by logansrun 28 Replies latest watchtower bible
Island Woman,
So, just for my personal record, you believe the Bible has worth (I agree), but do you believe it in any way, shape or form is inspired from "God"?
And, if not, what problem do you have with the definition given at the outset of this thread?
Bradley
Thanks for letting us steal your thread Bradley.
peacefulpete,
Good points. For me, Paul's Pharisaism is a tough one to figure out; sometimes it seems to fit, sometimes it doesn't. I haven't read any textual criticism type of comparison of Paul's letters or Acts with Josephus, but when you read Josephus autobiography and Luke's biography of Paul, you'd think one of them was competing with the other. On the other hand Paul, with relative(s) in Jerusalem, and obvious interest in education would not have needed any physical interaction with Gamaliel for Luke to make the claim that he was taught at the feet of Gamaliel. I think Luke was willing to exaggerate (or pick from exaggerated sources).
But Paul, himself, only said that "as to the Law he was a Pharisee" and may have meant something like he said at I Cor 9:20: [To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.] To me, this fits what seems to be a characteristic of Paul took an interest in something, he was obsessive/compulsive about it, which would fit how he got a reputation as a Pharisee during his Law studies. When he was or became a Sadducee (working for the Temple and High Priest), he took a leading part in persecuting Christians. (This could be Luke's exaggeration, though.) When he took a message to the Gentiles, he seems to have nearly burned his bridges completely with the Jerusalem church. But come hell or high water, he was "like a man possessed" (obsessed) to be the greatest Christian missionary to the Gentiles.
I guess we have raised more questions than we have answered, but I enjoy it.
Gamaliel
Gamliel
His WRESTLING was to make it less Jewish, less burdensome. His fight in Acts 15 was with a "governing body" that wanted Paul's Gentile converts to get circumcised, to avoid not just obvious illegalities and immoralities but also Jewish proscriptions against blood and things sacrificed to idols. Paul successfully fought them on circumcision, but couldn't get it through the GB's head that no other burden should be added to them.
A good point. It does appear that jesus' apostles and disciples went back to keeping jewish law after his death. Thus, as you say, paul was less traditional than they. While this doesn't negate my previous arguement, what it does, is make jesus' rebellion (according to the gospels) stand out even more. It also shows how his disciples may not have understood what he was all about, or they abandoned it very quickly. It calls into question if they ever experienced the 'new birth', and the verity of the christian tradition about the divine origins of christianity. It's the domino affect
SS
plum,
Paul, on his own, very clearly told the Corinthians to ignore the GB burden about "things sacrificed to idols", that it was only weak Christians who wanted to follow such things.
bold added in quote is mine Wait a minute, you lost me on this one. How many Corinthians were there? The ones I am thinking about were not exactly the strongest pillars of spirituality. I mean…they were pigs.Even though this was to ss, it seems that this part might have been about something I said. But, I don't understand what you mean exactly. It almost sounds like you are saying that there were only a small number of Corinthians, and all of them were pigs, therefore Paul could not have said what he did in 1 Cor 8:1-10
Now concerning (1) things sacrificed to idols...However not all men (17) have this knowledge; but (18) some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But (19) food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.
or in 1 Cor 10:25
"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles (meat market) that eat, asking no question for conscience sake ... whatsoever is set before you eat asking no questions for conscience sake"
I suspect your "pig" reference is especially focusing on the incest incident. That's understandable, especially if you've been exposed to something similar in your own congregation. Hard to believe a congregation would put up with something like that, but so many have. JWs should be ashamed.
In the end I think it will all boil down to realizing that much of what is written isn’t supposed to be there, for those who care, who really want to know what is actually inspired, will figure it out and do it without the need to completely dissect each and every verse. The Bible is a forest and the world is full of forest rangers but Jesus only planted one tree. My Dr. Phil impersonation.
True. I think when Paul's letter to the Galatians was publicized, for example, it really embarrassed Luke because of the contradictions with Acts. Gamaliel
SS,
A good point. It does appear that jesus' apostles and disciples went back to keeping jewish law after his death. Thus, as you say, paul was less traditional than they. While this doesn't negate my previous arguement, what it does, is make jesus' rebellion (according to the gospels) stand out even more. It also shows how his disciples may not have understood what he was all about, or they abandoned it very quickly. It calls into question if they ever experienced the 'new birth', and the verity of the christian tradition about the divine origins of christianity. It's the domino affect
And if you really want to speculate, it calls into question if Jesus himself was really as free of Law as the Gospels make it appear. They were clearly written long after Paul's Christianity had already successfully won out over Judeo-Christianity. Josephus' picture of James is very curious and it made Eusebius wonder how much Judaism was in the Jerusalem Church. Luke in Acts makes it ambiguous whether the Jews trying to kill Paul (after the Temple defiling incident) were not in fact a mob of Christians. Josephus link between James (loved by ALL the people) and how his martyrdom led to a backlash that led to Jerusalem's destruction gets all the more curious.
Jesus obviously did have a very powerful message -- and a single but complex personality comes through (to me, almost like one of a loving smart-aleck, or serious, stand-up comedian). So, I'm saying I believe in Jesus as a person and I believe in his teachings, but in the context of his starting a religion that he seemed to think would last only a single generation. The Pharisees had put a "fence around the law" so that God would bless Israel during the imminent Judgment Day. Some Pharisees believed God wouldn't bless them if they disobeyed the law of no work on the Sabbath, for example, so some went so far as to say that you couldn't drag your feet across soil for fear it would be like planting. It was ridiculous and many Pharisees thought so too, but the idea was to make it doubly unlikely that people who wanted to keep the Law were accidentally breaking it.
Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, actually put a more burdensome fence around it in some ways because he said to start with the heart, and then NO LAWLESS actions at all could ever even start. In some ways it's even more impossible to keep a man from lusting after a woman in his heart, for example, but Jesus said that was the only true way to avoid adultery. The beauty of Jesus message, otoh, is that it then could really be said to be based on motivation -- a law written in the heart -- which negated the need for any Commandments -- they were thus fulfilled in this odd sense that never really took a jot or a tittle away from them or away from the need to obey them. Jesus' apostles, I think, could easily have seen his teachings in this way as just another (stricter) version of Pharisaism. Paul, appears to have understood Jesus' teaching a bit differently, which the apostles said was OK for Gentiles, but wouldn't be right for Jews. Paul didn't even think it was meant for Jews to keep commandments.
Paul's new "filter" on what Jesus must have really said might have guaranteed that only Jesus' more "generous" slant was emphasized in the Gospels. This is partly why I give Paul more credit than the author of the quote in the original post in this thread.
Gamaliel
I'm saying I believe in Jesus as a person and I believe in his teachings, but in the context of his starting a religion that he seemed to think would last only a single generation.
Interesting. What the real jesus was is the subject of endless controversy and discussion.
Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, actually put a more burdensome fence around it in some ways because he said to start with the heart, and then NO LAWLESS actions at all could ever even start. In some ways it's even more impossible to keep a man from lusting after a woman in his heart, for example, but Jesus said that was the only true way to avoid adultery.
I present those statements to fundy christians as figures of speach, hyperboles, that were used to to show that it was impossible to keep these rules. The system based on innumerable rules didn't work. I mean, isn't it impossible for a hetero guy to completely eliminate all animal reactions upon seeing a beautiful woman?
SS
Hi Bradley,
Island Woman,
So, just for my personal record, you believe the Bible has worth (I agree), but do you believe it in any way, shape or form is inspired from "God"?
And, if not, what problem do you have with the definition given at the outset of this thread?
Bradley
I believe the Bible has worth but I do not believe it is inspired. I said what I did about the definition because I felt it was too one sided and not giving a balanced view of the Bible. There is much more to the Bible than revealed by that definition. Beautiful poetry, insightful proverbs, engaging stories which reveal the hearts and motives, good and bad, of the poorest soul or the richest king. They may not be written in a Shakesperean style but the Bible's stories are by no means less intriguing or worthwhile.
As for Paul, while I agree there are many things he can be faulted for, he was after all only a man who was trying to gather a diverse people into a congregational form of worship. His only "sin" is not really his but those who came later and tried to make everything he wrote a sacred text. He should be relieved of this great burden and responsiblity. He was a man, he made organizational decisions, but his successors used those decisions to build their own thrones of authority. Something he would not have approved of. My only problem with Paul is when Christians claim the NT is inerrant, and therefore all his letters inspired.
Some of the things attributed to Paul are among the most beautiful things ever written, the same can be said of Jesus, King David, Solomon, Deborah and others.
IW
Island Woman,
You're wrong.
Bradley
Island Woman,You're wrong.
Bradley
LOL, wouldn't be the first time!!!!!!
IW
