So the Apostle Paul was not a Misogynist...

[Annah]

I always cringe when I hear the phrase, "The Apostle Paul."

There were 12 Apostles as Jesus wanted but sadly only 2% of all Christians do not know who the 12th Apostle is (without googling it) and many assume it was Paul.

Gotta love a formal Pharisee who appoints himself Apostle. The guy never hung out with Jesus...nothing. But one day, he started seeing things, fell off his donkey and now he was an Apostle.

[Annah]

A lot of Christians forget about Matthias. Matthias was the true 12th Apostle, replacing Judas Iscariot. Shortly after Matthias is chosen as the 12th Apostle, here comes a Pharisee named Saul riding in on an ass all blind saying the Lord spoke to him from the clouds.

This is where Matthias is kicked to the curb.

Saul becomes Paul and starts to use his skills as a gifted orator and writer to exercise his skills in writing law (As a Pharisee) and thus, you get the Pauline Epistles.

Matthias never stood a chance. We call this a corporate takeover in today's standards.

And yes, you are right. Paul did not meet any requirements of being an Apostle and yet he addressed himself as such in most of his letters.

[SandraJane]

If we may continue down the "Rabbit Hole" for another post or so...

Then what about Paul? Where then does his credence come from? Understandably disliked due to his "misogynistic", anti-woman in the running of the Church, etc.... But is it true?

I came across a book, What Paul really said about women: an apostle's liberating views on equality ... By John Temple Bristow, with the author's point being that Paul's writings were misinterpreted, intentionally and unintentionally. Are you familiar with this book?

SJ

[Annah]

If we may continue down the "Rabbit Hole" for another post or so...

Then what about Paul? Where then does his credence come from? Understandably disliked due to his "misogynistic", anti-woman in the running of the Church, etc.... But is it true?

I came across a book, What Paul really said about women: an apostle's liberating views on equality ... By John Temple Bristow, with the author's point being that Paul's writings were misinterpreted, intentionally and unintentionally. Are you familiar with this book?

SJ

I am currently taking a class called "Paul and the Early Church."  Most of Paul's writings regarding women, according to contemporary scholars, are taken out of context.

Based on his Greco/Roman delivery of his messages were suppose to be taken under the literary tactic of him delivering the message but in such a way that tells the church not to do that. For example, there is an argument about women not speaking in the church. Historically, Paul did not believe this as the deacon and liaison between him and the Church of Corinth was a female.

Matter of fact, many deacons of the ancient churches were female and Paul had used names of females when addresses leaders of various churches; something you do not see in the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels as much.

Paul simply would not use such misogynistic language when there was clearly women leading churches and him working alongside women.

The troubles come in when people interpret the scriptures without thinking about the cultures and literary workings of that time. That's when people get into trouble.

[SandraJane]

Decided to spin this thread from some posts started in the thread Revelations. It started with the mention of the Apostle Paul and upon some comments from Annah, I felt a new thread topic had developed, one that will hopefully shed new light and shed misinformation concerning Paul's attitude in his letters towards Women in the Early Church. Unfortunately this misconceptions are alive still causing division amongst Christians today...

SandraJane

[Amazon D]

I saw the naked archiologist show a while back when i visited my moms old house and saw that show and he was surmising paul was a spy for the romans. What do you all think?

[Annah]

I saw the naked archiologist show a while back when i visited my moms old house and saw that show and he was surmising paul was a spy for the romans. What do you all think?

I doubt that for a few reasons:

Christianity did not pose a threat to the Roman Empire at all during the birth beginnings of the church. The Roman Empire regarded Christianity as every other religion. Matter of fact, they had a faceless God in their capital to represent the Gods or Goddesses that the Roman Government did not personally worship but knew others did.

Martyrs did not become an epidemic during Paul's time either. Paul was not executed just because he was a Christian but because he kept on trying to proselytize people to the faith. Also, while the Roman Empire was sympathetic to other religions, the Emperor was still considered the spokesperson of God. So, if you kept on saying "No, Jesus is" it would have gotten you in trouble. You would not have been arrested the first or second time, but if you continually did it you would have been arrested. If you did it to the point where you became a threat and a treason against the empire, you were killed. Also, by putting down pagans and saying God hates them (in a way) would get you in trouble because they saw you as trying to create discord. So:

1. Christianity did not pose a real threat until 250 AD (and even then only 10% of the Roman Empire were Christians). Even when it became a State Religion a hundred years later, it was only 10%. It grew under the threat of a sword and if you were not a Christian after Constantine, you were prosecuted....so many joined the faith in coercion.
2. Paul could not have been a spy for the Romans if he kept on offending them to the point of execution.
3. There are no documented evidence to state Paul ever worked for the Roman Empire as a Spy.

It is ironic how the Christians of the earlier times did not like the Emperor because he claimed to be the spokesperson for God....and yet...with the fall of the Roman Empire, the Bishop of Rome took the same theological discourse that he was the spokesperson of God.

[tekla]

Well they just didn't take the top post, they mirrored the entire structure for the Empire: The emperor became the pope, the senate became the Cardinals, the governors became bishops.  It's proved a remarkably durable structure.

[Annah]

Well they just didn't take the top post, they mirrored the entire structure for the Empire: The emperor became the pope, the senate became the Cardinals, the governors became bishops.  It's proved a remarkably durable structure.

exactly

And while I do disagree with many things (well almost 99%) of what the Church did after the fall of Rome and onward, they did become a dim light amidst a night of chaos.

[tekla]

Actually don't we refer to that time as the Dark Ages, exactly and precisely because the Church became the central authority as opposed the more enlightened rule of Rome?  Barbarian culture loved The Church.

[SandraJane]

But what about the misinterpretations of Paul's letters in regards to Women in the Church?

We've now ruled out that Paul wasn't a "Spy" for the "Empire", and that the "Barbarians" loved The Church. Can make those topics of there  their own.

SJ

[tekla]

If it's dangerous, or at the least misleading, to try and pull Paul's quotes out of the context of the culture of the time, how much more dangerous to do that with the entire religion?

[Annah]

But what about the misinterpretations of Paul's letters in regards to Women in the Church?

We've now ruled out that Paul wasn't a "Spy" for the "Empire", and that the "Barbarians" loved The Church. Can make those topics of there  their own.

SJ

I posted that on reply number three