Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sojourner · 07-08-2010, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

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....

Would you see that as an acceptable possibility?
In that case, where would the text switch from the allegorical/figurative to literal?
I think the best approach is to understand the verse literally.
But I'm here to learn.

Greek law has been stated by a scholar who dug around in that section of the research library stacks.

maryhelena · 07-08-2010, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Make the switch anytime the literal reading makes no logical sense

Yes.
But if it [a passage] doesn't make [literal] sense to us now - twenty centuries later - does it mean it didn't all the time?

Your not suggesting, I hope, that there were no intelligent women at the time of Paul prepared to challenge any male chauvinism???

Sure, people back then lived in a different mental world were illogical things were believed to happen. However, if its the 'truth' re early christian origins we are after - to hell with what they believed about their mental world. Fine if one is curious about such things. But that's about the extent of any value one can gain from such an investigation. If there is 'truth' in the NT writings - then I don't think we will find it by trying to read the minds of those early christian writers. Interpretation relevant for our own day is the only possible avenue to explore in any search for any 'truth'.

Julio · 07-08-2010, 06:59 AM

No.
I'm saying the opposite, am I not.
That is, the passage would not have been written with a literal meaning whatsoever, because all would understand it that way [it was fashion, then], including, naturally, all the beautiful ladies in the church.
However, now, so much later, sadly we have lost the allegorical or mystic meaning and read it only in a literal context [for our spiritual poverty, as it were].
Do I make sense?

dog-on · 07-08-2010, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

OK.
So, we have John the apostle, John the evangelist, Polycarp and next Ireneaus, all disagreeing with Paul on the issue; or was it only Ireneaus who had the objection?
Would the tampering then have occurred sometime in the last part of the second century?
Is there manuscript evident for that?

Find me an early manuscript of the Paulines that do not contain the epistles that we are sure Paul didn't write.

The evidence is in the writings of the early church fathers. Paul was contested.

Julio · 07-08-2010, 07:12 AM

I know.
Marcion, on his part, it appears, was not aware of the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" [1 & 2 Timothy and Titus].
[As a footnote, by the year 90, Clement of Rome would be writing his famous boring first letter to the Corinthian church, without ever making any reference to Paul's letter to the same assembly; or any reference to any gospel, for that matter.]

dog-on · 07-08-2010, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

I know.
Marcion, on his part, it appears, was not aware of the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" [1 & 2 Timothy and Titus].
[As a footnote, by the year 90, Clement of Rome would be writing his famous boring first letter to the Corinthian church, without ever making any reference to Paul's letter to the same assembly; or any reference to any gospel, for that matter.]

Maybe he was one of those guys teaching another Jesus, as alluded to in Galatians.

Chili · 07-08-2010, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

No.
I'm saying the opposite, am I not.
That is, the passage would not have been written with a literal meaning whatsoever, because all would understand it that way [it was fashion, then], including, naturally, all the beautiful ladies in the church.
However, now, so much later, sadly we have lost the allegorical or mystic meaning and read it only in a literal context [for our spiritual poverty, as it were].
Do I make sense?

Yes you are right. Beauty is the adornment of man and the woman to be his crown in eternity but not until then. This takes place after the Assumption of the woman (Mary we call her who is "asumed" as 'being' without an identity of her own), with the Coronation to follow where she is recognized as the driving force behind man (the carrot on a stick imagery).

Please read careful: "My entire being proclaims the greatness of the Lord (not God), my spirit finds joy in God my savior (not Lord)."

Note the subservience here wherein she crowns him king to make herself queen.

maryhelena · 07-08-2010, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

No.
I'm saying the opposite, am I not.
That is, the passage would not have been written with a literal meaning whatsoever, because all would understand it that way [it was fashion, then], including, naturally, all the beautiful ladies in the church.
However, now, so much later, sadly we have lost the allegorical or mystic meaning and read it only in a literal context [for our spiritual poverty, as it were].
Do I make sense?

So, if the passage had not been written with a literal meaning - and all the beautiful ladies in the church understood that they did not have to leave their reason at the church door - and it is only our lack of insight today that reads the passage literally? OK.

Julio · 07-08-2010, 08:28 AM

OK, Chili.
But is this something you received from above [private revelation, similar to Paul's on that "road" to that "Damascus"], from other men, or you made it up to feel better?
Surely, none of us is born knowing so much!

ThermalCry · 07-08-2010, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

"Women should remain silent in the churches.
They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."
NIV

Why did Paul appeal to the Law?
[Where in the Law of Moses does it say such a thing?... And they must be in submission to what?...]

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....

Sounds pretty Gnos-tastic. Do you have/know of any texts using this women/men allegory?

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

07-08-2010, 06:59 AM	#23
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	No. I'm saying the opposite, am I not. That is, the passage would not have been written with a literal meaning whatsoever, because all would understand it that way [it was fashion, then], including, naturally, all the beautiful ladies in the church. However, now, so much later, sadly we have lost the allegorical or mystic meaning and read it only in a literal context [for our spiritual poverty, as it were]. Do I make sense?

07-08-2010, 07:12 AM	#25
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	I know. Marcion, on his part, it appears, was not aware of the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" [1 & 2 Timothy and Titus]. [As a footnote, by the year 90, Clement of Rome would be writing his famous boring first letter to the Corinthian church, without ever making any reference to Paul's letter to the same assembly; or any reference to any gospel, for that matter.]

07-08-2010, 08:28 AM	#29
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	OK, Chili. But is this something you received from above [private revelation, similar to Paul's on that "road" to that "Damascus"], from other men, or you made it up to feel better? Surely, none of us is born knowing so much!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.