beads wrote:Paul never said he spoke the truth all the time. If he did, I am unaware of the Scripture to back it up. If you know of any, please let me know.
nick wrote:1 Timothy, Chapter 2 vs 7 was the one that suggests to me Paul deigns all his writings infallible.
"I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not."
Thanks for this verse. I would say that this verse does say that his writings (if not all of them, then at least this one to Timothy) are infallible. Under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit, this is true. Paul knew that all Scripture was God-breathed, and since it was His message he was preaching, he knew that what he was writing was infallible. I don't see a problem with this verse, but if you believe that Paul contradicts other Bible teachings, then I can definitely see how this could cause a problem for you. The only thing you can do is pray that God will give you the wisdom and discernment to be able to see how the Scriptures fit together.
nick wrote:And although I can agree with the slant you take on the Corinthians verse, further on down in Chapter 2 of 1 Tim Paul says:
I suffer not a woman to teach,....
I still can't shake the idea that he just plain doesn't like women. Suffer is a strong word.
I would disagree that "suffer" is a strong word.
- Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Suffer in this text, and I believe in the 1 Timothy text that you reference, seem to mean simply "permit" or "allow," and I don't think either of these words are harsh in nature. They are simply spelling out what is allowed and what is not. I "suffer" my wife not to make brussel sprouts because they taste aweful. Is that harsh of me? Do I hate my wife because I won't allow her to make this God-forsaken veggie?
nick wrote:I realise that men are given authority over their wives, and a lot of his teachings about women do make good sense, albeit standing against modern culture, but he still seems like a misogynist to me.
I suppose I can agree with this to a point, although I'm a little uncomfortable with calling God a misogynist (since God is the author, not Paul). I think a good thing to remember here is that God is not saying He thinks any less of women. He is simply defining roles. Men are to be spiritual leaders. Women are not. Simple as that.
If we go back to Genesis we can see why it is even necessary for it to be spelled out this way.
- Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
This verse indicates that it will be a natural desire for a woman to rule over her husband (and, I think, man in general), but that it is the man's responsibility to be the leader. This is all set in place because of the fall. A woman is given a lower place of responsibility because she was the one that was deceived. *Note that she is not any less of a person and God does not hate or despise her, he simply defines her role.
The whole issue is resolved when we see that God, through Paul, was simply defining roles that men and women have, not making social commentary on why men are better than women and that women need to remember their place.