I've noticed you adhere consistently to the angle that Paul, when stating "I", was referring to quotes of those he disagreed with. I would like to know the foundation of that idea. What is your basis, other than wild speculation, for stating so?
Brother Apostate,
I discovered this after listening to the New Testament on tape over and over again for more than a year in the 70's. This is how I learned the truth about the so called Governing Body the WT proclaimed so proudly. This is how I learned about the struggle the Faith was enduring for over 40 years and the failures of its leadership and many other things of interest. Usually I would listen while going back and forth to work. This seemed to be a good use of the time. It was much later that I noticed in some bible notes that others (scholars) realized at least some of this in that Paul was responding to their letter but they failed to carry through to the rest of 1Cor with this observation. Paul’s letters were actually a dialog at times much like a thread here on JWD where he quotes or refers to their views and uses them to cancel out or refute such views. 1 Cor chapter 15 is critical in this regard as he refers to their doctrines like astrology (celestial bodies) for instance and redirects such wrong teachers in Corinth to the truth. These are some of the references found on 1 Cor chapter 8.
Jamieson, Fausset Brown Commentary
. Though to those knowing that an idol has no existence, the question of eating meats offered to idols (referred to in the letter of the Corinthians, compare #1Co 7:1) might seem unimportant, it is not so with some, and the infirmities of such should be respected. The portions of the victims not offered on the altars belonged partly to the priests, partly to the offerers; and were eaten at feasts in the temples and in private houses and were often sold in the markets; so that Christians were constantly exposed to the temptation of receiving them, which was forbidden (#Nu 25:2 Ps 106:28). The apostles forbade it in their decree issued from Jerusalem (#Ac 15:1-29 21:25); but Paul does not allude here to that decree, as he rests his precepts rather on his own independent apostolic authority.we know that we all have knowledge—The Corinthians doubtless had referred to their "knowledge" (namely, of the indifference of meats, as in themselves having no sanctity or pollution). Paul replies, "We are aware that we all have [speaking generally, and so far as Christian theory goes; for in #1Co 8:7 he speaks of some who practically have not] this knowledge."
Knowledge puffeth up—when without "love." Here a parenthesis begins; and the main subject is resumed in the same words, #1Co 8:4. "As concerning [touching] therefore the eating, " etc. "Puffing up" is to please self. "Edifying" is to please one’s neighbor; Knowledge only says, All things are lawful for me; Love adds, But all things do not edify [BENGEL], (#1Co 10:23 Ro 14:15).
edifieth—tends to build up the spiritual temple (#1Co 3:9 6:19)
Peoples new testament:
#1Co 8:1-3 The Duty of the Strong Toward Weaker BrethrenSUMMARY OF I CORINTHIANS 8: Meat Offered in Idol Temples. Not Changed Because So Offered. But Not to Be Eaten Because of Weaker Brethren. Those Having Knowledge Must Act in Love.
As touching things offered unto idols. Corinth, like all Greek cities, was full of temples to heathen idols. At their altars victims were constantly sacrificed, the flesh of which was afterwards eaten. The question arose whether a Christian could eat of such flesh without the sin of showing deference to an idol. Perhaps the letter to Paul (#1Co 7:1) had asked about this matter.
We all have knowledge. Some pleaded their knowledge that "an idol was nothing" [#1Co 8:4], not divine in any sense. Paul tells them that the question is one, not of knowledge, but of charity.
Knowledge puffeth up. Those who professed to be knowing ones put on an air of superiority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I could actually see contexually into the text and the abrupt kick in the guts type answers that Paul sometimes used to correct them now stood out. Like the single Greek letter "What" 1 Cor 14:36. What a dressing down he gave and quick. And transitional phrases stood out so you knew who was talking and why. Then there were verses like this; 1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. This and the material on women along with the personal pronoun "I" was a direct quote from their letter this time. It sounds great and the WT supports it. But reading a bit further we learn that Paul does not. It was Corinthian doctine that structured the Faith serially to suppress women as Jews tended to do. What did Paul do? He corrected them and argued this point like this: 1 Cor 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Of course. So I wrote up a little article on Women Equal in the Faith and put it in my supplement called: Beyond Watchtower Doctrine found on my web page. It downloads with the book. It was still a bit crude but some later copied it word for word and used it, later improving it as they grasped the subject. I did not bother to improve it myself as it only needed to stimulate thinking and it did that for them. Since then I have seen some fine articles originated by others about women and that was good enough.
Joseph