JoeWallack

JW:
Yes, another complication. You can either try to determine what Paul meant in a specific Epistle based only on a specific Epistle or based on all Epistles. This reminds me too much of:

For any normal person you would usually consider everything they wrote but for Paul, since he seems to be primarily interested in promoting belief in his Jesus first and figuring out what exactly that means second and tailoring his Gospel to his audience I think I'll start out here just limiting my Point 2) of this Thread to Galatians.

JW:
Let's look at your Specific verses first:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Galatians_3

3:19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; [and it was] ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.

JW:
You write: "ordained by angels" is inconsistent with complete rejection of the Law. I think 3:19 has been Edited by Christianity:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Galatians_3:19

So I'm not sure if the "mediator" part originally referred to Moses or Jesus. Considering it like it is, the key qualifier "till the seed should come" Implies that the Law is no longer needed. I don't see any Implication here that it would still be okay for Jews to follow the Law as Paul has just explained why the Law was added so it would be natural to take this as why the Law was Removed. I don't see any Implication here that it would still be okay for Jews to follow the Law

3:20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one; but God is one.

3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law.

JW:
You write: "says "God forbid" to the notion that the Law is against the promises of God". This looks like the same type explanation as 3:19. 3:21 & 3:22 again explain why the Law was added, to identify sin, give the time qualifier of Jesus, and Imply the Law can now be removed.

3:22 But the scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

3:24 So that the law is become our tutor [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

JW:
You write: "refers to the Law as a "schoolmaster" who brings you to Christ."
Same thing Doug. Another explanation that the purpose of the Law was to create a need for Jesus. The related Implication is that once you have Jesus you don't need the Law. You may not accept my claimed Implications here that no one should follow the Law but I don't see any Implication that Paul thought it would be okay for Jews to still follow the Law.

Next consider that the General tone of this section of Galatians is anti-Law:

"Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?

Did ye suffer so many things in vain? if it be indeed in vain.

He therefore that supplieth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"


"For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.

"Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident: for, The righteous shall live by faith;"


"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"



Joseph

PAULMISTERY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Amaleq13

You can either try to understand Paul by considering everything generally accepted as written by him or you can artificially limit the evidence for the sake of argument. I mentioned Romans for the former purpose while I understand our current discussion to be the latter. Let's not kid ourselves, though, Joe. He is explicit in Romans where he is not in Galatians and that is why it is more interesting to try to make the point using only the latter. It doesn't change the fact that Paul clearly teaches exactly what I'm arguing he teaches.

Nothing on that page suggests the phrase in question was added. :huh:

Then again, nothing on that page really does much to establish any of the passage is an interpolation.

Surely not a convenient dodge for an unconvenient piece of evidence?

Obviously not Jesus since he is "the seed".

No longer needed for what, Joe?

It is a positive statement about something you believe Paul wanted to be rejected. It is simply stupid for him not to qualify this positive statement if what you say is true.

Yes that does not appear to be consistent with the notion that Paul preached that everyone should reject the Law.

You continue to go well beyond the text with this assertion. You have nothing to support such an extreme view by Paul and plentiful examples where he specifies that it is the requirement of the Law that has been removed by the coming of Christ.

I agree. It is another example of Paul offering an unqualified positive statement about the Law you claim he wanted rejected by everyone. You have zero explicit statements to support your contention and your attempt to read implications into the text are clearly strained. Why so much effort to avoid what Paul clearly teaches?

With no indication that the Law could now be completely ignored.

Yes. Prior to Christ, one needed to follow the Law to obtain salvation. Now, all one needs is faith in Christ. You are confusing the lack of need with rejection. They are not the same thing and Paul never says the Law should be rejected.

It is quite clearly anti-requirement. What do you think Paul meant by "works of the Law" or "perfected in the flesh"? He is talking about believing that adherence to the Law brought one to salvation.

"Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?

Did ye suffer so many things in vain? if it be indeed in vain.

He therefore that supplieth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

What kind of fool starts out believing that their faith in Christ is sufficient then decides to revert to believing that cutting their flesh or special food rules are necessary?

Did you go through everything you've gone through by accepting my gospel for nothing?

Does God give you the Spirit or the power to work miracles because you follow the Law or because you accepted Christ by faith?

None of this supports your position, Joe.

And we've already seen that "the curse" is believing it a requirement because, anyone who does that, must obey it all and that is a curse because only faith pleases God.

"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

JoeWallack

JW:
Don't kid yourself Doug, I've explained why it's reasonable to limit the discussion to Galatians for what Paul meant in Galatians. Paul Confesses to us that he changed his message based on the Audience. What is your quote from Romans? And Paul could not Possibly "clearly teaches exactly what I'm arguing he teaches." when you Confess that there isn't a single Explicit statement in Galatians supporting your position.

JW:
Regarding Forgery, as Rick Sumner would say, "There is evidence on that page, you just didn't understand it.":

1) Irenaeus quotes 3:19 as saying "law of works".

2) Irenaeus cites 3:19 as an example right after his General apology that the non-Orthodox don't know how to read Paul properly. They don't understand what he meant. Understand Doug?

3) "Law of works" would be an extremely sensitive phrase to the Orthodox.

4) There are other Textual variations as to words and order. A sure sign of Forgery.

I just referred to the above though as an interesting side note. Here we have a Specific quote from a Church Father presumably before any extant Text that has no Textual support. We also have a General comment that Paul sometimes did not mean what he wrote. A common criticism of Doherty is that he overplays the Forgery card but I think Forgery for sensitive words is more likely than Doherty's detractors think. I didn't intend the diversion to dispute your claim as your point is the Law was given by good guys which stands whether it is Moses or Jesus.

Regarding your attitude here combined with spelling error just be thankful it wasn't addressed to Gibson.

JW:
I don't need to explain further Doug. "Twiddle your thumbs until Jesus returns" implies that once Jesus returns you can stop twiddling your thumbs. There is no Logic to Paul's theology. Thinking that the Jewish Bible taught Paul's Jesus is simply dishonest. What is the Logical argument that Faith in Jesus replaced the Law? Paul says the Law is now unnecessary and than gives new Laws. Paul emphasizes that Old ritual is unnecessary and than gives New rituals. Paul says it was impossible not to sin and than instructs not to sin. Paul says Jesus was an atoning sacrifice but he wasn't really sacrificed.

JW:
All Paul is saying is that God giving the Law to the Jews was part of the Plan. As Louis Black points out the God of the Jewish Bible "is a prick". He does lots of bad things. Is it positive because God does it?

Haven't I made it clear I think Paul is dishonest and stupid? Kind of like Dubya for the Nations.

JW:
See preceding.

JW:
Most of the relevant Galatians simply instructs not to follow a specific Law or the Law in general. The default position than is that Paul believed no one should follow the Law. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate here that Paul's instruction is Qualified. I have 7 points here that try to support my view. We're on #2. We agree that Paul taught the Law was no longer required. A logical Implication is that Paul therefore believed no one should follow the Law. The common sense argument is a later point. You are not required to register for the Draft. Is it okay for you to register for the Draft? You can not just posture that saying the Law is not required is different than saying no one should follow the Law. That no one should follow the Law may be Paul's related conclusion here. That's what we're arguing about.

JW:
Better said is that Paul teaches the Law can not give Salvation. Even more Implication not to follow the Law. Not following the Law makes recognition that it can not Save clear. But again, the common sense argument is a later point.

JW:
You were ready above to take credit for sentences that included "the Law" and something Good regardless of the context. The point here is that Paul is not just saying "wrong", he is saying "very wrong". He has an attitude. This is evidence that he is Negative towards the Law in general. Not decisive by itself of course but just evidence that Paul's Implication from the Law being no longer necessary was that it should not be followed.

JW:
When Paul describes the Law as a curse he is using the worst Possible language to describe it. Again, why would anyone who believes Paul want to do any part of what Paul describes as a curse?

I think you've gotten whacked on Point 2) here Doug but I do see a difference between the Theoretical and Practical here. I would guess that if we asked some Christians here they would explain that Theoretically it's okay to follow the Law if you don't believe it is necessary for Salvation but Practically you should not because it gives some indication or at least the appearance that you think there is some advantage to it. This may have been Paul's attitude also as well as the difference between our Positions here. You may be right that Theoretically Paul thought it was okay to follow the Law if you thought there was no advantage but I may be right that Practically Paul thougt you should not because it gave the appearance of thinking there was some advantage to it.



Joseph

PAULMISTERY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Toto

note to JoeWallack: in the interests of clarity, please do not confuse "orthodox" with "Orthodox." You have an idiosyncratic treatment of capital letters which usually does not confuse anyone (except Jeffrey Gibson) but standard usage is that Orthodox when used of Christians refers to the eastern Orthodox church after the "Great Schism" of 1054 CE. This is why Ehrman is careful to refer to the "orthodox" with a small "o" when he talks about Christians in the second or third centuries, such as Irenaeus.

Otherwise, Orthodox might refer to Orthodox Jews, and I don't think that makes sense in context.

Amaleq13

Who is kidding who, Joe? That explanation is nothing but smoke.

Where does he do this in Galatians? Or does that limit only apply to me?

Where does he do this anywhere? Paul tells us he changed his behavior according to his audience so that they might accept his gospel. He doesn't say he changed his gospel.

The limitation is utterly arbitrary.

Reread post 12 where I first introduced it. You indicated you didn't understand how it supported my position and then used your artificial limitation to ignore it. The final sentence of the passage is really all one needs to recognize that your position has no merit:

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31, KJV

You have an odd conception of what constitutes evidence for forgery. Every incorrect quotation must be evidence of forgery? No.

Yes, he appears to be interpreting rather than simply quoting.



Please answer the question, Joe. For what was the Law no longer needed?

You'll get no disagreement from me on this point.

No, because it had a positive outcome (ie bringing one to Christ).

Only if one thinks it is a good idea to engage in circular reasoning. Guess if I do.

Nonsense. You are simply trying to shift the burden from your claim about Paul. All I need to do is note that Paul never supports your claim and that your entire argument is founded upon "implications" you are clearly reading into the text.

Didn't you drop #1?

No, that is a possible implication which does not survive past reading Romans.

If the process still existed after the requirement was dropped, I don't see why not.

I am not required to take snowboarding lessons before hitting the slopes at Alyeska but nobody stopped me from taking them.

It is simply false to equate "not required" with "rejected".

No "posture" is needed. Just language comprehension. They simply and clearly do not mean the same thing.

The context of the passages doesn't change the fact that Paul is saying positive things about something you claim he wanted to be rejected.

No question about it. Accepting the law as a requirement is a perversion of his gospel.

You can try to smuggle your conclusion into Paul's words all you want but the effort continues to be in vain. It is evidence that he is negative toward his converts acting contrary to his gospel.

That is not what he says. Why do you persist in repeating this error when it has been clearly shown to be false? The curse relates to failing to follow all the Law and it applies to anyone who considers adherence to the Law as required (ie those who are "of the works of the law"). If you get circumcised, you have to follow the whole law and you will fail and, because of that failure, become cursed by God. He appears to be referring to Dueteronomy 27:26 for his argument.

I think point 2 is nothing but an effort to shift the burden from your own claim.

I think is exactly what Paul is telling his gentile audience but I see no reason to assume he thought the same was true for Jews. Any Jew who accepted Christ had already been circumcised.

JoeWallack

JW:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_9

JW:
If it's not Explicit that Paul changed his message here than it's the next closest thing. For you to add here "The limitation is utterly arbitrary" just hurts your credibility. That's one. Speaking of which it seems to me that in our rather lengthy discussion here I don't remember you making any type of concession towards any of my points. I've never argued with you in detail before so I'm getting to know you here.

JW:
"your position has no merit". That's two. The context was looking for an Explicit statement that Paul thought it was okay for Jews to still follow the Law. I was trying to be nice before by only saying I didn't understand it. That time is past. This isn't Galatians and it isn't Explicit. Explain the supposed Implication Doug. Good luck since you've already Confessed that Paul has a serious Logic problem. All it is is evidence that you couldn't find an Explicit statement in Galatians. Ah, it feels good to have an attitude again.

JW:
You have an odd conception of what constitutes evidence for interpolation. Every incorrect quotation must be evidence of interpolation? No. Oh yeah!

JW:
Irenaeus writes:
Quote. The commentator also assumes it's a quote. The context indicates a quote. You seem to have a problem with Implications.

Regarding "Doherty" your reaction reminds me of Scarface's reaction to "Columbians":

Manolo: Hey what's with you and "Columbians"?
Scarface: Huh?
Manolo: He says "Columbians" and you make a face, like what?
Scarface: Hey, I just don't like no fucking "Columbians", okay.

JW:
That's three.

JW:
Say pretty please. Or you could just answer your own question. Right up your alley here.

JW:
Four.

JW:
Five.

JW:
"your entire argument is founded upon "implications" you are clearly reading into the text." Six. Nonsense. My second point here is:
Deal with it.

JW:
I think there is something to your assertion that there is some context in Galatians specific to Gentiles. At this point I haven't decided how much. Of course I was the one who made the argument for you. This is illustrative of the main difference between us so far. You seem unwilling/incapable of considering that my arguments so far have any point.

JW:
I guess Alaska always has a draft. If the draft/law is not needed any more is it okay for you to register for the Draft?

JW:
I hate proof-texting examples. Gosh, that's a tough one to answer Doug. Maybe because there would be an advantage to lessons? Thanks!

JW:
More nonsense Doug. Deal with the specifics.

JW:
We keep agreeing with this but you keep posturing that it's a difference. Why?

JW:
Paul says that everyone who follows the Law is under the curse of the Law, the Law is impossible to follow so everyone who tries is cursed. There's no difference in saying the Law is a Curse here. Pathetic.

JW:
No, it's:
If we have to be philosophical here it's your effort to minimize a point you're losing.

JW:
Ah, possibly some common ground. But the context is following the Law so "Any Jew who accepted Christ had already been circumcised." is not applicable. Again, my comon sense point, probably the best one, is later. To try and counter it I suggest you try and think of a relevant example.

I've counted up your attitude here not because I think it will change, I know it won't, but just to let you know why mine has changed.



Joseph

PAULMISTERY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Ben C Smith

Thanks for the response, Joe.

Which is not incompatible with having received (at least some of) his gospel from men.

Paul speaks only of those things Christ has done through him. On a purely logical level, this does not say that there were others things that were not done directly by Christ; it only says that he does not speak of those things.

Other than Paul himself, right? IOW, I do not see how the choice of where to preach the gospel has anything to do with the actual source of that gospel. Presumably, by these words alone, Paul would not wish to preach in any locale where Christ had already been named by revelation alone any more than he would wish to preach in a locale where Christ had been named by human tradition, right?

But all of this skirts what I think is the actual sequence of events as determined from Galatians 1-2:

1. Paul knows of a particular new Jewish sect that is preaching a crucified messiah. He finds this, and perhaps other aspects, offensive; so in the fine tradition of zeal for the law he decides to harass the sect into either submission or oblivion.
2. Paul at some point has a religious experience that he interprets as a direct message from this crucified messiah. He finds himself commissioned to preach the same faith he was persecuting, but to gentiles.
3. Paul is now at pains to maintain a certain status as an apostle of the risen Christ. In order to do so, in certain contexts, at least, he claims direct revelation for everything he preaches. This is no great feat, since, if the crucified and risen messiah has indeed appeared to him, then that appearance is in itself evidence that the messiah had been, in fact, crucified and resurrected. Now it no longer matters that Paul knew about the crucified messiah long before his Damascus experience; his knowledge of the crucifixion and resurrection is now based both on human tradition and on divine revelation.

Ben.

Amaleq13

It is explicit that Paul changed his behavior to "gain" acceptance to "the gospel" he preached. It simply does not say what you want it to say.

Stating the truth never hurts one's credibility, Joe. The limitation is arbitrary.

As soon as you make a valid one, I will.

You contend Paul taught that even Christ-believing Jews should not follow the Law. In that statement, Paul explicitly denies that faith in Christ renders the Law useless. Clearly, this would have been the perfect place to find Paul explicitly supporting your position but he doesn't. :huh:

I'm pretty sure I already acknowledged that earlier in the thread, Joe.

I'll concede that point. Happy New Year!

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you just needed a hug.

I completely understand how you can take what Paul actually says and extrapolate to a more extreme position than Paul ever takes. I can see where Paul could have followed his arguments to such a conclusion but I see no evidence that he ever did. Instead, he specifically and repeatedly condemns one's attitude toward the Law instead of the Law, itself.

It has a required registration just like the rest of the country.

Who Must Register with Selective Service?

Because you keep ignoring Paul's clear emphasis on "requirement" instead of the Law, itself.

I hadn't noticed. Guess I have thicker skin.

Amaleq13

Do you believe the author of Deuteronomy 27:26 considered the Law to be a curse?