What Are Your Thoughts On The Apostle Paul?

by cognac 109 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  PSacramento

  Well, there were already 12 apostles when Paul came around.

  The original apostles were held in a special way because Jesus chose them personally and they were there, with him, in the good and bad, though they certainly could have been more supportive in the end.

  He chose them NOT because they were special, but because they weren't special, they were the "everyman" and even at times jesus got frustrated with them.

  They weren't all the bright it seems and at times they were scared shitless of Jesus.

  Paul was chosen by Jesus too, certainly in that regard he was "more" an apostle than Matthias who was"just" chosen by the 11 apostles.
• 

  minimus

  They should've stuck with Matthias.
• 

  Piercingtheveil81

  Has anyone ever read "Jesus words only" by Douglas del Tondo a christian attorney. In his book he uses his abilities as an attorney by using the evidence, both biblical and extrabiblical, to judge whether Paul was a false apostle or not. It is an awesome read.

  You can read the whole thing free at this link http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWO/freechaptersonline.html.

  I've come to the conclusion that Paul is in fact a false prophet who created a new religion that is drastically different from judaism. Out of the three Abrahamic faiths, Christianity seems to be the odd one out with Islam and Judaism having much more resemblance.
• 

  PSacramento

  Piercingtheveil,

  An interesting view, not sure why Mr.Del Tondo would get into soemthing liek this, he isn't a theologian, but hey, everyone is entitiled to their opinion.

  It may well be that Paul was a false apostle, though it seems like that is NOT the case according to Acts and Peter's epistles, all written way after Paul's letters and teachinsg were well know.

  It makes sense that Chirstianity is the odd one from Judaism and Islam, those religions are note based on the teachings of the Son of God, Christianity is.

  Jesus sais that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it and fulfill it he did and as such he created a New Covenant ( as the old one was fulfilled), now if people choose to not accept his New covenant and stay under thge Old one, that is their choice of course.
• 

  JWoods

  You know, in the psy-ops of JW eldership, it must have really sucked to be Matthias...first, you have to replace Judas - then, get kicked to the curb when this mass christian persecuter suddenly "sees the light" and practically becomes the ancient Billy Graham.
• 

  PSacramento

  JWoods,

  Don't be to hard on Matthias, outside of Peter, James and John, there is no other mention of any apostles doing anyting of note and it can be argued that the John of the GOJ is not John the apostles, but a "lowly" disciple, certainly John of the epistles only views himself as an "elder".

  James of course could have been James the apostle OR James the brother of Jesus who was only a disciple after Jesus's death.

  So, it can be argued that the only original apostles of note was Peter and Judas.
• 

  Piercingtheveil81

  PSacramento,

  True, bue we have to remember that Acts was written by Luke who was one of Paul's best friends which is why Acts is primarily focused on Paul. If we are counting on biblical sources, aside from Acts we know virtually nothing of the other apostles. I don't disagree that some accepted him to be an apostle but that doesn't mean that it is true just as witnesses accept the org. as the channel of God.

  It is true that Jesus said he came not to abolish the Law. If we continue reading he further stated that anyone who did not keep it or taught others not to keep it (Paul for example) would be the least in the kingdom. Evidence shows that a great number of Jewish Christians continued to practice the Law after Jesus ascention. I do not believe that the Law was done away with at that time until there came another Law that was not for Jews only but for all mankind. Of course these are my beliefs.

  I'm not Christian by the way. Nor do I accpet the New Testament documents as the word of God.
• 

  AGuest

  you think Paul influenced Luke more than Jesus, the old Testament and/or the Holy Spirit?

  Luke wasn’t “influenced” by anything… or anyone... other than his own self and Theophilus. He interviewed people and wrote what they told him occurred... as well as what he remembered. Thus, he was not commissioned by God or the Holy Spirit but TELLS us why he wrote what he did… and who FOR:

  “Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us… just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word… delivered them to us… it seemed good to me also , having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus… that you…may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.” Luke 1:1-4

  and…

  The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach… Acts 1:1

  Having heard some or all of the other accounts, Luke was commissioned by Theophilus to investigate and give HIM (Theophilus) an account. Luke did that, as well as included what he remembered. Thus, Luke was not “inspired”… NOR DID HE WRITE HIS ACCOUNT TO… OR FOR… THE CONGREGATION... but to and for one individual, Theophilus. That it became part of the Bible canon simply means his letters/accounts were accepted, while others were not.

  How do we know that? Because, the ONLY accounts currently contained in the BIBLE… that were written at the time Luke wrote HIS accounts… were that of Matthew… and some or most of Paul’s letters. Neither Mark nor John’s accounts had been written. Yet, Luke stated that MANY had written narratives about what had occurred. Where, I ask those who put their faith in the Bible as the UNTAMPERED word of God… are those other "narratives"? Matthew's account does not make up "many," and Paul's letters were just that: letters to the congregations.

  But Luke alluded to "narratives" (or accounts) such as his. Where are they? They are certainly not in the BIBLE. Does that concern me? Not at all, for the word of my Lord to ME was:

  “ALL that I tell you IS written (but not necessarily contained in the Bible), but not all that is written (including what's in the Bible) is what I will tell you.”

  Just some thoughts… as I was directed by the Spirit to present them.

  Again, peace to you all!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  PSacramento

  Piercingtheveil,

  You are quite correct that many Christian Jews continued to follow some of the OC laws, Paul was one of them, the issue was if the gentiles were subject to that law and they weren't, even Peter and the rest of the apostles and elders agreed.

  As for Jesus, He made it clear that, at least the laws that he made comments on, were not to be placed higher than they shoudl be, issues like the Sabbath, sacrifices, dietary restrictions, ritual washings and such, were all addressed by Jesus and put in their proper place.

  I understand that you are not a christian and that you don't except the NT as the word of God.
• 

  ColdRedRain

  Paul is so great that there's a City in Minnesota named after him!