Vorkosigan

Damn. I thought I put enough signals in there to make it obvious.

I'm really getting tired of people making social judgments like "radical skepticism" and thinking that they are having an attack of scholarly insight.

Carry on, spin.

spin

One can tell when LOM is shooting from the hip. He fails to spell Galatians properly.

Note the confusion between "apostles" and "disciples"? Apostles are just proclaimers, but what exactly did they proclaim? LOM doesn't know.

This is all just a dodge. He doesn't know the beliefs of those in Jerusalem.

What literature that we use reflects the non-orthodox religion of its time?

That's just incoherent.

Relevance was given in the omissus:

We don't know when "Q" was composed: it could have been before or after Mk, but almost certainly after Paul. It's coming into Mt & Lk just unites two strands of internal development.

Q, if it exists, needs to be somehow umm, independent from the tradition development within christianity, for it to be an independent attestation usable in historical research. If it were written before Paul I'd be in trouble because there would be evidence of a strain that is independent of the Pauline initiated religion.

Varieties of, or developments within, a tradition don't indicate independence.

Good for them. Talking of denial of importance is merely LOM rubbish.

Hey, that's some heavy stuff there, man. Can I have a hit off of it?

That slimey trail of burden shifting....

I gather then the notion of "independence"" is irrelevant to LOM.

Great thing about hegemony.

The first sentence is probably true. The second is an ill-directed aspersion.

Solo

I seriously doubt that, Toto. Paul is being playful but in a different way.

Besides, "God's gift to women" is a poor attempt at a putdown as it leaves the one who says it fatally exposed. When it was aimed at me in the days when I was not only smart and good looking but also a great stud, it was from the sour puss types trying to politicize their misery. My standard response was:

"I wouldn't worry about that, baby (as in here); I am God's gift to women, all right, but only to the deserving ones !"

Best,
Jiri

jdl

I get the impression LOM is talking about direct dependence when you're talking about shared dependence on a religious perspective. You're probably both correct by your own definitions, but just not on the same page as each other.

judge

Do you see Mary Helena, you need to feel guilty!

Despite being a self styled anti-relgionist it's amazing how similar this is to the guilt manipulating tactics of religionists themselves.

Thiose who use modern linguistics (for example) to analyse the passage and conclude differently are fanatics and accomplices and should feel guilty.

Duvduv

Yes, you have a point as it relates to the historicists. I was just trying to poke a hole in the balloon even without relying on a discussion of the linguistic issues.

LegionOnomaMoi

No kidding. Well, that tends to happen after being up for more than 24 hours and a few (more than one and less than a dozen) drinks. My apologies.

LegionOnomaMoi

That's indicative of something else altogether. Usually insomnia and alcohol. However, I do appreciate your amusing shift from direct address to 3rd person rebuttal.

This isn't actually confusion but a use of a term due to the particular "apostles" (or even THE apostle) Paul is mainly concerned with.

Right. He made a special note that he spent 15 days with Peter. They must have been discussing the weather. He describes his confrontation with Peter over a fundamental ideological difference: The issue of gentiles and how they should be "converted" (i.e., did joining the Jesus sect involve accepting mosaic law, including circumcision, or had the risen christ superseded all that?).

As there was no "orthodoxy" using literature which reflected either orthodox or non-orthodox views would be impossible.

Talk about incoherence. What on earth does "independent" from "tradition development" have to do with anything? Luther and Vatican II are also part of "tradition development." The question is whether or not these sources were using different literary or oral/aural sources. John and Thomas also intersect at times with Q (esp. Thomas) or the syntoptics in general. Yet Thomas reflects a very, very, different ideology than the Synoptics or John, and John's theology is absent in the synoptics. Simply lumping it all under "christianity" by projecting a modern categorization which didn't exist and is utterly inadequate doesn't allow one to then claim interdependence. Unless of course one isn't applying historical methods at all, but applying the kind of "apologetic" nonsense you are (and fundamentalists do).



They do, actually, but they need not and it's again irrelevant. The question isn't whether or not Acts is part of some completely "independent tradition" but whether or not the author knew of Paul's letters. Your argument is "christians are christians and it's all one tradition so we can simply abandon the methods employed by textual critics, historians, etc., to determine literary dependence and make up whatever we want."

judge

Yes, once Paul became a follower of Jesus he then decided to go get aquainted with Peter because Peter didnt follow Jesus.
It would be the logical thing to do wouldn't it?


Then, 15 years later he goes to talk to Peter again, (naturally as Peter does not believe In jesus), and he and peter decide how they will spilt up the turf.
Why they would do this of only one of them believed in jesus is a mystery.

aa5874

When did these thing happen??? Why do people here PRESUME the veracity and historical accuracy of the Pauline writings while at the same time claim the Pauline writings were manipulated??

HJers seem to have the right to assume their own history and then have problems with those who reject their presumptions.