Rick Sumner

No need. Read 5:22. Why won't God accept their sacrifices? What does the sacrifice represent? He certainly doesn't indicate that he's down on sacrifice--refusing to accept them is a part of the punishment for their iniquity. Not much of a punishment if he's decided they aren't important anymore. It doesn't say that he never wants them again, it doesn't say that sacrifice should be without merit, it says that the usual rites of atonement (sacrifice, etc.), and the usual ways of appealing to God for help aren't going to cut it this time.

The passage needs to be read in the context of the preceding chapters, which fluidly lead up to it. If you take that context away, you can read whatever you like into it.

Again, this sounds good if we ignore the four preceding chapters.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

freigeister

No Need, huh? There is nothing in the preceding chapters that could explain why the prophet cites the fact that under Moses there was no sacrifice, other than for the self-evident reason that the prophet opposes sacrifice.

You'll never admit that the whole Christian doctrine of sacrifice is an apish parody of a debased form of Judaism. So, congratulations for going to the mat in championing Christian orthodoxy in all its paganized pharisaism. All the same, here's another one for ya:


Christ was hard enough on the Pharisees. Whatever would he make of you?

Rick Sumner

Sure there is. God is explaining that he's quite capable of acting with out it, to explain how now he will be quite capable of acting whether it's given or not.

The point is that God answers only to God, not that God has no use for sacrifice, unless you'd suggest that all ritualism was rejected in Jewish antiquity. God rejects the feast days, hymns, and assemblies too.

What the Christian doctrine of sacrifice is is ultimately irrelevant to me, has no bearing on anything I've mentioned in this thread, and doesn't harbour a lot of interest. My interest is historical, not theological.

Congratulations on ending my participation in this discussion. For future reference, you'll either:

1) Lay of the flames, or

2) Find yourself without my participation. Take that for whatever you think it's worth.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

freigeister

So, sacrifice is optional. Fine

It was rejected...by the prophets.




This thread is about the history of theology, specifically about the wholly Jewish nature of Christian origins. This particular part of the discussion is about whether Christian notions about sacrifice are derived from Judaism or somewhere else. Specifically, it was argued that sacrifice is an essential part of both Judaism and Hellenism, and thus Christian notions may be derived from one or the other. I am arguing that authentic Christianity derives exclusively from the prophetic stream of Judaism, wherein sacrifice is rejected. The Christian religion of the masses has embraced sacrifice as part of the welter of notions it has absorbed mostly from priestly/Pharasaic Judaism, but with all manner of pagan elements thrown in.

Please pardon me for any offense.

andrewcriddle

IMO 'The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English' by Geza Vermes is the best translation (although some of Vermes' introduction would be disputed by other scholars).

Andrew Criddle

CJD

Right. In even simpler terms, it's the difference between an Alexandrian and a Palestinian, of which Paul was the latter. Hellinistic influences were latent throughout the empire, and the Judaisms of the first-century were no exception. The point is that Paul's thought is entirely sourced by the Judaism of his day.

First, I would think he disdained hellenistic Jews (i.e., "lovers of Rome"), as well as those Jews who pursued a "live and let live" policy (those who wanted to be just left alone from Gentile oppression so they could practice Torah in the land). But his persecution of, for example, both Stephen and those whom he actually pursued abroad, can only be understood in terms of his belief that they (Jewish [or proselyte] Christians, not 'god-fearers') were being disloyal to Torah (and thus YHWH). Again, in order to bring in the kingdom, repentance and purging the land was necessary.

I am not so sure why you state that Paul only persecuted churches 'outside Judea'. All Gal 1:22 says, in context, is that Paul was not personally known by Christians in either 1) the Roman province of Judea (which included Judah, Samaria, and Galilee) or 2) the TNK's designation of the specific region of Judah — all they apparently heard was that the one who was killing them was now one of them.

Are you also asking about those to whom Paul is directing his arguments in the letter to Galatians? Jewish-Christians or … ? It doesn't seem likley that they were local Jews, since they would have simply opposed the message that Christ Jesus was Lord. In my opinion, they were Jewish-Christians who were seeking, in their own zealous way, converts to a Torah-observing, Jesus-following faith (in other words, full proselyzation). It is also conceivable that they were under pressure from nationalists who deemed any (accommodating) contact with Gentiles to be an act of disloyalty to YHWH (see above discussion about Saul's reasons for persecuting).

Yeah, I think so. The ANE mind held to a two-tiered cosmogony, with the higher sphere serving as a blueprint for the lower. Evil people on earth had evil powers directing them. The stoicheia of Gal. 4:3, 9, for example, are best understood as the governing deities that hold the nations in captivity. To conflate them (as in 2 Cor. 4) is not all that significant.

Best,

CJD

Amaleq13

If he had persecuted them, wouldn't they know him by more than just his reputation?

CJD

I had hoped this is not what you meant. It should go without saying that one Pharisee who persecuted some Christ Jesus-followers was not known personally by the majority of them.

On the other hand, Paul could simply be referring to himself as a Christ-follower, not before.

What of the other suggestions I offered in response to your questions? Pure speculation? Yet extremely plausible?

Amaleq13

Right. He would not be known "by face" by anyone he had not personally persecuted. He doesn't refer to a vague majority but to specific "churches" or communities. I consider the claims that Paul actually killed the Christians he persecuted to be an exaggeration lacking any credible support. It seems much more likely that he inflicted the same sort of persecution he claims to have experienced after converting. And I'm pretty sure he knew his persecutors "by face".

They appear to be "pure speculation" since they are not supported by any specific evidence from Paul but I think I need to read more about Paul to render any judgment on their plausibility.

Rick Sumner

As something of an addendum to my earlier points regarding Paul and Romans, a re-reading of 11QMelch for a post on Ebla yesterday called to mind another source closely analogous to Paul's peculiar method of prooftexting in Romans. Several texts in the DSS (such as 11QMelch, predictably enough given my preamble) employ a similar method of seemingly scattered scriptural citations to prooftext various points. This is also another point against Macoby, who takes Paul's prooftexting as evidence against Paul's familiarity with Jewish exegesis of his day.

Regards,
Rick Sumner