Re: Science, Women, and Paul

Date: Sun May 19 2002 - 18:55:35 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Men and dinosaurs"

    Hi George,

    You wrote: The two passages we've discussed in I Cor. certainly have a
    number of
      puzzling aspects. Your way of dealing with those puzzles is to try to make
      say something other than what he apparently is saying. As I have said
      times, this has some plausibility with ch.14. It has no plausibility at all

    In your opinion. I disagree. Others do also.

    You wrote: As I pointed out, there is clearly a continuity of speakers from
    v.2 to
      v.3 there.

    Clear to you. Not so clear to me and others.

    You wrote: As both I & Gordon Brown pointed out, your argument about a lack of
      pronouns there is irrelevant.

    I agree. That argument was totally unnecessary to my case.

    You wrote: you appear not to know elementary Greek. Since this is the case
    there's little point in debating this passage further.

    The only part of this discussion which involves discussion of Greek is
    whether the opinions of others, which I believe Paul was quoting for the
    purpose of refuting and rebuking, began with the pronoun "I" or "We". And
    since it really makes no difference one way or the other in this matter,
    someone does not need to be able to read Greek to seriously consider any of
    the real issues which are here involved. I did, however, have someone who
    does know Greek tell me that some of the pronouns included in some of the
    texts we have been discussing are questionable. However, I will not repeat
    that allegation again until I have verified its accuracy.

    You wrote: I think I made it quite clear that I was citing these texts to
    show that one gets contradictions if one interprets them wrongly as abstract
    timeless propositions.

    Why would Paul forbid women to speak in church and wear head coverings even
    in limited times and places? I don't believe he would and I don't believe he

    You wrote: With regard to Acts 15:28-29 it again seems that you're trying to
      the text to fit your presuppositions. You want the apostles to be giving
      suggestions to the Gentiles. Would this be described as a _burden_?

    I think they were more than "helpful suggestions." I think the apostles gave
    strong recommendations. Coming from Christ's apostles many Gentile Christians
    would have viewed this strong advice as something close to "Christian law."
    Knowing that they would and that Christians are not under law, the apostles
    were properly reluctant to "burden" free Christians with such strong advise.
    For they knew they had no right to make "Christian law" since that is a
    contradiction in terms. They also knew Christians should never impose their
    consciences on others. The apostles were thus walking a fine line and they
    knew it.

    You wrote: Is the statement that they are to abstain from "unchastity" also
    just a helpful

    No, it was strong advise. But nothing more. Because Christians are not under
    law, for us, "All things are lawful but all things are not beneficial." (1
    Cor. 6:12)

    As I already pointed out, we know Acts 15:29 contained only strong advice and
    not some form of Christian law because Paul later said that Gentile
    Christians were, in fact, free to eat things sacrificed to idols ( one of the
    things Christians were advised to "abstain from" in Acts 15:29 ) so long as
    doing so did not stumble their brothers.

    You wrote: I don't think there's a lot of point in continuing this particular
    discussion further.

    I agree.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 19 2002 - 21:23:14 EDT