Zone1 Christian Wives and Submission

[Meriweather]

Secondly there is virtual consensus that Ephesians is pseudepigraphical and that I Peter is definitely pseudepigraphical.

No, there is no "virtual consensus". The letter itself states twice it was written by Paul. Some do wonder if was written under Paul's direction, possibly by Tychicus (who delivered the letter). Others wonder if it might have been written by Luke or Timothy, both close companions of Paul.

The same is true for Peter, a letter written under his direction, possibly by Silvanus (mentioned in Chapter 5).

In both cases, early Church Fathers noted that these letters were from Paul and from Peter. For someone, two thousand years later, something different is merely a personal opinion. What are you supposing is contained in each letter that was not spoken and taught by Paul or Peter? And why? What are your own motives for coming up with your own version of Christianity, obviously an attempt to discredit it?

 

[Meriweather]

I am simply pointing out the academic position concerning those two texts.

No, you are not pointing out "the academic position" as there are a few more "academic positions" equally as valid as your own personally selected "academic position".

 

[Meriweather]

Exactly. So where is the difference between fanatical Christians and fanatical Muslims?

Words may be common to both. Actions are the difference.

 

[Hypatia415]

No, there is no "virtual consensus".

Yes there is within the relevant academic disciplines.

The letter itself states twice it was written by Paul.

So what? That proves nothing at all. And these pseudepigraphical authors did claim to be the person in whose name they were writing. The same is true for other epistles in the NT including the three of John and that of James, as well as Hebrews.

The same is true for Peter, a letter written under his direction, possibly by Silvanus (mentioned in Chapter 5).

The first individual to explicitly cite Peter as the author was Irenaeus in the late second century. The following century Eusebius of Caesarea cites a tradition from Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 215 CE) that Peter was the author. Another indicator to suggest pseudonymity is the author's use of the LXX, an Aramaic speaking Galilean Jew would have been familiar with the Hebrew. Then there is the fact that it is written in remarkably good Greek From the entry in The Anchor Bible Dictionary vol 5:

The letter was written in a polished Greek revealing numerous traces of literary refinement. The near-classical employment of the article and exact use of tenses is coupled with a more semitic appreciation of rhythm and parallelism (2:14, 22–23; 3:18; 4:6, 11; 5:2–3); the adept use of prepositions (1:2, 3–5, 21; 2:4; 3:18); and the effective rhetorical use of repetition, allied terms and contrasts (1:3–5, 7–8, 12, 14, 18–19, 23, 2:1, 4–10, 3:3–4, 13–17; 4:12–19; 5:2, 6–7).

All of which could hardly be attained by an Aramaic speaking peasant Galilean fisherman.

In both cases, early Church Fathers noted that these letters were from Paul and from Peter.

Tradition. Nothing more.

For someone, two thousand years later, something different is merely a personal opinion.

You are welcome to read any academic text on these two epistles.

What are you supposing is contained in each letter that was not spoken and taught by Paul or Peter? And why? What are your own motives for coming up with your own version of Christianity, obviously an attempt to discredit it?

As the Anchor Bible Dictionary entry also notes:

The ambiguous nature of the letter‘s internal evidence concerning its date, authorship, and place of composition requires a consideration of several interrelated literary, historical, and social factors.

That is where the academic expertise comes in.

 

[Hypatia415]

No, you are not pointing out "the academic position" as there are a few more "academic positions" equally as valid as your own personally selected "academic position".

There are some who hold it is genuine but they are not the majority.

Words may be common to both. Actions are the difference.

The difference being that at present none of those so-called American pastors have the temporal power of their counterparts in Islam. Just imagine if they did.

 

[ding]

And it is from two unknown authors.

So what?

 

[ding]

Firstly, neither Ephesians nor I Peter are the "Word of God" both are epistles.

Secondly there is virtual consensus that Ephesians is pseudepigraphical and that I Peter is definitely pseudepigraphical.

Is there consensus that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians?

Paul’s first letter to the church of Corinth provides us with a fuller insight into the life of an early Christian community of the first generation than any other book of the New Testament. Through it we can glimpse both the strengths and the weaknesses of this small group in a great city of the ancient world, men and women who had accepted the good news of Christ and were now trying to realize in their lives the implications of their baptism. Paul, who had founded the community and continued to look after it as a father, responds both to questions addressed to him and to situations of which he had been informed. In doing so, he reveals much about himself, his teaching, and the way in which he conducted his work of apostleship. Some things are puzzling because we have the correspondence only in one direction. For the person studying this letter, it seems to raise as many questions as it answers, but without it our knowledge of church life in the middle of the first century would be much poorer.

Paul established a Christian community in Corinth about the year 51, on his second missionary journey. The city, a commercial crossroads, was a melting pot full of devotees of various pagan cults and marked by a measure of moral depravity not unusual in a great seaport. The Acts of the Apostles suggests that moderate success attended Paul’s efforts among the Jews in Corinth at first, but that they soon turned against him (Acts 18:1–8). More fruitful was his year and a half spent among the Gentiles (Acts 18:11), which won to the faith many of the city’s poor and underprivileged (1 Cor 1:26). After his departure the eloquent Apollos, an Alexandrian Jewish Christian, rendered great service to the community, expounding “from the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus” (Acts 18:24–28).

While Paul was in Ephesus on his third journey (1 Cor 16:8; Acts 19:1–20), he received disquieting news about Corinth. The community there was displaying open factionalism, as certain members were identifying themselves exclusively with individual Christian leaders and interpreting Christian teaching as a superior wisdom for the initiated few (1 Cor 1:10–4:21). The community lacked the decisiveness to take appropriate action against one of its members who was living publicly in an incestuous union (1 Cor 5:1–13). Other members engaged in legal conflicts in pagan courts of law (1 Cor 6:1–11); still others may have participated in religious prostitution (1 Cor 6:12–20) or temple sacrifices (1 Cor 10:14–22).

The community’s ills were reflected in its liturgy. In the celebration of the Eucharist certain members discriminated against others, drank too freely at the agape, or fellowship meal, and denied Christian social courtesies to the poor among the membership (1 Cor 11:17–22). Charisms such as ecstatic prayer, attributed freely to the impulse of the holy Spirit, were more highly prized than works of charity (1 Cor 13:1–2, 8), and were used at times in a disorderly way (1 Cor 14:1–40). Women appeared at the assembly without the customary head-covering (1 Cor 11:3–16), and perhaps were quarreling over their right to address the assembly (1 Cor 14:34–35).

Still other problems with which Paul had to deal concerned matters of conscience discussed among the faithful members of the community: the eating of meat that had been sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 8:1–13), the use of sex in marriage (1 Cor 7:1–7), and the attitude to be taken by the unmarried toward marriage in view of the possible proximity of Christ’s second coming (1 Cor 7:25–40). There was also a doctrinal matter that called for Paul’s attention, for some members of the community, despite their belief in the resurrection of Christ, were denying the possibility of general bodily resurrection.

To treat this wide spectrum of questions, Paul wrote this letter from Ephesus about the year 56. The majority of the Corinthian Christians may well have been quite faithful. Paul writes on their behalf to guard against the threats posed to the community by the views and conduct of various minorities. He writes with confidence in the authority of his apostolic mission, and he presumes that the Corinthians, despite their deficiencies, will recognize and accept it. On the other hand, he does not hesitate to exercise his authority as his judgment dictates in each situation, even going so far as to promise a direct confrontation with recalcitrants, should the abuses he scores remain uncorrected (1 Cor 4:18–21).

The letter illustrates well the mind and character of Paul. Although he is impelled to insist on his office as founder of the community, he recognizes that he is only one servant of God among many and generously acknowledges the labors of Apollos (1 Cor 3:5–8). He provides us in this letter with many valuable examples of his method of theological reflection and exposition. He always treats the questions at issue on the level of the purity of Christian teaching and conduct. Certain passages of the letter are of the greatest importance for the understanding of early Christian teaching on the Eucharist (1 Cor 10:14–22; 11:17–34) and on the resurrection of the body (1 Cor 15:1–58).

Paul’s authorship of 1 Corinthians, apart from a few verses that some regard as later interpolations, has never been seriously questioned. Some scholars have proposed, however, that the letter as we have it contains portions of more than one original Pauline letter. We know that Paul wrote at least two other letters to Corinth (see 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:3–4) in addition to the two that we now have; this theory holds that the additional letters are actually contained within the two canonical ones. Most commentators, however, find 1 Corinthians quite understandable as a single coherent work.

So my point is we have historical evidence of an early Christian community that worshipped Jesus that was written by someone who claimed to have met the risen Christ. The only explanation for this is that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Meriweather]

All of which could hardly be attained by an Aramaic speaking peasant Galilean fisherman.

Could it be attained by a disciple conversant in both languages? A disciple writing a missive from an Apostle? If you've read all there is to read on this, then you must be aware of this--and also the theory that a disciple of Peter or Paul learned what they were conveying from them, and therefore credited who it was that informed them.

Why don't you want Peter or Paul credited? What is your purpose? You know (or should) scholars are aware of numerous possibilities. One, with the letter to the Ephesians, is that the draft was written by Paul before his death, and edited into its present form by one of his companions.

You say you want the "truth", but you are no where close to the truth, only your own mission to bash anything Christian. Again, why? Have you practiced Christianity? If you haven't, you know nothing and are speaking out of pure ignorance and (possibly) hate.

 

[lg325]

Men women relationships in christian scripture is misinterpeted by many . All of scripture pretaining to man and woman relationship must be studied and understood. Ignore that mass media and fake experts in the media and explore it yourself and you will find a whole different meaning. It is one of equality but different responsibilities in the relationship that makes it work.

 

[Hypatia415]

Could it be attained by a disciple conversant in both languages?

Oh please. Are you suggesting Peter undertook Distance Learning?

A disciple writing a missive from an Apostle? If you've read all there is to read on this, then you must be aware of this--and also the theory that a disciple of Peter or Paul learned what they were conveying from them, and therefore credited who it was that informed them.

Why don't you want Peter or Paul credited?

It is not about what I want or do not want. I am simply presenting what is known about these texts.

What is your purpose? You know (or should) scholars are aware of numerous possibilities.

Some are but they are usually the outliers or a small rump, and often theologians as well. N.T. Wright is a good example. A noted academic but with his own theological "baggage". The late James Dunn, an expert on Pau, also a theologian and academic noted:

For however the question of authorship of Ephesians and the Pastorals is to be resolved, these letters do attest what may simply be described as an ongoing Pauline tradition, and atthe very least can be regarded as the earliest interpretations of the earlier Pauline tradition. [See, The New Perspective on Paul, Revised Edition, 2008, Eerdmans, USA]

One, with the letter to the Ephesians, is that the draft was written by Paul before his death, and edited into its present form by one of his companions.

The style is very different from the writing of Paul. Nor are the words "in Ephesus" found in the earliest Greek MSS of this text. Most textual experts consider they were added later by a scribe after the text had been in circulation for some time. There also good grounds for doubting it was written by Paul. Much of it is an elevated or liturgical style and while Paul writes brief passages in that manner he never sustains it for very long. The sentences are also longer and more complex that those normally written by Paul some of them over fifty words in length (see 1:3-14, 15-23; 2:1-7; 3:1-7) although translators break them up in English to make them easier to understand. Contrast that with the sentences found in the authentic epistles of Paul. Furthermore, many words and ideas are used in ways not found in those authentic Pauline texts. You can find entries on these texts in any reputable bible dictionary.

You say you want the "truth", but you are no where close to the truth, only your own mission to bash anything Christian. Again, why? Have you practiced Christianity? If you haven't, you know nothing and are speaking out of pure ignorance and (possibly) hate.

I am not bashing anything. I simply present what is known of these texts where they are considered in the same way that any other ancients text would be examined.

 

[ding]

I am simply presenting what is known about these texts.

That's not what you are doing. You are trying to discredit the texts. But the problem you have is that you can't explain why such a massive volume of texts - which make a concerted effort to show the divinity of Christ as an historical event - exist in the first place.

 

[Anathema]

Honestly, the lala k of women who understand their proper place in the world is why I never sought out “love”in a relationship. My wife and I have a marriage based on mutual compatibility and nothing else. No emotional attachment. It was carried out on a church only for the appearances for our gfsmily

 

[SweetSue92]

Could it be attained by a disciple conversant in both languages? A disciple writing a missive from an Apostle? If you've read all there is to read on this, then you must be aware of this--and also the theory that a disciple of Peter or Paul learned what they were conveying from them, and therefore credited who it was that informed them.

Why don't you want Peter or Paul credited? What is your purpose? You know (or should) scholars are aware of numerous possibilities. One, with the letter to the Ephesians, is that the draft was written by Paul before his death, and edited into its present form by one of his companions.

You say you want the "truth", but you are no where close to the truth, only your own mission to bash anything Christian. Again, why? Have you practiced Christianity? If you haven't, you know nothing and are speaking out of pure ignorance and (possibly) hate.

Thank you, this exactly

 

[BreezeWood]

The "Feminist" movement and their war against family and God's plan is one of the many problems with America.
It's the difference between this:
And this:

the 1st century events, jesus are the contrary to judaism and their false religion, madeup commandments et al and made inclusive for all to acquire their own self determination as they see fit for themselves -

not limited by those obsessed by their own itinerary using religion as a false shield for their personal beliefs.

 

[SaxonJackson]

the 1st century events, jesus are the contrary to judaism and their false religion, madeup commandments et al and made inclusive for all to acquire their own self determination as they see fit for themselves -

not limited by those obsessed by their own itinerary using religion as a false shield for their personal beliefs.

Regardless of what your mumbo-jumbo is supposed to represent, the family unit works best then the man is the provider and protector and final decision maker and when the woman supports him as a member of the team.

 

[BreezeWood]

9/11?

Iraq?

Rape gangs?

Burkas?

Forced child marriage?

Be so for real....hahahah

all three desert religions have the same preamble in their individual bibles as the reason for their radical elements that persecute and victimize the innocent ...

that is the cause for the 1st century events, jesus is to repudiate the false religion of judaism, servitude and denial and return to the true religion of antiquity the means to free ones spirit for admission to the everlasting.

 

[BreezeWood]

Regardless of what your mumbo-jumbo is supposed to represent, the family unit works best then the man is the provider and protector and final decision maker and when the woman supports him as a member of the team.

all three desert religions have the same preamble in their individual bibles as the reason for their radical elements that persecute and victimize the innocent ...

oh,

those desert religions from their very beginnings using what's in their bibles for that very reason is why those they attract are anything than the liberation theology, self determination the 1st century events occurred and continue for some to this day -

as many as they crucify as long as some continue the heavens will be patient.

 

[JohnDB]

When the Apostolic Letters were written...

The Greek/Roman world was vastly different from our westernized society today. Especially with this Near Eastern religious culture trying to mesh with the Greek/Roman world.

In Israel, women were educated freely until they began learning household duties from the family of their intended husband.
However polygamy was practiced and even required by Law of the Old Testament.

In Greek/Roman Society Wealthy men had a wife of status....whose family was wealthy and maintained business contracts to provide for their daughter. She would eventually bear her families an heir.

However, her husband's often empty promises of love fell flat...thecwife would be completely disrespectful of her husband due to how he did not love her but instead loved his consort. Consorts were a politically recognized class of citizen. A consort always had her man's attention. If she somehow became pregnant and bore her benefactor a son despite the abortifacient she used regularly (silphium) from Cyrene he might get adopted into his household.

The growing Christian community when faced with this....had several things to say.

Paul told husbands to love their wives....meaning all of them. Even though Romans/Greeks considered the polygamy of the Jews disgusting...Paul and others viewed this as a game of semantics. They were no different except in name.

Paul also told the wives to essentially "get over themselves" and to respect their husbands. The husbands were providing for them and their children after all.

Both of these admonitions were essentially groundbreaking and slightly nuts considering the cultures at that time. To actually live your wife? That's nuts!
For wives to actually give respect to their husband? How dare he?!!!

So....there ya go.
Doesn't matter who precisely penned these letters....that's the intent.

And a Synagogue? Where they held church services or in someone's home where they held church services? The Roman women, for the most part, would not be educated formally. Never been to a lecture...did not ever sit in a class. Only those of Jewish descent would have been. Being obnoxious and asking questions as the men might....totally derailed most lessons. That's why Paul told them to keep quiet...

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Meriweather]

I simply present what is known of these texts where they are considered in the same way that any other ancients text would be examined.

Except...you do not present ALL that is known. You present your own view which consists solely of, "Paul and/or Peter did not write this!" Why present it as a forgery or scam? When presented with all that is known, (including tradition some so snootily dismiss--a modern opinion of yours) we hear that those who study languages and format see different styles, different use of languages and/or words. Then we hear scholarly surmises (opinions, but unlike personal opinion, an educated opinion) that it may have been written by someone else (possibly someone who either took the words of the Apostle, or a draft of an Apostle, perhaps written in another language and translated into Greek/Latin).

Note that I do not dispute the scholars you present. I merely point out there are scholars you leave out and/or dismiss. I continue to wonder why? What is your purpose for attempting to dismiss, even denigrate Christianity? Have you ever practiced Christianity? Have you ever studied Christianity other than searching for bits and pieces you feel you can use for your own purpose? Why are you unfriendly towards Christianity?