spamandham

I don't think I could have summarized it better!

The conversation continues to become more detailed, requiring further explanation. The law is important for Jews who are not devotees of Jesus, not as a matter of rote, but rather, as a result of faithfulness to God. I think Paul makes that clear.

For Jews who who believe in Jesus Christ (Paul does not clarify what this means in that context), it isn't clear what was required. Paul never talks about it, but his discussions about different parts of the body being part of one whole, indicate significant differences. If we take Paul at his word that his gospel was revealed, that would certainly count as a significant difference.

Paul likes him some body metaphors no doubt. But in Romans 12, he is referring to gifts of the spirit rather than differning beliefs, as he is doing in 1 Cor 10, 1 Cor 12.

Well, he doesn't. But he states as much in regard to the followers of Moses in 1 Cor 10:1-4. To me, Paul is generlizing to all Jews in 1 Cor 10:1-4, not just that specific generation that accompanied Moses. If you don't agree with that, I think we are simply at an impasse.

I think verse 13 makes it perfectly clear. Didn't you notice it? Those who call on the name of the lord are saved (those faithful to God), be they gentile followers of Paul, Jewish devotees of Jesus, or Jews faithful to YHWH.

God himself. Those Jews have confused rote works of the law for righteousness in the mind of Paul.

This is an area that Paul does not clarify, and I see no value in speculating on it.

I think we need to get around to the one or two key points and summarize. I don't know about you, but I'm growing weary of discussing this again.

gurugeorge

It's not in Galatians but it is in Corinthians ("received"). As Spamandham has pointed out, there are arguments for 1 Corinthians 15 being an interpolation, but to me that seems unlikely and it's quite feasible for it not to be interpolated and have a mythicist interpretation ("seen" = "seen" in Scripture and visionary experience, as divine self-revelation).

Ben C Smith

Paul tells us why he is mentioning the wilderness Jews in 10.11; he is mentioning them by way of example (τυπικως) for the benefit of his readers, who are living (allegedly) at the ends of the ages.

Then does verse 9 apply to both Jews and gentiles, too? If not, why not? Similarly, I had asked:

But you did not answer this question in your post.

Here are two other questions that went unanswered:

I apologize for wearying you. I feel fine so far.

Ben.

Amaleq13

I "admit" that I take into consideration the entire body of evidence when formulating a conclusion about the author. There is no good reason to confine one's understanding of Paul to any single letter.

Grow up.

And I've told you I'm tired of repeating myself. You would rather bitch about others than address your incoherent story. I've got a coherent story whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Your problem, not mine. :wave:

spin

You need to understand the single work before trying to fit it into an uncertain web of other works of varying value.

In the past I have pointed out a number of issues regarding material found in 1 Corinthians, glosses aimed at equating Jesus with kurios, the intrusive last supper material in a dispute about disruption of the communal meal, problems with the resurrection appearances material (material that in the gospels is obviously late in the development of those texts).

Attempting to use "entire body of evidence" is an excuse for not understanding what a particular text says and it is dangerous here in that it could easily be more contamination than elucidation.

That's what I was saying to you.

Show me where, besides your imagination, you've repeated your sources enough to be tired of doing so.

Great criticism, that.

We're not interested in stories. We're interested in evidence and you've got none. You've just got the farcical equation of Paul's revealed gospel not being content but audience, while Paul just wants to talk about his Jesus being better than the torah observance.

Everything's really ok for you. You don't project anymore. :worried:


spin

spin

That's the problem. It's not in Galatians. You have to understand what Galatians says before you go running off to other texts. Otherwise your attempt at elucidation becomes eisegesis.


spin

Amaleq13

Yes, it is always a good idea to draw one's conclusions from only some of the available evidence.

Refusing to consider all the available evidence while interpreting just one part is apparently an excuse to keep an incoherent conclusion.

Your failure to try to incorporate all the evidence is why your conclusion is incoherent.

You are not interested in the story your conclusion tells because it is incoherent. If you can't tell a coherent story with the data, you need to rethink your assessment of the data.

Said the man with no evidence to support his belief that Paul's opponents denied the crucifixion and resurrection.

Jesus, when are you going to get this straight? You keep making the same error despite being corrected repeatedly!! It is almost as though you are refraining from actually thinking about what you are being told. At least you are consistent. :banghead:

For the last time: Paul's revealed "good news" involves both content and audience. It is a specific message for a specific audience.

Yep. The story makes sense and there are no credible alternatives.

Amaleq13

He is well aware of this. He is only pretending to be ignorant. I assume he is bored.

spin

You can roll your eyes as much as you like while tarting up your blunder. If you can't derive what you claim from the text being dealt with, your are doing eisegesis.

Until you deal with the text in question, bringing other texts is a waste of time and a contamination of the text being dealt with.

Until you can understand what you are dealing with you are -- as I've said -- just doing eisegesis. What you are actually doing with this eisegesis is contradicting what Paul says.

I'm not interested in your stories. I'm interested in what you cringe from, understanding the text itself. All you want to do is contaminate it.

Until you can show your understanding of the text is derived from the text you are talking waffle.

You'll give yourself eyestrain with all this theatrical eye rolling.

You are in denial. I have shown that Paul contrasts Jesus and his death with torah observation.

Stop playing games. At one moment you say that what is Paul's innovation in gospel is the audience, then with the wind you get all cagey with the content of the revealed gospel. You might need such parlor tricks, but they are transparent blunder. This is not a matter of the gospel being used for part and for whole, but what Paul meant with his revealed gospel.

Here's the text once again:

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

What exactly was the revealed gospel Paul preached that was not received from man? Was it the notion that Jesus "died to redeem us from the curse of the law" Gal 3:13 (which is more important than torah observation and which allowed salvation for the gentiles) or was it something else? (And don't bleed.)

I will ask you this again: what is the specific message and what is the source of this claim? (And don't come back with the claim that the message is that the gentiles have access to justification or somesuch: that would just be another repackaging of audience as content.)

And can nothing dissolve the glue holding those eyes wide shut?

Of course the story makes sense to you. You long ago convinced yourself of the issue, so obviously "there are no credible alternatives", because of your conviction.


spin

spin

I assume that you don't understand the issue of extracting the meaning from the text in question before you contaminate it with other meanings.


spin