JoeWallack

Love Comes To Everyone

JW:
Summary of the disagreement between JW and Doug:

Based primarily on Galatians:

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

2) Paul communicates that no one should follow the Law If the reason is thinking that it assists in obtaining Salvation (Doug).

I have previously listed 7 main points in this Thread supporting my position. I will list them again here, one at a time, with each followed by Doug's objection, if any, to date:

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.

JW:
Whether Paul communicates in Galatians that his Gospel to the Gentiles is different than what he thinks the Gospel to the Jews should be is the Issue we are discussing. Paul Explicitly makes specific points that the Gospel is the same for Jews and Gentiles and never Explicitly makes a specific point regarding the Law that there is a difference. Since the Explicits and Specifics support me here, the Implications you claim above can not overcome Explicits and Specifics. Plus, I've already supplied an explanation, supported by Explicits and Specifics explaining the distinction. The difference is Paul is preaching to Gentiles and not Jews and the relevant issue is whether the Gentiles can become Jews. The significance Doug is who is the Audience. This is compatible with your observations above:

1 - "Paul explicitly describes his gospel as that which he preached to gentiles"

The Jews don't want and won't let Paul preach to Jews because he says you can be Jewish without following the Law.

2 - "explicitly identifies where he preached"

See 1

3 - "explicitly describes the agreement between himself and the "pillars""

See 1

In Summary, the Explicits and Specifics of Galatians support:

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

and Paul Explicitly stating that his Gospel is for the Gentiles does not require an Implication that it is different from what his Gospel would be for Jews because I have supplied a compatible explanation, that the difference is the Issue of who is Jewish and not different Gospels.



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

Ben C Smith

I think this scorecard needs retallied slightly. It seems the only source you have in Romans for the assertion that there was no human source for the Pauline gospel is this:

But this doxology is textually suspect. Please see Harry Gamble, Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans.

Ben.

Amaleq13

I've said it so many times, Joe, but you still can't get it right? tsk and tsk

Paul communicates that no one should consider the Law a requirement for salvation.

As I pointed out, you have never explained why Paul must make this statement from the beginning or why we should pretend that he doesn't make it quite explicitly later in the letter. That explanation has still not been proffered so this continues to be no "point" at all.

Paul explicitly differentiates between the two and we've already read those passages. That he does so is fundamentally problematic for your position regardless of whether he explicitly describes the specific differences in what was preached to each.

Patent nonsense. He explicitly condemns those who, contrary to his gospel, insist that adherence to the Law is a requirement.

But they clearly do not. Paul explicitly differentiates between the two in direct contradiction to your assertion that they were the same and specifically condemns insisting adherence to the Law as a requirement.

No kidding. :huh: The problem with this difference was that certain Christ-believing Jews were insisting that any such convert is required to follow the purity codes where Paul was preaching that belief in Christ was sufficient, in and of itself.

This doesn't come from Galatians or, as far as I can see, anywhere else in Paul's letters. There is no indication Paul was ever interested in preaching to Jews nor is there any indication he was ever opposed for wanting to do so. We don't have any indication that considering the Law a requirement was even an issue for Jewish believers in Christ. Apparently because they had always followed the Law and never thought that their newfound faith in Christ suggested they do anything else.

You keep saying this even though we've seen that the text fails to support it. :huh:

Paul consistently and explicitly denies that the Law should be considered a requirement for salvation. I've pointed this out repeatedly but you keep ingoring it. He never states or even implies that no one should follow the Law. In fact, he clearly and explicitly says positive things about the Law. He says it was necessary to bring people to Christ!

JoeWallack

JW:
I agree that you would be a better Source for your conclusion here than me, Paul or Paul's Jesus so, as Inspector Clouseau would say, "Now we are getting somewhere!". If we could only find you an Argument to go with your conclusion. (I'll remind you that you were the one who was originally convinced by Doherty).

Let me back up here. You keep agreeing with me that Paul has the same position on the Law for Jews and Gentiles. You insist though that Paul's Gospel is somehow different. What exactly is it different from and how exactly is it different?



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've repeated it so many times I can't believe you can't find it.



Paul insists it was different when he specifically differentiates it and I see no reason to ignore him. We've already discussed that his target audience was apparently the primary difference and that we aren't told any other specific differences except that certain believing Jews objected to Paul telling gentiles they didn't have to follow the Law.

JoeWallack

This Gospel Song

JW:
The Disagreement restated:

Based primarily on Galatians:

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

2) Paul communicates that no one should consider the Law a requirement for salvation. (Doug).

JW:
Doug, I agree with 2) so I need to try and refine it to highlight our disagreement. Put the other way, I think your Position is Paul communicates that it is okay to follow some/all of the Law if you do not consider it a requirement for salvation. Is this fair or do you want to reword it?



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

It is OK for Jews to continue to follow the Law as long as they understand belief in Christ has negated the necessity. Paul seems to think that a Christ-believing gentile can't choose to get circumcised for any other reason than belief in its necessity. As a male, I can certainly understand that assumption. I certainly wouldn't choose to do it unless I felt I had to.

JoeWallack

CrackerJew Palace

JW:
Wouldn't Gentiles have to be circumcised in order to be Jewish? The related question is according to whom? Since we are trying to zero in on Paul here, I've already stated that I think Paul thought, post Jesus, that Gentiles did not have to follow any Ritual Law, including circumcision, in order to be Jews. Everyone just needed Faith (actually Faith in Jesus. actually Faith in Paul's Jesus). What's your position on this Doug?



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:
Ben, you've made the wrong connection here between my quotes and my commentary that was used for my Scorecard. I think there is an Implication above for no Human source but it's not Explicit so I didn't include it in my scorecard. Here is the correct connection:



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

Not anymore if they have faith in Christ. Paul is essentially redefining "Jewish" and some Christ-believing Jews were apparently taking exception to it.

If I understand this question correctly, Christ through Paul (according to Paul).

I agree. Faith in Christ met a greater requirement so no lesser requirements need be met.