Do Paul's Letters Really Count? (page 5)

searcher

If it is true that God wants to bring man to tolerance and love, and that Satan opposes that, then Jesus is Gods agent and Paul is Satan’s.

"btw, how does Paul's rules about a husband being the head of his wife apply to me, a Christian woman who has never been married (nor do I want to be) whose father is deceased. As far as I am concerned, my head is Christ."

Christ is the head of your "house"...your husband...

Christ is the head of my "house" too...my bf doesn't believe in God but living as paul has suggested has helped me grow in ways more Christ like...I'm learning about "servanthood".

love michelle

beksbks

Hmmmm so you're committing fornication by living together in sin, but at least you are being more Christlike by being subservient to the man.

Pistoff

What we think of as Scripture today may have had no parallel in the days of the early followers of Jesus. Most people in the Western world have at least one copy of the Bible, mass-produced, and the result of a selection of books over a period of centuries as being inspired by God, selected of course by men.
What did the early followers of Jesus have? Did they even have copies of a scroll that they could look at?
This is very unlikely.
There is no compelling proof to suggest that Paul thought of his books as Scripture; for a fact, no serious scholar thinks that all of the books attributed to Paul were actually authored by him. First and second Corinthians are viewed as being the most authentic, and were written between 50 and 60 CE.
Paul likely did not think of himself as a Christian, but instead as a Jewish follower of Jesus, like most of those he visited early on. I don't know about the rest of you, but the clear distinct vision of Christianity being established at the death of Jesus is a myth; those who followed Jesus did not think of him as someone who ended the Jewish way of life or way of belief but instead viewed him as a prophet or a messiah consistent with apocalyptic beliefs common at the time of Jesus and Paul.
Much of the circumstance found in the books that are not directly attributable to Paul did not exist during Paul's lifetime; they are addressing situations that did not develop until later in the first century.
Paul's description of his conversion is not nearly as dramatic as that depicted in Acts.
if there was compelling proof that Paul actually spoke all the things attributed to him, I would share some of the antipathy towards Paul that some here have.
The interest thing thing to me is that when all four of the Gospels are dissected, a picture emerges of a core group of sayings attributable to Jesus, followed by sayings, parables, and apocalyptic visions that address situations that did not exist in Jesus Bay. The evidence is strong that the life and sayings of Jesus and of the early church were more myth than history.
Most interesting thing I have read in the last month? Paul never mentions Jesus miracles.

Pistoff

Sorry for the typos; voice recognition software.
What I meant to say is that the fragmentation about Jesus that exists today probably existed very soon after Jesus died. The New Testament canon as we have it today is the result of centuries of hand picked writings; it's not a coincidence that they more or less present a unified picture of the early days of Christianity. When the complete picture is viewed however, such as when the Gnostic writings are examined, it becomes more clear that there was a very large variety of viewpoints about who Jesus was and what it meant for people who want to worship. When some of the Gnostic writings are read, they sound very esoteric and crazy, at least in comparison to established Christianity today. h
History is written by the winners, of course.
What it says to me is that others, even more manipulative than Paul seems to be, selected what Christians would be reading and what beliefs would be considered correct.
I have had a very enjoyable time reading about the early origins of Christianity, something that was unthinkable when I was a gung ho witness.
What I see emerging after the life of Jesus is an amalgam of beliefs, from many different cultures, that existed before, during and after the time of Jesus, and began to be forged into what became modern-day Christian belief.

Of course, Christian belief was not static and constant throughout the centuries; it isn't constant today. For someone to state they are Christian today means really something different than it did in the 1940's; to state that you are Christian today would likely make others conclude that you are a conservative Republican.

XJW4EVR

Reply to steve2:

If you can get passed his dreary legalistic mindset

Have you ever read Galatians?

blatant misogyny

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The misogyny is striking.

off-putting self-importance

! Corinthians 15:9

For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

! Timothey 1:15

The saying istrustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

Again his sense of self-importance is just overwhelming.

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

What Paul wrote were letters, not books. It's not like the prophetic writings of the OT designed to be preserved for the nation of Israel, spiritual or otherwise. To some extent they're a jumble of thoughts addressed to different persons or groups. Evidently, there was enough considered worth saving that they copied and circulated these letters. Later times, these were deemed inspired by God since they were useful to the Church.

Some time ago someone had posted a good explanation that the first century congregation never gave much attention to writing a concise "New Testament" since they all expected Christ's return within just a few years. Perhaps several years might pass, but certainly within the lifetime of the Apostle John. Even then, the end was sooo close. It would have been presumptuous and unnecessary to start writing a bunch of rule-filled scrolls as though Christ would be gone for centuries. It would have been embarassing for there to be a Jewish style clergy arrangement when Christ returned. But Christ didn't return, so things had to change. Rules and structure were needed to establish the "Christian Church". Writings of Paul were grabbed to authenticate that church.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the WTBTS today. Although the end is sooo close, they do lots and lots of writing about every little detail of "true christianity". And they write, because they're a PUBLISHING company. A JW is a PUBLISHER, to further the interests of the publishing corporation. And the writings of the WTBTS, like the writings of Paul, are considered inspired... until they're proven wrong. At that time, they'll say that they were spirit directed or spirit guided, but you better follow it like it's spirit inspired or you're DFd.

To Paul's credit, noolite hasn't got him tossed out of the traditional NT. But the WTBTS has to keep replacing their oldlite since it keeps burning out every few years.

B the X

myelaine

dear beksbks...

"Hmmmm so you're committing fornication by living together in sin, but at least you are being more Christlike by being subservient to the man. "...

not everyone wants to marry their servants...

love michelle

beksbks

Ohhhh Yea. Honey Bunny and I play that master and servant game too, but it ends after the sex. And I don't play the servant.

Do Paul's Letters Really Count?

Share this