Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-11-2007, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Logic

<snip>

Hello Mr. Logic :wave:
I agree with you that James did not agree with Paul, but unlike you I would prefer James' understanding over Paul's. I think that James and the twelve held the correct understanding of Jesus' original teachings and that Paul sought, either out of good faith or conspiratorially, to change the meaning of Jesus' teachings and life. I tend to believe that original Christianity was what would later be called Ebionite Christianity. It was stamped out by the 500s CE.

Masorah613 · 06-11-2007, 10:23 AM

Hi Mr. Logic,

May I respectfully and jokingly say that though your logic is commendable, it's slightly off as you rely on the English translation for the meaning of your words?
You brought up something that most English students of religion easily pass over when you quoted Galatians.
you quoted the part in chap 2 where it says "they SEEMED to be pillars". I have a problem with that 'marcion'-like translation (you hit it on the nail "dog-on").

The word in Galatians 2:9, that you quote, is the Greek word "dokeō". This same word is the very same word in Galatians 2:2 where it states:

And I went up by receiving, and communicated unto them that Masorah (i.e. gospel) which I teach among the Non-Jews, but privately to them which were of reputation (dokeō), lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

So it looks like Paul went to teach non-Jews of reputation...or, should we render it, Paul went to teach those who SEEMED to be non-Jews? Do you see the problem?

So Galatians 2:9 should be read this way [in the English]:

Gal 2:9 And when Ya'akob "ha Tzadik" ben Yosef (James), Hakham Shimon "HaTsefet" (Peter), and Hakham Yochanan (John), who are reputed pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen (ethnos), and they unto the circumcision.

And of course they would BE the pillars (i.e. desposyni). No one could usurp that position save for the church which obliterated their open existence.

So unlike you and Luther, I would have to concede that Paul and James agreed with each other, only that they had different missions, Paul taught to assimilated Jews and non-Jews to bring them more in-sync with the Jewish people. James and the rest of the pillars' mission was to the observant Jewish community making rulings and helping them in everyday life.

And unlike Blackwater's opinion, I believe that "Evionim" (Ebionites) were a group that usurped the name of the desposyni- who were called "Evionim" (Ebionites)- which were stamped out in the early 300's of our common era by Sylvester.

I know I'll get some fire on this post, but, it's to be expected for my stubborn opinions. I hope in the end all of it is fun.

Gundulf · 06-11-2007, 03:56 PM

For what it is worth, it is noteworthy in the justification debate that both Paul and James quote the same Old Testament passage to defend their position - and, in fact, any 'contradiction' that arises seems more between Moses and Moses (or whoever) than between James and Paul.

Masorah613 · 06-11-2007, 04:45 PM

Hi Gundulf,

that is a very good way of looking at it. And I would have to agree with your suggestion.

Mr. Logic · 06-11-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

For what it is worth, it is noteworthy in the justification debate that both Paul and James quote the same Old Testament passage to defend their position - and, in fact, any 'contradiction' that arises seems more between Moses and Moses (or whoever) than between James and Paul.

No they certainly do not quote the same passage. Someone else pointed out that them quoting different passages is the proof that they were talking about two diff. justifications, which isn't right either. Paul is quoting from Gen.15:6, while James was quoting from the passages that speak of Abe offering up his son.
FACT, and this is something that I later found, Luther pointed out:
ABE HAD NO SON AT THE TIME OF HIS JUSTIFICATION!

I use to wonder, how in the heck James could miss such an obvious error and then I realized that he mentioned the "Fulfilled" as if Gen.15:6 were a prophesy! It isn't, but he was determined to preach outward works, which can be faked!

Mr. Logic · 06-11-2007, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masorah613

Hi Mr. Logic,

May I respectfully and jokingly say that though your logic is commendable, it's slightly off as you rely on the English translation for the meaning of your words?

What I rely on, my Brother (assuming) is Harmony! As far as those who constantly study the Greek, humm, how not to offend here! "How many Greek Scholars does it take to screw up a passage of scripture"? <s>
Well I guess that isn't the way not to offend! <s> Sorry but I can show you sooooo many verses that Scholar after Scholar has assumed wrongly on. Mostly they rely on other Scholars, and Old Jewish Interps! Example Jesus is the Son of David that was to build the Temple, yet how many teach that?

I turned around a Greek Scholar already on the truth about Jesus and the water bapt. command to the Church! All but one person that I have ever heard teach on water bapt. got it wrong. He knew the n.t. by heart and once was Billy Graham's Preacher before b.g. got famous and promoted by Randolph Hurst! He had been a fomer Baptist Minister, and I don't know what made him see the light, but he saw the same truth that I did.
Here is a few questions for you on that subject: Piece these together: Jesus they say commanded water bapt. with 3 names chanted over the Convert. Then Peter they calim said to chant ONE NAME over the Converts, in Acts 2:38, and then very soon after he says nothing about a baptism in Acts 4:12 and acts as if belief in Jesus is enough for remission of sins!
I have no problem with any of these statements, just the way that they are taught, because I can prove that there is no contradiction among them, and also show why Luke's Great Commission account is also silent about baptism!

You brought up something that most English students of religion easily pass over when you quoted Galatians.
you quoted the part in chap 2 where it says "they SEEMED to be pillars". I have a problem with that 'marcion'-like translation (you hit it on the nail "dog-on").

O.k. so then I need to ignore the English Scholars who translated this that knew nothing of the Greek? <s>
Every Teacher that I have read on this igores the "seems to be" as if it wasn't there. That's a tell, on them. These same People never seem to get around to leting the public know what Luther thought of this and why is that? Because they can't defend it with any logic! Jesus said a house divided can't stand and yet you believe that Jewish Christians were to go one way and Gentiles another? How would know Ancient Greek change that fact?

So it looks like Paul went to teach non-Jews of reputation...or, should we render it, Paul went to teach those who SEEMED to be non-Jews? Do you see the problem?

Yes, I do see your problem. The Seemed to be of reputation, just like his statement about James, John and Peter.

So Galatians 2:9 should be read this way [in the English]:

Gal 2:9 And when Ya'akob "ha Tzadik" ben Yosef (James), Hakham Shimon "HaTsefet" (Peter), and Hakham Yochanan (John), who are reputed pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen (ethnos), and they unto the circumcision.

And of course they would BE the pillars (i.e. desposyni). No one could usurp that position save for the church which obliterated their open existence.

Reputed: "being such according to reputation or popular belief"! That is one of the two definitions that I just looked up, and it didn't suprise me.
Many "seemed" to think that they were of good reputation, but that is an assumption. Why take that out of context and get:
Peter is an absolute Pillar and that is why I blamed him to his face, beause Pillars are not a good thing, and neither is being reputable"! <s>

So unlike you and Luther, I would have to concede that Paul and James agreed with each other, only that they had different missions, Paul taught to assimilated Jews and non-Jews to bring them more in-sync with the Jewish people. James and the rest of the pillars' mission was to the observant Jewish community making rulings and helping them in everyday life.

Humm, so rebuking Leaders for being pillars is a Jewish thang? <s>

I know I'll get some fire on this post, but, it's to be expected for my stubborn opinions. I hope in the end all of it is fun.

I can't speak for them, but I am having a blast! Thanks for trying to show that knowing Greek means that contradictions are o.k.!
Take Care and Thanks again!

dog-on · 06-12-2007, 03:27 AM

How about this...

Galatians was originally a product of a competing sect, which in due course, was smoothed for acceptance into the canonical family.

In the Red Corner we have:
James representing the Orthodoxy

In the Blue Corner we have:
Paul representing the Marcionites (or gnostics, or whoever)

It's a texas ladder match, James wins! But what's this? Paul has a change of heart? He's a good guy now? (btw Paul, sorry about the apostle of the heretics crack..).

Of course, this may just make too much sense to have been the actual case...(yea right)...

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-12-2007, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

For what it is worth, it is noteworthy in the justification debate that both Paul and James quote the same Old Testament passage to defend their position - and, in fact, any 'contradiction' that arises seems more between Moses and Moses (or whoever) than between James and Paul.

I think that fact is noteworthy toward the conclusion that James was attacking Paul's position. Paul used Abraham as an example so James says "oh yeah pal, well I can use Abraham too."

dog-on · 06-12-2007, 03:46 AM

Justification by works was a requirement of the demiurge. Justification by faith was paid for, by the stranger god, through the ransom of Christ, to the demiurge.

Don't believe all the Orthodox propoganda...

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-12-2007, 04:14 AM

The human primate doesn’t need to be justified by works nor by faith to an imaginary silverback in the sky, IMO.

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

06-11-2007, 10:23 AM	#22
Masorah613 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: midwest Posts: 16	Hi Mr. Logic, May I respectfully and jokingly say that though your logic is commendable, it's slightly off as you rely on the English translation for the meaning of your words? You brought up something that most English students of religion easily pass over when you quoted Galatians. you quoted the part in chap 2 where it says "they SEEMED to be pillars". I have a problem with that 'marcion'-like translation (you hit it on the nail "*dog-on"). The word in Galatians 2:9, that you quote, is the Greek word "dokeō". This same word is the very same word in Galatians 2:2 where it states: And I went up by receiving, and communicated unto them that Masorah (i.e. gospel) which I teach among the Non-Jews, but privately to them which were of reputation* (dokeō), lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. So it looks like Paul went to teach non-Jews of reputation...or, should we render it, Paul went to teach those who SEEMED to be non-Jews? Do you see the problem? So Galatians 2:9 should be read this way [in the English]: Gal 2:9 And when Ya'akob "ha Tzadik" ben Yosef (James), Hakham Shimon "HaTsefet" (Peter), and Hakham Yochanan (John), who are reputed pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen (ethnos), and they unto the circumcision. And of course they would BE the pillars (i.e. desposyni). No one could usurp that position save for the church which obliterated their open existence. So unlike you and Luther, I would have to concede that Paul and James agreed with each other, only that they had different missions, Paul taught to assimilated Jews and non-Jews to bring them more in-sync with the Jewish people. James and the rest of the pillars' mission was to the observant Jewish community making rulings and helping them in everyday life. And unlike *Blackwater's* opinion, I believe that "Evionim" (Ebionites) were a group that usurped the name of the desposyni- who were called "Evionim" (Ebionites)- which were stamped out in the early 300's of our common era by Sylvester. I know I'll get some fire on this post, but, it's to be expected for my stubborn opinions. I hope in the end all of it is fun.

06-11-2007, 03:56 PM	#23
Gundulf Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Spain Posts: 2,902	For what it is worth, it is noteworthy in the justification debate that both Paul and James quote the same Old Testament passage to defend their position - and, in fact, any 'contradiction' that arises seems more between Moses and Moses (or whoever) than between James and Paul.

06-11-2007, 04:45 PM	#24
Masorah613 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: midwest Posts: 16	Hi Gundulf, that is a very good way of looking at it. And I would have to agree with your suggestion.

06-12-2007, 03:27 AM	#27
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	How about this... Galatians was originally a product of a competing sect, which in due course, was smoothed for acceptance into the canonical family. In the Red Corner we have: James representing the Orthodoxy In the Blue Corner we have: Paul representing the Marcionites (or gnostics, or whoever) It's a texas ladder match, James wins! But what's this? Paul has a change of heart? He's a good guy now? (btw Paul, sorry about the apostle of the heretics crack..). Of course, this may just make too much sense to have been the actual case...(yea right)...

06-12-2007, 03:46 AM	#29
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Justification by works was a requirement of the demiurge. Justification by faith was paid for, by the stranger god, through the ransom of Christ, to the demiurge. Don't believe all the Orthodox propoganda...

06-12-2007, 04:14 AM	#30
Jedi Mind Trick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianaplolis Posts: 4,998	The human primate doesn’t need to be justified by works nor by faith to an imaginary silverback in the sky, IMO.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.