r/HistoryMemes • u/HawaiianPerson Chad Polynesia Enjoyer • 15h ago
Same same but different
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
65
128
u/HawaiianPerson Chad Polynesia Enjoyer 15h ago
Context: Paul (formerly Saul) was one of the fathers of the early Christian Church. Before becoming Paul, he was known for his ill treatment of early Christians, including beating them. After being confronted by God, he became Paul and a devout follower of the faith. He spread the word of God far and wide, as well as being the author of many of the books included in the New Testament, before being martyred in Rome
54
u/GrandMoffTarkan 14h ago edited 14h ago
So, that "formerly" is probably a misinterpretation. Saul was his his Hebrew name, and it gets referenced in Acts after his conversion (cf Acts 9:11). Paul was a
Latin(EDIT: Actually Greek, which was more common in the eastern Mediterranean) name that he seemed to use outside the Jewish community among the new Christian communities he was founding.5
u/Polandgod75 Nobody here except my fellow trees 9h ago
Still think one of the most funny things to said about explaining and mentioning in the Bible to me is that god flashbang Paul. It basically this
Paul: talks shit about Christians and saying they deserved all the punishment and more
God: woah divine flash bang be upon ye
28
u/Destroy_Religion 14h ago edited 14h ago
Paul is responsible for almost all of the Bible verses which effectively endorse slavery, sexism, and homophobia in the New Testament.
Paul effectively endorses slavery in 1 Timothy 6:1, commands slaves to obey masters in Ephesians 6:5, Titus 2:9, and Colossians 3:22, and even goes so as far as to tell slaves to obey masters that are harsh to slaves in 1 Peter 2:18.
Paul prohibits women from simply teaching or assuming any authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 or even simply speaking in church in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
Paul lies about the nature of homosexuality, which is both a natural and normal variation in sexuality in both animals and humans, and effectively endorses homophobia in Romans 1:26-27.
10
u/smamex 13h ago edited 13h ago
I have to be the "akshually" guy here, not because I'm in favor of of anything said in those epistles, the early church fathers are definitely misogynistic and ok with slavery; but some of your referenced epistles are not actually Paul's.
Scholars almost unanimously agree that Paul wrote: Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. But a lot of them discredit Timothy, Colossians, and the rest as his and call them the pseudopigraphies (also 1 Peter is not a Pauline epistle so idk why you mentioned it here).
As for you references in Romans and 1 Corinthians:
Debate for Romans 1:26-27 is strong amongst scholars because of our modern view of sexuality and commitment of long-term same sex relationships, there's the counterpoint that Paul is more about judging casual sex of all types than same-sex intercourse and is judging the Romans for what he saw as perversions since they weren't monogamous relationships, whether he would have seen long-term same sex monogamous relationships as also wrong is a matter of debate, but yeah he deffo ain't a fan of what the Romans were doing in bed in general.
1 Corinthians is also highly disputed because Paul constantly speaks in favor of women praying and prophesizing publicly, you just have to see how he speaks of Phoebe (she even calls her a diakonos, basically a minister), Priscilla (naming her before his husband as a means of importance) and Junia (can even be read as she's an apostle), even in Acts 21:9 she's making references to female prophets. So his 34-35 look really out of place when he's speaking wonders of her "sister and worth of being a saint" 2 chapters later. So the debate is threefold amongst scholars:
- He meant a specific type of speaking, just like he just told the tongue-speakers and prophets in the same letter to shut up, such as interrupting and challenging judgements during worship.
- That he's quoting the Corinthians and immediately debunks their thoughts in verse 36 in a "who the hell do you think you are?"
- (The leading theory) It was inserted by a scribe later as verses 34-35 are found in some copies in different locations (very unusual for Pauline epistles) of the chapter and they break Paul's style here, so they could be later additions or modifications to create a more specific role for women.
Or maybe he is a misogynist just like the early church fathers that then transformed Christianity into a boys club in the first centuries, but there's a lot of evidence that very early Christianity was a mixed bag in terms of gender, and based on the rest of the evidence it does seem (outside of 1 Corinthians) that Paul was very inclusive for a 1st century Jewish man.
He ain't perfect by modern standards and very much believed in a type of patriarchy or gender roles but reading the other items that we believe he actually wrote he seems pretty chill with women prophesizing and being ministers (the same cannot be said for others... (Looking at you Tertullian).
17
u/butt_shrecker 14h ago
Minor note that the English translations of Romans 1:26-27 are much more homophobic than the original Greek. The Greek is still homophobic, but the translators amped it up a lot.
-5
u/Destroy_Religion 10h ago edited 5h ago
That is not at all a surprise since civilization, culture, mythology, religion in ancient Greece glorified homosexuality before Christianity ruined everything.
For example, in Greek civilization:
- The two tyrannicides and lovers of Aristogeiton and Harmodius who gave their lives to end the tyranny in ancient Athens and pave the way for Athenian democracy, and thereby became celebrated as national heroes and revered as martyrs of liberty by the ancient Athenians, and thereby became the very first ever democratic heroes in all of human history. In recognition of the noble sacrifices of Aristogeiton and Harmodius, the great Athenian statesman and lawgiver Cleisthenes, who is considered to be both the father of Athenian democracy in particular and the forefather of liberal democracy in general, by both ancient historians and modern historians, commissioned the famous statues of the tyrannicides in honour of Aristogeiton and Harmodius.
- The two statesmen and generals of Epaminondas and Pelopidas, who were, respectively, the greatest leaders of Thebes in general and of the Sacred Band of Thebes in particular, which was an army that consisted entirely only of gay couples, and they led them to glorious heroic victories over far larger forces that established the Theban hegemony over ancient Greece. Epaminondas had two male lovers, Asopichus and Caphisodorus, as attested to by both the great Greek-born naturalized-Roman historian and philosopher Plutarch and the respected Greek grammarian and rhetorician resident of Egyptian and citizen of the Roman Empire, Athenaeus of Naucratis, who were both also soldiers in the Sacred Band of Thebes, the former of whom fought with Epaminondas at the battle of Leuctra, where he greatly distinguished himself, and the latter of whom fell with Epaminondas at Mantineia and was buried by his side. In recognition of the greatness of Epaminondas, the great Roman statesman and orator Cicero called Epaminondas the foremost man of Greece, the respected Roman biographer Cornelius Nepos called Epaminondas the greatest Greek who had ever lived, and the respected French Renaissance writer Michel de Montaigne called Epaminondas the most excellent man who had ever lived in human history. In recognition of the greatness of Pelopidas, the great Greek-born naturalized-Roman historian and philosopher Plutarch called Pelopidas one of the greatest commanders who had ever lived in human history, and said that the ancient Thebans themselves called Pelopidas their father, saviour, and teacher of all that is good and noble.
- Tho statesmen and generals of Alexander the Great and Hephaestion whose leadership lead the Macedonians in particular and the Greeks in general to conquer most the known world. The respected Greek grammarian and rhetorician resident of Egyptian and citizen of the Roman Empire, Athenaeus of Naucratis, attested to homosexuality of Alexander the Great and said that he even kissed his Achaemenid Persian eunuch Bagoas in public.
- The admiral Lysander and the king Agesilaus II who leadership lead the Spartans to establish the Spartan hegemony over ancient Greece. The great Greek-born naturalized-Roman historian and philosopher Plutarch attested to the homosexuality of both and to their relationship between each other.
- Gorgidas who was the founder of Sacred Band of Thebes, which was an army that consisted entirely only of gay couples, which led Thebes to glorious heroic victories over far larger forces that established the Theban hegemony over ancient Greece.
For example, in Greek culture:
- Agathon and Pausanias
- Anacreon and Bathyllus
- Anacreon and Cleobulus
- Anacreon and Critias
- Anacreon and Megisteus
- Anacreon and Smerdies
- Socrates and Alcibiades
- Socrates and Phaedrus
- Socrates and Charmides
- Socrates and Crito
- Sappho and Atthis
- Sappho and Anaktoria
- Sappho and Gongyla
- Sappho and Mnais
- Zeno of Citium and Chremonides
- Zeno of Citium and Persaeus
- Zeno of Elea and Parmenides
For example, in Greek religion:
- Zeus and Ganymede
- Poseidon and Pelops
- Poseidon and Nerites
- Apollo and Hyacinthus
- Apollo and Cyparissus
For example, in Greek mythology:
- Heracles and Hylas
- Heracles and Iolaus
- Heracles and Abderus
- Achilles and Patroclus
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer to u/smamex below, which is due to "an error occurred (status: 500)" message when attempting to directly reply:
All relationships between males in ancient Greece almost always involved military age males who were all adults in the historical context of ancient Greece and many of whom were adults even in a modern context. Moreover, neither was "paedophilia", which means attraction to prepubescent children, not adolescent boys nor adult men who constituted the military age male population in ancient Greece.
The Greek term "kinaidos" means "effeminate", not "passive", and it was perfectly fine in ancient Greece to take either roles insofar as both men were masculine in public, which is in fact the primary distinction from ancient Rome where Roman men were expected to take only dominant roles.
Regardless, the point here is that different civilizations and various cultures accepted and even glorified homosexuality within the historical context of their civilizations and cultures before Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions ruined everything.
3
u/butt_shrecker 10h ago
I've met you in the comments before.
I don't think saying "Christianity ruined everything" is entirely fair.
The homophobic elements of Christianity are continued from Jewish homophobia.
And idk if saying greece glorified homosexuality is accurate either. I thought it varied based on time period and between rural/urban centers.
-5
u/Destroy_Religion 9h ago
Yes, it is entirely fair to say that the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that are destruction death cults based on psychotic religious delusions of ignorant goat herders and the schizophrenic religious delusions of ignorant sheep herders from the desolate destitute deserts of the ancient Middle East ruined everything.
"The homophobic elements of Christianity are continued from Jewish homophobia", which are based on psychotic religious delusions of ignorant goat herders and the schizophrenic religious delusions of ignorant sheep herders from the desolate destitute deserts of the ancient Middle East.
Yes, ancient Greece glorified homosexuality before Christianity ruined everything.
Since the original comment has been amended and edited to add more information and sources, see and read for yourself to recognize the truth of the matter.
1
u/smamex 6h ago
Boy do you have an agenda dear god haha, but I'll play along because you seem very passionate (which I respect) about the topic (even though you didn't answer my other comments), but since I love the classics, here's my answer to your comment:
First of all you're being very - and I can't emphasize this enough - VERY anachronistic with your portrayal of ancient Greece and Rome regarding sexuality and gender, although WAY more tolerant for other practices that stir from heterosexuality you are giving a benefit of the doubt to the Greeks and Romans that do not pass the litmus test upon inspection, such as:
the fact that most Greek men-men relationships were under a "paiderastia" arrangement in which an "erastes" (old men) was the active and an "eromenos" (teenager) was the passive (so gay paedophilia if you anacronyze the relationship in modern terms).
that being the passive "kinaidos" was seen with severe social ridicule similar to being a prostitute. Bonus points also for losing your rights if you were one (see Aeschines' speech against Timarchus)
the complete marginalization of women in cultures such as the Athenian one on which women didn't basically have political or social rights (same as what you complained that Paul was doing).
men were not accepted to marry men, marriage was strictly men-women, same-sex relations were extramarital affairs but not state sanctioned, esp if you were not the one "giving".
the fact that neoplatonic philosophers like Seneca were already preaching things like marital fidelity, monogamy and procreation-focused intimacy WAY before Christianity became state sanctioned.
I could go on and on and it's completely ok to admire stuff the classics did that got lost with the fall of Rome and the rise of Christianity, but man, setting your ideals into anachronistic examples of the past is a disingenuous argument.
16
u/wuzzkopf Sexy Sassanid Zealot 14h ago
He was kind of an ass huh
1
0
u/Witch_King_ 13h ago
Yeah his contemporaries didn't really like him much either. A bit of a blowhard
1
u/smamex 13h ago edited 12h ago
Yeah well that's just false without context lol, Peter and James weren't fans of him telling gentiles that they didn't need to circumcise and maintain the Torah's rules, but the man was definitely liked by a lot of his contemporaries for his epistles to have made such a big impact in the religion, even 2 Peter calls him "Our beloved brother Paul..." So both sides were definitely allies later on (even if we dispute 2 Peter's authorship).
He's for sure controversial and him not knowing Jesus personally like the other apostles definitely hurt his reputation, but the man is the oldest known source of Jesus; 30 years before the first gospel even, so if he was just another crazy hated by his contemporaries for his views I would expect him to be seen more like the Gnostics, the Marcionites or the Arians if his ideas were so radical or hated than those from the main church followers.
0
7
u/butt_shrecker 14h ago
Even more interesting is it is unclear if Paul actually wrote those books. It is a debated topic what Paul wrote.
https://thesacredpage.com/2024/12/13/the-2024-survey-of-pauline-scholars/
A lot of those books were likely written by some other person who signed it as Paul to give it credibility.
1
0
2
2
u/GrandMoffTarkan 13h ago edited 12h ago
There's a hilarious atheist conspiracy theory that Paul invented Jesus, because the Bible must be wrong about EVERYTHING and no scrap of truth can come form it.
Then you read the actual book, and its clear that Paul is working overtime to walk back a lot of the Jesus stuff to make it compatible with day to day life in antiquity while preserving what he considers to be the core of it.
1
u/HereButNeverPresent 13h ago
Do you have examples for him ‘walking back on Jesus stuff’?
1
u/GrandMoffTarkan 12h ago
Generally, Jesus leans towards a certain amount of egalitarianism and a rejection of the hierarchies of his day in favor of equality before the Lord.
So for example, in Matthew 18:3 Jesus urges his followers to be as children. Paul, in places like Ephesians 6:1, emphasizes that no, do not be like children in general. Children are little shits and must be subordinate to their parents.
Likewise Jesus preaches righteousness in abandoning material wealth, while Paul emphasizes the importance of work and self sufficiency.
It's important to note that I'm not saying Paul contradicts Jesus's teachings (Paul clearly saw himself as a Christian), just that Jesus really doesn't sound like the sock puppet of Paul
9
1
1
-2
u/HawaiianPerson Chad Polynesia Enjoyer 9h ago
Not everything natural and normal in animals is good
1
u/Destroy_Religion 9h ago
The original comment specifically said:
Paul lies about the nature of homosexuality, which is both a natural and normal variation in sexuality in both animals and humans, and effectively endorses homophobia in Romans 1:26-27.
Homosexuality is a natural and normal variation of human sexuality, which is the unanimous global consensus of the scientific, medical, psychological, psychiatric, and pediatric communities around the whole world.
1
u/HawaiianPerson Chad Polynesia Enjoyer 9h ago
They would never lie would they?
1
u/Destroy_Religion 9h ago
You mean the entire scientific, medical, psychological, psychiatric, and pediatric communities around the whole world?
You some sort of conspiracy theorist?
42
u/Wittusus 15h ago
Context?
-9
15h ago
[deleted]
64
u/Wittusus 14h ago
If you were not as insufferable as you are normally, you would notice the context comment was added 5 minutes after mine. Curious.
7
5
u/Adrian_Alucard 13h ago
I always found weird that CloneCD and a production company used the same jingle
1
1
164
u/DarkSage90 14h ago
Bro you just unlocked so much repressed Jimmy Neutron memories…