Zach:  Jeff, I'm not sure that I disagree with Paul's teaching on slavery. As I understand it Paul consistently undercuts the basis for slavery by teaching that there is no slave or free in Christ.

Jeff:  I would say that he DOESN'T undercut the basis since all are slaves.  Since all are slaves, where much is given, much is required.  That's why I think he tells those that are slaves (in 1 Cor. 7) that IF they are able to become free, to use the freedom even MORE.

The same idea shows up in 1 Timothy and Philemon.  Paul says that servants of believers are to honor THOSE masters MORE since, presumably, their service aids one who is committed to the ULTIMATE good service.  But in Philemon, Paul argues that Onesimus was profiting Philemon by his service to Paul in the gospel EVEN THOUGH he had runaway from Philemon.  So Paul expected Philemon to assess the situation in that light.  But had Onesimus run away from the service he owed to Philemon and never recompensed Philemon in any way, he would have been effectually stealing. 

Zach:  Where Paul is inconsistent is the speed or practical method of implementation. Sometimes he seems to call for large, immediate change and other times for small, gradual changes.

Jeff:  I would sy that he is not being inconsistent.  I see it more like "all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable."  Accordingly, I don't think Paul considered slavery INTRINSICALLY wrong.  It could be valuable and it might not be.  Each circumstance would have to be judged on it's merit.  Paul seems to be consistent in demanding that all INTRINSICALLY wrong behavior be stopped immediately.  Just like Christ who said "go and sin no more."

Zach:  But in different times different methods might be needed.

Jeff:  I would say this would only be true on matters where no INTRINSIC wrong is at stake.  In other words, we can NEVER do what is not lawful, but different methods are appropriate at different times depending on what is profitable--to the service of Christ.

Zach:  I personally hold the person of Jesus as sole authority. scripture may expand on that Root legitimately or illegitimately.

Jeff:  Yes, Christ is the sole authority.  But apart from private revelation, scripture is all we have to seek consensus by, communally.  So when I hear people judging other people, I expect signs and wonders if it's based on private revelation, or a rational argument otherwise.  By the latter, I mean a sound philosophical argument or a scriptural one.  Thus, if we are challenging what has been traditionally accepted as scripture, I'm interested in what sound arguments can be made for rejecting those writings.  For if there are some that need to be rejected, I certainly want to know so I won't judge other people BY THEM.

Zach:  ...in principal I think we should be willing to abandon anything that is opposed to the person of Jesus.

Jeff:  Me too.  But apart from private revelation, I need a sound rational argument to convince me that Paul was less accurate about Christ's person and will than were the authors of the gospels.  The fact that the gospels are historical doesn't imply they're truer than Paul's teachings, necessarily.  Or even that they're canonical.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/30/2005 5:44:46 PM (GMT-6)

I should clarify about slavery.  From what I understand of Paul, he never condones the keeping of a slave.  He does tell masters to treat slaves well.  But someone who is opposed in principal to abortion might encourage doctors to use the most painless method possible when performing them.  I don't see Paul's instruction to masters to necessarily be an endorsement of the status of master.  I believe (and I may be wrong) that if Paul had his way there would be no slavery.  His letters, especially Philemon, give the impression that he understood both that slavery is fundamentally wrong and that he felt that addressing the situation required tact.

As to the instructions to the slaves, of course they are to be obedient.  But like turning the cheek or going the mile, submission does not imply the recognition of authority.  Slaves are to obey their masters not because the master is their authority but because Jesus is.  Asking for freedom is fine, and receiving it is better.  Paul is inconsistent in his methods, and I think that's a good thing.

Now in Christ all are slaves.  But in another way all are free.  So the obedient Christian will sumbit to authorities and not become one himself.  How can I, as a Christian, rule over someone who bears the very image of God?  How can I pass laws with teeth one minute and claim that Jesus is Lord the next?  Slavery is much more ugly, but democracy is essentially the same thing.  Now instead of a strong man ruling over a weak man it is the larger majority ruling over the smaller minority.  As followers of Christ we are to take the position of the weak just like Jesus did.  One day God will make us strong just like he did with Jesus, but for now we take up the cross, we don't pass sentences.

Finally, I'm ok with all the writings of Paul.  But Paul didn't write the Timothy letters.  In fact the author of Timothy flatly contradicts Paul in the matter of women speaking in the assembly.  I consider the Timothy letters to be the writings of an early church father, not an apostle.  I think I'm with the scholarly consensus on this one.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 12/1/2005 3:54:23 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/1/2005 9:06:51 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 12/2/2005 4:31:12 AM (GMT-6)

Zach:  A good Jewish teacher of the time probably would not have bothered with women. 

Jeff:  I thought Jesus WAS a good Jewish teacher?  What does the OT say that forbids bothering with women?

Zach:  He certainly wouldn't associate himself closely with a known prostitute.

Jeff:   He didn't have sex with her.  So which of Christ's actions with regard to the prostitute was prohibited by the Torah?

Zach:  I think there is at least gospel evidence that Jesus took a more or less radical view of women for his time.

Jeff:  Absolutely.  Anyone who fulfills the Law and Prophets will be radical for his/her time.

Zach:  We are also told that Jesus considered the least to be the greatest.  Now I agree that this does not necessarily add up to a specific doctrine of gender roles, but Paul certainly does make the claim that in Christ there is no male or female.

Jeff:  Paul said there is no male or female IN CHRIST.  So how does the phrase "in Christ" affect the meaning of that passage?  That's the question.  Surely Paul is not saying there's no such thing as a male or a female.  

Zach:  Paul himself supported specific female leaders in local churches.

Jeff:  What cases are you referring to, and which verses in Timothy would be contradictory to these cases?

Jeff:  I thought Jesus WAS a good Jewish teacher?  What does the OT say that forbids bothering with women?

Zach:  Not according to the standards of his time.  By those standards he was bad enough to be executed.  I'm not aware of the OT saying anything that forbids bothering with women.

Jeff:   He didn't have sex with her.  So which of Christ's actions with regard to the prostitute was prohibited by the Torah?

Zach:  Agreed, none

Jeff:  Paul said there is no male or female IN CHRIST.  So how does the phrase "in Christ" affect the meaning of that passage?  That's the question.  Surely Paul is not saying there's no such thing as a male or a female.  

Zach: Isn't that the context of this discussion?  Of course there are still males and females, but in Christ, his teachings, and his kingdom there is no significant distinction between the two.  Yet we still sometimes must perserve distinctions in order not to send misleading messages to the world.

Jeff:  What cases are you referring to, and which verses in Timothy would be contradictory to these cases?

Zach:   Rom 16: ¹I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. ²I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. ³Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. ⁴They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. ⁵Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia. ⁶Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. ⁷Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Gal 3: ²⁶You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, ²⁷for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

1 Tim 2: ¹²I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. ¹³For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 12/2/2005 6:31:03 PM (GMT-6)

   "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

A little Gospel to chew on,

Mark

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 12/2/2005 7:30:07 PM (GMT-6)

Sure, the entire fallen world is intrinsically evil and rotten to the core. Everything in the cosmos is subject to decay and death.  All manmade systems can be found complicit in evil. We are told to submit to those holding authority, and then told the world is ruled by the god of this age.  Jesus walked, without waders, through the pollution of man.  Yet after all is said, we are still called to pick up our cross and walk through the same polluted waters and the same trampled path as our Lord Jesus.

With the promise of the world to come,

Mark 

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 12/2/2005 9:01:21 PM (GMT-6)

BTW

An archaeologist recently found the following engraved on the back of a chariot:

“Men are like fine wine.  They start out as grapes, and it's up to the women to stomp the crap out of them until they turn into something acceptable to have dinner with.”    

A few weeks ago Don asked a poster going by the user name of Element, how does one come to know your god?  Element never answered the question, but I would suggest the answer would be found in the mirror.  So Zach, if you want to remove the Bible as having final authority, well then, good luck with your god in the mirror.  

On the other hand maybe I'm misunderstanding you, what do you mean by protestant bible?  Do you succumb to papal authority?

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 12/9/2005 10:39:22 AM (GMT-6)

I think the argument for Paul not writing the pastorals is convincing.  If the same person wrote Galatians and 1 Timothy, he must have been schizophrenic or something.  Maybe by the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy he had changed his mind about there being no male or female in Christ.  Paul would also have to be very old when he wrote the letter.  Brown says, "about 80 to 90 percent of modern scholars would agree that the Pastorals were written after Paul's lifetime, and of those the majority would accept the period between 80 and 100 as the most plausible context for their composition."

Honestly, I couldn't really care less who wrote the pastorals.  It could be Paul or Nero.  What matters is faithfulness to Jesus.  It takes quite a bit of mental gymanstics to see 1 Timothy as faithful to Jesus' teachings.  (Unless we interpret Jesus with the assumption that he must submit to the authority of 1 Timothy.)

Jeff: Yes, but if scripture (and presumably the Lord, too) commands children to obey their parents, doesn't that mean they are to obey their own parents over someone else when commands of both parties are in conflict?

Zach:  No, certainly not.  What if the other party is God?  And even if we exclude God from the possible conflicting parties, I don't see how I could go for that.  What happens when a parent tells her child to run away from his slave-master?  The New Testament commands obedience to all sorts of authorities.  We could make some hierarchy to deal with conflicts of loyalty between government, parents, masters, husbands, God, and whoever else, but that hierachy would be extrabiblical.  It seems more natural to me just to say that I "should humble himself like this child" as a way of life.  "Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave."  I think the specific commands to obedience are examples of ways to obey the overall command (and example) of Christ to take the lower position.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 12/15/2005 3:59:28 PM (GMT-6)