FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-06-2008, 02:11 PM   #401
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ירושלים
Posts: 1,701
Default

If I mistook your religious beliefs, it was because I didn't know the whole situation. Christian or weird, unevidenced religious beliefs still you held and hold still.

Regardless, I've seen no evidence for any sort of propositions you've made.
Solitary Man is offline  
Old 05-06-2008, 03:09 PM   #402
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Whatever other works say has no weight in this discussion. The worth of Acts is long disputed here and Ephesians is not thought in scholar circles to have been Pauline. We are therefore safer to stick with the integrity of the one work.

Perhaps if you imagine that Paul went to the meeting hopeful, but during the course of the meeting with the matter of praxis coming up and with his observations of the pillars, Paul's view changed radically.
Well, looking to the mss in the school of "Paul" is certainly relevant to how people understood Paul, and it's clear he was understood to be a man who had revelations, and who obeyed them, without entertaining doubts.
Looking at traditions after the time that interests us, hoping to say something about the earlier through the accretions of the latter is a risky business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
That accords in fact with the Paul we perceive in Galatian, a Paul who doesn't bother with the Church at Jerusalem for 16 year, says he got his gospel by revelation, and then when he gets a revelation to go to Jerusalem, wham!, he goes. He never tells us he was looking for approbation from the pillars, so given what we know, it doesn't appear he was seeking such approval.
Calling it the Church at Jerusalem is to me a retrojection. It promotes a misreading of the text by presuming ekklhsia, "assembly" must mean the same thing as what it would later mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
Paul doesn't seem inclined to question his revelations. He is obedient to them. This suggests he didn't go to Jerusalem looking for approbation from the pilllars. He went because, as he tells us explicitly, he got a revelation to go there.
But note 2:2b.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
Quote:
As I pointed out earlier, what makes Judaism of the period is expressed in the praxis of the religion, a praxis which Paul mainly turned his back on. We know that praxis was dealt with in the meeting of the report of the false brothers whose aim was to "enslave" Paul's flock through praxis. Those false brothers of course were probably reflective of the opinions of the pillars, the most likely senders of those brethren. The meeting has the earmarks of an exercise in futility at least in the understanding of the pillars, who happily got rid of him with a handshake recognizing his grace sending him off back to the gentiles, leaving them with what interested them.
The problem with this is threefold.

First we know little about 1st century Judaism except what we learn from the Christian scriptures. At best it was in flux.
This helps neither way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
Second, the Jerusalem Church, while continuing some kind of affinity and modus vivende with Judaism, wasn't Judaism. It had parted ways.
While you retroject the rhetoric you can't deal with the issue. And we know that it was Judaism because of the adherence to Jewish praxis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
Finally, Paul seems to make a distinction between "the false brothers" and the pillars.
That is Ben C.'s error as well. There is no disjunction between the two. In fact there was probably a connection between them, to have them mentioned in sequence regarding the meeting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
The pillars clearly saw the influence of Paul's ministry -- they asked for money for heaven's sake, so desperate they were.
No, the pillars who had seen Paul's lack of performative duty found that Paul at least still recognized his obligations to the poor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
Paul's ministry is clearly more successful than the impoverished and insular Jerusalem church, which has to ask for handouts, and which Paul has done quite well without even visiting them for 16 years. I see Paul having the upper hand in this meeting, and the pillars somewhat chagrinned at his success, but willing to make peace with him because his success suggested how right he was. Perhaps they hoped to influence him on the issue of ceremonial observances. If they did, how little they understood the man.
This is speculation. Paul was grilled over his lack of praxis. That's why the false brethren were mentioned there. That's why he noted that they didn't require Titus to be circumcised. That's why he later relished catching Cephas in hypocrisy in Antioch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
(I don't pass judgement on whether Paul has utterly mischaracterized the episode to aggrandize himself, but merely take what he's said at face value).
I don't see it that way. Paul has too much rhetoric to take the event at face value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
My sense of the whole episode is that the church was passing the Jersalem pillars by, and they were at a loss to deal with it, but hoped that Paul's ministry wouldn't obliterate them completely and would in fact be a complement to their work in Judea.
This is hindsight.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 05-06-2008, 03:15 PM   #403
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Ask yourself what were the Pharisees doing during the Jewish War. I think you'll find that it was nothing. Akiba was the only Pharisee on record to get involved in messianism around the time.
Josephus in his Life states (section 39) that Pharisees made up 3 out of 4 of the team sent by the rebel leadership in Jerusalem to liaise with the rebels in Galilee. I agree that the Pharisees do not seem to have been particularly fervent supporters of the conflict but "nothing" is going too far.
Good catch! (But you know what I mean. Besides there seems to be an equivocation between the religious pursuit of messianic expectation as seen with JtB and thinking a messiah might come.)



spin
spin is offline  
Old 05-06-2008, 03:28 PM   #404
New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 2
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Negachrist View Post
1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
According to Norman Geisler, who is quoting [Nash, Mythology And The New Testament, pg. 144]:

"We do know that Mithraism, like its mystery competitors, had a basic myth. Mithra was supposedly born when he emerged from a rock; he was carrying a knife and torch and wearing a Phrygian cap. He battled first the with the sun and then with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithra slew the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.

Mithraism flowered after Christianity, not before, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism. The timing is all wrong to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity.
(ibid., pg. 147)

(Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics)

:huh: Who's information is right
Lambkin is offline  
Old 05-06-2008, 03:56 PM   #405
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Hello, Ben C., come in...
Are you out there, Major Tom?
Yup. Trying to turn the lights on for you in there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Plainly Paul is not amicable about the pillars. Plainly he was at least somewhat amicable about them at one time (the handshake).
Your refusal to deal with 2:6 is strange, Ben C. Hiding behind a kiss-off handshake when Paul was plainly unimpressed at the time, as I have pointed out, is merely packaging for the Galatians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
You're not getting into the spirit of the text. These guys aren't something at all in Paul's eyes....
These guys are not something at all in his eyes. These guys were something in his eyes at one time (the submission of his gospel to them).
You know the situation, Ben C. You go there with bright expectations only to be disillusioned. He went there to submit his gospel to the leadership of the Jerusalem group privately. He was hassled by the reports of the false brethren. The private discussion didn't seem to go well given his disparagement of those reputed to be something. Oh well, at least he got a handshake out of it because of his grace.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 05-06-2008, 04:13 PM   #406
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lambkin View Post
According to Norman Geisler, who is quoting [Nash, Mythology And The New Testament, pg. 144]:

"We do know that Mithraism, like its mystery competitors, had a basic myth. Mithra was supposedly born when he emerged from a rock; he was carrying a knife and torch and wearing a Phrygian cap. He battled first the with the sun and then with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithra slew the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.

Mithraism flowered after Christianity, not before, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism. The timing is all wrong to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity.
(ibid., pg. 147)
This last paragraph is misleading. We know that a form of mithraism flourished in Cilicia before Paul's time. Mithra was popular throughout eastern Anatolia, so Pauline churches in Anatolia could easily have absorbed influence from the religion. What the writer is talking about is the form of mithraism that made an impact on the Roman empire. This is hard to track, but the first signs of mithraism are mithraea in Caesarea Maritima and in Pannonia. The latter mithraeum can be traced back to Roman recruits from Anatolia in a legion used by Vespasian in Judea which was relocated in Pannonia.

Ultimately the writer's logic is spurious. Mithraism flourished at the same time as christianity and they partially shared the same geography.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lambkin View Post
(Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics)

:huh: Who's information is right
I doubt at the current state of knowledge that either can be trusted -- especially as we have no definite religious information about mithraism, monuments we have but not religion.

Oh and welcome to the forum.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 05-06-2008, 04:41 PM   #407
New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 2
Thumbs up

Quote:
Oh and welcome to the forum.


spin
Thanks spin
Lambkin is offline  
Old 05-06-2008, 05:02 PM   #408
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Your refusal to deal with 2:6 is strange, Ben C. Hiding behind a kiss-off handshake when Paul was plainly unimpressed at the time, as I have pointed out, is merely packaging for the Galatians.
I dealt with 2.6 in post 367 of this thread. I pointed out that the disappointed part is in the present tense; what they were makes, (διαφερει, present indicative active) no difference to me. How are you getting this present tense verb to mean, unequivocably, that Paul also felt that way at that past time?

Now, it could hypothetically be that he also disparaged them at the time; the present tense does not rule out the possibility that he disparaged them both in the past and in the present; but nor does the present tense support your reading. You have to look elsewhere.

When I look elsewhere I notice (A) that Paul distinguishes the false brethren from the pillars; (B) that the false brethren would require gentiles to follow the Jewish law whereas the pillars at first did not, given that Cephas used to eat with gentiles before the Antioch incident; (C) that the only thing the pillars required of Paul was that he remember the poor; (D) that the pillars extended to Paul the right hand of fellowship; and (E) that the pillars recognized the grace given to Paul with regard to preaching to the gentiles.

All of this just screams agreement on the issues most important to Paul. When you look elsewhere what do you notice? That the pillars did not confer anything upon Paul? The meaning I see in that phrase (that they did not confer upon him any gentile burden) is eminently consistent with 2.10, where Paul says that they did not require anything of him except one thing which he was already eager to do.

Questions: If the pillars disagreed with the Pauline gospel of gentile inclusion without legal encumbrance right from the start, why did Cephas at first eat with gentiles (2.12) and then withdraw only later, at Antioch? Why did Paul openly condemn them only when Cephas changed his eating behavior in Antioch? Why did the pillars make only one request of Paul, that he remember the poor? Why did they not also request (like the false brethren did) gentile purity? Why did Paul get the distinct impression that they had recognized his grace for preaching to the gentiles? Why did they all shake hands in fellowship?

Quote:
You know the situation, Ben C. You go there with bright expectations only to be disillusioned.
That sort of thing happens all the time. And I think it happened between Paul and the pillars, too. The question (again!) is whether it happened in Jerusalem on this second visit, or whether it happened later in Antioch.

Quote:
He went there to submit his gospel to the leadership of the Jerusalem group privately. He was hassled by the reports of the false brethren.
I agree with this.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 05-06-2008, 05:56 PM   #409
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Your refusal to deal with 2:6 is strange, Ben C. Hiding behind a kiss-off handshake when Paul was plainly unimpressed at the time, as I have pointed out, is merely packaging for the Galatians.
I dealt with 2.6 in post 367 of this thread. I pointed out that the disappointed part is in the present tense; what they were makes, (διαφερει, present indicative active) no difference to me. How are you getting this present tense verb to mean, unequivocably, that Paul also felt that way at that past time?
As I responded, the tense change reflects a truism. It's not just true at the particular time, but still true, so you use the present tense. "He's dead, Jim." :wave:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Now, it could hypothetically be that he also disparaged them at the time; the present tense does not rule out the possibility that he disparaged them both in the past and in the present; but nor does the present tense support your reading. You have to look elsewhere.
Yes, like the sentence in which it is embedded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
When I look elsewhere I notice (A) that Paul distinguishes the false brethren from the pillars;
He brackets the false brethren in the same discourse. The implication is that they are of the same ilk, though they were thought to be something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
(B) that the false brethren would require gentiles to follow the Jewish law whereas the pillars at first did not, given that Cephas used to eat with gentiles before the Antioch incident;
Yeah and where did the false brethren come from in the first place if they were not in some way related to the Judean community? Why bother talking about them? Come on, Ben C.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
(C) that the only thing the pillars required of Paul was that he remember the poor;
He'd already fallen from hope with his abandonment of most of the praxis. But I guess you've got to make the most of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
(D) that the pillars extended to Paul the right hand of fellowship;
Yup. So long and don't come back too soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
and (E) that the pillars recognized the grace given to Paul with regard to preaching to the gentiles.
They were more concerned with Judea, so as long as he goes away -- this erstwhile persecutor -- he out of everyone's hair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
All of this just screams agreement on the issues most important to Paul.
This reminds me of someone working from RNA to reconstruct genetic code and not considering what the other side should be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
When you look elsewhere what do you notice? That the pillars did not confer anything upon Paul? The meaning I see in that phrase (that they did not confer upon him any gentile burden) is eminently consistent with 2.10, where Paul says that they did not require anything of him except one thing which he was already eager to do.
You've totally missed the disparagement. He went to see them privately about his gospel and they gave him nothing -- these people who were supposed to be something. Paul is quite bitter about it. That's why we get nothing other than his focus on the handshake. They gave him nothing, but who were they? God doesn't distinguish through earthly appearance of importance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Questions: If the pillars disagreed with the Pauline gospel of gentile inclusion without legal encumbrance right from the start, why did Cephas at first eat with gentiles (2.12) and then withdraw only later, at Antioch?
Slackness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Why did Paul openly condemn them only when Cephas changed his eating behavior in Antioch?
He called Cephas on his hypocrisy, because he changed his tune when Jamesian Jerusalemites arrived.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Why did the pillars make only one request of Paul, that he remember the poor?
He was beyond more, having abandoned other more exclusive praxis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Why did they not also request (like the false brethren did) gentile purity?
Politeness. (See previous response.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Why did Paul get the distinct impression that they had recognized his grace for preaching to the gentiles? Why did they all shake hands in fellowship?
Why didn't we get anything concrete about the meeting? Why skirt around it and concentrate on a few trappings? Obviously because the meeting was a relative disaster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
That sort of thing happens all the time. And I think it happened between Paul and the pillars, too. The question (again!) is whether it happened in Jerusalem on this second visit, or whether it happened later in Antioch.
He's already putting the pillars down, "those thought to be something" who gave him nothing, no useful counsel, no support!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
He went there to submit his gospel to the leadership of the Jerusalem group privately. He was hassled by the reports of the false brethren.
I agree with this.
If the false brethren were not related to the pillars in some way, why were they even discussed??


spin
spin is offline  
Old 05-06-2008, 05:57 PM   #410
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
I don't see how what 'Christianity accepts' is a relevant consideration here.
It's one of the presuppositions of christianity in that it's early in christian tradition, therefore more likely in itself to have a historical basis.
Again, I don't see how whether something is a presupposition of Christianity is relevant here. We all know what the Christian position is but--as far as I know--we all reject it, so whether an analysis is compatible with Christianity or not is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
The point I was getting at is this: is it part of the view you're putting that this message, that a messiah would come, was, in the first century, the view of a distinct minority among Jews? because if that's not your view, I see a problem, which I mentioned in earlier posts, but will repeat if necessary once you've answered the question.
It is my view that a faith based around messianic expectation with its repent and be prepared mentality was a minor position which may have reflected just what JtB was on about. The expectation of a messiah was in itself part of the heterodox range of Jewish religious traditions and I don't know how widely it would have been accepted (and it doesn't seem to concern the discussion).
It's highly relevant to the question I was asking you, for reasons which I can go over again if they're not sufficiently clear. Of course, you don't have to answer my questions if you don't want to. But if the discussion you are interested in is one which does not include the questions I'm asking, then it's both peculiar and a little discourteous for you to incorporate my posts into it by quotation.
J-D is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:39 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.