TedM

All throughout Galations Paul is talking about Jewish law and how faith in Christ brings about freedom from being under the curse of the Jewish law. Jesus did this by 'becoming' the curse. That doesn't mean he did something wrong, and I see no indication that Paul is saying he did, nor that Paul is taunting his opponents by implying such.

As for those persecuted in Judea, Paul writes that they said of him in Gal 1:23 "they only heard it said "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."" I don't see where Paul's belief in Jesus as a sinner deserving the cross is implied by Paul himself or by those you say believed the opposite of him.

ted

Solo

Ok, let's go right to it (things that you are missing are bolded):

Gal 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written: "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them".
11 Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "he who through faith is righteous shall live"
12 but the law does not rest on faith, for "he who does them shall live by them"
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. - fo it is written, "Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree".....

Verse 13 logically binds with verse 10. Agreed ?

If yes, then Jesus Christ was hanged on a tree because he did not abide by the law. Correct ? Right ? He was born of a woman, and under the law,....... remember that one ?

Therefore, under the law he was guilty as sin ! Right ?

Except, he knew no sin. for....God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise (1 Cor 1:27)

Is that any clearer to you now ?

Ted, I did not say Paul believed Jesus deserved the cross: remember the ARCHONTES ? If they had wisdom they would not have crucified him....you do not crucify somene who is God's fool ! That's a shame ! See what I'm driving that ?

Is it really that difficult ?

Jiri

TedM

Yes.

No, I don't think so. The 'binding' doesn't require that conclusion. The 'binding' is only indicated by Christ having redeemed us from the curse of the the Jewish law. The curse of the law in verse 10 is NOT the same curse of being hung on a tree. Paul never says that Jesus broke the Jewish law, though certainly that was possible. What ISN'T said here is WHY Jesus was able to redeem those under the law (laws of God--ie the Jewish law) from it. I think Paul believed Jesus was able to because he was, in God's eyes, a pure, sinless sacrificial lamb. Paul elsewhere calls him the paschal lamb sacrifice (which is supposed to be unblemished and the firstborn) and he says Jesus 'knew no sin', which I think means he was sinless. IF he wasn't sinless then HOW was he able to do it?

THat just means he was Jewish, automatically subject to God's laws in the Torah.


No, as explained above this conclusion is not indicated or necessary.

No. You have yet to say what 'knew no sin' means to you. What are you saying--that Jesus was foolish because he didn't understand that he was a sinner, but somehow?? God used him anyway to redeem everyone and shame the wise? That doesn't make much sense to me. What reason do you think Paul gives for Jesus being raised from the dead, if not because he thought he was sinless? If sin created death (through Adam) how does a sinner break the bonds of death?


I have no idea what you are driving at. Did Paul think Jesus was "God's fool"? What does that even mean?

ted

Solo

Commenting on the history of the legal concepts of insanity, the renowned brain pathologist Richard M. Restak revealed that the first legal ruling of innocence by reason of insanity was passed in England in what is known as "Wild Beast Test" in 1723. It declared that a person lacking totally the understanding of right and wrong may not be and object of punishment.
The rule stipulates: "the person doth not know what he is doing, is no more than a child, brute or a wild beast". Mt 18:3, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. So, let's just say for now that Paul had an appreciably greater understanding than HJ of how this world operates.
Remember ? When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (1 Cr 13:11)

By the way, the defense of insanity became quickly refined and by 1843 in England the case law included the concept of temporary or transient forms.


You said it.

A different issue, but I can see at least three reasons for that.

1) You are from Missouri.

2) What I am saying is a point of view that you most likely have not yet encountered.

3) You are more or less committed to a thesis that Jesus originated as myth, which my views challenge.

I already told you, Ted: the "magic" that Paul had in mind was "faith" which he believed was best demonstrated in acts of selfless love.

Also, in Greek, I am told, the word is larger by being more refractory, in the sense that "faith" also means "reliability" or "fiability" as a characteristic that defines the object of one's confidence.

Oh come, Ted. Everyone with an IQ over 100 thinks that of saints. Perhaps, the only surprising things are that Saint Paul thought that of HJ, that there was HJ after all and that you can believe there once was a preacher called Yeshu, without being obligated to believe fairytales about him.

Give it some rest.

Jiri

TedM

Ok, I finally get it. I've asked you several times now how the paschal lamb and "knew no sin" relate to this and only in your last reply does it seem you have said what is on your mind: that Paul believed Jesus was indeed a sinner, as were all men, but he was INSANE, having the simple faith of a child, and so God decided to raise him from the dead.

I"m now more than willing to 'give it some rest' now that I understand what you actually are saying.

That being said, I think your idea is interesting. It requires reading Paul's texts in a different way, but perhaps they can be interpreted to support it. It can also explain why Paul says so little about the HJ. However, I don't see anywhere that Paul outright says or implies that Jesus was insane. IOW I don't see any real positive evidence for your theory.

Thanks for sharing.

By the way, I'm not a J-myther.

ted