Newfie

Sorry, Amaleq, I hadn't intended that to sound snotty. :blush:

bacht

I'm not a practising Christian. I don't think "God's plan" is an excuse for anything. But I don't see the point of criticizing ancient religious ideas that might have been useful at the time. Since the Reformation and especially since the Enlightenment the church has been analyzed, ridiculed and generally discredited.

I don't believe that the Christian tradition is all bad, and I think people often ignore the fact that human institutions are never perfect. The Catholic church is the oldest surviving Western institution, and one of the oldest in the world. Power attracts corrupt people, just as in political organizations. This is human nature imo.

It's worth remembering that only since the West became affluent and technologically advanced (eg. birth control) has gender equality become feasible. Elite women have always enjoyed priveleges over low-status men. In difficult times women played their default role as breeders and nurturers, just as men played their default role as labourers and fighters. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, and I think the feminist discussion of "patriarchy" falls in that category.

andrewcriddle

There are other examples in 1 Corinthians 7 as well as verse 6

verse 12 says verse 25 says verse 40 says verse 25 may be particularly relevant.

Andrew Criddle

bacht

I'm using the RSV online (Revised Standard Version)

The Pastoral letters (Timothy 1 & 2, Titus) are disputed as being authentic to Paul, so these passages may date from after the 1st C. His other letters clearly state his belief in the coming of Christ and the end of the age.

Amaleq13

No problem. I agree that the argument isn't terribly strong. The fact that Paul identifies certain of his statements as being his personal opinion really doesn't justify the assumption absent such an identification.

Amaleq13

Thanks, Andrew.

I should have just kept reading.

Doug Shaver

Yes. Others have posted the relevant citations.

That is the prevailing supposition. That does not imply that he intended nothing he wrote to be applicable to Christians in general, but it does raise the question of which teachings he intended to apply on to his immediate readership.

The argument is that his writings were inspired by God except in those places where he explicitly states otherwise.

DCHindley

I think the passage that makes it certain that Paul felt he was making absolutely authorative statements is:

Galatians 1:11-16 11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. ... 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles ...

I have personally, for reasons I have stated elsewhere, altered this text as follows:

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the good news which was preached by me is not man's good news. 12a For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation 12b [...]. ... 15 But when it pleased God, who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, 16a to reveal 16b [...] 16c to me that I might declare <his> 16e “good news” [EUAGGELIZWMAI] among the Gentiles ... [i.e., I omit "of Jesus Christ" at 12b, "his Son" at 16b, and this changes the context of who is referred to by AUTON in 16c to mean something like "His" which refers back to God in vs 15]

But that's just me. Either way, whether I am right or wrong about my modifications, Paul was absolutely sure that God had predestined him to preach "good news" (gospel) among Gentiles, the content of whicg he got directly from God himself.

DCH

rizdek

I don't believe much about the Bible, and certianly not that it's the word of any God. But I am humored at how they took what were essentially "letters" and combined with some good stories about Jesus and canonized them as part of the Bible. I don't believe in any afterlife, but in a humorous way, I envision Paul looking down from heaven and saying, "Good grief, they were letters to some of my friends, why're they making so much out of every word and punctuation mark." I mean how many people today write letters (emails) with the idea that they might be canonized and thousands of years from now treated as some sort of holy word.

Maybe a brazillion years from now someone will happen on a computer disk with IIDB debate threads and canonize it:rolling::rolling::rolling:

Doug Shaver

[Correcting typo discovered too late for editing.]

That is the prevailing supposition. That does not imply that he intended nothing he wrote to be applicable to Christians in general, but it does raise the question of which teachings he intended to apply only to his immediate readership.