Thoughts on The Apostle Paul

El Kabong

It's early on a Saturday morning and I really couldn't sleep. So, I'm just rambling on right now.

I got to thinking, are many of the divisions in Christianity caused by the writings of the Apostle Paul?

For example, The whole disfellowshipping and shunning issue is based soley on Paul's writings. Also other issues such as speaking in tounges, or a women's place in the ministry are just some more examples of the writings of Paul that are still causing controversy today. It seems to me that most of the rules and regulations in the New Testament can be found among Pauls letters. These are just examples from the top of my head.

I believe that Jesus taught us to "Do unto others" and "Love thy Neighbor" (Sorry, I love the english in the King James version). After Jesus' death and Christianity started growing in numbers, Fanatics, no doubt, starting teaching their own interpretation of Jesus's teachings. I'm just wondering, are Christians really following the words and actions of Christ, or are they basing their life on the writings of some religious fanatic who's writings were included in the Bible by other fanatics? The more rules, the more control over the people.

DanTheMan

I agree that Paul was a fanatic. I've posted the following quotes on a number of occasions as I think they are brilliant:

Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter, fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ.
- Will Durant

The Christian churches were offered two things: the spirit of Jesus and the idiotic morality of Paul, and they rejected the higher inspiration... Following Paul, we have turned the goodness of love into a fiend and degraded the crowning impulse of our being into a capital sin.
-

Frank Harris

Gopher

Paul did set forth a lot of rules and regulations, didn't he? (or did he not, as you might hear a speaker say from the Kingdom Hall platform----bleeccch)

He is the dominant writer of the New Testament, so he is a rather easy target to pick on. Yet he did go on and on about some of his own opinions on things. For example, when he wrote that a young widow should remarry so that she doesn't lose control of her sexual impulses, he was clearly spouting an opinion. In the same context after some advice he admitted it was his opinion, but he THOUGHT he had God's spirit in what he said.

The more rules and regulations that get superimposed on the message of Jesus, the farther you get from Christianity. You get a self-serving religious system. I don't need to name actual sects here, fill in the blank yourself!

Are Christians following the teaching of Jesus, or following writings of religious fanatics? There are some who do the first, and others who do the second. Some show love, others go through formalities.

Francois

It does seem that Paul was triumphant over both Peter and Christ.

The Master clearly left us with just two rules: Love god with a whole soul; and your neighbor as yourself. Of this there is no doubt.

But leave it to Paul, the former Pharisee and his modern-day counterparts in the WTBTS and in virtually every other organized religion and suddenly we have a gross multiplication of rules.

Frankly I feel that the entire Christian phenomana has greatly suffered absent the advice, consent, opinions, feelings, and intutions of women. Are they not children of God just as fully as are men? Are they not capable of spirit instruction as well - or likely better, given the attention they pay to intuition - than men?

I'd be willing to bet real money that Jesus had a large group of female disciples associated with his ministry, which group are left entirely unremarked by the apostles in their bible writing. Remember, this was that same bunch of jolly guys who fought among themselves for preferment, for the best seats at the banquet, for thrones side-by-side with Jesus in "the Kingdom," and other outward signs of importance. Why would these same characters even admit the existence of a group of femal disciples? I don't think they would. But I'll bet such a thing existed.

My two cents
francois

CoonDawg

The apostle Paul's writings to me are are very control oriented. Was he sincere? Probably. To me, he is the "Mark Twain" of the bible. He has some real gems that have been preserved...but he's pretty much a crotchety old man throughout much of his writings. He expresses his opinion on so many subjects, tainted with a tinge of bitterness. Do they hold any practical value? Sure, somewhat....but you can't entirely divorce the man from the writings.

And if you think that his popularity with the the people weren't a result of his shoring up the thoughts that were prevalent at the time....well, that'd just be nuts. I'm sure it has a lot to do with his letters making up a majority of the new testament and them being cannonized.

JMO

Coon

Sargon

Paul is the dominant writer in the Greek Scriptures and he definately was a fanatic. But the new testament as it exists aren't all the Christian writings that existed at the time it's compilation. Apparently there were many other gospels and letters around. The new testament as we know it was compiled at the council of Nicea in 325. The heads of the fledgling Christian church only chose those gospels and letters wich fitted their already preconceived notion of what Christianity should be. The church leaders then went on a massive rampage to destroy as many of these other 'heretical' wriitings as they could. If more of the early Jewish Christian writings had been included, would Paul's influence have been so great?

gumby

For example, The whole disfellowshipping and shunning issue is based soley on Paul's writings

How about Jesus words at Matt.18:15? "If your brother commits a sin....go to him...if he doesn't listen...take along another.....then tell the church.....if he still doesn't listen.....let him be as a man of the nations. Commentaries say this was a scriptures that showed a basis for.....EXCOMMUNICATION.

Gumby

Navigator

I suspect that Francois is correct about Jesus having a large retinue of female disciples. Their presence at the cross without the men and at the tomb before the men would seem to demand that conclusion. Their contribution was largely overlooked by the writers/assemblers of the New Testament. Although John is often cited as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", I suspect it was more likely Mary Magdeline who got a really bad rap by those who translated from aramaic to Greek. All of the fundamentalist churchers are missing out on the wonderful talent that so many women have who are called to the ministry, but forced to serve in secondary positions. That is especially prevalent in the WTBTS. While I would not go so far as to call Paul a fanatic, it is clear that the Christianity practiced today is Pauline Christianity and has little to do with the teachings of Jesus. Sargon makes a good point that when the canon of the New Testament was decided, only those books were selected which fit the pre-conceived notions that had developed up to that time. Much of Paul's writings and teachings are applied "out of context". The situation in Corinth was unusual and unique and I doubt that he intended to have his advice specific to that situation applied universally. It is interesting to note that in the New Thought Community (Unity, Religious Science, Divine Science) about 65% of the ministers are female. Even the orthodox churches (Disciples of Christ, Prespryterians, Northen Baptists, Methodists) are electing women elders. It is about time!.

SixofNine

That John fella was a crazy bastard! ;-)

El Kabong

It's been a while since I actually studied anything in the Bible. But, wasn't there a story about Paul preaching in an upper room somewhere for many hours? Someone dosed off while sitting on a window sill, fell out of the window and died. Didn't Paul ressurect him? (CPR perhaps????) (If it wasn't Paul, then I apologize, It really has been a while and I'm going on what little brain cells I have left ) Makes me glad that there are typically no windows at the Kingdom Halls.

Anyway, I agree that Paul did write a lot of Opinion. But, his letters are regarded as Scripture, and as we all know..."All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight". (Wow...I guess I didn't lose as many brain cells as I thought!!). And, BTW, didn't Paul write THAT as well (2 Tim. 3:16????). So, because his letters are part of the Holy Scriptures, his words therefore are shall we say Gospel. How do we really know if Pauls letters were actually inspired by God? Because we were told by the religions of the world? Just like JW's believe that Jehovah communicates through his "unique fine channel which He uses to warn and to speak".

It just got me thinking, Is it God's word that is being taught by Christianity, or is it Man's?

Thoughts on The Apostle Paul

Share this