Mr NW has just come back in... Paul was not of the 'apostles' as he did not sit with Jesus at the Last Supper.... He was not in agreement with the 'elders' in Jerusalem, so if he also was ordained by holy spirit - why was he not in accord with them, because these men were directly ordained by Jehovah so supposedly all these ones would have the interests of the 'Kingdom' in mind? (Paul included) Again. the circumcision decision was also disputed by Paul... Paul comes over as a rebel within the Christian Congregation - and NW's brother states him as being the first anti-Christ? Could prove to be a very interesting topic (I agree with Billy) Mrs NW
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JESUS' TEACHINGS & PAUL'S
by Mary 27 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
-
DanTheMan
I usually share the following quotes when this topic comes up:
Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter, fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ.
- Will DurantThe Christian churches were offered two things: the spirit of Jesus and the idiotic morality of Paul, and they rejected the higher inspiration... Following Paul, we have turned the goodness of love into a fiend and degraded the crowning impulse of our being into a capital sin.
Frank Harris
-Fundamentalists love Paul.
-
hillary_step
Sword,
Obviously Jesus could analyze their hearts.
Jesus obviously had little time with people who were bogged down in the legalistic desire to avoid the 'appearance of evil'. Is the moral point of issue the ability to read hearts, which makes eating with 'wrongdoers' acceptable or to avoid contamination from such people. Can an apostate, like the apostates that Jesus mixed with ( tax-collectors ), have a good heart? Are the WTS reading hearts when they condemn as Armaggedon fodder those who disagree with their views. You seem to have locked yourself into yet another ethical dilemma.
It also astonishes me that many who are Biblically inclined cannot accept that when Paul acknowledged that he was passing his personal opinion and not that of the 'Lord' in the Greek Scriptures, it was exactly that that he was doing - passing his own opinion. Precedent is immediately set for an understanding that in places by written admission, the Bible contains human opinion. Taking the rest of Pauls letters, which incidenatlly would never have been written if C1st Christianity was the unified little box of tricks, presided over by a Governing Body that quasi-fundamentalist religions like the WTS would like to portray, who will be brave enough to say when Paul was speaking his Lord's words or his own.
HS
-
rocketman
Sword, to a good degree I concur with the point made by HS. Just to add a thought, Jesus sat and ate with those tax collectors and sinners while others who could not read hearts looked on and critcized him. he also ate with them most likely before they began to show signs of repentance. Also, it seems unlikely that Jesus just picked certain tax colllectors and sinners to eat with, while rejecting others who might have been less inclined to repent. The Bible appears to make no distinction between repentant tax collectors and less repentant ones. While Jesus obviously would want them to repent and urged them to do so, it seems he did not make that a condition of his association with them at that time. I amy be wrong, but that's the impression I get from reading those accounts.
-
seedy3
Hi Mary,
Here are a couple of Websites that address this line
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/paul.html
Happy reading
Seedy
-
Mary
Thanks for all the input everyone.........very interesting comments and I appreciate all your thoughts. If you have more, lemme know.......
Swordie said: "....Obivously Paul was referring to those that continued their sinning ways although they were brothers, in other words, they were not repentant of their wrongdoing................Obviously Jesus could analyze their hearts. You really think that he would accept a Prostitute if after he tought her, she would go out of the home and continue prostituting herself......"
The point I was trying to make was: Jesus nowhere condones shunning; Paul obviously did. Look at how many families have been torn apart because of what Paul said. There are indeed many differing views between Jesus and Paul that is evidence by the scriptures. Jesus spoke to the woman at the well, and appeared first to women after his resurrection. He treated them very well, which was astounding for that time period. On the other hand, Paul apparently had little respect for women, which was very common then and thought that "a woman should learn in silence" and "I do not permit a woman to teach" and "a woman should be in full subjection to her husband...."
And while Jesus was the foundation of Christianity, Pauls thoughts and actions were copied throughout the centuries, even though they were "his thoughts" and "not the Lords."
-
Carmel
Sword of Jaw,
Who said to "forgive seven times seventy"? Certainly not Stupid from Sarsus! You'll have to try a lot harder to show that Paul's personal opinions are equal or superior to that of The Christ!
carmel
-
be wise
SwordofJah,
If you really believe in Jesus and 'Jah' I would be very careful at what you say. You claim to represent Jah himself. Do you think you are any less reprehensible than anybody mentioned in the bible just because what you say hasn't been written down in a holy book.
If you’re not careful you might feel the sword of Jah you claim to represent entering your ass.
-
greven
No one: But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and yet she is agreeable to dwelling with him, let him not leave her:... A wife is bound during all the time her husband is alive. But if after her husband should fall asleep [in death], she is free to be married to whom she wants, only in [the] Lord. But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my opinion. I certainly think I have God's spirit." 1Cor. 7:12, 39-40
This text proved to me that the bible is not inspired. Because if paul was inspired saying that he was saying this or that and not the lord he would have been lying, and since according to the bible God cannot lie this is impossible under inspiration. The claim that the entire bible is inspired creates some sort of liar's paradox from this text.
Greven