An Insult to the Ladies

B

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Messages
999
Reaction score
2
Points
0
AN INSULT TO THE LADIES

When Paul was in Antioch, at the invitation of Barnabas, both of them took upon themselves to preach against women by advising single men to remain as they were, free of women. (I Cor. 7:8)

Now, imagine this gospel being preached by two bachelors in a Jewish synagogue of all places! How could the Jews, who are so attached to the Law, fufill the very first of the Divine commandments to grow and multiply without women? (Gen. 1:28)

Some of the Jews had an idea: To flare up the women, so that they should take a more aggressive attitude against such an arrogant insult to the ladies. In fact, they got together and ganged up against Paul and Banabas; so much so, as to expell them out of the town. (Acts 13:50)

Paul and Barnabas took advantage of that female hostility, shook the dust off their feet in protest and went to the synagogue of Inconium. (Acts 13:51; 14:1) Gosh! From synagogue to synagogue! They were really looking for trouble.

In Inconium, as the Jews had been informed about the message these two bachelors were bringing, they got the help of some of the Gentiles who got really upset about the attitude of Paul and Barnabas against women, and started planning to stone them. As Paul and Barnabas were somehow breathed about their intentions, they fled to the Lycaonian town of Lystra and Derbe. (Acts 14:2-6)

Okay, let us face it, the Jews were exaggerating a little, but hey! The women were not. Where would they get their jollies if their town's men got persuaded into becoming as Paul and Barnabas were: Free of women? It is only obvious that the women were on the right to act with hostility to such an insult. Yes, that the ladies should listen in silence and be completely submissive to her husbands, and that they were not permitted by Paul to act as teachers, it was a pill that could be swallowed, but to be dropped as a hot potato by the opposite sex, they could not take it. (I Tim. 2:11-15)

What would you have to say about this attitude of Paul's?

Ben
 
I'd say Paul was probably gay. We know he didn't have anything good to say about women, them not being able to speak in church and all. Patriarchal society quite common. But his constant torment about his sinful condition, his flesh being weak....he longed for men and understood wrongly the scripture to be against it.
 
wil said:
I'd say Paul was probably gay.
Click to expand...
Oooooh, isn't that a bit offensive? He could have lived through loads of tragedies that would leave him suspicious of women. Being gay makes you attracted to your own sex, you don't necessarily have more respect for your own sex. I'm might be talking out of my own ass on this one, though, I'm not that gay.
 
wil said:
I'd say Paul was probably gay. We know he didn't have anything good to say about women, them not being able to speak in church and all. Patriarchal society quite common. But his constant torment about his sinful condition, his flesh being weak....he longed for men and understood wrongly the scripture to be against it.
Click to expand...

lol

not sure that Paul was Gay, David maybe but Paul there's not much to suggest it as far as I know.
 
When Paul was in Antioch, at the invitation of Barnabas, both of them took upon themselves to preach against women by advising single men to remain as they were, free of women. (I Cor. 7:8)
Click to expand...
I hear this accusation from time to time, but it is just a pop cultural accusation. 7:26 explains that he was answering questions about distressed times. You'll find many groups that do mistakenly think he hated marriage, however. Should you blame the misunderstanding upon Paul though as if he were purposely teaching those things? I don't think that is the best course of action and would suggest clarification instead.

Paul (Saul) said 7:1 that he was responding to questions, and those questions (I think) stemmed from confusion about how to implement Deuteronomy 24:5. The confusion was that Moses law taught Jewish men not to get married if their own lives were in danger or they were going to war; but otherwise they were required to marry. The problem was that these Christians found themselves to be borderline cases. You have to read all of Paul's answers to properly interpolate what their questions were, but these were men living outside of Israel and under Roman rule, possibly under political scrutiny or even haranguing. Perhaps they were not Jewish either. His instructions were an answer concerning their distressed times and whether to get married under those conditions! If not in danger the law teaches they should get married, but if there is danger to the man he is not to marry. We don't know what the degree of danger was for them. These Christians were not in Israel proper, however, and they were learning a concept called spiritual freedom -- one of the main topics of I Corinthians if not the main topic. He is talking to them about that, not really focusing on marriage itself; and I note he also made no attempt to change the law or upstage it.
 
We all know Saul/Paul had a problem with the opposite sex. All that proves is that he had a problem with the opposite sex. And dream is quite correct... read 1 Cor in context.
 
wil said:
What do you think that sin that tormented him so was? Two Bachelors preaching at a church?? Ran out of town??
Click to expand...

ab9437dc953811e1ab011231381052c0_7.jpg
 
[

Ahanu said:
Where does Paul say that in the NT?
Click to expand...

Well it is gonna be in the NT, since Paul ain't around in the OT. Not saying I buy it, but Paul prescribes it.



1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

1 Corinthians 11:3-9

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man... For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

1 Timothy 2:11-14

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
 
wil said:
1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
Click to expand...

That's a Pauline interpolation. Those aren't Paul's words. You can see the evidence on Philip Payne's website. Here's a brief summary from a review on his website:

External Evidence for 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as an Interpolation
  1. Transcriptional Probability Argues That 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Is an Interpolation
  2. Codex Vaticanus’s Distigme at the End of 14:33 Points to Interpolation
  3. Codex Fuldensis’s Text Corrected by Bishop Victor Omits 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
  4. The Most Reasonable Explanation of MS 88’s Treatment of 14:34-35 Is That MS 88 Was Copied from a Manuscript That Omitted These Verses
  5. Clement of Alexandria Reflects a Text of 1 Corinthians without 14:34-35
  6. The Apostolic Fathers Give No Sign of Awareness of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
  7. There Is a High Incidence of Textual Variants in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Internal Evidence
  1. Verses 34-35 Contradict Paul’s Encouraging Women to Speak in Church
  2. Verses 34-35 Interrupt the Flow of Paul’s Argument
  3. Verses 34-35 Make Alien Use of Vocabulary from the Chapter
  4. Verses 34-35 Conflict with the Goal of Instruction in Church
  5. The Use of “just as the Law says” Does Not Fit Paul’s Theology or His Style of Expression
  6. Contrary to Paul Championing the Downtrodden, Verses 34-35 Subordinate a Weak Social Group
  7. The Vocabulary of Verses 34-35 Appear to Mimic that of 1 Timothy 2:11-15
  8. The Command in Verse 34 Addresses Women “in the churches”
  9. The Content of Verses 34-35 Fits an Obvious Motive for Interpolation
Click to expand...

http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=368

It's a case of later Christians making Paul say what they wanted him to say.

Corinthians 11:3-9


But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man... For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
Click to expand...

This one doesn't talk about women not speaking in church.

1 Timothy 2:11-14

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Click to expand...

This is not Paul.
 
wil said:
What do you think that sin that tormented him so was? Two Bachelors preaching at a church?? Ran out of town??
Click to expand...

well I dont know, but there is not enough to suggest that Paul was batting for the other side,

Daniel on the other hand well ?
 
Ahanu said:
1 Timothy 2:11-14

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Click to expand...

This is not Paul.
Click to expand...
Um, yes it is:

1 Timothy 1


Greeting

1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope:
2 To Timothy, my true son in the faith.
Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.​
 
No one seriously believes Paul wrote Hebrews. It is (academically and scientifically) doubtful Paul wrote 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus. It is more likely that he wrote Colossians, Epheisans, 2 Thessalonians. The other seven are very likely authored by his hand.
 
seattlegal said:
Um, yes it is:
1 Timothy 1


Greeting

1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope:
2 To Timothy, my true son in the faith.
Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
​
Click to expand...

John Dominic Crossan provides a good analysis of Paul and anti-Paul thought. Check out this fresco Crossan dates in the 400s:



Crossan explains:

We saw, with slavery in my previous post, that the de-radicalization and re-romanization of Paul was already well underway in those post-Pauline letters attributed to him. So also here with regard to gender. Those two women -- poised on either side of Paul -- represent two linked controversies which would change the radical Paul of Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon, first into the conservative Pseudo-Paul of Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, then, finally, into the reactionary Anti-Paul of 1-2 Timothy and Titus.

Patriarchy. One controversy is represented by Theoclia to Paul's left. As noted above, her right hand was originally raised in a teaching gesture every bit as authoritative as that of Paul. But it was later both gouged out and burned off. Furthermore, since only her eyes are obliterated, that erasure was not just general iconoclasm but individual assault. She is represented, in other words, as a woman teaching with authority whose image is then effaced with prejudice. This is simply a visual image of that reactionary post-Pauline and anti-Pauline command that "no woman [is] to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent" (1 Timothy 2:12).

That is not, of course, the view of the historical Paul whose letter to the Christian communities of Rome was delivered -- that is, read and explained -- by a woman named Phoebe, an administrator of a house-church near Corinth (Romans 16:1-2). Neither is it the position of the historical Paul who described the woman Junia as "prominent among the apostles" (Romans 16:7) -- an "apostle" is somebody "sent" by God with authority to found new Christian communities.
Click to expand...

John Dominic Crossan: The Search for the Historical Paul: What Paul Thought About Women
 
radarmark said:
No one seriously believes Paul wrote Hebrews. It is (academically and scientifically) doubtful Paul wrote 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus. It is more likely that he wrote Colossians, Epheisans, 2 Thessalonians. The other seven are very likely authored by his hand.
Click to expand...
I don't remember every difference between what is in Timothy and Titus as opposed to Colossians and the other letters, and it is partly mixed together at the moment. Surely this dialogue is a thorn in our side to keep us humble. If I think about it too long my brain hurts.
 
They are the "Pastoral Letters". Their structure, vocabulary and grammar indicate a separate author (again, academically and scientifically).
 
In this (thread's) case, depending upon one's gullibility, one might almost get the impression that the misogynistic Paul had fallen under the influence of Jews and had been repeating, with them, the prayer: "Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a woman."

When Saul (aka Paul) read that in his Siddur (given to him by his great uncle at Bar-Mitzvah, as recorded in Christianity's oral tradition), he must have said a hearty "amen" and paid no mind to the explanatory footnotes in his Artscroll Edition.


Serv
 
Servetus said:
In this (thread's) case, depending upon one's gullibility, one might almost get the impression that the misogynistic Paul had fallen under the influence of Jews and had been repeating, with them, the prayer: "Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a woman."
Click to expand...
As you mention below, this prayer can be interpreted as either misogynistic or its exact opposite, depending upon its purpose and the depth of thought you put into it. Do you find Jewish people to be misogynistic on the whole or not? That should put the prayer into perspective. If Paul's later writers misunderstood the prayer, then I could follow your line of reasoning. It still remains then to determine why Paul was or wasn't misogynistic, whether later writers were or what.

When Saul (aka Paul) read that in his Siddur (given to him by his great uncle at Bar-Mitzvah, as recorded in Christianity's oral tradition), he must have said a hearty "amen" and paid no mind to the explanatory footnotes in his Artscroll Edition.
Click to expand...
Have we already determined that Paul was definitely a misogynist, and do we know for a fact that Artscroll is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top