Hi Caleb:
I appreciate your words and the efforts of the Catholic Church in finishing its past antisemitism. May be the atrocities of Hitler motivated the Church to change its past view. So, though I am no longer a Christian, I think the Roman Church has considerably improved its behavior.How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?
by opusdei1972 63 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
CalebInFloroda
Opusdei,
We agree on this. And yes, I have read documents where the Church considers the Holocaust and the Jews' return to Israel and recapturing Jerusalem in 1967 as reasons for changing their views.
But like you, 2000 years of atrocities can't be unwritten, and I too can't ignore this in my own response toward Christianity.
-
megaboy
He wasn't dishonest at all really, the issue is that he was teaching at a time where people and at the very least the hebrews were WAY more intelligent.
Many ancient hebrew writings, most of the ones I recall that are not added to the scriptures, that were considered apocalyptic in naritive amusingly highlighted that the end days would also include a stage where people on a mass level if I were to put it frankly were lacking in intelligence and uncarring of the fact that they are.
People now are following Torah, are misunderstanding why it was given and misunderstanding what it means. Christains misunderstand as well, because in actuality following the laws of Moses is neither good nor evil in the grand scheme of things.
Many hyms in the 1st Century body actually give the insight that the gathering had more information than was highlighted in what was compiled in the new testament.
Though it seems, Sha'ul spoke on a general sense which is why people get confused from his writings.
As an example, when he speaks of nature, people think he means that if we can look at nature we can assume there is a creator. But what he is saying is deeper than that if you read many of the texts and understand the hebrew culture.
When we look at the visible we can understand the invisible. Take for the example the trinity doctrine, people can go back and forth and debate, but really if you look at nature: The family model was created male and female, which brings forth life. The Father, the Mother or Ruah (distributer of wisdom, given a feminine description in hebrew text) used to create the Son who brought the will of the Father to creation.
Hebrew uses a lot of play on words, so the people confuse when the Son seemed to have claimed he was the father. But he never said that, he said that he was Yah, which if you read carefully in the OT was not the same person as Yahuwah (YHWH or IAUA).
Paul understood this and he proved it by linking to a psalm referencing Yah and revealing Yah as the Son. Can't remember the verse on the spot unfortunately.
Another example is the woman's authority in relation to the man. When you look at the sun and the moon, the sun is the dominant luminary and even at night the moon is actually reflecting the light or the glory of the sun. The wife reflects or directs the will of the husband glorifying herself and the the husband in the same action, at least that's how a hebrews would understand it.
As far as the written torah, that was put in place because Israel had some serious mental problems after coming out of Egypt (obviously). The rituals were a reflection of things and a foreshadow, that physical representation of them being set apart and bound to the creator. They were set apart by the creator whether they followed the laws or not. The prophecies would consume them whether they followed the law or not. A person willing themselves into following the law or part of the prophecies and are not the blood line descendants are just not going to match up, like trying to fit a square block into at circular hole. The witnesses (as a collective org) are completely guilty of this.
The physical ritualistic things were put in front of them because it forced them to keep the creator on their minds and use their brains. The day of rest was a time for them to reflect and maybe get something out of it, because if you work everyday you don't have time to apply any knowledge or wisdom or meditate, thats why it was - created for man. The whole thing was a cleansing process so that they could actually get their true rest.
Another example is the dietary law, you now have these cartoon characters who promoted it as some sort of health manual and people fell for it. Its foolishness, the point was to look at the nature of the animal and determine how to make righteous judgements and actions. The manner in us is is to ultimately do good or evil, but there are "grey" areas that still eventually lead to one or the other, the animal separations were to drive this point home.
An example, there is a wife and a husband that work at the same facility. The husband is in charge of the cameras, the wife steals items while on the job, the husband edits video footage to prevent the wife from being caught. You could say that the husband is working to help his wife out of love, but the whole operation is evil, he is using his love for evil by providing its shade. He has the appearance of cleanliness but is fully unclean, like some animals seem to have clean characteristics but are categorized as unclean. So no, Robin Hood should not be praised as some kind of hero.
On the other end you have a person who calls out evil and exposes wickedness and in some cases causes a commotion, or a boy that turns down an invite to a planned robbery with his friends and reports them, severing their friendship. There are things that have evil elements but are ultimately good as there are some animals that may seem unclean, but are on the whole clean.
Thats what nature was supposed to be a testament to.
-
Lieu
No one can actually follow Torah. Why, because there's no Temple, no Arc, and no records of who may be a Levite (for the High Priest) ... and mostly because no one has any cattle & PETA.
As for Paul, even Peter commented that he wrote stuff which was hard to understand. Personally, I think the WT fails in its interpretations because
1- They understand nothing about the ancient Hellenistic world and it's various areas
2- No understanding of ancient Greek and word usage
3- Lack knowledge of ancient Hebrew parables/stories. Ie. the lady with the 7 husband trick question. [Apparently bad angel Azazel was in love with her & kept killing her husbands]
4- They read the writings of Middle Eastern peoples from a purely Western viewpoint (And a US one at that).
5- Sometimes "letters" just weren't meant for everyone everywhere. That's why they are letters and not "scrolls" (aka scripture). Personal correspondence.
6- The Apostles in Jerusalem were pondering scrolls, they weren't concerned with some private letter to Timothy (which Paul likely did not write).
-
CalebInFloroda
Megaboy,
Interesting views but, when you touch on such points, not reflective of any actual Jewish philosophy or theology, not officially representative anyway.
But the question that the OP is raising is one that perplexes even the best Biblical scholars and academics who study the Pauline epistles.
Some of the texts raise great questions, even whether or not not the historical Paul wrote all the texts that are traditionally attributed to him. If they all do come from the same person, then it isn't the imagination that makes readers question Paul's honesty.
A good example is 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16. In light of Romans chapter 11, this oft-labeled anti-Semitic text is either clear indication that Paul would say anything to win an argument or prove his point (and that would prove dishonesty) or, as most scholars agree, this suggests that the writings were either altered or written by people who only claimed to be Paul.
While I tend to agree with those in academia who believe this to be either an anti-Semitic interpolation or that someone other that Saul of Tarsus wrote this, this is not the only instance where a surface or literal reading makes "Paul" look a bit twisted. What Jew would write in one letter (Romans) that he would rather be accursed and sacrificed on behalf of his brother Jews that they might accept Christ and even exclaim that God's call to them is irrevocable but then turn around and call them Christ killers in a letter to the Thessalonians? Because the JWs insist this is totally fine, it can produce quite an odd picture of this character to others who hear of this view.
Even the scholarly answers about this cannot be set in stone. It's a valid question that deserves to be asked again and again. Whatever the actual answer remains at present elusive but nonetheless important as much harm has been caused by accepting the words of these epistles as holy writ directly composed by an apostle of Christ.
-
CalebInFloroda
Lieu,
You are mistaken in some of what you say because you don't understand Jews or Judaism.
Being Torah-observant doesn't mean you sacrifice animals at a temple. It means following "Halacha" or the application of Torah.
To illustrate, Torah doesn't describe or make allowances for everything that was eventually established at the Temple, and some of what was practiced at the Temple later grew into redactions of the Torah text itself. But Torah is more than the 613 laws of Judaism. It contains of mythology and history and our mores and conventions.
Now obedience to Torah has always been observing its laws or Halacha, the current understanding of Torah in the era and circumstances you are in, not in following the Torah as written. Even Orthodox Jews are not like Christian Fundamentalists who believe in a literal, step-by-step following of what is written in Torah.
Mitzvah comes from Halacha which stems from Torah. It's always been that way. sacrifices of animals at a literal Temple are elements of an ancient society that have no meaning to Jews of today.
-
Vidiot
opusdei1972 - "How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?"
I've mentioned this before, but I'd read somewhere about a theory that the Apostle Paul may actually have been a Roman Agent whose assignment was to essentially hijack and steer the upstart new "Jesus Movement" into something that was more acceptable to Roman authority and culture.
-
opusdei1972
Caleb:
Paul seemed to believe that he had an special insight in reading the scriptures:
we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Cor. 2:7)
So, he also felt to be in a privileged spiritual status in comparison to those who were close to Jesus:
As for those who were held in high esteem – whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favouritism – they added nothing to my message. (Galatians 2:6) -
John Aquila
Paul was not telling the Corinthians that it went against biological norms for men to wear long hair, but that it went against Roman convention
Caleb, what exactly did Paul mean when he said;
(1 Timothy 2:12) . . .I do not permit a woman to teach,. . .
The Watchtower uses this scripture to prevent women from giving talks, being an MS or Elders.Women in the WT are only good for going out in service and making cookies.
-
opusdei1972
So, Paul did not think that his message was inferior to those who knew Jesus face to face, because he thought that his interpretation of the Scriptures came from above, so he believed that his reading of the OT was a spiritual reading that could not be discerned by "common people":
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words (1 Cor. 2:13)
So, I think that these words motivated the gnostic views at the end of the first century.