Burl

Time to throw AJ into all this.

38 minutes ago, thormas said:

Thanks, will explore but is Eusebius to be trusted as a historian?  It's been a while since I thought about him.

Eusebius is the sole source for early church history except for Acts and a few lines of Josephus.

The old GoogleDoc scan is painful to read.  Paul Meier (sp?) has a great modern translation.  That really should be on your bookshelf, or order it from a library.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

I do know about Saul to Paul as it is written.

Source for Paul and the Romans?

Eusebius, chap. XXII.  Also the source for Paul as the author of 1&2 Timothy.

https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QafR1vy99-HYr6cB_VqcvhrVzlm2O-1g37btvzVKL0XikhnmW5ez7E5jnyeXonhJKFRDKJuJ4k-taWE39X8_J2vZO2h4RU_5bt__0bT4juA8PY9ONDJ4vG4zdi4wUwwYOD2YInuK79HinMiGKVpdEPSoqvxntwfuncd5y6mbTXSLEviskoEMZA6tWQl-F637jHaMC1hD5uGD0DRFCwTNDQU7uALJqUnnTKRI2bCGG2QsLqlt6OY8iXGz-a3lutUHE5SC9sW00wGqoPu7zxGhnw-Hloh75AsP5Z2bY-U3BRD-LFrZM5w

33 minutes ago, thormas said:

Was Paul or Saul in cahoots with the Romans?

I don't doubt the 'theophany' but the question I asked remains. It was Ehrman I believe who provided interesting insight on the use of 'received' in Paul.

Saul changed his name to Paul after his theophany.  Saul was in cahoots with the Romans.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

A bit harsh on Spong as he was a trail blazer both as a priest/bishop and as a writer. Plus he is extremely well known in progressive Christian circles.

Yeah, maybe a bit harsh but what trails did he blaze?   He seems negative to me; always doubting, nitpicking and fault-finding.

Fill me in on the trail blazing bit, pardner.

41 minutes ago, thormas said:

Did Paul receive his knowledge from Jesus directly (as he describes) or did he 'receive' it from others? And there is some interesting commentary on that from some of the scholars.

Considering that Saul turned traitor to the Romans and became persecuted himself to the point of martyrdom it’s fair to say Paul’s belief that he experienced a theophany was authentic.

16 minutes ago, thormas said:

Okay but what does that mean from (not from a theistic viewpoint) a progressive Christian perspective?

In the climax of Exodus 50:34 the glory of Adonai fills the tabernacle.  The same Hebrew verbal phrase is used elsewhere as “fills a spear” to describe a warrior’s commission - like filling a job.

I think a fair non-theistic reading would be accepting a missionary commitment.

Saint Paul is highly regarded because he was touched by God, and because he sacrificed his life and his career in order to evangelize the gentiles.  Paul is the reason Christianity is the foundation of Western civilization.

Spong is almost completely unknown, and he has had zero influence on Christian exegesis.  He is just another privileged white male priest who had a couple radical ideas which failed to gain acceptance.

10 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Yeah, but who was Paul to go around organizing the churches on that level? Saying women could not be preachers or even speak in church, or if all that's  pseudo-Paul, still setting up negative distinctions and limitations? In my last comment to Thormas I've mentioned some of his ideas about marriage and getting married. Who was he to inject these things into Christianity, whether it was just to one church or to the whole world?

He never met Christ. Never saw him preach or teach. He didn't spend very much time with those who did and those who knew Jesus best. He was a first century evangelist who knew Greek and was able to write, so he wrote a bunch of letters. He was sometimes great and inspired, and other times missing the mark completely. 

He was just Paul. His words are no more "the absolute word of God" than anyone who is sometimes inspired and sometimes mixed-up and just plain wrong.

Spong talks about; 'these are the words of Paul, not the words of God'. But they have been presented to the world as the infallible word of God, by just about all the Christian churches through out all time. 

Paul is absolutely more of an authority than Spong.  

Two things to keep in mind about Paul.

First, he was in mission to the gentiles.  Lots of different cultures and backgrounds.

Second, rhetorical analysis is necessary.  Lots of diatribe.  He would explicate a single point with several examples.  A bit like Ecclesiastes where single verses can be misdirecting.

29 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I don't see any of these women as being really progressive, except for maybe Mary Dyer. Women can be digressive as well as anyone else.

Galatians 3:28 - It's one of the best lines in the bible 🙂 

My point was that preaching is a charism, not a job or a trade.  I think they were not only progressive, but truly called by God. 

Their path may not fully resonate with me, but they were original and authentic.  They are proof that God does call women to preach.

There are so many poor and disastrous preachers today that gender ratios are only metrics of hollow careerism.

Better to look at the examples of women who preached Christ crucified and glorified so well that they left enduring and original legacies of faith.  

Elizabeth Ann Seaton, Katherine Drexel, Mary Baker Eddy, Mother Ann Lee, Ellen G. White, Aimee Semple McPhearson, Mary Dyer,  Mother Theresa as examples.

Paul said it best.  
 

Gal 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

32 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I keep wanting to get back to the main topic of this thread and the opening post, but I it's so searingly painful that my mind just goes blank and I keep avoiding and not looking at the subject.

One question is how does it hurt men (or males, so as to include boys/children in this), and how does it help or enhance male's lives if women are given equal voices and say in church and in spiritual matters?

One thing I can think of here is that women get the advantage of learning from all the men and male insights in scenarios where only men are doing the talking. We can then get together, just women/females and exchange ideas and insights among ourselves.  This gives women more opportunity for spiritual growth, insight and learning. I'm wondering if men are getting left out of a good number of ideas and even getting left behind.

----------------------------------------------------

The other thing that often jumps out at me, is that Paul said women cannot be preachers because he doesn't want women to be in "control" of men.

Over my lifetime I've listened to numerous teachers and preachers and lectures and so forth and I've never felt like any of these people were in "control" of me.

If I disagreed with any of them, I might not have been able to say something right then and there, but I've never felt like I couldn't express my outlook at some other time.

I don't see how being a preacher or a teacher or a lecturer puts one person in "control" of another.

-----------------------------------------------------

Thanks for reading

Paul used the word preachers?  Control of men?  Where and in what translation?  This needs a close reading.  

As for today, there is no scarcity of women preachers, bishops and archbishops in mainline magisterial and congregational Protestant churches.  I have not seen any female AME preachers, though.

The independent churches are independent, so idk about them.

19 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Conspiracy theories and distraction seem to abound in the US.  I would suggest trying to stick with the issue.  But each to their own.

“Destroying America will be the culmination of my life’s work. I am going to bring down the United States by funding black hate groups. We will put them into a mental trap and make them blame white people. The black community is the easiest to manipulate.” ~ George Soros (interview with German Bild, September 2014)

14 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think I have to agree with Thormas here Burl.  You do seem to be trying a tad too hard to tar the Democratic Party with an anti-black brush.  You really believe the Democratic Party fought civil rights tooth and nail into the 60’s?  Except maybe for that one time the Democratic President named JFK actually created and introduced the Civil Rights Act - the most-far reaching act of legislation supporting racial equality in American history.  Yep, sounds like those Democrats really had it in for African Americans. 😂

This is part of a bill By Rep. Gomert demanding that the Democratic Party be cancelled.

It’s more of an ironic dig at the Democratic support of Cancel Culture than serious legislation, but the facts are true.  

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

Says the white man telling others what all black people think about white Democrats. 😂

Which black community are you referring to Burl?  The one in Oregon or the one in Alabama?  The Black Power black community or the black community that instead argues for fairer representation.  My point being, there is no singular ‘black community’ and I think that the fact that you can point and say ‘they’ when referring to the numerous people of African American heritage may be part of the reason you don’t understand what many black people are trying to say about these tributes to white supremacy.

That’s the point, Paul.  There is no singular Black community yet a two white Democrats astroturfed the PAC BLM, Inc with money from a white billionaire and claim to represent all Black People.  The money they raise goes to Biden; a rich white racist while doing nothing that helps Black lives.

33 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Well, we are talking here particularly about women speaking and teaching and preaching in church. 1st Corinthians  and 1st Timothy.

It's my understanding that 1st Timothy is considered to be pseudo-Paul. I've also seen that some scholars attest that the verses in 1st Corinthians were copied and edited into the letter by later "editors", perhaps even being borrowed from 1st Timothy. 

The authorship does not seem relevant.  

Revelation is progressive, and one of the amazing things about the Bible is how the interpretation improves with time as truth is revealed.  

Now that we can read Paul with greater accuracy past misinterpretations are of historical interest.

5 minutes ago, thormas said:

You're simply trying too hard Burl.

This is 2020 and the D Party is not the confederacy, is not fighting civil rights - nor are they co-opting black concerns. The trumpster and some of his cult are a totally different story.

Welcome to 2020.

Listen to the black community.  They are fed up with white people patronizing them with what white Democrats think is best for Black people.

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

Firstly I would point out that ‘cancel culture’ is a colloquialism, it’s not a defined rule set.  We humans like to put things in boxes, and from some sides now we see that anybody who questions whether it is perhaps time to review how we do some things, can easily be dismissed by others because their thoughts are derided as ‘cancel culture’.  We can use words as weapons or we can use them to try and better understand the other.  My hope is that people discuss this issue more rather than dig in and take sides.

Secondly, we are simply not talking only about ‘history’ here.  There’s a reason communities don’t display statues of figures like Hitler, even though he was a major historic figure.  Statues are displayed to ‘honour’ those represented.  When you honour people who promoted, and even fought to retain the right to enslave a certain group of people, then there is more to it than just history.  If it was just history, capture it in books or move memorials to museums with an explanation of all sides of the discussion.

You ask about the lyrics - well in my mind they are an inspiration, not a dogma, about considering what harm we may be doing to others in our lives and to consider how we can cause less harm (no harm would be preferable).  Would it cause you harm to remove statues honouring those who fought to keep blacks enslaved?  You really couldn’t get your history any other way?  And in the process, you wouldn’t feel that if removing statues helps in any way to further heal race relations, as is being asked for by many, that you may be contributing something positive to the conversation?

Of course defining harm is an opinion.  Surely you understand that’s why so many hold different views about what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ in life.  We all hold different views but our challenge is to get along in the best way possible.  Could removing statues and naming rights of those who wanted to harm black people be a step forward for our countries - I think so.

 

 

Not sure how much you aware of down there Paul but the Democratic party,  who were the Confederacy and fought civil rights for blacks tooth and nail into the 60’s,  are the white activists co-opting black concerns as they try to erase their racist roots.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article210593.html

3 hours ago, Tarquin said:

Hi, I am new here so I guess I should do the intro! 

Basically and briefly: grew up in Evangelical household, father was pastor. Rejected it all and went on a journey to find myself/Truth/God/Whatever - went through many things - Gurdjieff, Islam, magic and assorted other things. I learnt a lot and, believe it or not, grew a lot through it all but none of it brought me closer to God. I never felt I was lost or sinning or anything, just not closer. 

I was always opposed to literalist Christianity (but not Jesus) though I was never an atheist, I saw myself mostly as Muslim I suppose in an ideological sense though I did not practice or know many other Muslims. But then things changed this week. My father passed away last week and when I went to see him in the hospital as he was passing I just experienced Love (capital L). He could not speak so we did not talk (though I said some things and he could understand) but we shared an experience where both he and I moved on and transcended. I believe he went past his literal readings of Jesus and I did too. Since then I have come back to Jesus so.... here I am! 

The loss still is a bit raw but there is this new found Love and Acceptance underneath. It is as if everything ha been "let go of" - I put it like that because it was not me that did it, it happened for me or to me. I just want now to move on and follow Jesus. I don't quite know how but that's for another time I guess! 

Anyway, that's me so hello! 

I am in the South of England btw if anyone else is and wants to catch up!

Christianity and Islam are very close relatives.  I find Islam more concerned with not being incorrect and therefore more generalized but Christianity is always seeking greater specificity and begs forgiveness for its errors.

3 hours ago, Tarquin said:

As it says above! I've intro'd myself in the intro thread so won't go into that again. Basically I am looking for a daily practice but have not found one yet. Contemplation/Prayer is something I need to incorporate but not sure how or what form this would take. 

Would be great to hear about other people's practice or any advice! 

Thanks!

I pray to be given the eyes to see and the ears to hear.  I also pray for mercy.

There are genuine reasons to criticize Trump, but Cancel Culture is not one of them.  That is a purely anarchist phenomenon.

https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2020/05/math-professor-mocks-a-leftist-belief-and-gets-fired/

53 minutes ago, thormas said:

I know - the trumpeter's cult use it that way to bludgeon the opinions of others :+}

Example please.  Someone whose career has been destroyed because they did not line up with the Trimpeter’s virtue signaling.  Preferably an academic.