If they are referring to Christianity, the only time the new testament really says this is in a letter from Paul which was not actually written by him and a likely forgery. Jesus himself was radically egalitarian.
He must’ve gotten tired of persecuting christ-followers so he decided to make up a story about his conversion experience in order to co-opt the movement, claim and assert his authority over it, and instill it with Roman-style systems of patriarchal morality…
Well within Christian canon, he essentially met Jesus’ spirit many years after he had died. But obviously that only works if you actually believe in the supernatural aspects of it
That semantic is kind of like saying a page in the Narnia books was faked. Of course it was, it was all faked. The important thing is that some believe in it and that the different opinions of different authors get sorted as canon and noncanon by the various churches.
Eh, I think you’re undercutting your own point here. Paul was a real guy, and actually wrote stuff. A page in a Narnia book very much can be fake, if it was written by someone other than Lewis Carrol but attributed to him. Likewise, if a writing attributed to Paul was not actually written by Paul, it’s a fake.
There actually isn’t a whole lot of evidence that Paul existed outside of the old copies of the new testament.
There also is no one true copy of the bible, no one true church.
So unless historical evidence such as preserved letters or records from ancient Rome resurface, everything about Paul from start to finish in the bible is equally legitimate; it’s not really.
I think if I have to spell out my previous example more in-depth, you can’t point to Aslan talking about the old magics as him lying, as the book it’s mentioned in treats it as canonical fact in a work of fiction.
The bible as we know it is a book assembled by the Roman Senate in roughly 350CE(cant be arsed to find the real date). Oddly enough, it is the new testament books that are not in that assemblage that contain the forward thinking ideas(to the Romans, not to the remaining celts and gauls) of an idea of womens rights and of things likr private, personal religion.
If they are referring to Christianity, the only time the new testament really says this is in a letter from Paul which was not actually written by him and a likely forgery. Jesus himself was radically egalitarian.
Ephesians 5:24: “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands”.
Colossians 3:18: “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord”.
Peter 3:1-6: Instructs wives to be submissive to their husbands, using Sarah’s obedience to Abraham as an example.
Also Paul never even met Jesus, yet speaks as if he did.
He must’ve gotten tired of persecuting christ-followers so he decided to make up a story about his conversion experience in order to co-opt the movement, claim and assert his authority over it, and instill it with Roman-style systems of patriarchal morality…
Well within Christian canon, he essentially met Jesus’ spirit many years after he had died. But obviously that only works if you actually believe in the supernatural aspects of it
You can even believe the supernatural aspects of it and think Paul specifically was full of shit.
Paul is fanboying about Jesus and it became canon
That semantic is kind of like saying a page in the Narnia books was faked. Of course it was, it was all faked. The important thing is that some believe in it and that the different opinions of different authors get sorted as canon and noncanon by the various churches.
Eh, I think you’re undercutting your own point here. Paul was a real guy, and actually wrote stuff. A page in a Narnia book very much can be fake, if it was written by someone other than Lewis Carrol but attributed to him. Likewise, if a writing attributed to Paul was not actually written by Paul, it’s a fake.
There actually isn’t a whole lot of evidence that Paul existed outside of the old copies of the new testament.
There also is no one true copy of the bible, no one true church.
So unless historical evidence such as preserved letters or records from ancient Rome resurface, everything about Paul from start to finish in the bible is equally legitimate; it’s not really.
I think if I have to spell out my previous example more in-depth, you can’t point to Aslan talking about the old magics as him lying, as the book it’s mentioned in treats it as canonical fact in a work of fiction.
Yeah, but some denominations of Christianity really hammer that idea in.
Let’s not even talk about how little Mary Magdalene is in the Bible, even though it seems she might have been Jesus’ #2 at a point.
A religion that says they’re the correct one, and all the others are bad people, is a cult. And there are no good cults.
Its littered throughout the old testament.
Just radical enough to never suggest that people shouldn’t own slaves
The bible as we know it is a book assembled by the Roman Senate in roughly 350CE(cant be arsed to find the real date). Oddly enough, it is the new testament books that are not in that assemblage that contain the forward thinking ideas(to the Romans, not to the remaining celts and gauls) of an idea of womens rights and of things likr private, personal religion.