Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ripley · 04-22-2009, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Based on the passage, your earthly name is irrelevant, the passage refers to ANYONE.

You're missing the potential wordplay that Loomis is talking about.

Think about the Parable of the Sower for a second (Mark 4:1-20). In this parable, Mark could very well be making a play on words. Peter's name means "rock," and Peter is like the rocky ground in the parable, and his faith like the seed, "immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away." You can see how this could be a metaphor referring to Peter's eventual denial of Jesus.

Matthew could be making a similar play on words, but this time in reference to Paul.

Solo · 04-22-2009, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

I think you are getting the wrong end of things. Paul isn't taking being zealous for the traditions of his fathers as some kind of real merit on his part.

He does precisely that and because of that I think 1 Cor 15:3-11 is pseudo-Paul. He is arguing vehemently that he was justified in his former outlook by his blameless interpretation of the law. It was only through God's plan for Paul that he came to Christ. He owes nothing to no-one on that score.

Quote:

(The tradition of the elders can make void the word of God.)

Quote:

God "revealing his son in me" was not due to God being pleased with Paul, but rather that it pleased God to do so.

So, he was not pleased with Paul and that is why it pleased God "to reveal his son in him". Right ?

Quote:

Thus the echo of Jeremiah 1:5 and Isaiah 49:1 when Paul says that he was set apart from the womb.

Ach so ! I see: Paul strayed from God's covenant with Israel by blamelessly following the law of Moses. Right ? That's why God was pleased with himself and revealed to Paul the thing about his uncanny bodily experiences that he would not reveal to anyone else. Right ?

Quote:

Your quotation from Phillipians is cut short. Verse 7 says that "those things which were a gain to me, I count as a loss because of Christ."

You are clueless: Paul says that he follows God wherever God leads him. It's an expression of piety. In no way Paul confesses (before other men) that he was unworthy on account of his faithful adherence to Judaic traditions.

Quote:

But it only appears to be about Paul if you decide to read the gospel after the manner of a 19th century German crypto-atheist theologian.

which ones ? I am sure I would be honoured !

Quote:

In the context in which it appears it is plainly about the scribes and the Pharisees who accuse Jesus of negating the law,

....well, was Paul not a scribe and a Pharisee ?

Quote:

but who Jesus says are guilty of teaching people not to obey God in the small things. The small things are not cultivating hatreds and not cultivating the lusts that can lead to thoughts of adultery and so forth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

....he says, he is 'unfit to be called an apostle', which strikes me as really bizzare and un-Pauline considering that Paul saw himself appointed by God himself and not men. In whose eyes was Paul an unfit apostle ? In his own eyes ?

Yes. In his own eyes he is unfit. Paul is very sure of his own calling and authority, but he isn't some kind of monster who has always been perfect and is sure that he deserves to be God's mouthpiece. In the tradition of the Prophets, he is God's mouthpiece even though he is unfit.

Peter.

Sounds like a Sunday school lecture, Peter. The issue here is not what Paul confesses to himself (and God, if he is true to himself) but whether his former career was blameworthy and whether he would question his apostolic authority before his congregation at Corinth, especially while arguing with a faction there about the central tenet of his faith.

Jiri

Clivedurdle · 04-22-2009, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Factually incorrect - the Jewish civil war was won by the Maccabees who were complaining about the many Jews taking up Greek ways and dumping barbaric practices like circumcision. We do not know if they were able to impose 100% circumcision. This was by the 50's if Paul can be dated to then a three hundred year old argument.

But there is an interesting passage in Josephus where persons were forced to be circumcised by Jews.

The Life of Flavius Josephus 23.3.

Some of the words of Josephus seem to answer this question by Paul.

Romans 3:1 -

Quote:

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

That did happen - the zealots did this. My point is that they were a minority group who have won the propaganda game by getting everyone to assume all jews did this. Read up about the Maccabees wars.

aa5874 · 04-22-2009, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ripley

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Based on the passage, your earthly name is irrelevant, the passage refers to ANYONE.

You're missing the potential wordplay that Loomis is talking about.

Think about the Parable of the Sower for a second (Mark 4:1-20). In this parable, Mark could very well be making a play on words. Peter's name means "rock," and Peter is like the rocky ground in the parable, and his faith like the seed, "immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away." You can see how this could be a metaphor referring to Peter's eventual denial of Jesus.

When the word "rock" is used to signify a "solid base or foundation" there is no metaphorical similarity when used to signify the "least recommended type of soil for agricultural purposes.

And further, the word Peter is found in the gospels so one may think that the "agriculture" parable refers to Peter.

However, the word Paul is no where at all in the Gospels and it must assume without any evidence whatsoever that the author of gMatthew is writing about Saul/Paul even though the writer made it clear that he was referring to ANYONE.

Quote:

ANYONE who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

Quote:

Matthew could be making a similar play on words, but this time in reference to Paul.

Well, let's play with all the words, the word "least" is found twice in the passage.

Look at the passage again, if it is claimed [b]least in the kingdom of heaven refers to Paul, tell me who does the "least of the commandments" refer to? Paul.

Let's play with "least".

Quote:

ANYONE who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

Quote:

Anyone who breaks one of these Pauline commandments.......shall be called Paul in the kingdom of heaven.

When we play with the passage it is no longer ridicule of Paul but of those who break the Pauline commandments.

Clivedurdle · 04-22-2009, 06:23 AM

Just a comment about Pharisees. Gospels are extremely rude about a group who were actually anti slavery and interested in the spirit of the law - the radicals of the time. Now why might that be?

ripley · 04-22-2009, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, let's play with all the words, the word "least" is found twice in the passage.

...

Quote:

Anyone who breaks one of these Pauline commandments.......shall be called Paul in the kingdom of heaven.

When we play with the passage it is no longer ridicule of Paul but of those who break the Pauline commandments.

You're being too literal, my friend. It's not a matter of simple substitution here. Assuming Matthew is playing with words, the word "least" is intended as a mental cue, just a subtle hint for the audience to make a connection to Paul. You need to be gentler with the language. It won't succumb so easily to square-peg-into-round-hole tactics.

Petergdi · 04-22-2009, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

The Ebionites sure as anything knew that the Rabbis of mainstream Judaism regarded them as apostates from the law. Just because they look to have been very frum to us does not mean that the Pharisees and their successors regarded them as observant - they plainly didn't.

Peter.

The Pharisees regarded them as "heretical" for accepting Jesus as the messiah. And during the Bar Kochba revolt especially for not recognizing the messiah claims of Simon bar Kochba. The Ebionites weren't apostates from the law since they still followed the law. The only difference between the Pharisees and the Ebionites was accepting Jesus' messiah-hood.

Unless you can produce some evidence that the Ebionites weren't following the Law...

It is difficult to say much for certain about the Ebionites, but we do have this from the Talmud:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tractate Shabbat

from <http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/shabbat16.html>

Ema Shalom, the wife of R. Eliezer, who was also a sister of R. Gamaliel the Second, encountered a philosopher in her neighborhood who was a judge, and had the reputation of being inaccessible to bribery. R. Gamaliel and his sister wished to ridicule him and prove that he was accessible to bribery. Ema Shalom brought him a golden candle. He asked her what she wanted, so she answered: "My father is dead, and I wish to inherit some of his possessions." The judge said: "Go, I will order that you be given your share." Said she: "Thou canst not order it so, because our law decrees, that wherever there is a son a daughter cannot inherit." Answered the judge: "Since you Israelites are in exile, your law given you by Moses has been revoked, and a new law was given you by which daughters may inherit equally with sons." On the morrow came R. Gamaliel and brought him a Libyan ass, and told him that he did not wish to let his sister inherit. Said the judge: "After thy sister left I consulted the law again, and found that the new law said: 'I did not come to abolish the Mosaic law, neither to increase nor to diminish it.' Hence it must remain as in the old law, that where a son is left a sister must not inherit." Said Ema Shalom to the judge: "May God make thy light as bright as a candle." Said R. Gamaliel to her (in the presence of the judge): "An ass came along and extinguished thy candle."

This is obviously a reference to a Matthew like Jewish gospel which includes an "I did not come to abolish the law" saying. The Rabbis did not see the Gospel as consistent with the Law of Moses even if the Ebionites did.

The Ebionites were obviously observant by their own standards. This does not mean that the Pharisees and later Rabbis saw them that way.

Peter.

aa5874 · 04-22-2009, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ripley

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, let's play with all the words, the word "least" is found twice in the passage.

...

When we play with the passage it is no longer ridicule of Paul but of those who break the Pauline commandments.

You're being too literal, my friend. It's not a matter of simple substitution here. Assuming Matthew is playing with words, the word "least" is intended as a mental cue, just a subtle hint for the audience to make a connection to Paul. You need to be gentler with the language. It won't succumb so easily to square-peg-into-round-hole tactics.

You are not making sense.

Loomis made a simple substitution and assumption. Paul means "least", and he sees "least" in the passage and writes or implies that the author of Matthew may be ridiculing Paul completely ignoring that the passage contained the word "least" twice, and that the author of Matthew never mentioned a character called Paul anywhere.

To be gentle that process is just called cherry-picking to maintain some a priori position.

ripley · 04-22-2009, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

To be gentle that process is just called cherry-picking to maintain some a priori position.

Oh come now. You don't like it when other people bandy the "a priori" accusation about, so as much as it might be your new favourite word, you might consider that it's not always appropriate.

And being gentle has little to do with cherry-picking. It's about recognizing nuance. It's about recognizing subtle forms of communication. Matthew is probably not a very good candidate for this, I'll admit. He has a tenancy to be unbelievably ham-fisted. But that hardly means he doesn't have moments of subtlety.

There's an argument to be made against all this, sure, but you haven't made it, since you're too caught up in a futile pursuit of literalism.

Not everything is so straightforward.

Petergdi · 04-22-2009, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ripley

You're being too literal, my friend. It's not a matter of simple substitution here. Assuming Matthew is playing with words, the word "least" is intended as a mental cue, just a subtle hint for the audience to make a connection to Paul. You need to be gentler with the language. It won't succumb so easily to square-peg-into-round-hole tactics.

The wordplay just plain isn't there. If Matthew chose a word for "least" that looked anything like "paul" you might have a point, but he didn't. The passage makes perfect sense in context and it isn't about Paul.

Peter.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-22-2009, 06:23 AM	#55
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Just a comment about Pharisees. Gospels are extremely rude about a group who were actually anti slavery and interested in the spirit of the law - the radicals of the time. Now why might that be?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.