Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site mako.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!mako!seifert From: seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Whats wrong with this eqation? (Paul=Jesus) Message-ID: <700@mako.UUCP> Date: Sun, 14-Apr-85 02:00:21 EST Article-I.D.: mako.700 Posted: Sun Apr 14 02:00:21 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Apr-85 05:20:55 EST References: <765@ccice5.UUCP> Reply-To: seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) Distribution: net Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm Lines: 81 Summary: In article <765@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >I constantly see people using the writings of Paul to support or >attack a stand. This has always bothered me because there are some >things in Paul's writings that I can't accept. I have trouble with some of his stuff as well. > Some even seem to contradict the words of Jesus in the Gospels. Examples would be useful here. (hint hint) > I was brought-up RC and we were told this was the Pope's job. [:- )] You mean Paul wasn't the first Pope? :-) > I have this problem with putting the words of Paul on an > equal ground with those of Jesus. > Yes. It seems obvious that no ordinary human's words should be considered to equal to those of Jesus, even special cases like Paul or the Pope. I *think* what has happened is that Paul wrote letters to specific groups of people, at a specific time. There were various circumstances, customs, etc., which he didn't bother to specify, since these were *letters*. His intended audience already knew the circumstances and customs. But not everyone who reads these letters today, as part of the Bible, understands the original context. Sort of like if a few of these USENET messages were saved for 2000 years and someone then tries to figure out what ":-)" means, or better yet: *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSIAH *** Example: I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expen- sive clothes, but with good deeds, ap- propriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. 1 Timothy 2:9-12 NIV Braided hair? I can see objecting to wasting large amounts of time and money on personal appearance (some people really overdo it), but are we to read this as outlawing braided hair altogether? Gee, I hope not. Women cannot teach but must be silent? This really makes very little sense (if any), and his explaination involving Adam and Eve ( 1 Tim 2:13-14) doesn't really help. He seems to imply that since Eve was fooled by Satan, that *all* women are easily fooled by Satan. And that men are not easily fooled be Satan, but are easily fooled be women. (especially those with braided hair? :-) ) In a way, it seems that Paul is undoing the work of Christ. Christ came and took away the Law, all those rules. Then Paul comes in and makes a bunch of new ones? It doesn't seem that this would be Paul's intention, yet that's how it reads. I would like to be able to say that Paul was writing about specific cases, and didn't mean for his letters to be interpreted as creating a new set of rules to be followed. But that's not how it comes out when I read chapter 1. Verses 6-10 are especially interesting. He says that the law is good if used properly, that it is not for good men, but for bad. And then a few paragraphs later he comes up with a bunch of rules for people to follow, presumably people that he considered good. AAUUGGHH! Anyone have any insights here? _____ |___| the Bavarian Beagle _|___|_ Snoopy \_____/ tektronix!mako!seifert \___/