- Reaction score
Why do you assume a difference? I would suggest the Pauline texts deal with specific situations in light of 'love one another': "Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter towards them" (Colossians 3:19); "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it ... So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself" (Ephesians 5:25,28).But I would like to know which scriptural quotes are used today by Christians to support their beliefs on women – is it Jesus or Saul/Paul?
What are your beliefs on women, and what quotes do you use to support them?
A survey of the evidence says the Pauline Christian communities were more 'open-minded' than the traditional Jewish communities from whuich they sprang. It was Paul who challenged the Jewish customs regarding the treatment of women, after all. Jesus didn't ... except on the point of divorce.
Jesus' own mother went to live in a Pauline community (Ephesus).
You think Paul gave in to pressure? Sorry, Suba, but do you actually know anything about Paul and the Christian world at all? Paul's contribution to the growth of the Church is without equal. No-one would ever say that Paul 'gave in to pressure' — he argued with the disciples, he argued with Peter, the Jews were out to kill him, he caused a riot at the Temply, so the Romans had to step in and rescue him, and then he went straight out and started another one!The fact that Jesus faced the world around the same time and did not give in to the same pressure you say Saul/Paul was having to contend with shines a little bit more light on the distortion Saul/Paul introduced into the Christian world.
Wherever you got your info on Paul from, it's wrong.
The difference as I see it is that Jesus took no crap off anyone, whereas Paul would try and win the people round to the Gospel. Jesus was very much 'take it or leave it' — and many choose to leave (John 6:68). Paul argues, exhorts, pleads ...
No, that would be completely unrealistic. If Paul was not part of the Christian world, then the position of women would be the same as Second Temple Judaism, which was pretty poor all round.It might even be reasonable to say, that if Saul/Paul was not part of the Christian world women would actually be ahead of the game, being that they were already teaching, building churches, and doing all the things men were doing back then.
Remember that Jesus never sent a woman to preach the Gospel. Paul did, so I don't see how you can come to the conclusions you do. Paul defended the rights of women to play an active part in the Church. Peter, James and John certainly didn't, and women seemed to play no part in Jesus' ministry, other than funding His travels!
And you're saying this based on what?The church fathers, using Saul/Paul's writings were given the means to take away the women's role in the church ...
I would suggest the misogyny evident in the Fathers derives from the Old Testament notion of Eve as the downfall of man, rather than any misinterpretation of Paul.
Who are 'we' exactly? You've already said you're not a Christian, so I don't see you fighting on anyone's behalf, other than your own. And your grasp of Christian history is, dare I say it, sketchy and seems to rely on a great deal of unfounded assumptions.– and now we have to fight for women to preach the Word – yea, thanks a lot for that one Saul/Paul!
Sorry, Suba, but unless you can back these opinions up with actual evidence, it seems to me you've really got the wrong end of the stick about a lot of things.