aChristian you wrote:
"If we do not believe the miracles which the gospel writers recorded as actually having taken place, how can we really believe that a man named Jesus spoke the words those same writers attributed to him? After all, many of the words they quote him as having said were words they tell us he said in the course of performing the very miracles you do not believe ever took place. If they made up all those words, why should we believe they did not also make up most of the rest?"
This is a poor example but here goes! Do I have to believe that George Washington really did chop down his father's cherry tree and when queried declared I cannot tell a lie, in order to believe he was a great man? My point is that not everything we have been told can be absolutely relied upon as the truth. In regard to the miracles in the First Century, what proofs are there today that such things really occurred? Why only in the First Century were there miracles? Sincere Christians have languished for centuries under tyrannical religious leaders while searching for truth, yet there are no more signs from God, no more miracles to stamp the true prophet, the true priest, the true minister, why? Some believe it's because God does not exist, I believe it's because it was never that way, there were no public miracles, no raisings of physical bodies etc. Many other religions claim supernatural occurrences why should the ones recorded in the Bible be believed over the others?
You wrote:
"I believe you are wrong about Paul's writings concerning women's place in the congregation.
I strongly believe that the words written by the apostle Paul, which are often understood to say that women are not allowed to hold positions of authority in Christian Churches, did not actually reflect the apostle Paul's own beliefs. The context of Paul's writings clearly indicates that Paul was in those passages actually citing false teachings then being promoted by others for the purpose of correcting those false teachings. This is not just my belief. Several books and articles have been written on this subject matter. I have explained this on this forum before. See this thread, a few posts down from the top:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17102&site=3";
aChristian,
I am familiar with the argument you present in regard to Paul. I respectfully submit though that when I first read it on the Web somewhere it seemed to me to be stretching the words of Paul like taffy. Paul was direct, he did not mince words. At 1 Timothy 2:8 he said, "I desire that in every place the men carry on prayer" note the use of the pronoun "I", verse 9 states "Likewise I desire the women to adorn themselves.." again the pronoun "I", verse 12: "I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence", "I" again. Is it too much to assume that with each use of the pronoun "I" Paul was speaking of himself, that these were things HE taught or felt proper?
In addition, when the writings of the so called early Church Fathers of the Second Century are compared to the writings of Paul they set forth the same policy as Paul did regarding women. If Paul was alluding to a false teaching in an attempt to correct it he failed to make his meaning clear to even the earliest of his male disciples. But, actually he did not fail for they understood his teaching on women quite well and they followed it.
Also, in fairness to Paul it is quite possible that there have been insertions and other pollutions of his letters by those who sought to keep women in their proper place.
You wrote:
"If you have not read this essay, I hope you will do so before discussing this subject further. (In other words, try not to follow the example of Crash.)"
I had not read your essay before today but as I said, I was familiar with the argument presented. I did though follow your advice and went back to read what you had to say on the matter. I will "try not to follow the example of Clash."
You wrote:
"Paul's letters and all the other writings which make up the New Testament were obviously not written as commentaries on the gospels."
To me that would be like a Constitutional scholar never referring to the words of the Constitution when writing ABOUT the Constitution!
Jesus taught simplicity, but simplicity does not engender the kind of congregational order and authority that Paul established for the coming generations and the Catholic hierarchy. It was the writings attributed to Paul that were used to keep the masses in their place, contrary to the words of Jesus which sought to free the masses from overbearing religious authority.
As for whether the First Century Christians had the Gospels in hand I defer to the writings of Paul, John, Peter etc. where there is no reference to any extensive writings on the life of Jesus, and certainly no encouragement to read them. In addition, if the Gospels were written as early as some scholars believe then it's even harder to explain the contradictions found among them since there would have been many eyewitnesses still alive who would be able to supply a more accurate account. IMO, such a thing as Q would explain the similarities between the synoptic Gospels but not the dissimilarities.
I've enjoyed your posts, and admire your faith. I remember it well, and I do at times wish that I could turn back the clock and believe again, believe that the whole Bible is the word of God. I do believe there are many beautiful and true things said in the Bible, but I also have come to feel that not every word is inspired.
Take care,
IW
