Cant get over this

by dogisgod 23 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • sir82
    sir82
    I don't think this is the case. Got any links?

    You don't think what is the case - that Paul's letters & the 4 traditional gospels were written before the gnostic gospels?

    From Wikipedia (I know, not the most authoritative, but I'm lazy & it's probably at least a good starting point):

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

    The Gnostic Gospels are a collection of about fifty-two texts based upon the ancient wisdom teachings of several prophets and spiritual leaders including Jesus, written from the 2nd - 4th century AD. [1]

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

    Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [33] ) view as follows:

    • Mark: c. 68–73, [34] c 65-70 [35]
    • Matthew: c. 70–100. [34] c 80-85. [36]
    • Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85, [34] c 80-85 [37]
    • John: c 90-100, [38] c. 90–110, [39] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

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

    hese are the 7 letters (with consensus dates) [3] considered genuine by most scholars (see main article Authorship of the Pauline epistles: section The undisputed epistles):

    Last time I checked, "the first century AD" preceded the "2nd-4th century AD".

  • Mad Sweeney
  • AGuest
    AGuest
    Paul was the first big apostate from what Jesus taught. The stuff he wrote wasn't what Jesus was all about at all.

    This isn't entirely true, dear MS (the greatest of love and peace to you!). While it is true that Paul is unjustifiably over-revered the order of the placement in the Bible of those writings attributed to him greatly contribute to this. That isn't exactly his fault, though, but that of those who canonized the Bible books (which wasn't done by accident).

    If, however, one were to put the writings attributed to him in their written order... and compared those with what Luke wrote in the Acts account, one will "see" and entirely different "Paul." First, one will see that he was NOT called for being zealous but because of the bloodguilt he carried: for those whose blood he was responsible for spilling due to his part in persecuting the christians, particularly Stephen, who place he was now taking in the ministry - the work had to go on and since he had a hand in killing the one who was SUPPOSED to do it, he now had to do it. But... HE had to undergo GREAT suffering in HIS doing it.

    Second, one will see that, when he started out, he still maintained a LOT of "baggage" from his exceptional education as a Pharisee. This shouldn't be surprising to any of us who've left the WTBTS or any other religion or structured indoctrination: old habits really are hard to break. But as you read his writings you can see the transformation he undergoes. You can also see that Christ is revealing truths to him AS he is training and teaching him; it wasn't given to him in one fell swoop - he learned BY MEANS OF his sufferings.

    Finally, one will see that a lot that is attributed to Paul is not necessarily FROM Paul - he did not write all that they say he did... AND some of what he DID write (which could be a lot, who knows?) ISN'T included.

    Paul tried to SHOW his zeal for God, true, by imposing temple and other laws on the Body. But he didn't get away with it back then - he was often challenged and sometimes outright and directly opposed. And he didn't always like that and so spoke disparagingly of others when he did. But, again, if you read the writings in order, you will see his spiritual progress. He was young and impetuous when he started, but eventually matured into a full grown christian man.

    The problem is twofold, however: first, that some believe Paul was changed immediately due to his conversion. Heck, if the disciples... who literally walked with Christ... held on to old baggage, and often needed correction and chastisement... how in the WORLD can we believe that Paul "got it" immediately, right away, overnight? I can say, with all honesty, that hasn't happened for me. Those who receive holy spirit are LED... by Christ, the Holy Spirit... into all truth. They don't wake up "there". Second, that some saw the opportunity... and so used... Paul's novice understandings and teachings... to mislead, control, and oppress others. That's why the writings are set in the canon as they are.

    Which is why putting one's trust in the Bible... is folly. And dangerous. Both for those who do so... and those who they attempt to lead with their [mis]understandings of what it says. For one, they call the entire compilation "scripture," when it is NOT. But in doing so, they are able to put fear in the hearts and minds of those who feel it a "sin" to go against "the scriptures." But something Christ himself is recorded to have said that is IN the Bible SHOULD be the guiding "light":

    "You are searching the scriptures because you THINK that by means of THEM you will have life. And these are the very ones that bear witness to ME; yet... you do not want to come... to ME... that you may have life."

    Thus, so many, because they read "Paul" and put their trust in what HE says, totally overlook... and MISS... what Christ is recorded to have said as to MANY matters. As a result, they are actually disciples of PAUL... versus disciples of Christ. And no, it does not work by default - following Paul does NOT automatically make one a follower of Christ. Even if Paul followed Christ - one is still following Paul... where HIS teachings deviate from what Christ taught.

    They follow Paul, however, because they are "lovers of law." Unfortunately, it is the WRONG law: they are lovers of the Law Covenant, which law was fulfilled BY Christ, impaled along with him, and subsequently replaced with a NEW law... which Paul only began to understand... and teach... after some years. They love the OLD Law, however, because it is a Law that, for millenia, was and is used to point the finger at others... as a window to peer at others... rather than a mirror and means to point a finger at oneself.

    Paul started looking in windows and pointing fingers (which, by the way, the "western" world LOVES to do, so the Bible compilation is PERFECT for justifying this). As he progressed, however... which is something all TRUE christians do... because the Holy Spirit "finishes" their training... he LEARNED to look in the mirror and point the finger toward himself. That is not always apparent in the words he used, but if one is "seeing" Paul as to his SPIRIT, one will see where he was trying to go and went.

    For us, one only needs to "weigh" whatever Paul said against (1) what Christ, the Holy Spirit, says on the matter, now; (2) love... or; (3) if one does not have the faith to hear what he says now... or one is yet lacking in love... (3) what he was recorded to have said, then. And he condemned no thief (but promised one entry to the kingdom); no drunkard (but actually helped release some from their "demon"); adulterer (in fact, he openly and publicly forgave a woman caught in the act), etc. So, Paul's admonition to "remove the [wicked] man from among you"... CANNOT have been right.

    I hope this helps and, again, I bid you peace!

    A slave of Christ,

    SA

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Re the Gnostics.

    Not much survived of their wrtings for a mirad of reasons, but gnostics were around for some time even before Jesus, but not in the typical "christian-gnostic" form that most think of today.

    Most of those were from the 2nd century and some were inluenced by John's Gospel.

    Many of the gnostics were just christians trying to forumlate their views in a gnostic infulenced environment.

    They never "won" much converts because they taught and preached a different message than the more popular "proto-orthodox" of their time.

    An example is women having to become male to enter the kingdoem of God ( As per Gospel of Thomas).

    As for Paul, Shelby hit most of the nails on the head in her post ( Peace to you my sister) but I will add this, Paul wrote specfifc letters to specific groups going through specific issues, Groups that he set up, one must always read Paul in THAT context.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit