TedM

No aa, I won't. You KNOW what I'm talking about but I believe are pretending you don't. We have a name for that where I come from and it probably is prohibited from being used in this forum. I used to think you were just an extreme fringe but this makes me think you intentionally mislead. No credibility whatsoever. You KNOW the passage I'm talking about.

TedM

As I see you didn't bother to address what I said about your frivolous point, I'll ignore your rant.

For those with the ability to apply rational thought to the passage the significance is clear with regard to whether Matthew was embarrassed or not. Therefore, I won't waste my time discussing the 'exact' significance.




Good. At least you realize what you are doing. But you seem to not have a clue as to what the implications of it are. 'Becoming' a curse makes no sense -- it's awkward though Paul may not have seen it as such. Of course there is a rationale for redemption. I never said there isn't. That doesn't mean it wasn't awkward for the Jews though. And it was.

Then why did he persecute Christians? Why did Jews persecute OTHER JEWS for their belief that the Messiah had been crucified spin? Use some common sense! What about the other Jews who saw it as a stumbling block? Your answer shows a nearly complete lack of comprehension regarding what I wrote.

Continuing in your ignorance...


?? Re read what I wrote. geez..:huh:


Yeah, you'll get real far with that one...again Paul's belief that Jesus was the Messiah who had been crucified buried and raised from the dead PRECEDED him with the believing Jews in Judea--the idea that the Jewish Christians didn't believe in a crucified and risen Jesus Messiah is nonsense. He makes this very clear in Galatians 1 and 1 Cor 15 and implies this in other places but you turn a blind eye to it. It's nonsense (ie showing an extreme lack of common sense) to think that Paul would be silent if the Jewish Christians didn't believe it, but that isn't even necessary: he says those in Judea had the same faith. Your focus on the Jewish law is misplaced here. The issue isn't faith vs law. The issue is whether the concept of crucifixion of the Messiah is awkward for the Jews.

If it helps, and it probably won't, I'm not of the opinion that the cross was embarrassing to Christians, as you keep erroneously assuming. re-read what I wrote.

If you can place the origin of Christianity outside of Judiasm then you have an argument. If you can't--and you can't--then the concept is simply awkward/embarrassing to Jews. It's that simple.

I likely won't reply to your next reply as I just don't see much point in it.

aa5874

I know you are embarrassed to show that the Pauline Corpus is riddled with contradictions and discrepancies.

spin

I guess that's even. I ignored your waffle.

So you cannot give the significance in its context of the text you cited. Brilliant.

He never said he did. Read the text and stop ignoring what he actually says.

I'm not going to read your mind. That is just too murky.

That really is a stunning demonstration of your argument.

I inserted the part I was referring to in which you indicated it was awkward and needed explaining to make "it seem to be part of God's plan".

Another startling kneejerk reaction.

You can repeat this mantra until you can demonstrate that it is of merit. Good luck.

Shooting yourself in the foot with the assumption that there were christians before Paul. Pure dogma.

Of course, you couldn't demonstrate that. You made it up.

Go back and read the thread on the veracity of the section. If I remember correctly you partook in the discussion and couldn't defend it.

All talk and no evidence.

He became a messianist to messianists, nothing more.

That went over your head. If the trajectory of Paul's knowledge was not from the Jerusalemite crew as seen in his repudiation of them and their not reflecting Jesus belief, then his use of the cross was not inherited, ie it was part of his new gospel. It never mattered about what the Jews thought of crucifixion. He was content with the notion because it would seem he derived it.

Where did I say that you were? I was arguing about the meaning of Paul's thought as I analysed it, which you were disagreeing with.

I told you I wouldn't hold your hand on this. Your commitments are too evident.

:wave:

TedM

sure sure...the 'same faith' spin, regarding the crucified Jesus obviously since that is all that mattered to Paul. You seem to have become what Doherty calls an atomist. If something isn't spelled out for you, it doesn't exist.


I'd agree with your conclusion if he really did derive it but I don't think it is even remotely possible. He says he went to see the pillars in case he had been wrong for the last 14 some years--he wanted the blessing of the leaders of the movement. He wouldn't have cared if they didn't view Jesus as a resurrected crucified Messiah. It's that simple. His 'repudiation' had to do with their view regarding faith vs law, not Jesus' resurrection.

Main point though is that it was a stumbling block. It was an awkward concept for the average Jewish person. Due to the persecution by their fellow Jews who were disgusted by the idea of a crucified Messiah, it is most unlikely that it would have originated in Judea and flourished early on among the Jews scattered near and far if it were not based on historical events which couldn't be denied.

Grog

Weren't you recently claiming Aslan was not a scholar? Aren't you just picking which scholars are scholars based on what you already believe? What you exoerience then when you read the scholars is confirmatory bias...

aa5874

Your statement is illogical and does NOT deal with the OP. You simply cannot show that the Jesus cult was embarrassed by the Baptism and Crucifixion events.

It was NON-CHRISTIANS who were digusted with the Jesus Baptism and crucifixion story--NOT the Jesus cult.

You appear to be completely confused.

You don't even realize that a Christian of the Jesus cult is EXPECTED to BELIEVE that Jesus was Baptised and Crucified in order to be a Believer.

In Acts , thousands of Jews accepted that they killed Jesus and Baptized in the name of Jesus to RECEIVE the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2 Three Thousand Jews Gladly accepted that the Jews killed Jesus in Acts 2 and FIVE THOUSAND in Acts 4.

Acts 4:4 KJV

PhilosopherJay

To make a contemporary point about the Criterion of Embarrassment,here is an article that talks about actor Jim Carrey's embarrassment about being in the movie "Kick-Ass 2." It is obvious that Jim Carrey does not believe the story or any of the characters in the movie are historical. He is embarrassed by a work of fiction. He is embarassed by the violence in the film, although he knows quite well that none of the violence portrayed actually happened.

According to the logic of the "Criterion of Embarrassment," we should classify "Kick-Ass 2" as a documentary. Why else would Jim Carrey be embarrassed by being in it, unless it was a true story?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Grog

You keep asserting your beliefs about what the average Jew would find awkward or embarrassing. However, it does not appear to me that early converts to the Jesus cult were what we might think of as average Jews. Doesn't this appear to you as a flaw in your logic?

spin

Cutting through your nonsense, the people Paul had been hassling for their messianism heard that Paul was preaching messianism, the belief he once attacked.

You've got nothing to say that any of them believed in Jesus.

Faith in the resurrection vs Jerusalemite torah observance.

Gal 2:21, if righteousness is in the law christ died for nothing.

Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law.

The choice is either christ or the law. Faith or works.

Paul says that he hassled messianists. You want them to be christians. You use the colorful "disgusted" regarding the notion of a crucified messiah, but the fact is Paul's rejection of the law put him outside Judaism, not his crucified messiah. It didn't matter what you believed as long as you observed the law. But Paul peddled faith not works, faith that christ died to redeem you. With Jesus you can forget the law.

His proselytes, living in Anatolia and Greece heard about Jesus from Paul. They heard and believed. No history was necessary. You believe your guru and he is sufficient. The people who went to the Galatians brought the law: it was necessary to be circumcised. Works not faith. The conflict in Galatians is between Paul's Jesus centered faith and the Jerusalemites' torah centered works.