Did Paul teach anything that contradicts Yahushua?
What was necessarily intentional even if he did, but consider some verses if orange is quoting versions of stuff attributed to Paul and purple is quoting versions of stuff attributed to Yahushua and others?
1) Who should we consider our father and who should we follow?
"4:14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in the Messiah, yet have ye not many fathers: for in the Messiah Yahushua I have begotten you through the evangel.
4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me."
"23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
"5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."
"17:5 Thus saith YHWH; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from YHWH.
17:6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited.
17:7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in YHWH, and whose hope YHWH is.
17:8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit."
2) Is the law dead?
"7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."
"5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
"7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, My Master*, My Master, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
7:22 Many will say to me in that day, My master, my master, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
What does iniquity really mean if you study Matthew 7:23 with a Strong's Concordance?
http://classic.studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=458
3) Should we refuse to take His yoke upon us?
"5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith the Messiah hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."
"11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
4) Is the Sabbath important?
"14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
"4:9 But now, after that ye have known YHWH, or rather are known of YHWH, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."
"31:12 And YHWH spake unto Moses, saying,
31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am YHWH that doth sanctify you.
31:14 Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is set-apart unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, set-apart to YHWH: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant."
5) Is physical circumcision important?
"5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, the Messiah shall profit you nothing."
"17:9 And Elohim said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."
6) Is it okay to be misleading about where you stand and sow discord among brethren?
"9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to YHWH, but under the law to the Messiah,) that I might gain them that are without law."
"5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, the Messiah shall profit you nothing."
"16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
16:2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek."
"6:16 These six things doth YHWH hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
7) Where does Paul stand on divisions among Christians?
"1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Master Yahushua the Messiah, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."
"15:36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of YHWH, and see how they do.
15:37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
15:38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
15:39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
15:40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the favour of YHWH."
8) Is faith without works dead?
"2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Yahushua the Messiah, even we have believed in Yahushua the Messiah, that we might be justified by the faith of the Messiah, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
"2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?"
"2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
2:19 Thou believest that there is one Elohim; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"
9) Should people be submissive towards earthly governments?
"13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of YHWH: the powers that be are ordained of YHWH.
13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of YHWH: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
13:4 For he is the minister of YHWH to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of YHWH, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake."
"4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it."
"2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against YHWH, and against his anointed, saying,
2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: YHWH shall have them in derision."
"24:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that YHWH shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth."
10) Should women keep silent and not teach?
"2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
"14:34 Let your women keep silence in the assemblies: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the assembly."
"31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies."
"31:26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness."
"4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
4:5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment."
"22:14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.
22:15 And she said unto them, Thus saith YHWH Elohim of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me,
22:16 Thus saith YHWH, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read:
22:17 Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other elohim, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched."
Who am I to judge. Paul might have been well intentioned and helped spread knowledge of Yahushua to people, but can someone help me mesh stuff if it can be meshed? Are there times when he was wrong in what he said and if so, about what? What should we strictly honor, what should be casually honor and what should we reject? How about we study stuff together and try to figure stuff out?
"17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
Views: 568
Replies to This Discussion
-
FounderPermalink Reply by Cyprium on -
1. Messiah warned of spiritual leaders who stand in the place of YHWH. The Catholic system of priesthood is a prime example of this.
Paul warned of teachers usurping the original gospel message and spreading a new gospel. People today might say "he was like a father to me" of an elder or mentor, and Paul's words do not read much different than this concept.
The word Paul used for "follower", meaning "imitator" was used almost exclusively by him in the New Testament. If it were worded "follow the message of the Gospel I introduced you to, not a new gospel which some other might preach to you" how might you see this differently?
2. Is the law dead? That's the wrong question. Is the law fulfilled? That is a relevant one. Paul never called the law dead, he called US dead in the letter of the law.
Did Messiah fulfill the law? If He did, it is fulfilled. If He did not, then He has failed because He can only serve as atonement for the transgressions of others if He has perfectly executed the entire law which sinner have failed to keep since the beginning. In His own words, He came to Fulfill the law.
3. The yoke of Messiah is light and easy, the yoke of the law could never be said to be light or easy.
4. "And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:" - Mark 2: 25-27
5. Imagine being introduced to the gospel as an ignorant heathen, having known nothing of Jewish law and trying to understand the message of salvation followed by hundreds of ordinances, including one that requires a surgical alteration of your body. To say that these things are a huge detriment and a stumbling block to understanding Yahushua's forgiveness is an understatement. It does, in effect, make the message of salvation muddled and incomprehensible. What are these who haven't known such laws to think of their salvation? That it comes by way of Yahushua or that it comes by way of physical alterations and ordinances? Did Yahushua ever tell anyone to go get circumcised?
6. In the same vein, Paul's logic makes perfect sense here and, in fact, there is no other effective way to witness. You can not introduce an epic volume of laws to a heathen culture, completely unfamiliar with these things and then make them understand salvation is by Yahushua alone. That is, to this day, the roadblock that keeps many unbelievers where they are. If the listener can not relate to a single thing you say, there is no real attempt to make them understand the Gospel.
7. If there is one Christian on Earth, now or ever, who has not ever had a disagreement with a brother in Yahushua, that would be very surprising indeed. Who was right in this disagreement? Do we know?
8. Works is the evidence of faith. Works do not save, but they prove the existence of real faith in an outward way. That is made evident in the analogy of a tree that bears good fruit. The tree, having in itself already, either good or bad is not obvious until it bears fruit. Then it is known if the tree is a good or a bad tree by what it produces. The fruit did not define the tree's genetics...it evidenced them. If works save, then the work must be perfect or it falls short of the basic requirement. If perfect works is possible, then Yahushua's sacrifice was purposeless.
9. There is zero mention of earthly government in the verses given there that are often pointed to for such uses. None at all.
10. A teacher is a spiritual target. The world of spiritual warfare being no less a real battle and a real danger than physical war. The only time a woman is put on the front lines of a battle is when there is no worthy man capable of standing in defense of the people. When that happens, it is a shame to men, not to women.
-
Permalink Reply by Jacob on
-
1. A Catholic might argue that they simply call church leaders father in a like a father respect way. Who should get that much respect if He said something like we should not call someone like Paul our father? Why not be a follower of Yahushua directly and have roots planted by water?
2. How much sense would it really make for Yahushua to say something like For verily I say Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled if he meant to refer to something that was to take place a few months later or whenever He was crucified? Why not just say the law is fulfilled and is no longer important in a few months without referring to the heaven and the earth passing?
If Zechariah suggests Sukkot will be very important in the future to a point of even foreign nations being severely punished for not celebrating it, does the law just suddenly become not imporant for a couple thousand years and then become important again later? Zechariah 4:16-19.
If torah is fulfilled and no longer required to be honored what is not subjective about what we actually do choose to honor? Is it ok to hold off tithing and yet not ok to commit bestiality? Is it ok to wear shaatnez and yet not ok to do tarot readings? Is it ok to eat any fat we want and yet not ok covet your neighbor's property? What does Matthew 7:23 mean to suggest if not that He will reject some people who claim to be Christians as a result of a condition of being without law?
3. What do you find extremely burdening about torah if you yourself try to honor a majority of it? What do I try to honor that you don't? Avoiding eating one or more thing and avoiding wearing shaatnez and a tassles thing and one or more thing concerned with the dead and saying false deity names and a fire on sabbath thing and feast stuff?
4. Even if Sabbath was made for man and we can do stuff like lift an animal out of a pit on it, who should be accused of turning to weak and beggerly elements for trying to honor something like Sabbath or Sukkot?
5. Not sure what He wants to be required when it comes to circumcision of people who are not descendants of Abraham or in general, but what did YHWH say regarding descendants of Abraham at least and should you ever tell people that Yahushua will profit them nothing because they decided to get themselves circumcised?
6. Why circumcise Timothy if you tell other people that them being circumcised will lead to Yahushua profiting them nothing? It might make sense to be more concerned with one subject witnessing to one group of people and another subject witnessing to another group of people, but when should we lie about what we actually believe in order to gain converts?
Are you of the opinion that Acts 21:21 refers to what Paul actually did or that it refers to untruthful hearsay if one or the other? If it refers to what he actually did why would he go on to do purifying and offering stuff in response to stuff said? If it does not refer to what he actually did then did he stand for Jews honoring
torah even after the crucifixion?7. Why tell a group of Christians to speak the same thing and have no divisions among them and to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment if it's unrealistic and you don't live by it yourself?
8. We might see real similar when it comes to #8 stuff. When will we ever save ourselves with works and when will we ever be perfect, but how about we strive to be perfect if Yahushua told us to be whether it is unobtainable or not? Matthew 5:48.
9. Who do you think Paul was referring to if it was written to people in the city of Caesar and who was he meaning for people of that city to be subject to? Do you stand by rulers only being a terror to evil works and never being a terror to good works?
10. Should a woman wait to get home from a Christian assembly before even asking a question? What would someone like Deborah or Huldah think of that? Why not let a woman speak and even teach if a virtuous woman opens her mouth with wisdom and in her tongue is the law of kindness?
-
-
How about no one including myself overlook stuff like Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9 and John 3:16 and what Yahushua came to do. There might be no one more about forgiveness and mercy than the Creator regardless of what the Father wants us to personally do and not do. And who knows exactly what He wants each race of human or type of being to personally do in their lives whether torah as a whole became less important while Yahushua was being crucified or not? Perhaps a main witnessing approach that is focused on telling strangers they have several commandments they should honor is never a good idea and there's even one or more commandment that would be hard to honor without a dwelling place of Him or high priest or Levite on earth, but what is the ideal approach in attempting to live in a way that is perfect to the Him? James might have had a right idea and made an important and often overlooked point in Acts 15:21.
"15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to YHWH:
15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day."
-
AdminPermalink Reply by Prodigal Son on -
A catholic priest is considered to have the ability to pronounce forgiveness of sins, prescribes penance and is regarded as a middle man between YHWH and people. Should we think that Paul "forgave" sin or prescribed penance or did not teach that Yahushua was the only bridge between man and the Father?
----
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." - Mat 5:18
By what has been said here, we have only certain options in how to understand this.
1. The law will not be fulfilled until heaven and earth "pass away", and therefor has still not been fulfilled, even by Yahushua Himself.
2. The law had to be fulfilled in order for us to rely on Yahushua's substitutionary righteousness for our forgiveness.
There are two instances of the word "till" there. Will the law remain unchanged "till" heaven and earth pass away, or will the law remain unchanged "till" it is fulfilled?
If we choose the first option, who or what will fulfill it? The heaven and the earth passing away would not serve to fulfill the law. The only thing we could conclude is that the destruction of the old heaven and earth ends the law, however, that does not equal fulfillment, it equals destruction. If Yahushua did not come to destroy the law, why are we expecting a future event to do so?
The most pivotal question of all, though, is did Yahushua fulfill the law or not? If not, what hope do we have in His redemptive work, since its effectiveness always rested solely on His ability to perfectly observe the law in our place? If that question remains unanswered, no others have any meaning at all.
----
I am not sure i can take a suggestion that the law has never burdened you as completely honest. Most would find it a burden if their winter fire went out on the Sabbath and they could not light it again. Perhaps even fatal.
How many things that are innately meaningless to most people do we pressure others to do while truly meaningful things are left undone and ignored?
----
" who should be accused of turning to weak and beggerly elements for trying to honor something like Sabbath or Sukkot?"
When did Paul even address Sabbath or Sukot?
----
Should we require a DNA test before anyone accepts Yahushua so we know if they should be circumcised or not?
--------
Wasn't Timothy a Jew who understood the reason and the covenant behind circumcision? It is appropriate to say that Messiah profits you nothing if works is what you rely on to save you. Paul didn't lie. Some are aware and accountable and some are not.
---------
Paul was accused by some of preaching that Jews should forsake the law. Those speaking with him were clearly not of the mind that he did so. Paul might have proved his integrity of not having done what was accused by participating in the purification.
------
Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. - Romans 12:18
If anyone condemns Paul for a divisive moment with another believer, that is, necessarily, hypocrisy. Maybe no more needs to be said. No one ever needed Paul to preach in order to know that we should strive for peace between believers.
----------------
Paul spoke of a spiritual hierarchy of powers. That is an applicable message in all locations. There might be an article on this site, actually, that answers this one fully.
"Do you stand by rulers only being a terror to evil works and never being a terror to good works?"
That might be true whether one is speaking of a good or an evil power if one believes that all things work together for the good of those who love Him.
-------------
What is wrong with not questioning and discussing while someone is preaching, but waiting until later? The interaction between sexes was much different in general, at the time, as well. It would not be as socially acceptable then to stand up, as a married woman, and ask males that weren't her husband, or for a male that wasn't her husband to answer her questions when that is her husband's place.
Israel might not have been full of strong or wise men at the time of Deborah. She held that position when there was no man worthy of it and perhaps it was quite a stressful job for her. Ever wonder if Deborah might have been happier being a mother and a wife and not dealing with the problems of a whole nation?
Why do people now tend to feel it is an asset to women to put them in difficult or dangerous positions? The same idea can be seen in the modern workforce. Toiling all of one's life to have what one needs to survive was a curse and it was a curse put on men. Women were not cursed with this, so why do we see it as a good thing when men pass that off on them? If that is a good thing, perhaps men should start giving birth so they equally know the pain of carrying someone else's burden.
-
-
1. Whether or not an average Catholic priest errs more than Paul might be a moot point. Didn't Yahushua suggest we not call him something like father?
2. Who says the law had to be fulfilled in order for us to rely on a substitutionary righteousness for our forgiveness? Will Sukot not be required to be honored in future time? What if He intends to create a new heaven and a new earth where there is no need for a guideline for correct behavior?
3. Yahushua might have addressed something like pulling someone out of a hole or lighting a fire to stay alive on the Sabbath even before crucifixion. When has it ever been wrong to do good on the Sabbath?
4. Does Paul not criticise people for observing days in general in Galatians 4:10? Do you honestly believe he is not referring to Sabbath or Sukot or a feast day? See 4:21 if you think he is referring to a pagan day and not something like Sabbath or Sukot?
5. Perhaps ignorance is bliss in a way and I'm not sure what He will consider us guilty for, but why not be circumcised and circumcise your son even if you are not sure if you are a descendant of Abraham? Does Genesis 17:12-14 not refer to more than Abraham's offspring? Why not try to embrace torah as a whole even as a Gentile or even as a non human if you consider this?"56:1 Thus saith YHWH, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
56:2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.
56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to YHWH, speak, saying, YHWH hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
56:4 For thus saith YHWH unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
56:5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to YHWH, to serve him, and to love the name of YHWH, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
56:7 Even them will I bring to my set-apart mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
56:8 The Master YHWH which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him."
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/isa56.htm
6. Not sure what Timothy knew. Are you of an opinion that Timothy was rightfully circumcised?
7. Why would Paul try to prove loyalty to obeying law to James and elders of Jerusalem with purification stuff if law was not a good thing to try to obey after crucifixion of Yahushua? Do you at least believe that Acts 21:18-22 suggests that James and elders of Jerusalem thought torah was a good thing for Jews to honor sometime after crucifixion of Him?
8. What is really wrong with having some division and hashing stuff out with fellow Christians about what is true and what isn't if neither knows exactly what is true? Why suggest to people that it's wrong?
9. Do you honestly think Paul is not referring to a government of Caesar if he was writing to the city of Caesar? It might be more than a stretch to figure Paul was writing to human beings in chapter 13 about obeying angelic powers and rulers and paying angels tribute money."13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
10. If you think women should only be able to teach if there is not a man for a job then how would you explain it if Miriam was a prophetess living when Moses was? And when does 1 Timothy 2 even refer to a church or assembly? Do you stand by women being in complete silence if there are males speaking of religious topics in general?
-
-
Why would 7:15 follow 7:13-14 if there is not some significance?
"7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
-
Permalink Reply by words left unspoken on
-
Jesus' interactions with women are an important element in the theological debate about Christianity and women. Women are prominent in the story of Jesus. He was born of a woman, had numerous interactions with women, and was seen first by women after his resurrection. He commissioned the women to go and tell his disciples that he is risen, which is the essential message of Christianity.
The most striking thing about the role of women in the life and teaching of Jesus is the simple fact that they are there. Although the gospel texts contain no special sayings repudiating the view of the day about women, their uniform testimony to the presence of women among the followers of Jesus and to his serious teaching of them constitutes a break with tradition which has been described as being ‘without precedent in [then] contemporary Judaism.[1]
Jesus gave no explicit teaching on the role of women in the church. In fact, he left no teaching at all concerning women as a class of people…. He treated every woman he met as a person in her own right.[2]
A plain reading of Jesus' teaching recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels indicates that Jesus forbids any hierarchy in Christian relationships, presumably including both women and men: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you."[Mt 20:25–26a] [Mk 10:42] [Lk 22:25] While "lord it over" implies abusive leadership, his words "exercise authority" have no connotation of abuse of authority.[3]
The Gospels describe two miracles of Jesus raising persons from the dead.[4] In both incidents the dead are restored to women—to the unnamed widow from Nain her only son[Lk. 7:11–17] and to Mary and Martha their brother Lazarus.[Jn. 11:1–44]
High number of references to women
According to New Testament scholar Dr. Frank Stagg and classicist Evelyn Stagg,[4] the synoptic Gospels of the canonical New Testament[5] contain a relatively high number of references to women. Evangelical Bible scholar Gilbert Bilezikian agrees, especially by comparison with literary works of the same epoch.[6]:p.82 Neither the Staggs nor Bilezikian find any recorded instance where Jesus disgraces, belittles, reproaches, or stereotypes a woman. These writers claim that examples of the manner of Jesus are instructive for inferring his attitudes toward women and show repeatedly how he liberated and affirmed women.[4] Starr writes that of all founders of religions and religious sects, Jesus stands alone as the one who did not discriminate in some way against women. By word or deed he never encouraged the disparagement of a woman.[7] Karen King concludes, based on the account of Jesus' interaction with a Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7:24-30 and Matthew 15:21-28, that "an unnamed Gentile woman taught Jesus that the ministry of God is not limited to particular groups and persons, but belongs to all who have faith."[8]
Female disciples
The gospels of the New Testament, written toward the last quarter of the first century AD, often mention Jesus speaking to women publicly and openly against the social norms of the time.[9] From the beginning, Jewish women disciples, including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna, had accompanied Jesus during his ministry and supported him out of their private means.[Lk. 8:1-3] [10] Kenneth E. Bailey[11] spent 40 years as a Presbyterian professor of New Testament in Egypt, Lebanon, Jerusalem and Cyprus. He writes about Christianity from a Middle Eastern cultural view. He finds evidence in several New Testament passages that Jesus had women disciples. He first cites the reported occasion when Jesus’ family appeared and asked to speak with him. Jesus replied:
"Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" And stretching out his hand towards his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother."
Bailey argues that according to Middle Eastern customs, Jesus could not properly have gestured to a crowd of men and said, "Here are my brother, and sister, and mother." He could only have said that to a crowd of both men and women. Therefore, the disciples standing before him were composed of men and women
The woman who touched Jesus' garment
Jesus practiced the ministry of touch, sometimes touching the "untouchables" and letting them touch him. Among the things considered defiling (disqualifying one for the rituals of religion) was an issue of blood, especially menstruation or hemorrhage. One such woman had been plagued with a flow of blood for 12 years, no one having been able to heal her. She found the faith in a crowd to force her way up to Jesus, approaching him from behind so as to remain inconspicuous, and simply touching his garment.[Mk. 5:27] When she did, two things happened: the flows of blood stopped and she was discovered.[6]:p.83
Jesus turned and asked who touched him. The disciples tried to brush aside the question, protesting that in such a crowd no individual could be singled out. Jesus pressed his inquiry and the woman identified herself and declared to the crowd the blessing that had come to her. Jesus treated her as having worth, not rebuking her for what the cultic code of holiness would have considered as a defiling of him. Rather, he relieved her of any sense of guilt for her seemingly rash act, lifted her up and called her "Daughter." He told her that her faith saved her, gave her his love, and sent her away whole.[Mk. 5:34]
Fontaine writes, "The 'chutzpah' shown by the woman who bled for 12 years as she wrests her salvation from the healer's cloak is as much a measure of her desperation as it is a testimony to her faith."[12]:p.291 Fontaine comments that "the Bible views women as a group of people who are fulfilled, legitimated, given full membership into their community, and cared for in old age by their children," and that barren women risked ostracism from their communities. She notes that when disabled people are healed, the act "emphasizes primarily the remarkable compassion of the one doing the good deed, not the deserving nature or dignity of the recipient."[12]:p.290
-
-
Ecclesiastical directives
Silence in church
The letters of Paul, dated to the middle of the first century AD, were written to specific communities in response to particular questions or problems. Paul was in Ephesus around the year 56 when he received disquieting news regarding the church at Corinth. Factionalism had developed. At the fellowship meal some got drunk while others were left hungry. There seemed to be a preference for ecstatic prayer at the expense of works of charity, with a number of members all "speaking in tongues" at the same time. It was apparently reported to him that women were appearing at the assembly without the head covering customary in contemporary Greek society, and may have been arguing over their right to address the assembly. The fledgling community appeared to be in disorder.[20]
1 Corinthians 14:33-35 states: "As in all the churches of the holy one, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate even as the law says. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church."
Barbara Leonhard and others[21] find this contradicts a statement in 1 Corinthians 11:5 that seems to presuppose that women are, in fact, praying and prophesying in the assembly of believers, (but prefers they do it with the appropriate head covering). Leonhard notes that it is inconsistent with Paul's dealings with his co-workers in that women such as Prisca, Phoebe and Junia could not have functioned as Church leaders and apostles if they were not allowed to speak in public.[5] She and other such as Jerome Murphy-O'Connor believe this to be a "post-Pauline interpolations".
According to Murphy-O'Connor, in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary:
1 Corinthians 14:34–35 are not a Corinthian slogan, as some have argued…, but a post-Pauline interpolation…. Not only is the appeal to the law (possibly Genesis 3:16) un-Pauline, but the verses contradict 1 Corinthians 11:5. The injunctions reflect the misogyny of 1 Timothy 2:11–14 and probably stem from the same circle. Some mss. place these verses after 40.
-
-
The woman at the well in Samaria
John 4:1–42
The in-depth account about Jesus and the Samaritan Woman at the Well is highly significant for understanding Jesus in several relationships: Samaritans, women, and sinners. By talking openly with this woman, Jesus crossed a number of barriers which normally would have separated a Jewish teacher from such a person as this woman of Samaria. Jesus did three things that were highly unconventional and astonishing for his cultural-religious situation:
He as a man discussed theology openly with a woman.
He as a Jew asked to drink from the ritually unclean bucket of a Samaritan.
He did not avoid her, even though he knew her marital record of having had five former husbands and now living with a man who was not her husband.The disciples showed their astonishment upon their return to the well: "They were marveling that he was talking with a woman.[Jn. 4:27] A man in the Jewish world did not normally talk with a woman in public, not even with his own wife. For a rabbi to discuss theology with a woman was even more unconventional. Jesus did not defer to a woman simply because she was a woman. He did not hesitate to ask of the woman that she let him drink from her vessel, but he also did not hesitate to offer her a drink of another kind from a Jewish "bucket" as he said to her, "Salvation is of the Jews."[Jn. 4:22] Salvation was coming to the Samaritan woman from the Jews, and culturally there was great enmity between the Jews and the Samaritans (considered a half-breed race by the Jews).[20] Although she was a Samaritan, she needed to be able to drink from a Jewish "vessel" (of salvation) and Jesus no more sanctioned Samaritan prejudice against Jew than Jewish prejudice against Samaritan.
This is an event without precedent: that a woman, and what is more a “sinful woman,” becomes a “disciple” of Christ. Indeed, once taught, she proclaims Christ to the inhabitants of Samaria so that they too receive him with faith. This is an unprecedented event, if one remembers the usual way women were treated by those who were teachers in Israel; whereas in Jesus of Nazareth’s way of acting such an event becomes normal.
— John Paul II[21]
The key to Jesus' stance is found in his perceiving persons as persons. He saw the stranger at the well as someone who first and foremost was a person—not primarily a Samaritan, a woman, or a sinner. This evangelized woman became an evangelist. She introduced her community to "a man" whom they came to acclaim as "the Savior of the world."[Jn. 4:42] Jesus liberated this woman and awakened her to a new life in which not only did she receive but also gave. The Bible says she brought "many Samaritans" to faith in Christ.[v.39] If the men in John 1 were the first "soul winners," this woman was the first "evangelist" in John's gospel.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus'_interactions_with_women
-
AdminPermalink Reply by Sinclair on -
Though I am sure my non-expert, unscholarly opinion holds no weight for anyone, I have got one, which is supported only in my real life experience, and that is all that really counts for me.
Having been introduced, as I was, to the idea of a faith in the deity we believe in and the Saviour we're told to trust in, the concept was fairly uninteresting to me at first. I've been hearing about gods ad naseum for long enough. Never had met one I liked. Doubly unimpressed with what they were interested in as far as human behaviour or attributes were concerned. I am unapologetically, an anarchist and wanted nothing to do with appeasing deities any more than I felt compelled to appease more earthly rulers.
There was only one bit that made me listen. Just one nugget of information that didn't get filtered out in the hearing. He hadn't asked me for anything. He was offering something.
I don't kid myself, as much of the world might, that I am a decent enough person to gain the favour of any benevolent god. I honestly wasn't concerned with where that placed me, either. Not to say that I don't have a deep, seething hatred for everything evil that oppresses humanity, and most importantly, those I am personally concerned with, but righteous perfection? Not even an afterthought.
But here, after all, was this deity saying He was aware of all that, but had done something beneficial for me anyway. He hated what I already hated and He had concern for what I already cared about and He was very down to the facts about it. This is quite novel, I thought.
Rituals I know. Odd motions to go through, things to say, stuff to burn, people to stone for stepping out of bounds and whatever. All very familiar territory. Just one wrong move and yes, kids, we're F'ed forever. Well then forever f'ed it is, because I am not so good as all that. you can take that and apply it to one of many deities who didn't create anything, or supposedly you can apply it to the One who did, whom, unlike the others, logically might deserve it, but that makes me no closer to doing it or any nearer to understanding why He wants any of it in the first place.
So here are all the smart heads representing two possible interpretations of this one deity. If anyone wanted to confuse people who are teetering on the edge of understanding, congratulations. You all did a fantastic job. I don't even know why Paul is being debated here. Who cares? What relevance does it have? I have no dogs in the fight you're in, but I think the legalism versus grace debate would still exist if Paul never had.
"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." - John 1:17
See there, Paul didn't invent it. Shall we debate John now?
I don't know why it matters if Paul was messed up. Here we have people sure of their convictions and by goodness, some of You are messed up or there would be no debate, and the other half is messed up for having a part to play in a sniping bickerfest in the first place. What a waste of time. Obviously Christians can be as petty as anyone.
I have no idea, at this moment, if legalism or grace wins the fight for the heart of God. I do know that I will never, ever have any idea what He's on about needing us to do some of the things (or not do some of the things) He apparently does if we're obligated to that, and I'm equally sure I am entirely incapable of doing it all. If that's His nature, so be it, I guess. I can't define the Creator and what He wants, but the novelty of a Saviour that wants to save "a wretch like me" has lost its novelty, if that is the case.
- BOB (lest anyone be confused)
-
AdminPermalink Reply by Bean on -
For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. (Hos 6:6)
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Mat 9:13)
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. (Mat 12:7)
Sinclair said:
Though I am sure my non-expert, unscholarly opinion holds no weight for anyone, I have got one, which is supported only in my real life experience, and that is all that really counts for me.
Having been introduced, as I was, to the idea of a faith in the deity we believe in and the Saviour we're told to trust in, the concept was fairly uninteresting to me at first. I've been hearing about gods ad naseum for long enough. Never had met one I liked. Doubly unimpressed with what they were interested in as far as human behaviour or attributes were concerned. I am unapologetically, an anarchist and wanted nothing to do with appeasing deities any more than I felt compelled to appease more earthly rulers.
There was only one bit that made me listen. Just one nugget of information that didn't get filtered out in the hearing. He hadn't asked me for anything. He was offering something.
I don't kid myself, as much of the world might, that I am a decent enough person to gain the favour of any benevolent god. I honestly wasn't concerned with where that placed me, either. Not to say that I don't have a deep, seething hatred for everything evil that oppresses humanity, and most importantly, those I am personally concerned with, but righteous perfection? Not even an afterthought.
But here, after all, was this deity saying He was aware of all that, but had done something beneficial for me anyway. He hated what I already hated and He had concern for what I already cared about and He was very down to the facts about it. This is quite novel, I thought.
Rituals I know. Odd motions to go through, things to say, stuff to burn, people to stone for stepping out of bounds and whatever. All very familiar territory. Just one wrong move and yes, kids, we're F'ed forever. Well then forever f'ed it is, because I am not so good as all that. you can take that and apply it to one of many deities who didn't create anything, or supposedly you can apply it to the One who did, whom, unlike the others, logically might deserve it, but that makes me no closer to doing it or any nearer to understanding why He wants any of it in the first place.
So here are all the smart heads representing two possible interpretations of this one deity. If anyone wanted to confuse people who are teetering on the edge of understanding, congratulations. You all did a fantastic job. I don't even know why Paul is being debated here. Who cares? What relevance does it have? I have no dogs in the fight you're in, but I think the legalism versus grace debate would still exist if Paul never had.
"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." - John 1:17
See there, Paul didn't invent it. Shall we debate John now?
I don't know why it matters if Paul was messed up. Here we have people sure of their convictions and by goodness, some of You are messed up or there would be no debate, and the other half is messed up for having a part to play in a sniping bickerfest in the first place. What a waste of time. Obviously Christians can be as petty as anyone.
I have no idea, at this moment, if legalism or grace wins the fight for the heart of God. I do know that I will never, ever have any idea what He's on about needing us to do some of the things (or not do some of the things) He apparently does if we're obligated to that, and I'm equally sure I am entirely incapable of doing it all. If that's His nature, so be it, I guess. I can't define the Creator and what He wants, but the novelty of a Saviour that wants to save "a wretch like me" has lost its novelty, if that is the case.
- BOB (lest anyone be confused)
© 2024 Created by Cyprium.
Powered by
