by lovelylil 44 Replies latest watchtower bible
Since the NT is primarily a "book" of faith for Christians, we do not need outsiders to interpret it for us.
Lol, I agree with the "for us" part.
But since most of the "outsiders" are at least culturally post-Christian, the N.T. being part of their inheritance as well, and having shaped the world into which they were born, you can't forbid them to interpret it "for them". Nor can you forbid that the resulting interpretations meet in sometimes annoying, sometimes fruitful dialogue...
Narkissos,
LOL, you are right my friend. I was not forbidding, merely suggesting? Anyway, nice "talking" with you my friend. I appreciate your candor and responses. Lilly
Hi Lilly,
I'm with you, but realize that in this forum are those who think Paul's revelation on the road to Damascus was a hallucination experienced during an epileptic seizure, or from a concussion received when he was thrown from his horse on the way to Damascus. Others have said his conversion came about because of intense guilt he felt from participating in the stoning of Stephen and persecuting Christians. Also, much of what has been traditionally attributed to Paul in the NT has been called into question. Then there are those who question whether Paul even existed at all as a historical person, as has been done with Peter and even Jesus.
Perhaps the most significant statement Paul makes about his teaching is found in Galatians 1:11-12—
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
When he said it was not something made up by man, he would be including himself. Whatever his background, however he was influenced by the culture, his claim means he did not formulate the gospel himself, or from the teachings of others. We could suggest that his education, training, and cultural background may have made him better-prepared for going out into the Roman Empire than even the Apostles who had stayed with Jesus around Jerusalem.
While the teachings and emphasis of Paul may seem different than the Gospels, all the writings seek to promote faith in Jesus as the Chosen Messiah and Son of God to whom we must ultimately give account. While Paul relies on the resurrection and work of the Holy Spirit in the church as testimony, the Gospels make use of details in the earthly life of Jesus.
hmike,
Correct! Thank you for that information. Lilly
Paul had no idea of these things or he would have used them to his (and the churches) advantage to increase the number of believers.
How do you know he didn't? All we have are a few writings.
Didn't Paul say that he never let an opportunity go by where he didn't preach? I'd say that he let several get by him by not mentioning Jesus' teachings and miracles.
Well, strictly speaking, outside of Acts we don't have much info on Paul's preaching. We do have a few extant letters however. Remember also, that Paul was not a disciple during Jesus' own life, so he did not witness the things Jesus did.
Anyway, I don't want to argue as there's no way of knowing either way for sure , we just have what we individually believe. I just wanted to express my opinion
I get your point Kwin, even if I don't necessarily agree. :-)
For many things Paul had to rely on the testimony of others.
1 Cor. 15:3-7
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter,and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Burn
Jesus picked Paul to be his 12th apostle because? Because the other 11 apostles were not doing their jobs
I'm no bible scholar, but I have a couple problems with this.
You are right. Paul is not understood because of his unique postion in the Faith. Jesus picked Paul to be his 12th apostle because? Because the other 11 apostles were not doing their jobs and could not be depended upon to put a stop to the apostasy taking place right before their eyes.
#1 Paul was not the 12th as MissingLink pointed out.
#2 The apostles weren't doing their jobs? Pass that pipe please.
Burn
True, Mathias was the replacement for Judas.
But Paul was Jesus' chosen vessell he said "to preach to the gentiles and before kings".
I believe God uses our special gifts to work out his purposes. And Paul certainly had to ability to be "all things to all peoples". Once his zeal and boldness were directed with Christ's help to the correct targets, the man was totally on fire with the gospel. Lilly
Instead, he let them fade to insignifigance. Something's not right about this whole thing.
They're not insignificant to Jesus of Nazareth, the Lamb.
From The Message Bible:
Revelation 21: 12 -14 The City shimmered like a precious gem, light-filled, pulsing light. She had a wall majestic and high with twelve gates. At each gate stood an Angel, and on the gates were inscribed the names of the Twelve Tribes of the sons of Israel: three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, three gates on the west. The wall was set on twelve foundations, the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb inscribed on them.
But if you allow Paul to claim apostleship, what's to stop any other looney to say that Jesus appeared to them and asked them to be the 14th apostle on a special mission? They'd need some proof to back up the claim.
There's no proof that Paul was legit. The fact that the other apostles didn't agree with him is a pretty good indicator that he wasn't legit, otherwise Jesus (who was making regular ghostly appearances) would have kept everyone united on the same playbook. Why didn't Jesus appoint a gentile apostle in his original 12 anyway, did he forget?
