spin

I don't really know what is going on with this conversation, so let me go back:
There is no agreement over circumcision. That is your overinterpretation. You can't turn the fact that they didn't force Titus to be circumcised into the pillars agreeing with Paul over circumcision. (Was Titus even asked if he'd been circumcised?)

This isn't an issue. Paul shows no problem whatsoever with looking after the poor -- which you turn into "food matters" (which may be part of it).

Paul wasn't there when they visited the Galatians so obviously he doesn't know them. Those with "the freedom we have in Christ Jesus", 2:4, includes the Galatians, and those "false brothers" brought in were trying to take away that freedom, ie they were the ones trying to compel the Galatians to be circumcised. Paul says, in the context of the meeting, "we did not submit to them". Why were they at the meeting?


spin

wavy_wonder1

I have no problem hearing the case, but mainstream scholarship seems to take no serious note of it, and it also sounds desperate and lacks ms. evidence. That's the only reason why I said it 'sounds weak', which didn't mean I'm not willing to give it a chance.



Thanks,
E.L.B.

spin

When the mainstream scholarship you refer to hasn't the integrity to go back to first principles -- just take a look at the incoherent attempts at historiography with the so-called "historical Jesus". The only thing historical about it is that they assume historicity, yet never attempt to demonstrate it. Don't cite mainstream scholarship in this matter, there is nothing scholarly about it. People may be happy to be led by the nose regarding the opinions of reputed scholars, but ultimately it is evidence that counts but where is the evidence for a historical Jesus? Just hold your acceptance of mainstream scholarship in abeyance for a while and try to get first principles on how Jesus is historical. Do try it, you won't like the results.

The argument for pretending that such textual manipulation as can be seen in manuscripts didn't happen before we have manuscript evidence, is a marvelous piece of arbitrary mainstream anti-scholarship. We have lovely examples of text manipulation in the manuscript tradition, bits added here and there, to give a more acceptable understanding of texts (the thesis of Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture). So it didn't happen in the period that we have no manuscript coverage? Joke, right? It is unthinkable to deny that what we see in the manuscript tradition is only a continuation of what had already been happening. Such an argument is only a "screens up" or



As for the specific instance regarding 1 Cor 15:3-8, how can something you haven't heard sound weak other than you have been biased from listening? (At some stage soon the issue will be dealt with once again.)


spin

spamandham

8-9: Paul outlines his gospel

But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

10-11: Paul explains why his gospel justifies and saves

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

11: Paul distills the essence of why his gospel works - faith in God is what counts

As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

12-13:Now Paul explains that God is open to all who are faithful to God. This is the bridge between his gospel, and faithful Jews

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

14-15:Via a series of rhetorical questions, Paul now equates the result of Jewish faithfulness (gospel) with the result of those who profess his gospel

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

...once again, this is mere assumption. Without that assumption, Galatians still makes cohesive sense, more sense as I've argued quite substantially now.

I agree with this mostly, except that I think that in other parts of Galatians, he makes it clear that he does not think the law applies to Jews either. Rather, it's an expression of faithfulness for faithful Jews, but a stumbling block to Jews who abide it for insincere reasons.

Payola. They acknowledged his point...for gentiles only, because they did not really accept it. They did not buy his argument for themselves. Why not, if they were already teaching that salvation came through the death and resurrection? We already know through Peter's example they were lackadaisical in their commitment to Jewish tradition. So it wasn't that that held them back. What was it then?

...or were they merely acknowledging the natural implication of his teachings?

...self admitted lunatic who used to kill us shows up at our door with a wheel barrow full of loot asking if he can join the club in a way that doesn't impact the club in any way....oh my, decisions, decisions. What shall we do!?

I of course, disagree with that conclusion.

Ben C Smith

First, thanks for laying this out. I always like to see the text in full with all necessary data presented.

Second, if the resurrection is a doctrine for gentiles (only?), why does Paul say that his gospel is good for Jews, too (Romans 1.16)? (This is not a loaded question. I am trying to grasp your position.)

Third, who is the one in verses 14-15? Is it Jesus? Or is it God?

Because (and I know I have said this before ) they thought the death and resurrection was for Jews only; gentiles had to become proselytes (that is, to become Jews), and then the gospel would be for them, too.

We do not know that they acted this way before they met with Paul, do we?

I think it is pretty clear that Paul thinks Cephas lived like a gentile for a time (Galatians 2.14) because he was being consistent with the gospel. IOW, Paul is not saying that Cephas was lax or undisciplined. He is saying that he was acting (at least around gentiles) in accordance with the gospel. Do you disagree with Paul on this? Do you think Cephas was just a lazy Jew?

Question: Are you saying that Paul really does imply that they believed in the death and resurrection, but he was wrong (deluded) about that?

Of course!

Let me bring in 1 Corinthians 1.22-24 here; I have alluded to it before, but never really laid it out in full so as to get your comment(s):

Because indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks seek wisdom;
but we preach a crucified messiah,
to [J] Jews a scandal and to [G] gentiles folly,
but to [C] the called ones themselves,
both Jews and Greeks,
Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

In my view, in this passage Paul is saying that Christ crucified is a scandal to Jews (J), folly to gentiles (G), and the power and wisdom of God to the called ones (C) — which include both Jews and gentiles. I see three distinct classes here which Paul does not imagine would overlap.

In your view, for Paul, is it possible for a Jew to both reject Christ crucified as a scandal and to be one of the called ones? (Same question for Greeks and folly, if necessary.)

Ben.

spamandham

Paul is saying that his gospel (the crucifixion/resurrection) is in line with the idea that faith in God is what matters.

In this case, 'first to the Jew' refers to a temporal sequence rather than priorities. Jews had the opportunity for faith (in God) first, and so some were (and are) saved by it in Paul's theology. Then Paul comes along and discovers a new gospel hidden in the scriptures ...this gospel has as a consequence, that all who have faith in God - the specifics are not so relevant - are saved.

...it's "the Lord" obviously. Now for the somewhat messy part. What does that mean to Paul? To gentiles, Jesus is the Lord - the one is the resurrected Christ. But Paul equates belief in the resurrected Christ with faithfulness to YHWH in terms of outcome, so from Paul's perspective, faithfulness to God (who is 'the one' from that perspective) is equal to faith in Paul's gospel.

I think you are giving them too little credit for the ability to think critically and respond to their conclusions. Peter's example indicates they had given up devotion to Jewish customs - at least when no-one was looking.

No, we do not.

It seems to me we have at least a couple of ideas to ponder.

(a) They were lackluster for Jewish ways before Paul met them, and Paul, being extremely zealous for Jewish tradition as he states he was, persecuted them for undermining the law in some way, as he strongly implies.

(b) Prior to Paul, they were typical Jews of the time other than their belief that the messiah had already come and been crucified (and optionally, resurrected).

My position is (a) and requires no further explanation. I think your position is closer to (b), in which case you need to explain why Paul considered that belief worthy of persecution. One way of demonstrating that, would be to point out passages where Paul had previously disagreed with the idea and changed his mind, or where he had previously expected something more from the Messiah and changed his mind.

I think Paul is saying that Peter is a hypocrite, who prefers not to mess with Jewish ways, but puts on a show when other Jews who care about Jewish ways are around. From Paul's perspective, he expects Peter to act in accordance with his (Paul's) gospel, since he basically paid for that.

From Peter's perspective, it has nothing to do with Paul's gospel, but everything to do with Peter balancing his own lack of concern for the Jewish law with his desire for social acceptance among Jews. If we are to believe Paul, he had very little contact with the Jerusalem church, and could hardly have made a significant impact on them. They took his money and brushed him aside.

So we see exactly what I would expect; Paul expects Peter to act in accordance with the payola, but Peter could care less about that, and Paul is annoyed.

No, I'm saying that if a lunatic who has been persecuting your sect shows up with a Brinks truck full of cash to buy your favor in a way that really has no down side to you...you take the money and let him go off and teach whatever the hell he wants to people you could care less about.

Who is the "we" in "we teach"? He just contrasted himself with Jews and Greeks, so it isn't them. But then he continues on to include Jews and Greeks in the "called ones". So, he is differentiating between classes of Jews and Greeks. The "we" is Paul and his followers, as would be expected in a letter from Paul to his followers.

The first class of Jews and Greeks are those who neither accept Paul's teaching, nor who are devoted to Christ. The second class are those devoted to Christ - those who accept Christ as the power and wisdom of God.

In Paul's theology, there must be a reason he continues to distinguish between called Jews and called Greeks, and it certainly has nothing to do with circumcision in 1 Cor. The distinction is, that all must be faithful to God. This is demonstrated as being a gentile member of Paul's cult, or as being a Jew faithful to Christ (which he seems to expand on to include Jews faithful to YHWH as well in Gal.).

Ben C Smith

I think it is temporal, too, but not stretching back through time all the way to Moses or before; rather, I think he is acknowledging that the gospel started with the Jews, that there were Jews in Christ before there were gentiles in Christ.

But I am interested in which gospel you think Paul means here. When Paul says that he is eager to preach the gospel in Rome (1.15), and is not ashamed of the gospel (1.16a), for it is the power of God for the salvation of Jews and of Greeks (1.16b), in your view he is not saying that his own gospel of crucifixion and resurrection is the power of God for the salvation of Jews and of Greeks?



So, in your view, the one means both the resurrected Christ and God himself. Ingenious. Not convincing, but ingenious.

I think you are being a little too influenced by subsequent (gentile) Christian teaching (almost two millennia of it). I do not think there is anything in the idea of crucifixion and resurrection itself that logically means gentiles do not have to be circumcised.

I agree that this position requires no further explanation. Paul could have easily persecuted the church because it sat loose to the law.

To preach a crucified messiah would be scandalous, and would invite persecution from some — not all — of the Jews, especially in Judea itself (the diaspora probably being at least a little bit looser in this regard). None of this is my own fancy; Paul tells us that the cross is a scandal (1 Corinthians 1.23), and he tells us that he was the most zealous kind of Jew (Galatians 1.14); IOW, the kind that would persecute for scandalous behavior or speech.

You have mentioned several times now that Paul paid (past tense) the Jerusalem church in some way at that meeting. What is your evidence for this? The passage about remembering the poor? Because I do not think we have reason to think that any money changed hands at that time. Rather, Paul started taking up a collection, mentioned in most of his letters, that he was still going to take to Jerusalem even as of the writing of the letter to the Romans. See Romans 15.25-28, where Paul is on his way to Jerusalem in order to deliver the goods. Do you have any evidence that the poor (see verse 26) were paid before this trip?

If you mean the we in we preach in 1 Corinthians 1.23, I think it is at least Paul and Sosthenes (see 1.1).

I do not think he does distinguish, at least not with respect to their calling or his gospel. I think he uses the words Jew and Greek because the world at large distinguished them, and had for centuries; he has to use the words in order to make clear that the old distinctions no longer apply (as in Galatians 3.28, for example). We might do the same thing with blacks and whites in modern politics; when we say that blacks and whites are (or should be) equal before the law, we are using those terms (black and white) precisely in order to emphasize that the old differences (such as the 3/5 rule) no longer apply, that the law is (or should be) colorblind. IOW, our political policy does not distinguish between blacks and whites, but we still talk about blacks and whites in order to promote our political policy.

Let me revisit something from above:

Up to now, I had been assuming you thought that Paul innovated both the resurrection and the crucifixion. If I was misunderstanding you, I apologize. I had thought, for example, that, when you spoke of Jews being faithful in the wilderness in continuity (rather than in analogy) with Jews being faithful later on, you were saying that (all) Christian Jews before Paul were like those Jews in the wilderness — no belief in the crucifixion or in the resurrection.

In your recent summary, you seemed to siphon both death and resurrection off into the same category, with no category holding the death only:

So, to clarify, are you actually saying that the Jerusalem crowd did hold to a crucified messiah, but (probably) not a resurrected one?

Ben.

spin

More correctly,

To preach a crucified messiah would be scandalous.

Obviously a crucified messiah isn't a messiah. That's why the notion would be a contradiction in terms to Jews. Dead messiahs mean false messiahs. And Paul's was dead.


spin

Amaleq13

And that is why we can be quite certain that, had Paul's opponents not shared his belief in a crucified messiah, they would have argued against such a clear contradiction right along with arguing against his preaching about gentiles and the Law. And, if they had attacked this fundamental belief in addition to his belief about gentile adherence to the Law, Paul would have been forced to offer a rebuttal of both claims. Yet, he only defends the latter.

spin

You're back to putting the cart before the horse.


spin