Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

shafique · Sep 09, 2009

'eh' claimed that the NT is internally consistent and contains no contradictions.

A bold claim indeed, and one that will be intriguing to read about - I look forward to his explanations of what look to me like clear contradictions.

I'll use the skeptics annotated bible as a handy list of verses from the Bible to begin with.

So let's start with a relatively straightforward one - Does the Bible say women are allowed to speak in church or not?

1 Corinthians:
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

vs

Romans 16:1
"Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church."
The Revised Standard Version calls Phoebe a "deaconess", which would make would make her a church leader. If the RSV translation is correct, this verse contradicts the requirement that women not be permitted to teach and that they must be silent in church. (1 Cor.14:34-35, 1 Tim.2:11-12).
(Perhaps eh can tell us which is more accurate 'servant' or 'deaconess' - based on the underlying Greek)

Ok - let's have it, how are the above two instructions not contradicting each other?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 09, 2009

They contradict each other as much as the passages in the Koran which call for warfare against unbelievers and passages which say to only attack after being attacked:

2.193. Keep on fighting against them until mischief ends and the way prescribed by Allah prevails. But if they desist, then know that hostility is only against the wrong-doers.

vs.

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

and

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

and

We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.

and

So fight them until there is no more disbelief (fitnah) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone

shafique · Sep 09, 2009

eh oh! - what a strange answer, quoting the Quran when asked to back up a claim that there are no contradictions in the NT.

I presume this is just an attempt at being funny rather than a demonstration of 'all mouth, no trousers'!

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 09, 2009

I'm not sure what you're complaining about. You claim that Muslims (apparently not including Muslims who believe in abrogation - the majority of Muslims, btw) don't see the passages in the Koran that say to attack unbelievers because they are unbelievers as verses which contradict a few passages that say not to go on the offensive, because, to you, the Koran should be interpreted wholly.

Christians don't see a passage that says women should not speak in Church as contradicting passages in the NT that say men and women are equal and Paul commissioning women as deacons and evangelists, teachers and apostles because, to Christians, the NT should be interpreted wholly.

It seems that you either being funny or are extraordinarily daft in not realizing that both examples would be viewed as contradictions if these passages were interpreted literally. (I assume you're extraordinarily daft considering the fact that you literally killed off the other forum you were a moderator on, but that's a whole other discussion altogether)

dee7o · Sep 10, 2009

LOOOOOL

You are seriously obsessed. Who is talking about Muslims or the Qur'an now? He is asking about specific contradictions in the NT. So your point is basically:

"Look Shafique, there are contradictions everywhere ok! I mean check out the Guinness Book of World Records, they quoted two records set at different times!! Don't you understand?!?! Contradictions are NORMALLLLL. In fact, all books are stupid huh!! What do you say to that huh?!?!?! Don't you dare ask me about the NT as long as I see contradictions in any other book. You go out NOW and fix every typo, every incorrect fact and every misunderstood statement in the world and then come back and talk to me about the NT. There!!! Answer that if you can!! Answer that if you are a man!! Yep Yep"

I specifically told Shafique in the other thread that pointing out inaccuracies in the Bible has no bearing on the discussion about the Qur'an. Because this served your argument, you supported that wholeheartedly because it took the heat off you. Now, you are doing the same bloody thing!!!! I can only conclude that you do not really have an opinion. You just say whatever suits the moment to back up what you feel like typing. You are talking about contradictions. Look at the contradictions in your own posts!!

1- "Nope, the New Testament's teachings are internally consistent"

2- "They (verses in the New Testament) contradict each other as much as the passages"

What the $^&$#@%$%$#!?!?!?!?

shafique · Sep 10, 2009

event horizon wrote:
Christians don't see a passage that says women should not speak in Church as contradicting passages in the NT that say men and women are equal and Paul commissioning women as deacons and evangelists, teachers and apostles because, to Christians, the NT should be interpreted wholly.

This really is from a Tinky-Winky school of argument - the contradictions are not contradictions because Christians do not take the first verse literally, because there are other verses that contradict it.

i.e. - as long as there are contradictory verses that Christians can follow, there are no contradictions!?

Hmm. :roll:

But hold on - we could easily cut and paste extracts from articles written by Christian theologians who DO say there are contradictions (in fact you did just that when you posted that one expert said Corinthians quote was a forgery).

Surely you are not saying that Christians/Muslims explaining what appears to be a contradiction to a non-Christian/non-Muslim are correct in saying the non-Christian/non-Muslim is wrong - because Muslims see no contradiction and read the NT/Quran as a whole - despite these quotes - are you??? :shock:

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 10, 2009

shafique wrote:
event horizon wrote:
Christians don't see a passage that says women should not speak in Church as contradicting passages in the NT that say men and women are equal and Paul commissioning women as deacons and evangelists, teachers and apostles because, to Christians, the NT should be interpreted wholly.

This really is from a Tinky-Winky school of argument - the contradictions are not contradictions because Christians do not take the first verse literally, because there are other verses that contradict it.

i.e. - as long as there are contradictory verses that Christians can follow, there are no contradictions!?

Hmm.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes shafique, that tinky-winky school of argument is what registers in my mind when I hear the claim that the Koran is internally consistent even though passages blatantly contradict each other - some passages say to wage war against unbelievers *for* their unbelief while others say not to transgress.

I feel, if that type of 'logic' works for Muslims (and I figure it is so weak no one bothers with it other than rolling their eyes or scratching their head), then why not use it for the New Testament?

"Paul" says that women should not speak in church but he also, two chapters previously, talks about women (get this) speaking in church, that's in addition to the passages you've referred to of Paul commissioning women as deacons and evangelists and his view that women were also apostles and disciples (and therefore performed the same functions as their male counterparts).

You're free to believe that is a contradiction (many scholars have, after all) and I'm free to believe that the Koran contradicts itself (in numerous places) and, of course, Muslim scholars view these passages as contradictions, after all.

shafique · Sep 10, 2009

event horizon wrote:
"Paul" says that women should not speak in church

Ok - great, you and I agree he did say this according to the Bible.

event horizon wrote:... but he also, two chapters previously, talks about women (get this) speaking in church,

I agree. This is a dictionary definition of a contradiction.

event horizon wrote:..that's in addition to the passages you've referred to of Paul commissioning women as deacons and evangelists and his view that women were also apostles and disciples (and therefore performed the same functions as their male counterparts).

Well - deacons is in the later translation, 'servants' in the earlier - could you show why the latter is a better translation? (Not saying it isn't - just asking for clarification)

event horizon wrote:You're free to believe that is a contradiction

? How is this +not+ a contradiction? (That is what this thread is about - explaining the contradictions in the Bible. I really hope that the answer does not just boil down to 'denial'.)

event horizon wrote:
(many scholars have, after all)

Well, hardly surprising.

But isn't this thread about explaining why you say it isn't a contradiction?

Is it just that you just don't believe it to be a contradiction?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 10, 2009

Han Kung addresses the word 'diakanos' and so I'll type from his book, Women in Christianity:

pg 6-7:
And what about offices in church? These various church ministries and calling were not given that name at this time. In fact in the New Testament secular terms for 'office' were avoided and with good reason. Why? Because such terms expressed a pattern of domination which the Christian community did not want to take over. Instead, another general term was used, a quite ordinary religious word with a rather inferior tone, which could in no way conjure up associations with any authority, rule, or position of dingnity or power: 'diakonia', service. This originally noted serving at table. Here it was evidently the way in which Jesus himself served his disciples at table that set the irrevocable standard. That is the only explanation of the frequency of the saying which has been handed down in six different variants: 'The highest shall be the servant of all (at table).'

p10

We have only to read the greetings at the end of the letter to the Romans to see how many women were actively involved in the proclamation of the gosepl: ten of the twenty-nine prominent people addressed here are female. First we have Phoebe, who was on an official mission for the church of Cenchreae. She is called diaknonos, which suggests that she was the leader of a house community. Junia is particularly important; Paul even describes her, along with Androniucs, as 'distinguished among the apostles' who had already 'confessed Christ' before him. Apostle (in Greek there is no feminine form) is the highest title Paul can bestow. Moreover, as Ulrich Wilckens has rightly pointed out, Junia may have been one of the 'numerically limited group of those leading missionaries who had extraordinary authority as "apostles" and to whom Paul himself was only added later. This is a wider circle than the group of the Twelve.

At all event the general evidence is unambiguous: many of the women mentioned by Paul are called 'hard workers' for the gospel - a favorite word of Paul's for denoting apostolic dedication. According to the letter to the Philippians women like Eudonia and Syntyche - with exactly the same status as Paul and his other male fellow-workers - 'fought for the gospel'....Prisca, who with her husband Aquilla is mentioned several times in Paul's correspondence, also has a special status. The couple may have had a house in Ephesus in which they gathered a house community, and we may also assume that later they led a group in their house in Rome. That Prisca is usually mentioned before her husband Aquila shows that she was particularly important as a missionary and founder of a church.

Kung then goes on to quote Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza:

The Pauline literature and Acts still allow us to recognize that women were among the most prominent missionaries and leaders in teh early Christian movement. They were apostles and ministers like Paul, and some were his co-workers. They were teachers, preachers, and competitors in the race for the gospel. They founded house churches and, as prominent patrons, used their influence for other missionaries and Christians.

shafique · Sep 10, 2009

^Thanks - Kung knows what he is talking about. You've answered my first query about the translation - much appreciated.

So it is clear that the NT contains a contradiction then - Paul is reported to have BOTH said women are deacons and cannot speak in church.

I've maintained that Christians ignore the latter (that women should not speak in church).

I'm still intrigued as to how you maintain that the contradiction is not a contradiction?

How does 'do not speak in church' not contradict what Kung describes as Paul's views above? Actually, it's not just Paul's views - but actually what women did in the early church - so these descriptions clearly contradict the Biblical verse stating Women should not speak in church.

What does Kung have to say about this verse?

(I'll leave Kung's conclusions about Islam and the Prophet, pbuh, for another thread).

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Sep 10, 2009

thanks to Google books, Kung addresses the verse in Corinthians on pg 12 of his book 'Women in Christianity'.

He is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the verse and other misogynistic verses were inserted later and attributed to apostles.

He also goes on to say that the role of women in the NT was underplayed over time and the scriptures modified, eg Junia in Romans who is a lady (in original texts) becomes 'Junias' a man!!!

But that is about interpolation and changing of the Bible - which is his explanation of the contradiction of Paul apparently saying Women should not speak, contradicting the fact that women were active in the church.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Sep 10, 2009

Another notable quote from Kung - page 15 of Women in Christianity:

For today we know that the history of theology and the church, too, was predominantly written by the victors at the expense of the losers - along dogmatic or church-political lines. The losers in this kind of traditional church history are not just individual 'heretics' who have been rehabilitated by more recent histiography.

Whole areas of Christianity were losers, like the Jewish Christians who, as we saw, for the most part were already being regarded as heretical in the second and third centuries.

(Kung goes on to explain how women were treated in the histiography of the church).

So, we now have another expert quoted by 'eh' who seems to have a different view about the historical accuracy of the Bible. Notably it took a few centuries for Jewish Christians to be excluded from the mainstream... but that is another discussion.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 11, 2009

? How is this +not+ a contradiction? (That is what this thread is about - explaining the contradictions in the Bible. I really hope that the answer does not just boil down to 'denial'.)

I admit, you have a strange way at looking at the Bible and the Koran. Unfortunately, you do not seem to be very consistent when proclaiming the Koran is internally consistent in light of the contradictory passages in the Koran in regards to warfare against unbelievers - with many verses directly contradicting each other by saying to fight against unbelievers *for* their unbelief.

I am glad you acknowledge that the New Testament contains passages which show that women were at the forefront of the early Church in holding positions of leadership and missionary work after these passages were first shown to you on the other thread @ DHH.

(I also recall your point that these passages from Romans, Corinthians and Galatians must have gone against Paul's belief of women to be quiet in Church, betraying your 'knowledge' of the New Testament - hence my skepticism to your claim that you read the epistles if you didn't even know that Paul was the author of these letters!)

Christians don't agree with your belief that the New Testament contradicts itself on the role of women in the New Testament - a conclusion you should also reach if indeed you get around to reading all of the verses in the New Testament pertaining to women.

Shafique is akin to the blind man touching the elephant's trunk and insists the elephant is a snake. One must choose who to believe, the blind man or those who can see the whole picture.

shafique · Sep 11, 2009

event horizon wrote:
? How is this +not+ a contradiction? (That is what this thread is about - explaining the contradictions in the Bible. I really hope that the answer does not just boil down to 'denial'.)

....

I am glad you acknowledge that the New Testament contains passages which show that women were at the forefront of the early Church in holding positions of leadership and missionary work after these passages were first shown to you on the other thread @ DHH.

Yes, and there are contradictory verses which say women should not speak in church - please try and keep up, I would look pretty stupid if I said there was a contradiction in the Bible when it comes to whether women should speak in church and could not show that the Bible says women CAN speak, as well as verses that say they CAN'T.

Anyway - it appears that you don't have an explanation and are just in denial.

I am glad you posted Kung's comments - for that led me to read his explanations of the presence of these misogynistic verses in the Bible - they were, he concludes, later additions. Your argument is with him as he clearly states that the historical accounts in the Bible are not to be trusted - :

For today we know that the history of theology and the church, too, was predominantly written by the victors at the expense of the losers - along dogmatic or church-political lines. The losers in this kind of traditional church history are not just individual 'heretics' who have been rehabilitated by more recent histiography.

Whole areas of Christianity were losers, like the Jewish Christians who, as we saw, for the most part were already being regarded as heretical in the second and third centuries.

Many thanks for this.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 11, 2009

Anyway - it appears that you don't have an explanation and are just in denial.

Nope, the passage does not say for all women to be silent in all churches for all times. Therefore, it is not a contradiction.

shafique · Sep 12, 2009

event horizon wrote:
Anyway - it appears that you don't have an explanation and are just in denial.

Nope, the passage does not say for all women to be silent in all churches for all times. Therefore, it is not a contradiction.

Your argument is with scholars such as Kung who say that this passage was not from Paul but inserted later.

I did thank you for providing the reference to Kung's book 'women in Christianity', but let me thank you again.

But, let us play your game for a while and review what the Bible says:

1 Corinthians:
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

So, in your estimation - which women were told to not speak in church and only ask their husbands if they wanted to learn something? Please give us your references for your views. (I've heard some argue that Paul's instructions were only to the Corinthians - are you saying that these ladies were particulary 'blonde'?)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Sep 13, 2009

Did you have difficulty with the question Eh?

cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 13, 2009

I did thank you for providing the reference to Kung's book 'women in Christianity', but let me thank you again.

You're welcome and you're totally free to drop Kung's name yet again for yet another book you have not read.

I think this issue can easily be resolved rather quickly after reading your response to the fact that Muslim scholars and jurists differ in their interpretation of the Koran with your interpretation - Kung's interpretation of the New Testament is faulty and my interpretation is correct.

I think that is sufficient enough of an argument and I don't need to explain myself other than insisting that the passage you've quoted is a specific command and not a general command because it does not contain the word 'all' in it.

Hope that clears everything up!

shafique · Sep 14, 2009

event horizon wrote:
I did thank you for providing the reference to Kung's book 'women in Christianity', but let me thank you again.

You're welcome and you're totally free to drop Kung's name yet again for yet another book you have not read.

Thanks. I read the passages I posted - where Kung contradicts you and says the misogynistic verses attributed to Paul are later additions. It appears that you either did not read the book when you quoted (I suspect it was another of your 120second Google searches) or didn't understand that Biblical scholars like Kung disagree with your view that Paul said women were Blonde and should ask their husbands if they want to learn!

It appears you are arguing that Kung's interpretation of the Bible is faulty - and yet you quoted him! Strange logic there dear boy.

And it also appears that you are confusing your 'interpretation' of the Bible with the historiographical analyses etc that historians and Biblical scholars have undertaken to conclude that the Bible's misogynistic verses were inserted by incompetent forgers. You can also read 'Women in Christianity' on Google books - and read enough pages to confirm this fact.

Biblical scholar says one thing based on evidence, 'eh' says he's wrong because he 'believes' he is right.

Believing you are right when experts you quote say otherwise is an interesting trait. May I suggest you do a bit more research before you quote someone else who disagrees with you, thinking they actually support your view.

(Oh, and I've never said Corinthians is a general command - just one that speaks for itself and contradicts other verses. If you believe it to be a specific commandment - then pray tell us who these 'blonde' women Paul is supposed to have addressed are? We should know - for it appears the Bible is saying +some+ women shouldn't speak in Church - so who are these women?)

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 14, 2009

Believing you are right when experts you quote say otherwise is an interesting trait. May I suggest you do a bit more research before you quote someone else who disagrees with you, thinking they actually support your view.

I am afraid you are mistaken - I have read Kung's book as well as having read Kennedy's book and Watt's book and Rodinson's book and Karen Armstrong's books, (oh yeah, and the bible, but you already read that, apparently).

My quote from Kung simply addressed your question about how diakanos should be properly translated in the New Testament. I agree with Kung that the churches under Paul were even more democratic than the Jewish-Christian communities - this includes Paul's explicit statement that men and women are equal (something the Koran unfortunately disagrees with Paul on) and the important role of women in the New Testament.

One must wonder what is more 'misogynist', a passage in the New Testament which says women should not chit-chat in church or passages in the Koran which view women as unclean, give husbands the green light to hit their wives and compares ladies to fields for their husbands to til. Oh well, I suppose this is silly to ask this question. Of course you see nothing wrong with the misogynist passages in the Koran.

Oh, and please look up the terms complementary passages and contradictory passages. The passages in Paul's epistles regarding women are the former rather than the latter.

shafique · Sep 14, 2009

event horizon wrote:
Believing you are right when experts you quote say otherwise is an interesting trait. May I suggest you do a bit more research before you quote someone else who disagrees with you, thinking they actually support your view.

I am afraid you are mistaken - I have read Kung's book as well as having read Kennedy's book and Watt's book and Rodinson's book and Karen Armstrong's books, (oh yeah, and the bible, but you already read that, apparently).

Cool -then it is even more strange why you would quote Kung when he explains whether a Greek word can mean 'deacon' rather than 'servant' - and not refer to the main point he makes that Paul saying women shouldn't speak in church is a later addition by misogynistic church officials.

It is even more stranger that you should argue that there wasn't a difference between Jewish and Pauline Christianity, when Kung makes it very clear that this was the case, and that the latter re-wrote the Bible to support their views.

event horizon wrote:One must wonder what is more 'misogynist', a passage in the New Testament which says women should not chit-chat in church

It says more than that - it says women are too dense to understand without their husbands explaining.

You seem ok with this. You obviously didn't get this from Kung.

...and then we have your usual 'the (imagined) holes in your argument are bigger than the holes in mine' defence.

event horizon wrote:Oh, and please look up the terms complementary passages and contradictory passages. The passages in Paul's epistles regarding women are the former rather than the latter.

I agree that apart from the fabricated (according to Biblical scholars) misogynistic verses, the other verses from Paul are complimentary. But isn't that just common sense - ignore the contradictory verses and what remains is complimentary?

I think Tinky-Winky would be ashamed of that line of reasoning!!

cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 14, 2009

It is even more stranger that you should argue that there wasn't a difference between Jewish and Pauline Christianity

You're free to point out these differences between Jewish-Christian belief (according to Kung) and what Paul writes in his epistles. I said there was not a difference in belief according to the New Testament which correctly states this. Perhaps you're thinking of later periods and are now confusing your missionary view of Paul (Paul was the first to preach to Gentiles, wrote about Trinity, etc.,) with what the New Testament says.

when Kung makes it very clear that this was the case, and that the latter re-wrote the Bible to support their views.

So the Bible was later re-written to support Paul's beliefs in the Trinity and conversion of Gentiles - which you said Paul initiated and James was against? Ok.

It says more than that - it says women are too dense to understand without their husbands explaining.

No it doesn't.

But you're free to believe that - just as the Koran says one woman is too dense to provide proper testimony in court and two women witnesses/testimonies is equal to one male.

shafique · Sep 15, 2009

event horizon wrote:
It is even more stranger that you should argue that there wasn't a difference between Jewish and Pauline Christianity

You're free to point out these differences between Jewish-Christian belief (according to Kung) and what Paul writes in his epistles.

The differences between Pauline Christianity and Jewish Christianity have been listed for you quite a few times now. Selecting Pauline writings where he agrees with Jewish Christians does is a bit facetious.

As Kung says - the victors got to write history and it took a couple of centuries before they grew strong enough to start declaring Jewish Christian beliefs as heretical.

One major difference is the divinity of Jesus - being part of the Trinity, or the actual, begotten, son of God. This is not a Jewish Christian belief.

Is your contention is that Paul does not mention that Jesus is the Son of God in the epistles, and you want me to find quotes to disprove your belief?

event horizon wrote:
I said there was not a difference in belief according to the New Testament which correctly states this.

What part of Kung's explanation that the NT was written by the victors confused you?

Stating that the modified accounts in the NT support the Pauline view they are right is an odd argument.

You should either show that the NT has not been fudged - and provide the evidence to discredit Gibbon and all who followed him, including Kung - who show from primary sources that the Bible has been re-written.

event horizon wrote: Perhaps you're thinking of later periods and are now confusing your missionary view of Paul (Paul was the first to preach to Gentiles, wrote about Trinity, etc.,) with what the New Testament says.

Later periods brought in more doctrinal changes - no doubt. But no, I'm talking about the NT which you seem to be taking as gospel and which historians and Biblical scholars agree are not historically accurate on issues of differences between Pauline and Jewish Christianity.

event horizon wrote:
when Kung makes it very clear that this was the case, and that the latter re-wrote the Bible to support their views.

So the Bible was later re-written to support Paul's beliefs in the Trinity and conversion of Gentiles - which you said Paul initiated and James was against? Ok.

The Bible was re-written according to Biblical scholars which you have quoted. Perhaps you should try quoting someone who believes that the Bible wasn't re-written?

event horizon wrote:
It says more than that - it says women are too dense to understand without their husbands explaining.

No it doesn't.

Well, that's what the English translation says - what is your explanation for the verse then?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Sep 15, 2009

shafique wrote:But, let us play your game for a while and review what the Bible says:
1 Corinthians:
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

So, in your estimation - which women were told to not speak in church and only ask their husbands if they wanted to learn something? Please give us your references for your views. (I've heard some argue that Paul's instructions were only to the Corinthians - are you saying that these ladies were particulary 'blonde'?)

'let them ask their husbands at home' - seems quite clear to me, Women should ask their husbands to explain things to them 'if they will learn any thing'.

And what is the reason the Bible gives for this - 'for it is a shame for women to speak in Church'

But I'll be fair - 'eh' says this is not a general verse and also that it is not a fabricated addition (as the Biblical scholars like Kung contend) - therefore it begs the question, who are these women who should not speak in Church and only ask their husbands at home?

Who, who?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 15, 2009

Is your contention is that Paul does not mention that Jesus is the Son of God in the epistles, and you want me to find quotes to disprove your belief?

Actually, it was your contention that Paul invented the Trinity (along with your claim that Paul was the first to preach to Gentiles). Therefore, I asked you to provide passages from Paul's epistles where he writes about the Trinity. Should be a logical question but this seems to be giving you some trouble.

Selecting Pauline writings where he agrees with Jewish Christians does is a bit facetious.

Uhmm, have you even read Paul's epistles (I know I asked you this before and you claimed you have, but I have to ask again because it's obvious to me you haven't)?

But no, I'm talking about the NT which you seem to be taking as gospel and which historians and Biblical scholars agree are not historically accurate on issues of differences between Pauline and Jewish Christianity.

Which historical accounts do not reflect accurately between Pauline and Jewish Christianity? I know this will be a difficult question for you and you will provide some strange response that does not address the question - similar to when I asked for contemporary accounts outside of the New Testament and that was too difficult for you to understand.

shafique · Sep 15, 2009

Please try and make up your mind 'eh' and focus.

This thread is about whether the NT contains contradictions or not. You are not explaining who the women are that Paul is referring to when he says they should not speak in church (actually he is addressing men and telling them 'your women'...)

Will you answer the question????

As for your other points..

Kung et al have shown that it contains forged verses, inserted by Pauline Christians to support their dogma. Look back, and you will see that we have discussed in the Gibbon thread one specific example of a verse about Trinity being inserted. There you will find your requested historical document detailing one difference.

Kung summed it up best when he said (in a book you quoted from):

For today we know that the history of theology and the church, too, was predominantly written by the victors at the expense of the losers - along dogmatic or church-political lines. The losers in this kind of traditional church history are not just individual 'heretics' who have been rehabilitated by more recent histiography.

Whole areas of Christianity were losers, like the Jewish Christians who, as we saw, for the most part were already being regarded as heretical in the second and third centuries.

Kung, in the same book, talks about the differences between Jewish and Pauline Christianity. These Jewish Christian view was 'written out' of the Bible - but in some instances it was badly done (leading to contradictions).

Kung is also saying in the quote that the Jewish Christian views only became heretical over 100 years after Jesus' ministry. He knows what he is talking about - and your argument is with him.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Sep 15, 2009

shafique wrote:
shafique wrote:But, let us play your game for a while and review what the Bible says:
1 Corinthians:
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

So, in your estimation - which women were told to not speak in church and only ask their husbands if they wanted to learn something? Please give us your references for your views. (I've heard some argue that Paul's instructions were only to the Corinthians - are you saying that these ladies were particulary 'blonde'?)

'let them ask their husbands at home' - seems quite clear to me, Women should ask their husbands to explain things to them 'if they will learn any thing'.

And what is the reason the Bible gives for this - 'for it is a shame for women to speak in Church'

Just to make it clear for 'eh':

Let me ask again - who are these women in these verses?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 16, 2009

The clue in my post was 'context dear shafique, context'.

shafique · Sep 16, 2009

Ahh, the disapointment - no answer, just a cut and paste of my comment to you.

Do you not know who Paul was addressing?

The context was that 'your women' should not speak in Church, and should ask their husbands if they want to learn.

Isn't the context that this is in the canonised Bible?

So, who are these women, eh? Kung says this passage is a forged one- you seem to think it is Paul's words. Yet Paul is contradicting himself.

Ergo, you DO believe the Bible contains contradictions after all. (Anyway, don't worry if you just don't know what the context is - I'm sure you are still reeling from the shock of having me quote Kung's conclusions to you - quite an own-goal that!)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Sep 16, 2009

Will we get an answer?

Hmmm :wink:

Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

For Eh - Contradictions In NT

Go To

Dubai Discussions

Dubai Expat Forums

Dubai Business

Dubai Tech Discussions

Dubai Classifieds