What would Christianity look like without Paul's writings?

by AK - Jeff 107 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Leolaia

  lol once you start picking and choosing what to follow biblically you end up with a god of your own making...

  Which is what you and everyone else has been doing.

  That is what is involved in a process of biblical interpretation that construes an entire body of scripture as representing a single doctrine or theology. Once you develop proof-texts and, say, use Paul to interpret the gospel of John and the like, you are picking and choosing which passages are used to harmonize other passages with. Synthetic theologies like Arianism and trinitarianism involve this process, although they differ in the texts they privilege and in how the texts are interpreted as contributing to the overall system (which must by its nature draw on interpretive traditions and constructs external to the "proof texts"). This is a primary means of making meaning and advancing theology into new directions. But this endeavor is different from trying to understand what biblical authors may nor may not have intended to convey.
• 

  reniaa

  Yes leolaia,

  interpretation in involved, to applied principles but sometimes an egg is simply an egg, the bible says fornication is wrong this is clearcut. the early christians weren't taught a trinitarian God in the bible this too is clearcut. The one thing I notice with witness docctrine is we simply accept when jehovah says he is one Almighty God and Jesus is his only begotten son we accept that and that Jesus has divine qualities through being his father's son we accept this too. The bible says no more beyond this neither on substance or nature. All it says is God has a son who is realy realy like him. Phophetic utterences allow for a lot of speculation on them, I think only in hindsight will we be 100% but even then jews to this day think Jesus failed prophecy by not saving them from the romans.

  While a lot of different intepretations can be drawn from the bible, how close they follow what the bible actually taught is easily judged on examination of scripture. 'Testing the spirit' so to speak.

  Reniaa
• 

  isaacaustin

  Renia says:

  interpretation in involved, to applied principles but sometimes an egg is simply an egg, the bible says fornication is wrong this is clearcut.

  My reply: I agree

  the early christians weren't taught a trinitarian God in the bible this too is clearcut.

  My reply: Not true. The bible shows the nature of God as Trinitarian.

  The one thing I notice with witness docctrine is we simply accept when jehovah says he is one Almighty God and Jesus is his only begotten son we accept that and that Jesus has divine qualities through being his father's son we accept this too.

  My reply: You display an ignorance of the meanings of different terms relative to who God is as they had meaning when penned.

  The bible says no more beyond this neither on substance or nature. All it says is God has a son who is realy realy like him. Phophetic utterences allow for a lot of speculation on them, I think only in hindsight will we be 100% but even then jews to this day think Jesus failed prophecy by not saving them from the romans.

  While a lot of different intepretations can be drawn from the bible, how close they follow what the bible actually taught is easily judged on examination of scripture. 'Testing the spirit' so to speak.

  Reniaa

  My reply: Except JWs are not allowed to test the Spirit. They are to leave it for the men assigned to do that...and the captives are to unquestioningly follow their commands.
• 

  VoidEater

  I am firmly convinced that what is called Christianity today - is actually just Pauline Theology.

  QFT. We'd have a lot less "woe to those married and having kids," more "doing away with the Law," less Stoic philosophy. I guess we'd miss the traditional Love Is Kind speech that seems to only apply during a wedding ceremony.

  @Leolaia: Exactly.
• 

  donny

  One thing we are very sure of is that the early Christians did not have Jehovah or Yahweh in the New Testament writings. Not one NT manuscript from the first three centuries has been found to contain the "name" the Society insists is so important.

  Donny
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I am curious how anyone would come to the conclusion that the teachings of Jesus and the writings of Paul are bifurcated?

  2 Peter 3:15-16

  ;-)

  BTS
• 

  Mary

  What would Christianity look like without Paul's writings?

  Alot more like either Conservative Judaism or Reformed Judaism. In reality, Jesus never told his followers to start a new religion. He wanted to see changes made within Judaism itself, but there's nothing to indicate a whole new religion should be born. Paul was a religious fanatic who managed to wrestle control of the early church away from Jesus' half brother James, and fashioned it after his own liking. While he seemed tolerant on some points, he was very intolerant on other points and brought alot of his own misery and persecution upon himself just by being a jerk. He was very wishy-washy, depending on what group of people he was talking to, thought alot of himself and is more or less responsible for Christianity as we know it.
• 

  snowbird

  2 Peter 3:15, 16 Our good brother Paul, who was given much wisdom in these matters, refers to this in all his letters, and has written you essentially the same thing. Some things Paul writes are difficult to understand. Irresponsible people who don't know what they are talking about twist them every which way. They do it to the rest of the Scriptures, too, destroying themselves as they do it. MSG

  Sylvia
• 

  XJW4EVR

  I am curious how anyone would come to the conclusion that the teachings of Jesus and the writings of Paul are bifurcated?

  2 Peter 3:15-16

  ;-)

  BTS

  I presume that you are point out that Peter, an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, equates Paul's writings with "the Scriptures." So again, how does one come to the conclusion that Paul's writings and Jesus' teachings are bifurcated?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I presume that you are point out that Peter, an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, equates Paul's writings with "the Scriptures."

  Correct.

  So again, how does one come to the conclusion that Paul's writings and Jesus' teachings are bifurcated?

  Distortion of things "hard to understand"--which apparently is nothing new, since Peter had to address the very same problem "back then".

  BTS