First Paul All Chapters 1 Thru 7

[Neon Genesis]

Question, On 3/4 of the way down page 50 the book discusses "when women lead the assembly" are they referring to women being the dominant in the family??

 

steve

Borg/Crossan make the case in chapter two that women were leaders in both Paul's church and in the family. They point out a passage in Romans chapter 16 where Paul mentions Priscilla's name first before he mentions her husband, which implies that she had the leadership role in her family.

 

The problems with many of the passages and attitudes of the later letters continue to be troubling. It points out how quickly the early church bowed to political and social pressures. It was less than 100 years before Jesus true message was lost or at least glossed over. Sad. Shows that the fundamentalists of today are following a long line of misinterpreters to support and justify domination of subcultures.

On the bright side, even most fundamentalist Christians today no longer accept the pro-slavery passages in the unofficial Pauline letters. And even though many fundamentalist churches still forbid women from leadership roles in the church and still believe only the husband can lead the family, most modern day fundamentalist Christians no longer believe women should be banned from voting and they believe that women should have the freedom to have leadership roles in secular jobs. Who would have imagined 100 years ago that Sarah Palin would be as popular of a politician among fundamentalists as she is today when 100 years ago Sarah Palin wouldn't have been allowed out of the kitchen? I just think it's a shame that fundamentalists haven't been able to move past using Paul's letters to justify homophobia even though they no longer use Paul's letters to justify slavery and women. Maybe 100 years from now we'll see fundamentalist Christian churches who accept LGBT Christians?

 

Do you think that as PCs we have the option (or possibly the responsibility) to be discerning about what we might consider to be a "canon within the canon"?

On the one hand, I have to wonder if women's rights issues and the role of women in Christianity would be completely different today if the Pastoral epistles had never been included in the biblical canon. On the other hand, I also think that even the immoral passages in the bible have important messages for us to reflect on about how ugly humanity can be and the dangers of religious dogmatism.

[murmsk]

How do you do the quote thing? It makes it very clear what is being referred to.

[murmsk]

I don't think we need to take a Jeffersonian approach and cut out all the parts we don't like.

 

why not? If we accept that the bible is a historical representation of the Christian community from which it came there is nothing sacred about what books and passages were included. Why shouldn't we do as the counsel of Nicia did and pick what fits the new wisdom? I am not sure but what the immoral passages need to be purged.

 

Here is my problem. (I know this is an extreme example) I am sure there are passages of "Mein Kampf" that some might find meaningful but due to the extreme view of the author (Hitler) it is largely ignored. How do you justify paying attention to an anti-semitic? In the same way how can we see wisdom in passages written by a sexist,homophobic justifier of slaves ???? I guess we do see wisdom in the writings of Jefferson and Washington in spite of them being slave owners. I don't know??? How do others deal with this? I am not convinced that "don't ask don't tell" or "don't read don't don't stir the pot" is the best tact to take. Why shouldn't we throw these sections out?

 

On the bright side, even most fundamentalist Christians today no longer accept the pro-slavery passages in the unofficial Pauline letters. And even though many fundamentalist churches still forbid women from leadership roles in the church and still believe only the husband can lead the family, most modern day fundamentalist Christians no longer believe women should be banned from voting and they believe that women should have the freedom to have leadership roles in secular jobs.

 

I agree we are past the slavery but for Gods sake it took long enough. Thing but there is still considerable resistance to women especially in the pulpit. The church I attend is pretty liberal and even we had a few grumbles/defections when we hired a woman pastor.

 

steve oh I learned how to quote

[Neon Genesis]

 

Here is my problem. (I know this is an extreme example) I am sure there are passages of "Mein Kampf" that some might find meaningful but due to the extreme view of the author (Hitler) it is largely ignored. How do you justify paying attention to an anti-semitic? In the same way how can we see wisdom in passages written by a sexist,homophobic justifier of slaves ???? I guess we do see wisdom in the writings of Jefferson and Washington in spite of them being slave owners. I don't know??? How do others deal with this? I am not convinced that "don't ask don't tell" or "don't read don't don't stir the pot" is the best tact to take. Why shouldn't we throw these sections out?

 

 

 

 

I don't think it's so much that we should try to find value in it but we shouldn't ignore that it's there. Using Mein Kampf as an example, it may be a horrible and wicked book, but because it was a tragic yet important part of history, I think it's still important to study it from a historical perspective as a warning of the darker side of humanity. Rather than either blindly praising the Pastoral epistles or tossing them out all-together, I think more churches should be educated about the scholarship views of Paul's letters. How many of your average church-going Christians know that Paul did not write 1 and 2 Timothy? I think it's important to let the word out about what these epistles are and educate people about the facts instead of sweeping them under the rug.

 

How do you do the quote thing? It makes it very clear what is being referred to.

When you're making a post, you'll see a thought bubble next to the little icon of an envelope. The thought bubble should say "insert quotation" when you highlight it. When you click on that button, the quote brackets should appear and you just copy and paste the text you want to quote in-between the quote brackets.

[Guest billmc]

Using Mein Kampf as an example, it may be a horrible and wicked book, but because it was a tragic yet important part of history, I think it's still important to study it from a historical perspective as a warning of the darker side of humanity.

 

I think this is spot on. How does the saying go? "Those who are ignorant of the mistakes of the past are bound to repeat them?"

[rivanna]

It’s amazing how much Borg and Crossan extract from such a short letter. Paul’s egalitarian attitude comes across, asking Philemon to free Onesimus and encouraging him to treat him as a beloved brother.

Then the contrasting passages on slavery from the reactionary non-Pauline letters --as the authors put it, “how sad, how terribly terribly sad.”

 

The section on gender equality was helpful also. It “refreshes my heart” to use a phrase Paul repeats in the letter.

 

About removing offensive passages from the bible – wonder if this has been tried? seems like the key is to understand the context and see scripture as cultural history, spiritual evolution…not a moral instruction book for the present.

 

Maybe 100 years from now we'll see fundamentalist Christian churches who accept LGBT Christians?

I hope it’s much sooner than that.

[murmsk]

 

About removing offensive passages from the bible – wonder if this has been tried? seems like the key is to understand the context and see scripture as cultural history, spiritual evolution…not a moral instruction book for the present.

 

 

I agree that context is everything. It makes study all the more important

 

Maybe its my science background. When I read journals the first question I ask is who wrote it. There are three types of authors.

 

1.those with a good reputation There is an assumption that the author is rational and does his/her best to not have an agenda. Their points are honestly considered.

 

2. Those with no reputation take what is said with a grain of salt assume nothing but consider it all I often find myself looking at other articles he/she has written to get a feel for credibility.

 

3. Bad reputation These are the most difficult and time consuming to read because everything that is written has to go through the "agenda filter" It is really frustrating and unless there is a compelling reason I won't read it.

 

Using Mein Kampf as an example, it may be a horrible and wicked book, but because it was a tragic yet important part of history, I think it's still important to study it from a historical perspective as a warning of the darker side of humanity.

 

The difference here is that we are looking for no wisdom. When it's studied researchers are trying to understand the Dark Side.

 

 

Im struggling .

 

Is a chapter a week too slow?

steve

[Neon Genesis]

I think wisdom can be found even in the darkest passages in the bible but we have to study these passages with a different frame of mind than what our conservative Christian culture does. Instead of looking at the bible as thou shalt and thou shalt not commands, we have to look at the bible as reflecting the views of the culture they were written in and consider how the passages relate to us today. In the case of the sexist passages in the Pastoral epistles, we can no longer look at those passages as "thou shalt" commandments but we have to look at them as a lesson in history to reflect on about the dangers of sexism and religious dogmatism.

[Mike]

I think a chapter a week is fine. Are we still on chapter 1? I haven't read 2 yet, I've entered a busy couple of weeks with a lot of writing due, including a speech , so I might not get around to reading it for a few more days.

 

As far as the value of Paul's writings, I look at them for their historical value to the faith, and also for the liturgical and doctrinal value that they have had for the church. Obviously Christian theology has changed a whole lot since the early church. Trinitarian and incarnational theology took precedent, which doesn't really have a whole lot to do with Paul in my opinion. Still, the 'Christ-mysticism' centered around the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus - participation with him, is a theme that has shaped Christian spirituality ever since.

[Guest billmc]

I just got the book yesterday so I am only about 1/3 the way through chapter 1. A chapter a week would be a good pace for me, but I'll fit in with whatever the discussionaires want to do.

[Neon Genesis]

I think a chapter a week is fine. Are we still on chapter 1? I haven't read 2 yet, I've entered a busy couple of weeks with a lot of writing due, including a speech , so I might not get around to reading it for a few more days.

 

 

We're on chapter two and I'm also fine with one chapter a week as I'm busy with college and one chapter a week will give me plenty of time to balance out my homework and studying with keeping up with the discussions.

[murmsk]

Ok chapter a week it is. Lets move onto Chapter 3. I started a chapter 2 topic but apparently using one thread so they got merged into one.

 

steve

[rivanna]

Chapter 3 - a few things that were new to me -

 

Paul’s first journey, his 3 years in Petra (Jordan) was apparently a failed mission – a mystery as to what happened. And why did he wait 14 years after receiving his revelation before going to Jerusalem.

 

Borg/ Crossan speculate that Paul’s affliction was malaria, contracted at Tarsus-- never heard that theory before. The authors even suggest that his visions might have been a result of chronic fever – seems a little far-fetched, undermines his whole conversion.

 

The authors claim that most of the people Paul addressed were neither Jews nor idol-worshipping pagans but Gentiles who had studied the Jewish religion and went to the synagogue. So maybe it wasn’t such a huge leap for them to relate to Jesus.

 

This chapter doesn’t shed much light on the letters, though it does give insight into the communities that existed then. There’s not much attention to the book of Acts—Paul’s speeches, healings & exorcisms, etc.

[murmsk]

This seems to be a chapter introducing us to Paul the person.

 

This chapter doesn’t shed much light on the letters, though it does give insight into the communities that existed then. There’s not much attention to the book of Acts—Paul’s speeches, healings & exorcisms, etc.

 

I am assuming this will come in later chapters.

 

Borg/ Crossan speculate that Paul’s affliction was malaria, contracted at Tarsus-- never heard that theory before. The authors even suggest that his visions might have been a result of chronic fever – seems a little far-fetched, undermines his whole conversion.

agreed that does seem to be a stretch.

 

steve

[murmsk]

Chapter 4 "Jesus Christ Is Lord"

 

I have just started this chapter. I never knew that the Roman rulers expected their citizens to consider them as "Son of God". It is no wonder they were so threatened but a mere carpenter.

 

steve

[Guest billmc]

I've received my book and trying to play "catchup". Slow going though. Just a couple of quick thoughts.

 

I think Borg and Crossan are doing the church a service in trying to reclaim the "historical Paul" or cleaning Paul up a bit and I applaud their efforts. However, the fact is that, whomever may have written the NT letters that support slavery, the subordination of women, and notion that government rulers rule by divine right, these letters were still accepted by the church as scripture and used to support oppressive doctrines. So I don't feel the answer to these problems in the text is simply to say, "Well, Paul didn't write them." Christians accepted them as authoritative, no matter who the writer was.

 

I, too, didn't know about the empirical notions of "Son of God" until a few years ago when I started reading Spong and other historical/critical Bible scholars. It is interesting how ancient, superstitious humanity had to claim some sort of divinity as a tool/weapon of authority to sanction its agenda. This is, to me, one of the problems with titles - they are used far too often to claim authority or superiority rather than as descriptors of service and sacrifice.

 

A podcast I was recently listening to highlighted how Jesus' "agenda" seemed to shift with his resurrection. Before his resurrection, his stance seemed to be one of a servant, the Son of Man who came to serve, not to be served. He seemed to eschew worship and often told people to be quiet if they thought him to be the messiah. But after his resurrection, his attitude seemed to change to that of the Son of God who demanded worship and unquestioning obedience. He is seen no longer as the humble servant, but as the Conquering King who demands allegiance from all.

 

Now, I am not saying that I agree totally with this podcast's take on the change of Jesus from servant to King of Kings, although it does seem to be the way most pop Christianity sees Jesus. But it does say something true of us as humans that we are more prone to worship Jesus than to follow/emulate him.

 

All of that to say that I hope Borg/Crossan get around to talking about how Paul saw Jesus or the different views that Paul may have had of Jesus. "Son of God" certainly seems to call forth more of an authoritarian stance to me, akin to the rulers of Rome - ensuring that there was a great gulf between the Emperor and the ones who served/worshipped him. Although I no longer follow the paradigm of my youth, I see Jesus as representative of experiencially bringing God near, not pushing him farther away from humanity.

[Guest billmc]

BTW, here is an interesting podcast on "Emperor Worship":

 

http://www.archive.org/details/Podcast4.6HonouringTheEmperorsAsGods

[murmsk]

Borg suggests in "Meeting Jesus again for the First Time" and "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time" that Jesuses true message was as much a comment on the Jewish purity system and Roman rule as anything. And after he died it didn't take long before the message changed. They even question whether Jesus considered himself "the messiah". It is interesting to watch the message as the years go by.

 

A podcast I was recently listening to highlighted how Jesus' "agenda" seemed to shift with his resurrection. Before his resurrection, his stance seemed to be one of a servant, the Son of Man who came to serve, not to be served. He seemed to eschew worship and often told people to be quiet if they thought him to be the messiah. But after his resurrection, his attitude seemed to change to that of the Son of God who demanded worship and unquestioning obedience. He is seen no longer as the humble servant, but as the Conquering King who demands allegiance from all.

 

This is everything!!

 

I think Borg and Crossan are doing the church a service in trying to reclaim the "historical Paul" or cleaning Paul up a bit and I applaud their efforts. However, the fact is that, whomever may have written the NT letters that support slavery, the subordination of women, and notion that government rulers rule by divine right, these letters were still accepted by the church as scripture and used to support oppressive doctrines. So I don't feel the answer to these problems in the text is simply to say, "Well, Paul didn't write them." Christians accepted them as authoritative, no matter who the writer was.

 

exactly!! I think part of the problem with the early church is that the church was suppose to have answers to questions they it is/was ill-equipped to answer .... "who are we?" "How do fit in the big picture" and "why do things happen". I think the early church realized as the Jewish church and Roman Rulers before them that if people think you know or can control the answers they will do almost anything they are told. Even stuff they know in their hearts is wrong .... slavery, women etc. all come to mind. Now that science has shown the churches answers to be WRONG maybe we can return to the REAL message.

 

All of that to say that I hope Borg/Crossan get around to talking about how Paul saw Jesus or the different views that Paul may have had of Jesus. "Son of God" certainly seems to call forth more of an authoritarian stance to me, akin to the rulers of Rome - ensuring that there was a great gulf between the Emperor and the ones who served/worshipped him. Although I no longer follow the paradigm of my youth, I see Jesus as representative of experiencially bringing God near, not pushing him farther away from humanity.

 

I also hope they explain why we shouldn't remove these questioned sections from the bible

 

steve

 

steve

[rivanna]

Chapter 4 a couple of responses

 

It was a surprise to me too when I first read that the Roman emperors had those titles and claims of divinity, same as the ones applied to Jesus. Borg sees Jesus and Paul promoting a deliberate contrast to tyranny and domination systems in general, which were the norm.

Instead of peace through violent victory, the kingdom of God means peace through justice to all. So far the book seems like a valid political interpretation of Pauls theology -- a PC alternative to the focus on personal salvation.

 

This chapter reminds me of the Star Trek TOS episode, Bread and Circuses where Kirk reflects on the aliens being so similar to earths ancient history--

 

Kirk: Caesar and Christ. They had them both. And the word is spreading only now.

McCoy: A philosophy of total love and total brotherhood.

Spock: It will replace their imperial Rome, but it will happen in their twentieth century.

Kirk: Wouldn't it be something to watch, to be a part of? To see it happen all over again?

 

I wonder which part of the 20th century they were referring to :-)

[murmsk]

"peace through victory" That might explain to some extent why most of the jewish people struggled with the concept of a peaceful messiah. Victory through Peace!!! how radical

 

steve

[murmsk]

Chapter 5 "Christ Crucified"

[rivanna]

Chapter 5 continues to focus on Jesus as the opposite of Caesar. The repeated phrase “Christ crucified” in Paul’s letters calls attention to the form of execution-- for those who defied the empire. Paul uses the term to mean the ultimate triumph of the wisdom of God over the wisdom of the world. This was a helpful insight for me-- I thought “Christ crucified” was emphasizing that God suffers with us. I still think that’s part of it, but also, the kingdom of God can’t be turned into another domination system forced on people, or it ceases to be the way of Jesus.

 

Even so, I think the authors should recall that the Roman governor Pilate saw no reason to kill Jesus and was very reluctant to sentence him. Those who insisted on his death were the priests and elders of Jesus’ own faith, who feared his influence would threaten their status in the occupation, and resented his popularity. The resurrection says love is stronger than violence in the long run, it can’t be destroyed.

 

The book does a good job of explaining the big misunderstanding about redemption – meaning liberation from bondage, rather than forgiveness of sin. “Substitutionary atonement theology is completely counter to the thought of the radical Paul.”

[murmsk]

Forgive my tardiness. My last son graduates from college this weekend and he has a real JOB!!!! So we have been very busy getting the house ready for visitors, looking for apartments in the "Big City" ......

 

lets start chapter 6

 

steve

[rivanna]

Steve,

 

congrats on your son. not easy finding jobs these days.

 

I thought chapter 6 was the best so far, a helpful perspective on the letter to the Romans. For starters, I liked being reminded that Phoebe the church deacon, who carried it from one community to the next, had to read, explain and answer questions about it. Paul trusted a woman to understand his most profound epistle.

 

Since everyone here probably is familiar with the meaning of these terms, I’ll just touch on some of the points the authors discussed--

 

Paul’s use of the word justice means distributive, rather than retributive

 

Paul’s idea of salvation is primarily about this life, this world, not heaven

 

Jesus’ sacrifice as participation, not substitution

 

the free offer only becomes a free gift when we accept it, cooperate with it –the authors call this a “Spirit transplant”

 

faith is not assent to propositions but commitment--collaboration with God

 

interesting focus on Philippians 2, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” --

“We can only conclude that the reason we should fear and tremble about our salvation is not because God will punish us if we fail, but because the world will punish us if we succeed.” what do you think – is this ironic yet true (?)

 

Also, I enjoyed the way the authors showed a sense of humor, referring to negative comments about their books on amazon.com…And their admitting the letter to Romans is too long to analyze verse by verse, so “when all else fails read the text” (!)

[murmsk]

congrats on your son. not easy finding jobs these days.

Thanks It's been kinda of a whirl the last couple of weeks. We are very proud.

 

I can remember writing a paper on Paul when I was in college suggesting there were problem in Pauls message. The professor responded the he had always assumed there were problems in translation not the message. I never quite bought into that and consequently have avoided the bible for 30 years. Interestingly my self described feminist girlfriend at the time had much less trouble with Paul. I wish I could remember her arguments.

 

Paul’s use of the word justice means distributive, rather than retributive

 

Paul’s idea of salvation is primarily about this life, this world, not heaven

 

Jesus’ sacrifice as participation, not substitution

 

the free offer only becomes a free gift when we accept it, cooperate with it –the authors call this a “Spirit transplant”

 

faith is not assent to propositions but commitment--collaboration with God

 

This seems to be the central theme in Borg's message .... his new paradigm. I find it very appealing !!

 

I am looking forward to this chapter.

 

steve