wavy_wonder1

'Have shown'? Or make a case? I'd have to say such a case would sound pretty weak...


Thanks,
E.L.B.

spamandham

He's not referring to his gospel, he's referring to the good news that not all the Israelites accepted. Paul allows for the salvation of faithful Jews, which is the theme of Romans 10.


If we're discounting quotes, then Gal 1.23 is also discounted. We don't know where the quote came from (or at least I don't), but it is nevertheless Paul spin doctoring someone else's words.

...and the contested usages in Romans 10:15 and Gal. 1.23. There's no way Rom. 10:15 is referring to Paul's gospel, and it highly doubtful Gal. 1.23 is either since it's a quote from someone else referring to their gospel. Now add this one in, and a linguistic analysis just doesn't work, because we've established that Paul does use the expression in multiple ways. So only context can differentiate, and the context is what we're arguing about in the first place!

The crucifixion/resurrection bring salvation to whoever is faithful to God (which can take multiple forms). There's nothing in this involving circumcision per se, so circumcision is not required, for those who are faithful to god. Paul teaches that faith in the resurrection is the gentile expression of faith.

The complexity arises when Paul jumps through hoops to allow for Jewish salvation, but not when he is explaining his method to gentiles.

I may be reading more into that than it states. But Paul is vague as to who is undermining him, and I'm unaware of any mentions by Paul of other Jewish Christian sects beyond the Jerusalem crowd - so I've inferred it's members of that group doing it.

spamandham

If you are unaware of the case, how can you conclude it's weak?

wavy_wonder1

'I'd have to say such a case would sound pretty weak...'


Thanks,
E.L.B.

spin

Malice aforethought?


spin

spin

When you haven't heard the case put then whatever it is you're basing that "sound" on isn't umm, sound.


spin

JoeWallack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkX8J-FKndE

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=3&version=31

JW:
Most Christian commentaries spin this that the Galatians were turned off by a graphic description of Jesus crucified. Doesn't really work though, does it? They were convinced after listening to Paul. Isn't the natural understanding that Paul, not a historical witness, told people who didn't know about Jesus that Jesus was crucified and than people who were historical witnesses came and told the Galatians that Jesus was not crucified? If not the natural understanding, isn't it at least a reasonable understanding? (Warning, I'm just getting started here with Galatians).

Again, I make no claim of proving that Jesus was not crucified. With apologies to Mr. Doherty I can never ever prove that Jesus was not crucified because my available evidence is from an institution that is convinced that he was. I can doubt it though. And even though I can not make Ben doubt it I can even make you doubt it. What is the difference between you and Ben?

Let's find out how objective you are. I wanna know right now how objective you are.
[offers my chin]
Just take the first rebuttal. I'm begging you, take a rebuttal. Just one rebuttal. Come on, that's all I need, just one rebuttal...



Joseph

Ben C Smith

...which would be his gospel, efficacious for Jew and gentile alike (Romans 1.16).

Nobody is discounting quotes. I am agreeing with you that the original sense of Isaiah would have had nothing to with any Pauline gospel, but insisting that the application to which Paul puts it certainly does. Galatians 1.23 falls into roughly the same category. We may or may not directly know what the original people who uttered this saying meant by preaching the gospel, but we know what Paul meant by it, and he either adds this verb to the quote or retains it in the quote, thus signalling that he regarded the faith he once persecuted as gospel. Context is everything; and Galatians 1.6, 7, 8, 9, 11; 2.2, 5, 14 are context.

Exactly. And that he either added or retained gospel to or among those words tells us something important.

Romans 10.8-9:

But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10.17:

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Romans 1.15-16:

So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

...referring to Paul preaching their faith as gospel.

So go to the context; what does gospel mean in the context of Galatians? Galatians 1.6-7 talks about two gospels, the gospel of Christ and another one. Which one do you think Paul is saying he was preaching in 1.23, the gospel of Christ or the other one?

Paul teaches that the gospel he preaches is efficacious for Jews and gentiles alike. How does that fit into your distinction?

Paul knows who the pillars are; and he would probably know who was sent directly by the pillars (Galatians 2.12); but he does not know exactly who is disturbing the Galatians (5.10); I feel certain that the disturbers are connected with the Jerusalem crowd somehow, but they do not seem to be the Jerusalem crowd.

Furthermore, Galatians 1.22 mentions the churches of Judea. Doubtless somebody from Jerusalem had started these churches, but they were now churches in their own right, and thus not identical to the Jerusalem church.

Besides, Paul has already made a big deal of the pillars agreeing with him on the noncircumcision of gentile converts, and has painfully described their falling out over food issues; if the pillars were really opposing him on circumcision, why do we get no hint of that?

Ben.

spin

I don't know, perhaps because people were up to that point telling Galatians that you needed umm, circumcision. I guess when Paul shows how refractory he was on the issue, do you think they would bother with him further?


spin

Ben C Smith

I do not understand your point. Why, if (A) the pillars are opposing Paul on circumcision, and (B) circumcision is the issue in dispute in Galatia (as your first sentence above says, and I agree), does Paul choose to narrate a disagreement between him and the pillars on food issues? Why not the (alleged) disagreement on circumcision?

Paul has already asserted that the pillars agreed with him both on circumcision (2.3) and on the food matters (2.14), so why does he stand up to the disagreement on the food matters only, and not to the disagreement on the real issue at hand, circumcision? The pillars seeing Paul as refractory has nothing to do with what he himself chooses to narrate.

Furthermore, as my post pointed out, it does not appear that Paul knows the people who are disturbing the Galatians. But he certainly knows the pillars, and would probably know their agents. IOW, these disturbers are probably not the pillars or their agents; they are a third party.

Ben.