Susan's Place Transgender Resources

   First Corinthians was a letter written by Paul to instruct the church how to correct itself from their sinful indulgences and potential false doctrine. It was a relatively new church set within a Greco-Roman city and the church began to experience conflicts in how they can live their lives while practicing what they understood what God wanted for them. The Christians of Corinth requested guidance on how a Christian is "suppose" to act versus how they used to act.

Through Paul's instructions on true wisdom, love, thanksgiving, the Holy Spirit, and immoral practices, we see a formation of what Paul wanted the Church at Corinth to follow and how this type of instruction separates the people of the Church in Corinth to those who still lived a Pagan lifestyle. Throughout these instructions Paul had written to the church, the passage in First Corinthians Chapter six gleans upon Paul's viewpoints of sexuality.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-20, Paul begins to state who is not allowed into the Kingdom of God. Many commentators today uses this passage to devalue, dehumanize, reject, and condemn any form of sexuality other than heterosexuality. My proposal is that Paul had no moral issues with homosexuality and his issues were the sexual exploitations and violence used against another human being. Poor interpretation of key words in this text had muddled the original meaning behind Paul's writings that created the aura of homophobia found today in many churches.


Hearon, Holly E. The Queer Bible Commentary. 1st and 2nd Corinthians. London: Canterbury Press, 1988. Print.

The Queer Bible Commentary is a commentary in which shows the side of the Bible that many do not want to see or cannot see. It tackles issues such as the arsenokoitai debate and sexuality within First Corinthians. She further explains that sacred prostitution was a man or a woman giving into another (the prostitute). Christians are supposed to have the Holy Spirit dwell in them. And not a Christian dwelling within a prostitute.

Martin, Dale B. Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Print.

Sex and the Single Savior takes historical and cultural purposes of sexuality and brings them to the surface of the Biblical texts and the nature of Jesus. He also tackles many current issues that Christians are faced with when it comes to homosexuality and the New Testament. Dale Martin goes into incredible detail between the two greek words of arsenokoitai and malakoi and explains why he believes these terms are not as Conservative Christians make them out to be.

Ellens, Harold J. Sex in the Bible. Westport: Praeger Press, 2006. Print.

Harold Ellens explains that homosexuality within the New Testament is not in itself a sin, rather, it is the practice of homosexuality outside of God's love and outside of a Christian lifestyle that is the sin. Ellens states that heterosexuality and homosexuality is viewed as common sexual practices under God but can be in danger of falling into an immoral pattern if they resorted back to their Pagan ways.


Sampley, Paul J. The New Interpreter's Bible: Volume X. First Corinthians. Nashville: Abingdon Press,  2002. Print.

Paul Sampley, in his final reflections of 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 discusses the fact that no one knows anything of the cultural practices of sexuality as well as the taboos or forbidden acts during Paul's time and it can become very easy for someone to make the assumption that arsenokoitai and malakoi means homosexuality. It is argued that these terms relates to male prostitution in which Paul discusses later in the chapter.

Patai, Raphael. Sex and Family in the Bible in the Middle East. Garden City: Double Day & Company, 1959. Print.

Raphael Patai explores sexuality in regards to the practices and customs of the Middle East and then compares current sexuality in the Middle East to examples that are described within the Bible and the culture of that time. He also cites many historical accounts of the people in the Middle East who practiced various aspects of sexuality and heterosexuality was just one of many forms.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A commentary on the Greek Text. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. Print.

Anthony Thiselton explains the "vice passage" of First Corinthians 6:9. He interprets such sexual forbidden practices as male prostitution, sacred male prostitution and "pederastic practices." He continues on by citing Scroggs in stating that Paul did not find homosexuality "morally reprehensible", rather it was male prostitution.

It sounds like a really interesting study.  I'd love to hear excerpts as you develop it.

Julie

thanks. When the paper is complete ill post some excerpts from it :)

Thanks Annah, yes interesting.

I hope in your text the basis of WHERE St. Paul's thoughts were base on will come to light.
We, most of us, know he was a Pharisee (Saul) and had his Epiphany on the road to Damascus, seeing Jesus Christ.

So the expectation, having seen Jesus would be, that ALL his preaching be based on what Jesus had to say about things, - matters of life.

In my understanding he certainly went well beyond that, at least beyond what was revealed in the 4 gospels. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

It appears to more folks then just me, that Paul still had a strong basis in Jewish moral thinking --- and so if it could not be derived back to Jesus' sayings and teachings, the difference ALWAYS, and with ever Christian splinter group, or sect, is then explained by - induction of the holy spirit.

I'm sure this was the case long before even St. Augustine... and all the other Church fathers that 'structured' doctrine until this day.

Having been myself part (Exorcist) of 'The Mission Church of Christ' (doing deliverance) that turned sect in the 80s, I learned my fair share of what all is being said and done in the "telling of the Holy Spirit".

So, in any case let's see what your findings will tell us. Interesting it should be.

Thank you,
Axelle

Annah,

Just a quick thought if you don't mind. I am not 100% sure on this but at times I think Paul does two things in his writings.
(This is just something i have thought about recently)
One is that in a lot of ways they seems to be kind of short mini sermons and those sections need to be taken as a whole.
We need to remember that Paul was writing to the gentiles so many were coming from a Greek philosophical mind set so it appears to me at times Paul uses that style to make his point. (I think he for uses it in Romans where he starts down a path and then near the end he turns it in such a way to make his point IE Romans chapter1 into chapter 2 which i believe his point is don't judge unless you want God to judge you)

I am not sure that you see this or if i am off base.

+Went for my second Masters at Union Theological Seminary at Columbia University in the M Div program.  But I dropped out.  I have several facebook friends that are in the  gender and queer studies there that may have resources that you might find useful. One of my goodfriends is being ordained (not by Union, they don't ordain) as a queer minister.  I'm sure you and he/she will have tons to talk about so shoot me a PM and I'll give you my info and hers/his on facebook.

My first thesis was on biblical exegesis on Abraham, Sarah and Hagar from a female perspective so pm me.  I might have some resources.

I also recommend using questia.com as a great sourcing device for a thesis.  It was a godsend to me (excuse the pun)

also if you don't mind

QuoteThroughout these instructions Paul had written to the church, the passage in First Corinthians Chapter six gleans upon Paul's viewpoints of sexuality.

This sentence is gramatically awkward.  I think it might have a dangling modifier but I'm too frickin' tired to sort it  out.  Have someone sort it out for you that is an expert. :)

Quote from: SarahM777 on November 10, 2011, 08:08:05 PM
Annah,

Just a quick thought if you don't mind. I am not 100% sure on this but at times I think Paul does two things in his writings.
(This is just something i have thought about recently)
One is that in a lot of ways they seems to be kind of short mini sermons and those sections need to be taken as a whole.
We need to remember that Paul was writing to the gentiles so many were coming from a Greek philosophical mind set so it appears to me at times Paul uses that style to make his point. (I think he for uses it in Romans where he starts down a path and then near the end he turns it in such a way to make his point IE Romans chapter1 into chapter 2 which i believe his point is don't judge unless you want God to judge you)

I am not sure that you see this or if i am off base.

a crazy thing happened to me this semester; before I took "Paul and the Early Church" I believed that Paul was a pompous arrogant misogynist and homophobic person (with a slight hint of narcissism).

Now that I am almost done with this class, my viewpoints have changed (well, for the exception of the arrogance....because he was arrogant lol....he had to be arrogant to use his literary form of Rhetoric....so I will let it slide!).

But yes, I agree with you. He sometimes uses a style of language that does that. In First Corinthians 6:9 I see it more as a mistranslation error than anything else. The more I have delved into this passage by reading a lot of books on the culture of that time in regards to sex, exploitation, etc., I am utterly convinced that the arsenokoitai does not mean homosexuality. It means the action in which someone violently subjugates another person into male prostitution (a sex slave if you will). It is not addressing the prostitute himself, rather those who forced him into it....which makes more sense when compared to the other vice list such as slanderers, thiefs, etc etc

Quote from: mixie on November 10, 2011, 08:14:11 PM
+Went for my second Masters at Union Theological Seminary at Columbia University in the M Div program.  But I dropped out.  I have several facebook friends that are in the  gender and queer studies there that may have resources that you might find useful. One of my goodfriends is being ordained (not by Union, they don't ordain) as a queer minister.  I'm sure you and he/she will have tons to talk about so shoot me a PM and I'll give you my info and hers/his on facebook.

My first thesis was on biblical exegesis on Abraham, Sarah and Hagar from a female perspective so pm me.  I might have some resources.

I also recommend using questia.com as a great sourcing device for a thesis.  It was a godsend to me (excuse the pun)

also if you don't mind


This sentence is gramatically awkward.  I think it might have a dangling modifier but I'm too frickin' tired to sort it  out.  Have someone sort it out for you that is an expert. :)

Yeah, I have re edited some of the language I used. I see you went go to the Seminary of one of my favorite theologians, Diederick Bonhoeffer. Loved that guy.

If you have any friends who can point me out to more books on Queer studies of the New Testament that would be wonderful....also, be sure to tell them about "Sex and the Single Savior." That book is incredible.

I also would be interested in reading whatever portions you would be willing to post.  I have no formal religious training whatsoever, but I've always been fascinated by analysis of parallels between religions so I have read 1 Corinthians a number of times along with the rest of the Bible and the Apocrypha.  I'd be curious to see how my intuited understanding of the material compares to a more rigorous analysis.

I find that my interpretations of selected books, chapters, and verses frequently do not match what I was taught growing up in a "Born-Again" Christian family.

When I was a Christian (Jehovas Witness and Pentacostal) I was firmly of the opinion that Paul was a heretic.
Much of what he said is very divisive in the guise of unification.
He was an insidious man if you ask me.

Quote from: cynthialee on November 10, 2011, 10:47:51 PM
When I was a Christian (Jehovas Witness and Pentacostal) I was firmly of the opinion that Paul was a heretic.

Can you give me some examples in Paul's writings where you found him to be heretical? I never really saw that.

Orthodox and Gnostics alike all agree with him.

Annah,
I tend to agree with you here.
Wasn't "heretic" which was NOT according to Paul in the first place?

Axelle

This guy makes a good point for Paul being a heretic. Far better than I could as I haven't set foot in a church or cracked a bible in over 15 years...

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_02.htm (http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_02.htm)

Hm, if it wasn't for Paul I should think there was not a Christian Church. Not then and not today. YMMV

He sure had his own interpretations of things taught by Jesus, - having been a Pharisee.

Does that make him a Heretic? I don't think so, since he ~ "started the Church" - with Jesus' message to be sure, but still.

Also, isn't a heretic a person that disregards established dogma?

I think Paul created his own dogma. I'm not aware of Jesus' message being dogma as such.

This my thoughts may all sound pretty silly and ever so un-learned to the learned bible scientists of hermeneutics... yet those are my thoughts on the subject.

Axelle

Quote from: cynthialee on November 11, 2011, 08:29:09 AM
This guy makes a good point for Paul being a heretic. Far better than I could as I haven't set foot in a church or cracked a bible in over 15 years...

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_02.htm (http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_02.htm)

I read that article four times.....very carefully. I have to disagree with everything that author made except for one exception: I do agree that Paul was an egotist. Many Greek and Roman based Orators were. It was part of their oral delivery.

Most of his (the author) argument are based on surface level conjectures and his own interpretation of the verses he listed as his sources.

I did not find the article to be even remotely convincing. If he wanted to try to see Paul as a Heretic or convince others who studies Paul, he better do a better job than that.

The author's credibility even sank lower when he suggested Paul may have been gay. I read the New Testament so many times in it's original Koine Greek as well as other translations and nowhere does it ever state, hint, or allude to the fact that Paul is Gay. If one takes Paul's "thorn in his side" argument as being gay, then they dropped the ball.

Paul was never against homosexuality. Therefore, it would have never been a "thorn in his side" and same gender loving people were not regarded as immoral people. It was how they executed their sexual desires that made them immoral (prostitution in pagan temples, forcing boys into sex slavery ...arsenokoitai, etc). The "thorn in his side" could mean ANYTHING under the sun and to assume he was gay from it is just poor scholarly work.

And if you haven't cracked a Bible open in 15 years, then I can definitely see you agreeing with this author because he writes convincingly to someone who doesn't study the Bible...because those who study the Bible just see's his argument as very lacking.

Quote from: Axélle on November 11, 2011, 12:11:20 PM

Also, isn't a heretic a person that disregards established dogma?

Absolutely. The only way you can be a heretic is by believing in a doctrine or orthodoxy that goes against the teachings of the Church. Since there were no doctrine or orthodoxy, it would have been impossible to label him as a heretic. Orthodoxy wasn't established until 350 through 450 CE...and it varies between the western and eastern church as well as the Coptic church.

And if we go on the prior argument of heresy, then Peter could have been labeled as a heretic since he believed that Gentile Christians should observe Judaic law. Today, if a Pastor or Priest said you cannot go to heaven unless you are circumcise, then you teach heresy since orthodoxy teachings states (As Paul stated), it is Grace...not the Law that counts.

Wweeeeellllll,   Matthew 5:18 takes issue with throwing away the law because of the concept of Grace.   So it's definitely not definitive unless you are only interested in reading the Bible as a Christian document. 

Quote from: mixie on November 11, 2011, 03:42:49 PM
Wweeeeellllll,   Matthew 5:18 takes issue with throwing away the law because of the concept of Grace.   So it's definitely not definitive unless you are only interested in reading the Bible as a Christian document.

OK, I think Annah will be good to answer this one.

My humble take:
It is not "throwing away the law" vs "grace" it is GRACE that 'saves' you in the end and NOT the LAW.
As Jesus and most every other sane person knew/knows - you will NEVER be able to ALWAYS live in the LAW. So it still is GRACE that saves you once all is said and done.

NOBODY will EVER be perfect in the LAW. A lot of bigoted folks would wish they were, and therefore feel in their  right to "throw the first stone".
Even the most pious of Pharisees would have to agree it was not possible to completely live in the law.
It was one of Jesus' main arguments against the Jewish religious view/teachings, and pissed of the bigots BIG TIME.
It still seems do so... :-)

So WHY Matthew 5:18 would support the notion of Paul being a heretic (the OP)?
Beats me.

Axelle

Annah,

I do not mean this in any confrontational way. Just for information. I'm a professional scientist just to explain a bit.

I thought or presumed that there are few if any original texts of the person called Jesus. Paul came along a lot later? Are the texts that he wrote available or are you using forensic methods  to understand his publications?

I see you are trying to be unbiased in your research, which must be very difficult in a non-science area. How do you remove your own opinion?

Quote from: Cindy James on November 12, 2011, 02:10:06 AM
Annah,

I do not mean this in any confrontational way. Just for information. I'm a professional scientist just to explain a bit.

I thought or presumed that there are few if any original texts of the person called Jesus. Paul came along a lot later? Are the texts that he wrote available or are you using forensic methods  to understand his publications?

I see you are trying to be unbiased in your research, which must be very difficult in a non-science area. How do you remove your own opinion?

"technically" the earliest manuscripts are about 60-90 CE; between 30 to 60 years after Jesus. There really isn't any concrete proof that the actual Apostles had written the Gospel stories. Many scholars will argue that there is a much older Gospel or text that Matthew, Mark, and Luke borrowed from and that is what we call the "Q" document. The Q document is a theoretical document that the Gospels shard from and then Mark shared from Matthew...but the sources all point to one original document that was lost....which, more than likely, was written by an Apostle.

The letters of Paul...well...most of them are undisputed works of his. Colossians, Ephesians, and 1st Timothy are books that someone may have used Paul's name as the author but was written by another.

Prior to the Canonization of the New Testament, there were 23 Gospels, but 4 were chosen (mainly because the head Bishop were particularly fond of them). The Pauline Epistles were embraced by both the Gnostic and the "Orthodoxy" church so many of Paul's letters are not questioned in terms of when they were written.

Also Paul can be dated about 30 years after Christ. The cross reference between the historical imperial Roman Empire, the fledgling Church that referred to Paul's writings as far back as 120 CE by various writers as a primary source proves that the letters were not written after 100 CE but prior.

OK my take.

Paul said a whole lot of stuff Jesus never said.

Paul was a woman hater.

Enough for me to know that he is not one of the apostles and he likely is damned to be reincarnated as a weevil for 1000 life times.

Quote from: cynthialee on November 12, 2011, 09:42:49 AM
OK my take.

Paul said a whole lot of stuff Jesus never said.

Paul was a woman hater.

Enough for me to know that he is not one of the apostles and he likely is damned to be reincarnated as a weevil for 1000 life times.

1. Paul did state what Jesus had to say and he even went into detail with the explanations when people and churches needed help and advice on issues that Jesus never covered in his ministry. Jesus ministered for 3 years. Jesus covered the important issus in life and commissioned his disciples and followers with the tasks to get into specifics when he is gone. The sheer fact that the earliest churches struggled showed me they needed more instructions on how to live than just the Sermon on the Mount. Also, keep in mind, there was NO scripture being traded back and forth as canon so the churches really needed guidance.

2. Paul was not a womanizer. The simple fact that he wrote to Chloe who led the Church of Corinth tells me he did not have a poor view of women. Plus, if you read the scriptures closely, you will see the verses he spoke about women was a type of oratory art that actually made fun of those who did put down women.  Also, many women led the Ancient Churches from the rise of the Church until which time Christiaity became a state religion and the churches went from the home to public buildings. So Paul would not have created scriptures contrary to people were doing or had been doing before and after his teachings.

You said you haven't cracked opened a Bible in 15 years. You really should read these passages where you think he puts down women and then dwell into commentaries and other books about the subject. Another book I suggest is "Paul among the people."

Isn't SO MUCH of it all to do with hermeneutics/interpretation AND translation too boot?!

As Cindy asked earlier on.".. how can all this be even remotely  considered 'scientific' [my words] - with our present understand of what's scientific in the first place!

The simple thing is, that Paul came across as a lot more severe - at least as he had been read and interpreted over the years. Right?

Jesus was a 'softy' when compared to Paul - the Paul we have been taught during OUR time and instruction.
'Fire and Brimstone preaching' was mostly, if not all, based on Paul - and still would be.



Axelle

This can be a very interesting discussion as Annah is a specialist and expert, or at least learning to be one, in the area.

My teaching in the RC religion were very much based on Paul being the 'attack dog' of the Christian scripture. He was the one who held the concepts in the epistles, no matter who wrote them, and pushed those concepts through his belief. He from his teachings and words appears to be a man of enormous intellect. His thoughts that he was converted to a knew belief, that would radically change his life and his safety, is typical of the great philosophers of the past. In deed you obtain a Doctor of Philosophy by demonstrating your ability to think in a truthful way.

But did he change the bible to suit his thoughts and musings? I would think almost certainly, for the sake of discussion, with no disrespect meant or intended, I suggest that clever people interpret information cleverly. In this incident my personal take is that Paul was not touched by God to be converted, but he used his brains to allow him to understand material he was interested in.

His new understanding came from an accumulation of information that he interpreted. He would have attributed his understanding or interpretations to Godly intervention, but that was totally normal for the time.

His power in the community could well be his oration skills. They are rare now, even with mass media, how much more dynamic would it have been 2000yrs ago to be uplifted by someone talking and explaining and accepting your role in life. When you had little concept of what life was?

Just thoughts and none are intended to be rude.

Cindy

It's just a thought but is it possible that we have gotten to the point that so much of even our current information comes to us in "sound bites" ?  It's done with the news,politics etc. It is far to easy to hear one or two sentences that we may or may not like and then take them and build an argument to "prove" that sentence or two is how they meant something yet when taken within the context of the whole the point that the one doing the writing or the speaking is far different.

Hm,
Sarah, I was part of a ministry (exorcism, no less) and I have listened to "Fire and Brimstone" teaching (preaching was considered to be inferior at this time).

Paul was practically ALWAYS providing the basis for it.
Sound bytes or not, if told the devil will make you burn in hell for ever... IF... this, that, and the other, and ALSO do not forget your tithing - these messages do stick. No doubt.

Yet as always, YMMV
Axelle

Hi Axelle,

If you don't mind could you please tell me what YMMV stands for? I am not up on all the acronims.

I came from the other side of the spectrum. I was raised Lutheran which does still have most of the Catholic ground work. We were told the stories about Noah,David,Jonah etc. but it was only on a surface level never how this applies to our lives now. We ended up knowing more about Luther's statements of doctrine then we ever learned about Jesus and what He said. For the most part we were taught that we were born rotten and would remain that way for all of our natural days. The only ones that God speaks through is the higher ups in synod and then down through the ministers but NEVER to the lay people. Only the ministers could provide absolution or preform the sacraments. In a lots of ways it is still very guilt driven and not out of love.

Quote from: Axélle on November 13, 2011, 01:15:32 AM
Isn't SO MUCH of it all to do with hermeneutics/interpretation AND translation too boot?!

As Cindy asked earlier on.".. how can all this be even remotely  considered 'scientific' [my words] - with our present understand of what's scientific in the first place!

The simple thing is, that Paul came across as a lot more severe - at least as he had been read and interpreted over the years. Right?

Jesus was a 'softy' when compared to Paul - the Paul we have been taught during OUR time and instruction.
'Fire and Brimstone preaching' was mostly, if not all, based on Paul - and still would be.



Axelle

I agree with this so much.  When I went to seminary I was surprised at the large number of LGBQT students that were going there.   Most of them (no lets be honest) all of them seemed to be there to try to rewrite the Bible in kinder more gentler terms by re"interpreting" or finding obscure passages and pinning them together in a different way to create a different view of homosexuality and gender issues.

I guess if you think about the Bible as a "living document" then this sort of makes sense.  The Bible is just waiting for new eyes to reinterpret the words.   I could sort of go along with that concept and respect it.

Where I take issue with this is trying to project philosophies that are modern and did not exist at the time the Bible was written in order to validate some perspective in the Bible that clearly isn't there.  Or ignoring the archaeology and history shows that things written didn't really happen.    We've already done that with the Temple of David and the Exodus.   

Now it seems people are trying to do it with homosexuality and transgender issues.  IOW Adam was really a hermaphrodite who had parts removed to make Eve  etc.   

Of course you can do this and it's interesting but it does come across as a bit of  "Confirmation bias"  that is, you only look at and study what you want to see and ignore all other information contrary to your perspective.   This is generally frowned upon in academic schools but for seminary it can be somewhat essential if you DO  believe the Bible is a living document.

I went to seminary as an Atheist attempting an MDiv and it was a huge mistake.  I quit because I felt on one hand I was ruining other people's spirtiual journey by bringing logic and history into every single discussion.   And on the other hand, having already done a regular Masters in theology it pissed me off. 

You can't do normal academic research that way but apparently the Bible is different.  ;D

Quote from: SarahM777 on November 13, 2011, 07:13:32 AM
The only ones that God speaks through is the higher ups in synod and then down through the ministers but NEVER to the lay people. Only the ministers could provide absolution or preform the sacraments. In a lots of ways it is still very guilt driven and not out of love.

Thank you Sarah (such a nice name too), Please excuse me for going off topic, and displaying some open wounds. But this is just soooooo typical of main stream religion displaying their PROFOUND insecurities and inadequacies, plus their meager attempt at crowd control. It's no wonder the 'flock' are leaving, or have in fact, left in droves. This form of crowd control is so archaic, it beggars belief.

Paul, in Romans, tells us we are all, saints. Try rocking up to your local RC church with that one in tow and see how far you get.

I'll go back to my corner now. The thread can resume its normal broadcast programme.

Be safe, well and happy
Lotsa luv
Catherine

Quote from: Cindy James on November 13, 2011, 01:50:25 AM
But did he change the bible to suit his thoughts and musings? I would think almost certainly, for the sake of discussion, with no disrespect meant or intended, I suggest that clever people interpret information cleverly. In this incident my personal take is that Paul was not touched by God to be converted, but he used his brains to allow him to understand material he was interested in.

The only issue I struggle with concerning this statement is that I don't think Paul wrote according to his musings because we was a devout Jew prior to his conversion. He was even a Pharisee and had worked closely with the temples. His teachings in the Epistles are very much geared to the Gentiles and everything he had been taught his entire life with observing the laws to keep oneself sanctified was now something that had been dramatically altered through the sanctification through grace. Some did disagree with him though. Peter believed that a Christian still had to follow Torah in order for Salvation through the Grace and Atonement through Christ. James stated that it isn't just grace or faith because without works (law) these are dead.

Sometimes I wonder if Paul's "thorn in his side" was his feeling of some type of sadness that everything he learned as a child was no longer entirely applicable with the teachings of his Messiah?

Also, remember, there was no Bible per say when he wrote his letters. Only oral stories of the Gospel account were passed around from the churches.

QuoteHis power in the community could well be his oration skills. They are rare now, even with mass media, how much more dynamic would it have been 2000yrs ago to be uplifted by someone talking and explaining and accepting your role in life. When you had little concept of what life was?

Oh Definitely!

Quote from: mixie on November 13, 2011, 07:20:53 AM
Where I take issue with this is trying to project philosophies that are modern and did not exist at the time the Bible was written in order to validate some perspective in the Bible that clearly isn't there.  Or ignoring the archaeology and history shows that things written didn't really happen.    We've already done that with the Temple of David and the Exodus.   

Now it seems people are trying to do it with homosexuality and transgender issues.  IOW Adam was really a hermaphrodite who had parts removed to make Eve  etc.

Well kinda lol.  I do believe there was homosexuality in the Bible. David, in my opinion, was bisexual. Nowhere else in Hebrew does it describe a man's love for another man to be greater than a woman's. In Hebrew this is not the normal phrase to describe the best of friends.

But I do agree with the other points you raised. I seen way too many people try to point out that this person was trans or that person was trans. There's just not enough to go on to show transgender characters in the Bible. I never found it. I am sure they existed, but to say some characters in the Bible was trans because of they had a "long flowing robe" is a bit overboard.

Also, I agree with you concerning the Exodus story.  They are finding archaeological evidence suggesting that David's kingdom was not as large as people or the Bible said it was. According to new discoveries in Archeology, David ruled the city state of Jerusalem...and not an entire vast Kingdom.

Interesting stuff.

Oh yeah, of course homosexuality existed.   But homosexuality back then was interpreted very differently than modern concepts of homosexuality.

But interpretation of the Bible can be done in a reasonable way and then in an unreasonable way IMHO.  Again I consider it a book not a living spiritual document so that's my bias.  But lets use a different example.

Say you do research back on the experience of slaves in the United States and you find that many of the slave owners basically picked strong slaves and broke up families and so when the slaves that lived together and recoupled and had children,  their strong genetic make up created a situation where African Americans were stronger and more physically capable than their white counterparts.   It's one thing to say that this is what resulted but quite another to try to go back and put intention into it that didn't exist at the time.

So for example it would be like going back and saying slave owners deliberately did this so African Americans would become great athletes in the future.  And that if you think about it they were actually being supportive of future generations of African Americans in the US.

(BTW I know this is filled with politically incorrect crap I don't believe this but I'm using an outrageous example to show how it comes across)

You can't go backwards in history and rewrite the script.   Religious tomes are the only ones  that people feel justified in creating a "foresight" or "intention" in the writing because it is guided by the "hand of God" the "all knowing" etc etc etc.

For those of us who see the Bible as a historical document,  there is no way to reinterpret the information and statements without giving the writers waaaaaaaaaay too much credit.   And technically God did not say any of the apostles or writers had any sort of divine insight.   So IMO we should only interpret what they wrote in the way they wrote it and not try to give it more weight than it deserves.


Paul might have made some statements that to a modern eye could be viewed in a different way today but back then there is no doubting what he meant. 


ETA  I'm not that big on Paul so I'm not trashing your thesis.   Just pointing out a pet peeve of mine.   :angel:

First Paul kills off a bunch of the religous leaders then he inserts himself into the organisation and takes it over and completely distorts the mesage of Jesus to the message of Paul.

I didn't say Paul was a womanizer, I said he was a woman hater. Big diferance.

In Chapter 14 of First Corinthians, Paul writes:

"In all Christian churches, the women should keep silent whenever in church. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate.... If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.... If any one thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, he must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is true and from the Lord God."


First Corinthians, Chapter 11, Paul declares:



"Be imitators of me.... I commend you because you remember me in everything.... But I want you to understand that while the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is her husband.... And any woman who prays with her head uncovered dishonors her husband; if a woman will not cover her head with a veil, then her hair should be shaved off.... For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.... Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, as a sign of submission to her husband that all men and angels will see.... And if anyone disagrees with me about his, they must be told to obey; for nothing else is acceptable in churches of God."

(haven't had this discusion in years)

I am not the only one who thinks paul is a heretic. All you have to do is type in Paul the H and google comes up with heretic imediatly.

Just because I haven't had a bible in hand in decades does not mean that your opinion on the matter trumps mine. I spent 2 decades researching the bible very closely. I make my statements that Paul is NOT a christian with conviction and allot of thought and research into the matter.
I am not just spouting off at the mouth. Many others also see Paul as the greatest threat to true christianity that the devil ever cooked up.

Paul, when Saul was a Jewish Pharisee,

his attitudes are clearly influenced by Jewish teaching/learning --- does that make him a heretic?

Heretic: "A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church."

Now he STARTED the church, how could he be called a heretic?

I do myself not much like any of those statements either, but is a person that expanded on Jesus' message a heretic - or one that contradicts established dogma of the church?

My understanding is the latter, you may like the man or not,
Axelle

Doing some searching on the matter I find that the following historical and literary figures seem to share many of my opinions of Paul.
Thomas Jefferson, Carl Jung, Mahatma Gandhi, Robert Frost, Albert Schweitzer, Ernest Hemingway, Kahil Gilbran, Soren Kierkegaard, Will Durant, Martin Buber, George Bernard Shaw.

Quote from: Annah on November 13, 2011, 07:40:01 AM
Peter believed that a Christian still had to follow Torah in order for Salvation through the Grace and Atonement through Christ. James stated that it isn't just grace or faith because without works (law) these are dead.

Thank you Annah for that insight into Peter. I've always known these was a difference between Peter & Paul and it was this obvious difference, where Peter basically looked after the Jewish conversion in Rome and setup the chain of authority and command for the church and Paul, basically hit the road and looked after the Gentile conversion.

In taking this revelation further, if the roles were reversed and the churches authority and command lines were based on Pauls' attitude', we'd be seeing a totally different church today.

After all wasn't Mosaic Law terminated at the crucifixion when the veil was torn?

From my understanding it was from that moment onward, Christ's new commandment, to love one another was to be invoked. That's what Jesus came for. Mosaic law hadn't and couldn't work, so God had to do something new, that would work. So in fact Peter denied his instructions, took up the Torah and and reinstitutionalised Judaism using a quasi Torah, while Paul "sprucked" the teaching of Jesus outside of Rome in "branch" land. I gleaned a sense of discontent between Paul & Peter from Paul's writings on occasions when he was letting the various regions know he had been "recalled" to Head Office (Rome) as the boss (Peter) wanted to have a, "chat" about what was happening. out there in "branch" land. Just the attitudes between the two would have been enough to sight major organizational differences. Paul was anything but conservative and Peter was the quintessential ultra conservative, and Jesus spoke to Peter on numerous occasions about this. Sort of "Yes Lord, No Lord, three bags full Lord" attitude.

I'm probably 100% wrong here, but that revelation came to me from your recent post. Thank you for your insights into Paul. Compelling reading.

Be safe, well and happy
Lotsa luv
Catherine

Quote from: mixie on November 13, 2011, 08:06:54 AM
Oh yeah, of course homosexuality existed.   But homosexuality back then was interpreted very differently than modern concepts of homosexuality.

But interpretation of the Bible can be done in a reasonable way and then in an unreasonable way IMHO.  Again I consider it a book not a living spiritual document so that's my bias.  But lets use a different example.

Say you do research back on the experience of slaves in the United States and you find that many of the slave owners basically picked strong slaves and broke up families and so when the slaves that lived together and recoupled and had children,  their strong genetic make up created a situation where African Americans were stronger and more physically capable than their white counterparts.   It's one thing to say that this is what resulted but quite another to try to go back and put intention into it that didn't exist at the time.

So for example it would be like going back and saying slave owners deliberately did this so African Americans would become great athletes in the future.  And that if you think about it they were actually being supportive of future generations of African Americans in the US.

(BTW I know this is filled with politically incorrect crap I don't believe this but I'm using an outrageous example to show how it comes across)

You can't go backwards in history and rewrite the script.   Religious tomes are the only ones  that people feel justified in creating a "foresight" or "intention" in the writing because it is guided by the "hand of God" the "all knowing" etc etc etc.

For those of us who see the Bible as a historical document,  there is no way to reinterpret the information and statements without giving the writers waaaaaaaaaay too much credit.   And technically God did not say any of the apostles or writers had any sort of divine insight.   So IMO we should only interpret what they wrote in the way they wrote it and not try to give it more weight than it deserves.


Paul might have made some statements that to a modern eye could be viewed in a different way today but back then there is no doubting what he meant. 


ETA  I'm not that big on Paul so I'm not trashing your thesis.   Just pointing out a pet peeve of mine.   :angel:

oh trust me, I know you aren't :) a lot of our perspectives on biblical interpretation are virtually identical :)

Quote from: cynthialee on November 13, 2011, 09:18:00 AM
In Chapter 14 of First Corinthians, Paul writes:

"In all Christian churches, the women should keep silent whenever in church. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate.... If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.... If any one thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, he must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is true and from the Lord God."


First Corinthians, Chapter 11, Paul declares:



"Be imitators of me.... I commend you because you remember me in everything.... But I want you to understand that while the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is her husband.... And any woman who prays with her head uncovered dishonors her husband; if a woman will not cover her head with a veil, then her hair should be shaved off.... For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.... Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, as a sign of submission to her husband that all men and angels will see.... And if anyone disagrees with me about his, they must be told to obey; for nothing else is acceptable in churches of God."

(haven't had this discusion in years)

I am not the only one who thinks paul is a heretic. All you have to do is type in Paul the H and google comes up with heretic imediatly.

Just because I haven't had a bible in hand in decades does not mean that your opinion on the matter trumps mine. I spent 2 decades researching the bible very closely. I make my statements that Paul is NOT a christian with conviction and allot of thought and research into the matter.
I am not just spouting off at the mouth. Many others also see Paul as the greatest threat to true christianity that the devil ever cooked up.

Cynthialee,

You are reading it at the surface level and not getting to the nature of what Paul was trying to say. First of all, Paul wrote to the Church of Corinth on the behest of Chloe who was a church leader there. Paul even had great admiration for the women who led that church. You are not taking into account the style he was doing when writing these statements. In addition you take scriptures which appears to make Paul a chauvinist without looking at the whole picture:

Romans 16:1-2: I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well. Phoebe was a deacon on the church of Rome and a deacon was a person of high church authority; second to only the Church Pastor.

Romans 16:3-4: Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus, and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Noticed how Paul mentioned Prisca (Or Priscilla) first before her husband. This hardly ever happened in a formal letter of that time. Matter of fact, it will be another 1800 years before others placed the wife before the husband....and even today you see people placing the husband before the man. Prisca and Aquila co pastored the Church of Roman where Phoebe was the deacon. Odd that Paul would give so much praise to the Church of Rome during his greetings with the church mostly led by women if he felt a woman's place is to be quiet...don't you think?

Romans 16:7: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.  Again, Junia, a woman, being placed up on prominence with an Apostle.

Philippians 4:2-3: I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life. Another set of women who led a church; this time in Philippe.

Also, just because other people believe Paul is a heretic be googling it will not convince me that Paul was a heretic. First of all, he doesn't even meet the first qualification of a heretic which means goings against orthodoxy since many of the orthodoxy creeds and teachings were based from Paul's writings.

The ones I read so far through google about Paul being a heretic are Arm Chair theologians who think they got it right. It is no more impressive to me than someone going to WebMD and thinking they can work their way through triple bypass hearth surgery if a doctor let them hold the scalpel.

Well obviously you are convinced of your scholarly supieriority in this matter.

Now he STARTED the church, how could he be called a heretic?
Thought the book read: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church?


His power in the community could well be his oration skills.
Which, long before Jesus or Paul showed up, was demonstrated to be a profoundly bad thing.  Gorgias, Plato, somewhere around 380 BCE.

They are rare now, even with mass media, how much more dynamic would it have been 2000yrs ago...
Mass media has made such skills more rare, not less.  2000 years ago it was the ONLY way to get your idea across. 
You'd have managed better
If you'd had it planned
Now why'd you choose such a backward time
And such a strange land?
If you'd come today
You could have reached a whole nation
Isreal in 4 BC
Had no mass communication

Quote from: cynthialee on November 13, 2011, 04:21:33 PM
Well obviously you are convinced of your scholarly supieriority in this matter.

it really has nothing to do with "scholarly superiority." I've spent over 10 years studying the Bible and other religious related matter in an academic setting (and another 10 years Pastoring...both from a conservative point of view and a progressive point of view, so, I will just know a little bit more about it. When I see websites of people who profess something that is contrary or contradicts certain issues then I will say something about it . It has nothing whatsoever to do with you.

My studies are no different than a Medical professional studying medicine for over 10 years or a Law professional studying law for over 10 years.

And like any other profession, there are always tons more to learn and no one will be fully learned in any profession of their passions.

Reading those websites where the writers had some very large mistakes and holes in their arguments is like a Doctor in bio chemistry reading websites on how the Government found the cure of cancer but it is hiding it for whatever nefarious purposes. A M.D. will point out the flaws in their arguments. I am simply doing the same thing on another topic.

It's just very difficult to label Paul as a heretic based on writings that were used as a foundational keystone on the theological development of the church. I am in no way saying Paul must be right; what I am saying is, it is incorrect to label him as a heretic.

However, it is also a fact that who is a heretic to one person is a shining light to another. People like Justin the Marytr, Marcion, Galileo, Martin Luther, etc, has all been labeled as a heretic by some and enlightened leaders to others. In regards to Paul, he could be labeled as a heretic by the Judaic faith but he was not a heretic to the Christian faith.

And yes, Paul was tasked with the persecution of very early church leaders (during and very shortly after the death of Christ) but Matthew was also a Tax Collector for the Roman State. God has a unique way of changing the hearts of even the most despised people to become a light in the darkest of places.

As a Christian believer and as a Wiccan, I always found this to be a great attribute for a God. Very admirable.

Bingo,
* In regards to Paul, he could be labelled as a heretic by the Judaic faith but he was not a heretic to the Christian faith. *

Now, unless we would like to redefine the meaning of the word "heretic" Annah put the situation in a pithy sentence. Thank you.

An interesting diversion to the OP, now we may get back to this "Thesis Proposal on 1 Corinthians 6:9"?

Sorry, just curious. Really am.

...
Axelle

Quote from: Annah on November 13, 2011, 04:08:54 PM

Romans 16:3-4: Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus, and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Noticed how Paul mentioned Prisca (Or Priscilla) first before her husband. This hardly ever happened in a formal letter of that time. Matter of fact, it will be another 1800 years before others placed the wife before the husband....and even today you see people placing the husband before the man. Prisca and Aquila co pastored the Church of Roman where Phoebe was the deacon. Odd that Paul would give so much praise to the Church of Rome during his greetings with the church mostly led by women if he felt a woman's place is to be quiet...don't you think?

Not to be a persnickity wench but this is exactly what I'm talking about.  Modern concepts of feminism had no bearing whatsoever in this text nor in his choice to put Prisca before her husband.   It wasn't a "political statement"  for all we know the guy could have been screwing her and fell into habit.


Also just because Paul mentions a few women doesn't mean he has a general respect for women across the board.  I would think you especially would know that.

My father used the word ->-bleeped-<- my entire childhood and had absolutely no respect for minorities in general.    But  his carpool mate and best friend at work was a black man.  He also was really good friends with an Asian guy.   But those two were "different."

Just in the same way his general view of minorities was one of disrespect with a few exceptions.   And in my own personal observations,  when a person does have bigoted or sexist attitudes,  the exception that breaks the rule for them is usually heaped with praise and respect because they surprised the bigot.   In fact I know quite a few homophobic women who think that homosexuals will burn in hell and believe that gay men are basically pedophiles.   Yet these women absolutely adore their gay hair dressers and recommend them to everyone.


When someone is writing the rules as they take it to be that God meant it,  and they truly believe in God,  you can bet that they will make their views clear.   We don't need to break out the shoe box and go through their letters to friends to decode their real feelings.  And whether or not Paul personally may have felt differently, his words did lead to women being oppressed with justification first.


Which brings us to this

Quote from: Annah on November 13, 2011, 06:57:24 PM

And yes, Paul was tasked with the persecution of very early church leaders (during and very shortly after the death of Christ) but Matthew was also a Tax Collector for the Roman State. God has a unique way of changing the hearts of even the most despised people to become a light in the darkest of places.

As a Christian believer and as a Wiccan, I always found this to be a great attribute for a God. Very admirable.

Also the typical seminarian answer.   When cornered with facts just whip out your "GOD HAS HIS REASONS" coupon and try to redeem it to circumvent the issue at hand.

LOL   :laugh:

I'm just teasing but you sure are rustling those old hackles of mine from seminary.   LOL



   The only people I ever take seriously as Biblical scholars are the ones who have actually read it in Greek and Hebrew.   If you haven't read it  in one of those languages yer just playing.

I however have NOT.   I'm lazy git.  But for the rest of you out there,   when someone purports to be a Biblical Scholar and have not learned Greek or Hebrew to read it,  they ain't.

Not directing this at Annah,  I'm assuming you have.   :angel:

Just following the thread without need for searching for it :)

Quote from: CatherineSarah on November 13, 2011, 07:38:09 AM
Thank you Sarah (such a nice name too), Please excuse me for going off topic, and displaying some open wounds. But this is just soooooo typical of main stream religion displaying their PROFOUND insecurities and inadequacies, plus their meager attempt at crowd control. It's no wonder the 'flock' are leaving, or have in fact, left in droves. This form of crowd control is so archaic, it beggars belief.

Paul, in Romans, tells us we are all, saints. Try rocking up to your local RC church with that one in tow and see how far you get.

I'll go back to my corner now. The thread can resume its normal broadcast programme.

Be safe, well and happy
Lotsa luv
Catherine

Thank you Catherine,

It's been along strange trip. God never meant us to be part of the "Borg Collective" so to speak. God did give us boundaries but within those boundaries is more freedom then we could ever imagine. When i was much younger before going off to school my mom tells of me of what i was like and she kept telling me i was a lot like Tigger from Winnie the Pooh. Somewhere along the line that person got lost or placed in a box. The thing i am learning is that God made me,Sarah Michelle, to be a hyper bouncy person that sees life through eyes of wonder, and to be the type of friend that sticks through even the worst of times. I have found that God seems to be so much closer when to me when i have been at a Third Day or Casting Crowns concert, or when  I listen to music where I can just let go and be me as opposed to when i go to a very ritualized church setting.  As an example the old hymns do not speak to me the same way that they do for my mom. Just because God wants me to be that way does not ever give me the right to tell someone else that they are wrong if it is within God's boundaries for all. I am never to place the limitations that God has placed on me and me alone on someone else. ;)

Quote from: mixie on November 13, 2011, 11:32:57 PM
   The only people I ever take seriously as Biblical scholars are the ones who have actually read it in Greek and Hebrew.   If you haven't read it  in one of those languages yer just playing.

I however have NOT.   I'm lazy git.  But for the rest of you out there,   when someone purports to be a Biblical Scholar and have not learned Greek or Hebrew to read it,  they ain't.

Not directing this at Annah,  I'm assuming you have.   :angel:

Yes. Unfortunately lol. 3 years of Hebrew and 3 years of Greek. I'm not at the point where I can instantly translate as I am reading it but I am getting there lol. I can do a mean Bar/Bat Mitzah!!

My mom took some pics of Pompeii and one of those pics had graffiti etched into the stone. She asked me what it meant and it read "Reusius took a ->-bleeped-<- here." Mom told me she took the pic at the old rediscovered bathhouse and that picture was at the latrine. So, my Koine Greek is paying off!!! :P

Annah,

Just a quick question for you. Do you find that often with Paul's writings it is like we are given the answers but we do not have the questions that were asked? Is it also possible that Paul was not thinking that his letters would have been saved, so in some cases he is addressing things that were unique to that church and were not meant to be a be all and end all doctrine for all time?

For example Paul goes into one of his letters about men and long hair and it's not natural for men to have long hair. Yet Paul being a Pharisee would know about the Nazerites (Samson was one) who were NOT to cut their
hair. He would also have heard or seen John the Baptist who also most likely did NOT cut his hair. So then the is question is what is Paul really saying on this?

Quote from: SarahM777 on November 13, 2011, 07:13:32 AM
Hi Axelle,

If you don't mind could you please tell me what YMMV stands for? I am not up on all the acronims.

Your Methods May Vary

Love
Catherine

Quote from: Annah on November 14, 2011, 07:50:35 AM
Yes. Unfortunately lol. 3 years of Hebrew and 3 years of Greek. I'm not at the point where I can instantly translate as I am reading it but I am getting there lol. I can do a mean Bar/Bat Mitzah!!

My mom took some pics of Pompeii and one of those pics had graffiti etched into the stone. She asked me what it meant and it read "Reusius took a ->-bleeped-<- here." Mom told me she took the pic at the old rediscovered bathhouse and that picture was at the latrine. So, my Koine Greek is paying off!!! :P

My husband is Greek and I've been married for 12 years and all I know how to say is "I want Coffee"  LOL  I thought I'd learn Greek but wanted to learn Hebrew first because I was focusing on OT  THAT lasted about a month. LOL

Kudos to you.   :angel:

YMMV = Literally means "Your mileage may vary" but is often used in forum talk meaning
that your results or opinion will vary.

And as always --- YMMV :-)

Axelle

Catherine and Axelle,

Thank you for taking the time for answering.

Sarah  :)

Quote from: SarahM777 on November 14, 2011, 08:35:49 AM
Annah,

Just a quick question for you. Do you find that often with Paul's writings it is like we are given the answers but we do not have the questions that were asked? Is it also possible that Paul was not thinking that his letters would have been saved, so in some cases he is addressing things that were unique to that church and were not meant to be a be all and end all doctrine for all time?

For example Paul goes into one of his letters about men and long hair and it's not natural for men to have long hair. Yet Paul being a Pharisee would know about the Nazerites (Samson was one) who were NOT to cut their
hair. He would also have heard or seen John the Baptist who also most likely did NOT cut his hair. So then the is question is what is Paul really saying on this?

I would have thought that most people would not think that their writings would last, and in Paul's time it would have been the norm, as word of mouth was the means of communication. Possibly this is a reason why the bible stories are so odd, is that people are remembering verbal hand downs, which we know are totally inaccurate and subject to unintentional change.

I may (as usual) be totally wrong but letters imply a response rather than a statement. So if the concept or translation of letters is correct, Paul's thoughts were a response rather than a dissertation.

Annah, is there information that Paul's letters were letters or a more broad public statement.  I'll also demonstrate my complete idiocy, Who were the letters written too? The Corinthians, but to whom? Is that known?

Cindy

Setting aside scholarly teaching and going on faith the word says that Jesus told people that they must be willing to hate their lives in this world and be willing to forsake everything for Him.
One's pride would be among this.
Such as the disciples being beaten and counting it joy to be worthy of suffering shame for the name of the Lord.

With this in mind those who follow by faith can see where Samson would have been willing to follow the Lord and judge Israel having to bear the shame of long hair like a woman.

Isaiah was commanded to walk naked and barefoot for three years. Those who try to follow by faith tend to just believe that he was smart enough not to question God and just do as commanded. Later the Lord would say that his servant Isaiah was a type and shadow of what the Lord would allow to come upon those who are rebellious.

The word also says Jesus suffered the shame of the cross and the humiliation of those who would mock Him.
Paul wrote that he felt he wasn't even worthy of his position as he persecuted the saints and held the raiment of those who killed Stephen.

Jeremiah was in prison and suffered even being cast into a pit of mire.

Ezekiel was a member of the children of captivity. A slave.

According to scripture Peter suffered the rebuke of the Lord when Jesus referred to him as satan and later the rebuke of Paul who said he was living wrong according to the faith. It appears he took each in stride even giving honour unto Paul in his letter.

Noah the preacher of righteousness preached about 500 years and had no converts. While this showed that church size doesn't matter it also shows he suffered shame for 500 years or so.

Lot was ridiculed when he announced that Sodom would be destroyed and his sons in law should gather with him.

To the natural mind many of these things make no sense but they all agree that those who followed the Lord led lives most people wouldn't want to live.

Abraham for example was commanded to offer his son unto God. While this is a type and shadow of the Lord raising Jesus it would have been murder had he done it.
Imagine the shame of following God to the point where you feel the Lord told you something that went against the law (of the land) and would probably risk having your spouse think you are crazy and by today's standards ask for a divorce.
Which may very well be what some transgenders do face. Seeking to have the body altered to match the mind and live contrary to popular teaching.

At any rate that is how I see the topic of being willing to suffer shame for the Lord.
I won't debate it. It's just what I believe.

Quote from: Cindy James on November 16, 2011, 01:56:12 AM
I would have thought that most people would not think that their writings would last, and in Paul's time it would have been the norm, as word of mouth was the means of communication. Possibly this is a reason why the bible stories are so odd, is that people are remembering verbal hand downs, which we know are totally inaccurate and subject to unintentional change.

I may (as usual) be totally wrong but letters imply a response rather than a statement. So if the concept or translation of letters is correct, Paul's thoughts were a response rather than a dissertation.

Annah, is there information that Paul's letters were letters or a more broad public statement.  I'll also demonstrate my complete idiocy, Who were the letters written too? The Corinthians, but to whom? Is that known?

Cindy

Yes. Paul had absolutely no idea that these personal letters to specific people of specific churches would last so long. He did not even have a clue that his letters would end up as religious canon either. It's like you writing a comprehensive email to a new business owner to give them advice on starting a business because you have successful experience in that area and then your email is being circulated for two thousand years and it becomes Business Dogma.

His letters were very specific. For example, 1st and 2nd Corinthians were written to the church of Corinth. The second letter was him writing bacl to the church telling them how disappointed he was that they lost their focus.

His other letters were written specifically to other people to...and some of his letters were not written by him at all.

Annah,

Just a quick thought. Let's say Paul was alive today and was dealing with three churches one in New York City one in Wheaton Il and one in the Ozarks, is it not also possible that Paul was addressing some cultural issues? Would his letter to one be the same as it would be to the other two?  It would seem to me that even though they may have some of the same problems, each would have still have problems unique to where they are at.

How much of what think is true is filtered through our traditions and culture? Just looking at one thing that i can relate to as i was there when the debates about modern Christian music were going around. If it even had a slight rock beat to it you were not suppose to listen to it as it was from the Devil. Yet if you go back on even the old hymns many were written to bar tunes. They also were at one time new music that spoke to the people at that time. But if the music that is still at this time is truly traditional why is the music played on an organ and was not written before 1500 AD? If it is truly the only spiritual way why are we not still singing to rams horns,lyres and harps? And why are we not singing in Hebrew,Aramaic and Greek?  I am just using this as an example as it is something that has been looked at through tradition and culture and not that God ever said it was wrong.