spin

Doh! Gak, do you have to reduce the possibilities to just "lying"? That's as shallow as those people you are complaining about. It is one of the most normal situations that different people have different perspectives on issues, especially if one doesn't have the whole story as in the case of the people of the assemblies of Judea. They didn't even know Paul by sight: 'they'd only heard it said, "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy."' How accurate do you expect their judgment to be?

If Paul doesn't even seem to know what a messiah was, given that he calls Jesus a messiah (despite the fact that Jesus died without achieving the tasks of the messiah and would obviously have been perceived by ordinary Jews if anything as a false messiah), you can understand that there would have been confusion about who believed what at the beginning.

But I don't understand this necessary talk of lies: it's very reductive. It's almost down to either someone is telling the whole truth or total fraud. Things are usually a little more complicated.

(Well, really, I do understand, but it's pretty useless.)


spin

Toto

And why does Paul have to say "I assure you that, before God, I am not lying?" Did someone accuse him of lying?

What is so unthinkable about the idea that people shade the truth or otherwise just don't tell you everything?

Do we know that Paul is reporting what is in Galatians 1:23, as opposed to a later editor, even assuming that Paul wrote this letter? We know suspiciously little about Paul's alleged career as a prosecutor from his own letters, and the whole story does not make a lot of sense.

I do not understand how this subject can be so heated, given the lack of real information.

aa5874

Because he may have been lying. It is not impossible for an author to lie. And, the author of Acts, claimed to be a companion of Saul/Paul, contradicted Paul's chronology.

The letter writer called Paul claimed over 500 people saw Jesus after he was resurrected and that he himself saw Jesus , too. Why is that not a lie?

You think the horse is dead? It is a lie.

GakuseiDon

When Paul reports that the "churches of Judea which were in Christ" were saying that Paul was now proclaiming their faith, do you think he actually believed what he wrote?

Yes, it would have been a stumbling block for ordinary Jews.

spin

The particular assemblies of Judea were messianic. Paul proclaimed what he thought was messianic. What's the problem?

Including ordinary messianic Jews and including the followers of what John the Baptist was proclaiming.


spin

Amaleq13

To be accurate, Paul says this is what the assemblies in Judea believed.

Paul never met Paul?

Do you ever make a claim in this discussion that actually connects to the text?

Why bother with such transparent falsehoods? Anyone can see that I have not changed the definition of any terms. I've taken Paul at his word and made sense of it. You've taken selected bits and made an incoherent mess.

No, we see Paul's gospel when he contrasts his message about faith in Christ crucified against their insistence on observance. When will you stop making false claims about Paul's letters?

PAUL NEVER DEFENDS CHRIST CRUCIFIED

You want this to be true but there is simply no text to support it no matter how many times you repeat the falsehood.

If he doesn't defend such an absurd notion to Jews so concerned about orthodox appearances, it can only be because the absurd notion was accepted by them.

PAUL ALWAYS DEFENDS WHAT HE THINKS BELIEF IN CHRIST CRUCIFIED MEANS

That is what the texts state no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

That was certainly Paul's position but I only hold it because that is what Paul tells us. :huh:

spin

So you blunder and respond to being caught out by being a pedant.


Typically dumb.

The people who'd repeated that Paul was now proclaiming what he'd persecuted had never met Paul. Doh!

Did you get your qualifications from a Corn Flakes packet? You're sure not demonstrating the ability to read.

Not the best description of yourself I've heard.

Yeah. Paul's gospel. Your version certainly ain't no gospel there. And you say that it's his mission to the gentiles, but then, no it's his understanding of the significance of christ crucified. Hell tomorrow it'll be something else.

Rubbish. You've basically said he couldn't express himself and then said what he meant. His gospel wasn't so much the gospel as a little bit of the picture.

Just keep watching the hands folks. Is it under the right hand cup, the middle cup or the left cup?

Perhaps you think if you say it louder you'll make it sound more relevant?

Perhaps he and the people in Jerusalem believed in logical positivism as well, as he never defends logical positivism either.

Your use of "falsehood" has an oddly religious sound about it.

As has been pointed out to you by others Paul says that although christ crucified was preached to the Galatians they seem to be turning away from that message (3:1). Someone has been turning them away from Paul's message, which includes christ crucified.

His argument with the Jews was about the necessity for his communities to be circumcised (to be torah observant). The Jews wouldn't need to get any further. This is something about which you are impervious to understanding. To be a Jew means foremost to observe the torah. Paul doesn't require that of his communities so to Jewish eyes he's getting it all wrong. For some reason you insist that they need to get past this sticking point. Why?

So, christ crucified isn't part of his gospel but the meaning of christ crucified is. Hmmm. :constern02:

The Jerusalem group are Jews. The people disturbing the Galatians were Jews. Christ crucified is a stumbling-block to the Jews. Messianists believe in a messiah, but Paul believed in a dead one.

You wish. Paul's revelation was of the son given to him by god. The subject of the revelation was Jesus. He says that he got Jesus from the revelation. That excludes your route.


spin

Amaleq13

I didn't blunder. Check again. You tried to play pedant and failed.

Typically juvenile and substance-free response.

And they couldn't possibly trust those who had? You've devolved into know-nothing skepticism. Paul simply couldn't make the claim unless it was true. If you didn't have such a personal stake in your conclusion, you might recognize the fundamental flaws in your position.

If you don't understand that being free from the requirements of the Law is "good news" to gentile converts, I can't help you.

Paul's revelation was a specific message for a specific audience.

I've tried repeatedly and with the smallest words possible but you still can't get it right? And you blame your lack of comprehension on me when others have had no problem successfully following?

Pathetic.

No, it will still be the same, as it always has been and you will still pretend not to understand it because you still have nothing substantive to offer against it.

No, just hoping to penetrate your skull with the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. I think I'll need a drill. And a small explosive charge.

Sadly, that is yet another example of your poor reading comprehension skills. I'm afraid you won't be able to drag that tired ad hominem out in place of a substantive argument against me.

You can still use it on Ben or Don, though. :rolling:

Again, there is no evidence that Paul ever felt compelled to defend "Christ crucified" so you need to try again. Since Paul only defends his interpretation, that must be the lost faith to which he refers.

This is the mistake you (repeatedly) make when you (repeatedly) ignore the fact that there simply is no evidence for your beliefs about the texts.

Yes and it had nothing whatsoever to do with defending the notion of a crucified messiah. And it continues to be unbelievable that he would not have that notion challenged if it wasn't accepted and it continues to be unbelievable that he wouldn't defend the notion if it had been challenged.

You've got not evidence for your beliefs about the texts.

Only because it is counter to everything I know about psychology, argumentation, and religious believers. Nobody stops with one criticism when others are available and certainly not when it involves something so inherently absurd to Judaism. It is simply unbelievable to suggest they would focus solely on torah adherence while ignoring a crucified messiah unless they accepted the latter. Yet you still try to sell it as though it made sense. :huh:

It is difficult to believe you could honestly be this confused.

Christ crucified is the gospel Paul persecuted, then preached.

The meaning of Christ crucified is Paul's unique gospel.

The meaning of Christ crucified is what is being attacked.

The meaning of Christ crucified is what is defended.

There is no indication that Christ crucified was ever attacked by Paul's Galatian opponents.

We've already seen that Paul is referring to unbelieving Jews and Greeks there. You are getting confused. Again or more, take your pick.

So did his opponents who wanted gentile converts to appear observant so that his opponents might not get persecuted for their faith in the cross.

The pieces fit and the story works.

You simply cannot say the same. :wave:

spin

It's alright there, Amaleq13. You don't admit anything. You said:

It resolves the apparent contradiction of Paul claiming to preach the same faith he persecuted and preaching something he obtained from no man but by revelation.

Where does Paul claim he preached the same faith?

One cannot trust a statement that fullfils what it claims to criticize.

We don't work on trust, Amaleq13. We have to use evidence.

As you don't understand the issue, let me help: we are dealing with perceptions and perceptions don't necessarily fit reality. When you don't know exactly what those assemblies believed, your reconstructions cannot be verified. However, when you assume them, you stop being meaningful.

Perhaps you missed the fact that Paul was using the term in a specific manner (Gal 1:6-9).

Piffle. Paul's revelation is of Jesus Christ, for "god revealed his son to me".

I got right the various things you said at different times, but repeating something that has no relevance to the text isn't particularly useful.

When you show you have read the text, you might be able to whinge a little more credibly.

Uh-huh.

Deep analysis.

Then stop shouting.

If the foo shits, wear it.

What you don't understand is that it wouldn't have any real significance.

For some unaccountable reason you seem to think that just because Paul didn't argue something against the Jerusalem people, they must have accepted that something. It is simply a logical fallacy.

This waffle of yours to a comment of mine that you truncated, ignoring the rest, didn't need to be said, as the rest makes it superfluous. Here it is again:

Any response to this yet?

Oh for chrissake, don't try to convince anyone that you don't understand the notion of people talking at cross purposes.

If you know the Monty Python sketch about the dead parrot, you have a man who goes into a pet shop to complain that the owner had sold him a dead parrot

Mr. Praline: I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, isn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

Paul wants to talk about the "beautiful plumage". The Jews are only interested in the fact that the parrot is dead. The one thing that is required of a Jew is torah observance. This one thing is negated by Paul.

I know you claim this. You have yet to show any evidence for this claim, yet you repeat it and repeat it and repeat it ad nauseum. Repeating it won't make it any more credible.

Tell me this, why doesn't Paul use the name Jesus in any context that deals with the pillars or anyone else in the letter besides the Galatians and himself? His revelation was of Jesus Christ and it was from Jesus Christ that the Galatians were turning away.

So why was the revelation of Jesus Christ?

Where?

No, what was being defended was Paul's hold on his Galatians through his gospel -- against torah observance.

There was no indication that sheep shagging was ever attacked by Paul's Galatian opponents, so they must have accepted that as well.

Umm, Jews who didn't believe what?

Dead christs are false christs to your average Jew. However, there is no reason why the Jerusalem group needed to contemplate Paul's theological views, when he wouldn't endorse torah observance.

Still as unsubstantiated as when you first said it.

Says Amaleq13 chipping the corners off the square peg.

Umm, "the same"? See, I can.

As I see the data, of course I can say that the pieces fit and the story works. You make a mess out of god's revelation to Paul of Jesus Christ.


spin

Amaleq13

Where he proudly describes his reputation for doing so.

That is certainly true of your perceptions of the evidence!

I know that his opponents certainly would have included objections to such a belief had they not accepted it.

I know that, had they offered objections to such a fundamental belief, Paul would have presented a defense.

I know that Paul never defends Christ crucified.