How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 63 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  sparrowdown

  Ha. I never knew the roots of donut licking went back so far. Paul, you old dog you 😉
• 

  Phizzy

  Thanks once again CIF, for interesting and informative posts. I have tried to eradicate my JW views on the Bible, but lacking education simply just do not know things such as you have pointed out, for example, that what appear to be quotes may in fact not be.

  The whole question of midrash can be applied to the Gospels too of course, not just to "Paul's" writings.

  It is evident that the Gospel writers are not intent on writing accurate History, or even accurate Biography, but are trying to link their Jesus to the Hebrew bible to give him credibility.

  I really must study more ! (something I never said as aJW !).
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  No one should blame themselves for not knowing more if they were once a JW.

  The Watchtower is oppressive in its demand that members avoid educating themselves, using critical methods for Scripture study, and avoiding learning from other religions by actual participation. Telling members they can't even have thoughts that are contrary to Governing Body teachings or have to avoid contact with atheists, agnostics, or other religious people and their customs destroys what is so vital to the human mind and spirit.

  And while the New Testament may not be as idiotic as it looked to us once rejected the Watchtower (because leaving the JWs behind often makes a person want to throw out both "baby and the bath water"), it doesn't have to be stupid or illogical to be untrue. I for one think there's a lot of intelligence clearly displayed by its writers, but I don't buy into its theology or its claims one bit.

  Watchtowerism teaches people to live by polarized standards. So sometimes when we leave the JWs behind we think we can only be totally rejecting G-d and Scripture or make a stand for it in some way. If we reject it we may carry over the JW habit of saying that rejecting something requires it to be unreal or illogical. That's a Watchtower concept, and it is not true. I believe, for example, that Jesus of Nazareth was historical. That doesn't mean that I accept him as the Messiah or require that I give credence to the claims of Christians about Jesus.

  You can reject what is real and logical, and still be real and logical yourself. The two are not exclusive opposites as the Watchtower teaches.

  Not everything that is logical has to be accepted. You can have cancer. Cancer is fatal. You don't have to accept that you have to give in to the disease. You can put up a fight. Your fight can beat the odds, even when doctors read real data that says you won't make it. Sometimes science doesn't have the answers or the results don't matter. Sometimes when we say "no, I won't be beat" it means just that. And despite the best data and evidence you don't die and you do beat cancer, contrary to what science may say.

  The world is not black and white. You don't have to make the Bible out to be a book of illogical stupidity to reject it. G-d can be real and you can still tell G-d: "No thanks, but I don't want to worship you." G-d doesn't have to not exist for you to reject G-d. In fact it's easier to reject something fake than something that isn't. And it isn't wrong to reject someone or something that is very real. Sometimes these things don't matter to you or aren't your thing. They don't stop existing once we reject them, so neither does their existence mean we have to accept them.

  There are a lot of steps to take in removing oneself from the Watchtower. Leaving is sometimes the easiest part. Identifying where some of it sneaked into us and came along on our way out is often the hard part.
• 

  opusdei1972

  Hi Caleb :

  You say : "Watchtowerism teaches people to live by polarized standards.......The world is not black and white. "

  However, the New Testament polarizes people according to their beliefs:

  Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist – denying the Father and the Son (1 John 2: 22)

  
  Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? (2 Cor 6:14)

  The above words are clear. This is the true face of the Christian religion, they want a black and white world. So, according to the early Christians if you say that Jesus is not the Christ you are a liar. If you are an unbeliever you are in darkness. These words polarized the world, because when Christians got the support of the Emperors of Rome, there were many people shunned, killed and tortured. Of course, in the Bible there are good advices, but we can't deny that the books of the NT teach a black and white world. So this is food for sectarian religions as the Watchtower.
  
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  Yes, but that is not the current state of the world or reality. And those words of Scripture are not accepted the way you mention by the majority of Christians today. It is the Watchtower religion that tells people that ancient black and white standards still rule.

  Catholicism for instance currently rejects the view that truth cannot be found outside the Church. It now officially acknowledges Judaism as the "older brethren" religion to their own faith. Several official pronouncements from Nostre Aetate from Vatican II to the very recent study issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, "The Jewish People and their Scriptures in the Christian Bible" are quite clear that Catholics no longer believe that the Jews are rejected by G-d due to their rejection of Christ, that the covenants are still in effect between the Jews and G-d, and their call from and relationship with G-d is irrevocable despite the Church's view of Jesus as Messiah and Judaism's rejection of this concept.

  Now this is just one denomination of Christianity, I will grant you that. But they hold the same Scriptural texts the Witnesses do, the same you mention above, and they come up with a totally different conclusion. They do not see things as so black and white as the JWs despite these texts also being considered as inspired and binding by Catholics.

  Therefore it cannot be the New Testament texts that cause such polarization, otherwise Catholicism and the Protestant movements that have adopted similar views would be in total agreement with the Watchtower religion.

  I have to disagree and say that it is the JWs theological insistence on ambiguity intolerance that causes one to read the text as if it is applicable in only one manner.
• 

  opusdei1972

  Caleb:

  There is only one simply way to update our understanding of those words: "we have to ignore them". Because, the words that say that "a liar is whoever that denies that Jesus is the Christ" have no other meaning than that. These words by itself produce polarization. Of course, currently, the Christian world is better because many ones note that many verses in the Bible need to be filtered otherwise we would be back in the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church is better now because most of its theologians are accepting the conclusions of the textual criticism. However, Jehovah's Witnesses still believe that the second letter of Peter was written by Peter and the Gospel of John was written by one of the twelve. Nevertheless, it was the Church of the first centuries which propagated these myths. I have read some of the books of Tertullian, Against Heresies of Irenaeus, The Dialogue and the First Apology of Justin, De Trinitate (of Augustine) and so on. By reading them you will find that although they had different views in comparison with the Witnesses, they were as fundamentalists as the Watchtower leaders. All of them saw their religion as the only Truth. Why?, because when people believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then the Bible itself creates these kind of controversies.
  
• 

  sir82

  The theology of the Watchtower is very primitive and two-dimensional. It views the Scriptures as a sort of book of proof-texts to be used as proof-texts.

  I don't think I've ever seen the Watchtower's approach to the Bible so perfectly and succinctly expressed.

  This is exactly, 100% spot-on.
  
• 

  opusdei1972

  The theology of the Watchtower is very primitive and two-dimensional. It views the Scriptures as a sort of book of proof-texts to be used as proof-texts.

  
  Read the Church Fathers and you will find the same primitive view. In the literature of the Church of the second century you will find strong fights and loaded language between Christians on account of the interpretation of one text.
  
• 

  opusdei1972

  This is an example of how Irenaeus had to defend the Septuagint in order to hold the Matthew's view of Isaiah 7:14 to propagate the view that Jesus born from the virgin Mary:
  

  God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son," Isaiah 7:14 as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord's advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, are disinherited from the grace of God. (Against Heresies book III)
  
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  Opusdei,

  Yeah, I have to agree with most of what you say. And it is obvious we are speaking about many similar things but from different perspectives.

  No one has to tell me how the literal interpretation of the New Testament creates less than favorable paradigms. I almost weekly hear from people who tell me how I am doomed to hell because I'm Jewish, and it's almost 2000 years since these texts have been written. I am no fan of the NT.

  Still it is not a constant. Many Christians fully believe that the New Testament is the inspired word of God, and these very same people are not anti-Semitic in their application. The fact that book causes controversies does not prove the book is at fault. Tom Sawyer, Catch-22, Slaughterhouse-Five are books that cause controversies, but is it the fault of the books?

  Granted, the NT contains some strong language against non-Christians, but because it has never been a constant among Christians to act a certain way despite these texts is proof that the texts are not the fault. Christians have come to the aid of Jews during pogroms, crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust despite what the texts say. The NT would have to make every single Christian of every era into the same kind of animal if things were as black and white as the JWs suggest.

  I still have to side with ambiguity intolerance (the inability to accept anything that cannot be definitively categorized as totally good or totally bad) as the cause of the problem. The New Jerusalem Bible and NABRE provide a context to the verses you discuss that neither ignores the texts nor accepts the JW view in their footnote apparatus. And the information is not totally new either. It doesn't excuse the ambiguity intolerance of the JWs or Catholics of the past, but it does show that people can believe a text from G-d that can be flawed and still not automatically perform in a drastic way. Many Bible- believing Christians are good people.

  I have every reason to hate the New Testament text, but I don't. I don't believe it to be the inspired word of G-d, but I don't go to the other extreme to declare it is therefore evil. Like you I believe there is good and bad in it. Part of the problems created in history do come from the text, and some come from the mere interpretation, and perhaps a combination of the two are to blame. What I am saying is that we need to avoid seeing the problem in the simplistic, ambiguity intolerant eyes of the Watchtower. The problems are more complex than to simply blame written words, even if they do inspire hate in some who read them.

  If the words were to blame then everyone could not help but to react the same way upon reading them, including you and me. But how we respond to them is clearly a free choice. The same is true for Christians.