great deal of the New Testament then?

 

[2 know him]

Jesus didn't give Paul a different Gospel because there is only one.
Paul was not a fraud. As someone said, it is derailing the thread to discuss this or go into detail, but it is important. Apart from anything else, if you think that Paul was a fraud and a heretic then you are saying that the word of God contains heretical writings; that the Holy Spirit allowed untruths and heresies into the Bible.

You say the Bible is the word of God based on twisting the words Paul said in that all scripture, and he was referring to the Old Testament, was inspired by God: he was not referring to his writings. In 397 a.d., men at the Council of Carthage created the Bible, that is the 66 books that you currently have in your Bible. Then men went on to say that same book is/was the inspired word of God. The Bible is not the inspired word of God, that is what men say but it is not true, it is heresy.

In 2nd Timothy chapter 1 verse 15 Paul states that all of Asia forsook him. In Revelations chapter 1 verses 4 and 11 we are told that the Book of Revelations is written to the churches of Asia, to the very first church, the church Ephesus, the very first thing spoken to them was that they were commended for trying those who claim they were apostles but found them to be Liars: all of Asia forsook Paul; was it a coincidence that the very first church in This Book of Revelations, and that the very first thing Spoke to them was that they where commended for trying those that claim they were apostles? and who else was or could this be referring to except Paul himself: who stated that all of Asia had forsaken him.

Yes Paul was/is a heretic and the Bible is not the inspired word of God, but rather it is a book on church history showing where the church went astray in following Paul instead of Christ.

 

[2 know him]

So you would throw out a great deal of the New Testament then?

I wouldn't throw out any of the New Testament. The New Testament strictly speaking is found in the words of Christ not in the words of Paul. But yes I would throw out the words of Paul as they have kept the church from embracing the teachings of Christ to actually practice them as the basis of salvation.

 

[2 know him]

Jesus didn't give Paul a different Gospel because there is only one.
Paul was not a fraud. As someone said, it is derailing the thread to discuss this or go into detail, but it is important. Apart from anything else, if you think that Paul was a fraud and a heretic then you are saying that the word of God contains heretical writings; that the Holy Spirit allowed untruths and heresies into the Bible.

The other issue is that it is because of the writings of Paul that this whole topic is even being questioned. I agree that it is very important that we get clarity on what is being contemplated in questioning Paul's Authority as an author and contributor to the beliefs that men ascribe to as professed followers of Christ.

 

[Achilles6129]

I wouldn't throw out any of the New Testament. The New Testament strictly speaking is found in the words of Christ not in the words of Paul. But yes I would throw out the words of Paul as they have kept the church from embracing the teachings of Christ to actually practice them as the basis of salvation.

Well didn't Paul write a good portion of the New Testament?

 

[2 know him]

Well didn't Paul write a good portion of the New Testament?

Paul wrote none of the New Testament. The New Testament or that is is based on the teachings of Christ just as the old Covenant was based on the words of Moses the old Covenant is not all of the books prior to the book of Matthew. The New Covenant is based on the words of Jesus and that's not all of the books from The Book of Matthew to Revelations.

 

[Achilles6129]

Well if that's what you believe then you and I are coming from two different worlds.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

In the time of Paul, Asia would have been the province known as "Asia Minor" in case anyone was curious.

 

[MWood]

Paul wrote none of the New Testament. The New Testament or that is is based on the teachings of Christ just as the old Covenant was based on the words of Moses the old Covenant is not all of the books prior to the book of Matthew. The New Covenant is based on the words of Jesus and that's not all of the books from The Book of Matthew to Revelations.

This New Covenant that you speak of that is based on the words of Jesus, is this the one in Jer.31:31, or "the blood of this cup?"

 

[Strong in Him]

You say the Bible is the word of God based on twisting the words Paul said in that all scripture, and he was referring to the Old Testament, was inspired by God.

No, I didn't even mention that verse.
The Bible is the word of God because it reveals God, is about God and by God.

The Bible is not the inspired word of God, that is what men say but it is not true, it is heresy.

It's not heresy to accept and believe something that is Scriptural.

Yes, when Paul wrote those words they had only the OT Scriptures. But Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture, and those who compiled the Bible were led to include Paul's epistles in it. Paul taught about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the cross; Jesus taught about God, the Holy Spirit and the cross. Where's the heresy?

In 2nd Timothy chapter 1 verse 15 Paul states that all of Asia forsook him. In Revelations chapter 1 verses 4 and 11 we are told that the Book of Revelations is written to the churches of Asia, to the very first church, the church Ephesus, the very first thing spoken to them was that they were commended for trying those who claim they were apostles but found them to be Liars: all of Asia forsook Paul; was it a coincidence that the very first church in This Book of Revelations, and that the very first thing Spoke to them was that they where commended for trying those that claim they were apostles? and who else was or could this be referring to except Paul himself: who stated that all of Asia had forsaken him.

You have put two and two together there and made 8. "everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me" is not the same as saying "the whole of Asia rejected my teachings", or "the whole of Asia became believers but then turned away from the Gospel.. Paul might have meant that the believers in Asia had gone off and left him alone in jail.
Then you took that verse, out of context, and applied it to a passage from another book of the Bible and came to the conclusion that it must refer to Paul. That whole argument is your interpretation and application, and you put it forward as a reason for rejecting Paul.

Yes Paul was/is a heretic and the Bible is not the inspired word of God, but rather it is a book on church history showing where the church went astray in following Paul instead of Christ.

Well if that's your belief; that's up to you.
Personally I don't see how you can be sure of anything about your faith, if you don't trust the Bible. If a non Christian came to you and said that the Bible was false, contradictory or whatever, you'd probably agree with them, which would not be a great Christian witness. You could also lay yourself open to attack from the devil - when Jesus was tempted he quoted Scripture, and Paul says that the sword of the Spirit is the word of God.

But as long as you're prepared to tell Paul, and Jesus, when you meet them in heaven, that Paul was a heretic and that the Bible was not Scripture or inspired by God; I guess that's ok.

 

[Strong in Him]

Paul wrote none of the New Testament. The New Testament or that is is based on the teachings of Christ just as the old Covenant was based on the words of Moses the old Covenant is not all of the books prior to the book of Matthew. The New Covenant is based on the words of Jesus and that's not all of the books from The Book of Matthew to Revelations.

No, that's your opinion.
Open a Bible; the New Testament has 27 books, a lot of which were written by Paul. Ask a Minister/clergyman or look in a commentary, an encyclopedia or even a kids' book about the Bible - the New Testament is the last 27 books of the Bible and includes the letters of Paul. I have friends who are non Christians and yet they still know what the New Testament is.
You might find another person somewhere in the world who agrees with you; but most won't.

 

[Johnnz]

Paul wrote none of the New Testament. The New Testament or that is is based on the teachings of Christ just as the old Covenant was based on the words of Moses the old Covenant is not all of the books prior to the book of Matthew. The New Covenant is based on the words of Jesus and that's not all of the books from The Book of Matthew to Revelations.

Apart from blatant disregard of NT scholarship you have simply not even begun to understand Paul. But again those who see Paul as oppressive of women also fail to understand him. Poor Paul.

All the 'proof texts' are capable of very different exegesis. What has happened is that Greek educated church fathers imposed Greek male/female relationships onto the biblical texts, and these became the lens through which the texts were understood and perpetrated for centuries. Paul had no such understanding as is taught in some circles today as 'gospel'.

John
NZ

 

[2 know him]

No, I didn't even mention that verse.
The Bible is the word of God because it reveals God, is about God and by God.



It's not heresy to accept and believe something that is Scriptural.

Yes, when Paul wrote those words they had only the OT Scriptures. But Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture, and those who compiled the Bible were led to include Paul's epistles in it. Paul taught about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the cross; Jesus taught about God, the Holy Spirit and the cross. Where's the heresy?



You have put two and two together there and made 8. "everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me" is not the same as saying "the whole of Asia rejected my teachings", or "the whole of Asia became believers but then turned away from the Gospel.. Paul might have meant that the believers in Asia had gone off and left him alone in jail.
Then you took that verse, out of context, and applied it to a passage from another book of the Bible and came to the conclusion that it must refer to Paul. That whole argument is your interpretation and application, and you put it forward as a reason for rejecting Paul.



Well if that's your belief; that's up to you.
Personally I don't see how you can be sure of anything about your faith, if you don't trust the Bible. If a non Christian came to you and said that the Bible was false, contradictory or whatever, you'd probably agree with them, which would not be a great Christian witness. You could also lay yourself open to attack from the devil - when Jesus was tempted he quoted Scripture, and Paul says that the sword of the Spirit is the word of God.

But as long as you're prepared to tell Paul, and Jesus, when you meet them in heaven, that Paul was a heretic and that the Bible was not Scripture or inspired by God; I guess that's ok.

To say that you need to accept the Bible as being the word of God is to exclude all the people prior to 397 a.d. as being Christians.

Before Paul came on the scene thousands were coming to Christ: before Paul's revelation and self-proclaimed gospel message. You are claiming that Jesus's words are not enough and did not alone form the basis of the New Covenant, but rather that Paul's words are necessary in order to form the New Covenant picture. The Holy Spirit was/is promised to all them that obey Jesus: according to Jesus's words and Peter's words in the book of Acts. So how does one verify weather the spirit they have is really the Holy Spirit or not? Jesus stated that when the Holy Spirit comes he would bring you in remembrance of his word, so shouldn't the test of whether or not the spirit a person is speaking from is weather or not their words confirm the words of Jesus or deny them? Paul says I become all things to all men that he might save some, Jesus called men to repentance and would not dare make that same statement. Jesus said to testify against Kings and governors and the Gentiles and that we would be brought up for a testimony against them. Paul testifies for them and claims that those that kill men with a sword are ministers of God and testifies for them. Paul discriminates against women Jesus never does. Paul intellectualize is his faith Jesus on the other hand live by certain principles and only wanted his followers to practice those same values. To claim that Paul's words are necessary part of the Christian faith because men 1600 years ago placed his writings in a book alongside Jesus's words is totally false. It is no wonder the church is so far away from Christ with the ignorance that is being proclaimed on this form.

 

[2 know him]

In complete and utter agreement. She finally admitted what she has denied throughout the conversation. She DOES NOT believe in the Bible. She 'only' believes in the parts she chooses. Anyone that could say that the epistles of Paul are 'not' a part of the New Testament obviously doesn't 'believe in the Bible' as it is offered.

Blessings,

MEC

When the bible was put together in 397 A.D. it canonized words that were before scrutinized on the merits of the words themselves. Jesus allowed his words to be questioned and challenged and he defended the integrity of his words on the merits of the words themself something that you're intending to prevent by stating the words of the bible are God's himself. Stop hiding behind your ignorance and lets have an honest debate about the integrity of the bible and the ignorant words of Paul on the merits or lack thereof of Paul's words.

 

[2 know him]

In complete and utter agreement. She finally admitted what she has denied throughout the conversation. She DOES NOT believe in the Bible. She 'only' believes in the parts she chooses. Anyone that could say that the epistles of Paul are 'not' a part of the New Testament obviously doesn't 'believe in the Bible' as it is offered.

Blessings,

MEC

I never denied that I don't believe in the bible. But your faith is about as thoroughly grounded as your assumptions are that I am a woman.

 

[Strong in Him]

To say that you need to accept the Bible as being the word of God is to exclude all the people prior to 397 a.d. as being Christians.

?? No it isn't.
Those who compiled the Bible decided to include writings that were apostolic - written by the apostles or those who knew them first hand. They had criteria for deciding which documents were authentic and which weren't.
That has nothing to do with whether or not a person had received Jesus as their Saviour.

Before Paul came on the scene thousands were coming to Christ:

Yes, and thousands have come to Christ and been helped in their faith through Paul, either in his lifetime, or since .

You are claiming that Jesus's words are not enough and did not alone form the basis of the New Covenant,

No I'm not. I'm saying that the second half of our Bibles is known as the New Testament and includes Paul's epistles. Fact. Go onto a show and tell them that Paul's letters aren't in the NT and you'll get the question wrong.

T The Holy Spirit was/is promised to all them that obey Jesus: according to Jesus's words and Peter's words in the book of Acts. So how does one verify weather the spirit they have is really the Holy Spirit or not? Jesus stated that when the Holy Spirit comes he would bring you in remembrance of his word, so shouldn't the test of whether or not the spirit a person is speaking from is weather or not their words confirm the words of Jesus or deny them?

Paul taught about Jesus and the cross. He also believed, and quoted from, the OT - same as Jesus.

But as I said, this is off topic so I don't want to say any more here.
I'll start another thread.


Edited because a link somehow appeared in my post. ??

 

[2 know him]

Well now. Isn't that interesting. I have 'assumed' you are a woman by the very nature of your words. But I must admit that there 'are men' today that 'act' like women in both mannerisms and the means by which they communicate.

Are you a 'man' that simply 'acts' like a woman? Or are you indeed a 'woman'? And if you are a woman, then how do you suppose my 'assumptions' are askew?

My 'faith' has nothing to do with my 'assumptions' of what you have offered.

So, is your intent to be 'utterly deceptive? If not, are you a 'man' or a 'man acting like a woman' or a 'woman'? Are you 'male or female' by birth.

I would offer that from my perspective, your words would indicate you are female by 'birth'.

But I'll also offer if you are unwilling to be honest about your gender, you can't be trusted to be honest about 'anything'.

I went to your profile page and found 'nothing'. Why is that? Why have you chosen 'not to share' with others what it is that you 'are'? That to me reeks of deception from the onset. While nothing 'requires' you to share, the very nature of the Spirit of God is 'sharing'. To 'not share' to me seems like a nature 'contrary' to the truth from the very 'beginning' of any potential relationship with God or your neighbor.

Blessings,

MEC

I use to be an ignorant bigoted male as you are, so I can relate to your lack of understanding and value of women. You see the man I use to be treated people (in particular the female gender) with a lack of respect because of my ignorance but by the grace of God I have come to see that a woman is a man's equal and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong and cannot walk in the spirit of Christ. I understand that you follow Paul as does today's church but sadly it is Paul which is keeping you from embracing the Christ which has come to set you free.

 

[2 know him]

Ok. let's 'do it'. Let us have a 'separate' conversation, (not that this hasn't already been 'beaten to death' here on the forum), concerning the legitimacy of Paul's writings. Where you can 'show us' that he was a 'bigot and blasphemer'.

Or.............where we can show you and anyone else interested that either you are correct, the entire New Testament is 'false', or it is you that couldn't be 'further' from the 'truth'.

You 'start it' or let us know who you would like to 'start it'.

Blessings,

MEC

In Romans 13 verse 4 Paul States that those that bear the sword are ministers of God to execute wrath upon those that do evil: Paul gives an exemption for men to harm other men that the teachings of Christ condemn.

Government is a group of men ruling over other men, if it is not right for one individual to do something it is not right for a group of individuals to do the same thing. Jesus taught us to pray to the Father in heaven that he may forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us, he taught us that if we judge God will judge us and if we want God's forgiveness we better show it to others, or we will not get it from God: no exemption to no man. Paul condones what Jesus condemns. Satan is the God of this world he gives his power to government, governments are rulers of Satan they are not Ministers of God. Paul in his ignorance contradicts the teachings of Christ and teaches men to do likewise.

Paul goes on to say that Masters aught to treat their slaves in a certain manner. Jesus never condone slavery, but because it is a practice of the Roman Empire he uses it as an example of how our relationship aught to be with the father in Heaven. Jesus teaches us to love our neighbors with equality, or that is to say as ourselves. Slavery is not something Jesus's teachings condone, on the contrary: they condemn it. Paul should have told slave owners to repent and to set their slaves free. Paul says women should submit to their husbands as unto the Lord, Jesus says we have one master even Christ, he also says who is my mother my brother and my sister but those that do the will of my Father in heaven. Jesus calls women to obey the teachings of Christ their one master and treats women and Men in like manner with one rule/ruler over both.

Let's start with these.

P.S. for anyone who thinks this post and conversation is off topic you are highly mistaken: it is because of Paul's teachings that this topic is being discussed in the first place.

P.S.S. To me the issue is clear: you either defend the teachings of Paul against the teachings of Christ, or you defend the teachings of Christ against the teachings of Paul; Sadly today's church has chosen Paul over Christ.

P.S.S.S. I am hopeful that there are many people silently in agreement with the points being offered up by this post: if this is you please take a stand in support of the teachings of Christ and like this post.