How Christian thinking was corrupted by Paul's clever explanations

by Terry 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Band on the Run

  Terry,

  I disagree with your conclusion but not your facts. When I was in college and studying NT, I was aware that I needed an A to get into a decent school afterwards. Seeking to avoid an emotional JW issue and be distracted, I researched a paper on the "Historical Jesus," having no idea in the world what it meant. I have pursued my study as an interest since that time. Few scholars agree on so many points. Within the last two years, I read one of the best books on the subject, Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright's The Meaning of Jesus-Two Visions. Both studied with the same professor. Although they agree on so many facts, they are divided on many issues. Our first class exercise at the start of the Jesus seminar was to hear Jung's statement that we project all our dreams, frustrations onto this person Jesus. We had to quickly write three adjectives to describe Jesus in the gospels. Despite INtro to NT being a prereq., only two Orthodox male Jews succeeded with a correct interpretation. I could think of no adjectives under pressure.

  There were many Christianites. I strongly doubt that Jesus started any church. A close reading of Acts and Paul's letters shows how fragmented Christianity was from the very start. The apostles argue about Jesus during his lifetime. They seem more confounded than outsdiers.

  Elaine Pagels' main body of work is Gnostic Christanity. She explained politcal and social forces, secular ones, that would lead a continuing church to embrace Paul's theories of Jesus. First, the appeal to Greek Christians. Second, Christology. Paul's Jesus is very potent. Third, the great unwashed masses could embrace it. Gnosticism appealed to better educated and sophisticated Christians. Paul's variant could reach successive generations. How many hippie communes still exist from the 1960s.

  Yet another factor I've noted when researching nonWestern forms of Christianity is that the West seems to have embraced Paul as the main apostle. Middle Eastern churches and Indian churches follow different traditons. They have the apostle who supposedly founded their churches as the main source. Of course, I don't know these Christianites well.

  HIs contemporaries were thorougly confused by Jesus. Pauline Christianity is the West's version but it is not the only version. Even in the West, there were major disputes and war over theology for a long time. The Protestant REformation is one of many. IMO, no form of Christianity is accurate to Jesus.
• 

  Terry

  HIs contemporaries were thorougly confused by Jesus. Pauline Christianity is the West's version but it is not the only version. Even in the West, there were major disputes and war over theology for a long time. The Protestant REformation is one of many. IMO, no form of Christianity is accurate to Jesus.

  Everybody but Paul is confused by Jesus! :)

  Paul has all the answers.

  Jesus could have chosen any number of people whom he could personally instruct and teach and who would understand. But, Jesus did not.

  He chose the sort of people who, today, read the National Enquirer and believe in ghosts.

  The intelligentsia, the Priests, the actual authorities in Judaism could have sat down with an actual "son of God" and had their mind's blown.

  But, Jesus had seemingly no clue that this would be advisable! Instead, he hobnobs with the unwashed illiterati and treats the custodians of pure worship with anything but respectful patience.

  The bible is all we have to go on if we ignore history.

  The bible has never cleared up anything. It only allows the more imaginative among us to go off on a wild goose chase of their own!

  Jesus and christianity have been many things. It has been pulled, tugged, stretched, torn, warped and rewritten a thousand times over for each new generation's NEEDS. A Rohrschach test, you might say.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Have you read Crossan's book on Paul and the Roman Empire? It changed my thinking concerning Paul. I used to hate Paul. Every Witness stricture seemed to start wtih Paul. If I heard his advice to Timothy to drink some wine for his tummy, I was going to go postal. I now am a Paul fan. Most of what was attributed to him, he never wrote. Other matters were taken out of context.

  Crossan made me realize that Paul was human and led me to a more sophisticated view of Paul. The Church ruined Paul. His teachings are achingly beautiful, if stripped to their essence.
• 

  myelaine

  dear Terry...

  you said:

  "Paul explains, explains, explains. He is the Professor, scientist, theologian and hard-nosed scold. He leaves no room for arguments. On the other hand, Jesus is vague and mysterious."...

  Paul was a pharisee so he would have studied judaism and could have rightly been called a "professor" of judaism but when Jesus came he became a theologian...he progressed to the study of God.

  If all you get from his explaination is this:

  "Paul doesn't base his arguments and persuasions on Jesus. Paul uses Jewish theology!

  Paul uses a Greek way of thinking, too.

  Paul uses eisogesis (reading INTO the text) to make his doctrinal points. Quoting Jesus? Not necessary!

  Paul was sent by the High Priest to end the sect of Jesus followers and he does this by co-opting their message and meaning. How? He convinces the Jesus splinter group that Jesus is the End Point of Judaism itself. By bringing both groups together there is no longer an "enemy". The pagan goyim steeped in Greek mythology (Thanks to Roman patronage) can accept Judaism with its demi-god, Jesus! Everybody can get along! Right? Wrong.

  Then--history stepped in and destroyed MAINSTREAM JUDAISM...leaving only the "blended" messianic Jesus group!"...you've missed his whole point.

  Paul was sent to the gentiles first of all so it shouldn't be a surprise that he would use the available "mindset" in his explainations. Paul, far from co-opting the greek mythology of demi-gods, was drawing on the OT theme of a Son and using that in relation to a Father...both notions present in the OT. But his protrait was not that of a supreme god and a demi-god. He sought to bring the real God to the people. He carried on and expanded the teaching of the OT prophets(where the pharisees didn't)...unlike the greeks and their gods of monologue...paul was teaching that the God of israel was in dialogue with man..."at various times and places God spoke to us through the prophets but at this time He has spoken to us through His Son" The irony is when paul went to mars hill and said he could see that they were very religious by all thier alters...and he noticed the alter to the unknown god...he COULDN'T preach an unknown god because God has made Himself known...most of the gods that were represented there were pretty much un-known (you never knew where you stood with them) as far as expecting any kind of reciprocity ie. blessing in return for worship. They were a fickle self-centered lot...weren't they? In contrast to the God of israel Who "drew up" His expectations, underlined the blessings toward those who followed, signed a covenant and never backed out.

  Which brings us to Jesus (figuratively)...He is the fulfilment of that covenant when the jewish people couldn't keep up their end. God continued to reach out for dialogue even if they were always turning from Him. Jesus wasn't mysterious and vague...He said, "if you knew the Father you would know Me also"..."if you have seen Me you have seen the Father". He was the Word, a continuation of that dialogue between God and man that was started long ago when God chose a special people TO speak to and through. I think that because of the priestly "class" in Jesus time the dialogue that was desired had become a monologue. the priests instilled fear into the people as a means to control their power structure. Interestingly the last word from the OT prophets in the book of malachi 4:4-6 there is a warning stating that God would come and strike the earth with a curse(which I believe to be a withdrawing of His protection) if the hearts of the fathers aren't turned to the sons and the hearts of the sons to the fathers...a reinstitution of dialogue between the generations, so to speak. As a consequence of this NOT happening within the majority jewish population (because of the priests, mark 7:9-13) It came about that God did withdraw His protection just a He said and Jesus predicted in matthew 24:15-20 which did see a partial fulfillment in 70 AD specifically to those jewish people who hadn't responded to Jesus.(ie. entered into dialogue with God by His means)

  anyway...you have suggested previously that your take on the worship of God is God demanding, "what have you done for me lately?"...which isn't the case. It is more like God replying..."what can I do for My beloved?"

  love michelle
• 

  designs

  Terry- Benny Hinn believes Benny Hinn is a miracle worker therefore believe Benny Hinn. Standing back post 12 years from the JWs it is easier to see Paul as a charlatan.

  Michelle- 'Jewish people couldn't keep up their end' I don't think so. They had the boot of the Roman Army on their throats, the biggest baddest killing machine on earth at that time. Try and think of it as- what if the Nazi had won WWII and ruled your country, how would life be different, how would your freedoms be different.
• 

  paulnotsaul

  Hey, what's the big idea! You don't know the haif of it. Walk a mile in my shoes (sandles) Terry, Sheesh! peaceya'll paulnotsaul
• 

  mP

  mp->Terry:

  Paul did not know anything about jesus except for his resurrection and two scriptures where he mentions a "James" and another where he mentions "cephas" and "John".

  Xians of course realise that jesus validates the OT and they dont want ot live with that nonsense so they invent that Paul gave us a new message that invalidates the Torah. Where his happens is of course never given. WHy are we supposed to listen to a nobody called Paul rather than the disciples or Jesus that taught the opposite is also never explained.

  Terry:

  We can't ever know for certain what Jesus said or taught. We only have what was eventually put down in writing (after many oral re-tellings).

  Paul's letters CAME FIRST.

  Paul's writing just about destroyed the Old Testament Jehovah by replacing Him with a newer and better version of god: Jesus.

  mp -> Terry

  I will however say tha t the ordering of the Bible where the gospels are placed before the letters of Paul is part of these deception. Even though we know that paul wrote his letters before the gospels they are placed after in NT so the unperceptive thinks these are a new revelation from God that somehow corrects the commentary of Jesus in the NT.
• 

  Terry

  Paul was a pharisee so he would have studied judaism and could have rightly been called a "professor" of judaism but when Jesus came he became a theologian...he progressed to the study of God.

  Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby says:

  "Paul hmself, in his letters, never mentions that he was a pupil of Gamaliel, even when he is most concerned to stress his qualifications as a Pharisee. Here again, then, the question has to be put: was Paul ever really a pupil of Gamaliel or was this claim made by Luke as an embellishment to his narrative?"

  "The High Priest was not a Pharisee, but a Sadducee, and the Sadducees were bitterly opposed to the Pharisees. How is it that Saul, allegedly an enthusiastic Pharisee ('a Pharisee of the Pharisees'), is acting hand in glove with the High Priest? The picture we are given in our New Testament sources of Saul, in the days before his conversion to Jesus, is contradictory and suspect."

  Try thinking about it this way... The earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110.

  Gospel writers had 10 to 20 years to "fit" Paul's ideas in with their own narrative of Jesus' life and ministry.

  In the book of Acts, there are incidences of friction between Paul and the leaders of the 'Jerusalem Church', (surviving companions of Jesus); but this friction was seemingly resolved, and they all became the best of friends, with common aims and purposes.

  However...

  Paul's letters, (written BEFORE the Gospels) particularly Galatians, reveal those frictions were more serious than in the picture given in Acts. This has the effect of causing Acts to appear partly a propaganda exercise, intended to portray unity in the early Church.

  See where I am going with this? A dissonance in historical texts must be dealt with by redactors, copyists and theologians.

  Paul's 2nd letter to the Corinthians demonstrates he was in competition with other christian apostles. He mocks them angrily. Who were they? Paul's description: they were SUPERFINE apostles.

  Paul's scathing rebuke: 5:1; 6:1-11; 11:17, 22, and his threat in 4:21, "Shall I come to you with a stick?"

  coupled with his steadily depreciatory way of speaking of them—"Who sees anything special in you? And what have you got that you have

  not been given?" aptly reveals animosity rather than brotherly love among teachers of christianity. It was competition!

  This explains the disappointingly ambiguous role given in the Gospels to the companions of Jesus, the twelve disciples. These characters are more schematic and functional; portrayed as stupid; they never quite understand what Jesus is up to. Their importance in the origins of Christianity is played down in a remarkable way.

  Why?

  I submit that it was because PAUL's writings had two decades to seep in to public consciousness. His construct was dominant. He won.

  Those early leaders (in Jerusalem) had been intimately associated with Jesus. The dismay, suspicion and denigration of Paul's "new visions" and interpretations

  would have caused them NOT to accept his teachings. But the Four Gospel writers are living AFTERWARD. Paul's story is THE dominant accepted orthodoxy

  The bible writers must make the BEFORE and the AFTER harmonious whatever way feels comfortable.

  Why? Otherwise christianity would be seen as nothing but chaos, disagreement, competing theologies and disorganization!
• 

  Band on the Run

  Terry,

  I heartily disagree with you concerning Paul. Paul did not know everything or thought he knew all. The main problem with Paul, as with Jesus, is seeing the orignal human and not the centuries of false interpretation surrounding the person. My training makes me pay excruciating attention to text. Paul is not braggard. I do believe it hurt him deeply that his credentials were questioned. He doth protest too much but, until recently, we had no idea what he was protesting.

  Stripped of church rules, (most of which do not even appear in Paul's genuine letters), Paul's gospel of grace is very compelling. I am also mindful of the scene where the noncrucifixed Jesus confronts Paul in The Last Temptation of Christ. Jesus explained that God is not vengeful. He let Jesus walk and live a normal human life. Jesus is now much older with family responsibilities and still does some carpentry. First, he marries Magdalenea then Mary of Mary and Martha. Paul is furious with Jesus. He declares that facts don't matter. The world needs a crucified and risen Christ. Altho he is outraged by Paul in the beginning, Jesus realizes how central the crucifixion is. It triggers the end of his hallucinations and he is found on the cross. He dies.

  I never thought there would be any day under any circumstances where I would defend Paul. My views have changed. Do I think that Paul was perfect? No. Do I think that Paul was insecure?Yes, but so am I. Just as Jesus defies easy categorization, Paul's writing defy easy categorization. Paul's quotes abound in my home. He never was the WT or Roman Catholic Paul.
• 

  Terry

  Stripped of church rules, (most of which do not even appear in Paul's genuine letters), Paul's gospel of grace is very compelling.

  Compelling?

  It makes no sense if you take into account that the entire Old Testament establishes one certain thing: Almighty God's sense of Justice is connected to getting and giving what is DESERVED. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is justice.

  But, "Grace" violates this.

  Those who do not DESERVE life are rewarded (undeserved kindess), while the one who is innocent, Jesus (and doesn't deserve death) is given death.

  God's perfect JUSTICE is thrown out. This is Paul's "compelling" grace. Grace is a desperate stop-gap to give Jesus' death an explanation.

  To each according to his action is a balance of fairness. Give a man what he deserves and don't give a man what he doesn't. That is Jehovah.

  Jesus, as explicated by Paul, is theology spackle. He plugs a hole.