Solo

Yeah, right,... ....except there is a big problem of assigning this ridiculous interpolation to Paul. Paul, you see, was one of 'the Jews' proudly persecuted the church by his own admission (Phl 3:6, Gal 1:13) and in Acts 7. is even implicated in the stoning of Stephen, a prophet in his own right.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

No, Doherty is correct to use Hebrews (though he uses it incorrectly, IMO). Even if not by Paul, it has a claim to being early.

Ben.

3DJay

I know ... I just posted those?

He apparently admits his former sins, and it doesn't negate his derogatory comments, curses, etc., directed at Jews who continue clinging to the law. He seems to dislike those who would have been his former peers.


Peace

Solo

In so far as I understand Paul, he only curses the hypocrisy of those who preach the law but do not keep it.

Now, what you seem to be saying is that Paul condemns his fellow Jews (who evidently received no revelation of Christ as he did) for the crimes that he himself participated in. What would that make him - in the 'mind of Christ' that he professes ?

Jiri

3DJay

The way I understand it, he curses anyone who practices law/deeds over faith.
Hehe ... hypocrisy ... in the Bible? So?


Peace

Solo

I did not talk about the Bible in general, I talked about Paul. If you can show me a pattern of hypocrisy in Paul, I'll reconsider my view of him.

Jiri

Clouseau

Paul's letters reveal at least two sayings of Jesus not otherwise found in the Bible. Paul actually states that Jesus was 'born of a woman' and makes much of the 'suffering servant' theme. His general lack of reference to the ministry of Jesus can be explained by his assumption that his readers were already familiar with that ministry. Paul's theology was as rooted in OT teaching as anyone's, as one might expect from an ex-Pharisee, and the Messiah was certainly expected to be 'God with us' on the earth, and was expected by some to be a very earthly, political leader.

spamandham

If this passage is authentic, it would indeed be difficult to explain from a mystical perspective.

Solo claimed it's an interpolation, and I have seen argument that it is unlikely to have been in any writing prior to 70 CE, nor added later than 200. Does anyone here know if there is scholarly concensus on the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16?

Toto

earlychristianwritings.com lists scholarly arguments for and against authenticity. There is a general reluctance to label anything in the so called genuine Pauline letters as an interpolation. This is one of the few exception.

DramaQ

If Paul was so steeped in traditional Jewish theology, why did he use the Greek transliteration instead of “messiah”? (I know he wrote in Greek, but my point is he is already somewhat removed from the traditional connotation by using by using the transliteration.)

And why did he use it as a title, “Christ Jesus”, instead of a description, “Jesus the Christ”?

“Expected by some” perhaps, but clearly not by Paul. Otherwise why was he on and on about a crucified and re-animated spirit?

Clearly he’s off the main path of messianic expectations. It’s not so simple as this-is-what-was-generally-expected-of-a-messiah.


DQ