Julio

This is an intriguing passage to me, with several imponderables. [Excuse my poor exegesis]
I know the context, but how would Paul use the same term “Father”, as if he had been a disciple of Jesus; as if he had heard the term directly from Jesus?
Is Paul [as a Jew] inferring that the “Father” was none other than Jehovah?
If so, where did Jesus ever infer the same in his teachings?
Paul would have not read John by that time.
Is this enough proof that One Corinthians is another second century document? [Before the "Trinity" teaching appeared in circulation?]
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 [KJV].

Jane H

Paul also uses “Father” in Philippians 2:11, another undisputed Pauline letter. It may even precede Paul, as the word count is 5/8/5/8 (ignoring “all”), and the syllable count is 8/11/9/11, suggesting an antecedent poem.

Exactly what is meant by “Father” here is not universally agreed, with some (e.g. J.Dunn) suggesting Father of Israel, and others (Conzelmann) suggesting it simply means Creator, others (N.T.Wright) that a contrast with the Son is intended. Certainly the first would be comfortable for a C1 Jew.

See e.g. Matthew 23:9 for a similar usage by Jesus.

Now what is jaw-droppingly remarkable about this passage, which might, if you don't like orthodoxy, lead to the sort of manoeuvres you are suggesting, is Paul's adaptation of the Shema (“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God! The LORD is One!" ). He has included Christ within this phrase in a way that was unprecedented, by glossing “God” with “The Father”, and “Lord” with “Jesus Christ”.

Broadly speaking, around 20 years after his death, fiercely monotheistic Jews were allowing their understanding of God to be redefined to include a human easily remembered.

aa5874

It is completely erroneous to claim that Philippians is an "undisputed" Pauline letter. All the Pauline letters are disputed and there is no external non-apologetic evidence or corroborative source for Paul.

[b]It is probably undisputed that ONE person wrote most of the Epistles to the Churches, (not the Pastorals), but when these were written cannot be confirmed or determined to be in the 1st century before the death of Nero since many writers supposedly after the Pauline writer appear to be unaware of Paul's Christology.

Even the Jesus in the Gospels is not like the Jesus of Paul.

If Paul's Jesus was first then it would be expected the the Gospel's Jesus would emulate Paul's. That is not the case. Even, the author of Luke, the supposed companion of Paul used gMark's or gMatthew's Jesus, not the Jesus of PAUL.

Now, it would appear to me that the Pauline writings were written, long after the Fall of the Temple, primarliy to persuade Jews to believe in the God/man Jesus and to abandon the Mosaic Laws and circumcision.

The Pauline writings appear not to be written to deal with the TRINITY.



There is no external non-apologetic source that can support your statement, in fact the opposite is true.

Broadly speaking up to 100 years after the supposed Jesus, Jews in general still expected a Mesiah with the advent of Simon Bar Cocheba who MUST have had overwhelming Jewish support for his achievements against the Romans.

Julio

Do you mean after Paul's death?
Maybe converted Jews were understanding that Jesus could not be the "genuine" Messiah, and were introducing new models [you still need circumcision, etc.].
I think John was flabbergasted with all that struggle in Paul's churches and called them heretics [those who would arrive to visit John's congregation or other groups].
That is, a schism was in the offing and soon disrupted the "original" church forever.
When Paul died, his "original gospel" he said he received - with no witnesses - via a private revelation, in itself a conundrum of incredible size, was soon discarded and new and more heretics [new ideas] conspicuously crept in.

Julio

Paul associates the word gnosis [knowledge] to the liberty some less austere group of believers had to eat meat sacrificed to idols in Corinth.
There is one God, not many, the Father; therefore if you have this knowledge [gnosis], verse 7, you have something more tangible to add to simple faith from sectarian demands [not to touch the meat sacrificed to idols].
Add to you faith virtue and gnosis.
Paul seems to me [in the context] confused and contradictory with the use of that term.
Am I right?

Julio

What about Marcion having a rudimentary canon with some ten epistles of a presumed Paul, around the year say 140? He left out the Pastoral ones because they were not yet written. Am I right?
Marcion did not accept the Father being Jehovah. How come he supported Paul's Corinthians? That is also intriguing.

Jane H

The authorship and pre-70 dating of Philippians are not in debate within the world of serious scholarship.

Are you assuming a particular solution to the synoptic problem?

I see no divide between Luke's Jesus and Paul's Jesus.

The Jews I'm talking about were the earliest members of the Christian church, who did allow the centrepiece of their belief, their monotheism, to be rethought to include a human being. Furthermore, those closest to Jesus allowed their thinking about the nature of the Messiah, the role of Israel, and the place of the Torah to be radically redefined. Everything they had grown up to believe about YHWH their God, their nation, and how YHWH would act to redeem their nation, was rethought.

For many Jews this was too big a step. So the historical question remains about what event shocked those closest to Jesus into such a complete and unpredictable rethink.

Jane H

No- sorry if it wasn't clear. I meant the death of the “human” (Jesus). We know that there were massive arguments over the role of the Torah in the emerging church, and that models including circumcision were being pushed hard, but I would be surprised if many within the church considered Jesus to be not the Messiah. They might as well stick with plain Judaism.

I'm not sure where John fits into the discussion.

Developments within Christianity post Paul certainly did happen. The biggest and most relevant being on the nature of the Trinity. There are a number today, including myself, who feel the later attempts to define the (transcendent!) nature of God were not always entirely helpful. I don't at all think Paul's 'gospel' has been seriously rewritten, though.

Jane H

I'm not at all sure where the problem is, so please let me know if this doesn't help.

Paul uses a root cognate with gnosis a lot in verses 1-3, and this should probably be read in a contemptuous tone. Paul is saying that the real gnosis is not your gnosis of God, but God's gnosis of you. This sort of gnosis accompanies a person's love* of God, in the same way as “thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” accompanies the Shema in Deuteronomy 6.

He picks this up in verse 7 in pretty much the same way, as far as I can see.



*love= following, rather than flowers/chocolates/Michael Buble CDs, of course.

show_no_mercy

Probably because his Corinthians didn't have any references to any being named "Jehovah". Paul was writing in Greek; "Jehovah" or YHWH is not written in the LXX and is substituted with either "lord" or "god" in Greek.