Paul, leading authority on Christianity, does NOT quote Jesus!

by Terry 204 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  PSacramento

  RE: Paul the Pharisee.

  There are a few reason why Paul woudl call himself one, and on eof them is to claim a kind of legitimacy for his views and his issues, sort of like claiming to be a JW Elder would boaster claims of how things work for JW's.

  Of course j ust as that is easilr dispelled here, that would be the case in those days too, perhaps more so.

  Just because Paul was a militant pharisee doesn't mean he wasn't a pharisee, just like Jesus's disciple who was a moderate zelot was still caled a zealot.

  What we have as "facts" about Paul is that he was a rather militant and arrogant Jews, self-admited Phairisee and that he persecuted the early followers of Christ, that he had a vision of Christ that converted him, rather painfully, that he preached the Gospel of Christ being resurrected, that he did speak with the apostles, that they disagreed on things, that Peter thought him to be a tad extremisst and said things that could be confusing at times, that perhaps James had issues with Paul's views on salvation and that Paul wrote many letters, typically specififc to each church he set up, sometimes alone but usually with another like Barnabas ( to whom he was "second"), we also see that Paul tailored his teachings to the individual churches.

  Most scholars and students of the NT do NOT think that Paul wrote the pastoral epistles becvause they are inconsistent ( and that is being kind) to his teachings and writhing style.

  The issue that Paul didn't mention miracles or things of a more personal nature in regards to Jesus is an issue IF we assume that he SHOULD have mentioend that in his letters.

  Thing is that even the letters that we have from John, Peter, and James, don't go into any of that either and they were there ( except for James).

  I really don't think that his letters not speaking of things that WE think they shoudl speak means as much as some people want it to mean.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Excellent point about the epistles. I think that Peter and James did not write the epistles with their names. Paul could focus on pure theology b/c Q, a collection of sayings and perhaps stories already existed. John's gospel is viewed as pure theology masquerading as a gospel. It is so achingly beautiful that it is my favorite book.

  I hope more documents will surface to show what happened.
• 

  PSacramento

  Since there are no writings to comapre to, we really don't knwo who wrote Peter and James but the the pastoral ones and Titus sure seem to be by the same person and that person is NOT Paul, it could have been Barnabs as some speculate but they are not consistend with his epistle in the codex Sinaiticus.

  John is, without a doubt, my favorite work of the NT, it is such a work of beauty that I can compare it to almost any other reknown work of literature.

  To bad who edited/published it kind of made a few "organization" errors in chapter placement but eh, such is life and no work can be perfect.

  I really don't think that Paul mentioned the sayings or miracles or anything that the gospels do into more detail about, because he didn't know but probably because they were possible well known already OR they had been discussed in person OR maybe it wasn't his style and he wanted to focus on the news of the ressurected Jesus as opposed to the details of his "mortal life", who knows?

  The gospels, in their various forms, were probably just attempts to organize things and put them on paper to standardize stuf, just liek the OT scribes did.

  Teh fact that we have the story from different "POV"s and focusing on different things is consistent with th way the OT is also laid out with various creation stories and flood accounts and histories being "woven" into one.
• 

  TD

  If we go with what is most probable all things considered, the most likely reason Paul would claim to be a Pharisee is as it's stated:

  "Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.”

  By playing upon a bone of contention between the Pharisees and Sadducess, he divided the Sanhedrin and started them quarreling among themselves. The only other time the claim is made, the context is similar
• 

  donuthole

  I think it is a mistake to think that when jews started following Christ they suddenly dropped all identity with their former religion. Acts speaks about some "Pharisess that believed" and show that the followers in Jerusalem were in attendence at the temple and synogogue as well as going through the Jewish purification rites and practices and were "zealous for the law".

  As a lifelong Pharisee, Paul might have seen the resurrection of Jesus as confirmation of his beliefs. Additionally, he was willing to become all things to all people and his arguing as Pharisee was a way to gain favor with his audience. In the same account he would later appeal to his Roman citizenship to get him out of a bind. In his letters you can see him appeal to his commission as an apostle when addressing believers.
• 

  Terry

  I love those "insider comments" in scripture where a NARRATOR butts in and breaks the 4th wall tediously explaining something that

  was going on in another person's mind! You gotta love the copyists and translator's effort to CLARIFY something or other they themselves could not possibly know! It is like the Watchtower writers making guesses and passing them off as "channeling Jehovah as his mouthpiece."

  "Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.”
• 

  garyneal

  marked
• 

  Terry

  Paul wrote his letters. The apostles and companions wrote mini bios. The church (Constantine's authority) forced an orthodox belief system and enforced it.

  Documents that did not agree were rounded up and burned. Nay-sayers (apostates) were driven out.

  Originals of any kind vanished.

  The rest is, as they say, history.
• 

  still thinking

  gonna look at this later
• 

  Pistoff

  The issue that Paul didn't mention miracles or things of a more personal nature in regards to Jesus is an issue IF we assume that he SHOULD have mentioend that in his letters

  Really?? You don't think that Paul, by all accounts the architect of Christianity (well, at least the letters ascribed to him) should ONCE mention Jesus' teachings or miracles? If he didn't think they were important, then why do we even consider them??

  Think; the reason is that what Jesus said was not established when Paul wrote. And whoever wrote the letters that are attributed to Paul either had not heard or did not trust the miracle stories either. Why? Is it because they are similar to stories about Roman and Greek gods?

  IMO, Paul saw the close knit, loving community of Jesus followers, and saw in it the kingdom of God. Remember, in Paul's authentic letters he speaks of women in prominent position; he says there was no man or woman, no Jew or Greek, no slave or master. That is what blinded Paul; he had for so long believed in ritual and ceremony as a way to purity and approach to God, but seeing what the followers of Jesus had he was gobsmacked.

  But please don't pretend that Paul believed in the miracles. If he did, or if he had even heard of them, he would have trumpeted them as proof. Instead, he linked Jesus up to what are now considered messianic prophecy, trying to make his case that way. The simpler followers of Jesus in later days instead spread the miracle stories.