IS it possible that Paul was just a failed Pharisee that (page 4)

Vidiot

Paul "pharisized" Christianity.

Can't believe I never considered that before.

Pistoff

Paul never discusses the teachings or sayings of Jesus, and never talks about the miracles of Jesus.

Paul wrote before the finalized versions of the gospels.

I don't think Paul was other than he said, a Pharisee. He could have made tents too.

He obviously was overwhelmed at what he saw in the Jesus community, and converted as a result.

TD

Paul "pharisized" Christianity.
Can't believe I never considered that before.

Don't feel bad for having never considered it. It's utter nonsense.

Christianity in Jerusalem in its very earliest years was simply belief in Jesus fused to a full obervance of the Law. Many scholars have observed that the boundary between Christian and Pharisee was permeable at that time.

It was Paul who changed all that. (For crying out loud!)

Paul's worldview, especially his view of the Law as he expressed it in Galatians and Romans was about as diametrically opposed to the fanatical devotion of Phariseeism as was humanly possible to get.

Paul's choice of illustrations, like comparing the Christian course to an athletic event where uncircumcised Gentiles performed in the nude were almost certainly picked for shock value.

Paul's view (And by extension, the Christian view today) of the Law as a condemnatory burden was anathema to Judaism both then and now.

adamah

Steve2 said-

The Watchtower Society's game of fools over the definition of Christ's "generation" is a recent example.

Apparently the GB is "inspired" by not just Jehovah, but are also channeling for long-dead economist Irving Fisher who wrote the monograph, The Theory of Interest. Irving is credited with developing the model of "overlapping generations" in 1930 in the book (and note it's a term that is also used in population genetics).

Adam

confusedandalone

"It's utter nonsense."

This guy LOL

TD

This guy LOL

LOL indeed.

Paul's single biggest enemy from within the church in its early years were the "Judaizers"

"Yet some of those of the sect of the Pharisees that had believed rose up from their seats and said: "It is necessary to circumcise them and charge them to observe the law of Moses." Acts 15:5 -- My apologies for the NWT

Paul fights these guys tooth and nail. Large sections of some of his epistles are rants against them. At one point he said:

"I wish the men who are disturbing you would get themselves castrated!" (Galatians 5:12)

That Paul was the enemy of the Pharisee influence in the early church is clear. I'm not sure why there would even be any discussion on this.

You might enjoy A.N. Wilson's Paul: The Mind of the Apostle or Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus. And if you really want to be shocked, try reading what Jewish scholars think of Paul.

tec

How can one be a CHristian yet follow the words and teaching of someone that contradict what Jesus wrote. Wouldn't one think that the Messiahs words would be enough. AFterall he is the son of GOD - why wwould he need another person to further excplain what he wanted to express?

Beautifully said.

Too often, men want to look to other men, so they do... and that is one reason why churches and religions, etc, seem to be (and ARE) built upon other words or people or teachings, rather than being built upon Christ alone.

Now Paul also in his letters reprimanded those who were looking to and following him, or Peter, or Apollos... or ANYONE... over Christ. Men who build upon Paul (or Peter), seem not to see or apply this reprimand to themselves.

Because much of Christianity and the rules of that religion has been built upon the rules/letters of Paul (or Peter)...by men ignoring what might have been the context... ignoring where those rules DO contradict Christ... even contradict Paul's words elsewhere... such as his views on women. Christ also said not to judge; Paul started off saying TO judge... but as he learned to listen less to himself and the baggage he carried from his former strict adherence to the law as a pharisee... and as he learned to listen to the Spirit (who is Christ)... then Paul also came to the truth of the matter; because in the letters he wrote later in his life, he says truthfully, NOT to judge.

Peace to you,

tammy

jam

My perspective on the Bible.

From the beginning big time failure (Adam and Eve). So God

said, lets see where this will go. As time passed it continue to

go down hill. So a few angels got together and said let us surprise

the old man. We will fly to earth and marry the women and have

offsprings, half human and half spiritual being. That should put a smile

on the old man face. Well that was a disaster, they got the boot for that

one God wasn't pleased.

So God said what the hell, I will start all over.

He wiped the slate clean. This time I will select a people that will obey my

every command and will carry out my orders to smite, destroy and

if necessary wipe them out from the face of the earth if they don't listen to

you. God was out of control doing this period. Well that did not

pan out. So one day Jesus approached his Father. Father I have an

idea, send me with a new approach. Lets try turning the other cheek, love

your enemy and etc. Well they killed his son.

Then Paul arrived on the scene. God said I like this guy, he put women

in their place. He not as passive as my son, lets see how this will work out.

Well God went back to his old ways, I will bring Angels of destruction, dragons,

chariots of fire, I will melt the sky, damn you all.

snare&racket

Paul came 30+ years after jesus dies, was a roman government official and was known for killing christians. He wrote most of the new testament and set up the christian religion. He added Roman doctrines and watered down the Jewish doctrines. He self appointed his role by claiming to have met jesus's ghost on a road 3 decades after his death ( just how many 2nd comings have to happen before we say it happened, the 3rd day after his death, on the beach in the form of another man, pentecost 33 ce, on the road to damascus, 1914...)

Looking at the bible with this perspective, it is obvious Paul had an agenda and his own direction, he used the might of the Roman persuasion to advance his version of the events. Reading his books it is clear that the followers back then disagreed with him and his views greatly, not to mention he,was writing everything having never even met Jesus! It was all....'inspired'...... Hmmm sure it was uncle Paul.

may i humbly suggest a book, all JW's and christians should read it. It is called THE LOST CHRISTIANITIES.

Please read it, it is a historian approach to the formation of the bible and who/what influenced it, what got left out and why....

Juicy stuff!

snare x

Band on the Run

This is yet another thread where I suspect antisemitism. Paul was no brute or idiot. Jesus was Jewish. He was a Jewish prophet. Jesus of Nazareth was born a Jew, lived a Jew, and died a Jew. Judaism is not a gutter religion. It is no worse or better than any other religion. People here claim to read Paul but their posts shows how little they know of Paul's writings. Reading a direct source is a good idea.

The Christianity we know today did derive from Pauline theology. There were other strands. My professor did much research into Gnostic communities. She pointed out as a professor of religious history that Paul's version of Christianity is easier to transmit down generations than the Gnostic view. The hippie communes of the 1960s were exciting. How many communes exist today? Also, Gnosticism appealed to intellectuals. The broad masses of people could not understand the beauty of secret knowledge. No form is better than the other.

Mainstream Christianity is not a gutter religion, either. We owe much to Christianity in the West. It gave cohesion to European society. A balanced view is best. There are pluses and minuses in every thought system. Christians such as Dietrich Bonhoffer stood up to Hitler based on their faith while others actively supported the Nazi state.

I refused to read Paul in college even though his genuine letters were assigned primary reading. The faulty teachings of the Wt concerning Paul made me ill. I always preferred Jesus in the gospels to Paul's letters. After college, I joined a faith community that values Paul. I pulled out my secondary sources and said "Go for it." Most of what I hated about Paul, Paul never said. The Witness Paul I wanted to stone and spit on his face. Reading my Bible, I found Paul to be very different from what I expected.

Once I disagreed with Madeleine L'Engle that every angel visitation was proceeded by a do not be afraid declaration. I just could not recall the instance. She gently laughed and said "God home, X, and read it as soon as possible." As soon as I returned home, I checked my Bible. Lo and behold, she was right and I was wrong. Returning to the text is crucial.

Paul played a significant part in Western civilization. We may agree or disagree concerning his impact. As far as I am concerned, the result is nuanced. Pharisees are not bum people. Jews are not gutter people. Christians are not gutter people. Buddha is not a gutter person. Religion cannot be all good or all bad. Black and white thinking is ignorant in my opinion. It prevents us from forming bridges. The more I study, the more I realize I will never know it all.

Asking questions and living with doubt may not always be comfortable but I prefer it to black and white thinking.

IS it possible that Paul was just a failed Pharisee that

Share this