Chili

This is a good example of females being more aware of their contemplative or intuit right brain inductive side when reading parables and probably like reading a poetic version better than a flat or cold literal version such as the KJVJ . . . as if there is music in the words that will paint a beautiful picture or weave a tapistry of the finest silk.

A good example here is the "birds of the air" in Luke's mustard seed parable that Mark calls "birds of the sky" and so limiting its use to actual birds finding a place to rest in a relatively small mustard plant. Just not the same and I wonder if Mark is not a satire that is suitable for 'flat earthers' to read.

Solo

Forget it, dog-on, Paul never wrote 14:34-38 as he never wrote 11:3-16. These two passages clash head on with the principles of man-woman reciprocity in 1 Cor 7 and Paul's central theme of equality between the sexes spelled out in Gal 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."). Incidentally, these core teachings of Paul, were applied by the brilliant medieval church legalist Gratian and written into the canon law as an important doctrine of 'affectio maritalis'. He and his group of "decretists" knew in the 12th century which passages in Paul's letters were Paul's and which were not.

Jiri

Julio

Interesting stuff, solo; thanks.
Any other detail about the passage?

aa5874

Marcion's Christ was probably not called "Jesus" since the name "Jesus" is a derivative of "Joshua" meaning "Jehovah saves" and Marcion's God was NOT Jehovah.

Marcion's God according to Irenaeus was called "Cosmocrator".

dog-on

Like I said. A worked over document.

aa5874

But, you do not know what "Paul" wrote. The Pauline writings are ALL disputed.

You do not have any external corroborative source for "PAUL" so you use your imagination and say "Paul" wrote whatever you IMAGINE he wrote.

Once "Paul" was getting revelations from the resurrected Jesus in heaven then you certainly cannot say with surety that Pauline writings do not reflect those visions and revelations from the resurrected one.

Julio

OK.
Are we [can we be] absolutely certain that no epistles in the NT are to be undoubtedly declared from Paul?
Absolutely none?
Is that simply because there are no so-called "Autographs" to check?

Chili

Yes but that is true only in that it is in our innermost depth of our being we are one with Christ and not male or female there, nor Jew or Greek or even Catholic for that matter and is thus why there is no temple to be found in the new City of God (Rev.21:22). From this follows that there is no marriage in heaven where we are of one mind and no longer divided in our mind and thus woman is assumed into 'reason' that so transforms into Pure Reason and hence the Coronation of the woman that we call Mary personified.

As religionist Paul must set out the parameters to follow and it is here that the woman is servient to human and actually first help him create a [big] self worth that later is worthy to be crucified . . . and so will have a story to tell of his own (a mansion they call it).

For what it is worth, this is where indulgences are a useful tool and is perhaps what created the high culture Renaissance in Christendom.

Solo

I just pointed out that there are two contradictory groups of statements on women's status in Pauline corpus. Unless Paul was mentally disorganized to the point that he was not able to "interpret" what he received from "Christ" in a lucid and faithful manner, then - logically - one of the two groups of statemenets does not originate from Paul. By faithful manner I mean that whatever Christ was telling Paul on one day would not be at loggerheads with what Christ was telling Paul on another day. If Paul was challenged that way, we would have never heard of him.

You were also shown that in the Middle Ages, when jurists were contemplating the scripture and trying to decide what was 'just' and 'equitable' with respect to marital relations (which were in the church's jurisdiction) they showed preference for one group over the other (apecifically over the one in 1 Cr 11:3-16), prefering the attitude that was fairer to women and one that was in keeping with legal customs of civilized West.

That's all you get. :huh:

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Once there are two contradictory statements it cannot be said that Paul must have written only one when he may have written anyone in error.

You cannot imagine that every contradictory statement comes from interpolations when it may be the very signs that the Pauline writings were NOT ever seen by those to whom the writers claimed to have sent the letters.

There is no evidence whatsoever, external of Church writers, that can show that the Resurrected Jesus of "Paul" was ever preached before the Fall of the Temple as a Messiah, the Creator of heaven and earth and EQUAL to God.

And, you cannot tell under what circumstance we would have never heard from "Paul".

Why then do we have the Pastorals under the name Paul?

It is useless trying to pretend that you have some knowledge of what Paul wrote or when he wrote. You have nothing to corroborate the Pauline writings except apologetic sources and it is claimed the Pauline writers were AWARE of gLuke.

But, what you are saying is irrelevant to you claiming "Paul never wrote 14:34-38 as he never wrote 11:3-16."

Why "Paul" did not write whatever you don't like?

This is "Tertullian's On Baptism" 17 Based on "Tertullian", 1 COR. 14.34-35 was a CORE doctrine of "Paul".