Last edited:
How to understand Paul
- Thread starter iouae
- Start date
iouae
Well-known member
How to understand Paul
#1 Read Paul in context
#2 Don't create doctrines on Paul alone
#3 Paul likes complicated analogies
#4 To make his analogies work, Paul invents/bends the facts
In Gal 4:25-26 Paul invents "Jerusalem above" as the comparison with "Mt Sinai".
Paul is determined to have a comparison.
Paul is particularly fond of comparing Christ with Adam. He does it in Rom 5, 1 Cor 15.
Rom 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Now let's see how Paul tweaks the facts to suit his analogy…
as by one man sin entered into the world - WRONG it was by one woman (unless women do not count)
through the offence of one - WRONG. Two sinned (unless women do not count)
death reigned from Adam to Moses - WRONG. Death started with Abel (or the lamb killed to cover them). Animals died long before then in prehistory.
not as it was by one that sinned - WRONG. It was Eve who sinned first then Adam = two (unless women do not count)
for the judgment was by one to condemnation - WRONG. Which one sinned? (unless women do not count)
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one - WRONG. That one was Eve (unless women do not count)
as by the offence of one judgment came - WRONG. Both sinned, why pick on Adam? (unless women do not count)
as by one man's disobedience - WRONG. Both sinned, why pick on Adam? (unless women do not count)
sin hath reigned unto death - WRONG. This is not technically correct. Adam and Eve were doomed to die whether they sinned or not UNLESS they ate of the Tree of Life.
The idea that sin causes death is exaggerated by Paul.
Animals died before and after Adam. Did they sin?
Many, steeped in Paul will insist that the fall of man spread to animals so that they die due to Adam's sin.
Animals had been dying for millions of years before Adam, as the fossil record shows.
Yet I expect a storm of protest by those seeped in Paul insisting that death ONLY follows sin.
Did no fish eat another fish before Adam sinned?
Those steeped in Paul will say that lions lay down with lambs before Adam (who cares about Eve?) sinned.
Guys - wake up and smell the coffee.
Paul chooses complicated analogies and tries to make many comparisons in that analogy fit the facts. If necessary, Paul will "modify" the facts to fit the analogy. Admit this and we can all stop making crazy doctrines using Paul alone.
#1 Read Paul in context
#2 Don't create doctrines on Paul alone
#3 Paul likes complicated analogies
#4 To make his analogies work, Paul invents/bends the facts
In Gal 4:25-26 Paul invents "Jerusalem above" as the comparison with "Mt Sinai".
Paul is determined to have a comparison.
Paul is particularly fond of comparing Christ with Adam. He does it in Rom 5, 1 Cor 15.
Rom 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Now let's see how Paul tweaks the facts to suit his analogy…
as by one man sin entered into the world - WRONG it was by one woman (unless women do not count)
through the offence of one - WRONG. Two sinned (unless women do not count)
death reigned from Adam to Moses - WRONG. Death started with Abel (or the lamb killed to cover them). Animals died long before then in prehistory.
not as it was by one that sinned - WRONG. It was Eve who sinned first then Adam = two (unless women do not count)
for the judgment was by one to condemnation - WRONG. Which one sinned? (unless women do not count)
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one - WRONG. That one was Eve (unless women do not count)
as by the offence of one judgment came - WRONG. Both sinned, why pick on Adam? (unless women do not count)
as by one man's disobedience - WRONG. Both sinned, why pick on Adam? (unless women do not count)
sin hath reigned unto death - WRONG. This is not technically correct. Adam and Eve were doomed to die whether they sinned or not UNLESS they ate of the Tree of Life.
The idea that sin causes death is exaggerated by Paul.
Animals died before and after Adam. Did they sin?
Many, steeped in Paul will insist that the fall of man spread to animals so that they die due to Adam's sin.
Animals had been dying for millions of years before Adam, as the fossil record shows.
Yet I expect a storm of protest by those seeped in Paul insisting that death ONLY follows sin.
Did no fish eat another fish before Adam sinned?
Those steeped in Paul will say that lions lay down with lambs before Adam (who cares about Eve?) sinned.
Guys - wake up and smell the coffee.
Paul chooses complicated analogies and tries to make many comparisons in that analogy fit the facts. If necessary, Paul will "modify" the facts to fit the analogy. Admit this and we can all stop making crazy doctrines using Paul alone.
Paul spoke the truth and changed nothing.
You are wrong--
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Sin entered the world through Adam.
Adam knew what he was doing for he could not refuse his own flesh (Eve).
The man is the head of the woman.
Adam could have interceded for Eve instead of sinning.
Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
LA
iouae
Well-known member
Was God lying when He warned them, Eve too, that in the day they ate they would surely die? Are you saying Eve could eat and not die?
If Eve was innocent, why did God curse her with pain in childbirth, and being subject to Adam's desires?
Why did Paul blame her in 1 Tim 2:14?
You are defending the indefensible.
Eve sinned first, but Paul had to blame Adam to fit his comparison.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Examine yourself whether you be in the faith.....clearly you're not if you don't understand what Paul is saying.
No one suggested Eve was innocent or would not die.
You claimed Paul made things up.
You tell porkies.
LA
glorydaz
Well-known member
Actually, God didn't warn Eve. Adam was told, then every creature was formed and named, then the woman .....who came out from Adam. Adam was in the transgression first because he failed Eve....which is why she was deceived. She had heard from Adam they weren't even to "touch" the fruit. Adam had left her vulnerable to satan's deception.
Gen. 2:15-17
And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Eve was deceived, but Adam willfully sinned, and blamed it on Eve. Indeed Eve was in the transgression concerning headship which resulted in her being deceived, ..which is what Paul is talking about in that text ie. authority.
1 Tim. 2:12-14
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
heir
TOL Subscriber
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Peter did not exclude himself from that which I bolded above.
And watch your tone with me. I'm not your doormat.
brewmama
New member
One thing is for sure...Peter really had you guys pegged in that verse.
heir
TOL Subscriber
More like the religious who have no good news that is the power to save anyone nor sound doctrine. We put Peter right where God did in the scriptures.
Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
You stick him in the blender.
Nope. It's clear that Peter had trouble understanding some things from Paul, that's why he wrote it was difficult. :duh:
iouae
Well-known member
PAUL'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS WOMEN
How to understand Paul
#1 Read Paul in context
#2 Don't create doctrines on Paul alone
#3 Paul likes complicated analogies
#4 To make his analogies work, Paul invents/bends the facts
In accordance with #2 above, let's start with Jesus' attitude towards women. Jesus was the only perfectly balanced human to ever live. All the rest of us, Paul included, bring a bit of crazy to the table.
Jesus' first miracle was at the behest of His mother Mary.
Jesus stopped to help women such as her with an issue of blood, and her caught in adultery.
Christ flew in the face of custom by engaging the Samaritan woman at the well, allowing prostitutes to handle his feet, standing up for the woman who anointed His feet, having close woman friends like Mary and Martha. Some of Christ's last words were to John to look after Mary.
It would have been unacceptable for women to be groupies on the road with Jesus, but in every town, women supported Jesus.
We get a very positive feeling from Christ, that Christianity is woman friendly.
We should always approach our pet doctrines starting with Jesus, to get balance. I want to tell you up front that Paul had a little bit of crazy going on regarding women. I must ask you to open your mind a crack to let the light shine in, because what I am about to say is not for the immature.
1) Read Rom 5:12-19 and Paul ignores Eve like she was not there at the fall. Ignoring people like they are invisible is sexist.
2) Read the following and see if you can see what is wrong here.
1 Cor 15:3...Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Cannot see it? Who were the first witnesses to Christ's resurrection?
WOMEN. Where are they mentioned above? Nowhere. They are invisible.
3) Look what God says about women...
Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Look what Paul says on this exact same subject...
1 Cor 7:1 ... It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
In vs 38 and 40 Paul reiterates that being unmarried is better.
It would definitely have been better for any woman not to have married someone with an attitude like this towards them.
This shows Paul's slight craziness towards women.
4) Paul tells the church not to financially support young widows. Listen to his reasons. 1 tim 5:11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; 12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. 13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
This is crazy talk. It is not "wanton" of young women to want to remarry. They are not "against Christ" for doing so. They do not have "damnation" for remarrying. And women everywhere and in all ages have liked to get together andgossip chat. They like to know everyone's business. I do too to a limited extent
This is a typically Pauline rant against women.
Here is another...
5) 1 Tim 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Is a mother telling her teenage son to clean up his room "usurping authority over the man"?
And Paul tells women to be invisible, or silent in public.
Compare this with Christ who encouraged the Samaritan woman to call the whole city to hear Him.
Paul is unbalanced. I do not know to what extent women should be "subject to men" meaning their husbands, but it is a lot less than Paul says. I go for the wisest man who ever lived, his attitude towards women, found in Pr 31. This woman is liberated. She is modern. She works outside the home. Thank you God that I live in a time and society where women are free to be all they can be, including rulers.
And listen to the weak argument which Paul gives saying "For Adam was first formed, then Eve".
I could turn that around and say, the very last thing God created was the crowning glory of His creation.
And in vs. 14 look how quick Paul is to blame Eve, when in Rom 5 Paul completely leaves Eve out, saying by one MAN sin entered the world.
I expect a blizzard of protests from all of you indoctrinated Paul worshippers. In reply I say look to Jesus first, and then look at Paul. Paul has a lot to teach us but let's not take his craziness and amplify it, but rather dampen it.
In conclusion, I do believe Paul was a bit of a misogynist, whereas Christ was not.
How to understand Paul
#1 Read Paul in context
#2 Don't create doctrines on Paul alone
#3 Paul likes complicated analogies
#4 To make his analogies work, Paul invents/bends the facts
In accordance with #2 above, let's start with Jesus' attitude towards women. Jesus was the only perfectly balanced human to ever live. All the rest of us, Paul included, bring a bit of crazy to the table.
Jesus' first miracle was at the behest of His mother Mary.
Jesus stopped to help women such as her with an issue of blood, and her caught in adultery.
Christ flew in the face of custom by engaging the Samaritan woman at the well, allowing prostitutes to handle his feet, standing up for the woman who anointed His feet, having close woman friends like Mary and Martha. Some of Christ's last words were to John to look after Mary.
It would have been unacceptable for women to be groupies on the road with Jesus, but in every town, women supported Jesus.
We get a very positive feeling from Christ, that Christianity is woman friendly.
We should always approach our pet doctrines starting with Jesus, to get balance. I want to tell you up front that Paul had a little bit of crazy going on regarding women. I must ask you to open your mind a crack to let the light shine in, because what I am about to say is not for the immature.
1) Read Rom 5:12-19 and Paul ignores Eve like she was not there at the fall. Ignoring people like they are invisible is sexist.
2) Read the following and see if you can see what is wrong here.
1 Cor 15:3...Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Cannot see it? Who were the first witnesses to Christ's resurrection?
WOMEN. Where are they mentioned above? Nowhere. They are invisible.
3) Look what God says about women...
Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Look what Paul says on this exact same subject...
1 Cor 7:1 ... It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
In vs 38 and 40 Paul reiterates that being unmarried is better.
It would definitely have been better for any woman not to have married someone with an attitude like this towards them.
This shows Paul's slight craziness towards women.
4) Paul tells the church not to financially support young widows. Listen to his reasons. 1 tim 5:11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; 12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. 13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
This is crazy talk. It is not "wanton" of young women to want to remarry. They are not "against Christ" for doing so. They do not have "damnation" for remarrying. And women everywhere and in all ages have liked to get together and
This is a typically Pauline rant against women.
Here is another...
5) 1 Tim 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Is a mother telling her teenage son to clean up his room "usurping authority over the man"?
And Paul tells women to be invisible, or silent in public.
Compare this with Christ who encouraged the Samaritan woman to call the whole city to hear Him.
Paul is unbalanced. I do not know to what extent women should be "subject to men" meaning their husbands, but it is a lot less than Paul says. I go for the wisest man who ever lived, his attitude towards women, found in Pr 31. This woman is liberated. She is modern. She works outside the home. Thank you God that I live in a time and society where women are free to be all they can be, including rulers.
And listen to the weak argument which Paul gives saying "For Adam was first formed, then Eve".
I could turn that around and say, the very last thing God created was the crowning glory of His creation.
And in vs. 14 look how quick Paul is to blame Eve, when in Rom 5 Paul completely leaves Eve out, saying by one MAN sin entered the world.
I expect a blizzard of protests from all of you indoctrinated Paul worshippers. In reply I say look to Jesus first, and then look at Paul. Paul has a lot to teach us but let's not take his craziness and amplify it, but rather dampen it.
In conclusion, I do believe Paul was a bit of a misogynist, whereas Christ was not.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Paul didn't have an attitude against women as you are trying to convince others he had. You are wrong again, as usual! Just look at how Paul wanted women treated (and every one else in the BoC for that matter)!
Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
Romans 16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
Romans 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
Romans 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
Romans 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
Romans 16:6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.
Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Romans 16:8 Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord.
Romans 16:9 Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved.
Romans 16:10 Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household.
Romans 16:11 Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.
Romans 16:12 Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord.
Romans 16:13 Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.
Romans 16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.
Romans 16:15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.
Romans 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
brewmama
New member
I see you changed your post. And maybe she does, too bad none of them are valid!
I'm certainly not a Paul worshiper, I have said more than once that Paul's teachings are nice to know stuff but they are not essential to salvation.
Now with that said, I can say the word "woman" is a poor translation in the context in which Paul used the word.
iouae
Well-known member
1 Tim 2
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
The word "woman" is a perfect word to use here because Paul means "women".
The context is worship, or church where they are told to dress modestly and shut up, and be in "subjection".
This is certainly not at home, because we take it Paul allows women to speak there.
Thankfully Joyce Meyer and many today recognise Paul was being a little crazy and extreme, speaking from the misogynist culture of his day.
I don't accept your view, as a woman.
there is very little in terms of ministry in the assembly which falls outside prayer and prophesying Paul allows women to do both....so only teaching is banned
there is very little in terms of ministry in the assembly which falls outside prayer and prophesying Paul allows women to do both....so only teaching is banned
iouae
Well-known member
Joyce Meyer teaches. Should she be silenced?
Can they lead praise and worship? Not according to Paul who told them to be silent. You are ignoring/stretching Paul if you allow a woman to open her mouth. You are wrong about it being only teaching. Twice Paul tells women to "be in silence' and "learn in silence". Thus you are already joining me in ignoring Paul wrt women.
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Last edited:
You admit the word "woman" is a perfect word but yet you want to change Paul's meaning. Why? Isn't perfect good enough?