Are You Paul or are you Saul? (page 30)

awildflower

I agree totally with Pistoff. Thank you for that! This stuff just keeps getting better for me, opening my eyes more and more. I to love what Jesus stood for and I don't like Paul!..........wf

Pistoff

Reniaa:

You have missed the point; Paul never mentions them one way or the other. They are written in the GOSPELS; does Paul not believe the Gospels?

If Paul could not talk about them, as he had not seen them, how can you? If they were not true, or Paul had concerns, why did he not address them, as he had no problem with addressing all manner of ideas he considered false. If it was not reliable to Paul that soon after they were performed, how can you have any confidence in them?

The point is this: the gospels show strong evidence of being written AFTER Paul wrote the book attributed to him; the miracle stories developed after Paul wrote the books scholars actually believe he wrote, and it is obvious that if the stories were around before he wrote, either Paul never heard them, not likely at all, or he DID NOT BELIEVE them, and the writers responsible for the rest of the books attributed to him must have felt the same way.

The most obvious scenario, one there is good evidence for, is that the Gospels were written by different communities of Jeus people beginning in 80 CE.

Pistoff

I am not worshipping Jesus; what I said is that I love what he said. I believe in Jesus as a historical figure, and that he taught revolutionary things. Paul did not; Paul is more of the same sexual issues that the Essenes were on about, more about structure. Jesus in effect said: you don't need it. The more you love your neighbor, the more you are close to the rule of God in your life.

That resonates with me; but of course that is not a message conducive to building communities.

Spike Tassel

Spike Tassel (Post 62): As I understand it, the resurrected Jesus personally appointed Saul the former-Pharisee as Paul the Apostle. This choice was hard (by even many of the early Christians) to accept, so it is hardly surprising that so many today reject at least much of what Paul (and perhaps various other Bible writers) had to say. The fact is that 13 letters are accepted by many as Paul's contribution to the current Bible canon. Just as many reject Jesus' own teaching about the dangers of lust in their own lives, yet insist that others not lust; so too, many reject the provision of the congregation to expel members for wrongdoing, though they are quite happy that physicians and lawyers are disbarred for malpractice that touches their own lives. Saul the Pharisee (in contrast) was no hypocrite, which is why he could be trained to suffer as Paul the Apostle. What Jesus did for Saul was impress upon him that the Law of Love was superior to the Law of Sacrifice, which is still a lesson of us all. Paul's love caused him to sacrifice himself rather than to sacrifice others, so he learned from Jesus the key to living a life approved by Jehovah. As a result, he was ensured of his upward calling. Whether our call is heavenly (as his was), or earthly (as mine is), it is an upward calling, whether considered from a physicial point of view, a moral one, an emotional one, ora a spiritual one.

Pistoff

"The fact is that 13 letters are accepted by many as Paul's contribution to the current Bible canon."

No serious textual scholar thinks that all of the epistles attributed to Paul were authored by Paul; so, yes, many people accept 13 letters, but they are fundamentalists, but not the ones who have studied the style of the texts and the grammar/usage/terms.

"so too, many reject the provision of the congregation to expel members for wrongdoing, though they are quite happy that physicians and lawyers are disbarred for malpractice that touches their own lives"

What does malpractice have to do with shunning people for smoking, for voting? What in the world are you talking about?

"What Jesus did for Saul was impress upon him that the Law of Love was superior to the Law of Sacrifice"

Can you show me where Paul says this? What Paul says is that Jesus is the new sacrifice, he does not say that the law of love is superior.

"Paul's love caused him to sacrifice himself rather than to sacrifice others, so he learned from Jesus the key to living a life approved by Jehovah. "

How would Paul sacrifice others? What does that mean?

Paul did not learn ANYTHING from Jesus; Paul never met Jesus, and in his own books never claims to have a miraculous conversion as is stated in Acts.

Paul was an observant Jew, as were most of Jesus' followers for may years; they did not think of themselves as separate from the Jews for some time.

And there is NO evidence that Paul spoke or wrote YHVH anywhere; this is an addition by the WT.

"Whether our call is heavenly (as his was), or earthly (as mine is), it is an upward calling, whether considered from a physicial point of view, a moral one, an emotional one, ora a spiritual one."

Paul knew nothing of and spoke nothing of 2 callings; only heavenly. The earthly calling is an invention by Judge Rutherford to deal with the problem of limiting the rulers in heaven to 144000, and the embarassment of realizing that the math did not work.

moomanchu

Niether

Go Away

mooooo

Chalam

Hi,

I never did actually answer the question directly is this thread!

Are You Paul or are you Saul?

I am with sacolton "I became a Paul when I followed Christ as His servant"

All the best,

Stephen

Spike Tassel

Spike Tassel (Post 70) re Pistoff (Post 1628): My faith in the Bible comes from the Bible itself, a very profound work, beyond all the cultures currently found in the world of our day. I believe Paul's claims, such as those found recorded at 1 Cor.9:19-23 (became all things to people to all sorts), 1Cor.12:28 (the variety of powers of the holy spirit then in operation), 1 Cor.13:8 (the fact that some of the powers of the holy spirit would cease), 1 Cor.15:8 (that the risen Christ appeared to Paul, while he was still Saul the Pharisee). Scriptural malpractice certainly DOES include practices such as smoking (which violates the principle against uncleanness), and voting (if it means that we are not neutral in the world's affairs, assuming that we, in deed, are "no part of the world"). These are well-known tenets studied before one's ordination as a baptised minister. It is about one's YES being YES, one's NO as NO. These are standards not to be violated with impunity. It is hardly fair to say that only JWs use Jehovah or other forms of the Tetragrammaton in the books from Gospels-Letters-Revelation part of the Bible. Almost the earliest extant manuscript fragments, one can see the use of Jehovah's name, as JWs and others have pointed out. Paul certainly knew about the earthly calling; it is what Jews to this day still believe, as passages such as Psalm 37 bear out. Let us all continue to let God be found true, and continue to work to be sure to all things. May there come to be peace and reconcialition, even between you and me.

Pistoff

"It is hardly fair to say that only JWs use Jehovah or other forms of the Tetragrammaton in the books from Gospels-Letters-Revelation part of the Bible. Almost the earliest extant manuscript fragments, one can see the use of Jehovah's name, as JWs and others have pointed out."

I didn't say that only JW's use it; I am saying there is NO evidence Paul used it. Paul was an observant Jew; by this time in history, the Jews had stopped speaking YHWH. The instances in the NT are ADDED by the WT.

The bible does not speak of smoking, or voting. If you want to INFER or ASSUME that it is unclean and should be lumped in with adultery, that is your right, but it never was what even Paul intended. In what sense is it unclean? Is physical cleanliness an offense punishable by shunning?? That concept was not even present in the Mosaic Law.

And if you want your head broken, try to follow the society's reasoning on voting from the 1999 QFR. It first says it is up to a Christian's conscience, then says Christians must be neutral, then says that if we see a witness heading into a voting booth, we should not assume anything.

"My faith in the Bible comes from the Bible itself, a very profound work, beyond all the cultures currently found in the world of our day. "

Is the Bible literal history? Do you believe all of the accounts in the Bible? Why, or if not, why not?

I think the Bible is brilliant, and valuable, but it is not history in the sense we think of history. It is a theological interpretation of events, in an effort to explain why bad things happened first to the Israelites/Jews and then to the followers of Jesus. It is certainly not history.

Pistoff

"Almost the earliest extant manuscript fragments, one can see the use of Jehovah's name, as JWs and others have pointed out."

Of what, the OT? Yes, in almost any Bible even, when LORD is used it signifies YHWH.

But not in the NT; that is my point. What manuscripts are you talking about? And can you explain why the translators of the NWT have added it in where they think the speaker MUST have used it, since they can not envision that they are wrong about YHWH?

Are You Paul or are you Saul?

Share this