by reniaa 347 Replies latest jw friends
"Paul certainly knew about the earthly calling; it is what Jews to this day still believe, as passages such as Psalm 37 bear out. "
You are assuming that Paul had the same beliefs as the Psalm writer, and yet Paul believed in a heavenly reward. Where did he get this belief?
Modern beliefs about heaven are not the same as in Paul's day. Jews of Paul's day may have been influenced by Greek ideas about immortality of the soul, and an afterlife. They are not found in 2nd temple judaism.
Pistoff, you have never said a word about Columbus discovering the new world. Does that mean that you do not believe that it happened? Paul was not obligated to write what would make you happy.
He was writing to different audiences about different topics. As he was not an eye witness (as were Mathew and John) or the disciple of an eyewitness (as were Luke and Mark), he would not have reason to comment on the events that were covered by those writers. Why should he provide yet another account of the things in the gospels?
Paul does mention the Resurrection. This miracle is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Except for the Resurrection and the virgin birth of Christ, none of the other miracles of the gospels have any bearing on Christian theology in themselves. Both Jesus and Paul spoke about Jesus being the only means of salvation, interpersonal relationships, God the father, and the work of the holy spirit - as well as quite a number of other topics.
Keep in mind that Q and Marcan priority are based on arguments from silence- there is no physical or textual evidence to support them. These were invented to deny the possibility of inspiration of the synoptic gospels.
The idea that the Catholic church created the canon is false as well. The Catholic Church was not established as it is today. It was well on its way, but not there, yet.
What they did was go through what had aready accepted as authoratative by earlier generations. There were few books that there were any real dispute over - perhaps a dozen. Most books were rejected because they simply were not regarded as autoritative by the general Christian population. There were books, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, that were considered to quite valuable if not inspired. It is sad that most churches today ignore these books entirely.
AK said:
There were literally hundreds of 'books', 'letters', and accounts written by persons contemporary with Jesus, who laud him and his God, and accepted him as something akin to God, at least as a Savior of some sort.
AK, I find this a most interesting statement. What are these books? Who are the persons that wrote them? Usually the argument is that there are no contemporary accounts that proclaim him to be anything more than a man. And the few that acknowledge his existance made it up. If you have found “hundreds”, I am most interested in reading English translations of them.
Double post, thankfully I still have 96 more to go today, instead of just 6. Woot!
"These were invented to deny the possibility of inspiration of the synoptic gospels."
Actually, the ideas about Q and Marcan priority help to resolve the presence of identical material in the Gospels; the scholars I have read say nothing of inspiration or not. That is an individual's choice. We all have the right to believe what we want; I believed in the gospels as inspired of God until I saw evidence that they were compiled to address social conditons that existed after Jesus' death, and that much of what Jesus said was not internally consistent. Much of what Jesus said is best understood as coming out of the mouths of his followers as they were rejected by the Jewish community, and worried about their future after he died.
"Keep in mind that Q and Marcan priority are based on arguments from silence- there is no physical or textual evidence to support them. "
And what is the evidence for miracles, except belief? Scholarship is about looking at evidence. The evidence is that many of the miracles are discussed as ocurring in other areas, and by other men. By the time John writes his gospel, he is portraying Jesus as God, for all practical purposes.
"He was writing to different audiences about different topics. As he was not an eye witness (as were Mathew and John) or the disciple of an eyewitness (as were Luke and Mark), he would not have reason to comment on the events that were covered by those writers."
So you are saying that Paul, while doing his best to persuade his readers, would not mention the miracles? Would he not use the miracles, which would be known worldwide if they ocurred as the gospels say they did, to convince the Hebrews, or to encourage the faithful?
The fact that Paul does not mention them is a good indication that the stories developed after he wrote his authentic letters, or if they circulated before or during his writing, he discounted them.
Paul was not interested in what Jesus taught; he was interested in his role as a martyred God/son of God, and restoration to heaven, a common theme of the time.
"Pistoff, you have never said a word about Columbus discovering the new world."
I don't understand how this applies to a discussion of what Paul believed, and what he taught.
I don't expect that Paul would write to please me; I am saying that the teachings and sayings of Jesus appeal to me. The control and abstention from sexuality that Paul espouses is not realistic, not necessary, and is consistent with some of the extreme sects of Paul's time. That does not appeal to me. Since belief is about choice, that is my choice, and it is not because I want to have a reason to discount Paul. I spent 30 years as a Witness, I know all the canards about why people believe what they do. I wanted it all to be as presented to me by the WT writers, but I found it to be not so. Once I started reading, I found that the basis for belief in miracles was not solid; that there is in fact good reason to doubt them.
HERE is my point: I don't care if Jesus performed miracles. His TEACHINGS are revolutionary, is that not enough?
Pistoff,
You said:
"I don't expect that Paul would write to please me; I am saying that the teachings and sayings of Jesus appeal to me.The control and abstention from sexuality that Paul espouses is not realistic, not necessary, and is consistent with some of the extreme sects of Paul's time. That does not appeal to me. Since belief is about choice, that is my choice, and it is not because I want to have a reason to discount Paul."
First, let me say that I am happy to hear that the teachings and sayings of Jesus appeal to you. At least right there we have some common ground.
But, have you actually compared what Jesus and Paul taught side-by-side? Because, from everything I've read in the New Testament, Paul and Jesus taught the same things.
* Jesus taught that it was wrong to even LOOK at a woman with lust, and that lusting is a sin that leads to Gehenna if you do not repent. This is what Paul taught in his letters.
* Jesus taught that any and all sex outside of marriage ("fornication") was a sin that leads to destruction if you do not repent. This is the exact same thing that Paul taught in his letters.
* Jesus taught that calling someone a "worthless fool" is a sin that will lead to Gehenna unless you repent. Paul taught similar things.
* Jesus taught that He is the only way to The Father, and that if you do not repent and put your trust in Him as Lord and Savior, you are going to Gehenna. (John 8:24; John 3:16-18) Paul taught the exact same thing in his letters.
* Jesus taught that getting a divorce (except on the grounds of fornication) and marrying someone else is the same as committing adultery in God's eyes. Paul taught the same thing in his letters.
* Jesus said that He was going to return one day with His angels and destroy all of the wicked and save all of His people. Paul taught the same thing in his letters.
* Jesus taught that we must love everyone, even those who may be our enemies. Paul taught the exact same thing in his letters. (Have you read Romans chapter 12 and 1 Corinthians chapter 13?)
And about Paul's view of women: There are various ways that those passages have been interpreted by Christians. I recommend that you do some more research into that.
Also, Paul elevated and exalted women when he said that Christian men and women are equal in God's eyes:
Galatians 3:27-28: For all of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Spike Tassel (Post 80): I hereby thank Mad Dawg and UnDisfellowshipped for addressing Pistoff's issues with what I have said on this thread recently. I have much yet to learn; we each serve where/ how we can, according to the spirit within each of us. I have nothing further to add at this time in reply, other than to say "Keep up the good work on this very interesting thread".
MadDawg
Google 'Gnostic' as a start.
Jeff
"And about Paul's view of women: There are various ways that those passages have been interpreted by Christians. I recommend that you do some more research into that."
I don't think I said anything about Paul's view of women; I know that Jesus' closer followers were made up of women, and that some of Paul's writings include women, and others are actually chauvinistic and dismissive of women; back to my earlier statement that some of what is attributed to Paul is likely not written by him.
And isn't it amazing that some of what Jesus said mirrors Paul closely, especially the apocalyptic material, while some of what Jesus said is flatly in a different place?
My take is that the Q sayings are closest to what the historical Jesus said, and I do not believe in Jesus as the prime figure in the apocalyptic scenario that is laid out in some of Paul's writings and in the book of Revelation. I believe that Jesus was an extraordinary human; that means more to me than that he was the sacrifice for sins that we are said to be born with. I am not at all interested in how or why Jesus died; I am very interested in his unique take on what it means to emulate the qualities of God; obsessing about biological behavior, as the WT and some other evangelical groups do, is repugnant to me.
People are sexual, get over it; if people betray one another, that is another matter.
Jesus view of behavior to our fellow is what captures my attention; it is completely unique to what was around him in the day.
And Jesus is NOT the arbiter of behavior that Paul's writings are all about; Jesus did not go about building christian versions of jewish congregations.
The early followers of Jesus are nothing like the congregations of today; they may have resembled communes, where goods are shared by need. They would probably be condemned as communist by modern day evangelicals.
The plain truth is that we are not sure exactly what Jesus said; the gospels are not history, but faith documents. If your faith tells you to take them at face value, that is your choice. It is not mine, but I am fascinated at how those stories have so much power today, good and evil.
Example: the gospels blame the Jews for Jesus death; other than the gospel accounts, NO evidence for it. So stories that felt good for beleagured and outcast christians to tell have contributed to, if not caused, hundreds of years of anti-semitism.
Example: the ethical standards found in Judeo-Christian stories and accounts are unique to their time frame; who knows if they were followed. But they are different, and are a higher standard than the nations around the Israelites at the time they are said to have been implemented.
So, Undis and Mad, I love talking about faith and religion; but I am past belief. I do miss knowing everything, speaking of myself only now, but it has been replaced with a great interest in all of what others believe, and a complete lack of fear that something I will read or hear will invalidate my belief system.
P
Pistoff,
The synoptic “problem” is not a problem at all. If 2 or 10 people saw the same events, wouldn’t we expect them to give similar accounts? We would also expect some differences in the perspective. This is what we find in the gospels. There is absolutely no evidence for Q or Marcan priority. If we take the gospels at face value, there is no need for Q or Marcan priority either.
The evidence for the miracles is the gospels themselves as they are eyewitness accounts.
Paul did mention the resurrection specifically. This was the lynchpin of the faith. The rest were not as significant. Why would Paul preach the resurrection and discount lesser miracles? He was simply using the best evidence that he had. In fact, if the resurrection were not widely known, why would he keep mentioning it? He refers to it because it had weight.
If any one had tried to put words into the mouth of Jesus after the fact, it would have been checked against the oral record and discovered to be a fraud. Societies that depend on an oral record have an amazing ability to keep it pure. I recently read an article of some people in New Zeland (I think) where a tribe had a legend of some people that had been dragged downstream by a river and started a new population miles away. The details were remarkable despite the passing of 8 centuries. DNA confirmed the link between the two cultures and supported the parting of ways 800 years earlier.
The point about Columbus is that just because someone doesn’t mention something doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
You said: My take is that the Q sayings are closest to what the historical Jesus said…
Do you have a copy of Q? I would be most interested in reading it.
What verse(s) in the gospels “caused” anti-semitism? There are those that twist verses to say what they were never inteded to say, just as the WTS does.
Yes, the moral standards in the Bible were an anomoly in their time. The interesting thing is that if we follow the sexual, dietary, sanitation, and other guidelines of the Bible; we would live a healthier life – today. Aids and other STD’s are rampant among promiscuous people – straight or gay. I don’t believe that these diseases are God’s judgement on anyone. I am convinced that God warns us against promiscuity to guard us from such diseases.
AK,
I have no need to google 'gnostics' as I have already read them in their intirety. They are bookmarked in my favorites. I don't know of any scholar that seriously places the writers of the gnostics as contmporaries of Jesus. In fact you are the first person I have seen try to do so. They were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It is because they are so totally lacking in authenticity that they were not included in the canon.
"The evidence for the miracles is the gospels themselves as they are eyewitness accounts."
This is circular logic.
" The synoptic “problem” is not a problem at all. If 2 or 10 people saw the same events, wouldn’t we expect them to give similar accounts? "
But you maintain that the Bible is inspired and inerrant; similar is not the issue. The gospels have serious differences, including the tone of what Jesus said and did, and the view of what Jesus was, whether extraordinary human or godlike. I agree that to you this is not a problem, but it is to me and when I began reading what scholars (with no view to defend) found when analyzing texts, the differences are obvious.
" Paul did mention the resurrection specifically. "
But Jesus did NOT perform the resurrection, right? Your view is that God resurrected him. Or are you saying that Jesus is God, and resurrected himself?
" Why would Paul preach the resurrection and discount lesser miracles?"
My point exactly! Either they developed after he wrote, or he DID NOT BELIEVE them.
"What verse(s) in the gospels “caused” anti-semitism? There are those that twist verses to say what they were never inteded to say, just as the WTS does."
“Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the High Priest, who was called Caiphas, and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him" (Matthew 26:4).
“The Chief Priest, the elders, and the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death” (Matthew 26: 59-61)
“...all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death”(Matthew 27:1 ).
And the crowd? They cried that they would take the blood of Jesus on their head and their children's head. So Mad do you think that Pilate became a ruler by being bullied by the crowds? Do you really think that they changed his mind about executing someone that was being called the king of the jews?
By the way, the most RABID anti Jewish accounts are found in Matthew, a book written from and for the Jewish community, who by the time it was written had ejected the christians from the synagogues.
" The interesting thing is that if we follow the sexual, dietary, sanitation, and other guidelines of the Bible; we would live a healthier life – today. "
You mean I need to sacrifice daily, and when I have sex, or have a wet dream? Do I need to avoid pork? Can I sell my slave? Can I accumulate wives? Where do you draw the line if you revere Mosaic laws? Should we stone adulterers again?
" I am convinced that God warns us against promiscuity to guard us from such diseases."
Why does he not warn us against all of the other health hazards of modern living?
If your belief is working for you, fine. I respect that, I have reason to not take the bible literally any more, and Jesus means more to me when he challenges me to live ethically than when he warns me about his (misunderstood, misunderstood again, postponed, postponed again, never mind, not coming) second return.
