My critical thoughts about Paul

by I Want to Believe 34 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Band on the Run

  I always wondered if there were some way I could grab him after Armageddon and spit in his face. He is overly quoted by the Witnesses. It is clear that the actual apostle Peter and James, Jesus' brother, did not think he was teaching correct doctrine. Jersualem was destroyed. If Jerusalem was unharmed, I wonder if he would be so pivotal in Christianity. It is strange how he does not write about Jesus of Nazareth, the historical figure, much.

  Even in college, I could not read Paul as a primary source b/c it triggered me deeply. Recently, I've been exposed to scholarship that reads Paul very differently from the WT. If you exclude the letters he prob. never wrote, he is more palatable. Perhaps Paul was not so bad but the way the church interpreted Paul has caused major problems.

  I recall the Witnesses often cited a letter to Timothy (I believe it is not written by Paul) where he counsels Timothy to drink a little bit of wine b/c it is helpful. I never read about concept of grace in Paul. He used such beautiful language. It struck me as weird how many times I heard to drink a little wine.
• 

  mind blown

  Greetings!

  I would think ANYONE claiming to be direct representatives of Christ would reflect HIS personality, compassion, wisdom and insight. I myself can see a future need for followers to stay organized for preaching and fellowship, however, without the risk of strangleing out his message of love and the good news of his kingdom with obessions of control and martial laws. Free will.

  We are in the 21st century and I see the GB clinging to victorian attitudes of sterness and mentalitly. They continue to cling like the Jews to the old ways which has led them to gross violations of moral codes against Jesus. They fear man and the world instead of God and his son. And they make the choice to follow Pauls example instead of the Historical Christ.
• 

  mind blown

  on a side note:

  On recently revisiting Paul's writings, I now see a different man. I see though he was stern with rules, etc., I see him reflecting on own misgivings of sterness and realigning himself and the congregations to the compassions and love of the Christ.
• 

  00DAD

  After 25 years as a faithful JW, it is hard to read, or should I say RE-read, the Bible and not interpret everything according to WT doctrine and theology. Even though I deconstructed much of it long ago, it's still hard to not hear the little JW voice say, "That scripture means ..."
• 

  mind blown

  2 Corinthians 2
  1 For I made up my mind not to make you another painful visit. 2 For if I cause you pain, who is there to make me glad but the one whom I have pained? 3 And I wrote as I did, so that when I came I might not suffer pain from those who should have made me rejoice, for I felt sure of all of you, that my joy would be the joy of you all. 4 For I wrote you out of much affliction and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to cause you pain but to let you know the abundant love that I have for you. 5 But if any one has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure--not to put it too severely--to you all. 6 For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; 7 so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. 9 For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. 10 Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, 11 to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs
• 

  Londo111

  There are some anomalous passages in the Epistles that do indeed raise eyebrows, but from Paul we have the concepts of Grace and Conscience and Christian Freedom. He often battled those who were trying to use legalism and trying to enslave other's consciences to their rigid views. Even in the case of incest in Corinthian congregation, I doubt he would have approved of shunning the way the Society practices it.
• 

  slimboyfat

  On the other hand it was Jesus not Paul who talked so much about people being tormented in hell.

  And it was Jesus not Paul who said that his followers must hate their families and be prepared to leave them behind for his sake.

  And it was Jesus not Paul who said that he would only be friends with people who did what he told them to do.
• 

  Fernando

  When Paul is interpreted from a spiritual perspective some of these issues take on an entirely different meaning and intent than religion/ists would have us believe.

  For example, not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, is not a call to meet formalistically in a purpose made religious building to partake in religious ritual, religious ceremony and religious teaching with fellow religionists at rigid days and times!

  Getting the context whilst important can be a challenge, especially nearly 2,000 years later and with religionists prescribing a religious context.

  That having been said I struggle with, and reject the notion that women should not be allowed to talk when a group of believers gather together for fellowship! Given how much the Watchtower has changed scripture during translation to suit their theology and interpretation, it wouldn't surprise me if RCC religionists have themselves had a good go at applying their hand to the same thing - only for much longer than the Watchtower.

  Religionists being led by the "god of religion" will have their god's take on these matters. Spiritual persons being led by the "god of Abraham" will have their God's take on matters. The views will be in conflict since the "god of religion" and the "god of Abraham" are enemies.
• 

  No Room For George

  I wanted to play Devil's Advocate to some degree on this topic, here's a post I did some time ago on Paul. Below was/is my thoughts on Paul's words related to marriage, however I believe you can apply this to much of what Paul wrote, if not everything.

  Another thing, a lot of people find fault with the Apostle Paul's letters, and some days I do too, however I think what gets missed often is that Paul reflected the cultural tenets of his era. While stating that women should be secondary to men, he still praised a handful of women in his journies. I don't buy that he was a misogynist, rather he was relating what he believed to be beneficial to the congregation, and was genuine in relating such. Personally, I think the biggest problem with Paul's letters, was not the man who penned them, but rather what leaders in organized religion today attempt to do with his letters. Case in point, "marry only in the Lord", which ironically enough at the beginning of that same chapter Paul explicitely states to the reader that the words are from him, not that of the Lord. It's good advice on one hand, but certainly not a command, and shouldn't be the basis for Local Needs parts, marking people, or questioning the qualifications of any Pioneer, Elder, Ministerial Servant who supports the couple in any way. Yet, that's exactly what organized religion does. The blood doctrine is another case of religion, particulary one religion, reading WAY TOO FAR into what Luke recorded Paul as relating to the Gentile brothers. I think that can sum up a lot of criticism of the Bible as it's not necessarily what was written, but rather how we read, interpret, and act upon what we've read.

  edit post: Funny to me how some people view Paul as being a misogynist, however don't see anything wrong with the woman who washed Jesus feet and then dried his feet with her hair.
• 

  Fernando

  It is worth remembering that the Watchtower surreptitiously rejects the "good news according to Paul".

  More than half the Bible's references to the "good news" are by Paul!

  Paul is decidedly and repeatedly against religion - specifically in the areas of law vs grace, and faith vs works.

  Compare the self-righteousness and externalism of religion described by Jesus in Matt 23 with IMPUTED righteousness (justification) described by Paul in Rom 3 (and 4 and 5).