Why Paul?

[Elijah John]

These questions are open to all, but I would be especially interested in feedback from Evangelicals, Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses honor Paul's opinions as "sacred scripture" when he never really mentions the Kingdom of God?

Also, Paul seems to place the name of Jesus above all, even above the name of Jehovah. Paul's own Bible states that there IS salvation in the name of the LORD (Jehovah) yet Paul contradicts, saying "there is no other name given among men by which we must be saved". (referring to the name of Jesus)

And if Paul's writings are sacred scripture, why do Evangelicals have women preachers (some quite prominent), and listen to women preachers, when Paul taught that women are not to speak in Church? (picking and choosing here??)

And for Catholics, Paul wasn't even a Pope. Why give his opinions more weight than say, a Papal Encyclical?

To tie it all together, why do so many regard Paul's pastoral advice and theological speculations as "sacred scripture"?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Well I can't speak for other religions but Jehovah's Witnesses accept the entire bible canon as inspired of God regardless of who wrote the book and the topics mentined therein. In other words we do not take the approach that any portion of the bible is merely the human opinion of the writer who penned it nor do we decide a book, passage or sentence is in inspired because it does or does not deal with a given topic in the way we expect.

Having accepted the bible as God's word and the thoughts therein God's thoughts, we are not constantly reading it and asking ourselves, "Is this sentence or expression the thought from God or Paul (John) " we accept it all as of Divine origin. If a book doesn't mention a particular topic or person it is irrelevant to us, what is relevant is how a particular passage harmonizes with the whole. Even of we cannot for the time being see how a particular passage fits in to our what we know to be true , we STILL accept it as from God and conclude that any lack lies with our present understanding - we do not resort to questioning if it is God's word.

THE BIBLE CANON

Jehovah's Witnesses as a group and individually have studied the origins of the bible canon and so have solid reason to believe that the 66 books were indeed written under inspiration and protected by God for future generations, presently containing no interpolation or significant scribal errors. While new discoveries of ancient biblical manuscripts do shed light on how best to translate particular verses, the authenticity of the 66 books is well established. Thus we see no reason to return to the elementary question of whether we can trust it's contents. Such questions, while legitimate for a beginner, are for our bible students who are spiritual babies. While there is nothing wrong with being a baby, the bible encourages is to move from being one to growing in faith, something that is impossible to do while still, questioning the chief textbook of our Faith.

It could be likened to an experienced pilot, unsure if he should believe the details in his flight manual, deciding to switch of the engine after each manoeuvre to see if the plane really will, plummet to the ground. Such a man should be back in the classroom or in a simulator but certainly should not be trusted with with other people's lives. In the same way True Christians have a life saving message, having full confidece in the our chief manual is a good determinator as to whether God can trust us as expetienced "pilots" (teachers) or confused, lost or immature spiritual babies.

CONCLUSION Jehovah's Witnesses accept the entire bible as the word,of God and whether a particular book mentions a particular word, name topic or person a hundred times or no times at all is not the criteria by which we decide if it is to be accepted as such or not.



RELATED POSTS

How was the bible compiled
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 732#838732

Who is the author of the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 132#885132

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

It was Catholic and Protestant Trinitarians who decided the present canon, so why isn't it fair game for a Jehovah's Witness to question whether a given book or author belongs in the Bible?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

It was Catholic and Protestant Trinitarians who decided the present canon, so why isn't it fair game for a Jehovah's Witness to question whether a given book or author belongs in the Bible?

QUESTION Did the Catholic Church compile the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 566#838566

BIBLE WRITTERS The human "pens" in the hand of the Almighty #1
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 718#833718

[showme]

These questions are open to all, but I would be especially interested in feedback from Evangelicals, Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses honor Paul's opinions as "sacred scripture" when he never really mentions the Kingdom of God?

Also, Paul seems to place the name of Jesus above all, even above the name of Jehovah. Paul's own Bible states that there IS salvation in the name of the LORD (Jehovah) yet Paul contradicts, saying "there is no other name given among men by which we must be saved". (referring to the name of Jesus)

And if Paul's writings are sacred scripture, why do Evangelicals have women preachers (some quite prominent), and listen to women preachers, when Paul taught that women are not to speak in Church? (picking and choosing here??)

And for Catholics, Paul wasn't even a Pope. Why give his opinions more weight than say, a Papal Encyclical?

To tie it all together, why do so many regard Paul's pastoral advice and theological speculations as "sacred scripture"?

Without Paul, the followers of Paul would not be supposedly "saved". It is a catch 22. If they question Paul, and are without faith in his message, they are doomed according to Paul. To acknowledge that their lives are a miserable sham, would be a feather too much for them to bear.

[bluethread]

I'll the questions that apply to my views.

Paul seems to place the name of Jesus above all, even above the name of Jehovah. Paul's own Bible states that there IS salvation in the name of the LORD (Jehovah) yet Paul contradicts, saying "there is no other name given among men by which we must be saved". (referring to the name of Jesus)

For me this works one more than one level. First, linguistically, it is pretty straight forward, the term yeshua appears some 77 times in the Tanakh and means salvation. Second, in hebrew tradition, a name refers to a significant relative, event or character treat. It is in Yeshua's character that one can find the embodiment of Ruach HaChedosh(Holy Spirt). Third, in Yeshua's life unto deathone can find the embodiment of Adonai's ways.

And if Paul's writings are sacred scripture, why do Evangelicals have women preachers (some quite prominent), and listen to women preachers, when Paul taught that women are not to speak in Church? (picking and choosing here??)

Our shul doesn't really have speakers, but women are permitted to take part in discussions. It is pretty much agreed that, to the extent that there is authority in our shul, women do not take those positions, for a couple of reasons. First, they prefer it that way and second, it forces men to do it. Men tend to live in the extremes, so they are either naturally more assertive, or they have tendency to avoid things altogether. So, it creates kind of a healthy push/pull on men, which the women tend to appreciate.

To tie it all together, why do so many regard Paul's pastoral advice and theological speculations as "sacred scripture"?

We follow a heirarchy when it comes to Scripture, following the rabbinic tradition. Torah(first five) is first, Haftorah(rest of OT) second, then the life and works of Yeshua(gospels) followed by the Apostolic Writings. The latter two are similar to the Talmud for Judaism. We also consult the Talmud after that. The reason Paul is included in the fourth level is because Peter and Luke recognize Paul as an equal. If anything on a lower level conflicts with one of the upper levels, the upper level dictates.

[showme]

[Replying to post 6 by bluethread]

We follow a heirarchy when it comes to Scripture, following the rabbinic tradition. Torah(first five) is first, Haftorah(rest of OT) second, then the life and works of Yeshua(gospels) followed by the Apostolic Writings. The latter two are similar to the Talmud for Judaism. We also consult the Talmud after that. The reason Paul is included in the fourth level is because Peter and Luke recognize Paul as an equal. If anything on a lower level conflicts with one of the upper levels, the upper level dictates.

The modern consensus is that Peter didn't write 2 Peter, and according to Luke 1:1-3, Luke was somewhat of an itinerant historian, who witnesses nothing, and from apparent other writings, might have been an associate of Paul, and received some of his material from Paul. And it isn't certain that Luke even wrote Acts, and it might just be some other unknown writer. That makes it a self witness of Paul, which according to Mt 18:16, and Dt 19:15, can't be used to establish anything. Plus Yeshua said self witnessing makes it "not true" (John 5:31) But then again, all who are not written in the book of life (Rev 13), will be deceived by the beast with two horns like a lamb, of which Paul, was one of the horns. Oh yeah, I forgot, the Talmud would have been written by the scribes, and Jeremiah 8:8 kind of slays that fallacy. As for the judges (Pharisees), they will be replaced for malfeasance (Isaiah 1:26). And yeah, Paul claimed to be a Pharisee of Pharisees.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 7 by showme]

What is your canon and how do you establish it?

[Overcomer]

Good questions, EJ. I can't speak for the JWs or the Roman Catholics, of course. But from an orthodox (with a small "o") Christian point of view, I can say this:

I'm assuming that, when you ask about the "name above all names", that you are referring to the verses from Philippians 2:9-11 which read,

"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is LORD, to the glory of God the Father."

The verse refers back to Is. 45:21b-23:

"And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me.

22
“Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.

23
By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear."

24
They will say of me, ‘In the Lord alone
are deliverance and strength.’�
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.

Notice what Yahweh says about himself. He says he is the only God. He says he is the only Savior. He says that every knee will bow before him and every tongue will swear that he is Lord alone.

Then look at Jesus. He is called Savior many times in the New Testament. Here are some examples:

Luke 2:11: For today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

John 4:42:. . . and they were saying to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world."

Acts 13:23:"From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus.

2 Timothy 1:10: but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel . . . .

1 John 4:14: We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

And take a look at Paul's understanding of who was Savior. He says this:

“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.� 1 Timothy 2:3-4

And this:

“and at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior,� Titus 1:3

So Paul calls God Savior. He also wrote this:

“But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.� Philippians 3:20-21

“To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.� Titus 1:4.

So Paul calls Jesus Savior as well. And note that he calls them each that one right after another in Titus 1:3,4.

So if God is Savior and Jesus is Savior, and we know that there is only one Savior as Yahweh himself stated in Isaiah, what does that tell us? We know they are two distinct persons because God spoke from heaven several times while Jesus was here on earth. For example, there's Christ's baptism in Matt. 3:17 which reads, "This is my Son with whom I am well pleased." God the Father reiterates this at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:5).

So God is Savior. Jesus is Savior. Therefore, Jesus must be God. But Jesus and God are distinct persons. So how do we make sense of this? Given that the Holy Spirit is also called God (Acts 5:3,4), we have to conclude that God is a Triune Being, that is, one God who exists in three persons.

And we conclude that the name that is given to Jesus, that name that is above all names, is the name "Yahweh" because that's who was speaking in the passage from Isaiah to which the passage in Philippians refers. That's who claimed that, at some point, every knee would bow to him and admit that he was Lord.

So Paul wasn't placing Jesus above Yahweh. He was recognizing that they were co-equal, that is, that they are both God. And, I might add, they have both always been that.

Also note that it was Peter who said that there is no other name by which men can be saved, not Paul. The statement is in Acts 4:12. But Paul, of course, would not disagree.

I will have to address the issue of women speaking in church in another post as I have run out of time tonight.

[Elijah John]

So God is Savior. Jesus is Savior. Therefore, Jesus must be God. .

Sounds like circular reasoning.

In what sense is Jesus Savior? Even if we grant that he is, he could well be only an agent of God's salvation.

God through Isaiah calls YHVH the only Savior. Does Isaiah ever call the Messiah YHVH? I don't think even Paul or "Peter" went that far.

But even if they did, does someone else calling Jesus "YHVH" make it so?