An Insult to the Ladies

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by Ben Masada, Jul 12, 2012.

  1. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
    AN INSULT TO THE LADIES

    When Paul was in Antioch, at the invitation of Barnabas, both of them took upon themselves to preach against women by advising single men to remain as they were, free of women. (I Cor. 7:8)

    Now, imagine this gospel being preached by two bachelors in a Jewish synagogue of all places! How could the Jews, who are so attached to the Law, fufill the very first of the Divine commandments to grow and multiply without women? (Gen. 1:28)

    Some of the Jews had an idea: To flare up the women, so that they should take a more aggressive attitude against such an arrogant insult to the ladies. In fact, they got together and ganged up against Paul and Banabas; so much so, as to expell them out of the town. (Acts 13:50)

    Paul and Barnabas took advantage of that female hostility, shook the dust off their feet in protest and went to the synagogue of Inconium. (Acts 13:51; 14:1) Gosh! From synagogue to synagogue! They were really looking for trouble.

    In Inconium, as the Jews had been informed about the message these two bachelors were bringing, they got the help of some of the Gentiles who got really upset about the attitude of Paul and Barnabas against women, and started planning to stone them. As Paul and Barnabas were somehow breathed about their intentions, they fled to the Lycaonian town of Lystra and Derbe. (Acts 14:2-6)

    Okay, let us face it, the Jews were exaggerating a little, but hey! The women were not. Where would they get their jollies if their town's men got persuaded into becoming as Paul and Barnabas were: Free of women? It is only obvious that the women were on the right to act with hostility to such an insult. Yes, that the ladies should listen in silence and be completely submissive to her husbands, and that they were not permitted by Paul to act as teachers, it was a pill that could be swallowed, but to be dropped as a hot potato by the opposite sex, they could not take it. (I Tim. 2:11-15)

    What would you have to say about this attitude of Paul's?

    Ben
     
  2. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,039
    Likes Received:
    2,060
    I'd say Paul was probably gay. We know he didn't have anything good to say about women, them not being able to speak in church and all. Patriarchal society quite common. But his constant torment about his sinful condition, his flesh being weak....he longed for men and understood wrongly the scripture to be against it.
     
  3. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    Oooooh, isn't that a bit offensive? He could have lived through loads of tragedies that would leave him suspicious of women. Being gay makes you attracted to your own sex, you don't necessarily have more respect for your own sex. I'm might be talking out of my own ass on this one, though, I'm not that gay.
     
  4. NiceCupOfTea

    NiceCupOfTea Pathetic earthlings

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol

    not sure that Paul was Gay, David maybe but Paul there's not much to suggest it as far as I know.
     
  5. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,039
    Likes Received:
    2,060
    What do you think that sin that tormented him so was? Two Bachelors preaching at a church?? Ran out of town??
     
  6. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    I hear this accusation from time to time, but it is just a pop cultural accusation. 7:26 explains that he was answering questions about distressed times. You'll find many groups that do mistakenly think he hated marriage, however. Should you blame the misunderstanding upon Paul though as if he were purposely teaching those things? I don't think that is the best course of action and would suggest clarification instead.

    Paul (Saul) said 7:1 that he was responding to questions, and those questions (I think) stemmed from confusion about how to implement Deuteronomy 24:5. The confusion was that Moses law taught Jewish men not to get married if their own lives were in danger or they were going to war; but otherwise they were required to marry. The problem was that these Christians found themselves to be borderline cases. You have to read all of Paul's answers to properly interpolate what their questions were, but these were men living outside of Israel and under Roman rule, possibly under political scrutiny or even haranguing. Perhaps they were not Jewish either. His instructions were an answer concerning their distressed times and whether to get married under those conditions! If not in danger the law teaches they should get married, but if there is danger to the man he is not to marry. We don't know what the degree of danger was for them. These Christians were not in Israel proper, however, and they were learning a concept called spiritual freedom -- one of the main topics of I Corinthians if not the main topic. He is talking to them about that, not really focusing on marriage itself; and I note he also made no attempt to change the law or upstage it.
     
  7. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    We all know Saul/Paul had a problem with the opposite sex. All that proves is that he had a problem with the opposite sex. And dream is quite correct... read 1 Cor in context.
     
  8. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    221
    [​IMG]
     
  9. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Whey Kwel! Reps, Ahanu!
     
  10. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    221
    Where does Paul say that in the NT?
     
  11. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,039
    Likes Received:
    2,060
    [

    Well it is gonna be in the NT, since Paul ain't around in the OT. Not saying I buy it, but Paul prescribes it.



    1 Corinthians 14:34-35

    Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

    1 Corinthians 11:3-9

    But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man... For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

    1 Timothy 2:11-14

    Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
     
  12. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    221
    That's a Pauline interpolation. Those aren't Paul's words. You can see the evidence on Philip Payne's website. Here's a brief summary from a review on his website:

    http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=368

    It's a case of later Christians making Paul say what they wanted him to say.

    This one doesn't talk about women not speaking in church.

    This is not Paul.
     
  13. NiceCupOfTea

    NiceCupOfTea Pathetic earthlings

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    well I dont know, but there is not enough to suggest that Paul was batting for the other side,

    Daniel on the other hand well ?
     
  14. seattlegal

    seattlegal Mercuræn Buddhist

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,635
    Likes Received:
    110
    Um, yes it is:

    1 Timothy 1


    Greeting

    1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope:
    2 To Timothy, my true son in the faith.
    Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.​
     
  15. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    No one seriously believes Paul wrote Hebrews. It is (academically and scientifically) doubtful Paul wrote 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus. It is more likely that he wrote Colossians, Epheisans, 2 Thessalonians. The other seven are very likely authored by his hand.
     
  16. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    221
    John Dominic Crossan provides a good analysis of Paul and anti-Paul thought. Check out this fresco Crossan dates in the 400s:

    [​IMG]

    Crossan explains:

    John Dominic Crossan: The Search for the Historical Paul: What Paul Thought About Women
     
  17. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't remember every difference between what is in Timothy and Titus as opposed to Colossians and the other letters, and it is partly mixed together at the moment. Surely this dialogue is a thorn in our side to keep us humble. If I think about it too long my brain hurts.
     
  18. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    They are the "Pastoral Letters". Their structure, vocabulary and grammar indicate a separate author (again, academically and scientifically).
     
  19. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    In this (thread's) case, depending upon one's gullibility, one might almost get the impression that the misogynistic Paul had fallen under the influence of Jews and had been repeating, with them, the prayer: "Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a woman."

    When Saul (aka Paul) read that in his Siddur (given to him by his great uncle at Bar-Mitzvah, as recorded in Christianity's oral tradition), he must have said a hearty "amen" and paid no mind to the explanatory footnotes in his Artscroll Edition.


    Serv
     
  20. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    As you mention below, this prayer can be interpreted as either misogynistic or its exact opposite, depending upon its purpose and the depth of thought you put into it. Do you find Jewish people to be misogynistic on the whole or not? That should put the prayer into perspective. If Paul's later writers misunderstood the prayer, then I could follow your line of reasoning. It still remains then to determine why Paul was or wasn't misogynistic, whether later writers were or what.

    Have we already determined that Paul was definitely a misogynist, and do we know for a fact that Artscroll is?
     

Share This Page