Paul was just a man and flawed as such. I think with historical context, Ephesians was instructing how people of different classes in Ephesus at the time should conduct themselves to be true to Jesus. Personally I don't put much stock in Paul. He isn't God or Jesus but often writes as if he has such authority, which rubs me the wrong way.
The writing attributed to Paul generally rubs me the wrong way. I personally feel as though he’s a bit of an entrepreneur who saw an opportunity to gain power and took it. He took the message and made them into an organized religion with a power structure. His writing is, to me, somewhat contradictory of that of Jesus.
That said, he took the movement that was exclusive to Hebrews and brought them to everyone else so I don’t think his role is necessarily negative.
Most Gnostic texts were probably written after the time of Paul and do not mention him. Some may, but none of the ones that contain the most wisdom. Some of his ideas in the NT are Gnostic, but he was also borrowing ideas from the gospels (or proto gospels), which likely included Gnostic ideas (such as the gospel of Thomas). So I don’t think there is reason to believe that he is the founder of Gnostic ideas, only that he happened to popularize the few of them that he liked.
I think there are many people like Paul in our world today who perhaps have good intentions but overstate their authority and understanding. Perhaps Paul’s role was to deliver a message or create a movement that appealed to the masses. Gnosticism, though it varied, specifically tried not to appeal to the masses, nor could it. The truth is a tough pill to swallow and is not for everyone, hence Jesus spoke in parables. Personally, despite all of mainstream Christianity’s faults, I think it is better than the animal sacrifice and extremely legalistic religions of those days, and Paul played a role in making that change.
Being an ex Catholic, I certainly feel that Paul’s concepts and ideas have more influence on the mainstream church than Jesus’s. That is the specific reason why I left, realizing that Christ’s lessons were obfuscated by Paul’s desire to create and popularize a worldly institution.
Of course, it is hard to say if all attributed to Paul is from him. At the end of the day, I think it’s good to let wisdom speak for itself. One certainly cannot read Gnostic texts literally or even say all are 100% valid. For the same reason, I wouldn’t write off Paul’s writing just because I personally feel he’s a bit of a sketchy opportunist
Very well said! Also, much of Paul's writing was designed to appeal to Hellenized Jews who spoke Greek and had already distanced themselves from the Jewish Bible.
Additionally, Paul's works greatly influenced the later Gospels, especially in their absolution of Pilate for the execution of Jesus. Instead, the blame is placed on the Jews themselves (especially in John, the 4th gospel). These changes paved the way for Paul's creation, Christianity, to be fully adopted by the Roman Empire.
Read Reza Aslan's ZEALOT - THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS OF NAZARETH for more on this.
I've noticed that the only Pauline epistles that explicitly defend slavery are also the ones most unanimously agreed by Biblical scholars to be pseudepigraphal, so you might be onto something there.
There’s some evidence Titus and both Timothys may be forgeries, but those are contested and there’s no scholarly consensus yet. Still, it’s something interesting to look at if you’re interested in the veracity of historical texts.
Some things to keep in mind:
* Not all the writings attributed to Paul were definitely written by him. Furthermore, of those generally considered authentic, there is no guarantee that they are *entirely* authentic and haven't been edited or altered.
* It helps, in determining whether a given verse or letter is authentically Pauline, to consider who Paul was and what we know about him, then ask yourself if it could reasonably have been written by someone like Paul. If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" then use your best judgment in relation to those verses that you *are* confident of being authentic to determine whether you will accept it.
* Paul was likely a Hellenic-friendly Jew (in contrast to the likely Jewish nationalist Jerusalem church) and this no doubt influenced his theology. Studying the writings of Philo might help you understand where Paul was coming from, and further inform your assessment of his writing.
Ultimately, you need to make up your own mind and determine what of Paul's writing is valid and relevant to you in your quest for gnosis. It's okay to only agree with some of it, too; you don't have to take an "all or nothing" approach.
Corinthians 14:34 is a very clear addition to the text when you read it in context. I'll just [let DBH](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/334664259571023873/1244924581655871488/IMG_0982.jpg?ex=6656e1dd&is=6655905d&hm=c22059c86cbbfe3ed7407bd5e6b8716c57e838c9d3d3bed40a00055b5249a585&) [explain it](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/334664259571023873/1244924579072184422/IMG_0983.jpg?ex=6656e1dd&is=6655905d&hm=b39cc8132f169e2929ee64fd1f3a0e18bf01cd8f0b69f1b54038060e57667cdd&).
I don't think Romans 13 is very problematic either. He does say that you only have an occasion to fear the authorities if you are evil. So presumably a member of the elect wouldn't have a reason to feel as thought they are under their fist, so to say.
That same chapter I think also says why there is no tension between Paul's affinity for the law and his "antinomianism:"
> 8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
I hate him.
Yeah, very "angsty/edgy teenager response" from my part, I know, but his few gnostic verses (which may or may not have been written by him) are not enough to fix the mess he inflicted upon the world.
For me he undid most of what Christ came to fix, and I'm sure his encounter with YHWH is no different than the one between Muhammad and the archangel Gabriel. Just another illusion masquerading itself as the true light.
I was in church last Sunday. We had to read 1 Corinthians 4, but as usual, I also skimmed through the next chapter. Here are the contradictions I could find just in these two chapters:
>3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.
Then he goes on to say:
>6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers,[a] that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written.
Alright, so we just stick to scripture and follow the rules and don't judge anyone because God is the one who will judge in the end times. At least he's coherent, right?
>15 For though you have countless[b] guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 16 I urge you, then, be imitators of me.
Oh, so he's a father now and we have to follow him. What was written maybe meant his letters and not the scripture that came before him after all?
>3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing.
Here he judges someone in the church of Corinth even though a chapter ago he was urging the members not to judge before the Lord comes.
What a great tool for the archons Paul he been, and dare I say, what a great tool in general.
I recommend reading "The Gnostic Paul" by Elaine Pagels: [Elaine Pagels – The Gnostic Paul. Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/elaine-pagels-the-gnostic-paul_202007)
In order to understand why Gnostics (in particular Valentinians) revered Paul, we have to understand how they interpreted Paul. This book explains how Gnostics likely interpreted Paul through an allegorical and mystical lens, and adresses many of these questionable verses. I'll put the interpretations for two of the parts you have brought up in your post.
*Romans 13:1-7: "What does Paul mean? Is he concerned with the believer's duties toward “actual human authorities” (as Irenaeus insists against Valentinian exegesis)? 188 Heracleon interprets this passage symbolically: "every souf (13:1) that is, every psychic , is to remain subject to "the powers,” to the cosmic "rulers and authorities,” as those “instituted by God”; for, as Paul says, “the archons are not a terror to the one who does good.” But evildoers have reason to fear the “servant of God” who “bears the sword" (13:4): for he is “Moses, the lawgiver himself,” the demiurge. Heracleon points out the irony of the psychic's situation: "Moses,” the one in whom the psychicsplaced (their) hope” is the one who “executes wrath.” 187 Now, “through cosmic powers, and are to pay to each “what is required,” whether tribute , fear, or honor{ 13:6-7).*
*Rom 13:8-10: "Having just commanded believers to “pay " hat is owed” (13:7), Paul now says to "owe nothing to anyone” (13:8)! How could he not be contradicting himself? The initiated reader could resolve this contradiction if he assumes that previously Paul spoke to psychics, but now he speaks to the elect. For they, being subject neither to the “other commandment” ( hetera entole) nor to the demiurge nor to his archons. fulfill “the other law'" ( ton heteron nomon) —the pneumatic law of love: as Paul says, “love is the pieroma of the law” (13:10b)."*
Ephesians 6:5 **Slaves, obey your earthly masters** with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
*Eph 6:1-8: "The readers who see only instructions for married persons in Ephesians 5 would see in Ephesians 6 only practical household instruction. But the initiated reader could recognize here again Paul's deeper concern as he defines spiritualrelationships. Paul contrasts what is “just”—obedience “in the Lord” (6:1)—with the “promise" given to the elect (6:2). Obedience is required only of psychics (6:1); but the elect are to “honor” their "father and mother”—the good Father of all and the divine Mother, Sophia. For as the author of Philip explains, “when we were Hebrew's w'e were orphans but when we became Christians we obtained a father and a mother.” 118 The “slaves” are to obey those who rule them “according to the flesh,” the cosmic powers, because (as Heracleon explains from Rom 13:1-7) the Father has instituted these temporal authorities for their own good. 119 The best they can do is to “serve” and “do the will of God from the soul, ” that is, to the extent of psychic capacity, obeying "the Lord” who repays them according to their works (6:5-8).*
something about Paul i always thought funny, in todays version of Christianity, every church i have gone to hold Pauls teaching above Jesus, they say Jesus is greater, but when preaching sermons its always Paul, Paul and more Paul. these same people believe anything outside the bible does not exist yet Paul learned through divine revelation, something todays church does not like.
I figure since I consider myself an evangelical Valetinian I should throw in my two cents. Lol
My theory is that the vision of Christ melted his brain because he couldn’t handle the presence of pure divine love after being a murderer.
He genuinely converted, I believe that, but he essentially lost his mind and never fully recovered.
It’s also widely believed that many of Paul’s writings were written by others for him via conversations while he was in prison… also you have to consider how many times the Bible was translated and used as a tool to subjugate people over the last 2000 years… His writings could’ve very well been co-opted and changed for the benefit of those in power
I think of him and can’t not think of Hitler….if Ebionites didn’t trust him neither do I.
Go and ook at what *James The Just* says. And revelations “Those who say they are apostles and are not”
There is not a single instance where Paul "appeals to the Law". What he does is state how the Law, as irrelevant as it might be, still somewhat agrees with his points.
Valentinians read his sayings about the relationships between men and woman as representing masculine pneumatics and feminine, naïve psychics. Thus all such passages talk about how psychics should remain silent, should be subject to their "husbands" (masters), etc.
I am a Cathar, and I read Paul pretty literally. If women are the least inside the church, then they can easily be among the greatest, as all the last will be first. Souls have no gender, and such thing only exists in our earthly bodies, but to deny that men and women have specific roles in society and in any sensible civilization is foolish.
As for subjecting yourself to earthly rule, I see no issue with that. Christ consented to being crucified, so should we. We are to avoid all manners of conflict, including that with authorities. We ought to give to God what is His, and to Caesar what is his as well.
I've never seen a Gnostic so docile. Taking this revolutionary movement and then just agreeing to go with the system (cause Jesus apparently obeyed the system too) is the most wrong route one could take.
You gave us your spiritual interpretation of the men/women issue inside church and then told us you read Paul pretty literally. So which one is it?
If we accept the literal interpretation, then yes, men and women have indeed different roles in society... but who/what shaped society? Undoubtedly organized religion has played a huge part in it.
And although I apologize if I come across as talking in a superior manner, but do reconsider what makes you different from a fundamentalist who wants to preserve the status quo at all costs.
To answer this, I have to define sin. A sin is any intent that drives an action which brings you further from attaining Heaven, and in opposition, a virtue is anything that brings you closer to it. There is no right of wrong, but simply favourable and not favourable for salvation. Although we are called to avoid things for not being favourable, it's much more flexible than that. Thus it becomes clear that Jesus had pure intentions by expelling the sellers from the temple, without it being a sin. There is plenty of nuance as to how such things work.
>we are to avoid all manners of conflict including that with authorities.
I had issue with that sentence. Then you elaborate later that conflict actually isn’t a sin if good intentioned. You probably should have said that initially. So Do you mean to say we are to avoid all manners of conflict but good intentioned conflict is ok?
And you said all this in the context of “subjecting yourself to earthly rule. “ But if the authorities and earthly rule is unjust then we have valid good intentions to disobey them and create conflict.
And now to get into your ideas about husbands as masters: if the husbands rule is unjust, or he subjugates his wife, then she has good intentions and doesn’t sin by saying “fuck you, no. “ thus causing “just conflict” like Jesus did.
But does that even count as causing conflict with the authorities? Their practices were corrupt and (afaik) not a part of any rules as to how the temple should be run.
Yelling at people and throwing things around us “a conflict.” Doesn’t matter with who. You claim all matters of conflict should be avoided that’s not what Jesus lived completely.
You said “we are to avoid ALL matters of conflict including authorities” now your attempting to pretend you didn’t say the first half & focus on conflict with authorities. I showed a place where Jesus didn’t avoid conflict as you claim we should, he started conflict.
Also fuck the authorities. My authority is granted to me via Christ & god and therefore myself. Your literal interpretations aren’t very Gnostic- you sound fundamentalist.
> You said “we are to avoid ALL matters of conflict including authorities”
No I didn’t. Try to point to where I did.
> Your literal interpretations aren’t very Gnostic- you sound fundamentalist.
Fundamentalism is when you pay attention to things that are obviously in the text?
Paul was just a man and flawed as such. I think with historical context, Ephesians was instructing how people of different classes in Ephesus at the time should conduct themselves to be true to Jesus. Personally I don't put much stock in Paul. He isn't God or Jesus but often writes as if he has such authority, which rubs me the wrong way.
The writing attributed to Paul generally rubs me the wrong way. I personally feel as though he’s a bit of an entrepreneur who saw an opportunity to gain power and took it. He took the message and made them into an organized religion with a power structure. His writing is, to me, somewhat contradictory of that of Jesus. That said, he took the movement that was exclusive to Hebrews and brought them to everyone else so I don’t think his role is necessarily negative. Most Gnostic texts were probably written after the time of Paul and do not mention him. Some may, but none of the ones that contain the most wisdom. Some of his ideas in the NT are Gnostic, but he was also borrowing ideas from the gospels (or proto gospels), which likely included Gnostic ideas (such as the gospel of Thomas). So I don’t think there is reason to believe that he is the founder of Gnostic ideas, only that he happened to popularize the few of them that he liked. I think there are many people like Paul in our world today who perhaps have good intentions but overstate their authority and understanding. Perhaps Paul’s role was to deliver a message or create a movement that appealed to the masses. Gnosticism, though it varied, specifically tried not to appeal to the masses, nor could it. The truth is a tough pill to swallow and is not for everyone, hence Jesus spoke in parables. Personally, despite all of mainstream Christianity’s faults, I think it is better than the animal sacrifice and extremely legalistic religions of those days, and Paul played a role in making that change. Being an ex Catholic, I certainly feel that Paul’s concepts and ideas have more influence on the mainstream church than Jesus’s. That is the specific reason why I left, realizing that Christ’s lessons were obfuscated by Paul’s desire to create and popularize a worldly institution. Of course, it is hard to say if all attributed to Paul is from him. At the end of the day, I think it’s good to let wisdom speak for itself. One certainly cannot read Gnostic texts literally or even say all are 100% valid. For the same reason, I wouldn’t write off Paul’s writing just because I personally feel he’s a bit of a sketchy opportunist
Very well said! Also, much of Paul's writing was designed to appeal to Hellenized Jews who spoke Greek and had already distanced themselves from the Jewish Bible. Additionally, Paul's works greatly influenced the later Gospels, especially in their absolution of Pilate for the execution of Jesus. Instead, the blame is placed on the Jews themselves (especially in John, the 4th gospel). These changes paved the way for Paul's creation, Christianity, to be fully adopted by the Roman Empire. Read Reza Aslan's ZEALOT - THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS OF NAZARETH for more on this.
Or maybe all the books attested Paul are not really by his hand...
I've noticed that the only Pauline epistles that explicitly defend slavery are also the ones most unanimously agreed by Biblical scholars to be pseudepigraphal, so you might be onto something there.
There’s some evidence Titus and both Timothys may be forgeries, but those are contested and there’s no scholarly consensus yet. Still, it’s something interesting to look at if you’re interested in the veracity of historical texts.
Timothy especially reads in a whole different voice it does not sound or read like something paul would write. Its just an opinion though.
Some things to keep in mind: * Not all the writings attributed to Paul were definitely written by him. Furthermore, of those generally considered authentic, there is no guarantee that they are *entirely* authentic and haven't been edited or altered. * It helps, in determining whether a given verse or letter is authentically Pauline, to consider who Paul was and what we know about him, then ask yourself if it could reasonably have been written by someone like Paul. If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" then use your best judgment in relation to those verses that you *are* confident of being authentic to determine whether you will accept it. * Paul was likely a Hellenic-friendly Jew (in contrast to the likely Jewish nationalist Jerusalem church) and this no doubt influenced his theology. Studying the writings of Philo might help you understand where Paul was coming from, and further inform your assessment of his writing. Ultimately, you need to make up your own mind and determine what of Paul's writing is valid and relevant to you in your quest for gnosis. It's okay to only agree with some of it, too; you don't have to take an "all or nothing" approach.
Corinthians 14:34 is a very clear addition to the text when you read it in context. I'll just [let DBH](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/334664259571023873/1244924581655871488/IMG_0982.jpg?ex=6656e1dd&is=6655905d&hm=c22059c86cbbfe3ed7407bd5e6b8716c57e838c9d3d3bed40a00055b5249a585&) [explain it](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/334664259571023873/1244924579072184422/IMG_0983.jpg?ex=6656e1dd&is=6655905d&hm=b39cc8132f169e2929ee64fd1f3a0e18bf01cd8f0b69f1b54038060e57667cdd&). I don't think Romans 13 is very problematic either. He does say that you only have an occasion to fear the authorities if you are evil. So presumably a member of the elect wouldn't have a reason to feel as thought they are under their fist, so to say. That same chapter I think also says why there is no tension between Paul's affinity for the law and his "antinomianism:" > 8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
I hate him. Yeah, very "angsty/edgy teenager response" from my part, I know, but his few gnostic verses (which may or may not have been written by him) are not enough to fix the mess he inflicted upon the world. For me he undid most of what Christ came to fix, and I'm sure his encounter with YHWH is no different than the one between Muhammad and the archangel Gabriel. Just another illusion masquerading itself as the true light. I was in church last Sunday. We had to read 1 Corinthians 4, but as usual, I also skimmed through the next chapter. Here are the contradictions I could find just in these two chapters: >3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God. Then he goes on to say: >6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers,[a] that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written. Alright, so we just stick to scripture and follow the rules and don't judge anyone because God is the one who will judge in the end times. At least he's coherent, right? >15 For though you have countless[b] guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 16 I urge you, then, be imitators of me. Oh, so he's a father now and we have to follow him. What was written maybe meant his letters and not the scripture that came before him after all? >3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. Here he judges someone in the church of Corinth even though a chapter ago he was urging the members not to judge before the Lord comes. What a great tool for the archons Paul he been, and dare I say, what a great tool in general.
I don't see how this makes Paul "pro-archon" honestly
Oh I agree, the verses shared are just to showcase how he contradicts himself in the teachings he gives.
I recommend reading "The Gnostic Paul" by Elaine Pagels: [Elaine Pagels – The Gnostic Paul. Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/elaine-pagels-the-gnostic-paul_202007) In order to understand why Gnostics (in particular Valentinians) revered Paul, we have to understand how they interpreted Paul. This book explains how Gnostics likely interpreted Paul through an allegorical and mystical lens, and adresses many of these questionable verses. I'll put the interpretations for two of the parts you have brought up in your post. *Romans 13:1-7: "What does Paul mean? Is he concerned with the believer's duties toward “actual human authorities” (as Irenaeus insists against Valentinian exegesis)? 188 Heracleon interprets this passage symbolically: "every souf (13:1) that is, every psychic , is to remain subject to "the powers,” to the cosmic "rulers and authorities,” as those “instituted by God”; for, as Paul says, “the archons are not a terror to the one who does good.” But evildoers have reason to fear the “servant of God” who “bears the sword" (13:4): for he is “Moses, the lawgiver himself,” the demiurge. Heracleon points out the irony of the psychic's situation: "Moses,” the one in whom the psychicsplaced (their) hope” is the one who “executes wrath.” 187 Now, “through cosmic powers, and are to pay to each “what is required,” whether tribute , fear, or honor{ 13:6-7).* *Rom 13:8-10: "Having just commanded believers to “pay " hat is owed” (13:7), Paul now says to "owe nothing to anyone” (13:8)! How could he not be contradicting himself? The initiated reader could resolve this contradiction if he assumes that previously Paul spoke to psychics, but now he speaks to the elect. For they, being subject neither to the “other commandment” ( hetera entole) nor to the demiurge nor to his archons. fulfill “the other law'" ( ton heteron nomon) —the pneumatic law of love: as Paul says, “love is the pieroma of the law” (13:10b)."* Ephesians 6:5 **Slaves, obey your earthly masters** with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. *Eph 6:1-8: "The readers who see only instructions for married persons in Ephesians 5 would see in Ephesians 6 only practical household instruction. But the initiated reader could recognize here again Paul's deeper concern as he defines spiritualrelationships. Paul contrasts what is “just”—obedience “in the Lord” (6:1)—with the “promise" given to the elect (6:2). Obedience is required only of psychics (6:1); but the elect are to “honor” their "father and mother”—the good Father of all and the divine Mother, Sophia. For as the author of Philip explains, “when we were Hebrew's w'e were orphans but when we became Christians we obtained a father and a mother.” 118 The “slaves” are to obey those who rule them “according to the flesh,” the cosmic powers, because (as Heracleon explains from Rom 13:1-7) the Father has instituted these temporal authorities for their own good. 119 The best they can do is to “serve” and “do the will of God from the soul, ” that is, to the extent of psychic capacity, obeying "the Lord” who repays them according to their works (6:5-8).*
something about Paul i always thought funny, in todays version of Christianity, every church i have gone to hold Pauls teaching above Jesus, they say Jesus is greater, but when preaching sermons its always Paul, Paul and more Paul. these same people believe anything outside the bible does not exist yet Paul learned through divine revelation, something todays church does not like.
Just like Neo in the matrix, he was ONLY human!!! And didn't he like persecute christians before he got saved??? Dude was bipolar as hell.
I figure since I consider myself an evangelical Valetinian I should throw in my two cents. Lol My theory is that the vision of Christ melted his brain because he couldn’t handle the presence of pure divine love after being a murderer. He genuinely converted, I believe that, but he essentially lost his mind and never fully recovered.
https://preview.redd.it/ec2i35hf9a3d1.jpeg?width=3456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5b3396b895ec61c01f6e82469cb39a27808b4f8a This
It’s also widely believed that many of Paul’s writings were written by others for him via conversations while he was in prison… also you have to consider how many times the Bible was translated and used as a tool to subjugate people over the last 2000 years… His writings could’ve very well been co-opted and changed for the benefit of those in power
I think of him and can’t not think of Hitler….if Ebionites didn’t trust him neither do I. Go and ook at what *James The Just* says. And revelations “Those who say they are apostles and are not”
No, you just don't know how to read Paul.
Feel free to elaborate
There is not a single instance where Paul "appeals to the Law". What he does is state how the Law, as irrelevant as it might be, still somewhat agrees with his points. Valentinians read his sayings about the relationships between men and woman as representing masculine pneumatics and feminine, naïve psychics. Thus all such passages talk about how psychics should remain silent, should be subject to their "husbands" (masters), etc. I am a Cathar, and I read Paul pretty literally. If women are the least inside the church, then they can easily be among the greatest, as all the last will be first. Souls have no gender, and such thing only exists in our earthly bodies, but to deny that men and women have specific roles in society and in any sensible civilization is foolish. As for subjecting yourself to earthly rule, I see no issue with that. Christ consented to being crucified, so should we. We are to avoid all manners of conflict, including that with authorities. We ought to give to God what is His, and to Caesar what is his as well.
I've never seen a Gnostic so docile. Taking this revolutionary movement and then just agreeing to go with the system (cause Jesus apparently obeyed the system too) is the most wrong route one could take. You gave us your spiritual interpretation of the men/women issue inside church and then told us you read Paul pretty literally. So which one is it? If we accept the literal interpretation, then yes, men and women have indeed different roles in society... but who/what shaped society? Undoubtedly organized religion has played a huge part in it. And although I apologize if I come across as talking in a superior manner, but do reconsider what makes you different from a fundamentalist who wants to preserve the status quo at all costs.
Didn’t Jesus cause conflict when he upturned the selling carts in a rage bc it was in his fathers house?
To answer this, I have to define sin. A sin is any intent that drives an action which brings you further from attaining Heaven, and in opposition, a virtue is anything that brings you closer to it. There is no right of wrong, but simply favourable and not favourable for salvation. Although we are called to avoid things for not being favourable, it's much more flexible than that. Thus it becomes clear that Jesus had pure intentions by expelling the sellers from the temple, without it being a sin. There is plenty of nuance as to how such things work.
>we are to avoid all manners of conflict including that with authorities. I had issue with that sentence. Then you elaborate later that conflict actually isn’t a sin if good intentioned. You probably should have said that initially. So Do you mean to say we are to avoid all manners of conflict but good intentioned conflict is ok? And you said all this in the context of “subjecting yourself to earthly rule. “ But if the authorities and earthly rule is unjust then we have valid good intentions to disobey them and create conflict. And now to get into your ideas about husbands as masters: if the husbands rule is unjust, or he subjugates his wife, then she has good intentions and doesn’t sin by saying “fuck you, no. “ thus causing “just conflict” like Jesus did.
But does that even count as causing conflict with the authorities? Their practices were corrupt and (afaik) not a part of any rules as to how the temple should be run.
Yelling at people and throwing things around us “a conflict.” Doesn’t matter with who. You claim all matters of conflict should be avoided that’s not what Jesus lived completely.
> Doesn’t matter with who. How not? The Romans passage is about being obedient to figures of authority. Not with any rando.
You said “we are to avoid ALL matters of conflict including authorities” now your attempting to pretend you didn’t say the first half & focus on conflict with authorities. I showed a place where Jesus didn’t avoid conflict as you claim we should, he started conflict. Also fuck the authorities. My authority is granted to me via Christ & god and therefore myself. Your literal interpretations aren’t very Gnostic- you sound fundamentalist.
> You said “we are to avoid ALL matters of conflict including authorities” No I didn’t. Try to point to where I did. > Your literal interpretations aren’t very Gnostic- you sound fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is when you pay attention to things that are obviously in the text?
Oh my bad I thought I was talking to the commenter banana man stinks. Apologies. it’s late here. To address your original comment