A
by Terry 20 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
watersprout
B???
Peace
-
Terry
I don't know what went wrong with my post up there---but, oh well!!
I just had a random thought about the Apostle Paul..
Since Jesus exclusively confined his ministry to the Jews he would be viewed by those sympathetic to his message and teachings as a RABBI.
A few fringe followers would view him as Messiah.
But, Saul of Tarsus was dedicated to weeding out and destroying the "fringe" element seen to be inimical to traditional Judaism, was he not?
I imagine word spread quickly to those who believed Jesus was THE Messiah that this Saul was DANGEROUS!
The christian underground probably kept each other informed about such matters.
Now here is my question: How could this Saul (later called Paul) ever ACTUALLY be accepted as anything other than pretender trying to destroy messianic christianity? Why would Paul's radical theology be acceptable to christians since he Was who he Was?
Think of it this way: What if Osama Bin Laden had stared teaching christian doctrine that was sounding wonky? What if Bin Laden had claimed he had received a blinding light from heaven telling him to teach this NEW DOCTRINE?
Would anybody ACTUALLY think he was sincere and not merely engaging in disengenuous disinformation?
Bear in mind that the GREATEST DANGER to the Early church was the movement started by a GREAT ADMIRER OF PAUL'S TEACHING, named MARCION. In fact, MARCION thought ONLY Paul's theology was worth following.
Marcion was right there hearing that this Jesus was BETTER than old Jehovah and that Judaism was following a cruel God.
Why would the so-called "Governing Body" in Jerusalem view Paul as anything but a double-agent??
-
designs
You must have stayed up and read that marvel called Romans
aka 'How I tried to pull one over on the Gentiles'
-
OnTheWayOut
Terry, I cannot answer your philosophical question at that level, but I can answer it with reality.
There is some doubt as to whether Jesus was a man or a myth. If you read what Paul is said to have written before the other "New Testament" writings were put down in words, Jesus could have been pure myth.
After looking at that, there is virtually no doubt that Paul existed and was a huge foundation of "The Way." Oh, there's controversy over some of the writings, but not most of it. There's argument about what Paul meant or whether he had a conflicting following from the Christians under James and others.
It all just leads to wild speculation, as it does appear that Saul did manage to go from enemy to one-with-a-following. My speculation is that some kind of backroom deal was struck. Alternatively, Paul never was really accepted by the "governing body" and they pretended that he was after his death in an attempt to solidify "The Way" into one group.
-
wobble
As there was no Governing Body in those early days we need not speculate as to its attitude. Saul/Paul heard a voice on the road to Damascus, I have been speculating recently as to what might have triggered this, but it is noteworthy that no one else heard it, just a noise like thunder.
What happened in Pauls head was enough to convince him that Jesus was alive and in Heaven. He then sought out some followers of Jesus and spent 12 years in "Arabia" perfecting his Christology.
He then proceeded to build the foundations of an off-shoot sect of Judaism centerd on Christ as Redeemer/Messiah.
It is doubtful that he in his lifetime was overly concerned to build an organizational structure, house churches with autonomy would have satisfied Paul. The power struggles and pulling the thing together probably came post the Temple destruction.
There were bound to be tensions, i.e the "Judaizers" who wanted to impose orthodoxy on Gentile converts, but Paul does not seem to have caused a doctrinal problem with the establishment figures of James and Peter etc that was not easily solved, I doubt they viewed him with anything more than mild astonishment at his preaching tours, not as a"Double Agent" who threatened their faith.
All of what we know about such matters comes from post-Temple times, Paul himself tells little about personal relationships or Church politics.
After 70CE the agenda has changed, conventional Temple-centric Judaism has been dealt a terminal blow, all the prophecies which were seen to be fulfilled in the Temple now need re-interpretation, Pauls theology of all is fulfilled " in Christ" can be used to continue the religion of God's Chosen People, without a literal Temple.
So then we get the Gospels and other writings to boost the Mythos about Jesus, and the gradual emergence of a Hierarchical Church Organization.
In all of this , Paul's preaching simply laid an ideal foundation, his sincerety had attracted many followers to the Cult of Jesus, followers who were grist to the mill of power hungry "Bishops" etc.
-
journey-on
Think of it this way: What if Osama Bin Laden had stared teaching christian doctrine that was sounding wonky? What if Bin Laden had claimed he had received a blinding light from heaven telling him to teach this NEW DOCTRINE?
Would anybody ACTUALLY think he was sincere and not merely engaging in disengenuous disinformation?
I guarantee there would be a few that would buy it. Then with the right PR and marketing, the right people supporting it and giving "testimonies", and a good mission statement and organizational structure...voila! A new religion is born and on the move. -
journey-on
Also, it wouldn't hurt if a New York Times best-selling book was promoted to give it some additional credibility. Throw in an appearance or two on "The View", an interview with some big-name media personality, an Oprah Winfrey show about his "spiritual" experience, and you have the makings of something believable and embraceable.
-
binadub
Terry:
Although it is true that many Jews in the upper Galilee did regard Jesus as a Rabbi, it is a false teaching that Jesus "confined his ministry to the Jews." The most outstanding scriptural evidence of that is when Jesus crossed the Sea of Galilee to the "land of the Garasenes"( Mark 5:1-20). The land across the Sea of Galilee was Greek pagan. Here is where he cast the demons out of a man into a herd of swine who plunged into the sea. (Jews did not keep herds of swine. Greek pagans did for food and sacrificial purposes.) The region is also known as the Decropolis.
The herdsmen and others who saw the demonized man healed were so afraid they sent Jesus and his apostles away. However they came back again, AFTER he had healed a woman's daughter in the land of Tyre. The scripture is explicit that the woman was a Gentile (7:26). After this he returned to Decapolis and performed another healing of a deaf man, and the sequence of scripture indicates that he fed a crowd of 4000 there this time (Mark 7:31-8:10). Some scholars suggest that Jesus prepared the way for Saul/Paul in this region.
Then there is the Samatitan woman at the well. Jesus said he could give her "living water."
When Jesus was with his followers at Caesarea Philippi (now known as Banias), where he asked them who they said he was and Peter said he was the Messiah, this place was on sacred Roman territory. It had been named by Herod after the Roman Caesar, Philippi, and it was a seat of pagan worship to the Roman god, Pan. In this way, Jesus was telling them he would establish His church in the midst of Satan's world, and the gates of death would not prevail.
This was in the last part of his ministry, just before they began the last journey to Jerusalem where Jesus would be arrested and crucified. This was when he began to tell them that he must die. They did not comprehend. And Jesus told them not to tell anyone that He was the Messiah--even at this last stage of his ministry on earth.
What people don't realize is how much time Jesus spent eluding Herod, who was looking for him because Herod thought he might be a resurrected John the Baptist. Others had thought he might be Elijah. It was not an uncommon belief in their time. (Matt. 16:13-20)
How the Watchtower could get away with teaching something so absolutely explicit in scripture boggles the mind, but is also shows how little JWs actually read their Bible.
~Binadub
-
AGuest
Now here is my question: How could this Saul (later called Paul) ever ACTUALLY be accepted as anything other than pretender trying to destroy messianic christianity? Why would Paul's radical theology be acceptable to christians since he Was who he Was?
Because at least three testified as to what occurred and/or his authenticity, dear Terry (peace to you!)... including the "men" (denoting more than one) who were with Paul on the road to Damascus:
"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man..." Acts 9:7
... and Ananias:
"Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake." Acts 9:13-16
Now, of course, the entire account WAS what was RELATED to Luke by others (either those who saw or heard of it)... and NOT inspired. Given that Ananias later blasphemed, I don't know whether he should have been believed from the go. But apparently he was. It is worthy to note, however, that the Apostles didn't accept Paul right off the bat; indeed, they had a GREAT disagreement as a result of Paul's admonitions to the Corinthians. Because of that, they walked different paths for about 14 years. It was the matter of... and agreement as to... the issue of circumcision for the nations that eventually brought them together.
it is noteworthy that no one else heard it, just a noise like thunder.
I see this error posted again, and again, and again on this site, dear Wobble (the greatest of love and peace to you!); however, Acts 9:7 would tend to disagree. There, it indicates that at least two others "heard"... and so gave witness to what Paul "heard".
Given that I hear my Lord's voice... I would be the last to dispute with either Paul, his witnesses, or Ananias. And I think that this was the basis for the Apostles' ultimate acceptance of him: to deny him and what he claimed he heard could very well have been blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Especially since a lot of what he said (although not all) was what THEY also received from the Spirit.
I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA