Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 07-09-2010, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Why not try another approach - one not taking Paul literally in this case. Try a figurative approach. Women representing our intellectual or spiritual ability - and man representing out bodily, physical reality. Thus: ideas (represented by 'women') need to be subject to reality (represented by 'men') in order to have some relevance to our lives. Free floating ideas, floating abstractions, might well be interesting as novelties etc - but the real deal is when our ideas are subject to, relate to, our physical realities. In other words, in Paul' terms - when women are subject to men....

...or from another figurative perspective, women represent peanut butter, and churches represent bread. What Paul is actually doing is inventing the sandwich!

Julio · 07-09-2010, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Why not try another approach - one not taking Paul literally in this case. Try a figurative approach. Women representing our intellectual or spiritual ability - and man representing out bodily, physical reality. Thus: ideas (represented by 'women') need to be subject to reality (represented by 'men') in order to have some relevance to our lives. Free floating ideas, floating abstractions, might well be interesting as novelties etc - but the real deal is when our ideas are subject to, relate to, our physical realities. In other words, in Paul' terms - when women are subject to men....

...or from another figurative perspective, women represent peanut butter, and churches represent bread. What Paul is actually doing is inventing the sandwich!

LOL!
Brilliant!!

maryhelena · 07-10-2010, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Why not try another approach - one not taking Paul literally in this case. Try a figurative approach. Women representing our intellectual or spiritual ability - and man representing out bodily, physical reality. Thus: ideas (represented by 'women') need to be subject to reality (represented by 'men') in order to have some relevance to our lives. Free floating ideas, floating abstractions, might well be interesting as novelties etc - but the real deal is when our ideas are subject to, relate to, our physical realities. In other words, in Paul' terms - when women are subject to men....

...or from another figurative perspective, women represent peanut butter, and churches represent bread. What Paul is actually doing is inventing the sandwich!

I never did like peanut butter

The thing with interpretations, or allegories, is how well they fit or reflect what we do know. So, mind and matter, our intellectual capacity and our physical bodies do 'go together'. As men and women are part of our human nature.
So, what would you suggest is the real life connection between women and peanut butter?

spamandham · 07-10-2010, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The thing with interpretations, or allegories, is how well they fit or reflect what we do know. So, mind and matter, our intellectual capacity and our physical bodies do 'go together'. As men and women are part of our human nature.
So, what would you suggest is the real life connection between women and peanut butter?

There's no connection. Your interpretation seems terribly strained, that's all the sandwich post was about. Considering the apocalyptic nature of Christianity, I don't know why you think an obviously late apocalyptic letter falsely attributed to Paul should be interpreted as a spiritual analogy rather than what it seems to be from a straightforward read. I'm not saying it's never appropriate to interpret Paul as you are doing, but this letter isn't Paul, it's a later writer trying to attach Paul's authority to 2nd century apocalyptic theology.

Julio · 07-10-2010, 10:06 AM

Well, since it seems Marcion included this first letter to the Corinthians in his primitive/rudimentary canon [middle of the second century], and since he probably discarded the passage here inspected as forgery, what else would have he rejected in the same text?
Is it perhaps logic to think that Marcion wrote some material explaining to his congregations the reasons why he proofread & edited those epistles where he found them disagreeing with his views?
Is it possible that such important material was eventually confiscated and destroyed by his enemies?

aa5874 · 07-10-2010, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Well, since it seems Marcion included this first letter to the Corinthians in his primitive/rudimentary canon [middle of the second century], and since he probably discarded the passage here inspected as forgery, what else would have he rejected in the same text?
Is it perhaps logic to think that Marcion wrote some material explaining to his congregations the reasons why he proofread & edited those epistles where he found them disagreeing with his views?
Is it possible that such important material was eventually confiscated and destroyed by his enemies?

May I remind you that the document claimed to have been written by Marcion was actually ANONYMOUS.

This is found in "Against Marcion" 4.2

Quote:

..Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body..

The same writer who ascribes Marcion to an anonymous writing also ascribed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to writings that were most likely anonymous.

"Tertullian" has a ZERO percent track record on the authorship of the Gospels, ZERO percent on the dating of the Gospels and ZERO percent on the chronology of the Gospels.

And the God of Marcion was not the God of the Jews and Marcion preached another son that was not found in Hebrew Scripture. Marcion did not need the ENTIRE Canon.

Marcion preached DUALISM which was derived from EMPEDOCLES. See "Refutations Against All Heresies" 7.

Julio · 07-10-2010, 11:52 AM

Tertullian arrives on the scene some decades after Marcion died.
So, in order to condemn Marcion he had to have access to his writings.
What happened to them?

aa5874 · 07-10-2010, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Tertullian arrives on the scene some decades after Marcion died.
So, in order to condemn Marcion he had to have access to his writings.
What happened to them?

But, again "Tertullian" admitted that the writing he claimed was from Marcion was actually ANONYMOUS.

This is found in "Against Marcion" by "Tertullian"

Quote:

..Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body..

And the problem is compounded when "Tertullian" claimed Marcion mutilated the Gospel written by Luke when it is almost certain that there was no gospel writer actually named Luke.

The gospel according to Luke was also anonymous just as those ascribed to Matthew, Mark, and John.

Julio · 07-10-2010, 10:33 PM

In his book "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred", Waite says that Marcion's gospel of Luke was the original, later inserted with the first three chapters as we know it now.
Comments, please.

http://books.google.co.za/books?id=K...page&q&f=false

aa5874 · 07-10-2010, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

In his book "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred", Waite says that Marcion's gospel of Luke was the original, later inserted with the first three chapters as we know it now.
Comments, please.

http://books.google.co.za/books?id=K...page&q&f=false

Again, based on "Tertullian" there was NO gospel with the name MARCION as the author when "Tertullian" wrote "Against Marcion".

"Tertullian's" "Against Marcion" 4.2

Quote:

.....Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body..

"Tertullian" claimed Marcion mutilated the Epistle to Timothy and Titus but those epistles may have been written AFTER Marcion was dead.

"Origen" in "Against Celsus" made NO claim that Marcion mutilated gLuke.

Hippolytus in "Refutation Aainst All Heresies" claimed "Paul" used the writings of Empedocles.

Justin Martyr in "First Apology" claimed Marcion's God was NOT the God of the Jews and the son of Marcion's God was NOT found in Hebrew Scripture.

The abundance of evidence even from apologetic sources contradict "Against Marcion" by "Tertullian".

"Against Marcion" by "Tertullian" appears to be fiction or filled with errors.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2010, 10:06 AM	#55
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	Well, since it seems Marcion included this first letter to the Corinthians in his primitive/rudimentary canon [middle of the second century], and since he probably discarded the passage here inspected as forgery, what else would have he rejected in the same text? Is it perhaps logic to think that Marcion wrote some material explaining to his congregations the reasons why he proofread & edited those epistles where he found them disagreeing with his views? Is it possible that such important material was eventually confiscated and destroyed by his enemies?

07-10-2010, 11:52 AM	#57
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	Tertullian arrives on the scene some decades after Marcion died. So, in order to condemn Marcion he had to have access to his writings. What happened to them?

07-10-2010, 10:33 PM	#59
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	In his book "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred", Waite says that Marcion's gospel of Luke was the original, later inserted with the first three chapters as we know it now. Comments, please. http://books.google.co.za/books?id=K...page&q&f=false

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.