Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 01-19-2005, 07:22 AM

Quote:

The Rabbinical and popular undestanding of Messiah in Jesus' day was that of a Divine being. This is not to say that they had anything like the notion of the Trinity, and in fact their notion of the Messiah's divinity was more or less similar to the Arian Chrisitians view, that of a barrowed or honorary betwal of sonship......

Meta, are you familiar with Margaret Barker's work? Also Alan Segal's on the "Two Powers in Heaven" beliefs in Second Temple Judaism? There's some stuff here you might enjoy reading.

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/

Metacrock · 01-19-2005, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

I haven't read the entire thread yet but the OP seems reasonable and is something I had never been exposed to, nor had I considered.

While studying Hermeneutics in college I had been taught that when a Biblical writer interprets a scripture then that interpretation is to be considered correct above any other. Another similar rule, based on begging the question, was that "No two passages of scripture are to be interpreted in a way that is contradictory". Of course laws such as these are set up so as to force the reader to believe that he is somehow at fault if he sees a contradiction. Getting that mentality out of one's head is one of the first steps towards a more sane and rational look at scriptures for what they really are -- collections of writings of ancient and fallible men.

I just wanted to say "thanks" to johntheapostate for an compelling perspective I had never considered. Looking forward to reading the rest of the thread with interest.

-Atheos

those are all real old. That's not how it was done by the liberals at the seminary where I got my Mastes degree.

but these sec web people scoff at real schoarship. They think marginal figures like Doherty are the real scholars and they laugh as Koester and Ray Brown. So they love their ignorance, and that's the standard of knowing thigns for me, to be ignorant.

Metacrock · 01-19-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Meta, are you familiar with Margaret Barker's work? Also Alan Segal's on the "Two Powers in Heaven" beliefs in Second Temple Judaism? There's some stuff here you might enjoy reading.

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/

Have you read Chariots of the Gods? You need to learn about real schoarhsip. Try reading some by that Ariline pilot.Anyone whose on the out with real academia is the standard of scholarship.

Metacrock · 01-19-2005, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Sorry, Meta. I just can't respond to anything like this.

Maccoby doesnt' deal with Sanders, or any of the major Critical work that's been done on Paul's religoius views. An old book, but in its day one of books on Paul Was DEH Whiteleys Theology of St Paul. Shows clelary the phrasieical roots of Paul.

Maccoby is not a resepected academic. He's like Doherty, he's a marginalized figure with a fan club on the net. The original site I linked to showed that a lot of his following is from Moslims.

Atheos · 01-19-2005, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

those are all real old. That's not how it was done by the liberals at the seminary where I got my Mastes degree.

but these sec web people scoff at real schoarship. They think marginal figures like Doherty are the real scholars and they laugh as Koester and Ray Brown. So they love their ignorance, and that's the standard of knowing thigns for me, to be ignorant.

What are real old? Johntheapostate's arguments? My hermenutical "rules"? :huh:

Your generalization about "these sec web people" is, in my opinion, unwarranted. Differences of opinion will always exist between "real scholarship" and whatever else there is. One man's National Enquirer is another man's Wall Street Journal.

But I have no interest in a pissing contest about various scholars, nor do I intend to further that discussion. I'll concede that you may very well know your scholars. What I am interested in is the very real point made in the OP about Paul's interpretation of the word 'seed'. In my opinion this says a lot about the integrity of Paul and is cause for concern about other things he wrote.

-Atheos

Toto · 01-19-2005, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

. . .but these sec web people scoff at real schoarship. They think marginal figures like Doherty are the real scholars and they laugh as Koester and Ray Brown. . . .

Meta - check the recommended reading list. I think you will find a lot of sec web regulars recommend Koester in particular, as well as Brown.

Metacrock · 01-19-2005, 11:47 AM

Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers" (Paul, from Acts 22:3, NIV). The Greek has it stronger, not just "under Gamaliel" but "at the feet of Gamaliel". Paul claims exactly that, that he trained under Gamaliel, THE Gamaliel, in the notables in the Talmud, grandson of Hillel. Paul claims exactly what they say he's not claiming. Unless they're taking the "Luke is making it up" argument.

I knew I wasn't that for off. he said it, but in ACTS.

O I know so little. I need to start with the basic books about the bible because I'm so ignorant, I am ignoarnat enough to think real scholarhsip matters and ignorant enough not to laud the little darlins of the dregs of secular web where you enthorne the marginailzed cooks and misfits that real academics ignore.

socratoad · 01-19-2005, 11:52 AM

Oh that Paul.

Toto · 01-19-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers" (Paul, from Acts 22:3, NIV). The Greek has it stronger, not just "under Gamaliel" but "at the feet of Gamaliel". Paul claims exactly that, that he trained under Gamaliel, THE Gamaliel, in the notables in the Talmud, grandson of Hillel. Paul claims exactly what they say he's not claiming. Unless they're taking the "Luke is making it up" argument.

I knew I wasn't that for off. he said it, but in ACTS.

. . . .

Metacrock: Paul did not write Acts. The author of Acts says that Paul says he studied under Gamaliel. But then it also quotes Gamaliel as advising against persecuting Christians (Acts 5:38 : "Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.�? )

So did Paul sleep through that lesson from Gamaliel? If he was a Pharisee, why was he working for the Chief Priest, a Saducee?

Can you find any reputable scholar who argues that the speeches in Acts reflect history as opposed to the theological motives of the author of Acts? Do you have any reason to think that Acts reflects history?

What mainline scholar would you like to cite?

Notsri · 01-19-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Do you have any reason to think that Acts reflects history?

What mainline scholar would you like to cite?

You might want to check out, if you haven't already, the five-volume series, The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting.

01-19-2005, 11:47 AM	#57
Metacrock Banned Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Dallas, Texas, USA Posts: 1,734	Paul did say it mr knowi t all Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers" (Paul, from Acts 22:3, NIV). The Greek has it stronger, not just "under Gamaliel" but "at the feet of Gamaliel". Paul claims exactly that, that he trained under Gamaliel, THE Gamaliel, in the notables in the Talmud, grandson of Hillel. Paul claims exactly what they say he's not claiming. Unless they're taking the "Luke is making it up" argument. I knew I wasn't that for off. he said it, but in ACTS. O I know so little. I need to start with the basic books about the bible because I'm so ignorant, I am ignoarnat enough to think real scholarhsip matters and ignorant enough not to laud the little darlins of the dregs of secular web where you enthorne the marginailzed cooks and misfits that real academics ignore.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-19-2005, 11:52 AM	#58
socratoad Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canada, deep in the heart of the boreal forest Posts: 4,239	Oh that Paul.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.