TedM

I can see how one might read into the passages the idea that Paul was being very diplomatic with regard to Apollo.

I agree (as does Acts) that Paul wasn't referring to the pillars as his opponents at the time of his writings to Galations and the Corinthians. I dont' think 2 Cor 11:4 makes clear what you suggest. And it isn't odd to me that Paul's references to "another Jesus", "another gospel", and "another spirit" are all referring to the new covenant made possible by the death and resurrection of Jesus--a new covenant of salvation for Gentiles which is revealed through scripture. The strongest evidence of this to me is how Paul talks about the points of dissention--especially in Galations. It is clear to me that he is talking about opponents who were telling the Gentile Galations that they must get circumcized. Paul's response is that salvation is through faith. In 5:12 he writes "I wish that those who would unsettle you would mutilate themselves!" This doesn't sound like a group that is unsettling them with regard to a different interpretation of a divine intermediate Son, or Revealer Christ.

I feel like I've intruded (and am doing so again) on the topic at hand. Another thread would probably be a better place for discussions regarding "another Jesus".

ted

Amaleq13

I can create a split if there is sufficient interest.

It seems to me that, at the very least, you have to assume that Paul's opponents were attributing their teachings about Gentiles and the Law to Jesus. I agree, as you know, with Earl here that "another Jesus" makes no sense as simply a reference to claims by "Judaizers" that Gentile converts must follow the Law. Given your interpretation, there has to be a direct connection to Jesus and that can only be a claim that this is something Jesus commanded.

I think it is quite problematic for your interpretation that Paul responds to their claim not by asserting his opponents are falsely attributing this command to Jesus but by asserting they are teaching "another Jesus".

TedM

I think you are taking "another Jesus" much more literally than Paul intended. He doesn't use that phrase in Galations at all, but he does use the phrase "another gospel"--the same phrase he uses in 2 Cor 11:4--right after also using the phrase "another Jesus". I therefore think Paul uses the phrases to mean the same thing. Rather than rely on what I think "another Jesus" means from the sound of it, I am relying on what he writes about his opponents. He doesn't write about a different conception of who Jesus was/is. He writes about circumcision, and salvation for Gentiles, and faith, etc.. To focus on only the words "another Jesus" to derive its meaning seems quite restrictive to me.

ted

Amaleq13

As far as I can tell, you've got nothing to support interpreting him as being somehow non-literal here except your personal preference. He deliberately chose that phrase for a reason and your interpretation simply does not provide that reason. In fact, your interpretation is entirely created to avoid the most apparent meaning. I agree that "another Jesus" should be understood to be essentially equivalent with "another gospel" but, again, this appears to be a far more fundamental declaration of difference than you seem willing to accept.

There is a significant difference between declaring that a given command cannot be legitimately attributed to Jesus and declaring that a given command represents "another Jesus". That is a fundamental and comprehensive characterization of one's opponents that clearly goes beyond denying a different interpretation of the same figure. The fact that Paul focuses on the specific issue of whether following the Law is required of Gentile converts does not change the more broad and fundamental nature of the phrase. All that really suggests is that this issue was the most important specific difference to his audience. Given that it involved cutting one's penis, I think it is entirely understandable that the subject was considered the most important difference to Paul's audience.

Again, there is an obvious and significant difference between the following assertions but your interpretation attempts to render them synonymous:

1) My opponents do not teach the same Jesus I do.

2) My opponents attribute false commands to Jesus.

I'll split this tangent into its own thread but I question whether the discussion can progress from this difference in interpretation.

TedM

If it is more fundemental, where is the evidence that it is more fundamental than the issue of Gentile salvation through faith in the resurrected Jesus which doesn't require adherance to Jewish law?

You said You appear to be admitting that there is little evidence for a broader interpretation.

I'm having a hard time seeing why you hold to this position.

I don't see how my interpretation renders these as synonymous at all because my interpretation says nothing about Jesus' commands. Rather it is about Paul's gospel regarding salvation--a gospel derived primarily from scriptures.

ted



ted

Amaleq13

This has already been explained, Ted. The "evidence" is in the plain meaning of the phrase. Declaring that his opponents teach "another Jesus" is clearly more fundamental than declaring they are wrong in their interpretation of what Jesus commanded. Paul is asserting that they are wrong about Jesus. In fact, they are so wrong about Jesus that he feels he can characterize them as teaching "another Jesus". This specific point, alone, does not appear to warrant such a charge.

I have no idea how you obtain that conclusion from what I wrote. First, this is not a "broader interpretation" but an interpretation based on the plain meaning of the phrase. The plain meaning of the phrase has broad implications. Second, I understand why this particular issue might have been considered of primary importance but that doesn't change the fact that Paul's choice of phrase indicates the differences to go beyond that point. It makes no sense to declare that they are wrong about Jesus if what is really meant is that they are wrong on this particular doctrine.

I suspect that is because you refuse to accept what Paul wrote at face value. A broad accusation that is accompanied by discussion of a specific point does not change the broad nature of the accusation nor does it suggest that the broad accusation should be reinterpreted to mean only the specific point discussed.

Apparently, I was not clear enough in my previous post where I explained this. If the command that Gentile converts must adhere to Jewish Law was not attributed to Jesus by Paul's opponents, then it makes no sense whatsoever for Paul to characterize them as preaching "another Jesus", Ted. There has to have been a connection made for the phrase to make any sense at all.

No matter how one interprets Paul's phrase, he is clearly connecting their teachings on conversion to their teachings on Jesus.

TedM

I don't have such a restrictive viewpoint. "Another Jesus" is vague. It could refer to a Jesus with different characteristics while living,such as one who performed miracles vs one who only was a teacher. Or, it could refer to a Jesus with different characteristics after his death, such as one who was not resurrected vs one who was. Or, it could refer loosely to the gospel concerning that Jesus, such as one who ushered in Gentile salvation through faith alone vs one who ushered in Gentile salvation through adoption of Jewish law. Or, it could refer to a different kind of heavenly figure than Paul's alleged figure: a kinglike Messiah as opposed to a humble crucified "ideal man".


I agree that 2 Cor is not as clear as Galations. In Galations, it is to me very clear that the "other gospel" Paul is talking about is exactly what I said. He provides lots of evidence for it and none against it.

As for 2 Cor, I am less certain. It may be referring to a different conception of Jesus himself since he writes "another Jesus". However, Had Jesus lived, had followers, been thought to have been the Messiah, and been crucified, and thought by some to have been resurrected from the dead, then it would make sense that there would be many different viewpoints about who Jesus was, so the preaching of "another Jesus" would not be unexpected. There are any number of possible interpretations which are compatible with the traditional view of a historical Jesus.

Paul spends much of the entire book of 2 Cor defending his ministry. One might expect it to have plenty of clues about what the opponents were saying, which would illuminate "another Jesus". Let me ask you, what--to you--does the entire book of 2 Cor reveal about who this "other Jesus" was?

Starting back at square one--I'm not positive that Paul says that someone had been "preaching another Jesus". What he says is "IF someone comes to you", and "I am afraid...that your minds WILL BE LED astray". It could be that the Corinthians were hearing different ideas about Paul's gospel, but not really about Jesus himself, and that THAT was a hypothetical challenge (which Paul also feared) that hadn't come about yet. Perhaps this explains the lack of references to some other type of Jesus.

ted

Amaleq13

That isn't what you said before this thread was split off:

You now seem to be saying something completely different.

TedM

Sorry for the confusion. The very fact that "another Jesus" IS vague is why I base my interpretation on what Paul actually wrote about opponent viewpoints as opposed to a literal interpretation of the phrase. However, I AM a bit less clear with regard to whether "another Jesus" in 2 Cor can be equated to "another gospel" in Galations. My view is this:

1. In Galations those Paul said preached "another gospel" are those who said Gentile Christians must follow Jewish law. Paul makes numerous references to this and nothing more fundamental than the related concept of 'salvation through faith' throughout the letter. The viewpoint of Paul's opponents are made clear.

2. Paul's opponents in 2 Cor may be the same kind of group, as evidenced by some of Paul's statements in 2 Cor. in defense of his ministry.

3. The fact that he used "another gospel" and "another spirit" in the same verse as "another Jesus" might indicate that he considered the phrases to mean much the same thing. If so, it is reasonable to conclude that the opponents in Corinth were saying the same things as those in Galatia.

4. The viewpoint(s) of Paul's opponents in 2 Cor are not as clear as in Galations, as I said in my original reply to Earl.

5. In 2 Cor, as I stated in my last post, Paul's opponents may not have preached "another Jesus" at all. Those that preached another Jesus may have been a hypothetical group based on the way he phrased it. The fact that he doesn't (I think) reference some other kind of Jesus anywhere in the entire book lends further support to that idea.

6. Even if Paul was talking about opponents who were preaching about a different kind of Jesus/Christ such an occurance would not be unexpected if Jesus had been historical: People would have disputed the doings and characteristics of such a man, people would have disputed whether he was God, god's Son, and angel, a prophet, or a criminal, people would have disputed whether he rose from the dead or not and whether such rising for physical or spiritual, people would have disputed about whether he was a pre-existing being or not, people would have disputed whether he was the Messiah or Wisdom incarnated, and people would have disputed his role in the plan of salvation for both the Jews and the Gentiles.

Amaleq13

Identifying the specifics doesn't change the fact that Paul is asserting that they are teaching a different Jesus and that is certainly more consistent with Doherty's explanation than anything you've offered in response. What you've described are different interpretations of the same guy. Paul does not say that they are teaching different things about Jesus than I am. He says they are teaching another Jesus. You want to make them the same but they are not.

I think the two phrases are the same in that they both describe beliefs or doctrines with which Paul disagrees but which also somehow fall under the same "Christian" umbrella. Many more differences could fit under the "other gospel" category than "another Jesus". In fact, everything in your #6 seems more the former than the latter.

In the sense that they all describe beliefs Paul considers false, yes, but "wrong teachings", "wrong revelations" and "the wrong Jesus" are clearly not identical.

On the contrary, I think he makes it pretty clear at the end of that same chapter that he is talking about existing opponents.

Yet nobody thought to resolve this dispute by asking the guys who knew the living Jesus what he taught on the subject.

Yes but they would all have agreed they were arguing about the same guy, Ted, and that is the point.