by Terry 204 Replies latest watchtower bible
I also see no reason why Paul could not have had deep insight into Christ. He did receive a direct revelation; Christ spoke to Him directly. The Holy Spirit is supposed to lead people into all truth, so you do not have to have walked with Jesus in the flesh to know Him.
Tammy
For the record, I'm none too fond of Paul myself.
He seemed to have been suffering from "little man" syndrome.
However, think what you may of him, he did the job for which he'd been commissioned by the Master.
Syl
What about Jesus of the Gospels does Paul seem unfamilare with ?
Well, Paul doesn't seem to actually know who put Jesus to death (1 Cor 2:8) Paul doesn't seem familiar with Jesus instruction on how to pray. (Romans 8:26) Paul doesn't seem familiar with Jesus' very specific instruction to baptize (1 Cor 1:17)
Paul makes no mention of the virgin birth, Jesus' parents, Jesus' miracles, Jesus birthplace, Jesus Roman trial, or the empty tomb.
Time after time, Paul relies on his own long-winded reasoning when it would have made more sense to quote Jesus. If the Gospel accounts are factual, Jesus had already said these things more succinctly and with more authority:
Romans 2:1-16 vs. Matthew 7:1
Romans 12:14-17 vs. Matthew 5:44
Romans 13:1-7 vs. Mark 12:17
1 Thessalonians 4:9 vs. John 15:17
We could observe that Paul is essentially in agreement with Jesus in these verses, but that's not the point. Paul is either not giving credit where credit is due or he's ignorant that Jesus had already said these things, or as some source critics conclude, Paul is the actual author of much of Christian theology.
Paul was a lawyer - lawyers like to hear themselves talk.
Syl
tec - you say you don't see that scripture as proof. I say that it is plenty, if you include Paul's other sayings within his letters.
I also see no reason why Paul could not have had deep insight into Christ. He did receive a direct revelation; Christ spoke to Him directly. The Holy Spirit is supposed to lead people into all truth, so you do not have to have walked with Jesus in the flesh to know Him
..............
Interesting. But did Paul preach the same Gospel or did he alter it?....Alterations from Christ's Gospel brings in falsity. Whether or not you are aware of it doesn't mean that I have to show you. If you look at most of the comment made on this post it will point you in the right direction.
But I know your discussion with me is not about Paul,.........
He did receive a direct revelation; Christ spoke to Him directly.
And we know that exactly how? Oh--Paul TOLD US.
I guess that's all we need.
Or--is it enough?
Well, Paul doesn't seem to actually know who put Jesus to death (1 Cor 2:8) Paul doesn't seem familiar with Jesus instruction on how to pray. (Romans 8:26) Paul doesn't seem familiar with Jesus' very specific instruction to baptize (1 Cor 1:17)
1Cor 2:8 - Paul states that is the rulers of this age had understood, they would not have crucified Christ - rulers being not only Pilate but the sanhedrin.
1Cor 1:17 is Paul stating that Christ did not send him to baptize but to proclaim the Gospel and since he is making a point to the corinthians to NOT focus on WHO baptized whom, the point is that the Gospel is more important than who does the baptizing.
Rom 8:26 Paul is saying that without the spirit we don't pary as we should.
Paul makes no mention of the virgin birth, Jesus' parents, Jesus' miracles, Jesus birthplace, Jesus Roman trial, or the empty tomb.
Since he typicaly spend many months with people he was writing follow upletter to, why would he bring up stuff that one presumes was discussed ad nausem when he was there in person?
Time after time, Paul relies on his own long-winded reasoning when it would have made more sense to quote Jesus. If the Gospel accounts are factual, Jesus had already said these things more succinctly and with more authority:
Romans 2:1-16 vs. Matthew 7:1
Romans 12:14-17 vs. Matthew 5:44
Romans 13:1-7 vs. Mark 12:17
1 Thessalonians 4:9 vs. John 15:17
We could observe that Paul is essentially in agreement with Jesus in these verses, but that's not the point. Paul is either not giving credit where credit is due or he's ignorant that Jesus had already said these things, or as some source critics conclude, Paul is the actual author of much of Christian theology.
I agree that he is overly long winded ( remember the tale of the kid that falls asleep listen to him and falls out the window?) and that he likes to hear himself speak far too much.
Paul's sin is THE sin- pride.
Without the letters coming in to Paul, we can't truly judge whether he was long-winded. Writing styles go through change frequently. I am a Paul partisan. If Christianity had evolved from the Jewish faction, I don't see how Protestant thought would have evolved. Paul's experience is that we can comprehend Jesus directly, with no need from the WTBTS. He does seem to protest too much his own apostolic credentials. I am not Paul so I don't know what he experienced. Something happened on the road to Damascus. Without Paul I doubt we would have a Christian church today.
PSacramento,
I want to be clear that I'm not giving these examples because I don't think you can come up with alternative explanations. Of course you can. There are always possibilities, which is why the argument from silence (Which is essentially what we have here) becomes a logical fallacy if used deductively.
It's a question of what is most probable. Take the expression at 1 Cor 2:8 for example. (Rulers of the age) It's an idiomatic expression in Greek that's usually reserved for the supernatural It's not likely that Paul would have used it for either a two-bit thug like Pilate or the Sanhedrin.
Paul provides the legalistic template for the cold authoritarianism and false humility of the Watchtower Society. Thank you Paul.
