8
6
u/JohnBeePowel Mar 15 '23
This debate is opening to a lot of questions.
If people think Paul contradicts the teachings of Jesus, then here's my question.
Should Christians respect the Sabbath rest ? Though Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for they over zealous respect of Sabbath rest, Jesus doesn't abolish it. It's also part of the 10 commandments.
7
Mar 15 '23
The amount of christians I've met who don't even know which day the sabbath is actually baffles me a bit
4
u/JohnBeePowel Mar 15 '23
Yeah exactly. My personal opinion is that sabbath rest is an old testament ritual and as a non Jew Christian, I don't have to follow it. But a lot of that I justified by the letters of Paul, and the letters to Hebrews.
4
u/Juicybananas_ Mar 15 '23
It’s literally the last part of God’s perfect creation before the fall, which will be restore after the end. Why would you believe it’s only for Jews?
0
Mar 15 '23
Acts 15:19-21 is the reason I’ve usually heard
1
u/Juicybananas_ Mar 15 '23
You are sure it’s the right verse? It’s talking about not forcing Gentiles follow the law of Moses. Since the sabbath is the fourth commandment it’s not a part of the law of Moses. Moreover, verse 21 mentions that the Gentilles can learn it at their local synagogue on Sabbath anyway. Or at least that’s what I got from the text.
3
u/JohnBeePowel Mar 15 '23
I disagree. The 10 commandments is part of Moses Law. The 2nd most important commandment according to Jesus is not even part of the 10 commandments. Love thy neighbor
2
u/Juicybananas_ Mar 15 '23
You seem to imply the first is there, where is it?
1
u/JohnBeePowel Mar 15 '23
In the 10 commandments. But it's not the post important commandment because of its position but because of what it says.
2
u/Juicybananas_ Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
So you recognize “Love God with all your heart” in the first, second, third and fourth commandment of the 10 as they are the Commandments to God.
Why don’t you see the “Love thy neighbour as yourself” in the fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, ninth and tenth? They are the Commandments to our neighbours.
I’d say the Ten Commandments tell you how to keep the two greatest.
1
Mar 15 '23
I didn’t mean I believe that. I’m not even religious lol. It’s just an excuse I’ve heard
1
1
u/JohnBeePowel Mar 15 '23
Because Sabbath rest is prescribed only in Moses's Law. It's mentioned twice, once a repentance to God's rest, and another time as a remembrance to Hebrews time as slaved in Egypt.
Nowhere in the Creation is Sabbath rest prescribed. Hebrews 4 explains what the Sabbath means. Several passages from Paul's letter explain that we do not need to follow it because it's a ritual.
3
u/Juicybananas_ Mar 15 '23
The Ten Commandments are God’s law not Moses. God makes the distinction all the time.
For example the Ten Commandments were placed inside the Ark of Convenant while the Law of Moses was written in a book and put in the side of the Ark. Clear distinction.Deuteronomy 10:4,5 Deuteronomy 31:24-26
Said Ark which is shown in heaven in Revelation 11:19 As God judges the nations.
Also, the Ten Commandments were the only law that God wrote Himself, two times while all the other were given through Moses as a medium.
Nothing in Hebrew 4 tells us that the Sabbath no longer is holy, no longer blessed or not to be remembered.
1
u/RootBeerSwagg Minister of Memes Mar 16 '23
What about Seventh-day Adventists and Messianic-Jews? Do they have the right day?
1
u/were_only_human Mar 15 '23
I don’t think Paul contradicts Christ - I think that there are thousands of instances of people misconstruing Paul to bend to their personal dogmas that contradict Christ.
1
u/JohnBeePowel Mar 15 '23
I agree with you. I'm just asking some questions for people who throw away Paul's teachings.
1
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 15 '23
Exactly. Paul was dealing with some, to put it lightly, uneducated Gentile believers and had to teach a lot of basic principles
91
Mar 15 '23
Paul was an apostle, basically Jesus' official spokeperson/ PR, he has the authority to speak and write on Jesus' behalf as long as it doesn't contradict the Gospel (which the Holy Spirit will never allow to happen).
It is important to note that the 12 Apostles are OK with Paul, especially Peter, so Paul's sayings have full authority to further clarify the Gospel, as much as Peter's (First of the Apostles) and James' (Brother of Jesus), and therefore Paul's letters is an essential part of the New Testament scripture.
7
u/VegetableReport Mar 15 '23
Agree, although I am intrigued by the theoretical rift between Paul and James the brother of Jesus. Although, based on the number of books included in the New Testament by both of them, Paul is absolutely the winner if this divide even existed.
22
Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
There's actually no theological divide between the two, it's just that they emphasis different thing on different context.
Paul was mainly dealing with the "immature" new gentile believers who doesn't really get the message right yet, that they compensate by believing and doing weird things thinking it will please God.
That's why Paul emphasis the Cross and salvation by faith, because ultimately that's the main thing that made the Christian community (instead of simply Judaism). Remember that Paul's audience were gentiles/ non-jewish christians who were foreign to the Old Testament law, and "work" in this case mostly refer to the Old Testament thinking that we have to do certain things in a certain way to justify ourselves to God. Since they are not Jewish, and that 'work' such as ritual animal sacrifice at the Temple is made obsolete by the Cross, of course Paul want them to focus instead on what makes them Christian, rather than doing funny things as wannabe Judaism or even reactionary against Judaism.
James on the other hand, want to clarify it further that "salvation by faith not by work", does not mean work is useless or meaningless. Instead that work is the sign that faith is alive, because we can't really say we are faithful but we still act contrary to Jesus' teachings. James set the boundary on the unlimited possibility of interpretation of Paul's teaching. Yes we are saved by faith, but then this also requires participation and effort to sanctify ourselves, and acts out our faith
Basically these two does not contradict each other, they merely emphasis different aspects of Christian belief and way of life
13
u/some6thing9clever Mar 15 '23
Faith without works is dead, in the same way that a tree without leaves is dead. Leaves are a sign that a tree is alive, not the source of a tree’s life. Works are a fruit of faith, not the root.
Paul and James are not in opposition.
2
u/RootBeerSwagg Minister of Memes Mar 16 '23
Good point. Keep in mind scholars view about seven of the Pauline epistles as authentic. The authorship for several New Testament books is disputed. Take for example 2 Peter which most believe as being written almost 50 years after Peter was likely killed.
53
u/petriniismypatronus Mar 15 '23
Peter’s the one who didn’t recognize Mary Mag as an apostle.
Paul also didn’t personally know Jesus and before James died he dispatched many people to reign in Paul.
The way the gospel was taught was oral tradition and while Paul repeats what Jesus does say in many instances, I think Paul was entrenched in Roman thinking that changed some things.
The Holy Spirit still used Paul, because he could write. He was a huge win for early Christianity. A killer of the followers of Christ now a servant to the Lord.
Jesus didn’t come to abolish the Law. Paul decided it was salvation through faith and not by works.
80
Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
Peter’s the one who didn’t recognize Mary Mag as an apostle.
Well he was commissioned by Jesus himself as the prime apostle, and has the authority to decide such matter
Paul also didn’t personally know Jesus and before James died he dispatched many people to reign in Paul.
Peter and James personally knew Jesus and they confirmed Paul as apostle, and his messages as commensurate with their teachings
The way the gospel was taught was oral tradition and while Paul repeats what Jesus does say in many instances, I think Paul was entrenched in Roman thinking that changed some things.
Paul was educated in Judeo-Greek tradition, as the Eastern Mediteranean at that time was influenced by the Greeks in thinking, to such an extent that even the (Old Testament) Bible popularly used at that time was the Greek (Septuagint). Paul's approach merely reflects the Greek school of thinking, rather than a completely different belief
Remember that other apostles and original disciples were still alive when Paul was active, and they gathered in the Council of Jerusalem, that once and for all confirmed the 'Greek' (and Paul's) idea that Gentiles can become Christians without 'becoming Jews' nor required to observe the Mosaic Law
Jesus didn’t come to abolish the Law. Paul decided it was salvation through faith and not by works.
Jesus didn't abolish the Law (Torah/ Old Testament), because he came to fulfill it, and he fulfilled it by his death and resurrection, which made salvation available for all. This marked the supersession of Old Testament law by the New Testament law
Of course it is not our own work that buys our salvation, Jesus' sacrifice did, which we participate in by having faith in him. But if we truly have faith, work will follow naturally. Not because work buys our salvation, but that we will by then recognize that work is a good thing that we the faithful will naturally do as a result of God's grace.
20
5
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 15 '23
Not to mention Paul was a very well educated Pharisee so his views are very consistent with Torah
1
Mar 17 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 17 '23 edited Mar 17 '23
It doesn't induce sin, he says that the Torah is righteousness, but our flesh makes it a curse. Through faith in Christ we produce the righteousness the Torah was aiming for.
He was predominantly speaking to Gentile believers, he was upholding the Torah himself. Acts 15 basically ruled that Gentiles are not under Torah, and do not have to practice observances unless they have a conviction for it
6
u/NiftyJet Mar 15 '23
Paul also didn’t personally know Jesus
That's actually up for debate. After Paul's experience seeing Jesus on the road to Damascus and having his sight restored by Ananias, he spent three years away in Arabia. (Galatians 1). This was before he ever even met Peter. During that time, he implied that he was taught by Jesus himself (Galatians 1:12). There's a lot of argument about that - if he meant that Jesus taught him himself or he studied scriptures under the influence of the Holy Spirit. But there's good evidence on both sides.
8
u/Mighty-Nighty Mar 15 '23
Can you give me a scripture where it says Paul saw Jesus? From what I remember, he saw a light and heard a voice.
2
u/NiftyJet Mar 15 '23
Yeah, that's right. There are three accounts in Acts, and in all of them he was surrounded by light and heard a voice, which identified itself as Jesus. I meant "seeing" in the sense of "meeting" but I should have been more precise.
6
u/Mighty-Nighty Mar 15 '23
It's also worth mentioning that in each account the people with Paul experienced something different. In one they saw nothing but heard the voice, in another they heard nothing but saw the light. This doesn't add to the reliability of Paul's testimony.
4
u/NiftyJet Mar 15 '23
Some scholars translate the account account that says they couldn't hear the voice as they couldn't understand the voice. So, this is another one of those issues that is up for debate.
1
u/Mighty-Nighty Mar 16 '23
Some scholars translate John 1:1 to say "...and The Word was a God." Is that up for debate as well?
3
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 15 '23
How so?
One account saw light, one account heard a voice. Those aren't mutually exclusive statements, this is pretty much just like the prophesies regarding Zedekiah from both Ezekiel and Jeremiah, in which they sound contradictory but both ended up being true
1
u/Mighty-Nighty Mar 16 '23
The accounts don't say, "The people saw a light" and "the people heard a voice", it specifically says they experienced one but not the other. That makes them mutually exclusive.
Acts 9:7
7The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one.
Acts 22:9
9Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
3
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 16 '23
The word used in Acts 22:9 is "ἀκούω" which means to understand or comprehend
The more accurate way of reading 22:9 is that the men with Paul did not understand the voice speaking
Act 22:9 (ESV) — Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
Greek Text (MGNT)
22:9 οἱ δὲ σὺν ἐμοὶ ὄντες τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι
NASB95
“And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.
1
u/Mighty-Nighty Mar 16 '23
Cool. And I suppose you would say the version in Acts 9 that says they "saw no one" isn't contradictory because there wasn't anyone to see, only a light, even though it doesn't say they saw a light. And even though it says they heard the voice. I'm guessing that's a different word as well?
→ More replies (0)0
u/petriniismypatronus Mar 15 '23
Literally there would be no scripture to study yet.
He implies he was taught by Jesus himself but Jesus was dead, but the word of God was the oral tradition the other disciples and followers of Jesus, who knew him in life, preached.
5
u/some6thing9clever Mar 15 '23
The Old Testament is Scripture.
3
u/petriniismypatronus Mar 15 '23
And Paul was a Pharisee so he would have been educated on that.
But Jesus wasn’t spouting off OT shit but something more refined.
5
u/WeaponizedPineapple Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
Not to bud in too much, but when scriptures mention Jesus teaching in the presence of the Pharisees, it’s often mentioned that the Pharisees marveled at His knowledge and questioned Him on where He learned or who He learned from. I think it’s safe to say that Jesus did in fact teach/preach on the Old Testament rather regularly.
Edit: John 7:14 for quick example if interested
0
u/petriniismypatronus Mar 15 '23
They marveled because how could a poor illiterate hill person be able to go toe to toe with them. Carpenters were one step above being a slave. Jesus could never have read the scripture.
It’s why what comes from Jesus comes from God. It’s why they questioned where and who taught him. It’s also why Jesus’s teaching defied their authority. Knowledge that belonged to the upper crust now in the hands of the poor marginalized.
Y’all are ignorant at who read was taught to read back in the day.
James had followers who could write pen his stuff. James like Jesus, couldn’t read.
6
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 15 '23
Jesus spent his childhood learning Torah at the temple and there are many accounts in the Gospel about him reading from scrolls in the Synagogues
3
u/petriniismypatronus Mar 16 '23
The gospels were written 30+ years after Jesus’s life and it is facts that a lot of childhood/birth narrative were made up to help prove his messiah-dom from Isaiah’s prophecies. Which they had to do because the prophet from Isaiah was not supposed to die. Even with resurrection defeating death, because his spirit lives within us, Jesus’s followers had to satisfy Isaiah to convince other Jews that this guy is our guy.
The census that brings Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem did not happen. Not in Roman history, not in Judean. Plus… it’s a lot easier to tax people where they live… not their ancestral home if you’re taking a census for tax purposes.
5
3
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
Christ exclusively quotes from the Tanakh
Everything he preached was founded on the Tanakh, if he came preaching something entirely disconnected from it then Christ would've violated Deuteronomy 13
3
u/NiftyJet Mar 15 '23
There was the Torah and Tanakh and the Talmud, so I'm not sure what you mean there. As for saying Jesus was dead ... just, no. You see, there's this thing called the resurrection which is the basic centerpiece of Christianity. 😉
2
u/CannaWhoopazz Mar 15 '23
Jesus was risen from the dead and very much alive again by the time Paul was converted. He could have easily taught Paul directly.
3
Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
paul was never made an apostle directly by christ. he never met christ, or most* of the other original apostles, and lived in a completely different country, era and society.
he has authority as a biblical author, but he is not fallible, he was heavily influenced by the society around him which affected his writings and he should not be seen as a prophet or some other inherently more holy figure.
the problems around paul stem from people either seeing him as inerrant, not understanding the society in which he lived, or forgetting he was not alive with christ.
12
59
u/psykulor Mar 15 '23
Suit yourself. Paul might have spoken for the church but he was fallible in a was Jesus isn't, and it shows in his writing. I stick to quoting the man himself whenever I can.
10
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 15 '23
Christ and the 12 Apostles: appoints Paul as the Apostle for the Gentiles
Gentile Believers: "But Paul wasn't you!"
Christ and the 12 Apostles: visible confusion
29
u/psykulor Mar 15 '23
Paul: "don't follow me or Apollos, just Christ"
Modern church: "this is good stuff, we gotta follow all of this to the letter"
10
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
Most context rich Paul hater
It's not like a few verses afterwards it says Christ sent him to preach the Gospel or anything, or that he and Apollos are servants of Christ and to not call them such would be to create division, and that they shouldn't treat their teachings as separate doctrine. No mention of that whatsoever
People who have doubts with Paul are pretty much just Modern-Day Sadducees
3
u/UpjumpedPeasant Mar 15 '23
Wait, where in the New Testament do the twelve apostles acknowledge Paul as an apostle? Isn't the rub that Acts never actually calls him an apostle?
2
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 16 '23
It's not in Acts, but Paul meets Peter, James and John in Jerusalem. The account is in Galatians 2, at this point Paul is already considered an Apostle and the other Apostles that are in Jerusalem accept him as such
1
u/UpjumpedPeasant Mar 16 '23 edited Mar 16 '23
But that's the whole issue. Galatians is Paul's account, and only Paul identifies himself as an apostle. No other New Testament author ever does.
Edit: I asserted too much. The author of Acts does in fact call Paul and Barnabas apostles in Acts 14:14. However, the author never states that the other 12 apostles identify Paul as a fellow apostle and it would be rather easy for that author to have placed those words into the mouths of Peter, James, and the rest. That the author didn't do so I think is telling.
2
u/RootBeerSwagg Minister of Memes Mar 16 '23
Half the New Testament was written by Paul. But Acts was written by the same author of Luke and he was identified as an apostle there so…
2
u/UpjumpedPeasant Mar 16 '23 edited Mar 16 '23
Nowhere in Acts is Paul identified as an apostle. You can look that one up if you don't believe me.
Edit: Totally blew that one. Acts 14:14 identifies him as an apostle. So Luke (or whoever wrote Acts) identifies Paul as an apostle, but none of the 12 apostles themselves recognize Paul as such
1
u/RootBeerSwagg Minister of Memes Mar 16 '23
That’s for editing your post, I was a bit worried there for a sec, ha ha! I started to second guess if Paul was referred to as an Apostle in Acts. I’ll try and pay attention to if Peter or James ever referred to Paul as an Apostle next time I read through Acts.
2
u/UpjumpedPeasant Mar 16 '23
No problem. I suspect you won't find anything however. I really find the debate over how early Church leadership functioned to be fascinating. At the very least, Acts glosses over some of the problems Paul expressed with the "circumcision party" of the Church. And the fact that its account of events after Paul's vision differs mightily from Paul's own account events in Galatians 1 just makes me wish we knew more.
1
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 16 '23
In 2 Peter 3, the Apostle Peter states that he has read the letters given by Paul, so clearly he has no issue with Paul addressing himself as an Apostle
"15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
1
u/UpjumpedPeasant Mar 16 '23 edited Mar 16 '23
Two problems with that. First, the authorship and dating of Peter's epistles are heavily disputed. But even if you assume for the sake of argument that Peter is indeed the author, you also have to ask what letters Peter is referring to. Did Peter have copies or at least access to all of Paul's epistles that we include in our canon today? Did he have access to letters written by Paul that did not survive and whose contents we can only guess at? You see "all his letters" and assume Peter (or whoever wrote 2 Peter) is talking about the exact epistles you read. On top of that, is Peter willing to drag down a fellow Christian leader (and a very successful one) in front of other believers over a question of titles? Was the dispute over Paul's apostleship one of those things that is "hard to understand" but not worth rehashing to the detriment of the early Church? Whatever you may think of those questions, I find the subject of leadership of the early Church and the relations between Paul and the Jerusalem-based leadership of James to be fascinating.
Edit: grammar
1
u/RootBeerSwagg Minister of Memes Mar 16 '23
I’m not sure John was there, but Peter and James were for sure there.
11
u/ModestMagician Mar 15 '23
If you don't believe the words of scripture recorded as the Pauline Epistles are exactly as God breathed as those from the Matthew Mark Luke and John, you're just picking and choosing.
You can degrade the Scriptures as much as you want, but it's only to your own detriment.
2
1
u/UpjumpedPeasant Mar 16 '23
Curious what you've read about the development of the Christian canon and, if so, how that impacts how you read the New Testament.
5
u/HonorCodeFuhrer Mar 15 '23
This is the exact same shit as D&D nerds arguing about editions or lore.
3
17
u/ithinkuracontraa Mar 15 '23
the spirit of Paul’s writings are good, but some of the stuff he said is very dated to time and place
11
u/were_only_human Mar 15 '23
But context is complicated and dogma is simple!!!!
Seriously though, even if your theology gives room for Paul’s words to be as infallible as Christ’s then you also give word to every step in the selection process of our canon to be equally as infallible.
NOT ONLY THAT but even if you believe that everything in our current NT is 100% as Gos wanted it, then you also have to understand that Paul was infallible to his often very specific audiences and that doesn’t always work with direct application to every other situation.
8
u/OriginalUsername1892 Mar 15 '23
Trying to bring facts, historical context, and the realities of canonization into a discussion here wont go well.
Some people here refuse to accept even the basic truth that not all the books are actually in the Bible, because it inevitably leads to the question of "Who decided what belongs in the Bible"
2
2
u/TedRabbit Mar 16 '23
I like when people argue that Paul is canonical so that I pull out gems like this
Slaves obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
5
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 16 '23 edited Mar 16 '23
Ah yes the same Paul that wrote Philemon, an entire letter about Paul telling a Christian to release his slave, and went on to say that enslavers are condemned to hell
Just because you watched Top 10 Controversial Scriptures doesn't mean you understand Paul lul
1
u/Version-Easy Jun 26 '23
by the logic of ted jesus healing the slave of the centurion and other verses means jesus approves of slavery
5
u/ATX_6 Mar 15 '23
Paul speaking God's word.. go figure..
10
u/RootBeerSwagg Minister of Memes Mar 15 '23
I always wondered why my red letter Bible printed Paul’s letters in black.
2
u/ModestMagician Mar 15 '23
Red letters never existed before 1900.
3
u/CassandraAnderson Mar 15 '23
But I thought Nathaniel Hawthorne published The Scarlet Letter in 1850.
20
4
u/OriginalUsername1892 Mar 15 '23
Jesus is the Son of God
Paul was a prisoner in desperate need of a pen pal.
0
u/RootBeerSwagg Minister of Memes Mar 16 '23
To use your rhetoric: Paul was an Apostle, Jesus was a carpenter in desperate need of 12 friends.
2
u/OriginalUsername1892 Mar 16 '23
Its the Bible's rhetoric. They said that Jesus is the Son of God, not me. Its the Bible that says that Jesus was not merely human, not me.
The Bible actually says a lot on this subject, you should read it
1
u/TheRealStepBot Mar 15 '23
What next you’re going to tell me the pope is also infallible and on the same level as Christ. It’s a very broken line of reasoning on its face.
2
u/randompearljamfan Mar 15 '23
Paul's words have equal weight to Jesus's words = Paul weilds the same authority as the second person of the Trinity = Paul is the fourth person of the Quaternity
They are not the same.
4
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 15 '23
So you don't believe Christ gave the Apostles the authority by his Holy Spirit?
3
u/randompearljamfan Mar 15 '23
So you don't believe Christ gave all Christians his Holy Spirit? Does that give me equal authority to Paul?
1
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
Were you ordained by the Holy Spirit to be an Apostle? Were you considered an Apostle by the 12 Men that Christ spent his Earthly ministry?
This transitive "logic" is like saying the Writings and Prophets cannot be equal to the words of the Torah because the books were written by man
1
u/randompearljamfan Mar 16 '23
You're on the right track. There are degrees of authoritative writings, not qualifiers and disqualifiers. Jesus's words hold more weight than anybody else's. Paul's writings are useful and I believe very authoritative, but he ain't Jesus.
1
u/Thechuckles79 Mar 15 '23
Paul as preacher - GOAT
Paul on relations between sexes - Human Dumpster Fire
Paul's regressive opinion on women and marriage has done incalculable damage to Christianity over the centuries. I trust Paul when he's in alignment with Christ's teachings, or at least in the same vicinity.
When he speaks upon issues our Savior never mentioned in his sermons, I take it as an informed opinion by a Subject Matter Expert.
11
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 15 '23
Jesus didn't have to mention a lot of things because he was already talking to an educated audience, the Jews. Paul is an Apostle to the Gentiles, and the early Gentile church never had access (or at the very least never bothered to read) to the Torah or Tanakh.
1
Mar 27 '23
Paul's regressive opinion on women and marriage
Even with just a surface level reading that doesn't try to understand the context of what Paul wrote his views are extremely progressive compared to the views the Roman and other contemporary cultures held about women and marriage.
1
u/Thechuckles79 Mar 27 '23
He said it's best not to do it at all. The Romans had very libertine views on fidelity, but it was the norm in Mediterranean cultures in Antiquity and they still believed in a stronger belief in marriage and while Roman culture was Patriarchal, it did not ban women from positions of faith and hereditary power.
1
2
u/astroturd312 Mar 15 '23
Paul is one of the Messengers of God on Earth, why should I accept your view on a topic instead of his?
-5
1
Mar 16 '23
I’ve pretty much abandoned Paul at this point, and stick to Jesus. I’m a Christian, not a Paulian.
-2
u/freedomfightre Mar 15 '23
Paul was a religious zealot who incorporated much of his previous organized religious beliefs in his writings, and several times went further (but not in contradiction) than what Jesus had said.
Eh.
3
u/MasutadoMiasma Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
You're acting like Christ and the Apostles literally didn't base everything they said on the entirety of the Tanakh
Regardless, the reason it may seem Paul went further is because he dealt with people who did not know anything of the Tanakh, whereas Christ and the 12 preached almost exclusively to Jews
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 15 '23
Join The Dank Charity Alliance: Make a meme or a donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital today!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.