Duvduv

Legion, I don't think you really believe it is *logical* that a person who disagrees with you or who wants to form an opinion one way or the other needs to have half a dozen degrees. Unless rhe only persons allowed to offer opinions on any subject need extensive backgrounds to form opinions. Should a candidate for office or a voter be required to have degrees in political science?

Solo

The genuineness of Gal 1:13-14 has been doubted since Bruno Bauer: see here, page 18-19.

Best,
Jiri

Duvduv

Jiri, if per Deterring's article the verses were added on the basis of Acts, why didn't the redactor fix the discrepancy about where Paul was persecuting? It seems to be a far more glaring problem than the issue of his former life in Judaism. Although the idea of abandoning Judaism itself would fit the Constantinian religion just fine.

spin

Of god??

Yes, Paul has this functional notion of the body of christ, which begs the question why should he need a second use of the term church for something he already has a handle on?

What actually happens in the passage after the discussion of universal notions in 12:12-26 is a return to the particular. Verse 27 says that "you are the body of christ." From which he springs to the church, not your notion of the universal church. You can see his use of the term being developed in chapter 14, talking of the building up of the church, eventually arriving at 14:23 in which he talks about the whole church coming together, which is obviously not all the believers in the world, but a particular church--still a development on the discussion started in 1 Cor 12. He is dealing with a rowdy group of converts, a specific situation. When he talks about the church he is being specific.

I think you are reading a later use of the term εκκλησια into Paul, from a time when there certainly was a notion of a political entity which was the universal church under the auspices of a dedicated clergy. Paul instead offers his spiritual notion of the body of christ and his communities which gather in assemblies.

I think that the following is eisegesis:

This unexpected singular use of "church" for what appears to be equivalent to the whole body of christ would only lead to confusion, probably causing the question "which church does he mean?" Paul has no problem using "churches of god", as seen in 1 Cor 11:16 and 1 Thes 2:14. But your attempt here to work off the fact that Paul writes to the Galatians calling them the churches of Galatia should put you into a state of caution. Can he really be evoking such a change of meaning for εκκλησια for a trivial reason like this and, if so, how would his readers understand? As it has been common practice over the last 1700 years, we are attuned to a universalist use of "church".

Duvduv

Interesting points, Spin. I noted that 1 Thessalonians again mentions the churches in Judea without hinting how many they where, where they were and who was leading them. I also wondered why the author would refer to them and refer to them being in Christ. Was there such a thing as churches in Judea thst were not in Christ?!

In any case, the fact of churches unrelated to the gentiles of Paul sounds strange as pushing the idea of rejection of Judaism, which sounds like a later phenomenon of the official empire religion.

Just look at 1Thes 2 verse 6 where the writer speaks in the plural about ASSERTING their "authority" or verse 16 referring to suffering in Judea from "the Jews ". These are obviously linked to a later organized church authority.

And let's not forget that the epistles are always presented as a set as Christian documents. You never see a church writer claiming that Paul only wrote 3 epistles or six, or that he wrote an epistle to the Sidonians or Carthaginians.

Plus Paul never says that any churches "in Christ" had any relation to gospel texts recounting anything of Christ.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
Very likely the church of Jerusalem. See my earlier postings to Spin and yourself on this thread.

1Thes 2:14-16 is widely believed to be an interpolation.

aa5874

So what is your point??? You have to RELY on the Greek Copy.

Logically, if all translations are interpretations then learning a language would still only allow you to make PERSONAL interpretations of a given text.

We can therefore LOGICALLY deduce that what a given text says will VARY based on each translator.

Why should I accept your interpretation and especially when you are arguing against me???

I will accept neutral sources!!!

You cannot do such a thing. You are just posting RHETORIC and evading the issues.

You present RUMORS not history.

Please read "The Life of Augustus" by Suetonius and it will tell you that the Father of Augustus was Gaius Octavius.

Please read Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 11.8. What!!! The same author who claimed he spent 15 days with Peter also said the he was an NOT the Apostle of a man, he was the Apostle of Jesus.

Now, it is completely LOGICAL that Jesus was NOT a man.


Galatians was translated to English BEFORE you knew how to read ancient Greek.

If you only knew that the Canon of the Church is NOT an Heretical Compilation. OR that The Canon of the Church does NOT support the Heresy that the Pauline Jesus was a man. Or that the Puline writings were used by Apologetic sources of antiquity to argue that Jesus was God Incarnate.

Y


You have application problems. Don't ask me what logics to use.

I think I may know your problem. You have problems with English and maybe even ancient Greek.

I simply PRESENT the written statements found in the Bible to show that Jesus, the disciples and Paul are products of MYTH FABLES like those of the Greeks and Romans.

The Galatians writer did SAY he was NOT the Apostle of a MAN but of Jesus.

Only the illogical will still persist that the Pauline Jesus was a man.

Bernard Muller

aa,
According to the Pauline epistles, Jesus was pre-existent as a divinity (Son of God) before incarnation on earth as a descendant of Abraham, Jesse, David & Israelites and of a woman. Between his birth and crucifixion he was a man, a Jew. After his alleged resurrection and ascension, he became again a Divinity in heaven. That's from that heavenly Jesus that Paul claimed to get his gospel. At that time Jesus was not a man anymore.

Duvduv

When would it have been interpolated? What's more, why would interpolaters be so selective in interpolating or changing the epistles? Were scribes mistakenly adding these verses from marginal glosses? It doesn't sound like it. What's the purpose of some interpolation about some issue that is rather unimportant to the overall message?

While they were interpolating, how about interpolating something like the name of Mary, an aphorism, a mention of Bethlehem or something since the interpolater must have been a later church person?

The interpolater(s) seemed to have been reluctant to tie the epistles specifically with the overall gospel story of the historical Jesus.

By contrast, the author of Epistola Apostolarum wanted to make sure that the Paul figure was already prophesied by Jesus himself, which as a matter of the link between Jesus and Paul makes abundant sense.

Duvduv

Bernard, except that the epistles (interpolated or otherwise) never talk about this, and of course never invoke any aphorisms or stories or moralisms stated in any gospels. Of course as far as the epistles writer(s) are concerned only the gospel explained in the dogma of the epistles counts as a gospel anyway.