Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Skilled workers seeking employment in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Dubai Villas for Sale Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Philosophy and Religion Forums

For eh - Contradictions in NT


shafique 'eh' claimed that the NT is internally consistent and contains no contradictions.
A bold claim indeed, and one that will be intriguing to read about - I look forward to his explanations of what look to me like clear contradictions.
I'll use the skeptics annotated bible as a handy list of verses from the Bible to begin with.
So let's start with a relatively straightforward one - Does the Bible say women are allowed to speak in church or not?
1 Corinthians:
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches : for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
vs
Romans 16:1
"Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church."
The Revised Standard Version calls Phoebe a "deaconess", which would make would make her a church leader. If the RSV translation is correct, this verse contradicts the requirement that women not be permitted to teach and that they must be silent in church. (1 Cor.14:34-35, 1 Tim.2:11-12).
(Perhaps eh can tell us which is more accurate 'servant' or 'deaconess' - based on the underlying Greek)
Ok - let's have it, how are the above two instructions not contradicting each other?
Cheers,
Shafique
event horizon They contradict each other as much as the passages in the Koran which call for warfare against unbelievers and passages which say to only attack after being attacked: 2.193. Keep on fighting against them until mischief ends and the way prescribed by Allah prevails. But if they desist, then know that hostility is only against the wrong-doers. vs. Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. and O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). and We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust. and So fight them until there is no more disbelief (fitnah) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone shafique eh oh! - what a strange answer, quoting the Quran when asked to back up a claim that there are no contradictions in the NT. I presume this is just an attempt at being funny rather than a demonstration of 'all mouth, no trousers'! Cheers, Shafique event horizon I'm not sure what you're complaining about. You claim that Muslims (apparently not including Muslims who believe in abrogation - the majority of Muslims, btw) don't see the passages in the Koran that say to attack unbelievers because they are unbelievers as verses which contradict a few passages that say not to go on the offensive, because, to you, the Koran should be interpreted wholly. Christians don't see a passage that says women should not speak in Church as contradicting passages in the NT that say men and women are equal and Paul commissioning women as deacons and evangelists, teachers and apostles because, to Christians, the NT should be interpreted wholly. It seems that you either being funny or are extraordinarily daft in not realizing that both examples would be viewed as contradictions if these passages were interpreted literally. (I assume you're extraordinarily daft considering the fact that you literally killed off the other forum you were a moderator on, but that's a whole other discussion altogether) dee7o LOOOOOL You are seriously obsessed. Who is talking about Muslims or the Qur'an now? He is asking about specific contradictions in the NT. So your point is basically: "Look Shafique, there are contradictions everywhere ok! I mean check out the Guinness Book of World Records, they quoted two records set at different times!! Don't you understand?!?! Contradictions are NORMALLLLL. In fact, all books are stupid huh!! What do you say to that huh?!?!?! Don't you dare ask me about the NT as long as I see contradictions in any other book. You go out NOW and fix every typo, every incorrect fact and every misunderstood statement in the world and then come back and talk to me about the NT. There!!! Answer that if you can!! Answer that if you are a man!! Yep Yep" I specifically told Shafique in the other thread that pointing out inaccuracies in the Bible has no bearing on the discussion about the Qur'an. Because this served your argument, you supported that wholeheartedly because it took the heat off you. Now, you are doing the same bloody thing!!!! I can only conclude that you do not really have an opinion. You just say whatever suits the moment to back up what you feel like typing. You are talking about contradictions. Look at the contradictions in your own posts!! 1- "Nope, the New Testament's teachings are internally consistent" 2- "They (verses in the New Testament) contradict each other as much as the passages" What the $^&$#@%$%$#!?!?!?!? shafique
This really is from a Tinky-Winky school of argument - the contradictions are not contradictions because Christians do not take the first verse literally, because there are other verses that contradict it.
i.e. - as long as there are contradictory verses that Christians can follow, there are no contradictions!?
Hmm. :roll:
But hold on - we could easily cut and paste extracts from articles written by Christian theologians who DO say there are contradictions (in fact you did just that when you posted that one expert said Corinthians quote was a forgery).
Surely you are not saying that Christians/Muslims explaining what appears to be a contradiction to a non-Christian/non-Muslim are correct in saying the non-Christian/non-Muslim is wrong - because Muslims see no contradiction and read the NT/Quran as a whole - despite these quotes - are you??? :shock:
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon
Yes shafique, that tinky-winky school of argument is what registers in my mind when I hear the claim that the Koran is internally consistent even though passages blatantly contradict each other - some passages say to wage war against unbelievers *for* their unbelief while others say not to transgress.
I feel, if that type of 'logic' works for Muslims (and I figure it is so weak no one bothers with it other than rolling their eyes or scratching their head), then why not use it for the New Testament?
"Paul" says that women should not speak in church but he also, two chapters previously, talks about women (get this) speaking in church, that's in addition to the passages you've referred to of Paul commissioning women as deacons and evangelists and his view that women were also apostles and disciples (and therefore performed the same functions as their male counterparts).
You're free to believe that is a contradiction (many scholars have, after all) and I'm free to believe that the Koran contradicts itself (in numerous places) and, of course, Muslim scholars view these passages as contradictions, after all. shafique
Ok - great, you and I agree he did say this according to the Bible.

I agree. This is a dictionary definition of a contradiction.

Well - deacons is in the later translation, 'servants' in the earlier - could you show why the latter is a better translation? (Not saying it isn't - just asking for clarification)

? How is this +not+ a contradiction? (That is what this thread is about - explaining the contradictions in the Bible. I really hope that the answer does not just boil down to 'denial'.)

Well, hardly surprising.
But isn't this thread about explaining why you say it isn't a contradiction?
Is it just that you just don't believe it to be a contradiction?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Han Kung addresses the word 'diakanos' and so I'll type from his book, Women in Christianity:

p10

Kung then goes on to quote Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza:
shafique ^Thanks - Kung knows what he is talking about. You've answered my first query about the translation - much appreciated. So it is clear that the NT contains a contradiction then - Paul is reported to have BOTH said women are deacons and cannot speak in church. I've maintained that Christians ignore the latter (that women should not speak in church). I'm still intrigued as to how you maintain that the contradiction is not a contradiction? How does 'do not speak in church' not contradict what Kung describes as Paul's views above? Actually, it's not just Paul's views - but actually what women did in the early church - so these descriptions clearly contradict the Biblical verse stating Women should not speak in church. What does Kung have to say about this verse? (I'll leave Kung's conclusions about Islam and the Prophet, pbuh, for another thread). Cheers, Shafique

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
shafique thanks to Google books, Kung addresses the verse in Corinthians on pg 12 of his book 'Women in Christianity'. He is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the verse and other misogynistic verses were inserted later and attributed to apostles. He also goes on to say that the role of women in the NT was underplayed over time and the scriptures modified, eg Junia in Romans who is a lady (in original texts) becomes 'Junias' a man!!! But that is about interpolation and changing of the Bible - which is his explanation of the contradiction of Paul apparently saying Women should not speak, contradicting the fact that women were active in the church. Cheers, Shafique shafique Another notable quote from Kung - page 15 of Women in Christianity:

(Kung goes on to explain how women were treated in the histiography of the church).
So, we now have another expert quoted by 'eh' who seems to have a different view about the historical accuracy of the Bible. Notably it took a few centuries for Jewish Christians to be excluded from the mainstream... but that is another discussion.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon
I admit, you have a strange way at looking at the Bible and the Koran. Unfortunately, you do not seem to be very consistent when proclaiming the Koran is internally consistent in light of the contradictory passages in the Koran in regards to warfare against unbelievers - with many verses directly contradicting each other by saying to fight against unbelievers *for* their unbelief.
I am glad you acknowledge that the New Testament contains passages which show that women were at the forefront of the early Church in holding positions of leadership and missionary work after these passages were first shown to you on the other thread @ DHH.
(I also recall your point that these passages from Romans, Corinthians and Galatians must have gone against Paul's belief of women to be quiet in Church, betraying your 'knowledge' of the New Testament - hence my skepticism to your claim that you read the epistles if you didn't even know that Paul was the author of these letters!)
Christians don't agree with your belief that the New Testament contradicts itself on the role of women in the New Testament - a conclusion you should also reach if indeed you get around to reading all of the verses in the New Testament pertaining to women.
Shafique is akin to the blind man touching the elephant's trunk and insists the elephant is a snake. One must choose who to believe, the blind man or those who can see the whole picture. shafique
Yes, and there are contradictory verses which say women should not speak in church - please try and keep up, I would look pretty stupid if I said there was a contradiction in the Bible when it comes to whether women should speak in church and could not show that the Bible says women CAN speak, as well as verses that say they CAN'T.
Anyway - it appears that you don't have an explanation and are just in denial.
I am glad you posted Kung's comments - for that led me to read his explanations of the presence of these misogynistic verses in the Bible - they were, he concludes, later additions. Your argument is with him as he clearly states that the historical accounts in the Bible are not to be trusted - :

Many thanks for this.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon
Nope, the passage does not say for all women to be silent in all churches for all times. Therefore, it is not a contradiction. shafique
Your argument is with scholars such as Kung who say that this passage was not from Paul but inserted later.
I did thank you for providing the reference to Kung's book 'women in Christianity', but let me thank you again.
But, let us play your game for a while and review what the Bible says:

So, in your estimation - which women were told to not speak in church and only ask their husbands if they wanted to learn something? Please give us your references for your views. (I've heard some argue that Paul's instructions were only to the Corinthians - are you saying that these ladies were particulary 'blonde'?)
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Cool -then it is even more strange why you would quote Kung when he explains whether a Greek word can mean 'deacon' rather than 'servant' - and not refer to the main point he makes that Paul saying women shouldn't speak in church is a later addition by misogynistic church officials.
It is even more stranger that you should argue that there wasn't a difference between Jewish and Pauline Christianity, when Kung makes it very clear that this was the case, and that the latter re-wrote the Bible to support their views.

It says more than that - it says women are too dense to understand without their husbands explaining.
You seem ok with this. You obviously didn't get this from Kung.
...and then we have your usual 'the (imagined) holes in your argument are bigger than the holes in mine' defence.

I agree that apart from the fabricated (according to Biblical scholars) misogynistic verses, the other verses from Paul are complimentary. But isn't that just common sense - ignore the contradictory verses and what remains is complimentary?
I think Tinky-Winky would be ashamed of that line of reasoning!!
cheers,
Shafique event horizon
I am afraid you are mistaken - I have read Kung's book as well as having read Kennedy's book and Watt's book and Rodinson's book and Karen Armstrong's books, (oh yeah, and the bible, but you already read that, apparently).
My quote from Kung simply addressed your question about how diakanos should be properly translated in the New Testament. I agree with Kung that the churches under Paul were even more democratic than the Jewish-Christian communities - this includes Paul's explicit statement that men and women are equal (something the Koran unfortunately disagrees with Paul on) and the important role of women in the New Testament.
One must wonder what is more 'misogynist', a passage in the New Testament which says women should not chit-chat in church or passages in the Koran which view women as unclean, give husbands the green light to hit their wives and compares ladies to fields for their husbands to til. Oh well, I suppose this is silly to ask this question. Of course you see nothing wrong with the misogynist passages in the Koran. :)
Oh, and please look up the terms complementary passages and contradictory passages. The passages in Paul's epistles regarding women are the former rather than the latter. shafique
Thanks. I read the passages I posted - where Kung contradicts you and says the misogynistic verses attributed to Paul are later additions. It appears that you either did not read the book when you quoted (I suspect it was another of your 120second Google searches) or didn't understand that Biblical scholars like Kung disagree with your view that Paul said women were Blonde and should ask their husbands if they want to learn!
It appears you are arguing that Kung's interpretation of the Bible is faulty - and yet you quoted him! Strange logic there dear boy.
And it also appears that you are confusing your 'interpretation' of the Bible with the historiographical analyses etc that historians and Biblical scholars have undertaken to conclude that the Bible's misogynistic verses were inserted by incompetent forgers. You can also read 'Women in Christianity' on Google books - and read enough pages to confirm this fact.
Biblical scholar says one thing based on evidence, 'eh' says he's wrong because he 'believes' he is right.
Believing you are right when experts you quote say otherwise is an interesting trait. May I suggest you do a bit more research before you quote someone else who disagrees with you, thinking they actually support your view.
(Oh, and I've never said Corinthians is a general command - just one that speaks for itself and contradicts other verses. If you believe it to be a specific commandment - then pray tell us who these 'blonde' women Paul is supposed to have addressed are? We should know - for it appears the Bible is saying +some+ women shouldn't speak in Church - so who are these women?)
Cheers,
Shafique
event horizon
You're welcome and you're totally free to drop Kung's name yet again for yet another book you have not read.
I think this issue can easily be resolved rather quickly after reading your response to the fact that Muslim scholars and jurists differ in their interpretation of the Koran with your interpretation - Kung's interpretation of the New Testament is faulty and my interpretation is correct.
I think that is sufficient enough of an argument and I don't need to explain myself other than insisting that the passage you've quoted is a specific command and not a general command because it does not contain the word 'all' in it.
Hope that clears everything up! shafique Did you have difficulty with the question Eh? cheers, Shafique event horizon
You're free to point out these differences between Jewish-Christian belief (according to Kung) and what Paul writes in his epistles. I said there was not a difference in belief according to the New Testament which correctly states this. Perhaps you're thinking of later periods and are now confusing your missionary view of Paul (Paul was the first to preach to Gentiles, wrote about Trinity, etc.,) with what the New Testament says.

So the Bible was later re-written to support Paul's beliefs in the Trinity and conversion of Gentiles - which you said Paul initiated and James was against? Ok.

No it doesn't.
But you're free to believe that - just as the Koran says one woman is too dense to provide proper testimony in court and two women witnesses/testimonies is equal to one male. shafique
The differences between Pauline Christianity and Jewish Christianity have been listed for you quite a few times now. Selecting Pauline writings where he agrees with Jewish Christians does is a bit facetious.
As Kung says - the victors got to write history and it took a couple of centuries before they grew strong enough to start declaring Jewish Christian beliefs as heretical.
One major difference is the divinity of Jesus - being part of the Trinity, or the actual, begotten, son of God. This is not a Jewish Christian belief.
Is your contention is that Paul does not mention that Jesus is the Son of God in the epistles, and you want me to find quotes to disprove your belief?

What part of Kung's explanation that the NT was written by the victors confused you?
Stating that the modified accounts in the NT support the Pauline view they are right is an odd argument.
You should either show that the NT has not been fudged - and provide the evidence to discredit Gibbon and all who followed him, including Kung - who show from primary sources that the Bible has been re-written.

Later periods brought in more doctrinal changes - no doubt. But no, I'm talking about the NT which you seem to be taking as gospel and which historians and Biblical scholars agree are not historically accurate on issues of differences between Pauline and Jewish Christianity.

The Bible was re-written according to Biblical scholars which you have quoted. Perhaps you should try quoting someone who believes that the Bible wasn't re-written?

Well, that's what the English translation says - what is your explanation for the verse then?
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
'let them ask their husbands at home' - seems quite clear to me, Women should ask their husbands to explain things to them 'if they will learn any thing'.
And what is the reason the Bible gives for this - 'for it is a shame for women to speak in Church'
But I'll be fair - 'eh' says this is not a general verse and also that it is not a fabricated addition (as the Biblical scholars like Kung contend) - therefore it begs the question, who are these women who should not speak in Church and only ask their husbands at home?
Who, who?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon
Actually, it was your contention that Paul invented the Trinity (along with your claim that Paul was the first to preach to Gentiles). Therefore, I asked you to provide passages from Paul's epistles where he writes about the Trinity. Should be a logical question but this seems to be giving you some trouble.

Uhmm, have you even read Paul's epistles (I know I asked you this before and you claimed you have, but I have to ask again because it's obvious to me you haven't)?

Which historical accounts do not reflect accurately between Pauline and Jewish Christianity? I know this will be a difficult question for you and you will provide some strange response that does not address the question - similar to when I asked for contemporary accounts outside of the New Testament and that was too difficult for you to understand. shafique Please try and make up your mind 'eh' and focus.
This thread is about whether the NT contains contradictions or not. You are not explaining who the women are that Paul is referring to when he says they should not speak in church (actually he is addressing men and telling them 'your women'...)
Will you answer the question????
As for your other points..
Kung et al have shown that it contains forged verses, inserted by Pauline Christians to support their dogma. Look back, and you will see that we have discussed in the Gibbon thread one specific example of a verse about Trinity being inserted. There you will find your requested historical document detailing one difference.
Kung summed it up best when he said (in a book you quoted from):

Kung, in the same book, talks about the differences between Jewish and Pauline Christianity. These Jewish Christian view was 'written out' of the Bible - but in some instances it was badly done (leading to contradictions).
Kung is also saying in the quote that the Jewish Christian views only became heretical over 100 years after Jesus' ministry. He knows what he is talking about - and your argument is with him.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Just to make it clear for 'eh':
Let me ask again - who are these women in these verses?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon The clue in my post was 'context dear shafique, context'. shafique Ahh, the disapointment - no answer, just a cut and paste of my comment to you. ;) Do you not know who Paul was addressing? The context was that 'your women' should not speak in Church, and should ask their husbands if they want to learn. Isn't the context that this is in the canonised Bible? So, who are these women, eh? Kung says this passage is a forged one- you seem to think it is Paul's words. Yet Paul is contradicting himself. Ergo, you DO believe the Bible contains contradictions after all. (Anyway, don't worry if you just don't know what the context is - I'm sure you are still reeling from the shock of having me quote Kung's conclusions to you - quite an own-goal that!) Cheers, Shafique shafique Will we get an answer? Hmmm :wink: shafique I realised I should be clear what the question is: eh -who are the 'your women' Paul is referring to? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Women who chit-chat during mass. shafique
So women who chit chat in mass should shut up and only learn from their husbands.
Cool - but I couldn't see where this interpretation comes from - did you just make this up? ;)
But the problem in your novel interpretation is that Paul actually says 'Your women' ... so who was he addressing (was it only men whose women chit chatted?)
Interesting that the Bible tells the men to tell their women to shut up and doesn't tell the women 'look chatterers, shut up'.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique bump for 'eh' - I'm sure he's busy looking up references for Banu Nadhir etc, but this question came first.. shafique If the question is unclear, please let me know eh - but I'm struggling to make it simpler: 'who are the men being addressed by Paul when he tells them to keep their women ('your women' he says) quiet in church and to tell them to only learn from their husbands at home if they don't understand something'? The operative word here is 'who'. Does it apply to all men whose women 'chat in church'? (We can then move on to another contradiction in the NT once we've got an explanation from eh why this one isn't a contradiction) Cheers, Shafique shafique C'mon 'eh', which men did Paul mean when he said 'Your women'... should not speak in Church? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Here's my personal opinion: You think that 9.29 applies to all Jews and Christians - right or wrong? You are arguing that the other Quranic verses on warfare and how to live with Jews and Christians contradict this interpretation of yours - right? (This is the 'contradiction' you have made in your first point. I agree with your argument - the other Quranic verses do indeed contradict your interpretation. So where's the argument now? Are you now saying the Quran does not contain a contradiction? I totally agree that for there not to be a contradiction, my interpretation of 9.29 requires that the verse only apply to the non-Muslims who fulfil the criteria laid out in other verses of Chapter 9 and the other verses laid out in the previous posts - but you are arguing that there is a contradiction. Please make up your mind - my interpretation of 9.29 etc means there isn't a contradiction, but your interpretation is contradicted by other verses. Can we at least agree on that - I will concede you think your interpretation is right and you think we're all wrong to interpret 9.29 as we do. One of us is 'seeing' the elephant as a snake - but only one set of arguments leads to the accusation of a 'contradiction'. I hope I haven't confused you with the logical conclusion of your argument - if so, let me know and I'll try and simplify it for you. shafique 'eh' - you appear to be confusing threads - the questioned which you are not answering is:

I'm patiently waiting for the answer before moving on to the next contradiction in the NT.
(The question about 9.29 etc is asking me to confirm/deny your interpretation of the verses - this is dealt with in the other thread - and the question is moot - however you wish to interpret these verses, we both agree that God contradicts your interpretations in other verses - hence why you've been arguing the Quran contains contradictions to your views)
Cheers,
Shafique shafique 'eh' spoke about the contradictions in the NT in his 'contradictions' in the Quran thread - so I thought I'd remind him that the thread about the contradictions in the NT is here, and he still needs to explain who is being referred to in this verse - which he believes is original (and scholars such as Kung say is a fabricated addition):

Who are the men being addressed?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Shafique, I agree with you that your interpretation of the New Testament contradicts with what the New Testament says about women speaking, holding positions of authority within the church, etc,. What I am saying is that you are correct in saying that the Christian reading of I Corinthians 14:34 is complimentary, not contradictory. But this thread is about contradictions, do you still maintain the New Testament contains contradictions or not? shafique So you don't know who Paul was addressing and yet you disagree with Kung who says this was a later fabrication. You could have just said so and saved me asking you so many times the question. But I agree with you - at the end of the day, you don't see any contradiction between the verses which say women should shut up in church and the ones who say women were deacons. Scholars like Kung seem to share my view that these are obviously contradictions - but I agree that you don't see a contradiction. I'm sure you think you are right - despite not being able to answer the question 'who' the men in this verse. So the answer to your question is, yes, the NT obviously has contradictions in it - even your expert says so - but it appears that in your world 'shutting up' is not a contradiction to 'deacons in church'. Thanks for making this clear. Do you want us to move to the next contradiction, or is your argument going to be the 'ostrich defence' again? Cheers, Shafique shafique Actually, I think I'll let 'eh' choose the next contradiction to explain.
Here's a list of some them:
We'll take is as read that 'eh' doesn't have an answer to the simple question, 'who was Paul referring to' when he said 'your women'.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon
Yes, I agree the passages of women who were promoted to deacons, teachers and evangelists under Paul was first pointed out to you another thread.
What I have said now, is that these passages, along with a passage which Paul writes of women prophesying in church a few passages prior to I Cor 14, are seen as complimentary to the command that woman should not speak in the church.
Obviously, when read in toto with the rest of the NT and I Cor, the speaking that is being prohibited is of the chit-chatting type since women can already speak in mass if it's part of the worship and women were deacons, etc.
It's interesting that you continue to cite Kung, perhaps you have not read your own thread of the fallacy of citing a name and believing the argument is now over? shafique
Yes, I said there were contradictory passages in the Bible and that most Christians ignored the misogynistic passages which Kung says were later fabrications.
We're not debating whether the Bible also says women should speak in Church (this is a given) - but whether the passage in question saying women should shut up is a contradiction or not.
You seem to be saying that the verse, whilst opposite in meaning, is not a contradiction.
Yet you also seem unable to answer the question who Paul was addressing?

So, still waiting to hear who is being addressed - is only men whose women chit chat?

I quoted Kung saying this verse was a later fabrication by misogynistic Pauline Christians - did I misunderstand what I quoted? He made the point that the Bible was written/doctored by the Pauline Christian 'victors' - and he made this point in the book which you quoted from. Let me thank you again for the reference.
Thank you.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon
What confused you about the last few times I answered your question above? Was it the fact that other verses in the NT do indeed clarify I Cor 14:34 or are you still confused about something else, i.e., that the NT contradicts your view of I Cor 14:34?
Anyway, I'm glad you don't disagree with my previous post, I agree that the NT contradicts your interpretation of I Cor 14:34. If we agree that the NT contradicts your view of the verse, what else is there to discuss? shafique What confused me was the silence when I asked who the men Paul was addressing when he said 'your women' must stay silent in church and only learn from their husbands. Your answer that it was referring to women who chit-chat in church was perplexing - and I assumed that you had some basis for this leap of imagination, and was waiting for the explanation. However, all you seem to be saying is that the other verses DO contradict this verse - but you can't bring yourself to admitting this (or the fact that Kung et al say this verse was a fabricated later addition). Happy to answer any more questions you may have - I suspect you will continue to avoid answering my straightforward questions. Ostrich defence indeed. Cheers, Shafique event horizon I totally agree. You do not seem to understand what has been posted about I Cor 14:34 - but in the end - we agree that the NT contradicts your interpretation of I Cor 14:34, which is the point you made in the first post here. Have you now changed your mind? shafique Cool - great. So, Kung and I agree there is a contradiction in the Bible relating to whether women should speak in church, and you disagree with us. No probs - we'll gloss over the fact you still refuse to answer who is being addressed in this verse (which Kung says is a fabrication). Do you want to address the other contradictions in the link I gave now? cheers, Shafique event horizon Actually, I agree with you that your interpretation of I Cor is contradicted by other verses of the NT. I'd hate to think how much you'd post if I disagreed with you on this point! shafique Well, I've never denied that the Bible contains contradictions - so it is strange that you ask whether I've changed my mind on the subject, especially as you've quoted Biblical scholars who say it is a contradiction and that this misogynistic verse was a later fabrication.
I totally agree that Christians need to explain the contradiction with other verses - and have sympathy for the view that it was inserted by incompetent forgers (again from a quote you gave).
And let us not lose sight of the fact that I've always said, we must choose what verses of the Bible to follow and which to ignore.
Can you tell me when you follow this verse? Do you tell your women to shut up?

'For it is a shame for women to speak in Church'
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon It is a shame for women to chit-chat during mass. It's not a shame for women to prophecy during mass, it's not a shame for women to conduct service in mass, etc,. If you read the New Testament wholly, it becomes clear in that verse what type of speaking is not allowed. Context, dear shafique, context. shafique ^Thanks - I guess you'll be writing to Prof Kung to tell him he is wrong then.
:roll:
How could we have been soooo stupid - now you've clarified it, of course there isn't a contradiction. :?
How enlightening for the Bible to say:
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Nope - Ibn Abbas agreed with me that the Koran contains contradictory passages and the passages that are contradicted by later revealed verses should be ignored. One must decide who to believe - Islam's first Koranic scholar and companion of Muhammad (who was in fact Muhammad's cousin) and lived under the rule of the rightly guided caliphs when he wrote his tafseer on the Koran, or someone with no knowledge of Arabic who claims the Koran does not contain contradictions because he does not believe so. shafique bump for eh - he seems to be developing another one of his false memories, thinking he gave an explanation for why this contradiction isn't a contradiction, when in fact he hasn't explained which men Paul was addressing in this fabricated and contradictory verse (according to Kung). I don't expect eh to answer, as he patently does not have an answer - but I just want to remind him that he hasn't answered the questions. Perversely, we agree with him that the Quran contradicts his spin on verses 9.29 etc - and that may be what is confusing him, that someone agrees with him! Cheers, Shafique event horizon I wouldn't call your argument about the contradiction in the NT 'funny' - just plain wierd. "Its not a contradiction, because I don't believe it is a contradiction - but the meaning is contradicted by the other verses" As for whether the Quran contradicts your interpretation of 9.29 - as I've said, I agree with you. Why the insistence that I re-supply you with the quotes I gave 2 weeks ago? Is it because you can't accept I agree with you? Cheers, Shafique shafique ^ I see that eh-oh is having trouble with the quote function. So sad. I presume you are trying to use the same argument I've used for your thread - that you now agree that the Bible contains contradictions if we interpret: 'Don't speak in Church' as 'don't speak in church'. But as I said in my previous post above, I don't expect you have an answer to the simple question - who are the men Paul is addressing when he says 'your women' ... should only learn at home from husbands etc. (Which, comes to think of it, begs the questions about the unmarried/widowed/divorced women - do they just not get to learn at all????) Cheers, Shafique shafique eh requested I produce references from (more) theologians to back up what Kung is quoted as saying about the insertion of mysogynistic verses into the NT.
Let me therefore add one more reference (more can be added if required - but eh, can work on this one for now).
Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P.:
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are not a Corinthian slogan, as some have argued…, [color=red]but a post-Pauline interpolation[/color] …. Not only is the appeal to the law (possibly Genesis 3:16) un-Pauline, but the verses contradict 1 Corinthians 11:5. The injunctions reflect the misogyny of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and probably stem from the same circle.
New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J, and Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990, pages 811-812)
So not only does this theologian say the verses are contradictory (obviously they are), but that they are forgeries.
I trust this is an adequate reference for you eh - if not, let me know, I have others - but the Good Father is a leading authority on Paul:
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor is Professor of New Testament at the Ecole Biblique et Archeologique Francaise in Jerusalem and a leading authority on the historical Jesus and Saint Paul. His other publications include Paul: A Critical Life and Paul, His Story .
Cheers,
Shafique shafique So, eh states in another thread that the information I'm posting above is 'well known' - which was my contention all along - it is a well known fact that the Bible contains verses inserted by Pauline Christians and falsely attributed to various authors, and that these inserted verses are in support of Pauline Christian theology and version of history, and (in this case) contradict other verses.
As O'Conner states above, the misogynistic views of later Pauline Christians led them to insert the above verses and attribute them to Paul.
This contrasts with the earlier official Church view that what the Bible says is true and that the authorship is not to be questioned. There are some that still believe in this - but precious few who have actually studied the evidence (such as O'Conner, Kung) still believe in this.
Of late, I've noticed a trend in eh-oh to go for ad hominem attacks (attack me rather than message) - so this quote from NN Taleb resonated with me:

As well as this snippet from pg 279:
:)
Cheers,
Shafique akbarbava Dear Shafique "May Allah bless you in this world & hereafter" event horizon Where have I attacked you, shafique? I've questioned your reading ability, as you have mine, but that isn't a horrible attack. You've been unable to state where you come to your conclusions. I suspect this is because you simply make them up or read them off of a certain missionary website you've cribbed talking points off of. So, which source have you read that states the apostles were distrustful of Paul's missionary work? I'll also laugh at what you say is the official church view of this or that. You haven't read very much about Christian history and this shows when you claimed that the church historians always believed that the second epistle attributed to Peter was never questioned based on its authorship. shafique I know you want to believe that my views are not based on an examination of the historical material and scholarly works - no issues with you wanting to hold that belief. Questioning whether I can read is an ad hominem attack, especially when I have quoted O'Conner above categorically contradicting your view on this contradictory verse of the NT. The quote is from a book about the compilation of the Bible - so is highly relevant. O'Conner is both a priest (a Dominican Monk) and a leading authority on the 'historical' Paul - having written two books on the subject. This thread is about one contradiction in the NT - one you disagree with Father O'Conner, Hans Kung etc. It is a quaint view that the NT contains no contradictions, but appears to be based solely on a pre-Medieval view of the Bible and certainly not based on modern Christian/Biblical scholarship. I take it you now have to agree that my statements that the Bible has both contradicitons and fabricated verses inserted by Pauline Christians is based on actual evidence rather than blind faith. Cheers, Shafique event horizon That's one person's opinion - and the opinion of most Muslim theologians, including the first and second generation of Muslim scholars, is that the Koran contains contradictions and these contradictions override each other. shafique Again with the misrepresentation? I quoted from a book by experts (not one guy) dealing with the compilation of the Bible (a Bible commentary). I chose to quote a Biblical and historical expert who has examined the evidence for writings attributed to Paul.
Now, I totally agree that your view is a view of 'one guy alone' - that the verse isn't a contradiction and isn't a fabrication.
Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P.:
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are not a Corinthian slogan, as some have argued…, [color=red]but a post-Pauline interpolatio[/color]n …. Not only is the appeal to the law (possibly Genesis 3:16) un-Pauline, but the verses contradict 1 Corinthians 11:5. The injunctions reflect the misogyny of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and probably stem from the same circle.
New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J, and Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990, pages 811-812)
So not only does this theologian say the verses are contradictory (obviously they are), but that they are forgeries.
I trust this is an adequate reference for you eh - if not, let me know, I have others - but the Good Father is a leading authority on Paul:
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor is Professor of New Testament at the Ecole Biblique et Archeologique Francaise in Jerusalem and a leading authority on the historical Jesus and Saint Paul. His other publications include Paul: A Critical Life and Paul, His Story .
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon You really like flogging dead horses don't you - I've agreed with you that I agree the NT contradicts your interpretation of its passages! (Also, I'm mildly impressed by your wikipedia trawling. Are your numerous books on Christianity out of your reach or is wikipedia too convenient a source to paste extracts of books from?) shafique I'm not a fan of flogging dead animals - but I chose the lesser of two evils when I responded to your request for more references. I take it from your reply above that Father O'Conner's credentials are not going to be disputed by you, and that you are just aligning yourself with those who still believe the Bible is wholly God's word despite the evidence. On this point, I'm with the Father - but as I said, you're entitled to your opinions. Let me know in future when you actually want me to quote scholars and when you are just being rhetorical. But let me thank you again for bringing this contradiction of the NT to all our attentions and highlighting that your 'belief' that it isn't a fabrication or a contradiction is based on 'faith' rather than historical evidence. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Well, I think the credentials of Ibn Abbas (who was a cousin to Muhammad and was a scholar under the reign of the rightly guided caliphs) to interpret the Koran is superior than Father O'Conner's credentials to interpret the New Testament. What do you think? shafique Did Ibn Abbas agree with you that the contradictory verses of the New Testament weren't added by Pauline Christians? I must have missed that commentary (or perhaps you are mixing threads again) ;) As I said, it is very amusing to see you bring up the Quran in a thread about your contention that the Bible does not contain contradictory verses - and especially see you try and avoid the fact that Biblical scholars with the credentials of Kung and Murphy fundamentally disagree with your quaint views of the Bible. 10/10 for effort - 0/10 for reasoned argument though. ;) Cheers, Shafique shafique Umm - this thread is about the contradiction in the Bible, I wasn't aware that Ibn Abbas contradicted what Father O'Murphy's views above. It appears you don't disagree now that the Bible contains verses added by post-Pauline authors which contradict other passages in the Bible. Bravo. Cheers, Shafique event horizon You are missing the point. I agree with your intial proposition that the New Testament contradicts your view of its passages. But thanks for bringing this fact to our attention once again. shafique See, it is good to discuss and clarify. You are quite right, I presented my view that 'not speaking in church' contradicts other verses of the Bible. (See, I too am agreeing with you - good eh!) Good to see that you don't disagree that my initial view is that of Father O'Conner, Professor Hans Kung etc - all supported by evidence and quotes saying that the verse is both a contradiction and a fabrication. It is most welcoming that you have expressed your belief - and it is a valid one, many other Christians also believe the Bible to be literally true and don't want to acknowledge the evidence presented by Biblical scholars listed. Some even have convinced themselves that the Bible contains no contradictions. Cheers, Shafique shafique Bump - for the references to contradictions in the Bible and the non-explanation of eh when faced with the conclusive explanations of Biblical scholars:
Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P.:

New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J, and Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990, pages 811-812)
So not only does this theologian say the verses are contradictory (obviously they are), but that they are forgeries.
I trust this is an adequate reference for you eh - if not, let me know, I have others - but the Good Father is a leading authority on Paul:
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor is Professor of New Testament at the Ecole Biblique et Archeologique Francaise in Jerusalem and a leading authority on the historical Jesus and Saint Paul. His other publications include Paul: A Critical Life and Paul, His Story.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon It is good that we are beginning to agree - I totally agree that there are some that share your views about certain aspects of Islam, but as I stated before, this thread is about whether the Quran contradicts your view of 9.29 etc. I agree with you that it does indeed. Now - whether one chooses to believe your interpretation should be followed or whether the contradictory verses are the true teachings of Islam vis-a-vis treatment of Jews and Christians - well that has been debated ad-nauseum in other threads (eg 'the ethics of war in Islam' etc) - and indeed the 'Koranic scholars' have all commented on what Islam teaches in terms of wars - and you have misleadingly quoted a small number of them. But thanks again for posting something that I can agree with - the Quran does indeed contradict your interpretation of 9.29. It is heartwarming indeed that you accept that the view of Muslims that the Quran is the literal word of God is a 'valid' one. I can see that this would be galling for a person who quoted scholars whose studies have confirmed that the same cannot be said about the Bible (you quoted Kung, for example) - and that this is an accepted fact now by all and sundry (that the Bible contains fabricated by Pauline Christians and which don't appear in the earliest manuscripts). But I won't go any further, as this is a thread about the Quran contradicting your interpretation of 9.29. Nice of you to keep bumping this thread. (You are getting better at the copying and pasting - the next step is to improve the comprehension of what you are posting Wink - and perhaps answering the unanswered questions, such as Goldstein etc) shafique Again with the confusion - this thread was about you backing up your belief that the Bible contains no contradictions. The fact that O'Conner et al have concluded that the Bible clearly contains contradictions and fabrications is the main point I wanted to bring out - and contrasts with your explanation 'it is not a contradiction because I choose to believe it isn't' I really can't see why you think bringing up your views on the Quran will obscure your non-explanation of your view of the Bible not containing contradictions. Cheers, Shafique Berrin I dont think it matters whether condradictions are in NT/OT.....
It isn't the muslims but the christians that have as many books and churches as they wish...So they better deal with them or just don't bother and accept islam as the last devine revelation guided for the truth...
event horizon
I'm glad we both agree that your own arguments aren't very convincing. One must have faith to believe that the Koran does not contain numerous contradictions. shafique I thought Father O'Conner's research and conclusions were more than clear and convincing. Your argument only seems to be sticking your fingers in your ears and wearing a blindfold and repeating: "I can't see or hear any contradictions - you are wrong, I am right" :lol: But hey, you are the one that claimed that the Bible contains no contradictions. It is a quaint belief indeed and a 'religious' one - but unfortunately not one shared by Biblical scholars who have actually studied the Bible. It appears you haven't read or studied the Bible - or you think you know better than Professor Kung, Father O'Conner et al. But hey - go ahead and question my credentials if it makes you feel better - but I'm not the one who claimed the Bible does not contain contradictions - you did. Shame you can't back that up with any evidence though - you fell at the first hurdle when presented with this contradiction in Corinthians. I presume you're not going to change your explanation of this contradictory verse? Cheers, Shafique event horizon I agree - you claimed the Koran contains no contradictions and so far, your argument has been what I've re posted on this thread. It should speak volumes that you are not convinced by your own posts. But yes, I do agree with you that it is quaint of you to pontificate on Father O'conner and Hans Kung - two scholars whose books you have not read and the former you found quoted on wiki. shafique This thread is about your quaint assertion that the Bible contains no contradictions.
The discussions have made it clear that this is just a 'blind' belief and not supported by any historical or even logical evidence.
The contrast with the Quran thread is not valid -because there I do agree with you that the Quran does contradict an interpretation of violence against all Jews and Christians. Here you refuse to accept Father O'Murphy and Kung's conclusions that the Bible contains contradictory fabricated verses.
It's a quaint belief - and it's enlightening of you to share it with us.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique :lol: It is indeed good to agree that your initial claim that there are no contradictions in the NT does not bear scrutiny. When asked to produce one quote from one expert that agrees with your claim, you have to resort to humour. As I like to laugh - I thank you for this. Cheers, Shafique Berrin Event horizon, more biblical contradictions here...Have you studied them? what do you think? / shafique Berrin - thanks for a great link. Some pretty conclusive quotes there from prominent Christian Biblical scholars.
However, I wanted to quote what the author says about Christians - just to contrast with what is written about Muslims on Orientalist/Islamophobic websites - the author emphasises that Christians are generally good people:

When Biblical scholars attest to contradictions in the Bible inserted by Pauline Christians in favour of their theology, who are we (as Muslims) to argue with this confirmation of what the Quran says Jesus taught?
It is satisfying that we do not need to resort to hatred filled vitriol when bringing this over-looked feature of the Bible to light. It is also interesting to contrast the above Quranic verse with the views of some that Islam teaches that all Christians need to be fought!
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon
The New Testament has a self-correcting mechanism where if someone tries to infer a wrong teaching upon selected verses, the other verses of the New Testament stand in contradiction to this erroneous view.
Thanks to shafique for making this clear in his first post of this thread. This is reinforced by the fact he has to go outside of the New Testament to make his argument stick - and even then he has to selectively quote from wikipedia etc about these verses. shafique
However, this only works in favour of Pauline Christian teachings, for the historians and Biblical scholars tell us that it is these guys who inserted the verses which contradict other verses.
Totally agree with eh that the Bible must therefore be interpreted - whether to believe, for example, that women should not speak in church or believe that women can speak.
Father O'Conner et al - say that the misogynistic verses are later forgeries and should be ignored. They say these verses are contradictory, but in eh's fantasy world, there are no contradictions.
But, let's not forget that this thread stems from eh's assertion that there are NO contradictions in the NT. It is clear that there is no evidence for this belief (he can't even explain away this first contradiction).
Therefore, we must admire this blind faith in the Bible and ponder on the fact eh hasn't quoted one expert who agrees with his view (that there are no contradictions in the NT). It is therefore a brave thing for eh to stand alone in his belief - bravo to the boy, why let facts get in the way of a belief eh?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon
Just to be clear, when you say "Biblical scholars", you don't exactly mean an exhausting list of Biblical scholars but a bit of googling and posting of two Biblical scholars you misunderstood, right?
[quote[Totally agree with eh that the Bible must therefore be interpreted
Yes, literature tends to be interpreted.

Yep, we've concluded that your interpretation of the New Testament contradicts the teachings of the New Testament. I agree with you there. shafique Hey, I just chose one Biblical scholar you claim to have read (and quoted from): Professor Hans Kung, and another Biblical scholar who has written books on Paul and has written about the compilation of the Bible. Your argument that this clear contradiction in the Bible by contrast has only amounted to 'I don't believe it is a contradiction'. As I said, I applaud your stance and defend your right to express your quaint belief. I really can't see how you'll convince anyone you are right when the evidence is clear and unambiguous (as quoted) -but hey, perhaps you just want the world to know that your faith won't be swayed by facts. Kudos to you. Or did you have one expert quote that agrees with you that the NT contains no contradictions (or forged verses?) Cheers, Shafique event horizon As I said, the inconvenient truth is that I agree with shafique that the New Testament does indeed contradict his interpretation of its passages - see it is good to agree! event horizon Sorry, I was waiting for a sophisticated explanation for why the Koran does not contain contradictions. Perhaps if you can post one then you'll stop laughing at your own posts? shafique
Wrong thread - this thread is about the NT and your quaint (and apparently solitary) view that the NT contains no contradictions.
I understand your confusion - in your thread on the Quran, I agree with you that the Quran does contradict your interpretation of a few verses. Why you are waiting for a 'sophisticated' explanation for this agreement is beyond me. But if you do a search you'll find I've already dealt with the list of alleged contradictions on Skeptics Annotated Quran - a long thread where Flying Dutchman listed them and I explained why they weren't contradictions.
Anyway, back to this one - did you manage to find one expert who agrees with your quaint view that the NT contains no contradictions (and no fabricated verses)??
Cheers,
Shafique



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy