Paul and Jesus

by Slappy 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Slappy
    Slappy

    Maybe it's just me, but lately it seems like there is a trend (well, moreso than usual in any case) of saying that Paul is somehow of a different mind than Jesus and that the teachings of the two contradict each other. While I can see where having a JW background can easily bring this type of thinking around, most especially since they extol the teachings of Paul and completely ignore Christ, most of you are no longer under the power of the Watchtower...er, you aren't are you? And as such, you should be free of most, if not all, of the brainwashing to occurrs. You are now free to think for yourselves. And yet, forgive me if I'm off base here, I get the impression that you disregard what Paul has to say because the Watchtower used his 'clarifications' so harmfully, and you connect that harm with Paul. While this is completely understandable, that doesn't make it right.

    Before I get too far in, I'll just say that there was a point when I too had the exact same impression of Paul. I didn't get why everybody in the denomination I grew up in was so focused on the Epistles of Paul and the other disciples. Also, I had formed the idea that they were not focused enough on Christ and spending far too much time and reading much too far into what the apostles had to say. While I still hold to the later, my perception has changed over the years as I have matured, Biblically. Having thrown aside the tinted glasses of any form of 'organized' religion, I was free to study as I was of a will and free to see what the Bible had to say for itself and not what others had to say for it.

    Furthermore, I too, held the impression that Jesus, as God, was one we should follow, and Paul, as a man, was one who should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I was disregarding the simple fact that the the Epistles are held to be Divinely inspired. Now I know that many scoff at that thought, but bear with me. While many people bring up the Council of Nicaea and extrapolate various theories from there, I think many overlook the fact that most, if not all, of the documents brought to the table, as it were, were in existence well before the council occurred. We are now 2,000 years or so removed from such things; who do you think would have a better idea of what is Divinely inspired, and what isn't?

    Anyway, I don't want to get into areas where I'm not as knowledgable as others, so I will leave well enough alone in that regard. I'm more of a Bible student than a Bible history student.

    What grabbed my attention and prompted me to write what I have, besides what I mentioned at the start, is what I just read in Philippians 2.

    "Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." Philippians 2:1-5

    What struck me, is that if Paul really does contradict what Jesus taught, why does he always bring things back to Him? I think the only way that Paul would be able to contradict what Jesus taught is if he was looking for some personal gain and not the glory of his Savior and the blessing of others (1 Corinthians 10:33). If that was truly the case, you'd think that if Paul was looking for some gain for himself, he'd try to bring the focus on himself, and away from Christ. And yet he doesn't...ever. Another portion that gives an example of how true Paul was to Christ and therefore to all others, is found in 1 Corinthians:

    "But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that...But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her." 1 Corinthians 7:6-7 & 12

    Paul made it abundantly clear when he would mention something that were his ideas and not necessarily commandments (inspiriation) from Christ. Seems rather odd for one to say something like that if he truly was voicing his own ideas (contradicting Christ), does it not?

    Anyway, just something for you to ponder. As I said before, I had similar feelings until I truly began to delve into the Bible and gain a greater understanding of things.

    slappy

  • wobble
    wobble

    Thanks Slappy,

    Your feelings are the same as mine on this, I do beleive that Paul was a true Brother in Christ and supports the teaching and example of Christ,and as he says teaches nothing else but Christ resurrected.

    I think a lot of Bible readers take exception to his advice on the treatment of slaves and women etc.saying that Paul condoned the status quo. I think he simply saw the world they were living in for what it was and advised christians on how they could live within that world.

    Of course if you get silly as the WT does applying to today women using head coverings etc. (a passage they have not even understood in it's 1st. centuary context) then you loose the lesson for our day, i.e live the christian life despite the world we live in.

    Many thanks for your post,I expect many will argue with us but that is what JWD is for!

    kind regards

    Wobble

  • wozadummy
    wozadummy

    Perhaps Paul spoke so boldly and seemingly of his own initiative because he had to . Christ had been dead for some time and only spoke to him once, and they all had to just move on with life with Jesus's death a fading memory and yet they all ,including Paul had to just keep moving on with the day today things of life . Paul had as a single person the freedom to pursue his ministry and the inner strength of determination to continue it into other countries whatever his real motive .I find it odd he wrote so many books(letters) and yet so little is written about the apostles acknowledging him as a prominent authorized spokesperson. They were with Christ yet Paul blasts his way in by way of a vision and then calls himself an apostle!

  • wobble
    wobble

    I agree Wozzer,Pauls position was totally unique,but at least he was humble, and gave all credit to Jesus,explaining that there is ONE mediator between God and men,Jesus Christ.

    How different from another bunch of men who steamed in and claim to be that Mediator,the "FDS" !

    Love

    Wobble

  • abbagail
    abbagail

    [...]
    How different from another bunch of men who steamed in and claim to be that Mediator,the "FDS" !
    [...]

    LOL. Good one! and how true. Ha.

    I always loved Paul when I was a JW, though didn't understand a lot of what he had to say because his epistles are all about the heavenly hope and that was "stolen" from us peon-dubs by the FDS who hogged it for themselves and said they ONLY were "ambassadors for Christ," etc. etc.

    The emphasis for me at the time seemed to be more OT "Jehovah" and less of Jesus Christ and even less of Paul. They "HAD TO" push us into a mostly OT mind-set as that is mainly where the "earthly Kingdom promises" are vs. Paul's writings which hold out the heavenly hope.

    I could go on but too tired. I loved Paul then and love him more now that I understand the DIFFERENCE between Israel's earthly Kingdom and the heavenly calling for those who believe in Christ during the age of Grace. I have readily moved myself from the former bunch to the latter. ;-)
    /ag

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    Slappy,

    The other apostles and disciples like James, if they were doing their jobs would have sounded just like Paul which is the reason why Christ had to go outside of His followers to select him as His Apostle. They were all still keeping the Law of Moses until Paul finally corrected them. And it took him over 40 years, imprisonment and finally the book of Hebrews to get it done. What most do not see is how Paul quoted them portraying them and their doctrines for the purpose of exposing and correcting them in his letters. So the personal pronoun "I" is not always Paul speaking but was one of them speaking or a quote from one of their letters as it so often was in 1 Cor. And that wonderful place called Jerusalem where thousands of them lived, having James in charge that the Watchtower loves to emulate so much was a hotbed of apostasy that Paul fought against. Luke 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Who was right here and who was wrong? Well Paul was right while James, the apostles living in Jerusalem and the thousands of Jews with him were wrong. And they now tried to compromise him and nearly had him killed. That is what the scriptures teach us in plain sight yet no one seems to notice. Christ gave them all time to come to this truth. They all still had time to be born again. But to keep their jobs and their control over you all this has been covered up by the Watchtower and others. James and such others were made out to be leaders, a governing body by them and not the shrewd apostates that finally came around to Paul's teachings which by the way were the same as Christ's who guided him along in this endeavor with communication, visons and capabilities comparable to Johh's and the other apostles.

    Joseph

  • RAF
    RAF

    Actually I've found very interesting (even in knowing that he was well educated) how he could just become an adviser everywhere he went - probably easely by working with thoses different people and showing that he was spiritualy wise but I would say spiritually true (he couldn't be perfect - he just could be true to his faith - I mean coherent about it for them - Now I can appreciate that he precised most of the time what he was allowed to do but didn't in saying why).

    I couldn't stand Paul in my JWlife ... (I didn't get to know him that much - only through specific verses overused in JWLAND) but I realised later on, that his commands were only advices and dedicated to those he was talking to at that period of time (every culture being different) and that's about 2000 years ago. Sticking to his advices like glue is just a proof that the main principle (and therefore the main reason) haven't been understood.

    Paul had to find ways to get his idea accross to the public concerned for them to get IT
    (THE PRINCIPLE and bear IT for what it does, means for what it worth) and not reject it from scratch if not violently.

    Concerning the treatment of women for instance (at their period of time) - you have to remember that in France to only talk about my country, we've got the right to wote only since 1944 - So Paul couldn't come up in talking about the kind of love (let's say in fact respect of all rights - even only the humain rights) due to women nowadays which spiritually are the same for both men and women regarding the only and main principle in question.

    But from the begining if reading this book is about looking to be saved (ourselves or even the whole world) it can only lead to HELL if it is in trying to follow so much old school commands (very often twisted in the reason why they would need to be applied NOW if any would?) IFwhen applied they actually lead to the reverse than what the principle should lead to)

    I mean it's about being for or against the main principle (that Jesus symbolised also = the base of everything else spiritualy - without it no vertue whatever you do even vertue itself would miss something) I mean you can't be the son of God (spiritually) whithout the core spirit of GOD (as human we are all the product of GOD) but everything theologically leads to spiritual matters way before anything material (it's like the difference in between the form and the substance - The forms can be multiple and hypocrite in the reason why ... it's all about substance = what's our motivations/reasons) that's why the same acte can't be qualified exactly the same way (as good or bad) and won't lead to the same result at the end (even only for us and on us).

  • IP_SEC
    IP_SEC
    Paul is somehow of a different mind than Jesus and that the teachings of the two contradict each other

    Not only that, but the 'slave' almost never quotes the master in his/their writings.

  • halcyon
    halcyon

    I believe it's not just JW (or JWD), but there have been a number of secular books published (that I've seen) that say Paul contradicted Jesus.

    I had come to the same conclusion myself, with no outside influence of any known kind (I always avoided religious reading/listening after I faded), which makes it even stranger for me to now see this concept widespread whereas it wasn't anywhere on the radar even twenty years ago that I can tell.

    My logic tried to work it out that how could we be following Christ and still be under so many Jewish restrictions, when Christ fulfilled the law, and I could only figure that it came from Paul's writings, so I concluded that it was possible that Paul was the foretold apostasy that would rise, rather than the third century church. Because Churches seem to be structured around Paul's teachings. Without any writings after the gospels, what would Christianity look like today? Paul's teachings, the Church through the ages, and all Christian denominations today look too similar and interconnected. JW is even too close to the way the churches do things for my comfort. SO, without any real study, I came to the conclusion that it was *possible* for a sincere man to still end up being the beginning of the Apostasy.

    I believe if a man is too self-serving, it would be too easy to identify him as a wolf in sheep's clothing. He can be completely sincere and well-meaning, and still lead people down the wrong path. Don't we all know that!


    I'm not really saying one way or another, because I haven't done the study required. I'm just saying 1) it's weird that everybody's coming to the same thought, seemingly independently, or else secular reasoning is making its way into our collective thought processes one way or another, and 2) I'm not convinced, just because Paul seems so sincere and turns our attention to the Lord, that he couldn't still innocently lead the whole group astray.

  • MissingLink
    MissingLink

    "The other apostles and disciples like James, if they were doing their jobs would have sounded just like Paul which is the reason why Christ had to go outside of His followers to select him as His Apostle."

    If Jesus was so smart, why didn't he pick Paul as an apostle when he was alive instead of twelve lazy losers?

    Paul's message is clearly different (even opposite at times) from Jesus.

    Paul was the Rutherford of his time. He saw an opportunity to take the reigns of a movement and turn it into something for himself.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit