Euphemism,
IW... if you're not a Christian, you have no right to presume to dictate what Christians should believe. |
|
I was not dictating I was stating my view, my conclusions of what seems to be correct. I have just as much right to tell a Chriatian what I think is correct as a Christian has to teach non-Christians how to worship God!
There is much solid evidence out there which gives a firm rise to the extremely troubling (for a sincere Christian) and horrifying idea that all is not well with our beloved Gospels and the rest of the NT.The road for many exJWs is not a pretty one, first Jesus in effect dies and along with him the NT and of course the OT. Then for some God himself dies.
To believe that we can take JWs on this merry little ride of exposing the Watchtower and leaving it at that does not work and many exJWs don't want to stop there anyway. We strip away everything, everything. Some are happy to leave it all behind some struggle with the void, the vacuum of no Christ, no Bible and maybe no God. It is difficult, for some it is almost life threatening. I say this because JWs who encourage others to leave must realize that for many JWs what will be abandoned may very possibly be faith itself. I firmly believe that JWs who love where they are and love God and their neighbor, are better off staying in their religion. Some brothers are working towards reform and they have my full support and I intend to help them in any way I can. Many JWs need to keep their traditions and their faith and they will, but they will leave behind the destructive behaviors which have enslaved them not to God or the Christ but to men.
As for Paul, I like the man! He did what he thought was right and good for his time. He also did not teach much of what his Lord taught though. Jesus fought the religious leaders of the Jews and their rough treatment of the lowly, Paul really does not. Jesus taught many insightful illustrations and parables, yet Paul does not touch on them. Interestingly, many times when Paul is discussing a subject where he can call on the recorded words of Jesus for support, he does not. Why is this? Some believe it's because Paul did not know all that Jesus taught and he did not even know the parables. Some believe that because the NT is arranged with the Gospels first, then Acts, and then the letters the assumption is born in the mind of the reader that the Gospels were penned first and therefore everyone in the 1st Century including Paul were familiar with them. In reality though it is thought that they probably were penned well after Paul's time. This then would explain why Paul did not preach the Jesus we know in the Gospels.
Some of Paul's rules which have impacted the brotherhood:
With regard to men taking the lead,
"He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way - for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church?" 1Timothy 3:4,5 (Paul sets a standard which is almost impossible to adhere too. He does this frequently.)
"Never accept any accusation against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses." 1 Timothy 5:19 ( We know where this has led.)
Rebuking sinners,
"As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest also may stand in fear." 1 Timothy 5:20 (public humiliation of sinners)
"But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. 'Drive out the wicked person from among you.'" 1 Cor. 5:11-13 ("not to associate with , not to even eat with", the precedent for shunning.)
Putting widows on an assistance list,
"Let a widow be put on the list if she is not less than sixty years old and has been married only once; she must be well attested for her good works, as one who has brought up children, shown hospitality, washed the saints' feet, helped the afflicted, and devoted herself to doing good in very way." 1 Timothy 5:9,10 (this certainly sets the precedent for qualifing individuals in the congregation by works and not merely by love)
I do not have the time to go further with this, I have left out the ones we all know: headship, head covering, women's style of dress etc., and of course Paul was not the only one to suffer from rule making. The Apostle John had his share also.
Paul said this to Timothy in chapter 6 of 1 Timothy, verse 2b: "Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Chirst and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words."
Paul wrote this immediately after discussing the widow's list requirements, the two witness rule and other elder details and the instructions to slaves. Certainly all who heard his letter read took it to mean that what he was teaching just prior to these words was more than mere suggestions. No, it was akin to godliness to obey and conceit and "understanding nothing" not to obey, why? because what he wrote was firmly rooted in the "sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness."
There are many other scriptures in the NT that can be used to prove that Paul had the authority to dispense spiritual food to the disciples in Jesus name and with God's spirit, an authority which I believe the NT teaches to be irrevocable.
One last word:
The U.S. Constitution is a document of law and government, it is revered and the rightful application of its laws are determined by the court system in place at the time. It is never divided piecemeal with some Supreme Court Justices arbitrarily and publicly declaring parts of it to be wrong, unfounded or worse fraudulent and other parts valuable and to be kept. To do that is to invite anarchy. Either the whole Constitution is respected, and any changes made according to the law of the Constitution itself, or it falls on its face and the country will or may fall with it.
In my opinion, it is the same with the NT. Either it stands as a whole or falls, because to declare some parts more reliable or inspired or usefull than others is to invite religious anarchy.
Some exJWs find comfort in small Bible study groups etc. where they are free to interpret the scriptures as they like and also to give more weight to the Gospels, if they so wish, than to the letters of Paul etc. Some have come to a conclusion that God is an unknowable entity, and that the Trinity may or may not be true and so on and so forth. For them comfort comes from freedom of individual thought, wherever that thought may lead them. Others however, find comfort in organized religion. They need or want something solid, something which gives them a more concrete foundation for their lives and their faith rather than accepting some variation of an unknowable in exchange for personal religious freedom.
I think both are fine, the small group that goes its own way or the larger group, the religon, that goes the way it too wants, the way of following older men. Both are fine because neither has all truth nor all untruth, they simple satisfy a need. I believe the JWs will reform and in so doing will continue to satisfy the needs of those among them who wish to worship God within the framework of the NT and the Watchtower theology.
Sorry for the long post. I know I have not addressed every point you mentioned and have gone off on my own tangents. Sorry about that.
****************************************************************************
Gumby,
Thank you!
IW
