Paul's letters....sacred Scripture?

[Elijah John]

Why should Paul's correspondence, theological meanderings and pastoral advice be considered Sacred Scripture?

For whatever reason, they are considered infallible Scripture by many. So why don't Evangelicals obey his injunctions against women speaking in Church?

Why do Evangelicals ordain women as pastors, and applaud women Bible teachers in public?

Doesn't Paul forbid that kind of thing?

Are Evangelicals also guilty of "picking and choosing" something they accuse others of doing?

And if Paul was wrong about this, what else was he wrong about?

(disclaimer, this is not criticism of women speaking in Church, only of Paul and the double standard of many of his champions)

[Checkpoint]

Why should Paul's correspondence, theological meanderings and pastoral advice be considered Sacred Scripture?

For exactly the same reason we accept the YHWH (Jehovah) is the revealed name of God and not just some nonsense label dreamed up in the mind of some delusional peoples stringing four letters together for fun ...

For exactly the same reason we accept any part of the bible as divinely inspired.


JW

Seriously? Are you saying that all parts of the Bible are equally inspired? Is Exodus 20.20 as inspired as the Golden Rule?

Is the approval of holding slaves and beating them half to death (because they are "property") as inspired as the teaching to treat others as you would have them treat you?

Getting back to Paul, who never preached the name of YHVH and instead preached "Christ", why would any Jehovah's Witness consider Paul's writings Scripture? After all, he seldom if ever honors the name of God, and in fact placed the name of Jesus above all others.

Seems the organization's name should more accurately be called "Christ's Witnesses" than Jehovah's Witnesses. Paul did not witness for Jehovah, at least by name. He witnessed for "Christ".

Do you think Paul himself considered his own letters "Scripture"? Or only (like Jesus) the Hebrew Bible.

I wonder why, can you say why, Jesus did not preach against that slave scripture; a bit remiss of him, or of the Gospel writers, don't you think?

Paul was such a rascal, wasn't he; fancy preaching "Christ" and being someone who witnessed for "Christ". Whatever next...tut tut!

It does not matter what Paul considered his own letters as, which we can't know, but what Peter wrote about them, which we can and do know.

[Elijah John]

Why should Paul's correspondence, theological meanderings and pastoral advice be considered Sacred Scripture?

For exactly the same reason we accept the YHWH (Jehovah) is the revealed name of God and not just some nonsense label dreamed up in the mind of some delusional peoples stringing four letters together for fun ...

For exactly the same reason we accept any part of the bible as divinely inspired.


JW

Seriously? Are you saying that all parts of the Bible are equally inspired? Is Exodus 20.20 as inspired as the Golden Rule?

Is the approval of holding slaves and beating them half to death (because they are "property") as inspired as the teaching to treat others as you would have them treat you?

Getting back to Paul, who never preached the name of YHVH and instead preached "Christ", why would any Jehovah's Witness consider Paul's writings Scripture? After all, he seldom if ever honors the name of God, and in fact placed the name of Jesus above all others.

Seems the organization's name should more accurately be called "Christ's Witnesses" than Jehovah's Witnesses. Paul did not witness for Jehovah, at least by name. He witnessed for "Christ".

Do you think Paul himself considered his own letters "Scripture"? Or only (like Jesus) the Hebrew Bible.

I wonder why, can you say why, Jesus did not preach against that slave scripture; a bit remiss of him, or of the Gospel writers, don't you think?

Jesus in preaching the Golden Rule implicitly preached against that slave-holding/beating policy. He didn't endorse everything in the Law of Moses, his views on divorce comes to mind.

Paul was such a rascal, wasn't he; fancy preaching "Christ" and being someone who witnessed for "Christ". Whatever next...tut tut!

Just making an observation...so let me get this right, anyone who critiques Paul is subject to "tut tut" mockery? Paul is beyond critique....on a debating site?

Yes, preaching "Christ" instead of YHVH is very close to idolatry, because it has no roots in the Hebrew Bible. Paul introduced the concept.

It does not matter what Paul considered his own letters as, which we can't know, but what Peter wrote about them, which we can and do know.

Scholars doubt very much that the letters ascribed to Peter were actually penned by the apostle Peter, who knew Aramaic, not Greek. And it was doubtful that he was literate, ...at all.

[Elijah John]

I wonder why, can you say why, Jesus did not preach against that slave scripture; a bit remiss of him, or of the Gospel writers, don't you think?

Are you endorsing the slave keeping/beating verse because Jesus may have condoned it? Do you, like "Moses" believe that human beings are "property"? Was that verse Divinely inspired?

Paul was such a rascal, wasn't he;

According to Jefferson and many scholars Paul was the major corruptor of Jesus message, whether or not he was also a "rascal" on the side, who knows?

fancy preaching "Christ" and being someone who witnessed for "Christ". Whatever next...tut tut!

The point is, Paul witnessed for Christ, and not Jehovah. He put Jesus name above all others. Contrast this to King David in the Psalms, David praised the name of YHVH above all others.

It does not matter what Paul considered his own letters as, which we can't know, but what Peter wrote about them, which we can and do know.

So the anonymous author of the letters of Peter determines what is, and what is not Scripture?

[dio9]

Why should Paul's correspondence, theological meanderings and pastoral advice be considered Sacred Scripture?

For whatever reason, they are considered infallible Scripture by many. So why don't Evangelicals obey his injunctions against women speaking in Church?

Why do Evangelicals ordain women as pastors, and applaud women Bible teachers in public?

Doesn't Paul forbid that kind of thing?

Are Evangelicals also guilty of "picking and choosing" something they accuse others of doing?

And if Paul was wrong about this, what else was he wrong about?

(disclaimer, this is not criticism of women speaking in Church, only of Paul and the double standard of many of his champions)

People have made it sacred scripture that's all that's needed , Millions of people have through the ages.

[ttruscott]

Why should Paul's correspondence, theological meanderings and pastoral advice be considered Sacred Scripture?

For whatever reason, they are considered infallible Scripture by many. So why don't Evangelicals obey his injunctions against women speaking in Church?

Why do Evangelicals ordain women as pastors, and applaud women Bible teachers in public?

Doesn't Paul forbid that kind of thing?

Are Evangelicals also guilty of "picking and choosing" something they accuse others of doing?

And if Paul was wrong about this, what else was he wrong about?

Ezekiel 20 speaks to the churches that profane HIS house with secular ideas (Egyptian idols) refusing to give HIM top place in their lives. There is always a way to reconcile what you want and the word of GOD... or Satan could never have become HaSatan.

IOW, don't blame Paul for those who ignore him...

[Elijah John]

Why should Paul's correspondence, theological meanderings and pastoral advice be considered Sacred Scripture?

For whatever reason, they are considered infallible Scripture by many. So why don't Evangelicals obey his injunctions against women speaking in Church?

Why do Evangelicals ordain women as pastors, and applaud women Bible teachers in public?

Doesn't Paul forbid that kind of thing?

Are Evangelicals also guilty of "picking and choosing" something they accuse others of doing?

And if Paul was wrong about this, what else was he wrong about?

Ezekiel 20 speaks to the churches that profane HIS house with secular ideas (Egyptian idols) refusing to give HIM top place in their lives. There is always a way to reconcile what you want and the word of GOD... or Satan could never have become HaSatan.

IOW, don't blame Paul for those who ignore him...

We're talking about Paul here, and his man-made rules. If prohibiting women from speaking in Church is a God given rule, please demonstrate that this is so, and not just Paul's opinion. So I ask you, was Paul right to forbid women speaking in Church?

[JehovahsWitness]

Why should Paul's correspondence, theological meanderings and pastoral advice be considered Sacred Scripture?

For exactly the same reason we accept the YHWH (Jehovah) is the revealed name of God and not just some nonsense label dreamed up in the mind of some delusional peoples stringing four letters together for fun ...

For exactly the same reason we accept any part of the bible as divinely inspired.


JW

Seriously? Are you saying that all parts of the Bible are equally inspired? Is Exodus 20.20 as inspired as the Golden Rule? {snip}

If we take the word "inspired" to mean of divine origin, containing the thoughts of God, how can such a thing exist in degrees? It is either of inspired (divine origin) or it is not of divine origin; your question is like asking if I "seriously" believe all water is equally wet?!

(That is not to say I hold to your interpretation of what all those inspired passages mean - which is why I snipped and ignored the rest of your post)

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Seems the organization's name should more accurately be called "Christ's Witnesses" than Jehovah's Witnesses.

I feel confident if anyone is misapplying the Divine Name God to anything or anyone He is more than capable of carrying out his own judgement of the matter.


All I can say on that is that I am one of JEHOVAH's Witnesses and also a Christian (A disciple of Christ Jesus); the two are not mutually exclusive. Are you implying that *I* and the 8 million of my spiritual brothers and sisters have forefeited any legtimate right to be known as Jehovah's Witnesses because we accept all 66 books of the bible canon as inspired of God?

JEHOVAHS WITNESS



Jehovah’s Witnesses—Who Are We?
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/Latest ... mv_5_VIDEO

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Paul's letters are the earliest Christian writings in existence.

Everything else in the New Testament is based on Paul's letters.

[Elijah John]

Seems the organization's name should more accurately be called "Christ's Witnesses" than Jehovah's Witnesses.

I feel confident if anyone is misapplying the Divine Name God to anything or anyone He is more than capable of carrying out his own judgement of the matter.


All I can say on that is that I am one of JEHOVAH's Witnesses and also a Christian (A disciple of Christ Jesus); the two are not mutually exclusive. Are you implying that *I* and the 8 million of my spiritual brothers and sisters have forefeited any legtimate right to be known as Jehovah's Witnesses because we accept all 66 books of the bible canon as inspired of God?

Paul's emphasis is "Christ" not YHVH. Allow me rephrase my observation into a question for you then, do you consider Paul to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses as well? If so, I sure don't see it.

I didn't mean for that observation to sound so much like an accusation. For the record, I do see that your organization honors the name of God far more than Paul does.

And I do commend you folks for promoting knowledge of the Divine Name. Whatever our disagreements, that is certainly a good thing from my perspective. And I have learned a lot (but not everything) pertaining to the Divine name, from the Jehovah's Witnesses.

I just do not understand why Paul puts Christ over YHVH, "no greater name", "preaching Christ and him crucified", "for me to live is Christ" etc, etc. and it's somewhat mystifying that you folks don't question Paul's allegiance as well, in light of all his Christo-centric statements.

Why not preach that there is no greater name than "YHVH"? Why doesn't Paul preach YHVH, the Living God...by name? Or why doesn't Paul say "for me to live is YHVH"?...why did Paul change the Isaiah passage from "every knee shall bow to me (YHVH)" to "every knee shall bow to Christ"? (to paraphrase)

Then he adds provisos like "to the glory of God the Father" almost as an afterthought. Why not glorify YHVH God directly?

Seems the answer is that Paul's Lord is "Christ". King David's, and Isaiah's LORD is YHVH. You and I both know "Christ" and "YHVH" are not one in the same.