Paul and the Law

[Atheist Mormon]

On 5/5/2017 at 10:56 AM, bluebell said:

And it's hard to get past his sexism.  

It's amazing fact that He was. And yet Paul was the Father of Christianity as Brigham Young was to Mormon Church. It is literally amazing how Humans get past those sexist Scriptures Paul penned (most scholars think He didn't) and worship Him. 

How do they do it?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

It's amazing fact that He was. And yet Paul was the Father of Christianity as Brigham Young was to Mormon Church. It is literally amazing how Humans get past those sexist Scriptures Paul penned (most scholars think He didn't) and worship Him. 

How do they do it?

I don't know anyone who worships Paul so i have no idea 'how they do' that.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't know anyone who worships Paul so i have no idea 'how they do' that.

That is a matter of perspective. It's like visiting Rome and ignoring Peter against overwhelming visual slaughter.

[bluebell]

Just now, Atheist Mormon said:

That is a matter of perspective. It's like visiting Rome and ignoring Peter against overwhelming visual slaughter.

It's not really though.  The word worship has a pretty basic definition in religious vernacular.  It means to reverence and adore a deity.  

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

It's amazing fact that He was. And yet Paul was the Father of Christianity as Brigham Young was to Mormon Church. It is literally amazing how Humans get past those sexist Scriptures Paul penned (most scholars think He didn't) and worship Him. 

Huh? So far as I'm aware the Corinthian epistles aren't controversial in authorship at all. Everyone attributes them to Paul. Some of the other ones are more controversial of course - especially Hebrews.  

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Huh? So far as I'm aware the Corinthian epistles aren't controversial in authorship at all. Everyone attributes them to Paul. Some of the other ones are more controversial of course - especially Hebrews.  

These are two of his most controversial quotes about women which are disputed that he ever penned them.

1 Timothy 2: 9-15 (NASB) says:

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.^{[1Tim. 2:9–15]}

1Cor 11:13-9

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.^{[1Cor 11:3–9]}

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's not really though.  The word worship has a pretty basic definition in religious vernacular.  It means to reverence and adore a deity.  

From your perspective perhaps. From my end (being an Eastern Orthodox) we worshipped everybody, especially Mary Magdalene, whose name was "Mary the Godess", I'm not making this up.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

From your perspective perhaps. From my end (being an Eastern Orthodox)....

Question...your alias gives the impression you were once LDS and are now an atheist.  Could you share your actual background so I don't make assumptions I shouldn't.  Just very basic, what faith or faiths you were and what you are now.  Thank you.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Question...your alias gives the impression you were once LDS and are now an atheist.  Could you share your actual background so I don't make assumptions I shouldn't.  Just very basic, what faith or faiths you were and what you are now.  Thank you.

Calm, I am sorry, I should do that before your asking. 

Yes I used to be a Mormon. Came to Utah around 1980, Married in Manti Temple and quickly fell in love with the State. I have kids, all live in Salt lake.. I spent most of my life in Utah, I have a place in Utah, never felt separated from the place. The Church played a crucial part in my life. 

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

These are two of his most controversial quotes about women which are disputed that he ever penned them.

While Timothy is generally held  as not by Paul I've never heard anyone dispute 1 Cor. Do you have a source for that?

[Atheist Mormon]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

While Timothy is generally held  as not by Paul I've never heard anyone dispute 1 Cor. Do you have a source for that?

Well....My sources are historians rather than apologists who would not support this hypothesis. Bart Ehrman has few books on the subject.

"Miquoting Jesus", "Jesus Interrupted", to name a couple. 

[clarkgoble]

28 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Well....My sources are historians rather than apologists who would not support this hypothesis. Bart Ehrman has few books on the subject.

"Miquoting Jesus", "Jesus Interrupted", to name a couple. 

Umm. Apologists? I was more thinking of all the main commentators on the Pauline epistles I've read including the Anchor series. I don't know of any Mormon apologists who've even raised the issue. All the ones I'm familiar with are fine with the pastoral epistles and Hebrews not being written by Paul. But every commentary I've read assume 1 Corinthians to be one of the uncontested epistles. I did a quick JSTOR search and found this article. It addresses not the epistle as you are asserting but just chapter 13. Note it notes that the authorship of 1 Corinthians is uncontested but notes a recent (then in 1998) argument about chapter 13. Your quote is from chapter 11 though which again, I believe is uncontested at least based upon my JSTOR search.

I did some searching for Bart Ehrman contesting the authorship of 1 Corinthians but couldn't. Also Ehrman's claims are extremely controversial as I'm sure you know. In Forged: Writing in the Name of God he says about 70% of the New Testament are forgeries. That doesn't really reflect scholarly (not apologetic) consensus. (Although of course it's mainstream that many of the Pauline epistles weren't written by Paul) But when I looked up Ehrman's view, it seems he accepts Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon as written by Paul. (Almost everything else in the NT he sees as a forgery)

So I'm not quite sure where in the books you mention you are getting your information. Could you quote the relevant passage?

Edited May 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Atheist Mormon]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. Apologists? I was more thinking of all the main commentators on the Pauline epistles I've read including the Anchor series. I don't know of any Mormon apologists who've even raised the issue. All the ones I'm familiar with are fine with the pastoral epistles and Hebrews not being written by Paul. But every commentary I've read assume 1 Corinthians to be one of the uncontested epistles. I did a quick JSTOR search and found this article. It addresses not the epistle as you are asserting but just chapter 13. Note it notes that the authorship of 1 Corinthians is uncontested but notes a recent (then in 1998) argument about chapter 13. Your quote is from chapter 11 though which again, I believe is uncontested at least based upon my JSTOR search.

I did some searching for Bart Ehrman contesting the authorship of 1 Corinthians but couldn't. Also Ehrman's claims are extremely controversial as I'm sure you know. In Forged: Writing in the Name of God he says about 70% of the New Testament are forgeries. That doesn't really reflect scholarly (not apologetic) consensus. (Although of course it's mainstream that many of the Pauline epistles weren't written by Paul) But when I looked up Ehrman's view, it seems he accepts Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon as written by Paul. (Almost everything else in the NT he sees as a forgery)

So I'm not quite sure where in the books you mention you are getting your information. Could you quote the relevant passage?

Clark, you did good research on your attempt....It's a long process.....Ehrmann sees how corrupted the translation process was, as did Joseph...Why do you think Fundamentalist Christians saw him as threat? I know Paul was the Architect of Christian doctrine, He did good job of tweaking it here and there. Catholics always despised him...There's a wealth of info about him out there for sure.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Clark, you did good research on your attempt....It's a long process.....Ehrmann sees how corrupted the translation process was, as did Joseph...Why do you think Fundamentalist Christians saw him as threat? I know Paul was the Architect of Christian doctrine, He did good job of tweaking it here and there. Catholics always despised him...There's a wealth of info about him out there for sure.

My attempt? Again, do you have a quote saying the mainstream view of 1 Corinthians is that it is a forgery?  Do you have a quote from Ehrmann that backs up your claim he sees 1 Corinthians as a forgery?  I'm guessing by your response you don't.

Edited May 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Atheist Mormon]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

My attempt? Again, do you have a quote saying the mainstream view of 1 Corinthians is that it is a forgery?  Do you have a quote from Ehrmann that backs up your claim he sees 1 Corinthians as a forgery?  I'm guessing by your response you don't.

Yes Clark, YOUR attempt; why would you ask me to do your job, since I gave you the hints how to find them. BUT no worries, I found those citations and will give them to you. I suggest to get those books in "Audible" versions (which I exclusively do, since I have zero time to read). The book that I'd recommend (I have print and audible versions) "Jesus interrupted" by Bart Ehrmann. Not only this guy an impartial Historian, but does a great detective work for readers behalf, just an example; how we otherwise would point out so clearly, I'm quoting Bart; "It is impossible that both Mark's and John's accounts are historically accurate, since they contradict on when Jesus died". Another importanb book of Bart's is "Forged". Have to be frank here to say that Paul was never one of my favorite Scriptorian.

Coming back to Apostle Paul :

 

Paul’s “Exceptional” Letter to the Romans

I wanted to follow up on  a comment that I made in my last post about all of Paul’s letters being “occasional” (i.e., written to deal with certain situations that had arisen in his churches), with one partial exception: his letter to the Romans.  Now would be a good time to explain why Romans is the exception.   Here is what I say about the occasion and purpose of Romans in my  discussion of the book in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.

********************************************************

In one important respect the letter to the Romans is unlike all of Paul’s other letters: it is written to a congregation that Paul did not establish, in a city that he had never visited (see 1:10-15).  Given what we have already seen about Paul’s sense of his apostolic mission, this should immediately give us pause.  Paul’s other letters were written to deal with problems that had arisen among those whom he had converted to faith in Christ.  That clearly is not the case here.  Why, though, would he be writing to someone else’s congregation (See Box 1)?

At least on the surface, Paul does not appear to be writing to resolve problems that he has heard about within the Roman church.  The issues that he discusses appear to relate instead to his own understanding of the Christian gospel.  This is clearly the case in chaps. 1-11; but even his exhortations in chaps. 12-15 are general in nature, not explicitly directed to problems specific to the Christians in Rome.  Nowhere, for example, does he indicate that he has learned of their struggles and that he is writing to convey his apostolic advice (contrast all of his other letters).  Is it possible then that he simply wants to expound some of his views and explain why he holds them?  This is possible, of course; but why would he want to do so for a church that he has never seen?

Why I Wish We Had More of Paul’s Letters

In the previous post I began to answer the question of which lost books of early Christianity I would most like to have discovered, and I started my answer with the earliest writings of which we are familiar, the letters of Paul, most of which (presumably) have been lost.  I would love for us to find some of them.  I doubt if we ever will, but who knows?  Maybe someone will announce that one is to be published later this year!

Seriously, we would all love to have more letters from Paul, and not merely for sentimental reasons (Oh, wouldn’t that be *nice*?).   Paul is without a doubt the most important figure in the Christian tradition next to Jesus himself.  His writings have served as a basis for Christian ethical and theological thought for centuries.  And yet we know so little about what he thought and taught.

When people read Paul’s letters, they frequently neglect to realize that these are all “occasional” writings.  By that I do not mean that Paul occasionally wrote letters, but that Paul wrote his letters for particular occasions.   The letters are addressed to situations that have arisen in his churches that need to be addressed, problems of belief and practice.  When a church was having problems in one area (whether they knew it was a problem or not) Paul dealt with it in a letter – since he couldn’t be there to deal with it in person.

With the partial exception of Romans, that’s what Paul’s letters are: attempts to deal with problems as they have occurred.   But what that means is that these letters are NOT systematic expressions of Paul’s thought, where he picks a topic and explains what he really, and fully, thinks about it.   You will look in vain in these letters for a detailed and systematic exposition of Paul’s doctrines of God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit and so on; or Paul’s teachings on important ethical issues.   Whatever the problem is at hand, he deals with, often rather succinctly.

 

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yes Clark, YOUR attempt; why would you ask me to do your job, since I gave you the hints how to find them.

Typically the person making the claim is responsible for justifying the claim. Not giving vague claims. BTW the quote you gave says nothing about 1 Corinthians. And further, as I said, all my research said it was relatively uncontested. I'll just bow out of the discussion as I think I already found my answer when I researched it.

Edited May 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

On 5/9/2017 at 7:36 PM, Atheist Mormon said:

Calm, I am sorry, I should do that before your asking. 

Yes I used to be a Mormon. Came to Utah around 1980, Married in Manti Temple and quickly fell in love with the State. I have kids, all live in Salt lake.. I spent most of my life in Utah, I have a place in Utah, never felt separated from the place. The Church played a crucial part in my life. 

If you are Eastern Orthodox, what do you mean by "Atheist"?

[Rivers]

6 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yes Clark, YOUR attempt; why would you ask me to do your job, since I gave you the hints how to find them. BUT no worries, I found those citations and will give them to you. I suggest to get those books in "Audible" versions (which I exclusively do, since I have zero time to read). The book that I'd recommend (I have print and audible versions) "Jesus interrupted" by Bart Ehrmann. Not only this guy an impartial Historian, but does a great detective work for readers behalf, just an example; how we otherwise would point out so clearly, I'm quoting Bart; "It is impossible that both Mark's and John's accounts are historically accurate, since they contradict on when Jesus died". Another importanb book of Bart's is "Forged". Have to be frank here to say that Paul was never one of my favorite Scriptorian.

Coming back to Apostle Paul :

 

Paul’s “Exceptional” Letter to the Romans

I wanted to follow up on  a comment that I made in my last post about all of Paul’s letters being “occasional” (i.e., written to deal with certain situations that had arisen in his churches), with one partial exception: his letter to the Romans.  Now would be a good time to explain why Romans is the exception.   Here is what I say about the occasion and purpose of Romans in my  discussion of the book in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.

********************************************************

In one important respect the letter to the Romans is unlike all of Paul’s other letters: it is written to a congregation that Paul did not establish, in a city that he had never visited (see 1:10-15).  Given what we have already seen about Paul’s sense of his apostolic mission, this should immediately give us pause.  Paul’s other letters were written to deal with problems that had arisen among those whom he had converted to faith in Christ.  That clearly is not the case here.  Why, though, would he be writing to someone else’s congregation (See Box 1)?

At least on the surface, Paul does not appear to be writing to resolve problems that he has heard about within the Roman church.  The issues that he discusses appear to relate instead to his own understanding of the Christian gospel.  This is clearly the case in chaps. 1-11; but even his exhortations in chaps. 12-15 are general in nature, not explicitly directed to problems specific to the Christians in Rome.  Nowhere, for example, does he indicate that he has learned of their struggles and that he is writing to convey his apostolic advice (contrast all of his other letters).  Is it possible then that he simply wants to expound some of his views and explain why he holds them?  This is possible, of course; but why would he want to do so for a church that he has never seen?

Why I Wish We Had More of Paul’s Letters

In the previous post I began to answer the question of which lost books of early Christianity I would most like to have discovered, and I started my answer with the earliest writings of which we are familiar, the letters of Paul, most of which (presumably) have been lost.  I would love for us to find some of them.  I doubt if we ever will, but who knows?  Maybe someone will announce that one is to be published later this year!

Seriously, we would all love to have more letters from Paul, and not merely for sentimental reasons (Oh, wouldn’t that be *nice*?).   Paul is without a doubt the most important figure in the Christian tradition next to Jesus himself.  His writings have served as a basis for Christian ethical and theological thought for centuries.  And yet we know so little about what he thought and taught.

When people read Paul’s letters, they frequently neglect to realize that these are all “occasional” writings.  By that I do not mean that Paul occasionally wrote letters, but that Paul wrote his letters for particular occasions.   The letters are addressed to situations that have arisen in his churches that need to be addressed, problems of belief and practice.  When a church was having problems in one area (whether they knew it was a problem or not) Paul dealt with it in a letter – since he couldn’t be there to deal with it in person.

With the partial exception of Romans, that’s what Paul’s letters are: attempts to deal with problems as they have occurred.   But what that means is that these letters are NOT systematic expressions of Paul’s thought, where he picks a topic and explains what he really, and fully, thinks about it.   You will look in vain in these letters for a detailed and systematic exposition of Paul’s doctrines of God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit and so on; or Paul’s teachings on important ethical issues.   Whatever the problem is at hand, he deals with, often rather succinctly.

 

I wish we had more writings from the other apostles.  I would love to hear more from the people who actually spent time with Jesus while he was alive.

[Nevo]

1 Corinthians is widely held to be a writing of Paul, but a number of scholars have suggested that 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 14:33–36 are post-Pauline additions:

Regarding 1 Cor. 11:2–16

• "The passage is so problematic and employs so much vocabulary that is not used elsewhere in Paul's undisputed letters that various scholars in the modern history of the interpretation of the text have suggested that the passage was not written by Paul. They theorize that it is a post-Pauline gloss. A pair of radical French critics, Henri Delafosse (= Joseph Turmel, 1926) and Alfred Loisy (1933), were among the earlier proponents of this suggestion. Taking up where they left off, William O. Walker advanced the claim that this section of the text is a post-Pauline interpolation (1975). For Walker the passage comes from three small units of non-Pauline material (vv. 3, 8–9, 11–12; vv. 4–7, 10, 13, 16; vv. 14–15) that have been integrated into a literary unit by a post-Pauline editor. . . . Walker's suggestion has been pursued by Lamar Cope (1978) and G. W. Trompf (1980)" (Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians [Sacra Pagina 7; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999], 393–394).
   
• More recently, see Christopher Mount, "1 Corinthians 11:3-16: Spirit Possession and Authority in a Non-Pauline Interpolation," Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 2 (2005): 313–340.

Regarding 1 Cor. 14:33–36

• "For more than a century various scholars have been convinced that 1 Cor 14:33b–36 has been interpolated into Paul's text by someone other than Paul at a relatively early stage in the history of the tradition of the manuscript. On this view the verses are an expression of the social and ecclesial discipline represented in such NT passages as Eph. 5:22–24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11–15; and 1 Pet. 3:1–6. Scholars who favor the interpolation theory include Christian Holsten (1880), Daniel Völter (1889), Alfred Loisy (1922), Walter Schmithals (1956), Robert Jewett (1978), Gerhard Sellin (1987), Eduardo de la Serna (1991), Jouette Bassler (1992), J. H. Petzer (1993), Richard Hays (1997) and, especially, Winsome Munro (1973, 1988, 1990)" (Collins, First Corinthians, 515).
   
• "Verses 34–35 (33b–36) are said to be a post-Pauline interpolation, stemming from the same milieu that produced 1 Tim. 2:11–21, with even some of the same vocabulary. . . . So the majority of commentators today (with varying nuances): Aalen, Barrett (with hesitation), Bousset, Cleary, Cope, Delling, Fee, Fitzer, Fuller, Hays, Keck, Lindemann, Munro, Payne, Roetzel, Schrage, Schweizer, Sellin, G. F. Snyder, Trompf, Walker, J. Weiss, Zuntz; note too the parentheses in NRSV" (Joseph Fitzmyer, First Corinthians [Anchor Yale Bible 32; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 530).

* For the record, Raymond Collins and Joseph Fitzmyer both maintain that Paul wrote both passages.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Nevo

[Atheist Mormon]

14 hours ago, Rivers said:

I wish we had more writings from the other apostles.  I would love to hear more from the people who actually spent time with Jesus while he was alive.

I wish so too, but it won't happen anytime soon, if ever happens it will be by luck as Qumran caves.

[Atheist Mormon]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

If you are Eastern Orthodox, what do you mean by "Atheist"?

sorry, was born Eastern Orthodox, one of the oldest....Later as I amusingly discovered our liturgies & Rites are derived (incorporated) by previous Pagan beliefs...One of the most prominent one is the "Blessings of Grapes" that we celebrate with a great Liturgy comes directly from previous beliefs. 

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, Nevo said:

1 Corinthians is widely held to be a writing of Paul, but a number of scholars have suggested that 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 14:33–36 are post-Pauline additions:

Thank you for providing a reference. I really appreciate it. Unfortunately BYU won't give access to their electronic journal search to non-professors or students. The local library doesn't have access. So it makes finding journal references much harder. JSTOR came out a year or two ago with a limited public access. Oddly the link you gave is from JSTOR but searching in the JSTOR web page doesn't bring up that article for some reason.

I'm not sure they make the point that the mainstream view is Paul didn't write them nor that Ehrman thought he didn't write them. The paper you linked to has this near the beginning:

"Most scholars read 1 Cor 11:3-16 as an integral part of 1 Corinthians and have sought to explain its difficult logic as part of Paul's response to a situation in the Corinthian community related to the roles of women. A few scholars, however, have suggested that this passage is a non- Pauline interpolation and, following the terms of the debate set by those who see the passage as Pauline, have argued that it expresses a view of women inconsistent with Paul's own views regardingwomen."

1 Cor. 14:33–36 wasn't brought up so far as I know.

Edited May 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure they make the point that the mainstream view is Paul didn't write them nor that Ehrman thought he didn't write them.

The mainstream view is that Paul wrote 1 Cor. 11:2–16, though some have argued that Paul didn't write it.

According to Joseph Fitzmyer, writing a decade or so ago, "the majority of commentators today" consider 1 Cor. 14:33–36 a post-Pauline interpolation. Certainly it's a widely held view. But I think scholarly opinion is still quite divided. I wouldn't say there's a consensus one way or the other.

I don't know what Ehrman has written about either of these passages but I would be very surprised if he doesn't think 1 Cor. 14:33–36 is a post-Pauline interpolation.

In any case, most commentators nowadays consider Paul to have had quite positive views of women—even those who think he wrote 1 Cor. 11:2–16 and 14:33–36.  

Edited May 12, 2017 by Nevo

[Rivers]

Thanks for the responses.  I felt the need to come back to this thread because I am now reading Romans which has been called Paul's theological magnum opus.  I have come to a greater appreciation of Paul's writing.

I found this passage that be particularly striking:

"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Rom. 7:25

How does one serve the law of God with the mind?

 

[clarkgoble]

Think he's just getting at distinction between intents and actions. In the period of late antiquity especially among the stoics this was a concern. Interestingly the platonists made no distinction so to know something automatically entailed doing it. The stoics (whom Paul quotes a lot) tended to see emotion as a impediment for right action based upon reason. Typically scholars see Roman 7 as highly influenced by stoic conceptions of psychology and reason. (The stoic view actually comes from Aristotle originally but they developed it far further into a pretty influential view at the time of Paul)

Edited May 18, 2017 by clarkgoble