J-D

Ya think?

I'm trying to be fair. I'm also trying to be precise.Granted.Firstly, it is sometimes possible to make inferences, with varying degrees of probability, about unrecorded events. And secondly, what seems to me implausible is the suggestion that there was no such relationship, and once it's accepted that there was some relationship I don't see how it's illegitimate to discuss what sort of relationships are possibilities.Arguing in a circle, I (respectfully) suggest. If Paul was the initiator of something new, then by definition it would not have been a continuation of something new. But was the development initiated by Paul something entirely new?But wait. How could the 'Jerusalem movement' of the 'pillars' have originated? It must have had some origin, mustn't it? And isn't the simplest explanation of its origin still be with the disciples who gathered around some original leader? And given that I still haven't seen an argument against the logic of my analysis of Galatians to the conclusion that Paul claimed that his apostolate was from the same source as the apostolate of the Jerusalem pillars, why should I not conclude that the source Paul claimed was the same as the original leader of the 'Jerusalem movement' of the 'pillars' (or his claimed inspiration)?Why not?If you did, how is that responsive to what I'm saying?

Amaleq13

Correct. I was referring to 6:12 as I'm sure you deduced.

Not in the sense of support which is how you appeared to be using it.

Yes and the "sort" is apparently "attempted-but-apparently-not-much-of-a-success". How does that help you?

You didn't answer my earlier question but it goes directly to the question of the alleged link. What does "right hand of fellowship" from 2:9 really mean given that the matter of whether gentiles need to fully convert to Judaism clearly was not resolved? That "right hand of fellowship" is your link but it is clearly undermined by the passages describing ongoing conflict. What part is true and what part is exaggeration?

spin

Patent offices are filled with patents for products that are new. They are almost always based on things that came before them. You are not saying anything extra.

Religions have often come from other religions (Jewish from Canaanite, christian from Jewish, Muslim from Jewish and christian, mormonism from christian, etc). It's not important that things derive from other things. It's that there is a different product. (Now of course mormonism claims that it is continuity from christianity. Christianity says it isn't. In that case who would you believe?)

"[E]ntirely new" is a false criterion.

We know for certain that there were messianic movements. Expectancy of the messiah was a thing of the era among some Jews. Paul, once a conservative Jew who had given messianism a hard time, goes to Jerusalem to suck up to the messianists. What's your beef?

You've already had it. Paul's new found belief system was in search of peers.

Because of what you seem to be hiding behind your claims about terminology.

The term "messianists" doesn't imply "christian". Nothing in what we see of the pillars implies christianity. The pillars give the notion of being a sect of Jews. Paul is offering something that is not acceptable to the pillars.

You would like to project christianity back before Paul. As you don't seem to be able to get back beyond the meeting with the pillars, you don't have anything to make that projection on, so your holding the view is not based on evidence. (This is where your attempt at shoveling the problem into terminology comes in.)


spin

J-D

That could only work if the the people he was addressing were aware of the existence of the tradition independently of his referring to it. The suspicion that somebody is a lone nutter is not going to be dispelled by his telling you about his imaginary friends.If the Galatians had literally zero knowledge of the pillars, things don't make sense:

Paul: I've got the pillars behind me ...
Galatians: Pillars?
Paul: The pillars, in Jerusalem ...
Galatians: What?
Paul: You know, like James and the others ...
Galatians: Never heard of them.
Paul: Well, anyway, there are these pillars in Jerusalem ...
Galatians: Pillars of what?
Paul: Well, you know, they have this tradition ...
Galatians: What tradition? This is all news to us.
Paul: Look, all I'm saying is that I have the pillars behind me ...
Galatians: Yeah, and the horse you rode in on.Well, it sounded to me as if I were arguing my case. If that sounded to you like arguing your case, then maybe your case is compatible with my case? What makes you think it isn't?That's not a direct assertion that they're worthless. It's a sidestep.Possibly. So? To be a cuckoo in the nest, you have to be in the nest.No idea what you mean by this.Yes, according to his own account (except I don't know what you mean by 'functionally'). Or to be precise, according to his own account it's the first time he met recognised leaders of it.

So?How do you know that?And how do you know that?And how do you know that?In any case, accepting what you say for a moment, so what? Let's suppose that the established leaders of the movement repudiated Paul completely. How do you think that contradicts anything I've said?

J-D

No, I didn't. Thanks for clearing that up.

What you said about that verse was that it suggested that 'the agreement' was exaggerated. What 'agreement' were you talking about? I don't think I said anything about an 'agreement', did I?Again, I don't think I said anything about support. Did I? And I don't think I meant anything about 'support', either.How does that help me do what? What do you think I'm trying to do?

What it helps me to do is to show that Paul was consciously operating within the context of a movement which existed before he was involved in it, and seeking the support of people within that movement as part of that movement. None of this would be contradicted, in any way that I can see, by any amount of evidence that earlier leaders of that movement disagreed with him or rejected him.I don't know. But it doesn't make any difference to what I'm saying. What is important to my point is that Paul thought it worth making the claim, and the implications of this would be the same even if it was a complete fabrication.

J-D

Patents are given for designs. Designs can still be patented as new designs even if they draw on features of earlier designs.

An actual machine created according to a patented design might be built by modifying or cannibalising existing machines, or it might be built from scratch. The Anglican Church, as an organisation (not an idea or design) was not built from scratch, but by modifying or cannibalising parts of an existing organisation. Islam, as an organisation, on the other hand, was built from scratch, despite the fact that its doctrines drew on existing ideas of other religions.Expecting a messiah is one thing. An actual messianic movement is another. An explanation of Sabbateanism which referred to messianic and millenarian ideas but omitted any reference to the actual activities of the man Shabtai Tzvi would be incomplete. The existence of the particular messianic movement whose leaders Paul wanted to 'suck up to' seems to me to require an explanation.

And Paul's desire to 'suck up' to the leaders of that movement also seems to me to require an explanation. The obvious possibility, on my reading, is this: he was seeking to recruit support within that movement. Claiming (even falsely) endorsement from the existing leadership is an obvious tactic.I don't understand this. How does a 'belief system' seek 'peers'? What would be 'peers' for a 'belief system'? Why would a 'belief system' seek 'peers'?And what would that be? What do you think I'm hiding?That depends on how you're defining the terms 'Christian' and 'Christianity'. Which you haven't so far. You should notice that in my recent posts I have avoided them entirely.Once again, I think you don't understand what I'm saying. Why don't you try concentrating on what I'm actually saying, as opposed to the meanings you imagine lurking behind?

spin

Not if the person is not seen as a lone nutter at first. "I'm the first in this region... There are others in other regions..."

Deep, J-D.

You want to go back somewhere where you have no evidence to go.

I gather saying that their reputation was of no value and that they had nothing to offer Paul isn't grounds for evaluating the value Paul sees for the pillars as non-existent.

The Jerusalem meeting was an attempt to put himself in the nest.

Do you normally challenge background statements when you don't dispute the basic content?

The text indicates it. Start at Gal 1:16b.

He explains where he got his knowledge of Jesus.

It followed from the previous statement.

I asked you how you can get back before Paul. Remember, this is your so far undefended claim:

the simplest explanation of Christianity is that it goes back to somebody, and any suppositious version of that somebody who is not Jesus is even less attested by evidence than Jesus and even less plausible.

So far this has been an unproductive conjecture.

We all accept that human concepts go "back to somebody", though that somebody may in reality be only a step in a wider development. I put forward the notion that that somebody in the context of christianity is Paul, as Paul gives us the earliest evidence we have of someone advocating something of what we call christianity and that evidence is according to him based on a vision, not learnt from humans. I have asked you to get back before Paul and you've got nothing to show for the efforts you've made that is more "plausible" than Paul, despite your claim that "any suppositious version of that somebody who is not Jesus is even less attested by evidence than Jesus and even less plausible". Your claim from what you've said, or not said, appears to be baseless.

Unless you can get back before Paul, your claim will remain unsupported conjecture.


spin

spin

Mohammed was a different kind of personality from Paul. Nevertheless, they both got much of their theology and ideas from what came before.

So, do the DSS represent a movement or not? The community was certainly messianic.

OK.

Umm, the language is a bit more flexible than your use of it indicates. It's difficult to separate Paul from his new belief system, isn't it? The Paul of that belief system sought peers, etc.

Reducing discussions to terminology tends to stop whatever it was you were saying. You tell me what that "whatever it was" is.

Extracting you from dealing with content. Christianity is a religion which is based on a religious figure named Jesus who was crucified according to the tradition -- not a definition, but a necessary condition. Paul has this condition.

Just in case you've forgotten, here it is again:

the simplest explanation of Christianity is that it goes back to somebody, and any suppositious version of that somebody who is not Jesus is even less attested by evidence than Jesus and even less plausible.

spin

J-D

Is it? Why?

Amaleq13

I still haven't. It was 2:12.

The agreement implied by the "right hand of fellowship".

You said "link" and pointed to this passage about the "right hand of fellowship".

You appear to be trying to establish that there was a successful link between Paul and the Jerusalem group by pointing to a statement that seems to be, at best, an exaggeration. spin acknowledged that Paul sought a link but failed. You countered that Gal 2:9 indicated Paul "succeeded in achieving a link". If you did not intend to suggest that the "link" was positive in nature, you chose your words quite poorly.

Disagreement and rejection are the opposite of success in achieving a link.


You are saying that Paul "succeeded in achieving a link" even though you don't know whether it was a genuinely successful link or not? Surely you can see that it does make a rather significant difference.