2dimes wrote:What about this?
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
2dimes, this seems to only verify what Jesus said in other places, that the restrictions on women were lifted through the fulfillment of the laws in Jesus, and being that the laws are impossible to meet without Jesus, that through him or through the will of the Father we have the opportunity to be equal.
Why then does Paul go against this, that is his own, interpretation? With Jesus, we are unable to find a work or saying where he restricted the women from the Church. In all sayings, he puts them as equals. Why then does the Church not take them as equals? In Paul's writings we can find a reason. But his writings are both self contradictory and contradictory to those of Jesus. If as Christians, we adhere to the things of Christ, why then would we adhere to the things not of Christ? For those that say that there is no connection with Paul and the traditions of the Church, why is it that Paul's words are upheld there and not those of Jesus, or of Paul? How can Paul contradict himself and then be seen as infallible?
Throughout the life of Jesus, he continually highlights the mistakes, shortcomings and tendency to error of his disciples. Acts shows the disciples failing to follow his words in almost all things. And yet, some would have these actions supersede the words and acts of Jesus. Throughout my life, I have talked to many people who have been turned away from Jesus not by his words or actions, but by the words of Paul and the Church. Others have claimed to be Christian and follow the Church's traditions rather than the words of Jesus. Da Vinci was a great painter, but I don't know of any works by his students. Let alone saying that his students somehow supplanted him, I haven't even heard of him. I know that Alexander the Great was a good tactician, but this did not pass to his generals. Paul had nothing to add to the words of Jesus, and can only take from them. If his teachings were in all ways the same as those off Jesus, we wouldn't need them. If they are in any way different, they do not follow from Jesus and therefore we are being lead down the wrong path and don't need them. Either way, we don't need them.
Jesus gave us both a warning and a test of those who are to come in his name. I find it strange that when attempting to corroborate the acts of Paul, most people will refuse to look at the words of Jesus and instead use the words of Paul as corroboration. Isn't that putting the words of Paul above those of Jesus? Why not use the warning and test Jesus provided and see if Paul's writing stand the test.
In Acts, we see the disciples following the wrong path. And to understand how we fail as humans, even those granted the highest authority, it is a useful book. But as the proper way to follow Jesus, we must test it against his words and actions. The writings of Paul are no different. They help us to see how easily it is to manipulate the words of Jesus in order to put forth your own agenda, and should serve as a warning to closely follow what Jesus said instead of those who have contradicted his words, and yet instead it is taken as law by those who find in it a chance to maintain power and seek earthly rewards. These works have merit in showing us the fallibility of man and highlight the infallibility of Jesus, but not in helping us follow him. They should be regarded as they are and never given prominence over the true words of Jesus.
