Blaming Paul for Things He Never Said

When I was a teenager, I listened to some fundamentalist preachers talking among themselves. One asserted that he believed Hebrews was written by Paul! I am sure the other preachers agreed. I was not well-read, but I was aware that many people did not believe Paul wrote Hebrews; so my reaction was ‘Why?’ (I didn’t ask the question aloud).

Why would he think so? Tradition? Because it was the conservative position? I greatly doubt that he came to that conclusion by carefully comparing Hebrews with other books by Paul. But someone so convinced that Paul wrote Hebrews is certainly unlikely to agree that Paul did not write 1 Timothy. It’s right there in the first sentence of the book:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, to Timothy my true son in the faith.

And yet nearly all scholars agree that Paul did not write 1 Timothy. Or 2 Timothy. Or Titus–the pastoral letters. In fact, as we discussed before, scholar Bart Ehrman actually calls them forgeries—and I must agree. Paul did not write them, and the person who did write them attempted to deceive readers into thinking that they WERE from Paul. If this is true then what authority do the pastorals have?

Paul writes a letter
A Case Against the Authenticity of the Pastoral Letters Attributed to Paul

In his book, Forged, I think Ehrman makes a more convincing case for the purposeful deceit of Pauline authorship in the pastorals than anywhere else. Here is a summary of some of the things he says in his discussion of these books on pages 93-105. First of all, he thinks the pastoral epistles were all written by the same person. They share many words and phrases together.

But the words of the pastorals do not match those in Paul’s genuine letters. Ehrman points out that 306 of the 848 different words used in pastorals (over one third) are not found in any other letter by Paul. But about two thirds of the 306 words are used by Christian authors living in second century—indicating that the pastorals come from a period later than Paul and with different issues.

For example, the false teachings addressed in 1 Timothy do not match issues from Paul’s time; they sound like second century Gnosticism. In addition, Paul encouraged believers to remain single because the end was near, whereas the pastorals state that leaders must be married.

Another example is that for Paul the gifts of the Spirit make everyone equal: slaves and masters; women and men. Paul told the Corinthians to use gifts for mutual good and did not appeal to leaders to control situations because there were no leaders—no pastors, bishops, or deacons; no hierarchy, structure, or organization, because they were expecting Jesus to come right away and had no time to develop those things.

Ehrman says, “That’s what you find in the pastoral letters—churches settling in for the long haul. But that’s not what you find in the historical Paul.” (page 102)

Sometimes the author of the pastorals uses the same words as Paul but with different meanings, and some ideas and concepts in the pastoral are at odds with the authentic letters of Paul. For example: when Paul talks about works he means works of the Law, whereas the pastorals mean doing good works.

So the evidence suggests that the pastorals were written in Paul’s name by someone after Paul’s death. The deceit is further supported by personal references such as 2 Timothy 4: ‘When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments’ apparently to make the letter more believable to those seeing it for the first time.

Can a Deceptively Written Letter by ‘Who Knows?’ be Authoritative?

In this light, can we then say that the pastorals are authoritative in any way? Or inerrant? I am sure most inerrantists would answer Yes! to both. But why? Just because they happen to be included in the Bible? Because God somehow guided the author to forge the letters in Paul’s name? But then inerrantists are likely to say that Paul DID write those letters. After all, it’s right there in the first sentence:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope…

I don’t believe in inerrancy but we do often turn to biblical books for some level of authority and guidance, and sometimes we become upset with things we think Paul said.

Blaming Paul for What Someone Else Said in the Pastorals

People object to some of Paul’s statements, but should we be upset with Paul for something he never said? Here are a few examples of passages Paul didn’t write (see a related issue from Ephesians):

1 Timothy 2:11, ‘A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.’ [I am aware of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 which has special issues and should be considered separately]

1 Timothy 3:2, ‘Now the overseer [a male] is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife’

How about the NUMBER 1 inerrancy proof-text, 2 Timothy 3:16, ‘All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.’ Paul didn’t write that! We have no idea who wrote it except that they wrote in Paul’s name.

Titus 2:9, ‘Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.’

Being aware of the problem of the pastoral letters helps us realize that there is no reason to blame Paul for things he did not say.

Articles in this series:
Bart Ehrman – Forged: A Book Review
How Should We Regard New Testament Books of Uncertain Authorship?
Blaming Paul for Things He Never Said
The Special Case of Women Keeping Silent in the Church in 1 Corinthians

***

  • Jesus without Baggage exists to assist and support those questioning beliefs they have been taught in fundamentalist, traditional evangelical, and other groups. If you know someone who might find Jesus without Baggage helpful, feel free to send them the introductory page: About Jesus without Baggage.
This entry was posted in authority, fundamentalism, inerrancy, New Testament, Paul and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to Blaming Paul for Things He Never Said

  1. Thomas Harp says:

    I agree that The Pastoral Epistles were probably not written by Paul. However, to call them forgeries seems anachronistic, reading back into another time a judgment based on contemporary mores. Regarding whether or not they should be considered authoritative, as one who is in the Reformed tradition, I believe the Holy Spirit guided the church to include them in the Canon. I reject the literalist approach to interpretation, but believe there are passages, particularly in 1 Timothy, that are worthwhile. The same Spirit that inspired the original writer guides us in affirming some passages and disregarding others. I say that, not claiming for myself such authority, but believing the church at large has that authority, thus allowing for women to be ordained, for example.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Good points, Thomas. I think Ehrman pushes ‘forgery’ too hard though it might be appropriate for the pastoral epistles. I also agree that there is some useful content in the pastorals no matter who wrote them.

      Like

  2. newtonfinn says:

    Tim, in accord with Ehrman and other NT scholars, makes a strong case that Paul did not write the Pastorals, which, among other things, attempt to compensate (by coming up with new rules of conduct) for Paul’s erroneous belief that history was about to end with the sudden arrival of the Kingdom of God. Indeed, many NT scholars attribute this same erroneous belief, apparently widespread in First Century Jewish apocalyptic thought, to Jesus himself. I think it fairly clear that Paul did have this mistaken belief concerning the immediate future. On the other hand, I’m not so certain about Jesus, whether he shared or did not share this belief, there being evidence in the gospels that seems to cut both ways. Before I comment further on that evidence, I would love to hear what other JWOB readers think about this vexing question, which is wrapped up in the larger discussion of authorship and authority that Tim has invited.

    Liked by 2 people

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Newton, I agree that Paul and other early believers were mistaken in thinking Jesus would come back so soon. I am not so sure Jesus thought it would be so quick. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ancadudar says:

      “I think it fairly clear that Paul did have this mistaken belief concerning the immediate future.”

      I agree with you that Paul made that mistake, but I do not believe that Jesus did so. When He said that the kingdom of God was at hand, I think He meant that it was already upon us. Other than that, Jesus did not really teach an immediate second coming or apocalypse.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. michaeleeast says:

    Tim, This is very interesting because if there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female etc. as in Galations and Collosians then the other non-inclusive and mysogenistic writing may not be his at all. I am not an expert but the inclusive attitude of the former is much more in keeping with Jesus than the latter. And it is also closer to Paul’s warm and friendly attitude towards women of faith in the early church.

    Liked by 3 people

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Michael, I think you are right. Jesus was very inclusive–and so was Paul. The passage on women in the pastorals seem inconsistent with that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ancadudar says:

      “Tim, This is very interesting because if there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female etc. as in Galations and Collosians then the other non-inclusive and mysogenistic writing may not be his at all.”

      I agree with you! Many scholars believe that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was added an interpolation by the Author of the Pastorals. Other than that, there is no ban on the Church leadership of women.

      Ephesians and Colossians are also believed not to be by Paul, the other only places that call for the obedience of slaves and the submission of women in the name of Paul.

      1 Peter is believed not to be written by Peter, the last place where women and slaves are subordinated to masters and husbands.

      All subordinate material is found in epistles whose authorship is contested.

      So in original Paul, we would find nothing but consistency to what he had penned in Gallations!

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Ross Jarvis says:

    Like many, I’ve always found the pronouncements on women being side-lined and acceptance of slavery fairly unpalatable. At best I used to think this was maybe some sort of pragmatic approach to First Century cultural “norms”.
    I don’t think there is any reason for modern Christians to support slavery, so therefore why should anyone accept a similar view on women? In the same way I’ve never felt any reasonable compulsion that the “appointed authorities” should be obeyed in every instance.
    As it appears that the “Canon” itself is not supernaturally endowed in a “perfect” sense I think it brings us to the point that we do have to “pick and choose” from scripture, This is a criticism rather frequently levelled at me when I point out I’m anti-inerrantist, but as even the “bible believers out there don’t seem to universally agree across the board I’ve always found this a bit of a moot point.
    I have to leave it up to those with better credentials than me to study scripture to the level where linguistic analysis can show convincingly that authorship of, say, the pastoral letters is seriously in doubt, but long before then, reading modern translations I have been informed by my “gut” that there are problems with the narrative, particularly in regard to whether I need to obey it.
    I don’t know if the Canon can be improved by pruning out the odd letter or two to become more “right”, but I don’t think it can be totally perfected.
    However, this does raise the question as to where we seek wisdom; “God’s word” and to what extent the bible comes into this? I don’t follow the binary view that the bible has to be all “true (inerrant infallible etc)’, otherwise it is untrue and worthless, as this is a failure of logic and sense.
    I like the idea that God can be found “through” the bible and not so much “in” it. This I have seen presented as often a Jewish approach. That by reading and wrestling with what is written, that God will touch us and teach us at that point. The Holy Spirit may be “divine” and work with us to lead us into truth with scripture as a tool, but the scripture itself is not divine. This leads me back to thinking that we can never really know for sure, as it removes the certainties that inerrancy brings with it and therefore puts me back into living by a fairly shaky “faith”. Which won’t enamour me to most fundamentalists or many “atheists/anti-theists” out there, but maybe they are too much like each other to worry about.

    Liked by 3 people

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Ross, you certainly said a lot of good stuff in your comment! I particularly like, “I don’t follow the binary view that the bible has to be all “true (inerrant infallible etc)’, otherwise it is untrue and worthless, as this is a failure of logic and sense. I like the idea that God can be found “through” the bible and not so much “in” it.”

      I have heard people say so many times, ‘If you can’t trust all the Bible, how can you trust any of it?’ I agree with you that this is not logical. Truth, and even inspiration, does not depend on a perfect book guaranteed by God.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. ancadudar says:

    Tim, your article is so well written, thank you! I am glad you captured so many talking points in it.

    “Ehrman says, “That’s what you find in the pastoral letters—churches settling in for the long haul. But that’s not what you find in the historical Paul.” (page 102)”

    So many scholars agree with this beyond Ehrman, one scholar goes back to 1466 with the same view and he was a conservative. The same with Ephesians, most scholars believe that the household codes were for a Church settling in for the long haul. The Colossian’s household codes are believed by many scholars to be a complete interpolation after Ephesians was written, possibly by the same author who wrote Ephesians after he wrote it. When Colossians is quoted by early Church Father’s, the whole chapter on household codes are missing, but the rest resumes afterward. When Ephesians is quoted by six other Church fathers, the marriage passage is a little different with it not being so harsh on its requirement for submission of wives. The problem is that we do not have a copy of it that dates earlier than the mid-third century.

    “Another example is that for Paul the gifts of the Spirit make everyone equal: slaves and masters; women and men. Paul told the Corinthians to use gifts for mutual good and did not appeal to leaders to control situations because there were no leaders—no pastors, bishops, or deacons; no hierarchy, structure, or organization, because they were expecting Jesus to come right away and had no time to develop those things.”

    This is correct! In authentic Paul, the ministry was according to gifting and they had a servant leadership structure where all participated. Even in teaching, they would take turns if someone wanted to preach or share something. Authentic Paul did mention the word Deacon once, however, it was a woman he named, her name was Pheobe, the only one to be called that! Jesus mentioned the word Deacon, and it meant “servant”.

    “In this light, can we then say that the pastorals are authoritative in any way? Or inerrant? I am sure most inerrantists would answer Yes! to both. But why? Just because they happen to be included in the Bible?”

    To me, the Pastorals are horrible and I would not even consider them good for anything besides for their usefulness in giving us an insight into what the second century thought among leadership and Church life was like. It lets us know the direction they headed in and what doctrinal issues they were fighting against such as Gnosticism. As far as them being inspired like some inerrantists would say, by that logic, we could forge an Epistle in the name of Paul today and add it in the Bible, then one hundred years from now people would consider it the inspired word of God because it is in the Bible!

    “1 Timothy 2:11, ‘A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.’ [I am aware of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 which has special issues and should be considered separately]”

    Scholars believe that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was added by the author of the Pastorals! Many scholars hold this view!

    “1 Timothy 2:11, I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”

    Not only has this disqualified women from ministry for almost 1900 years, but it teaches and reads back hierarchy in the Genesis creation account when there is none! It is like a lens. Complementarians read it back into Genesis thinking that Eve’s sin was to bypass the headship of Adam by acting on her own when speaking to the serpent and eating the fruit and that she usurped the order of creation by “leading” Adam into eating the fruit. This is all for 1 Timothy that they get these ideas from. Nowhere else in the whole of the Old or New Testament do these ideas appear! When egalitarians try to show that male rule over women did not appear until after the fall as stated in Genesis 3:16, traditionalists and complementarians appeal to 1 Timothy 2:11 to state that there was a hierarchy in Genesis before the fall on account of Adam being created first!

    “Titus 2:9, ‘Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.”

    This was devastating for Christian slaves, because throughout history if they ran away and were caught by other Christians, those Christians would report them to the authorities and send them back to their masters to face torture and a possible death penalty for running away. This has actually been documented as early as the fifth century! The original Paul pleaded with Philemon for the forgiveness and release of Onesimus, even offering to pay his debt for whatever he had possibly stolen or owed Philemon for his freedom.

    “How about the NUMBER 1 inerrancy proof-text, 2 Timothy 3:16, ‘All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.’ Paul didn’t write that! We have no idea who wrote it except that they wrote in Paul’s name.”

    This is what inerrantists use ALL of the time to support inerrancy, the verse written by a deceptive forger! We know why he would write that, because he probably considered his lies to be
    God-breathed and inspired since he thought they were useful for correcting and training others and in his mind that is probably how he justified his deceptive practice! 1 Timothy is one of the worst for Christian women, it is responsible for our subjection and humiliation within Christendom for the past 1800 years.

    I don’t blame Paul for anything, I think the original Paul was for the freedom of all, male and female, slave and free, Jew and Gentile!

    Liked by 1 person

    • newtonfinn says:

      I like your insightful, informative comments. But what about Paul’s teaching in Romans concerning Christian submission to political authorities. Hasn’t this teaching also caused the church to be, in so many cases, on the wrong side of history? Wasn’t it the political authorities that tortured and executed Jesus? I agree that the Pastorals are an ethical step down from Paul. But I also believe that Paul was an ethical step down from Jesus. Would Jesus have wanted the knife to slip during circumcision? Etc.

      Liked by 2 people

      • ancadudar says:

        “But what about Paul’s teaching in Romans concerning Christian submission to political authorities.”
        That part may not have been written by Paul. Romans has three endings and additions. I will try to find where I read this a few weeks ago and post it once found, but textual critics have a theory that when it was written in Romans that the Church was in good standing with the government. By the time 1 Peter was written they were facing persecution from neighbors and society which prompted what was written there about looking good to neighbors and playing the part of good citizens. Later they faced some persecution from the government which prompted other writings where now the government was ruled by Satan, finally by Revelations they were under major attack which prompted the language there. Scholars have a timeline for this and they name the different persecutions which show how the New Testament’s view of government changed by Epistle as they things were unfolding into a downward spiral. The Epistles go from a good view of government to a neutral view, to a somewhat tense and negative view, to a very negative one- Revelations.

        “But what about Paul’s teaching in Romans concerning Christian submission to political authorities. Hasn’t this teaching also caused the church to be, in so many cases, on the wrong side of history?”
        One would almost think a Roman government official wrote the passage!

        “But I also believe that Paul was an ethical step down from Jesus.”
        I agree with you on this! Everyone that followed was a step down from Jesus!
        Jesus also required good works and brotherly love like you have mentioned many times, yet Paul focused more on faith.

        Liked by 2 people

      • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

        Newton, let me add a thought on Romans 13. I think what Paul is saying here is simply to be good citizens. Pay taxes, obey the law, and don’t try to oppose the government violently or politically.

        This was Jesus’ approach as well; he refused to attack the Roman government as some followers wanted him to do. Yet he actually conquered the power of the government in his resurrection. Jesus preached about the kingdom of God, which is our first allegiance, but that does not mean we should oppose the government, get entangled with the government, or try to control the government for Christian purposes.

        Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not. I think one of the worst things that ever happened to the church was merging with the Roman Empire under Constantine.

        I know Romans has been used by some to teach that Christians should do everything the government says, but I don’t think that is what Paul had in mind. But we should be model citizens.

        Liked by 1 person

      • michaeleeast says:

        I have always thought that Peter and Paul and John were a step down from Jesus. The disciples constantly misunderstood Jesus’ message. And they continued to do so after his death.

        Liked by 3 people

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Anca, you said: “The Colossian’s household codes are believed by many scholars to be a complete interpolation after Ephesians was written, possibly by the same author who wrote Ephesians after he wrote it. When Colossians is quoted by early Church Father’s, the whole chapter on household codes are missing, but the rest resumes afterward.”

      I was not aware of this! Do you happen to have sources? Also for: “Scholars believe that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was added by the author of the Pastorals! Many scholars hold this view!” If you don’t have them handy, don’t worry about it.

      I really enjoyed all your comments and I totally agree with your concluding paragraph, “I don’t blame Paul for anything, I think the original Paul was for the freedom of all, male and female, slave and free, Jew and Gentile!”

      Liked by 1 person

      • ancadudar says:

        Hi Tim,
        Yes, I have sources for them, but they are in many books by different textual critical scholars and experts. I am not sure how to copy the pages of the books for upload. Is that legal, lol? Otherwise, there are a few articles online.

        I know Colossians is quoted almost verse by verse in Tertullian’s rebuttal to Marcion and the whole of the household codes are omitted. This is a high indicator for scholars that they were added later. They also break in the middle of a sentence which is another indicator of interpolation. Scholars rely a lot on Tertullian’s quotes of verses because Marcion was the first one to put together a collection of Paul’s writings as we know it and Tertullian would read them off in contrast to his own texts as a “correction” of Marcion’s tampering with the text. How would you like me to upload information from scholars on the matter?

        “Scholars believe that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was added by the author of the Pastorals!”
        Yes, there is something in the language of 1 Cor 14:34-35 that have some linguistic ties to the language in the Pastorals. Of course, we also know that some ancient texts omit the verses altogether, others only have it in a gloss for which that is suspicious, and other texts have it misplaced in other areas in 1 Corinthians. Not to mention that it is a stand-alone phrase that contradicts what else was said in 1 Cor and breaks in the middle of a sentence. There are criteria for what qualifies as an interpolation and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 checks off every point of that criteria. I know of a couple of scholars that attribute it to the Pastoral material, they believe that those phrases were added after the pastorals to lend credit to the pastorals silencing of women speaking and teaching in the Church. Others hold the same to communion being formalized from a love meal to a ritual by the same person, although that is just speculation.

        Besides for Ehrman, there are many critical textual scholars that go back a couple hundred years. They are both of the conservative and liberal kind. Most of them hold to the same consensus in their conclusions on what constitutes authentic authorship and what does not, and what constitutes an interpolation. They are very good at pinning down and articulating ‘patristic’ language that comes from the second century and identifying it in our New Testament epistles. When reading the books of these scholars, you will begin to see patterns of consistent thought among them going really far back historically. They also rely heavily on the early Church Father’s quoting of verses from the epistles because their texts were older than the manuscripts we have. When there is a discrepancy between theirs and ours, that is a good indicator that their version of the verse is more accurate than ours as most of our manuscripts do not date back further than the third and fourth century.

        Liked by 1 person

        • newtonfinn says:

          ancadudar, just curious about whether you (or any other JWOB reader) have run across any scholar who suggests that the famous Love Chapter in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians was originally a stand-alone piece used in early church worship, only to be later incorporated by Paul in similar fashion to the hymn in Phil 2:5-11. Can’t recall whether I read this idea someplace or simply hatched it in my own twisted mind.

          Liked by 1 person

          • ancadudar says:

            “ancadudar, just curious about whether you (or any other JWOB reader) have run across any scholar who suggests that the famous Love Chapter in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians was originally a stand-alone piece used in early church worship, only to be later incorporated by Paul in similar fashion to the hymn in Phil 2:5-11. Can’t recall whether I read this idea someplace or simply hatched it in my own twisted mind.”

            I have read from a few online scholars that they believe it was an interpolation from a brother named “Silvanus.” I have no idea how in the world they came to the conclusion that Silvanus was its author! They believe it was a form of mini prophesy trying to get across the point that while spiritual gifts matter, love is the greatest force and expression of all! In either case, the piece is believed to be an interpolation by most scholars because it totally cuts apart the composition about spiritual gifts.

            In regards to your actual question about it being a standalone piece used in early church worship and later incorporated, I have not heard that yet, but give me a day or two and I will try to look it up from a forum of scholars I frequently view. I will let you know If I find anything related.

            Liked by 2 people

          • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

            Newton, I have not heard of the passage being a stand-alone composition either, but that does not mean there is no such claim.

            Liked by 1 person

          • ancadudar says:

            newtonfinn,
            I found something about 1 Corinthians 13 and it’s theological point. It will be a little long if I post it, would that we alright with you for me to post it? I would do it tomorrow if so. Otherwise, I can just post the links to different websites that explain it only it’s easy to get lost in there, LOL.

            Liked by 2 people

        • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

          Anca, if you have links to articles you can post them here or email them to me. I will also check my commentaries for the textual notes on these passages. Thanks!

          Liked by 2 people

      • ancadudar says:

        Tim,
        In regards to information from scholars about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 being suspected of being an interpolation from the author of the Pastorals, I have posted a link below. There are many resources from Scholars that attempt to prove why 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation on other grounds. However, I have chosen the link to the resource below because it shows a direct linguistic tie to the Pastorals.

        I wanted to point out that in regards to the Pastorals, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE. Tertullian was the next person to quote them as a ban against women ministering and baptizing in (160-240 CE.).

        I mention “Tertullian” because he is the first person to quote 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as an attempt to stop a woman from baptizing someone she had led to Christ. No other Church Father quoted these two verses before him! Tertullian is also the first Church Father to introduce misogyny against women in his writings. He said some nasty things and blamed all women for the sin of Eve and all other Church Father’s followed after him in their hatred of women.

        Before Tertullian, 1 Clement showed some signs of misogyny, but it was really subtle and not so direct, and 1 Clement expected husbands to also submit to their wives when he eluded to Ephesians 5:21 and marriage.

        1 Cor 14:34-35 has linguistic ties to 1 Tim 2:11 because they both use the same root word for ‘silence and submission’ of women to men. Submission is spelled in different ways in Greek, and the original Paul did not use the same root word for “submission” as found in the Pastorals and in 1 Cor 14:34-35 when Paul wrote about “submission” elsewhere.

        Here is the link addressing 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 linguistic ties to the pastorals as some scholars have identified it.

        https://www.umass.edu/wsp/alpha/forum/egl2018/a1-04-interpolation.pdf

        As for the household codes in Colossians being suspected of being an interpolation post Ephesians, I will email you that information and resources next week. If I posted it here, it would be way too long.

        Liked by 1 person

        • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

          Anca, thank you so much for sharing this! I did some additional checking around and discovered that this issue is discussed by other scholars as well. Don’t know how I missed that all these years. At this point, I hope to do an article on this passage soon.

          I look forward to your material on Ephesians.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. This conversation is really perking my interest. It makes sense, as the Pastorals are such a battleground. I need to read more about this.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Neecer says:

    I am really trying to follow all of what everyone is posting. All of this is very interesting to me, if a little over my head. Thanks! A lot of what I am learning is giving substance to my thoughts that some of what is written was contradictory, and well, didn’t make much sense to me.

    Liked by 2 people

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Neecer, would you like to share what you find confusing or contradictory? Of course, not everyone here agrees with what everyone else says.

      Like

    • Neecer says:

      For instance Jesus was all about loving your neighbor as yourself, but then women should be quiet. Things like that. And I can’t keep straight what the Epistles, Gospels and now Pastorals are. LOL! I should do more reading
      The gist of what I am getting is that the passages I considered contradictory weren’t written by whom it was “supposed” to have been written by. That makes me feel a lot better. For me it seems the Bible was “talking out both sides of its mouth” for lack of a better phrase.

      Liked by 2 people

      • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

        Neecer, I think I get what you are saying. Many people believe everything in the Bible was inspired or directed by God and, therefore, should all be consistent and agree with itself. However, I don’t think this is true. The Bible was written by many people over many centuries from different perspectives, cultures, and historical settings. There is NO WAY that is all consistent.

        I like what you say, “For me it seems the Bible was ‘talking out both sides of its mouth'” But the ‘Bible’ doesn’t say anything. Only the individual writers say stuff.

        Explanations:

        Gospels = Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
        Epistles = Letters written by Paul or in his name plus James, 1&2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John, and Jude.
        Pastoral Epistles = 1&2 Timothy and Titus because they were written to local church leaders about pastoral matters.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ancadudar says:

        Neecer,
        “The gist of what I am getting is that the passages I considered contradictory weren’t written by whom it was “supposed” to have been written by.”

        That is correct. A lot of Jewish scholars and Rabbis also not believe Deuteronomy in the Old Testament to be an original part of the Torah. They think it was written by King Joshua a long time afterward. It gets crazy to think that most of the abusive and harmful things in the New Testament do not have the backing of authentic authors, and one of the most harmful OT books was not supported by Moses or whoever wrote the rest of the Torah such as the ten commandments.

        This is not just wishful thinking on my end, all these books that support the awful treatment of others fall suspect of not being authentic not because of their theology alone, but their language structure and peculiar choice of words, later dating, etc. It just so happens that they all have the passages that support the mistreatment of others in common.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. newtonfinn says:

    Sorry, but I seem to have become obsessed with this Love Chapter stuff. Depending on what others find and report, I may be inclined to engage in a little speculation about this famous, hauntingly beautiful, deeply profound piece of Christian literature.

    Taken from “Christian Hymns of the First Three Centuries” by Ruth Ellis Messenger, Ph.D., THE HYMN SOCIETY OF AMERICA, New York City, 1942: “It is interesting to re-read the New Testament in the search for hymns, but one should remember that the field is controversial. Some commentators would suggest that the entire 13th chapter of I Corinthians is a hymn, beginning, ‘Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels.'”

    Liked by 2 people

  9. newtonfinn says:

    As we come to the close of “Blaming Paul for Things He Never Said,” perhaps we should also take a moment to consider blaming Paul for things he DID say…but that we don’t want to hear.

    https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/christs-rabble

    Liked by 2 people

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Do you mean about wealth?

      Like

      • newtonfinn says:

        If Hart is right in his interpretation (and he may well be), then I suspect, Tim, that Paul’s teachings that (1) wealth accumulation is inherently evil, (2) salvation comes from good works, not faith alone, and (3) the spirit and the flesh are sharply divided and deeply adversarial, would not be welcome news for a large number of contemporary Christians across the entire theological spectrum. Those on the conservative end, however, might like (3) somewhat better than (1) and (2).

        Liked by 2 people

        • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

          Newton, I agree that wealth (and greed) can be big issues for some believers today (as it has been in the past). I am not really clear on Hart’s suggestion.

          Liked by 1 person

          • newtonfinn says:

            Hart, as he makes even clearer in his introduction to his recent translation of the NT, is making the shocking claim that the entire Reformed Tradition–built upon the principle that salvation comes not from performing works of love and mercy (as Hart believes that both Jesus and Paul taught it did), but rather through some sort of personal relationship with Christ, often predicated upon holding certain beliefs about him–is flat out wrong. Hart also claims that the NT carries the unmistakable message that the very desire to acquire wealth beyond what is necessary to meet daily needs, regardless of how that excess wealth may be used (for good or ill), is sinful at its core. Again, if Hart is right, then our entire economic system, both the means and end of which are wealth accumulation, is diametrically opposed to Christianity. How many contemporary Christians would agree with Hart on these two points, which he asserts to be bedrock principles taught by Jesus and Paul? In making these claims and backing them up rather strongly, I think that Hart, like Kierkegaard before him, is primarily looking for honesty about these things, an acknowledgment that we Christians today would likely look with disfavor (and perhaps with disgust) not only upon the crazy, irresponsible “rabble” of the early church, but also upon its founder and its principal evangelist. For me, that is really tough stuff.

            Liked by 1 person

          • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

            Newton, thanks for the clarification. I agree with, “if Hart is right, then our entire economic system, both the means and end of which are wealth accumulation, is diametrically opposed to Christianity.” Our society, as I suppose it true among all societies, is consumed with wealth and driven by greed–including many, many Christians.

            However, I am not so certain of his assertion, “that the very desire to acquire wealth beyond what is necessary to meet daily needs, regardless of how that excess wealth may be used (for good or ill), is sinful at its core.” I am impressed by true philanthropists and think we need more of them, though I bet maintaining a balance in having that much money must be very difficult at times.

            Liked by 1 person

        • ancadudar says:

          newtonfinn,
          “(2) salvation comes from good works, not faith alone,”

          I recommended an author a while ago who more than likely accurately cracked Paul’s Paradox in Romans. He strives to show how Paul did not teach salvation by faith alone, rather the doing away with the jobs part of the law, but the ethics were required for salvation falling in line with Jesus teachings. I will post a page below with some info.

          Also, this evening I il try to post stuff on 1 Corinthians 13. I’ve been so busy I did not get to it like I planned.

          This might be an interesting read for you.
          http://michaelwoodcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Intro.pdf

          Liked by 1 person

        • ancadudar says:

          newtonfinn,

          “If Hart is right in his interpretation (and he may well be), then I suspect, Tim, that Paul’s teachings that (1) wealth accumulation is inherently evil… ”

          One thing that comes to my mind is the story of a man named ‘Zacchaeus’ who was a chief tax collector and was very wealthy. Tax collectors were hated by other Jews because they were known for exploiting them financially. Zacchaeus went to Jesus and said that right then and there he would give half of his possessions away to the poor and that if he had cheated anybody out of anything, that he would pay them back four times that amount. Jesus replied and told him that salvation had come to Zacchaeus house that day on account of it and called him ‘A Son of Abraham’. The story is found in Luke 19:1-10
          Right afterward, and connected to the previous story, Jesus tells a parable of giving ten servants money to multiply for His purposes in His absence, the story concludes with Jesus rewarding the two faithful servants who had multiplied his wealth by investing wisely and rebuked and disowned the servant who buried his and did not multiply the money. Contrast that with Luke 18:18-28 where Jesus told another man to give away all of his wealth to the poor and to follow Him. So wealth building itself might not be inherently evil, rather being greedy and not sharing any of it with the poor.

          “If Hart is right in his interpretation then I suspect that Paul’s teachings that (1) wealth accumulation is inherently evil, (2) salvation comes from good works, not faith alone, and (3) the spirit and the flesh are sharply divided and deeply adversarial, would not be welcome news for a large number of contemporary Christians across the entire theological spectrum.”

          “Those on the conservative end, however, might like (3) somewhat better than (1) and (2).”

          That is really funny about the conservatives liking 1 & 2 better than 3!

          Liked by 1 person

          • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

            Anca: “So wealth building itself might not be inherently evil, rather being greedy and not sharing any of it with the poor.”

            I think you might be right that the issue is greed rather than wealth itself. Who can help the poor more than the wealthy who are committed to doing so. But then, wealth is tricky in that greed can seep in and take over. One must be careful; remember the camel and the eye of the needle.

            Like

          • ancadudar says:

            Tim,
            “But then, wealth is tricky in that greed can seep in and take over. One must be careful; remember the camel and the eye of the needle.”

            That is very true, it can get tricky. The camel and eye of the needle is a good one to remember. Some rich people lose touch with reality and forgot where they started from. I’ve seen some really rich people show disdain for the poor thinking that it was all their fault for being poor, others I’ve seen remain humble and generous.

            Liked by 1 person

          • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

            Anca, “I’ve seen some really rich people show disdain for the poor thinking that it was all their fault for being poor, others I’ve seen remain humble and generous.”

            So have I.

            Liked by 1 person

  10. ancadudar says:

    newtonfinn,

    As I’m putting together this little expert for 1 Corinthians 13, I’m realizing the theological implications it has with Jesus, Paul, and Romans 2. Wow, I am so glad you have brought up 1 Corinthians 13! Whether you realize it or not, I think you were led by the Spirit in doing that. I never made the link before between Jesus teachings, Paul and the love passage. I will try my best to show it’s possible theological ties. I want to post an expert from the footnotes of the book I recommended. Martin Luther is one of the first persons to devalue the gospels as secondary to Paul. He had a major focus on faith, and the gospels requirement of good works seemed to bother him due to his theological views. Today in the Western Churches, if you push good works as a requirement for salvation, they label you a heretic, unfortunately, it is a true echo to the influence Martin has had on the Church as a whole. Jesus message was so simple, and by it, many may find and attain salvation whether or not they mentally know the name of Jesus, they know Him in their hearts shown by their character. There are so many non-Christians who by their works bear witness of the core message of the gospel.

    Romans 2:13, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s
    sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” Not the hearers but the
    doers of the law will be justified.

    Paul wrote many negative statements about law, and he also wrote
    many positive statements about law. These seemingly negative/positive
    flip-flops are “the basic problem in interpreting Paul’s Christian view
    of the Jewish law”:

    The basic problem in interpreting Paul’s Christian view of the Jewish law is
    that he seems to say both positive and negative things about it. For example,
    apparently negative statements include the following… ‘Christ redeemed us
    from the curse of the law’ (Gal 3:13). But on the other hand, consider the positive
    statements:… ‘through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law
    is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as
    yourself ”’ (Gal 5.13-14).4
    —An Introduction to the Study of Paul

    Footnote below:
    Martin Luther, the Father of the Protestant Reformation, promoted the idea that
    Paul’s epistles “far surpass” the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Many modern
    denominations have been established on this view.
    “[T]he epistles of St. Paul… far surpass the other three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and
    Luke.”—Martin Luther (Selected Writings of Martin Luther, Volume 1, by Martin
    Luther, edited by Theodore Gerhardt Tappert, p. 398, Fortress Press, Aug 1, 2007)
    2 Eisenbaum, Pamela (2009-11-19). Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original
    Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (p. 30). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition

    If one considers the Love Chapter and where it is placed in the Corinthian Letter, it has direct links to the words of Jesus’s parables. This I will post later this evening.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ross Jarvis says:

      Ancadudar, some very interesting points here.
      I have always been interested and confused by what happened at the time of Jesus regarding the heritage and place of the preceding “Judaism” into which he was born. I think the terms “Christian” and “Jew” are in fact very misleading and create an unfortunate dichotomy which should not exist, I also feel there are problems with our understanding of what is meant by “Torah” and “Law”. Whether fairly or not I think Luther’s influence in these matters has been incredibly harmful over history particularly in terms of anti-semitism. There will be those much better able to define “Torah” “Law” and what this meant and means in Jewish tradition as well as what Paul meant by these terms, but on the whole it is likely to be considerably different to what we westerners usually think of when we use the term “law”.
      Most people I know seem incredulous when I point out that Jesus was a Jew who did not come to create a new religion, but was a “Jew” who wanted “Jews” to live out their tradition/faith correctly. Paul’s “mission to the gentiles” was to bring the Jewish mission to a wider and inclusive group.
      “The Law”(Torah?) was not to be superceded but used correctly. The Jews were not a legalistic bunch blindly following a set of rules which may or may not have been impossible to achieve but in best practice a people following “God’s Law” in gratitude and love for who He was.
      Unfortunately, down through the centuries, what Paul said about the “Law” has been misunderstood, particularly by the gentile majority and used as a stick or worse to beat “Jews”. Maybe Paul’s own confusion whilst wrestling with his Pharasaic upbringing in light of Jesus life and death has contributed to that. Maybe a belief that Paul “inerrantly” understood and proclaimed God’s truth has also led to gross misunderstanding.
      As you and I have written, an over-emphasis on faith over works has brought in much of Evangelicalism a bizarre situation where what you think is more important than what you do, leading many to not live out their “faith” at all. “God will welcome me in heaven cos I can answer every question about what I believe correctly!!”
      I was watching a video of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks where he very poignantly discussed that the heart of Judaism was God’s love and forgiveness and that somehow this was “given up to the Christians” who declared that Love and Forgiveness came in with Jesus and that Judaism was a religion of rule-following and punishment. This is definitely not what Paul was saying in his letters but a misunderstanding taken up over the centuries with massively tragic consequences.
      Love and forgiveness is not something you do solely in the mind, it has to have an outworking in what you do toward and for others.

      Liked by 3 people

      • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

        Ross, “God will welcome me in heaven cos I can answer every question about what I believe correctly!!” I have never thought of it this way before, but I think this is precisely what some believers seem to believe.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Ross Jarvis says:

          Hi Tim. A bit of me is surprised that you haven’t thought of it before, but maybe it’s taken me a while to crystallise out what I’ve felt myself. In essence I feel this is actually the core of “Evangelical” belief as it stands today. I don’t think it’s necessarily what Evangelicalism represented in the 19th century and is not what every “evangelical” person feels today but I do think it’s a fair generalisation of current evangelical thought and can at least be traced back to Luther and his insistence in “salvation by faith alone” (which in reality was a counter-clause to specific works rather than “works” per se)
          This is the reason why I always say that I am not an Evangelical. This poses an enormous amount of issues with my Evangelical friends who feel that I cannot therefor be “saved” or at least stand dangerously close to not being saved But For me if “Evangelisism” requires a belief in an inerrant bible then I am not an “Evangelical”. Similarly I do not accept the powers and wonders of “charismaticism”. I don’t pick these choices out of ignorance but due to my immersion in charismaticism and Evangelicalism (not necessarily at the same time.)
          For me the title “progressive Evangelical” is actually a pointless and meaningless term and I won’t identify with it even though I have sympathy with those who do. I would prefer the term “liberal Christian” even though I don’t necessarily agree with every definition of what this means. “Follower of Jesus” is actually my preferred choice and I can’t see why any other term is used by anyone who does the same. Overall we need to reject the term “Evangelica”l, because whatever it may have meant has disappeared and whatever it means now is not of God.
          I can understand why progressives try to tie themselves to Evangelicalism as they feel that Evangelicals tried to tie themselves to God in a World which was abandoning God and becoming atheist, but this is a completely disengenuist path,
          The bible is not inerrant, the World is millions of years old. Those of us who realise this really need to separate from those who cannot accept reality. Waving your hands in the air and uttering gibberish, promising miracles which won’t happen have nothing to do with God, those of us who realise the truth need to separate ourselves from those who don’t.
          I don’t think this is easy to do and feel the great pain for those where it cannot be easy. I had a very hard time moving out from a pentecostal church but at least other churches were around, so feel greatly for those where geography or associations are difficult. But really we cannot condone evil by staying. Much of the “church” is “evil” and no matter how we equivocate can we change that. Staying can’t change it and I can’t say that leaving is anywhere easy for many.
          So, as I say, progressive Evangelical is a cop out, we can’t change Evangelical so we need to leave unless anyone can prove that Evangelical can change.
          In the last week I was further pushed by a story on the BBC, where the parents of a 14 year old girl and their vicar, declared their pain and change of heart as the poor girl committed suicide as she felt her sexuality (same sex attraction) would not be accepted in the church.
          That is what “Evangelicalism” leads to. It won’t lead to women covering their hair in church (even though that is explicitly commanded) because Evangelicalism doesn’t actually follow what it says, it actually follows its own tradition, not the bible, because the bible cannot actually be followed, which is why “evangelicalism” is in itself a lie.
          So, even though I ramble onward (red wine may have been taken!), we really do need to challenge and escape “Evangelicalism” and define ourselves differently if we truly follow Jesus. Evangelicals may have followed Jesus in the 1800s to early 1900s but they have surely lost their way since then. If John Macarthur and his 3000 signatories represent Evangelicalism now, then we have the choice to reject or change Evangelicalism, for the life of me I can’t see any act of Heaven or Hell changing it so we need to field an alternative, or more precisely America needs to field an alternative, because the rest of the World already has.

          Liked by 3 people

          • ancadudar says:

            I can really relate with so much of what you have said. Even I was thinking lately that most of the Bible are impossible to follow. It defaults on many of its own orthodoxies. This is why I focus so much now on the Ethics of the Torah/Law and what Jesus said to do, as well as what I believe Paul meant. There are “good works” as emphasized by Jesus and Paul and good character as attributed to the fruits of the Spirit.

            The evangelicals in America and most of the Church I find to be abusive. I think it’s a lost cause and so many people are leaving. John MacAurther is horrible! I think even he knows that the Church in the USA is losing ground fast.

            Liked by 2 people

          • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

            Ross, “Follower of Jesus” is my preferred choice as well. But I find I need to explain further what that means to me compared to others who ‘follow Jesus’ in ways that do not match mine.

            For a time I have described myself as a theologically progressive evangelical. And I did this in solidarity with other progressive evangelicals, including ministers and academics, who were at the cutting edge of the changing views among evangelicals, and also in identification with the evangelical movement away from fundamentalism in the 1940s and 1950s.

            However, though I still maintain solidarity with those progressive evangelicals and respect those mid-century leaders, I no longer call myself evangelical in light of the severe changes in the general direction of evangelicalism in the last few years. Evangelicalism has returned to a sort of fundamentalism that is worse than that which it reformed years ago.

            I wrote this article two years ago regarding my evangelical heritage. I probably would not write it today–just two years later. Evangelicalism has left me behind:
            https://jesuswithoutbaggage.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/why-i-am-progressive-but-still-evangelical-at-heart/

            Liked by 2 people

      • ancadudar says:

        You have written your post above so well! Its given me a lot to think about. Thank you.

        Liked by 1 person

    • newtonfinn says:

      Thank you, ancadudar, for continuing your valuable input on perhaps the most challenging theological issue we face today. While in seminary back in the early 70s, I took an independent study course in which I read almost all of Luther. I’ve forgotten much of the specifics, but I still recall my horror at Luther’s advice to the civic authorities when dealing with popular disturbances–that they should “hew, hack, and slay” the agitating peasants. That sort of finished me with Martin.

      For quite some time, I’ve believed that 1 Cor. 13 was borrowed, not written, by Paul, given its considerable difference in tone from the rest of the letter and other Pauline material. I now view the famous Love Chapter as likely being an early church hymn, putting into elegant and lyrical prose the sublime poetry of Jesus’ sayings and parables about the seamless love of God and neighbor. I look forward to your additional comments and will have more to say about this myself when time and energy permit.

      Liked by 1 person

      • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

        Newton: “Luther’s advice to the civic authorities when dealing with popular disturbances–that they should “hew, hack, and slay” the agitating peasants.” I don’t know that I have ever read Luther’s words, but I have long been aware of his encouraging the government to put down the peasants. I always thought it was a huge blight on the work he did.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. ancadudar says:

    Tim,
    “Evangelicalism has returned to a sort of fundamentalism that is worse than that which it reformed years ago.”

    Yes, it is worse. I don’t think there has been this much hate and fighting since Calvin.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Pingback: Bart Ehrman – Forged: A Book Review | Jesus Without Baggage

  13. Pingback: How Should We Regard New Testament Books of Uncertain Authorship? | Jesus Without Baggage

  14. Pingback: The Special Case of Women Keeping Silent in the Church in 1 Corinthians | Jesus Without Baggage

  15. Admins1977 says:

    I do aggree with you about the flow. Altho, there is many other scriptures that do talk about woman being submissive to man. It was commanded when Adam and Eve we’re drove out of the garden because she was the first to sin and cause Adam too also. I do not think it’s an issue in that aspect.
    All of this Woman Empowerment Movements are doing the same thing The Serpeant told Eve , “you will become as god’s”
    Yes sir, these women are trying to be queens and god’s themselves, yet they are merely humans. Pride ,Vanity, etc….

    1 Timothy 2:11-12 – Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.   (Read More…)

    Genesis 3:16 – Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    Ephesians 5:22 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

    Ephesians 5:22-33 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  (Read More…)

    Ephesians 5:21 – Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

    Titus 2:9 – [Exhort] servants to be obedient unto their own masters, [and] to please [them] well in all [things]; not answering again;

    Galatians 3:28 – There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    1 Corinthians 11:3 – But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

    Colossians 3:18 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

    Hebrews 13:17 – Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you

    This is one of those subjects that my comment will most likely make many upset I pray they do understand. I mean no offense twards anyone. We have been lied to. That simple. Unless you actually read a Bible , your information isn’t needed.

    My point here about the flow, have you checked it out using the Bible code to see what may be found.

    I have a wonderful friend and good teacher that has been doing research into it
    Him along with many others are talking about when you see verses that seem weird or out of place due to translation errors, use Strong’s ,the lexicons and Hebrew translations . Many times they run into codes within the scriptures. It clearly coded for reasons of man adding or taking away from the word. No matter how much a man messes with it. It’s still capable of studying , understanding, and still inspired.

    http://www.Truebiblecodes.com
    Some of these could be codes. Just had that thought actually.

    Liked by 2 people

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Admin, thank you for your response. However, you have compiled a number of proof-texts with little explanation or analysis. And I already know them all. The questions are: Who wrote these passages and what did they mean? What was the context? Do they individually represent propositional truth and do they apply to everyone everywhere? Should readers interpret them through some sort of assumption of inerrancy?

      I am quite familiar with Christian patriarchy and its claims, and I think it is a terribly harmful doctrine. It also seems inconsistent with Paul’s practice.

      Like

      • Admins1977 says:

        I’m very sorry to have bothered you, it was nothing more than a thought.
        I did read your questions as well. I can’t answer them bcuz I haven’t studied enough on the subject.
        Altho, since you rammed me a new one . I was also at least trying to be Christian like and not judge your beliefs at all nor speak about what I have not studied enough on then be a false prophet or teacher.
        I know man has tampered with the Bible but why stay stuck on worrying about if Paul said this or really said that? A few verses that has already been understood and quoted other places or is totally backed up by other verses getting stuck in the wrong place or whatever sure seems to me like a distraction from the most important part of it all.
        But we are all different and I do pray you find the answers your looking for. Peace be with you.
        Since you already know them all you I have no doubt the holy spirit will lead you to those answers.
        I won’t be making any more comments either I hope you have a nice day Sir.

        Liked by 1 person

        • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

          Admin, you were no bother. And I thought you were Christian-like in your response and were not judging my beliefs. I am sorry to have upset you; that was not my intention. You are certainly welcome to comment here, and I value your contribution.

          I still think the important questions are: Who wrote these passages and what did they mean? What was the context? Do they individually represent propositional truth and do they apply to everyone everywhere? Should readers interpret them through some sort of assumption of inerrancy?

          If we simply understand passages from the Bible based on what we have been taught and teachers and preachers we have heard, I think we are missing a valuable aspect of Bible reading and growth.

          I hope you have a good day, and I am sorry to have disturbed it.

          Like

  16. Pingback: LIBERATION THEOLOGY: a Biblical Response to a Hostile Environment – INTROVERTED EVANGELIST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.