Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 11-08-2009, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I had proposed that the original letters of Paul had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, so he was not trying to get them to convert to anything. He was solely concerned with his belief that gentiles who believed in the promises made to Abraham (that his seed would inherit the land of Canaan and prosper) could be considered part of that seed, and thus co-heirs with the Jews, who remained God's chosen people. He was trying to talk gentiles OUT of converting to become Jews (by accepting circumcision, and the laws pertaining to that covenant), because they did not have to. This was his "good news" for faithful gentiles.

Whether Paul is Christian or not, that is his "good news" for the Gentiles. He says as much explicitly and repeatedly. But this sidesteps the caveat.

What absurdity! The Gentiles had their own Gods to save them from sin. The Gentiles did not need some blasphemer who was crucified

Quote:

The traditional reading of Paul has his "good news" that Gentiles will be saved and (at least when he fully formulates it in Romans) this will consequently usher in the Messianic Age. It answers two questions: What is Paul's purpose, and why does he do it.

What absurdity! The Gentiles had their own Gods to save them from sin. The Gentiles did not need some crucified blasphemer who made ridiculous statements about being raised after three days as found in gLuke or the Epistles.

The Greeks, Romans, Barbarians, Egyptians and other people had already established religions of their own. They did not need Paul at all.

Paul even admitted that his gospel was foolishness. It was so obvious.

Steven Carr · 11-09-2009, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

If it doesn't explain why Paul cares, it finds itself somewhat light in the explanatory power category. If he is not ushering in Gentiles because he believes the Messiah has come, then why exactly do you think he's doing it?

Where does he say that the Messiah has come (or at least come to Earth)? Why does he think Jesus is the Messiah, when Jesus died without any Messianic age being ushered in?

dog-on · 11-09-2009, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I had proposed that the original letters of Paul had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, so he was not trying to get them to convert to anything. He was solely concerned with his belief that gentiles who believed in the promises made to Abraham (that his seed would inherit the land of Canaan and prosper) could be considered part of that seed, and thus co-heirs with the Jews, who remained God's chosen people. He was trying to talk gentiles OUT of converting to become Jews (by accepting circumcision, and the laws pertaining to that covenant), because they did not have to. This was his "good news" for faithful gentiles.

Whether Paul is Christian or not, that is his "good news" for the Gentiles. He says as much explicitly and repeatedly. But this sidesteps the caveat.

The traditional reading of Paul has his "good news" that Gentiles will be saved and (at least when he fully formulates it in Romans) this will consequently usher in the Messianic Age. It answers two questions: What is Paul's purpose, and why does he do it.

Your proposal answers the first question, but drops the traditional answer to the second. Which leaves us with. . .what?

If it doesn't explain why Paul cares, it finds itself somewhat light in the explanatory power category. If he is not ushering in Gentiles because he believes the Messiah has come, then why exactly do you think he's doing it?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

I get the distinct impression, reading Paul, that it's not about the Messiah that has come, but about the Christ that will come.

I do however, sometimes, get lost in all of the layers...

dog-on · 11-09-2009, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I think that the Author of Acts, in fact, knew quite a bit about the letters of Paul. I just think that they were, somewhat, ignored for this particular exercise.

I think you are right, but Stephen Carr is making a sarcastic observation on certain NT scholars who want to claim that Acts is based on real history, but also want to claim that the author of Acts did not have Luke's letters, as a way of explaining the discrepancies between the two accounts.

Yea I got that. Just throwng in my 2 cents...

Steven Carr · 11-09-2009, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think you are right, but Stephen Carr is making a sarcastic observation on certain NT scholars who want to claim that Acts is based on real history, but also want to claim that the author of Acts did not have Luke's letters, as a way of explaining the discrepancies between the two accounts.

It wasn't sarcastic. I was just wondering how Dunn could think Luke did great research , well up to the standards of other ancient historians, when the author of Luke/Acts either could not get copies of Paul's letters from other Christians, or didn't even try to get them.

Just how low down the pecking order was Luke when nobody would give him any of their copies of Paul's letters?

dog-on · 11-09-2009, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think you are right, but Stephen Carr is making a sarcastic observation on certain NT scholars who want to claim that Acts is based on real history, but also want to claim that the author of Acts did not have Luke's letters, as a way of explaining the discrepancies between the two accounts.

It wasn't sarcastic. I was just wondering how Dunn could think Luke did great research , well up to the standards of other ancient historians, when the author of Luke/Acts either could not get copies of Paul's letters from other Christians, or didn't even try to get them.

Just how low down the pecking order was Luke when nobody would give him any of their copies of Paul's letters?

The editor did, indeed, know Paul's letters. He used Galatians to craft part of the Acts story and then, in a classic reach around, edited Galatians and the rest, to fit the new branding...

Sheshbazzar · 11-09-2009, 02:31 AM

It appears to me that Paul's original compositions were 'midrash' ('that which is 'explained') on The Laws 'permissive' regulations regarding those 'gentiles' whom yet remaining distinctly 'gentiles' could, would, and did "join themselves to His people Israel" (the ger toshavim) who dwelt among the Jews, and accepted the God of the Hebrew's, as being the one and only true God, joining in common worship along with that nation of Israel which was reckoned by genealogy.

He was explaining and resisting the doctrines of that Jewish faction that held that the state of the 'ger toshavim' ('strangers in the gate') was just an immeditary step towards full a conversion wherein these former 'strangers' would also become 'Jews', and lose their former national identities.
Yet the Law specifically provides exception for these gentile 'strangers', in not requiring them to undergo circumcision, or to keep all of its restrictions as a perquisite worship and to Divine acceptance.

Note the constant stress amongst the 'Judaisers' that believing gentiles 'MUST be circumcised, and KEEP The Law(s)' whereas The Law makes no such demand.
(unless such gentile would choose to participate in the Passover seder.)
Recall here, that none of the children who were born in the Wilderness were circumcised, and were thus by The Law of Moses, during the Wilderness sojournings, were during that time, also excluded from participating.
Those living 'under The Law(s)' restrictions came to resent that liberty that was granted by Law, to those (gentile believers) who were free from many of its restrictions.
These 'Judiasers' pressed for religious conformity by all living around them, requiring that all others should live exactly as they interpreted the Laws and dictated. Anyone who did not conform to their ideas, was castigated as being unclean and a gentile 'dog', being unworthy and unacceptable to the Holy One of Israel.
This is what Paul's original 'Good News to the Gentiles' stood in contradistinction to.

avi · 11-09-2009, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazaar

It appears to me that Paul's original compositions were 'midrash' ('that which is 'explained') on The Laws 'permissive' regulations regarding those 'gentiles' whom yet remaining distinctly 'gentiles' could, would, and did "join themselves to His people Israel" (the ger toshavim) who dwelt among the Jews, and accepted the God of the Hebrew's, as being the one and only true God, joining in common worship along with that nation of Israel which was reckoned by genealogy.

Thank you very much Shesh, for this lucid explanation.

Was Paul a rabbi?

If not, under which authority, did he dare to contradict "the Law"?

avi

Solo · 11-09-2009, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The editor did, indeed, know Paul's letters. He used Galatians to craft part of the Acts story and then, in a classic reach around, edited Galatians and the rest, to fit the new branding...

Hmmm....:constern01:...not a word connecting the "lesser" James to the presiding brother of the Lord ? ...well, at least you are not claiming Luke knew Corinthians to explain the nearly identical wording of the Lord's Supper btw Lk 22:17-19 and 1 Cor 11:23-25. Because then you would have to explain why Acts 6:2 knows nothing about a sacramental table service in remembrance of Jesus.

Jiri

dog-on · 11-09-2009, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The editor did, indeed, know Paul's letters. He used Galatians to craft part of the Acts story and then, in a classic reach around, edited Galatians and the rest, to fit the new branding...

Hmmm....:constern01:...not a word connecting the "lesser" James to the presiding brother of the Lord ? ...well, at least you are not claiming Luke knew Corinthians to explain the nearly identical wording of the Lord's Supper btw Lk 22:17-19 and 1 Cor 11:23-25. Because then you would have to explain Acts 6 knowing absolutely nothing about any sacramental meal in remembrance of Jesus.

Jiri

Of course "Luke" knew Corinthians. Are you looking for an AfS for Acts 6, or for an argument from why your request makes no sense?

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

11-09-2009, 02:31 AM	#67
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	It appears to me that Paul's original compositions were 'midrash' ('that which is 'explained') on The Laws 'permissive' regulations regarding those 'gentiles' whom yet remaining distinctly 'gentiles' could, would, and did "join themselves to His people Israel" (the ger toshavim) who dwelt among the Jews, and accepted the God of the Hebrew's, as being the one and only true God, joining in common worship along with that nation of Israel which was reckoned by genealogy. He was explaining and resisting the doctrines of that Jewish faction that held that the state of the 'ger toshavim' ('strangers in the gate') was just an immeditary step towards full a conversion wherein these former 'strangers' would also become 'Jews', and lose their former national identities. Yet the Law specifically provides exception for these gentile 'strangers', in not requiring them to undergo circumcision, or to keep all of its restrictions as a perquisite worship and to Divine acceptance. Note the constant stress amongst the 'Judaisers' that believing gentiles 'MUST be circumcised, and KEEP The Law(s)' whereas The Law makes no such demand. (unless such gentile would choose to participate in the Passover seder.) Recall here, that none of the children who were born in the Wilderness were circumcised, and were thus by The Law of Moses, during the Wilderness sojournings, were during that time, also excluded from participating. Those living 'under The Law(s)' restrictions came to resent that liberty that was granted by Law, to those (gentile believers) who were free from many of its restrictions. These 'Judiasers' pressed for religious conformity by all living around them, requiring that all others should live exactly as they interpreted the Laws and dictated. Anyone who did not conform to their ideas, was castigated as being unclean and a gentile 'dog', being unworthy and unacceptable to the Holy One of Israel. This is what Paul's original 'Good News to the Gentiles' stood in contradistinction to.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.