[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Wait, hold on, I didn't notice the "no praying in church" bit, which is completely wrong.

Remember, the primitive church didn't have actual churches, the ecclesia were just religious events in believers' homes. The fact that actual buildings for religious services were later made doesn't change the essential meaning of practicing their piety in private, since both a house-church and a real church are private events out of the view of the public.

I think you are interpreting the passage in a completely subjective way, reading into it your own dismissive attitude towards church attendance in a way that is corrupting the real meaning.

Go back and read it again. No praying in synagogues (i.e. "church" building) - go into your chamber (bedroom) to do it. It's not real hard to understand.

The "church" is (as originally intended) the body of believers, not a place to go on a Sunday morning. In essence, once a believer you're always in "church".
A believer shouldn't be praising God in church - they should be doing it all the time in their own private way. "Church" (the building/service) should be a social gathering, not a gathering for worship.

But, of course, over the years "church" has changed meaning and become a tool for those above who seek power and control, and an excuse for those below who seek to compartmentalise their lives.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Does Jesus say not to attend services?

Nope. He says "don't pray at them".
Thus, everyone praying at a service (or, indeed, anywhere in public) is in direct contravention of what He says. Food for thought, no?

And, of course, if you're praying properly and boiling the Lord's Prayer down to its basic elements, praying is essentially "you rock, thanks for sorting it all out". That's it. Anything more is a lack of faith, babbling like heathens. You don't need to ask - you need to know that everything is cushty before you even ask, therefore there's no point in asking.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Go back and read it again. No praying in synagogues (i.e. "church" building) - go into your chamber (bedroom) to do it. It's not real hard to understand.

The "church" is (as originally intended) the body of believers, not a place to go on a Sunday morning. In essence, once a believer you're always in "church".
A believer shouldn't be praising God in church - they should be doing it all the time in their own private way. "Church" (the building/service) should be a social gathering, not a gathering for worship.

But, of course, over the years "church" has changed meaning and become a tool for those above who seek power and control, and an excuse for those below who seek to compartmentalise their lives.

Sorry, but you're completely wrong. The primitive church had worship services just like today, with the Lord's supper and baptisms and scripture readings and moral education - they just did it in private homes. The creation of special buildings didn't change the nature of the worship practices in any significant way.

The early "churches" were most definitely worship practices, not mere social gatherings.

EDIT: and if you don't think there was "control" in the primitive church, you need to re-read Paul. He was very insistent about correct behaviour, both moral and in religious practices. When he heard that the Corinthians were practicing segregated servings for the Lord's supper, he pretty much blew a gasket. Correct religious practices were important in his mind.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Nope. He says "don't pray at them".
Thus, everyone praying at a service (or, indeed, anywhere in public) is in direct contravention of what He says. Food for thought, no?

And, of course, if you're praying properly and boiling the Lord's Prayer down to its basic elements, praying is essentially "you rock, thanks for sorting it all out". That's it. Anything more is a lack of faith, babbling like heathens. You don't need to ask - you need to know that everything is cushty before you even ask, therefore there's no point in asking.

Attending synagogue/church and engaging in communal prayer is not was is being discussed. It is about the "hey look at me and how holier than you I am" activity. When you donate to the poor, don't print in the paper, be like the person that drops the "Canadian Maples" into the Salvation Army kettle each year. No one knows who it is but the Father.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Sorry, but you're completely wrong. The primitive church had worship services just like today, with the Lord's supper and baptisms and scripture readings and moral education - they just did it in private homes. The creation of special buildings didn't change the nature of the worship practices in any significant way.

The early "churches" were most definitely worship practices, not mere social gatherings.

EDIT: and if you don't think there was "control" in the primitive church, you need to re-read Paul. He was very insistent about correct behaviour, both moral and in religious practices. When he heard that the Corinthians were practicing segregated servings for the Lord's supper, he pretty much blew a gasket. Correct religious practices were important in his mind.

I don't take notice of the words of Paul. Only the words in red.
I'm Christian, not Paulian.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Attending synagogue/church and engaging in communal prayer is not was is being discussed. It is about the "hey look at me and how holier than you I am" activity. When you donate to the poor, don't print in the paper, be like the person that drops the "Canadian Maples" into the Salvation Army kettle each year. No one knows who it is but the Father.

Actually, it's exactly what's being discussed. This whole thread is about communal prayer in public - the need to be seen to be holy. Exactly the kind of thing Jesus was talking about and telling us not to do.

[Chongo]

Footnotes from The USCCB

1 [1-18] The sermon continues with a warning against doing good in order to be seen and gives three examples, almsgiving (Matthew 6:2-4), prayer (Matthew 6:5-15), and fasting (Matthew 6:16-18). In each, the conduct of the hypocrites (Matthew 6:2) is contrasted with that demanded of the disciples. The sayings about reward found here and elsewhere (Matthew 5:12, 46; 10:41-42) show that this is a genuine element of Christian moral exhortation. Possibly to underline the difference between the Christian idea of reward and that of the hypocrites, the evangelist uses two different Greek verbs to express the rewarding of the disciples and that of the hypocrites; in the latter case it is the verb apecho, a commercial term for giving a receipt for what has been paid in full (Matthew 6:2, 5, 16).

2 [2] The hypocrites: the scribes and Pharisees, see Matthew 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29. The designation reflects an attitude resulting not only from the controversies at the time of Jesus' ministry but from the opposition between Pharisaic Judaism and the church of Matthew. They have received their reward: they desire praise and have received what they were looking for.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Footnotes from The USCCB

1 [1-18] The sermon continues with a warning against doing good in order to be seen and gives three examples, almsgiving (Matthew 6:2-4), prayer (Matthew 6:5-15), and fasting (Matthew 6:16-18). In each, the conduct of the hypocrites (Matthew 6:2) is contrasted with that demanded of the disciples. The sayings about reward found here and elsewhere (Matthew 5:12, 46; 10:41-42) show that this is a genuine element of Christian moral exhortation. Possibly to underline the difference between the Christian idea of reward and that of the hypocrites, the evangelist uses two different Greek verbs to express the rewarding of the disciples and that of the hypocrites; in the latter case it is the verb apecho, a commercial term for giving a receipt for what has been paid in full (Matthew 6:2, 5, 16).

2 [2] The hypocrites: the scribes and Pharisees, see Matthew 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29. The designation reflects an attitude resulting not only from the controversies at the time of Jesus' ministry but from the opposition between Pharisaic Judaism and the church of Matthew. They have received their reward: they desire praise and have received what they were looking for.

Those footnotes don't look like they're in red to me. Why do you follow what men say about Jesus, instead of following Jesus?

[Chongo]

It called the Magisterium. For Catholics, it the College of Bishops. For Protestants, it's Sola Scriptura AKA what Billy Graham, Benny Hinn, Paul and Jan, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson. TD Jakes, or the local pastor thinks that week.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It called the Magisterium. For Catholics, it the College of Bishops. For Protestants, it's Sola Scriptura AKA what Billy Graham, Benny Hinn, Paul and Jan, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson. TD Jakes, or the local pastor thinks that week.

Your reply seems a little US-centric. You realise that there's protestants outside the US who don't care a fig what any "pastor" says, no?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Actually, it's exactly what's being discussed. This whole thread is about communal prayer in public - the need to be seen to be holy. Exactly the kind of thing Jesus was talking about and telling us not to do.

In other words, the exact opposite of how Jesus lived his life. Good work, "Christian."

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't take notice of the words of Paul. Only the words in red. I'm Christian, not Paulian.

That's is the stupidest definition of Christian I've ever heard. So you trust the words in red, but none of the words around them, even in the same document?

For your information, the authentic letters of Paul are the best source for actual Christian belief in the first century. Everything else is a copy of a hearsay of a rumor of a tradition, especially the words of Jesus.

If you skip Paul, you can't understand Jesus or early Christianity. Every single denomination says this, except the church of Doofy.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Your reply seems a little US-centric. You realise that there's protestants outside the US who don't care a fig what any "pastor" says, no?

Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Archbishop of Canterbury included.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's is the stupidest definition of Christian I've ever heard.

Calling someone's definitions "stupid" would be better if you'd not started with "that's is".

Does it bother you that there's Christians out there who don't fit into your little pre-defined definitions and may be a little harder to pin down when arguing with them using your pre-set methods?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

So you trust the words in red, but none of the words around them, even in the same document?

That's correct.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

For your information, the authentic letters of Paul are the best source for actual Christian belief in the first century. Everything else is a copy of a hearsay of a rumor of a tradition, especially the words of Jesus.

If you skip Paul, you can't understand Jesus or early Christianity. Every single denomination says this, except the church of Doofy.

Interesting, no?

You read all the history, all the documents, all the Paul... ...and you're atheist.
I don't read all the history, all the documents, all the Paul... ...and I'm not atheist.

Strange how that works out.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

You notice how 'founded on' and 'foundation of' are very similar phrases? There's a reason for that: they mean the same thing.

I explained how they where different. You can play semantic games if you want. Like I said, this is a side issue for another debate.

Regardless of whether or not this is a "Christian" nation, it's a nation which put at it's foundation the idea that there is a God, and he is the one who granted our rights, and those rights can't be abridged by man. Even with a Constitutional amendment making it crystal clear that you can't make a law which would limit someone from expressing their religious beliefs (and none protecting people from exposure from them), we still have nonsensical arguments that somehow the government can stop you at ANY time from doing what it seems clear they specifically sought to protect and promote.

Does not compute....

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Archbishop of Canterbury included.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

Dude, I don't care. I take no notice of men.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Dude, I don't care. I take no notice of men.

Is Jesus man or G*d?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Is Jesus man or G*d?

Oh dear - not the Catholics not daring to write the word "God" now too? That'll fool Him, for sure - starring out a character.

The answer: Both.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Oh dear - not the Catholics not daring to write the word "God" now too? That'll fool Him, for sure - starring out a character.

The answer: Both.

Just being respectful to our Jewish brethren.

How do you distinguish the words spoken by Jesus the man and ignore those since they are the words of a man?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How do you distinguish the words spoken by Jesus the man and ignore those since they are the words of a man?

What a pointless question and ridiculous proposition.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't take notice of the words of Paul. Only the words in red.
I'm Christian, not Paulian.

So you consider non-Jews to be as dogs, then? Only worthy, at most, of table scraps?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I explained how they where different. You can play semantic games if you want. Like I said, this is a side issue for another debate.

Regardless of whether or not this is a "Christian" nation, it's a nation which put at it's foundation the idea that there is a God, and he is the one who granted our rights, and those rights can't be abridged by man. Even with a Constitutional amendment making it crystal clear that you can't make a law which would limit someone from expressing their religious beliefs (and none protecting people from exposure from them), we still have nonsensical arguments that somehow the government can stop you at ANY time from doing what it seems clear they specifically sought to protect and promote.

Does not compute....

I'm really not the one playing semantic games here. You're trying to argue that the foundations of something are not the same as what it's founded on. Sure, if we want to ignore the meanings of words we can say anything we want and have it be true, but there's not a whole lot of point in doing that.

The only thing I'm arguing that the government can or should have the right to stop in this case is intrusion of religion into official government actions. A high school graduation, strange as it seems, if it happens in a public school, is an official government ceremony. The people leading the ceremony are acting as agents of the government in one capacity or another. This does not mean that there can't be personal statements of a religious nature, but it certainly means that the leader of the ceremony cannot lead the entire audience in prayer.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

So you consider non-Jews to be as dogs, then? Only worthy, at most, of table scraps?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm really not the one playing semantic games here. You're trying to argue that the foundations of something are not the same as what it's founded on. Sure, if we want to ignore the meanings of words we can say anything we want and have it be true, but there's not a whole lot of point in doing that.

The only thing I'm arguing that the government can or should have the right to stop in this case is intrusion of religion into official government actions. A high school graduation, strange as it seems, if it happens in a public school, is an official government ceremony. The people leading the ceremony are acting as agents of the government in one capacity or another. This does not mean that there can't be personal statements of a religious nature, but it certainly means that the leader of the ceremony cannot lead the entire audience in prayer.

Here's my question: Are these people unfamiliar with the concept of a baccalaureate? I know my high school had one an hour preceding the graduation ceremony. All the religiousness you can handle!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Jesus' own words: Matt 15:21 & Mark 7:24. He makes it quite clear that he considers non-Jews to be inferior and that his purpose is to benefit the children of Israel. It is only by agreeing with his assessment of her as no better than a dog and by pointing out that dogs get table scraps that the gentile woman is able to convince Jesus that he should heal her daughter.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's my question: Are these people unfamiliar with the concept of a baccalaureate? I know my high school had one an hour preceding the graduation ceremony. All the religiousness you can handle!

The thing is: they don't want to separate their religion from the graduation ceremony. They're opposed to a secular government not only in action, but in principle.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The thing is: they don't want to separate their religion from the graduation ceremony. They're opposed to a secular government not only in action, but in principle.

Assuming that's true, then yes, those people are being tremendous dicks then. But I don't put sheer ignorance past society.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Is Jesus man or G*d?

Just out of curiosity, didn't the use of the name "God" come about so as to not utter the name "Yahweh"? Will we eventually reach the point where "G-d" becomes synonymous with "God" and you're forced to start typing "G--"?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Jesus' own words: Matt 15:21 & Mark 7:24. He makes it quite clear that he considers non-Jews to be inferior and that his purpose is to benefit the children of Israel. It is only by agreeing with his assessment of her as no better than a dog and by pointing out that dogs get table scraps that the gentile woman is able to convince Jesus that he should heal her daughter.

What's going on there is as follows:
1) "I'm only for the Jews!".
2) "No you're not, you're for everyone!".
3) "Good girl - you know where it's at".

[besson3c]

Do you guys know any women that have a hard time with the parts of Christianity that some would say pretty sexist, such as the whole head of the house sort of thing, the father giving away the bride, etc.?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you guys know any women that have a hard time with the parts of Christianity that some would say pretty sexist, such as the whole head of the house sort of thing, the father giving away the bride, etc.?

Nope, don't know any ugly fat feminists.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What's going on there is as follows:
1) "I'm only for the Jews!".
2) "No you're not, you're for everyone!".
3) "Good girl - you know where it's at".

Sure, that's one interpretation.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Sure, that's one interpretation.

I'm guessing you're Jewish? I've only ever seen this passage used in arguments by Judaics.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Just out of curiosity, didn't the use of the name "God" come about so as to not utter the name "Yahweh"? Will we eventually reach the point where "G-d" becomes synonymous with "God" and you're forced to start typing "G--"?

I've had friends that were not allowed "Oh gosh" growing up because it's too close to "Oh god".

Crazy will do what it does.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I've had friends that were not allowed "Oh gosh" growing up because it's too close to "Oh god".

Crazy will do what it does.

It is quite close. They should use "oh shit" instead.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Nope, don't know any ugly fat feminists.

Well, I guess if a woman were to want to hang around with you they'd have to be pretty dumb

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It is quite close. They should use "oh shit" instead.

Gosh ≠ God. Gosh is a made up word. Only a crazy person would believe that counts as taking the Lord's name in vain.

You might as well punish kids for saying "aww shucks" because they're really saying "aww shit".

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm guessing you're Jewish? I've only ever seen this passage used in arguments by Judaics.

Indeed I am.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Gosh ≠ God. Gosh is a made up word. Only a crazy person would believe that counts as taking the Lord's name in vain.

You might as well punish kids for saying "aww shucks" because they're really saying "aww shit".

You should punish them anyway, just to be on the safe side.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I understand that they are two different documents. I however can't find where the founders rescinded or changed the standard that God gave us these rights - the rights that the Constitution later enumerates.

You need to read more history. There was no need to "rescind" or "change" that because, again, they serve completely different functions. The DOI was an assertion of grievances and call to action that refers to basic, universal rights in order to explain the decision to absolve from "all Allegiance to the British Crown." That's it. It's a "negative" statement, not a "positive" statement about how their independent states should be run. Remember that the Revolution began not as an independence movement, but as a demand for equal treatment as British subjects. The universal argument that the Declaration puts forth was needed in 1776 because at that point, even if the British government had offered the colonies some sort of guarantee and enforcement of all of the rights of British subjects, things had gone far enough that the people involved in the revolt would not have been satisfied. As the DOI states, the "long train of abuses and usurpations" had convinced them of the "absolute Tyranny" of the "present King of Great Britain" (emphasis mine). In other words, the protections of a British subject were no longer enough, in their view. So by necessity, they are making a justification outside of the context of British rule of law, seeking to explain their reasoning to international observers and to their fellow, more loyalist members of the colonies as much as to the Crown.

By contrast, the Constitution (and specifically, the Bill of Rights), is an actual governing document that delineates specific, non-universal rights (i.e., not necessarily applicable outside the U.S.) requested by elements within states as a condition for joining the Union in order to ensure more satisfactory rule of law. Or as the preamble to the BoR states, "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.") As indicated in the preamble to the Constitution, this rule of law stems from the people of the United States, not God.

The DoI is not meant to be read as the preamble to the Constitution (the Constitution has its own preamble, which begins, "We the People of the United States," and not "We the People of the United States, and God,"). By codifying rights in U.S. law, the Constitution essentially "solves" the problem that the DOI was actually objecting to: being a U.S. citizen is now "enough." The root origins of these rights is irrelevant, in terms of governance.

If you continue to think that the Declaration of Independence is "U.S. government policy" as you stated later in this thread, you are being willfully ignorant. The DOI is not policy. Period. The U.S. government did not exist when it was crafted, and very little thought had been given at all to what the USG might eventually look like. The Constitution makes as a part of law many of the philosophical positions that are in the Declaration, but its justification is the will of the people, not God. The distinction may be moot to you. But, of course, to borrow your phrase, "there's no requirement that you personally believe the official standard of the U.S. Government." This distinction is official and it is at the heart of these kinds of court cases.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't take notice of the words of Paul. Only the words in red.
I'm Christian, not Paulian.

Have to agree here, the Gospels are where it's at, after that it's mere commentary and opinion.

Got to agree about praying in public too, but that wasn't my point. They shouldn't be praying, but I believe they still have a right to do it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They shouldn't be praying, but I believe they still have a right to do it.

Concur.

It'd be better if everyone involved (the school, the parents, the kids) all just chilled out. It's just a bleedin' graduation.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Gosh ≠ God. Gosh is a made up word. Only a crazy person would believe that counts as taking the Lord's name in vain.

You might as well punish kids for saying "aww shucks" because they're really saying "aww shit".

Ultimately, *all* words are "made up words". "Gosh" is clearly intended as a substitute for "God" in that context. If the *intent* is the same, does it really matter if the *word* is different? What if one were to use the word "Gott"? Or "shiza" instead of "shit"? (my mom always said "shiza", thinking that saying "shit" in German didn't count as swearing).

What's more, it may not even be possible to take God's name in vain.
http://www.yhwh.com/gingn/gingn.htm

[subego]

As an aside, this is what bothers me about the euphemism "the N-word".

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What's more, it may not even be possible to take God's name in vain.

Actually, it is possible, but it's tougher than you'd think and involves practices that 99.99% of people aren't aware of.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I've had friends that were not allowed "Oh gosh" growing up because it's too close to "Oh god".

Crazy will do what it does.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Gosh ≠ God. Gosh is a made up word. Only a crazy person would believe that counts as taking the Lord's name in vain.

You might as well punish kids for saying "aww shucks" because they're really saying "aww shit".

Technically it is a euphemism and in that context is taking the Lord's name in vain (using God's name uselessly).

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Actually, it is possible, but it's tougher than you'd think and involves practices that 99.99% of people aren't aware of.

Could you explain this a bit more? I was lead to believe that using God's name in an irreverent manner, or in a way that it used uselessly, means it was used in vain.

Or this example: I failed at learning to play the guitar, all of my efforts were in vain (wasted).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Could you explain this a bit more? I was lead to believe that using God's name in an irreverent manner, or in a way that it used uselessly, means it was used in vain.

Or this example: I failed at learning to play the guitar, all of my efforts were in vain (wasted).

God's name isn't "God".

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

God's name isn't "God".

Do we actually know God's name?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Do we actually know God's name?

As I understand it, we can not know God's actual name, making it rather tricky to "take his name in vain", unless you consider *intent*, in which case "Gosh", "G-d" and "Gott" all count.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Technically it is a euphemism and in that context is taking the Lord's name in vain (using God's name uselessly).

Leave it to Railroader to enshrine the ridiculous as a religious taboo.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Calling someone's definitions "stupid" would be better if you'd not started with "that's is".

That's right, intelligent and reasonable people never, ever make little grammatical errors, so when one is made it means the entire statement is without merit. Way to go for the low-hanging fruit instead of addressing my statement.

Does it bother you that there's Christians out there who don't fit into your little pre-defined definitions and may be a little harder to pin down when arguing with them using your pre-set methods?

No. And pinning you down is pretty easy, as I've stomped on your pseudoChristianity without much difficulty here and elsewhere.

For your information, I'm not making up definitions of Christianity. If your beliefs match the Apostle's Creed, you're a Christian. If they don't, you aren't. That's why Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are classed as nonChristian by everyone except themselves, and most Unitarians and Universalists usually admit that they aren't Christians.

You read all the history, all the documents, all the Paul... ...and you're atheist.
I don't read all the history, all the documents, all the Paul... ...and I'm not atheist.

Strange how that works out.

Actually, there's nothing strange here, since there are many Christians who take the entire NT seriously, whether they think it's reliable as a whole or not.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you guys know any women that have a hard time with the parts of Christianity that some would say pretty sexist, such as the whole head of the house sort of thing, the father giving away the bride, etc.?

My Mom. I've tried to help her understand that when you strip away the non-authentic letters and the interpolations, we learn that the real Paul was a radical sexual egalitarian (theologically speaking) who thought the coming of Christ wiped away all arbitrary social inequalities. He acknowledged the existence of female leaders in the church, including deacons, prophets, and the female Apostle Junia. This belief in equality may not have begun with him, as he quotes an Aramaic hymn in Galatians, which goes:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The fact that this hymn was Aramaic, not Greek, indicates that it was older than Paul's ministry, and might even go back to Jesus himself. Thus, here is an excellent example that understanding the real Paul helps us understand the real Jesus.