In reference to your comment about Scripture being without error, that is in reference to original Scriptures only. We have copies and no person on this earth has an original copy. As a result, errors did/do occur both in the OT and NT because of translation issues and interpolations, to name a couple.
Yes, it is only the original manuscripts that are without error but, the translational differences that exist are easily determined because we still have an abundant collection of reliable manuscripts in the original language. Translational errors are easily found and easily corrected.
All translations without exception have issues with translational errors. This is due to a number of reasons. Sometimes these variations reflect the bias of the translators, whether it is a translational comity or an individual as in the case of the Phillips translation or the Moffit translation or the Berkley translation or the McCord translation, etc. Sometimes it is due to the fact that there are some words in the Hebrew or the Greek languages that simply do not have an English equivalent. In such cases, the only thing that the translators can do is try to convey the meaning that the original word expresses. This can sometimes be subject to personal bias. Still, other times these variations are the result of differences between the ancient manuscripts themselves. These differences are the result of a number of possibilities such as fatigue, misspelling, poor lighting, line confusion or just simple carelessness on the part of the scribe who was copying the document. There are lots of reasons why the variants appear. Most linguistic scholars try very hard to uphold the integrity of the original languages. Oddly enough, this is especially true of those scholars who are nonbelievers. The reason is, they have no religious agendas nor any religious ax to grind. The only thing they care about is their reputation as a linguistic scholar. Therefore they are more concerned about getting it right than about defending any particular religious doctrine.
You also mentioned that "Paul wrote scripture on the same pare with all other scripture" but you are failing to consider to issues.....First and again, is it the original documents that are without error, not the copies and two,
The variants that exist among the ancient manuscripts are by and large of very little consequence. Most of the variants amount to nothing more than a misspelled word. There are very few variations that have any significant impact upon the meaning of a text.
many of his writings are questionable if he wrote them
All of the letter that are attributed to Paul with the exception of the book of Hebrews are accepted as Pauline by the vast majority of biblical scholarship and for very good reasons. Many of those who call into question Pauline authorship have no regard for the Bible as the word of God in the first place. Many of these a nothing more that secular scholars who view the Bible as nothing more that a piece of literary history. Quite frankly, what
these "scholars" think of scripture is of no importance to me.
What he wrote doesn't agree with my understanding of ethics or Christianity.
What you are doing is using your own understand of ethics and Christianity as the standard by which you judges scripture. If scripture does not agree with your flawed episomology, you simply find some way to call into question the integrity of the scripture to discredit it. This is what you are doing with the writings of Paul. You have set your own understanding up as the metric for determining truth.
Furthermore, it contradicts the actions carried out by some of the women in the Bible, particularly the NT. For example, if Mary Magdalene did what she was supposed to do as a woman and according to the OT, she wouldn't have followed Jesus in His ministry but she did! Women, according to Jewish customs, were not allowed to speak to men in public, never mind follow them.
This is just complete nonsense. Jesus never bound himself to Pharisaic tradition nor did he hold other accountable to it. If you know anything about the ministry of Jesus, you should know that he routinely challenged Pharisaic traditions. Mary Magdalene was certainly not the only woman who openly and publicly followed Jesus. What makes you think that the fact that these women who followed Jesus is in any way in contrast to the prohibition of women's conduct in the assembly that Paul addresses in his epistles. There is absolutely not symmetry between the two examples.
Church officials discredited Mary Magdalene by calling her a prostitute when there wasn't any proof and these are the same leaders that I'm supposed to turn to for guidance?
Yes, there is no evidence to suggest she was a prostitute. Scripture only calls her a sinner. I really do not care what may have been behind the motives of the "leaders" who labeled her so. They mean nothing to me.
She also stayed with Jesus at the cross when all the other disciples left with the exception of John. She witnessed to Jesus rising from the dead when a woman's testimony wasn't even considered valid at the time. She witnessed and TOLD people. Paul states that women need to be quiet and submissive! Matthew 28: 5-8...."But the angel answered and said the THE WOMEN, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord Lay. And GO QUICKLY AND TELL HIS DISCIPLES THAT HE IS RISEN FROM THE DEAD, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you". Maybe you don't understand, OldHermit.
Again, what makes you think that the fact that telling the apostles of the resurrection of Jesus is in any way in contrast to the prohibition of women's conduct i
n the assembly that Paul addresses in his epistles.