JoeWallack

JW:
Disagreement regarding Paul's attitude towards The Law:

1) Paul communicates that no one should follow the Law and does not attach any qualification (JW).

2) It is OK for Jews to continue to follow the Law as long as they understand belief in Christ has negated the necessity. (Doug)

Okay Doug, I'm still trying to understand your position here. Regarding Paul's attitude towards Gentiles following the Law you believe:

Galatians has a context that the Galatians are being circumcised because they think it is necessary for Salvation?

I think we agree that Paul thought there was no advantage whatsoever for Gentiles to follow any/all of the Ritual Law?

Moving beyond this you do not appear to have given much thought to Gentiles following some Ritual Law for reasons other than Salvation (think of modern Messies). Do you think this would create an appearance problem in Paul's mind or is it just not part of the context of Galatians?



Joseph

PAULMISTERY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Amaleq13

Yes. Paul is complaining that some members of his Galatians flock are falling for the arguments/complaints/criticism of "those of the circumcision" and, as he sees it, that constitutes a complete rejection of his gospel.

I think Paul makes it clear it offers an advantage to no one.

Only because Paul doesn't talk about it.

The latter, I think, though any outward appearance of conformity seems to be a problem for Paul. He appears to equate that with acceptance of the requirement.

Ben C Smith

I see; so I did. Thanks for the correction.

On that score, however, I do not really see how you are getting the human negative from Romans 15.15-21. Paul says that it is by the grace of God that he is a minister to the gentiles. He also says that he will not speak of anything except what Christ has done through him; this does not mean that nothing else exists; it means that he will not speak of it. He also says that he does not intend to preach where Christ has already been preached; this has nothing to do with the origins of his gospel, but only to do with how he intends to use it.

Perhaps you could explain this for me a bit further. Thanks.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Okay, the disagreement:

1) Paul communicates that no one should follow the Law and does not attach any qualification (JW).

2) It is OK for Jews to continue to follow the Law as long as they understand belief in Christ has negated the necessity. (Doug)

My first claimed point in this Thread supporting my Position:

1) Paul does not state at the start of Galatians that he has a separate/different Gospel for the Gentiles. What he does state is that he has been called to preach his Gospel to the Gentiles. So you lack the distinction you need at the start.

Doug, let me try and make clear the relationships between our disagreement above and my first claimed point. Your position is that Galatians as a whole favors a context of why someone follows the Law as opposed to if the Law should be followed? You also claim that because the audience here are Gentiles this favors a context of why over if?



Joseph

PAULMISTERY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Amaleq13

I continue to deny the necessity asserted in the final sentence and you have yet to offer any justification for the assumption. I do not "need" any such distinction "at the start".

Yes.

That is certainly part of the reason though the primary reason for my conclusion is the collective weight of the numerous statements Paul makes throughout the letter that identify "why" as central to the issue. The fact that he never condemns simply following the Law is also relevant.

JoeWallack

JW:
My original point behind 1) is that you are arguing that because the context of Galatians is to Gentiles this supports a Context of why part/all the Law should be followed as opposed to if. After fleshing this out with you (and I must say I feel here like I do about sex, I'm up here doing all the work and she's down there making all the noise) I understand your/the reasons for thinking so:

1 - Specifically for circumcision, a big issue (so to speak) for Galatians is why an adult Gentile would do it unless they thought there was some advantage.

2 - In General Gentiles wouldn't have the reason of Custom/Tradition to follow Ritual Laws so there would be the same issue of why.

I'm not sure about "support" but I think these reasons do favor a context for Galatians of why over if based on the Gentile audience. I do think the specific underlying issue is being Jewish rather than Salvation but have to concede that even if it is being Jewish it still falls in the advantage category.

So at this point I withdraw my Point 1) (must be losing my edge). 6 more to go.



Joseph

PAULMISTERY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Amaleq13

Um...yikes?

Yes and yes.

Ah, progress.

JoeWallack

JW:
Okay, the disagreement:

1) Paul communicates that no one should follow the Law and does not attach any qualification (JW).

2) It is OK for Jews to continue to follow the Law as long as they understand belief in Christ has negated the necessity. (Doug)

My second claimed point in this Thread supporting my Position:

2) Paul never makes your qualification in his details in Galatians.

JW:
What I'm looking for here is a qualification from Paul that it was okay for anyone to follow the Law if they thought there was no advantage. I'll assume there is no such Explicit statement in Galatians. Now what exactly (quotes) do you have for Implications?



Joseph

PAULMISTERY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

JoeWallack

JW:
"the grace that was given me of God,

15:16 that I should be a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles"

JW:
Paul's authority is Divine.

"15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any things save those which Christ wrought through me"

JW:
Paul's source is Divine.

"15:20 yea, making it my aim so to preach the gospel, not where Christ was [already] named, that I might not build upon another man`s foundation;"

JW:
Paul's Reason for seeking virgin territory is that he does not want an audience that had a Human source.



Joseph

PAULMISTERY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Amaleq13

Yes, the explicit statements we've already seen in this thread came from Romans.

Nothing I haven't already written. In Galatians 3:19, 21 and 24 Paul refers to the Law as "ordained by angels", says "God forbid" to the notion that the Law is against the promises of God, and refers to the Law as a "schoolmaster" who brings you to Christ.

None of those statements are consistent with the complete rejection of the Law you are claiming.