spin

If reasons for historical bases are not important to you, just forget about them.

I don't see the relevance of a generic predisposition for messianic expectation to a religious position based on active expectation of the messiah as espoused by JtB. But do please go over it again, if you feel it needs to be developed. There are a lot of things going on in this thread for me to keep track of.

And of course you're right.

But then why would I be incorporating your material if I were not attempting to communicate something to you? I do seem to be addressing ideas to you, don't I? Perhaps there is some reason for it based on the topic under discussion. If you don't want me to continue, I'll stop.


spin

Ben C Smith

And, as I have mentioned, that is not the only way to take it, yet you are interpreting it as a lock for your position. It simply, plainly, is not.

Already asked and answered. More than once.

Are you saying that Paul included this line about the right hand of fellowship in order to underscore how dismissive the pillars were of him and his gospel? Are you saying that his definition of fellowship involved hoping never to see the fellow again?

Simply not true:

Let me ask it this way: Why did Paul make a point of saying that the pillars laid no requirement on him other than to remember the poor? What was his point?

He went to see them privately about his gospel and they gave him nothing, not even one further instruction about gentile inclusion (except to remember the poor).

Obviously because Paul basically got what he wanted. As soon as Paul does not get what he wants (in Antioch), we get a detailed transcript of at least his side of things (Galatians 2.14-21). No such transcript in Jerusalem because things went relatively well at that time.

Ben.

J-D

The fact that something is a presupposition of Christianity is not a reason for a historical basis.If you are saying that there is a distinction between 'generic predisposition for messianic expectation' and 'a religious position based on active expectation of the messiah', then I don't see what it is. What is the difference between 'expecting' something and 'actively expecting' it? I can't see it.What I would like you to stop doing is posting things that are not answers to my questions as if they were answers to my questions. I would like you to answer my questions--that's why I'm asking them. You certainly are communicating ideas to me, but you don't need to quote my questions in order to do this. When you quote my questions, it looks as if what you are posting is supposed to answer them, and it's odd (and slightly discourteous) if it doesn't.

spin

OK.


spin

spin

Its context clarifies. There is a veiled attack on the pillars as people thought to be something, who gave Paul nothing. In that context it is strongly conditioned as I see it. All you do is push an interpretation that is not supported by the whole verse.

These don't deal with the question. Here it is again: Why were they [the "false brethren"] discussed at the meeting?

No. In order not to be too disparaging and to show that he wasn't a lone nutter.

Again, I wasn't referring to the fact that you acknowledge its existence, but the importance of it, which I look at in the following sentence to the one you commented on.

He went to see them privately about his gospel and they gave him nothing -- these people who were supposed to be something. Paul is quite bitter about it. That's why we get nothing other than his focus on the handshake. They gave him nothing, but who were they? God doesn't distinguish through earthly appearance of importance.

To reassure the Galatians that they don't need to follow the legal requirements.

No support, no encouragement.

That explains why he went away pissed off with the pillars.

"[N]ot get what he wants"? He got it alright. He got a reason to vent against Cephas. He got zippo from the pillars though. "Nice talking to you Pauly." :wave: Hence the venting.

Oh, no we don't. We get almost nothing of the meeting, just a few hints and a handshake. The hints are that Paul was given a hard time -- the reason why the "false brethren" got talked about; the fact that the pillars gave him nothing -- but Paul doesn't care because god doesn't play favorites.

There isn't even a skerrick of justification for a reason as to why we have no report from the other side. That's why we have to pick Paul apart.


spin

Solo

So, if that is the case what does the "but" do opening verse 11 ? If he walked away from Jerusalem pissed off at the pillars, then v.11 sould have started with an "and". No ?

But I am with you, spin. Paul evidently did not get what he really wanted in Jerusalem which was to win recognition from (the big) James. The pillars (Cephas and the Zebedees) are not the saints that Paul had been collecting for already (1 Cr 16:1 !) and in whose ranks he wanted to be counted. He did not get the "fellowship" with the people that he wanted and to whom he went by "revelation" . He was given a cold shoulder and shoved to a group within the church he did not really like. I think he's putting a spin on the "deal" that he made with the pillars to make it look like Cephas was breaking it at Antioch.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

You have clearly not read those previous posts carefully enough. Nor are you reading my current posts very well. I wrote:

I am clearly speaking of the Antioch meeting; I even gave you the verses in Galatians that present the long lecture Paul claims to have given Cephas in Antioch. Here is your response:

If you can find a handshake at the Antioch meeting, please tell me where. Otherwise I can only assume that you did not read my words very carefully and assumed for some reason I was speaking of Jerusalem (even though I specifically mentioned Antioch in the same sentence?); nor, apparently, did you look up the verses that I referred to, which, even if you missed my own meaning, would have surely led you to Antioch instead of to Jerusalem.

My apologies, but I have neither the time nor the patience to restate my every point multiple times only to have you miss it.

I once argued (again and again) that Luke knew the place name Nazara from either Q or Matthew (and I prefer the latter), only to have you ask from what hypothetical (!) source Luke might have gotten the place name Nazara from. I do not wish to have to go through that kind of thing again. I understand that you are probably busy with other discussions, but, if that is the case, then I do not want to keep you from them if what I write is not important enough for you to even give a careful reading.

Thanks for the exchange.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

The Greek word is δε, which can mean either but or and. Only the context tells us which translation is the more appropriate.

Ben.

Solo

Thanks, Ben. Is there any place in NT that you can think of where 'hote de' would be used in preference to 'kai hote' to convey positive conjuction of events ?

Much obliged.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

Think of? Off the top of my head? No, but I can look it up.

I think Matthew 21.34 follows neutrally upon verse 33; Acts 8.39 follows either neutrally or positively upon 8.38; Acts 12.6 follows positively upon 12.5 (as the beginning of a narrated answer to prayer); and Acts 28.16 follows positively upon 28.15. (This is not necessarily exhaustive, and there are many other instances that are either neutral or negative.)

In the LXX, Esther 1.5 follows positively upon 1.4; Tobit 2.13 follows positively upon 2.12; and Tobit 8.3 follows as a natural consequence to 8.2. Again, this is not exhaustive.

Ben.