What Paul tries to do in Romans and Hebrews is in part the straw man argument- he portrays a Judaism that doesn't exit and develops his arguments around this false Judaism, and he does the same with a Messiah figure that really isn't the Jewish Messiah and then invents Original Sin as the coup de gras.
The Apostle Paul VS. Jesus Christ---Were They On The Same Page?
by minimus 56 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
EdenOne
You must remember that there were more than one judaism. There was the judaism from the Torah, Nevim and Ketuvim - the Tanakh -, and then the judaism from the Talmud and Mishnah and several in-betweens. There was no straw man argument. there were indeed several types of judaism.
Eden
-
The Quiet One
Pm for Minimus
-
designs
I would encourage any christian to sit down with a Rabbi and discuss Romans and Hebrews and the Gospels in light of what Judaism is to see where the wheels fell off the cart.
-
EdenOne
Also, Paul didn't "invent" original Sin.
It was judaism that forgot the meaning of Genesis. By relying on Genesis 4:6, 7 (Jehovah tells Cain that he may get hold of his impending sin) and Deuternonomy 30:14 (Moses challenges the Hebrews to follow God's Law, for it's within their power to remain faithful to it - "that you may do it"), judaism assumed that sin was something that man could dominate, providing there was enough will power. However, this tennet is demonstrated wrong because no man (except Jesus) ever followed the law without flaw.
Eden
-
Fernando
It seems to me, like cognac explained, that some of Paul's hard to understand views, may make some sense in the light of a context of severe circumstances.
A friend once suggested that at the time overbearing pagan women wore shaved heads, and a need was seen to not identify with these. Those women in the congregation with shaved heads were asked to cover them.
We have never found a need to ask the women to be silent when we fellowship (simple/organic church). Maybe again there was a context where women with strong overbearing personalities were causing disruption?
As far as the "full Good News" is concerned I find that they were on the same page. However there was a radical shift (legally and otherwise) in the context (before versus after Jesus' ascension and inauguration as High Priest and mediator of the better New Covenant).
(Why does the "true religion" secretly blind its followers to the "Good News" according to Paul, Moses, Isaiah and Psalms?)
-
designs
Jews forgot the meaning of Genesis, now that is hilarious! That goes to show the soft-headed religion that Paul and Jesus were inventing. The doctrine of Original Sin keeps a person in a perpetual state of crippling mental distortion- I am a sinner, I can do nothing about it, belief in the shed blood of another is my only hope and water baptism seals the deal. It is tragic and demented.
As for Judaism's view of Original Sin and human inability to do good that was declared false at the foot of Mt. Sinai with the declaration in Duet. 13, which any Jewsih kid learns very early. That God is close to anyone is declared in Deut. 30- you can be close to God and you have the ability to change your future is declares- 'that you may do it'. You will notice when Paul quotes this verse in Romans 10:8 he does a very Wt. thing and stops short of the whole quote because it destroys his argument. Paul's literary manipulation is not lost on the observant reader. Freddie Franz took a page from ol Paul.
-
designs
Yom Kippur is another in a series of beliefs and practices in Judaism that declare the Christian's 'Original sin' and a need for a mediator to god false. Judaism formed itself around the idea of human perfectability and that humans are born 'innocent'. Sins are something a person can work out and with Yom Kippur and the ten days leading up to it a Jew knew to set matters right with any they had wronged. Paul of course cripples his follows with the opposite notion that you are scum worthy only of God's wrath and death, and Jesus arrogantly declares he alone will end the Law and the Torah.
-
Goodstein
The relationship of Paul and Jesus is one that I find very interesting. They've definitely got distinct ways of conveying their message, although I don't think Paul is out of harmony with Jesus, rather speaking to different circumstances. I value Paul as a seminal Christian teacher and regard his letters as amply worthy of serious consideration, but consider only the teachings of Jesus himself to be binding on all Christians at every time. Paul's authentic writings are, after all, addressed to specific congregations and situations. He was also an imperfect man who may have had a tendency to be legalistic, given his background. Of the major voices in the NT other than Jesus - I resist (on Paul's fine advice!) - to associate myself as a disciple of a particular one, but I do find that James "speaks to my condition" (as George Fox might have put it) a bit better than Paul.
(Note I don't mean "legalistic" in the sense of "adherant to the Mosaic law" which is nonsense in light of Paul's obvious antinomian streak compared to many other early Christians, I mean it in the broader sense of "making up rules for the Christian congregation" with an allusion to his concern for purity of the church.)
-
Band on the Run
I've read a lot of Paul and pondered issues for decades. First, Paul never was the jerk the WT teaches. I now admire Paul, a miracle in itself. Most of the most wacko stuff attribute d to Paul was never written by Paul. If you read Romans and Corinthians in a few srssions and then compare Hebrews and Timothy, the difference is notable.
I did a lot ofresearch, spoke with people, listened to sermons. Next, I tried to forget it all and just read the genuine letters.I was amazed. You can get a breakdown reading the commentary. Bethel never just reads.They develop an outline and find any garbage to prove their po ints.