Paul, leading authority on Christianity, does NOT quote Jesus!

by Terry 204 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AGuest

  Isn't is a different matter, however, dear designs (peace to you!), when one changes his/her own words... due, perhaps, to regret OR compassion... versus when another... who doesn't even know the person... purports to speak FOR him/her, saying he/she meant/wants thus and so, while acknowledging that the person never said ANY of it to them directly, but they're only going by, say, what they THINK others say such one meant/wanted... while telling others that they ARE the authority... spokesperson... indeed, "visible representative"... for the one who spoke first?

  I think it is. I think it's one thing for you, designs, to say something, perhaps here... and then change your mind, for whatever your reasons, to say something to the contrary... and for ME to say you said something... based on, say, what dear Jay88 (peace to you!) said you said... or wrote you said... while holding myself up as the "authority" on what you said.

  At least Paul states that he received it directly from Christ/Holy Spirit... OR was speaking of his own initiative. The WTBTS says neither: either that they receive what they do directly from Christ/Holy Spirit... OR that they speak of their own initiative. One would have to wonder, if it isn't the one or the other, exactly what... or rather WHO... IS the "source"?

  Paul at least really did have the congregations' best interest at heart (albeit, sometimes mistaken in his method). If nothing else, he at LEAST tried to provide for himself, even did manual labor like tent-making, which was a step down from the job of Pharisee. He didn't use Christ to try and live off the Body. True, he graciously received from them from time to time, but so did the others. He at least had the wherewithall to acknowledge his foibles and imperfections.

  The day when the WTBTS leadership ever condescends to actually get jobs and support themselves... rather than "devour widows houses for a pretense" (Matt. 23:14, which, interestingly, you will NOT find in the text of the NWT)... as well as publicly acknowledge THEIR errors to the congregations (i.e., in the same "letter" they state everything else, the WT)... is the day when... well, let's just say "Armageddon" will arrive first.

  Notwithstanding your position re my Lord, Paul, and the Jewish belief system altogether, I understand your chagrin of both... Paul and the WTBTS leadership; however, I don't think they're really that similar. The motives are entirely different and, yes, we CAN say that based simply on the amount of money... and real estate and other holdings... held by the WTBTS. While many elderly, single parent, sick, and un/under-employed JWs are in need? Seriously, a GB member who really is a "true" follower of Christ can't see "anything" wrong with that?? Nope, sorry, but I don't buy it.

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Awen

  Peace be with you.

  Yes, it's true God's standards have always been the same. Men however have taken what God has said and twisted or corrupted it to suit their own ends. The WTBTS is very guilty of this. The unmerciful treatment fo their fellow worshippers clearly bear this out. They have no applied Jesus words at Matthew 9:9-13

  9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

  10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

  12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

  Time and again we as Christians are told by Christ that mercy and love should be the empowering force that moves us to action in regards to the welfare of our fellow man (be they Christians or not). The GB have clearly not demonstrated love for the afflicted ones, ones suffering from depression, hard economic times, family problems etc. Their advice has always been to continue to give money, go out in field service, comment at meetings and study the WTS publications. They lack empathy. People are told to wait on Jehovah, yet if a person seeks professional help, be it medical or legal they are criticized by the GB for "running ahead" of Jehovah when this clearly isn't the case at all. The GB have set themselves up as Judge, Jury and Executioner as regards to administering discipline in the congregation and it's their way or not at all. The problem with this mentality of strict adherence to rules and regulations (many of which change with "New Light") leaves the congregations confused and bewildered as to what is the right course. Many witnesses have lost their lives due to the GB's ever changing doctrines and their refusal to admit responsibility when they have caused harm to others. They "blame" God and say it's "New Light" from him and thus cause people to lose faith in God.

  Mark 2:23-28

  .23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"

  25 He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

  27 Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

  Jesus here clearly shows that the Sabbath was made to be a benefit for mankind and not a burden. The Law covenant was made to show the Israelites that they couldn't come to God on their own, they needed a mediator, but the Law set them free from the corruption of the surrounding nations. The Pharisees and Sadducees (think modern day Governing Body) made the Law a burden to the people and created sub-laws and regulations for every aspect of life. The GB does the exact same thing. When I read Luke 12:40-48 I get that Jesus was talking about the GB directly in regards to the Evil Slave which make up only part of the FDS which isn't made up of just JW's and ex-JWs but worshippers of God from all over the world.

  Luke 12:40-48 (New International Version, ©2010)

  40 You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

  41 Peter asked, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?"

  42 The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns.

  44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

  45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk

  46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

  47 "The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.

  48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

  In regards to God changing things He has said in the past:

  When Jonah was sent to Ninevah to speak to the inhabitants about YHWH's judgment against them he was unaware that the potential for forgiveness existed. He thought it was cut and dry, that they would be destroyed no matter what. That wasn't the case and he became upset about it. God didn't change his decision regarding Ninevah, he simply didn't give Jonah all the information regarding his task and the possiblity of a different outcome based upon whther they repented or not.

  In regards to the Law of Moses Jesus said:

  New International Version (©1984)

  Matthew 5:19

  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

  Jesus also said:

  (New International Version, ©2010)

  Matthew 5:17
  17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

  Romans 10:14 "For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God."

  Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses but he didn't destroy it because everything that is in the Law of Moses is also contained in the teachings of Christ. The Law was a tutor leading to Christ and so to gain salvation we no longer look to the Law of Moses, but rather the same Law in Christ.

  The Law of Moses gave detailed requirements for the carrying out of sacrifices and observation of certain days. Are these still required. In my opinion, no. Simply put, the Temple no longer exists for it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E. Without a Temple there can be no sacrifices. The Orthodox Judaism supports this notion themselves until the building of the Third temple which will commence with the arrival of the Jewish Messiah.

  More information can be obtained here:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levite#In_contemporary_Jewish_practice

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Temple

  Jesus himself echoes this idea when speaking to the Samaritan woman in which he stated:

  John 4:21

  (New International Version, ©2010)

  21 "Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem."

  May you have peace,

  Awen
• 

  Pistoff

  To Christians, Jesus' death and resurrection are even more important than his ministry and whatever miraculous deeds he accomplished.

  This is the sad thing; if Jesus was not raised up to heaven, most christians would bolt.

  What about the revolutionary view of Jesus? What about the egalitarian nature of the fellowship immediately after his death?

  Why must Jesus be a Risen Savior to be of merit to us today?

  What he said and taught raised the lowest among us to the social status of all of us; this is the lesson of the 'leper' who was no longer untouchable.

  What is more of a miracle, that one man be cured of a loath disease or that an untouchable social class is raised by the realization that we are all the same? That is the miracle that stunned Paul, in my opinion. After all, Paul said there was no slave or master, no jew or greek, no male or female. In Paul's day, females were a low social class.

  After saying that, I completely agree with Terry; either Paul is not in the least bit interested in what Jesus said or did.

  OR:

  What Jesus is said to have said was not determined until AFTER Paul wrote his authentic letters.

  That is the more likely scenario.

  The really disturbing fact for most christians:

  Paul NEVER mentions Jesus' miracles; never.

  WHY not?

  It certainly must be that he had never heard of them. Think about what that means; the miracles of Jesus were not 'known' until after Paul wrote his letters.

  Why?
• 

  Band on the Run

  He may assume that the Christians he was writing to already knew the miracles. These were not random letters. We don't have the correspondence going to Paul nor do we have the individual situations of the Christian congregations he founded. Not so long ago, no one knew the Gnostic gospels. Theories existed that such writings existed from Paul's arguments to them.

  Paul is not interested in preaching Jesus of Nazareth. Christ crucified is a much more compelling subject. Writings of the miracles may have existed. The synoptics basically repeat each other in most place so there had to be an earlier source. There is so much that we can't know right now. Issuing definitive statements as to what Paul knew and did not know is a gamble.

  There is no clear idea of Christianity absent Paul's teachings and theology. Without a contrast, it is hard to judge him. As I mentioned before, he doth protest too much according to contemporary standards. Maybe it wasn't too much according to the literary conventions of his day. He fashioned a form of Christianity that could be transferred to consecutive generations. I suspect his theology wasn't legitimate when he wrote but it certainly became legitimate. I concur with his emphasis on the Risen Christ. The folly of the gospel --fools for Christ. Great humans have done good works and transformed thought in their cultures. I've heard that Christians are the only ones who believe their myth actually happened. Paul writes about what makes Jesus unique and special. I love his teachings, minus the way those with power interpreted them.

  When I read Paul now, I feel that his writings do not remote resemble what the WTBTS teach. Like Jesus, Paul morphs with the times. Feminists despise him. Now he is presented as a feminist. Paul founded Christianity, not Jesus
• 

  ProdigalSon

  I'm probably beginning to sound like a broken record, but I keep bringing up Colossians 1:23, and no one ever really addresses it. If Paul's focus, his gospel, was on Jesus of Nazareth, how could this good news have already been preached in all creation under heaven, and why did Paul say that he "BECAME A MINISTER" of this already-preached gospel?

  If, on the other hand, Paul was thinking of a Christ Consciousness, a "gnosis" that swept through a wide region at the beginning of the first century, through groups like the Nazarites and the Essenes, a re-telling or expansion of the teachings previously attributed to Buddha, Mithra, Zoroaster, Hercules, etc..... I think that would explain this whole dilemma with Paul, and with Christianity in general. Basically, they understood the Bible's metaphors and allegories. They didn't take it literally because, well, it simply wasn't the literary style to write literal stories in Bible times. It was much easier to explain metaphysical truths through parables and symbolism. Masters have said that it is IMPOSSIBLE to put many of these concepts into words. This is probably why the Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Trinity is "incomprehensible to human intelligence".

  This would also explain what St. Augustine of Hippo was referring to when he said that what BECAME the Christian religion goes back to the beginning of recorded history.

  Just look at the mass confusion that the Bible has caused the literalists, to the point of creating more than 40,000 Christian denominations.... and the endless debates and arguments that continue on forums like this one when these things have already been argued ad nauseum for 2,000 years. No one will EVER be able to make a coherent set of doctrines by reading the Bible literally.

  Now if you add the Nag Hammadi Library to the Bible and put it all together, you have a much more complete picture of what was going on during the first 300 years of the Christian era, because it's all the stuff that the Church destroyed, and we just don't have ANY of the original books that were accepted into the Canon.
• 

  PSacramento

  and we just don't have ANY of the original books that were accepted into the Canon.

  The codex vaticanus and codex sinaiticus are from more or less the time of when the canon was being formed and we have them in their original state.
• 

  ProdigalSon

  Psac, what does "more or less" mean? A few hundred years?

  Do you really trust that the Roman Councils gave the world the truth? If that's the case, why did they burn everything that they didn't accept, including the people who wouldn't accept THEM and their ecumenical one-world religion?
• 

  LongHairGal

  I am not surprised. Doesn't matter though. I am not in the least interested in what a woman-hating individual like the so-called apostle paul thought about anything.
• 

  PSacramento

  Psac, what does "more or less" mean? A few hundred years?

  I don't have the exact numbers but the Sinaiticus and vaticanus are both dated to the first part of the 4th century 330 -36o AD I think

  Do you really trust that the Roman Councils gave the world the truth? If that's the case, why did they burn everything that they didn't accept, including the people who wouldn't accept THEM and their ecumenical one-world religion?

  AH dude, the fact that the RCC fucked up royally over the years, doesn't change that we still have copies of the majority of the stufff they were rumored to have destroyed ( or we wouldn't be talking about them).

  Man is so afraid of losing power when he gets it that they do the most stupid things possible to keep it.
• 

  PSacramento

  I am not in the least interested in what a woman-hating individual like the so-called apostle paul thought about anything.

  Hate him because he was an arrogant dick at times, but there is no evidence that he hated women.