Lets play a game and assume the bible is true, and Jesus came to earth and all that, and what he taught was the truth. He left responsibility with his 12 apostles to look after his ?sheep?. A few years later on some guy reckons he has had a vision and has been chosen by god He now as good as takes over the Christian congregation and makes many of its rules and writes numerous books with his rules and ideas these are eventually included in the bible, Were as the 12 disciples are virtually silent. This was the apostle Paul. So the question for you Bible believers is this, if you believe we should reject Jehovah?s witnesses as the true Christian congregation because they have claimed to be chosen for god without proof and have written many of there own books that teach beliefs different from the 1 centaury Christians mustn?t you also reject the apostle Paul for the same reasons?
Was Apostle Paul 1st Centaury Jehovah?s Witness?
by sleepy 15 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
StinkyPantz
So the question for you Bible believers is this, if you believe we should reject Jehovah?s witnesses as the true Christian congregation because they have claimed to be chosen for god without proof and have written many of there own books that teach beliefs different from the 1 centaury Christians mustn?t you also reject the apostle Paul for the same reasons?
If they are Bible believers, do you really think they'd reject Paul for any reason?
-
Mary
The apostle Paul was the first century version of Judge Booze Rutherford: He didn't know what the hell he was talking about, was a fanatical "born-again Christian", told everyone else: It's either MY way, or the bye-way and had no tolerance for anyone who believed differently than what he did.
If you look carefully at the bible, Jesus' brother James was taking the congregation down a different path. He seemed far more tolerant and still adherred to his Jewish faith, just like Jesus did. In fact, it was never Jesus' intention to start a new religion---today he probably would have been a Reformed Jew. Paul, on the other hand, steered the Messianic Jews, who became Christians, farther and farther away from mainstream Judaism.
He was accused by James of trying to teach the Jews "...to turn their backs on Moses..." (Acts 21:21). Paul used the same tactics as modern-day Witnesses by "not telling the truth to those who don't deserve to know" and he evaded the charge by concealing his real views, although he submitted to a test of his own observance of Torah. His deceitfulness was exposed by a group of "Asian Jews" who knew what his real beliefs were. An argument broke out in which Paul feared for his life and was rescued by the Roman police, to whom he declared for his protection that he was a Roman citizen. This is hypocrisy on his part, because his attitute towards the Rome in general was not favourable, yet he didn't hesitate to use his "rights" as a Roman citizen when it was convenient for him. This is a mirror image of the Witnesses today. They are constantly lambasting all forms of government, refuse to help defend their lands, stand for the national anthem, yet they're constantly in court, whining about their "rights."
-
TD
Lets play a game and assume the bible is true....
I'm confused. What Bible? What exactly are we assuming to be true in this exercise? As long as we're making assumptions of truthfulness why wouldn't they extend to Paul?
-
El blanko
As a matter of faith, a person chooses what to believe concerning their own Christian belief system. If a man chooses to believe that the WTBS is their pathway, then fine, I have no problem with that, as long as they allow me the same courteous gesture and are not overtly dogmatic.
To me, Paul did not make the same mistakes that Russell & co' made during the last century.
For one, Paul did not cling to a ridiculous chronology, that credulous thousands have clung to as proof absolute of divine blessing. Paul would probably have condemned that form of materialistic worship.
-
Gordy
God directed Ananias to Paul otherwise no one would have known about him.
It was 14 years before Paul went to Jerusalem.
Where does it say Paul took over the Christian congregation? He never seemed to be in one place long enough to have any influence on the running of the Christian congregation. Seems to have spent most of his time getting beaten up by Jews and Romans.
Did Paul stage some boardroom coup like Rutherford did?
Paul also agreed to the decision of the council of Acts 15, In which in made no input, only Peter and James being said to have spoken. Also that the decision was made by the apostles and elders, no mention of Paul.
Why is there a book called the Acts of the Apostles, plural, not the Acts of the Apostle.
What about the letters of Peter, John, James, Jude, what about the "rules" they mention, and Revelation by John.
No one in the Watchtower has written anything that comes as near as good as those guys.
You are asking us to compare one man to an organisation. Who with a , 12 man Governing Body, writing committee, vast publishing corperation, manages to produce crap. Causes the death of innocent people through its unscriptural blood doctrine. Causes families to break up, to shun fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, grandparents, friends you may have known years no longer talk to you.
Please don't compare the Apostle Paul to the Watchtower its like comparing gold to manure.
-
BrendaCloutier
Mary - excellent post, thank you.
-Brenda
The apostle Paul was the first century version of Judge Booze Rutherford: He didn't know what the hell he was talking about, was a fanatical "born-again Christian", told everyone else: It's either MY way, or the bye-way and had no tolerance for anyone who believed differently than what he did.
If you look carefully at the bible, Jesus' brother James was taking the congregation down a different path. He seemed far more tolerant and still adherred to his Jewish faith, just like Jesus did. In fact, it was never Jesus' intention to start a new religion---today he probably would have been a Reformed Jew. Paul, on the other hand, steered the Messianic Jews, who became Christians, farther and farther away from mainstream Judaism.
He was accused by James of trying to teach the Jews "...to turn their backs on Moses..." (Acts 21:21). Paul used the same tactics as modern-day Witnesses by "not telling the truth to those who don't deserve to know" and he evaded the charge by concealing his real views, although he submitted to a test of his own observance of Torah. His deceitfulness was exposed by a group of "Asian Jews" who knew what his real beliefs were. An argument broke out in which Paul feared for his life and was rescued by the Roman police, to whom he declared for his protection that he was a Roman citizen. This is hypocrisy on his part, because his attitute towards the Rome in general was not favourable, yet he didn't hesitate to use his "rights" as a Roman citizen when it was convenient for him. This is a mirror image of the Witnesses today. They are constantly lambasting all forms of government, refuse to help defend their lands, stand for the national anthem, yet they're constantly in court, whining about their "rights."
-
sleepy
"What exactly are we assuming to be true in this exercise?" "Lets play a game and assume the bible is true, and Jesus came to earth and all that, and what he taught was the truth. He left responsibility with his 12 apostles to look after his ?sheep?" That the historical aspects of the bible are true and that a man called Jesus started a religious movment. Maybe I confused things a bit as the Books of paul are part of the Bible,.I'm looking with a critical viewpoint at Paul and wonering why Christians see no problem with following Paul teachings, when jesus left responsability with the 12 disciples.
-
Terry
An historical examination of what Paul did can only lead to one conclusion: Paul invented a new religion that distorted Judaism. That new religion was Christianity.
A close reading of the clash between the Messianic Jews in the Jerusalem congregation and Paul demonstrate his activity to be covert and apostate from their point of view.
Paul made a great number of supernatural claims to give authority to his theology. His claims are on the same level as a person who has been kidnapped by Aliens and "probed".
The early writings around the time of Paul and forward for three centuries give us more information about him. He claimed to be a Pharisee, but wasn't. He tried to enter Rabbinical school and flunked out because he couldn't get the hang of logical reasoning required. He was in love with the High Priest's daughter and was wooing her and was perhaps engaged but was ultimately rejected by her. He was born to gentile parents in a geographical area that was suffused with Neo Platonic philosophy. Paul could not read or write in Hebrew. He was hellenistic in his philosophy and approach to matters religious. Paul used monies collected in the name of religious work to purchase Roman citizenship and he had his own agenda.
When we talk about or practice contemporary Christianity we find the source of almost every doctrine and explanation to come, not from Jesus, but from this strange man, Paul.
It should be called Paulianity.
The followers of Jesus had no intention to morph out of Judaism. This was wrought upon many converts who were Gentile along with the notion that this new religion was somehow valid because it was connected to ancient foundations. Paul hijacked Judaism. He did what he had to do to give credibility to his philosophical inventions, he aligned himself as far as he could with something that already existed which had gravitas.
The followers of Jesus and under the leadership of his brother merely repeated the tenets of Judaism when confronted with Gentiles who wanted to be a part of their movement.
The dictums that came out of the Jerusalem meeting are a repetition of what is called, in Judaism, the laws of the sons of Noah. Those were always view as being the law the nations of the world were under. It was the Mosaic law which was only viewed as the specific covenant with Jews. Incidentally, the rule about keeping themselves "free of things strangled and blood" were understood differently by the Jews than by JW's. The Jews viewed the warning about things strangled as applying to the need to pour out the blood. The mention of "blood" referred to manslaughter. In effect it meant do not shed the blood of others or your blood will need to be shed. The JW's distort the origin and the intent.
Paul is an interesting fellow. He came along like the Warren Commission after the death of JFK and "explained" everything which then became the official view. Paul's neo Platonic philosophy combined with the Jewish histories of scripture were easily acceptable by Pagans. The pagan religions were very similar to what Paul advocated. Christianity was spread as a result of his successful paganizing work.
Just ignore me. I only read histories, scholarly studies and non-canonical books to obtain the WHOLE story and not the official sanitized version. Do your own reading and make up your own minds.
Terry
-
Carmel
Terry,
Having done what you advocate, I have a rather low regard for bro Paul. He set the standard for folks like Jimmy Swaggart who claim they have had a direct "communications" with Jesus. It philosophically underlies the fractionalization of Christianity as a way around the "mediation" role of the "Christ". Having fallen off his ass onto his arse, he suffered from "blind spots" me thinks...
carmel