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

by Terry 204 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Terry
    Terry

    I've spent my adult life studying New Testament, gnosticism and early Christianity. I don't think it can be accessed by definite statements. When people ask me what happened, I always say the Bible says this but I was not personally there to witness it with my own eyes.

    It is hard to keep in mind that we have to understand the META process when dealing with scripture.

    We can write about our experiences....or...

    we can write about WRITING ABOUT our experiences.

    The second part is META.

    What we often consider to be FACTS in scripture has to be separated by the PROCESS involved in transmitting what we perceive as facts.

    Did Jesus walk on water?

    Or......

    Did people SAY he walked on water and THAT was written down as fact?

    Does the magician saw the lady in half? It looks like he did.

    Would we be lying if we reported what we THINK we actually saw him do?

    If there is no skepticism involved in transmission of our eyewitness account the CONCLUSION is offered as FACT.

    But, there is a difference between what the unskeptical eyewitness reports and the actual magician's apparent actions.

    An unbiased reporter would say, "It was reported by folks who say they spoke with Jesus' apostles who were on the boat that day that Jesus appeared to be walking on the surface of the water."

    Compare that to: "Jesus was walking on the water."

    If you are reporting an event YOU WANT TO BELIEVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED your words will take on more factual certainty automatically.

    I love you is more emotionally appealing than "I think" I love you.

    Paul reports NOT that he THOUGHT he was seeing and hearing Jesus revealing sacred secrets previously unrevealed to even the Apostles.

    Paul reports it as FACT. We must trust his assessment or doubt his assessment or remain neutral.

    We do so based on WHAT WE HAVE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE already.

    Is there a difference qualitatively in such a perception?

    You decide!

  • donuthole
    donuthole

    @BrotherDan

    I hate semantics but maybe "throw out" is not the correct term here. Just because something is seen as "uninspired" and not "scripture" doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't have value. We can look it as his letters as they were written and read at the time and not as they came to be regarded over the centuries. We need to keep in mind that Paul wrote his letters, not necessarily to believers nearly 2,000 years later, but to real groups of people in his day, often in answer to specific problems that arose or questions they asked. It's like listening to one side of a telephone conversation.

    Jesus is quoted as saying "a servant is not greater than his master". Few who identify as Christians would argue that Paul is greater than Jesus, yet they often show this when they start with the letters of Paul and use them to interpret Jesus. To me it would seem to be the other way around. If we accept that Jesus is truth and true prophecy reflects the spirit of Christ, then we can in turn examine what others are preaching and reflecting. This includes the letters of Paul of Tarsus, this includes the letters of Clement of Rome, this includes what people write/say today.

    To what the original poster brought up, Paul didn't have the benefit of hearing Jesus during his ministry and he had limited access to those who did. It comes as no surprise then that he doesn't offer up a lot by way of direct quotes. He did have the Spirit of Christ which is a teacher and taught Paul over time.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    Jesus is quoted as saying "a servant is not greater than his master". Few who identify as Christians would argue that Paul is greater than Jesus, yet they often show this when they start with the letters of Paul and use them to interpret Jesus. To me it would seem to be the other way around. If we accept that Jesus is truth and true prophecy reflects the spirit of Christ, then we can in turn examine what others are preaching and reflecting. This includes the letters of Paul of Tarsus, this includes the letters of Clement of Rome, this includes what people write/say today.

    well put.

  • Terry
    Terry

    I wonder how many christians know or reflect upon the order of presentation in the New Testament?

    If one day the Q document were found and it could be demonstrated that the so-called Synoptic Gospels (what a loaded term!) were but enthusiastic fan-fictions perhaps the letters of Paul (and the pseudo-Paul writings) might take on a different authority.

    The more I think about how scrupulously the religious have hoarded relics over the centuries the more incomprehensible it becomes that original autograph manuscripts vanished into a black hole.

    Our mental story of Jesus is NOT even the one of the scriptures we have. It is an overlapping composite using each of the separate accounts blending into a meta-story which is NOT contained in any ONE of them!

    The sifting and blending and dove-tailing is a fiction replacing the separate, distinct and often at-odds narratives as such. This bothers us not at all!

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    Paul took it and transformed it to another system of rules,

    As a woman, I really wanted to take issue with Paul (may you all have peace!), as any self-respecting woman would. I am just as "capable" as any man: I can and have supported myself, raised children, conducted business, bought and sold property, and more. And now, I have received the holy spirit just as any man can and has. And... I have been permitted, even directed, to share much of what I have received from the Holy Spirit... with women AND men, alike. just like any man. But how can that be, given Paul's (?) teachings? Through the spirit that I received, I have learned that, as Paul (?) wrote, "There is neither male nor female..." among those who were baptized into [the Body of] Christ - all such are sons of God.

    Given that, I needed... had... to "understand" Paul, first, in order to put faith in what I heard and follow through in sharing it, and second, in order to reconcile my waxing and waning "love" for him. How could a man who so sublimely explained love and a great many other things pertaining to the spirit realm... with which MY spirit bore witness to the TRUTH of... have such an oppressive, bigoted, unchristlike view of women??? And so, I did the simplest thing I knew how: I asked. And I received a reply.

    Truthfully, dear ones, when we think of Paul's views of women, we CANNOT overlook that these were Jewish/Israelite women. They were part of a PROUD people (often, overly so!): they were Abraham's SEED! So, okay, they had been exiled into Assyria and Babylon for their "error." Yet, per the Prophets they were told that their error had been pardoned, that they would be restored! And so, the return to Jerusalem and rebuilding of the temple was, to them, PROOF of that restoration. And NOW... Messiah had arrived and set them "free"!

    So, now, who were the Romans to tell them anything?? Who were they to say a woman could not do such and so, and certainly not in public? If Messiah had come and now set them free, why COULDN'T they just ignore the Romans? Were they not now ever "better" than the Jews who did NOT put their faith in Messiah?? They thought so - they're national pride often convinced them (the Jewish converts) of it... and now being considered somewhat "better" than the Jews did so for the gentiles.

    That pride, however, could have gotten any... if not all... of them killed.

    Paul, however, knew... unlike even some of the Apostles... that what my Lord had meant when he spoke of them being free... was with regard to the LAW [Covenant] and so the SPIRIT (so that now they could love, even associate with... gentiles... which they could NOT do under the Law!)... but NOT with regard to the FLESH (which could/would still die)... and thus, the laws of man (which could be used to condemn their flesh to death). Being a Roman, he also knew what going against Roman law could result in... for ALL of them!

    But, being that they were Abraham's seed... many of these were still a bit hard-headed... and stiff-necked. And so, although they had received an anointing [with holy spirit] which set them free SPIRITUALLY... they did not all know how to live... as a [spiritually] free people! Much like those today who are set free from religion (particularly the WTBTS), yet return to the same "low sink of debauchery" they resided in BEFORE enslaving themselves to religion... and, for some, the Law Covenant. And I am not speaking of general immorality, sin of the flesh... but of hatred, and jealousies, and covetousness... and wickedness that originates with the SPIRIT. Even so, what do most demonstrate, even today? That they are unable to live... WITHOUT law. Of some sort or another.

    And so Paul used what he knew: the Law.

    Does that mean that all that Paul taught was correct? Not at all. Nor was it incorrect. Paul made the mistake of making himself a "teacher". Yet, Christ said "Do not any of you be called 'teacher'... for ONE is your teacher." So Paul SHOULD have simply sent them to my Lord... rather than trying to take them on as HIS own sheep. He let his [misplaced] need to lead and [misunderstood] obligation to Christ... put him in a position he himself came to regret. He did it, though, because of his training... and his love. He wanted to present them as a chaste virgin - what he forgot is that it wasn't his to DO - it belongs to my Lord.

    We can try to judge Paul, sure - he absolutely went beyond the Christ at times. But any who do so judge should be careful in their doing so, particularly if they did the same thing (i.e., taught lies to and/or tried to place under Law and/or set themselves up as teachers [over] the Body of Christ and/or others]. This includes, but isn't necessarily limited to those who WERE church/religious leaders/pastors/priests/elders/COs/DOs/pioneers/bible study conductors, etc.). Because if you did it, how are you any different? You're not, really, and since you had the same admonition... to listen to CHRIST... versus listening to men... even Paul... the excuse that you were misled may not fly. And so, the SAME judgment with which YOU judge... may end up being YOUR judgment.

    What can you do, then? Leave it to God and Christ... while YOU endeavor to listen to the One who speaks... from the heavens. And that is what you SHOULD be sharing, what you receive from him, and encouraging others to seek. Not your [own] words... or Paul's (if they don't comport with what that One, the Holy Spirit, says).

    I hope this helps and, again, I bid you all peace... as well as ears to hear the Holy Spirit for yourself on this matter, if you so wish it.

    Servant to the Household of God, Israel, and all those who go with... and a slave of JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, the Holy Spirit and Holy One of Israel, who is the Son and Christ of the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies,

    SA

  • TD
    TD
    Do I have all this right?

    In this case, it's not so much a queston of the authenticity of Paul's writings as it is a question of the historicity of the Biblical Jesus himself.

    And to be fair, Paul does not even seem to know as much about the Biblical Jesus as a studious Christian today would. Paul doesn't seem to know who exactly put Jesus to death for example (1 Cor 2:8) Paul doesn't seem familiar with the Lord's Prayer (Romans 8:26) Time after time, Paul develops intricate arguments based on OT parallels, fulfillments and his own reasoning when he could have simply quoted Jesus.

    And on the flip side of the coin, Paul takes things that Jesus briefly mentions almost in passing (e.g. The parousia) and fleshes them out into entire pages of explanation.

    Source critics notice this phenomenon and wonder whether some of Paul's theology was put into the mouth of Jesus at a later date. You have to understand that source criticism is an historical science and all historians concern themselves with what probably happened and not necessarlity with what is claimed to have happened. --In other words, while it's not conclusive, it is a nagging loose end. (There's much more to it than the thumbnail I described above.)

  • Terry
    Terry

    Source critics notice this phenomenon and wonder whether some of Paul's theology was put into the mouth of Jesus at a later date.

    Indeed.

    I love how one thing can BE MADE to verify another thing without blinking an eye at the order in which one influenced the other.

    The whole Synoptic Gospel explanation is just logical tatters.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    That's because Jesus the Galillean Jew never existed. He was invented later than Paul.

    At least that's what some say.

    See: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    To be fair TD, Paul admits that the only thing he choose to know " was the Lord and him crucified".

    Paul was chosen by the Lord for a specific task, to spead the Gospel of Christ, that it is in Christ that there is salvation, I argue that he did just that and, truth be told, did it better than anyone else.

    As Anthohy Flew said, he was a Top Notch Philosopher and Flew would know !

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    crossan asserts that Paul was a feminist. I thought that was a gutsy, way out there assertion. A ploy to get publicity. After reading his book on Paul and The Roman Empire, I had a view of Paul as feminist.

    The point that Paul's correspondence was to churches that he founded or knew well from word of mouth such as Romans is a good point. If his letters were to the world, as they have become, Paul would have clarified his thoughts. The priests were I worshipped in NY would say that a certain scripture was unfortunate. If Paul knew he was writing scripture, he would have been more careful. Paul's correspondence is one-sided. We don't have the letters written to him. We also don't know the personalities and local political conditions that could have swayed him to write a certain point.

    I love Paul now. Legend has it that other apostles of the Twelve travelled to different regions of the known world. Thomas went to India. It is sad we don't Thomas' view of Jesus and his Christology. I have a special affinity for doubting Thomas. Jesus did not disfellowship but, rather, helped him to belief.

    Coptic Christianity is interesting. I don't know whether the East Orthodox rites emphasize Paul. I feel the culture is revealed in the legends.

    Could we ever have such a thread in the Witnesses? I refuse to visit their website.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit