• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Does anyone else have mixed thoughts about the apostle Paul?

BlackSabb

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2006
2,176
152
✟25,640.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Does anyone else have mixed thoughts about the apostle Paul?


Am I the only one who feels this way? Personally, when I read the NT, I find him a bit off, fanatical and strange in some of his "teachings". He clearly has problems with women.

1......

The issue of women speaking in church. Now, I'm sure this topic has been covered. However, I feel almost every Christian has been brainwashed and conditioned into a standard response.

That "Paul was talking about disruptive women" being silenced. However, this is complete nonsense. The NT does not say this at all. This is just something made up by the church. Paul clearly says that it is a disgrace for women to speak in a church because they are women. Without a shadow of a doubt, he says that a woman sinned first, that a woman is never to instruct a man, and consequently they are not to speak in church. And I will not debate this, because this is what the scriptures clearly say, and I will not enter into convoluted arguments that attempt to twist it.

This is one of his strange theologies that appears nowhere else in the NT.

2.................

Celibacy. He's a fanatical celebist. He laments that he wishes everybody could be celibate like he is. Now, that on it's own simply could be interpreted as being passionate about his calling that he wishes everyone has. However, he makes a truly odd remark about "young widows". He shows his fanaticism when he lambasts them for "abandoning their first love" when they want to remarry. Very harsh I think.

3..............

Head coverings. Again, showing his problems with women. The idea of head coverings on a woman are that they show their submission by an outward garment. Again, this is an odd theology nowhere else in the NT.

4...............

Men and long hair. He is quite descriptive about how much of an abomination it is for a man to have long hair. Yet another oddball doctrine. This is nowhere else stated in the NT. What about Samson?


Opinions?
 

stumpjumper

Left the river, made it to the sea
Site Supporter
May 10, 2005
21,189
846
✟93,636.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
He clearly has problems with women.

Some scholars believe that is an addition to his Epistles and would point towards Thecla as an example of women with leadership roles in the early church...
 
Upvote 0

Abbadon

Self Bias Resistor - goin' commando in a cassock!
Jan 26, 2005
6,022
335
38
Bible belt, unfortunatly
✟30,412.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I usually don't have a problem with him, but with popular interpretations of his work and with the lack of context. His stuff was written to different churches with different problems. It's possible to find justification for both drinking and tee-totalerism in his work because of this and because he wasn't as clear as he needed to be for future members of the Church.

1. He says that women shouldn't be teachers: almost all women back then were not given an education. It's tough, but if men today weren't given an education that'd be a reason against me becomeing a teacher until those (thankfully non-existant) education standards changed.

2. Celibacy: He wishes that everyone could be celibate because he thought the end was nigh. However, he did say that it was OK to get married. As a comparison, I wish everyone was a socialist like me and I lament that there are people that vote republican, but I approve of people's right to vote republican.

3. He writes that women's hair counts as a head covering, which was a liberal attitude. Back then there were churches saying women had to wear head coverings. This carries on today among Nuns, certain Jewish sects, and Islam. His advice that women shouldn't cut thier hair? Back then temple prostitutes wore short hair as a mark of what they did. If Paul wrote today, he'd be writing against wearing fishnet stockings, pleather hot pants, a tube top, and tons of make-up and trying to pick up men near the red-light district. If prostitutes wore three-piece suits, carried briefcases, and hung around wallstreet, he'd be writing against that instead.

4. Most men growing thier hair long then were either:
-Barbarians - who wouldn't have been reading this letter of Pauls.
-Prostitutes - as the latter point for #3.
-Holier-than-thou ascetics - part of his usual "works don't save" stuff. Paul does go through with the Nazarite vows (which does include not cutting one's hair) during part of his life, so it's possible that he wasn't talking about shoulder length hair, but the kind you have ro braid, fold over, and braid again and refuse to cut for absolutely superstitious reasons.


Also, while the Bible is divinely inspired, it is still written by humans.
 
Upvote 0

Im_A

Legend
May 10, 2004
20,113
1,494
✟42,859.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Does anyone else have mixed thoughts about the apostle Paul?


Am I the only one who feels this way? Personally, when I read the NT, I find him a bit off, fanatical and strange in some of his "teachings". He clearly has problems with women.

1......

The issue of women speaking in church. Now, I'm sure this topic has been covered. However, I feel almost every Christian has been brainwashed and conditioned into a standard response.

That "Paul was talking about disruptive women" being silenced. However, this is complete nonsense. The NT does not say this at all. This is just something made up by the church. Paul clearly says that it is a disgrace for women to speak in a church because they are women. Without a shadow of a doubt, he says that a woman sinned first, that a woman is never to instruct a man, and consequently they are not to speak in church. And I will not debate this, because this is what the scriptures clearly say, and I will not enter into convoluted arguments that attempt to twist it.

This is one of his strange theologies that appears nowhere else in the NT.

2.................

Celibacy. He's a fanatical celebist. He laments that he wishes everybody could be celibate like he is. Now, that on it's own simply could be interpreted as being passionate about his calling that he wishes everyone has. However, he makes a truly odd remark about "young widows". He shows his fanaticism when he lambasts them for "abandoning their first love" when they want to remarry. Very harsh I think.

3..............

Head coverings. Again, showing his problems with women. The idea of head coverings on a woman are that they show their submission by an outward garment. Again, this is an odd theology nowhere else in the NT.

4...............

Men and long hair. He is quite descriptive about how much of an abomination it is for a man to have long hair. Yet another oddball doctrine. This is nowhere else stated in the NT. What about Samson?


Opinions?

my thoughts on Paul are this:

a man that supposedly murdered the people he eventually became is going to have issues. so i figure take the good and the things i'm confused about i'll probably be confused but there is a lot of good things that came from Paul.
 
Upvote 0

Multi-Elis

Senior Veteran
Jul 6, 2003
2,173
114
42
Paris
Visit site
✟25,411.00
Faith
Christian
I just keep away from Paul, and that's how I keep a status quo and that way I don't have to get mad at him. Instead I go for John's round and round thinking, and James down to earthness. I don't know how long that will last, but I just figure that there is no use in getting mad at him so I let him be if he lets me be.

The regular arguments given as an apology for what he said don't convince me. Explain him away as you want, he still insisted on things like "because eve was the first to sin and tempted adam..." and all sorts of logic that doesn't work... It's better I leave him alone if he leaves me alone. Perhaps someday we will reconcile so that I can make use of the good stuff he says.
 
Upvote 0

Izdaari Eristikon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2007
6,174
448
71
Post Falls, Idaho
✟47,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
To anyone who wants to know Paul better (and I think all Christ followers should), I recommend What Paul Meant by Garry Wills. It's an easy read, but still fairly deep, and it dispels many false impressions about Paul. I wouldn't describe it as a liberal book, but it may make fundamentalists uncomfortable because it points out contradictions between books of the NT. Btw, the author is Catholic.
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,439
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Except that what we have of Jesus saying isn't Jesus saying it at all, but others saying it for him.

I don't dismiss Paul. He strikes me as one who is quite literally stricken with his faith, and there is much in his struggles that resonate down through the ages.

Additionally, some of Paul's writings are the earliest extant Christian writings that are recognized canon, preceding the Gospels. Read Thessalonians while forgetting, as best you can, everything you've ever learned about Christianity. Forget the theology, forget the history, forget the church as we know it today - just try and put yourself back nearly 2000 years into Paul's shoes.
 
Upvote 0

Gukkor

Senior Veteran
Jun 14, 2006
2,137
128
Visit site
✟25,702.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Paul was a nut, a David Koresh or maybe a bit more sane, a John Calvin. he is not Christ, never spoke for Christ, did not know Christ and has perverted his Church.

Be very, very careful. No matter how mistaken he is in his beliefs, it is not anyone's place to judge his knowledge of Christ or his sanity based on letters he wrote nearly 2000 years ago.

That said, Paul was apparently a fanatic before his conversion. When fanatics change their beliefs, they tend to maintain the general theme of fanaticism because that is an ingrained part of their personality that goes deeper than their conscious beliefs. I think Paul reflects this pattern to some extent.
 
Upvote 0

RedTulipMom

Legend
Apr 18, 2004
93,543
5,940
56
illinois
✟152,844.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
i will agree that paul is a bit fanatical, but personally i do like alot of his writings in the NT. I have gotten alot out of some of the things he had to say. When it comes to Paul, i don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Take what ya like and leave the rest! lol
 
Upvote 0

Gukkor

Senior Veteran
Jun 14, 2006
2,137
128
Visit site
✟25,702.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I'm not disputing his belief in his knowledge of Christ so much as saying that that belief of paul's will not influence my own.

When I thought paul's beliefs were inextricably tied to Christ, I stayed away from Christianity. Only when I realized he was a man, a sinner, like all of us, and Christ's teachings are the only ones that are meaningful did I return to Christianity.

I follow Christ and will to my dying breath. Paul has nothing to teach me.

Fair enough, and I can see where you're coming from. I've had issue with him on numerous occasions, but he's indeed a human, so I feel no guilt for that disagreement.
 
Upvote 0

Mankin

A Strange Mixture of Random Components.
Site Supporter
Apr 28, 2007
8,660
174
In the Norse Lands
✟77,451.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I usually don't have a problem with him, but with popular interpretations of his work and with the lack of context. His stuff was written to different churches with different problems. It's possible to find justification for both drinking and tee-totalerism in his work because of this and because he wasn't as clear as he needed to be for future members of the Church.

1. He says that women shouldn't be teachers: almost all women back then were not given an education. It's tough, but if men today weren't given an education that'd be a reason against me becomeing a teacher until those (thankfully non-existant) education standards changed.

2. Celibacy: He wishes that everyone could be celibate because he thought the end was nigh. However, he did say that it was OK to get married. As a comparison, I wish everyone was a socialist like me and I lament that there are people that vote republican, but I approve of people's right to vote republican.

3. He writes that women's hair counts as a head covering, which was a liberal attitude. Back then there were churches saying women had to wear head coverings. This carries on today among Nuns, certain Jewish sects, and Islam. His advice that women shouldn't cut thier hair? Back then temple prostitutes wore short hair as a mark of what they did. If Paul wrote today, he'd be writing against wearing fishnet stockings, pleather hot pants, a tube top, and tons of make-up and trying to pick up men near the red-light district. If prostitutes wore three-piece suits, carried briefcases, and hung around wallstreet, he'd be writing against that instead.

4. Most men growing thier hair long then were either:
-Barbarians - who wouldn't have been reading this letter of Pauls.
-Prostitutes - as the latter point for #3.
-Holier-than-thou ascetics - part of his usual "works don't save" stuff. Paul does go through with the Nazarite vows (which does include not cutting one's hair) during part of his life, so it's possible that he wasn't talking about shoulder length hair, but the kind you have ro braid, fold over, and braid again and refuse to cut for absolutely superstitious reasons.


Also, while the Bible is divinely inspired, it is still written by humans.

I agree with you. Very few men at the time had educations as well save some Roman citizens.
 
Upvote 0

Joykins

free Crazy Liz!
Jul 14, 2005
15,720
1,181
55
Down in Mary's Land
✟44,390.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Paul tried to break down barriers--women held leadership positions in the early church--don't fool yourselves. Churches were in women's houses , had woman patronesses, and some of the earliest converts were women. Paul correctly noted that IN CHRIST there is no male or female, Jew or Gentile, slave or free. The only barrier he actually *succeeded* in breaking down with any kind of passion is the Jew/Gentile one which he basically won and that is one reason why today Christianity is not more Judaic in practice. He was significantly less successful in breaking down slavery or sexism; in fact, his works could be read to support it in places.

But he was right that IN CHRIST there is no male or female.
 
Upvote 0

plum

my thoughts are free
Nov 30, 2003
24,091
1,678
✟55,880.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'm not used to reading anti-Pauline statements. In my experience a lot of Christians like Paul's teachings even more than Jesus' (and I found that equally disturbing). I don't mind him... possibly because it's not like I can know him one-on-one. I think it amusing that we can think we know all about someone from a few of his writings.
One thing that does bother me is the fact that historical Christianity has turned his correspondence into concrete theology, fighting and biting over the minute words and details when I sincerely doubt he had any clue his letters would later be used in such a fashion. I also don't like how many people forget who Paul was and where he came from culturally, religiously, and socially. Many of his words seem to go against Jesus or other biblical writers when taken out of their contexts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marvmax
Upvote 0