TedM

What you are basically saying is that "another Jesus" isn't the same as "another interpretation of the same Jesus". I say that it could be the same because people talk that way: "What? That isn't the John I know!", could indeed refer to the same John, though it could also refer to some other person named John. The fact that Paul doesn't address the idea of some "other" Jesus but does address the existence of another interpretation by his opponents of the salvation brought about by the actions of HIS Jesus, without saying ANYTHING about the issue as being confused by the fact that the opponents weren't even referring to the same Jesus that the Galations originally believed in is significant to me. It supports the likelihood that the two groups were talking about the same person/being Jesus.

I agree that the Corinthians were approached by those that challenged things Paul had taught them, and challenged Paul's own credentials. I'm saying it isn't clear whether Paul is identifying those particular opponents in 11:4, or some hypothetical future opponents.

We don't know that. And, what subject are you referring to?

ted

Ted Hoffman

It is Galatians.

TedM

thanks.

Amaleq13

Correct and it clearly isn't the same. Identifying teachings as falsely attributed to the same guy is entirely different from claiming one's opponents aren't talking about the same guy.

That isn't the same because the speaker is clearly implying that he and his "opponents" are talking about the same guy but differing their descriptions. That isn't what Paul says no matter how hard you try to change it. Paul says they are teaching a different Jesus than he is.

Given the limited and specific context of the letter, your perception of significance seems to me to be without merit. Do politicians go over every single difference between themselves and their opponent or do they try to hit whatever "hot button" issue is most relevant to a given audience?

It seems to me you need far more than that to contradict the plain meaning of what Paul says.

It seems pretty clear to me but I'm not sure it matters. In fact, I would wonder if Paul isn't projecting his own activities onto these allegedly future opponents. He is describing his own "selling methods" but warning against anyone else using them. Good move on his part.

Of course we do. What I described would have resolved the dispute but we can see from Paul that the dispute was not resolved.

Any dispute about specific doctrines would appear to be open to resolution in that way given a living, teaching Jesus.

TedM

I guess I should have spelled out what I thought was obvious: "What? That isn't the John I know! You are talking about another John!" All that is missing in Paul's exchange is the first part. You are disallowing for this other interpretation even though people DO talk like that. I see that as overly literal. You are very good at being literal but that doesn't mean everyone else should be expected to be just as literal.

Do you think a different being named Jesus--also considered the Savior--wouldn't be MORE relevant than whether the Galations should be circumcised in order to gain that salvation? The absence of any such notion in Paul's writings is deafening.


I'll agree that some doctrines regarding the person of a historical Jesus could have been resolved that way to the satisfaction of Paul, and we MIGHT expect him to mention such doctrines. I've given examples of others (resurrected/not resurrected, salvation through faith/salvation through works) which fall more into the realm of 'opinon' than 'fact', and while those that would have known a historical Jesus could certainly have had an opinion about, they would be less powerful an argument for Paul to use and consider 'resolved'. You seem to assume that a historical Jesus requires a gospel Jesus or a Jesus who had while living answered all possible questions that would pertain to him after his death.

The requirement that the passage is to be read completely literally is a false requirement. What Paul DOES write suggests that it isn't literal. What Paul DOESN'T write would be unusual if it were literal and referring to current opponents viewpoints. There are non-literal issues that those who knew Jesus would not have been able to resolve with certainty.

ted

Amaleq13

How does this help you? Your speaker is making the same assertion (ie a different person). The first part, on its own, is more ambiguous but the addition of the analogous statement makes it more clearly a reference to a different person with the same name.

But your interpretation reads it into what Paul does say. Your example is what you see when you read Paul but that isn't what he says.

While your example utterly fails to support this notion, I wouldn't consider the mere possibility that Paul might have intended this meaning to be sufficient to assume he did. The burden of disregarding the plain meaning of the words is greater than that.

IIUC from the Blue Letter Bible, Paul uses a different word for "another" with "Jesus" than he does with either "gospel" or "spirit". For the latter, he uses heteros which means "another" either in the sense of numbering or in the sense of quality. It seems to me that Paul intends the latter. For the former, though, he uses allos which just has "another" as the definition but I looked at the examples of it elsewhere and it seemed to always be used to mean "different". Mt 8:9 and 2:12 are examples of what I'm saying.

It seems to me that your argument would have obtained support had Paul chosen to use the same word for all three since heteros appears to carry precisely the implication you want for the other reference. Absent any other reason for Paul to make this choice, I would say this pretty well establishes that he intended it to mean exactly what it appears to mean (ie a different Jesus).

Not if they accepted Paul's arguments against the requirement.

TedM

The addition is nothing more than a repeat of the second sentence, which could easily be a reference to a different KIND of John--same person. People talk that way all the time. I gotta go.

TedM

I've given a clear example that shows that the "plain meaning" can be two different things. To reduce one to being a "mere possibility" that Paul "might have intended" is to not appreciate the fact that people often should not be taken competely literally. If you want to get picky, why assume that "another Jesus" is refering to another person NAMED Jesus? Paul didn't say "another person named Jesus". To me the most literal and accurate meaning of "another Jesus" is "a Jesus in their minds who is different than the one in my mind". As such, this could be referring to a different conception of the same person just as easily as it could be referring to an entirely different person.

We've encountered this extreme literalism now in several of our discussions. When I propose a different interpretation which is commonly used, you tend to dismiss it or minimize it. And round and round we go.


This is a better argument, IMO. However, people use similar words to convey much the same ideas: "Babe Ruth smacked a homerun, which was followed by another blast by Gehrig". Both were hits, yet described with words that have different meanings when looked up in the dictionary.

I think also it is quite possible that Paul saw his opponent's viewpoints about Jesus (maybe the risen Jesus?) as so different from his own that he considered their Jesus to really be like a completely different "other" Jesus. The one commentator I looked at the Blue Letter Bible site you referenced suggested that the "other" Jesus may have been one who was more like a "super Jesus"--one who didn't really suffer, etc.. That, of course, could be either a different conception of an imagined heavenly Jesus (like two different persons named Jesus), or it could be a different conception of the same earthly Jesus based on one's own ideas about how his divine nature was manifested in his human form.


I just think you are trying to make a case based on a phrase that can easily be interpreted in many different ways, and I don't think the fact that Paul used different greek words does much to change that fact.


Paul argued that the requirement for salvation was faith in the resurrection of HIS Jesus. He used scripture for support. The idea that Paul wouldn't have found any need to use the argument that the opponent's Jesus WASN'T HIS Jesus upon whom their salvation depended is incomprehensible to me. Yet there is no suggestion in Galatians of a different Jesus at all.

I keep coming back to "where's this other Jesus" in Paul's writings? If there was some other Jesus I'd expect a heck of a lot more than a reference (that may even be hypothetical) to this person/being and the utter and compete absence of any rebuttle to any description or authority attributed to him.

I don't know what more to say. Once again we seem to have different opinions because we apply different criteria to determinie the meanings of words or phrases, yours being more strict than mine.

ted

Amaleq13

I tend to agree with this interpretation but I have never in my life ever heard anyone use "different kind" in reference to a particular individual. This interpretation makes complete sense, however, in the context of Doherty's explanation. A "different kind of Jesus" is entirely consistent with what he has said but it makes no sense if Paul meant "we're talking about the same guy but in different ways". They simply don't mean the same thing at all, Ted, and repeating that they do doesn't change that fact.

No you have not. You've created a phrase that is ambiguous enough that either could be intended. If Paul had used something similar to your phrase, you would have an argument. But the fact is that he does not. This was quite clear when you added a phrase that was similar to what Paul said. The result was an equally clear assertion that the speaker and his opponent are not talking about the same individual but about different individuals or, possibly, a case of mistaken identity.

If you do not understand that "people often should not be taken competely literally" is not, by any rational measure, a sufficient basis to reinterpret any given plain meaning, then I doubt there is anything that can be said to change your mind. If you don't have evidence, then what else can you call a mere possibility than a mere possibility? The possible becomes probable only with evidence. Otherwise, the plain meaning of the text prevails.

It seems irrelevant to me whether we say "named" or "called" or "identified as".

I agree!!! This is, I think, also what Doherty is suggesting. What you seem to deny is that this really only makes sense in the context of differing views of an idea (ie a "mental Jesus") than a person. You clearly want it to mean the same thing but wishing doesn't make it so.

No, what we've encountered before is your straw man characterization of my position as "extreme". You characterize the plain meaning to be "extreme literalism" only because you prefer an interpretation that requires us to ignore the plain meaning despite the fact that you lack anything approaching sufficient evidence to justify applying a different meaning. You have no credible substantiation for your position so you are reduced to straw man caricatures of your opposition.

When the proposed interpretation has not actually been shown to be "commonly used" and does not appear to be appropriate for the context, what other choice do I have but to dismiss it? Paul is clearly asserting that his opponents are teaching a different Jesus. That is what the word "allos" means, Ted. No matter how much you want that to mean a different interpretation of the same Jesus or a different perception of the same Jesus or a different understanding of the same Jesus, that isn't what he says. Paul didn't use the Greek word for "another" that suggests a difference in quality which could conceivably refer to a different understanding of the same entity. Paul may very well have meant that his opponents were teaching a different interpretation of the same gospel or a different interpretation of the same spirit given the word he chose. However, with regard to his reference to Jesus, he chose a different Greek word for "another" that apparently only carries the meaning of a different entity altogether. He deliberately chose a different word, Ted. You can't just brush that aside if there is no reason other than conscious choice to do so. Again, there may be such a reason in the Greek language for his choice but that requires someone familiar with the language. I'll send out some PM's to our resident Greek experts.

This doesn't support your position. The example is clearly covered by the dictionary definitions of both words:

smack: 3. To strike sharply and with a loud noise.

blast: 7. A powerful hit, blow, or shot.

I don't think this is just "possible" but certain. I also don't see how this makes any sense if applied to a person. If one's opponent's perceptions of an individual are entirely different from yours, you focus on the fact that they have an inaccurate perception. You don't claim they are talking about a different person unless you believe they are talking about a different person.

If you don't think the fact that Paul deliberately used a specific word that means "distinctly different from the first" is relevant, I doubt there is anything that could change your mind. To disregard Paul's choice seems irrational to me.

There is no "if" about it. Paul tells us they are teaching some other Jesus. He tells us we shouldn't listen to them and addresses the specific area of concern of circumcision. What other rebuttal can Paul offer against an opposing idea except the differing consequences for believers that result?

This is only true if we define "strict" as "accepting the plain meaning of the text". I accept what Paul says while you prefer a different interpretation for no other apparent reason than it agrees with your preconceptions. I'm entirely willing to accept alternate interpretations if they are based on something substantive and relevant. Your argument offers neither.

TedM

What's wrong with concluding from this exchange-- "What! That's not the John I know. That's another John!" that John is either a second individual or is the same individual who the speaker perceives differently than the one he is talking to?

To me we can't know which is more likely. Therefore, "another John" has no one plain meaning.

If you can answer this in a way that helps me see it differently, maybe I'll learn something. If you can't, we might as well hang this one up.

ted