dog-on

I see. So Paul, in your view, is bullshitting when he says:

LegionOnomaMoi

I've read Casey's Jesus of Nazareth. Please apply some basic logic and reason before posting. It saves time.

What Casey says (and this should be obvious to anyone with a grasp of the English language and a modicum of intelligence) is that Mark's "sources" were in Aramaic, and thus the author can't be "translating" when composing Mark. In other words, when I said: it means that Casey claims Mark had various Aramaic sources which he used (and, because he wrote in Greek, thus translated) when writing his gospel.

This is no more contentious than claiming that Matthew and Luke used a text we refer to as Q. We don't have it, but we have reason to believe it exists. Likewise, long, long, before Casey scholars realized that
1) The structure of Mark is indicative of an author "stringing together" various component elements
2) The language used is influenced by Aramaic

As for doing "some research" I have not only read Casey's Jesus of Nazareth, a work intended for non-specialists who can't read greek, hebrew, or aramaic, but three of his technical monographs. So before making such condescending remarks (and, by the way, I really hope that you did so not only having read the work you refer to, but having a very comprehensive knowledge of NT scholarship and an ability to read the required primary and secondary languages, such as German, Greek, French, Latin, and so on), try actually reading what I said before responding.

Duvduv

I already explained that there is no such thing as physical cleaning involved in immersion.

dog-on

Ummm, what?

Iskander

Galatians 2:6-10 is about the conflict between the Jerusalem church still observing Jewish law and the innovator Paul determined to rewrite the ‘ constitution’ to open the Roman market to the new business.

The Jerusalem church, Paul says, accepted that the gentiles were his patch; the ‘judaizers’ will abstain from interfering in his marketing plan.

In Galatians 2:6-10 , Paul is announcing that the followers of Jesus no longer speak with one voice, nor are they ruled by one law: there is now one apostle for the gentiles preaching what he knows to be right because he heard it from the horse’s mouth, and there is another apostle for the Jews preaching observance of the Jewish law.

Paul says ‘he was given the right’ , but it is clear that he forced the issue; the American people, for example, might say the British gave them the right to govern America.

The Jerusalem church only asked that this new religion Paul was founding should continue to remember the poor by sharing the lord supper with them.

Diogenes the Cynic

How is this a contradiction to anything? This is Paul saying they gave him permission to preach to Gentiles. He's claiming apostolic authority TO preach, no comment about the content of what he preaches other than that they wanted him to "remember the poor."

Diogenes the Cynic

What do you think "purification of the flesh" means?

Look, it's not literally a physical cleaning, in that the person doesn't get literally washed squeaky clean, it's still a symbolic cleansing of flesh, but they still parsed a difference between spirit and flesh. They thought they could ritually clean the body, but cleaning the body did not clean the soul of sin. Only God could do that.

dog-on

It has to do with having one's cake.

So, to be clear, your position is that Peter, John , James, et. al. Jerusalemites were not party to "any belief in a new covenant or see Jesus as a redeemer of sins". Is this correct?

Iskander

Your invitation to speculate is leading nowhere.


Galatians 2:6-10 means that Paul “was given permission to preach’.
His preaching meant a break with the Jerusalem church, but the war with the Romans and defeat at the hands of the ‘orthodox papist church’ made it impossible to know how the Jerusalem church might have evolved or even what it was that they understood by living as a follower of the man known to us as Jesus the Christ, the one who handed the keys of heaven to Peter!!!. And loves to be eaten by wanking priests!!!

Diogenes the Cynic

Absolutely correct. They could not have believed that and still observed Jewish law. We don't know, and probably will never know, exactly how they viewed Jesus, but the Pillars, at least, did not recognize any new covenant or personal redemption.