by greenie 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Thanks for all the information everyone!
Joseph, sorry to be dense, but what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that Paul didn't mean all the things he wrote to the Corinthians? I'm really not a bible scholar and get lost in all the verses, etc. sometime. Can you explain in laymans terms? And how do you figure all this out? Is there a good history book on the bible? Thanks much!!
DJk..id call it humble..not much of that around in this system, and satan makes it look a weakness...id love to be clothed in humility..so im always working on it :)
Do you mean that Paul didn't mean all the things he wrote to the Corinthians?
greenie,
What is missed is what Paul was doing when he wrote to the Corinthians. In it after a long introduction he began to answer the letter they wrote to him teaching by teaching. If we are careful, we can see him quoting or alluding to their views and correcting them. He did something similar with the Ephesians. Mostly it was the Jews in Corinth that were following the Law the way James and the Jerusalem congregation was doing causing Paul a great deal of trouble. There were also some things in their letter that looked like Gentile views on astrology and the resurrection as well posted to him. And we know about the way they handled the meals in remembrance of our Lord's death which was a mess that he had to deal with. Since Paul is correcting them throughout this letter referencing their views in it we should not attribute every word to Paul. Sometimes the personal pronoun I was simply a direct quote from their letter and does not apply to Paul. This was noticed by scholars and a note at the beginning of chapter 8 where this letter was still being taken apart by Paul said:
In this chapter the apostle proceeds to consider the case of eating things offered to idols, which, though an indifferent thing, was abused by many in the Corinthian church, to the scandal and hurt of weak Christians; wherefore the apostle dissuades from the use of it, and refutes the arguments which were used by them in defence of their practice. John Gill's expositor.
This went on an on throughout 1 Cor. and if we are looking for such arguments, we can see them for ourselves. Otherwise we will take the Corinthians side the way the Watchtower does. The lack of punctuation and Paul's style of writing hides it from us. We know a great deal about Paul's struggle with the Jerusalem congregation from Acts chapters 15 and 21 and the views they were spreading with regard to the Law and circumcision. Peter had to step in and say: 2Pet 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. The best history book you can read then would be the scriptures themselves where all this was brought out for us. You see Peter finally took Paul's side of the arguments during his ministry and supported him against such Jewish and pagan views.
Joseph
So interesting! It's just hard for me to read the scriptures, understand the "speak" they're written in, and glean historical context from them. I know that it's there, it's just very hard for me to decipher. Sometimes I feel like Paul sounds like a mean old man, then others, it seems like he is actually giving very specific instructions to a very specific group of people.
I'm told the bible will never contradict itself. First, I don't know if that's true, but then, if it is, I don't understand how in Galatians they say in Christ everyone is equal, yet in 1 Corinthians, they talk about the headship and who is under whom. That would appear to be a contradiction to me, until you explained it so. Do you have some examples of where he is stating their practices and NOT giving instructions for how Christians are to behave? And is there somewhere that the letter Paul is responding to is available?
Thanks for all this fantastic information.
And is there somewhere that the letter Paul is responding to is available?
Greenie,
The only place I know is in 1 Cor. itself. You have to read between the lines a bit but when Paul says things like: 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? Now can you see this reference to their letter? Or; 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: Can you see this reference to their comments now? Then Paul handles this problem another way look: 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: Paul is taking things they wrote to about to him and redirects their focus to us as human beings being transformed is ways that cause us to become the immortal human beings that conquer death. For man can only sow a human seed and such other seeds and celestial things are irrelevant. He rejects their thinking.
Joseph
jumping into the fray
I was married to a JW for 15 years. He was an elder for 7 or 8 of those years.
I suppose "headship" from a loving care, respectful man would be closer to a 50/50 partnership.
However, there are plenty of men who will use this WT twisted WT teaching to assert themselves in an abusive manner towards their wives. I got one of them.
I guess ahead of time a person never knows how a man may react when he thinks his "headship" will be ignored.
Lady Lee, this is the exact kind of thinking that is funny to me: "He is taught that it is his responsibility to instruct the children spiritually and bring them up as JWs which rules out holidays and birthdays and after school activities and most sports. The beliefs of the wife if she is not a JW will be ignored. The WT teachings are the only ones that will be followed in the home."
Maybe on JW island that would work. But the vast majority of humans on Earth wouldn't abide by that, myself included. I have no idea how a JW man would plan to actually be able to enforce any of that with someone who wasn't a JW woman.
Headship and subjugation are the main reasons I did not become a JW. I saw what they did to my mother. She abdicated all responsibility for her life to my father. She was miserable.
To me, headship is like absolute power. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
greenie
There are plenty of men in this world who believe in male superiority. They are abusers. The men who intimidate and abuse their wives. The rules the WTS makes are no different than the rules of any dysfunctional abusive family where what the man says goes.
Take a look in many libraries and book stores and see the books written to help victims get away from their abusers. It is just that in the world of JWs it is WTS/god defined and applied
The headship issue according to the JWs is moronic and overkill because they have such serious issues and small egos and maybe a small 'something else' in many cases.
In my opinion, headship applies to somebody married. In this day and age and in the U.S., it is sad if any woman is being abused by any so-called Christian man. As a single woman in the religion I felt it only applied to me within the limited confines of the dumb religion, e.g. in the hall or a stupid car group. In my personal life, ZERO. I support myself, never told them my business and never concerned myself with anybody's opinion of me.
