Amaleq13

First, this is not evidence that Paul's opponents did not think Jesus was crucified. Second, this does nothing to cause doubt about the crucifixion. It only calls into question the claim that his followers promoted him in Jerusalem.

This is not evidence that Paul's opponents did not think Jesus was crucified.

Actually, none of your points appears to actually constitute evidence that Paul's opponents did not think Jesus was crucified. Instead, they appear to comprise your own argument to doubt that crucifixion. :huh:

Is there any reason to think that this generic reference to Jews was meant to apply to the "pillars" to whom he went for approval?

I'm not surprised since that isn't the topic of discussion.

spin

We know that Paul had a death of Jesus in his gospel. You don't have any evidence to say that the other gospel knew anything about Jesus. It doesn't matter how you try to package Paul's interview with the pillars: you are arguing from lack of knowledge. You are simply projecting onto Paul what you want and that is not based on the text. Paul has a crucified christ and that crucified christ he uses against the torah observance message.

Your notion of a shared belief in the death of Jesus is pure conjecture. Admit it.

You are not reading Galatians. Jesus' death renders torah observance useless. That isn't gentile specific. The implication of 5:6 is that if the torah observer took on faith in Jesus s/he would be justified by the death of Jesus. There is no longer Jew or Greek (3:28). As I said, you are not reading the text.

As messiahs, by Jewish definition, aren't supposed to die before they've exercised their messiahship, what do you imagine that the Jerusalem Jewish messianists made of the death of the messiah you assume they accepted?

Without Jesus' death and crucifixion according to Paul's thought there would be no redemption from the curse of the law. It was the act that allowed the new religious status Paul preached. So of course the fact of crucifixion was the center of his gospel. Faith in it is redeems one from the curse of the law.

The subject of the problem was the attempts to get the Galatians to mutate into good torah observers. His attack is against torah observance and he offers instead christ crucified (2:21, 3:13). This doesn't give you scope to invent many ideas about what the others believed.

As I said, he's dealing with torah observance. You want him to stop and deal with something you think he should deal with.

You're still confusing target with message. Read Galatians: "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything"; "there is no longer Jew or Greek"; "you are all children of god through faith".

Wrong. Stop falling over the target and look at the message.

When you are dealing with one issue do you normally stop to talk about some other issue that is not directly relevant to the specific issue you are writing about? It's clear that his opponents played the Jewishness card against Paul: you can't be in unless you walk the walk. Paul's aim is to repudiate that proposition. He's not writing to the Jerusalem group, but to the Galatians, and they've been told "whatever he says doesn't change the fact that you must observe the law".

The first and foremost necessity for being a Jew is torah observance. You cannot get away from it.

Simple denial isn't a useful response, nor are a few questions:
They are the messianists he knows about.

You are jumping the gun in your assumptions. Paul doesn't necessarily know anything about the beliefs of those messianists until he talks with them. He has to go to Jerusalem to talk with them. He goes to Jerusalem with hopes and expectations and they are shocked with his dismissal of torah observance. He is obviously shocked by them. He's gotta go to Jerusalem to get to that point.


spin

gurugeorge

It was most of Corinthians, Romans, and a few other bits of the "genuine" letters. (I'm basing this on Price's conclusions about the Pauline letters, in a longish essay of his that surveys the scholarship). But not quite in the form they were finally collected into the Canon.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be some sort of counter to my theory. By the time of Eusebius the Canon version of "Paul" is well-established.

Look, let me lay it out in sequence:

1) ca 30-40CE Christian proto-gnosticism develops in Jerusalem, comes up with the trope-reversal of the Messiah as a Jewish equivalent of the Mysteries "personal dying/rising saviour". The apostles at this stage bear little resemblance to the later orthodox idea of them.

2) ca 40-50CE, a convert to this Jewish religion (not necessarily a Jew as later portrayed) universalises and spreads this proto-Gnosticism to some Gentile cities, writes something, probably indeed letters (as above - the main "genuine" epistles, but not yet in the form we know them, simpler). The churches he seeds are as he describes in Corinthians and as they are portrayed in Hebrews and Hermas - partly charismatic, partly proto-Gnostic, partly Philonic.

3) ca 70-80CE, some Diaspora remnant(s) of the Jewish church write(s) gMark as a rebuke to the Jews for not heeding the Messiah; they write an imaginative, exemplary biography in the Stoic mould, perhaps based on tidbits of lore that were invented as time went on, that "filled in" the originally rather sketchy Joshua Messiah story. Mark is still somewhat proto-gnostic, but has orthodox elements. At this time, partly because of the original Jerusalem roots being lost, the notion creeps in that the early disciples, instead of being just the spreaders of the original mythological reversal, were personally in contact with the Messiah. That the salvific events weren't just in some vague past, but more pin-downable to a certain time, that must have been a time just before the Jerusalem crowd started the religion (so, they reckon, Joshua Messiah must have been reaching his maturity roundabout 30CE, say). This notion that some of the earliest apostles knew the Messiah personally and were his direct disciples is the seed of proto-orthodoxy, and it's developed in Matthew, 80-90CE.

4) 70-125CE. You basically have two broad camps of Christianity developing side-by-side, one the majority, the other a growing minority. The majority is the Gentile charismatic Christianity seeded by "Paul" (including Marcion) spread throughout the Empire, who are viewed as "heretics" by the growing but embattled minority of self-styled orthodox teachers, centred in the great urban centres of Rome and Alexandria. At this time there's a fairly broad and diverging mix of interpretations and developments of the original charismatic, proto-gnostic forms. The orthodox see this divergence as a bad thing and try to bring it under control. The orthodoxy stresses the Philonic elements in Christian symbolism, and has a more philosophical flavour.

4) Bar Kochba 125-135CE - another great traumatic event, bringing perhaps some more Jewish Christians who were even further from the original events, but who had their own ideas about what happened, and were willing to throw their lot in with the Roman orthodoxy. Partly in response to Marcion, a Canon is developed by the orthodox that uses Acts and Luke as a lynch-pin to secure something that never actually happened: a lineage connection back to the cult figure himself, whose historical position is correspondingly hardened and "filled in" with more spurious detail. The raison d'etre of the Canon is as described above - the necessity to have "Paul" in to give actual legitimacy, as well as the pseudo-legitimacy of the invented "Peter", with the concomitant schizophrenic splitting of "Paul"/"Simon Magus". "Paul"'s letters are at this time interpolated, added to, and fitted snugly into the Canon, potentially troublesome bits neutered.

5) After that, there's an ongoing struggle between the continuously diverging original forms of Christianity and the growing orthodoxy, in which the fabricated lineage of Acts is a trump card. gJohn is a developed to try offer something for Gnostics who are willing to come under the orthodox umbrella.

Amaleq13

It is a logical conclusion from the text which results in a comprehensible story. Your notion that it was not a shared belief lacks any indication from the text that Paul felt he had to defend the fact or nature of the death of Jesus and results in an incomprehensible story.

The text indicates Paul only felt he had to defend his gentile-specific interpretation of that death by crucifixion.

Yes, that is Paul's interpretation of the death. I learned that by reading Galatians. :huh:

That's how Paul thought of it according to 2:2.

That it was in some way redemptive, I suppose. I don't know.

No, something he would have had to deal with, if you were correct.

But he doesn't so I don't think you are.

And you're still ignoring that Paul describes his target and message together as being his unique and divinely appointed mission.

When attacking the beliefs of one's opponents, does one only attack a secondary belief while totally ignoring the abhorrent core belief that inspired it?

Do better than an unsubstantiated assertion, then.

Why would he think they would give his beliefs approval?

You have no credible answer because your position gives you none.

That is quite an imaginative reading. Especially for someone so critical of "pure conjecture".

aa5874

Your theory is just too complex.


Let me give you my sequence, subject to review if evidence surfaces to contradict.

1.Circa the end of the 1st century, the first Jesus story is written by an unknown author. The revelations of John are written sometime later but before Justin Martyr.

Position 1 is held by taking into account that Philo,and Josephus are totally devoid of any information about Jesus, his followers or his teachings. This position is also maintained by noting that Justin Martyr wrote nothing about any letters to any churches, any letter writers named Paul, Peter, James, John, or Jude, but mentioned that John wrote "revelations". There is no reference to Acts of the Apostles.

2.Sometime after Justin Martyr, after the middle of the 2nd century, the gospels are named and possibly re-worked, Acts of the Apostles and all the letters are fabricated as propaganda of the Church to create a bogus history of Jesus believers to counter Marcion.

Paul's gospel is actually doctrine from the Church. Paul is a literary device. Paul means the Church.

The letters of Paul are NOT to the Church, but FROM the Church.

Position 2 is maintained by making reference to Irenaeus who writing at the end of 2nd century was the first to mention the names of the gospels, Acts of the Apostles and all the letters to the churches. Irenaeus was the first writer to quote passages from every single letter to the seven churches.

spin

Your bald opinion. [You get the type of response you continue to give.]

You choose to ignore the fact that he responds to the conflict with his opponents with Jesus and his death.

There is nothing gentile specific about it. You cannot read the text. Although Paul sees his mission is to the gentiles, his gospel of faith is universal. Circumcision and uncircumcision count for nothing. There is no longer Jew and Greek.

So you admit you've read the text. why make claims that are in conflict with it all the time? Paul claims he didn't get his gospel from other people, but you disagree. Paul says his gospel renders the Jew and gentile as one, but you disagree.

Still confusing target with content.

I gathered you didn't.

Rubbish. He is dealing with the problem at Galatia, not the one in your head.

I've already shown this is wrong. And you will not deal with the text. Circumcision and uncircumcision count for nothing. There is no longer Jew and Greek. You've had the opportunity to respond and you didn't.

As praxis was the issue being dealt with in Galatia and as praxis was the primary concern of his opponents both according to the text, your claim doesn't represent the text.

You had your opportunity to deal with the notion of running in vain. Your response was, and is, simple denial.

Because he held a -- to him -- messianic view, as they did and they were authorities regarding a messianic view.

This just shows your choice to disregard what has been said to you.

Perhaps you should break down and read the text.

Thanks Amaleq13. In my efforts to test the analysis, you've given me all you've got. I can see that you've run out of options, so I think we should end this here. If you want to assert your position in other threads in the future over the view that Paul claims to have received the gospel he preached by revelation and not by being taught, I think you'll need to do more work. You have failed to falsify the position.


spin

Amaleq13

Only because it isn't true. He responds with his belief about the significance of that death as it relates to gentile Law adherence. Never the bare fact of the death or its nature. Always his interpretation of it. This is what you choose to ignore.

Still haven't gotten it straight? I certainly do not disagree as anyone who actually reads my posts would know.

Wrong again. You really haven't been paying attention, have you?

Still pretending they aren't described as a part and parcel.

As though it were relevant. The Chewbacca defense?

This doesn't and you can't answer the question.

Stop dragging your feet. He had to have known his "messianic view" was false according to a traditional Jewish view. Why would he think they would give such beliefs their approval? What was it about their beliefs that made him think they would approve of what he taught gentiles? Try thinking about the text instead of just decoding the words.

I'm not disregarding anything you've written. I'm finding it lacking in credibility.

Only in your mind. Your emperor has no clothes.

spin

Look at it: really nothing to offer in your post. Factless falsifications are not impressive.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Doug, you need to decide if your conclusions are going to be based only on what Paul wrote or on all sources of information. Based just on Paul we would all have to conclude that Jesus was the prophesied Jewish Messiah per the Jewish Bible.

Per all/most sources Jesus' followers were based in Jerusalem. If Jesus was crucified there than the Romans would not let his followers promote him there. If this is history than it is evidence that Paul's opponents did not think Jesus was crucified. Evidence, not proof.

JW:
Our sources tell us that Jesus died in Jerusalem and he was than promoted in Jerusalem. This is unlikely if he was crucified. Not a problem if he was not crucified. You also have the crucifixion narrative which is implausible. Doubt, not proof.

JW:
At a minimum it's weak evidence even if Paul had no reason to say his opponents agreed with him here. Since Paul's main message is Christ crucified it's something better than weak that he would never mention his opponents agreeing with him that Jesus was crucified and even better evidence that he makes no mention of opponent agreement in the disputed Corinthians verse. Again, just evidence, not proof. I'm not disputing your logic that Paul may never have written that his opponents denied the crucifixion because it was never an issue. I have doubt that Jesus was crucified, but he might have been.

JW:
There should be little difference between how I would use evidence and how historical witness would use evidence to conclude whether Jesus was crucified.

JW:
Hmmm, let's see. Uhm, because they were Jews? Obviously Paul's competition is the Jerusalem Church. We appear to agree that Paul's main disagreement with Jerusalem was who is Jewish. These are not just reasons but good reasons to think he refers to the Pillars here.

JW:
A bizarre, if not macabre finish, since every quote of yours here deals with whether Jesus was crucified. But it was written the day after Halloween.



Joseph

Amaleq13

I've already pointed out that this is logically flawed since the first sentence only argues against the notion that followers were allowed to promote him in Jerusalem and says nothing about whether Paul's opponents denied Jesus was crucified. With regard to the latter, the former sentence offers no evidence whatsoever.

Where does Paul tell us that Jesus was promoted in Jerusalem?

No, it goes well below that "minimum". It does nothing to suggest that Paul's opponents denied the crucifixion.

As there is no good reason to expect Paul to mention such an agreement, this does not even rise to the level of a weak argument from silence. What truly is incredible is the notion that Paul was opposed on the crucifixion but never offers a single argument to establish it against such claims.

Perhaps, but this theory does not constitute evidence supporting the claim.

But they weren't just Jews. They were Jews who believed in Jesus and, for Paul, that would obviously set them aside from the rest. Paul is referring to the larger population of Greeks and Jews who rejected the "good news" about Jesus.

The statement has nothing to do with who was Jewish so this is a good reason to suspect that Paul meant someone else.

Only in response to your misdirected post. You claimed to be arguing that Paul's opponents denied Jesus was crucified but none of your points actually serve that purpose. I consider that to be bizarre. :huh: