HI mike & George,
It is possible, Mike, for Paul to be a passionate fighjter
freedom yet to have a blind spot for certain things. After all, many of the
signatories of the Declaration of Independence were, and remained,
slaveholders, including Patrick Henry ( "give me liberty or give me death!")
and Thomas Jefferson (" all men are created equal").
Paul really was a strong advocate of Christian freedom. He pointed the way.
May be we have to go down roads that he was not prepared to go.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
Behalf Of MikeSatterlee@cs.com
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 6:56 PM
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Science, Women, and Paul
You wrote: The two passages we've discussed in I Cor. certainly have a
puzzling aspects. Your way of dealing with those puzzles is to try to
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
In your opinion. I disagree. Others do also.
You wrote: As I pointed out, there is clearly a continuity of speakers from
Clear to you. Not so clear to me and others.
You wrote: As both I & Gordon Brown pointed out, your argument about a lack
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
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
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
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
As I already pointed out, we know Acts 15:29 contained only strong advice
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
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 20 2002 - 13:11:30 EDT