gurugeorge

Yes it's a close relation, but I'd put less emphasis on the "non-earthly realm" business - I think that idea maybe has some validity for Paul and for some later Christians (esp Gnostics, who I think were later lineal descendants of Paul), but I don't think it's actually necessary to get the "inverted" or "value revalued" Messiah idea off the ground in the very earliest stages.

i.e. they would definitely have conceived of him as having died for our sins in some very real, very painful earthly sense, however, it's not that the particular way in which he died wasn't important, it's that it was important that it be obscure, difficult to trace - that was the whole point: he slipped under the Archons' radar.

I think it's likely there was some Platonic aspect to it, but more in the sense that the real, but obscure earthly happening was a shadowy "copy" of the glorious "archetypal" event. The fully glorious, more traditional Messiah-like event was in the "archetypal" aspect - that's where you get the full Messiah-like payoff of a great victory with all the bells and whistles - whereas the earthly "copy" aspect was necessarily vague and obscure, although still in their minds no doubt real (it really happened physically).

Chili

Hello gurugeorge, I like your exposition and would like to add my own two bits here if only for my own sake.

Yes, but they are empowered enthousiasts who have seen the light but they were not in that light. Kind of like chosen but not called by name.But good people have never been known to make it to heaven. Courage is required and that is not exactly a quality of good people. Religiously Jewish and will have taken upon themselves the yoke of slavery and sin a second time. Liberty in Christ is freedom from religion, whether this be Jewish or Catholic, unless, of course, one is reborn from the old earth below and not from upon high above in which case a return to our vomit even is inevitable to keep 'the place' clean. It is wrong to search the scriptures and squint to find something that suits us. Rather, we must first write our own Gospel and see if it matches the 'other' one when we do read another one (Jn.5:39-40). Paul would, could and did just that. The victory is in our ability to walk away from religion without any strings attached or stone unturned. This would be when and where Israel (or Rome)becomes aboriginally ours instead of just homeland of our own. It is kind of like the conversoin of our fatherland to our motherland which is where home is at no matter where we are.Paul's circumcision was done to the human heart instead of his pecker. After all, with the Kundalini raised only higher things are on the order of the day. There is, first one must run away from God to the end of the world and there spin a cocoon to let God do his thing. This is a mental journey that is initiated by the messianics who stirred the living water in Saul to the point of perplexity, which he called the persecution of Christians.

After this he returns to them thinking at first that he was like them but later learns that he was in a world of his own that exists far above and beyond theirs.

JoeWallack

JW:

More evidence that "Mark" used Paul for the basic ideas of his Story and fleshed out a Narrative:

Paul's most "detailed" description of the supposed Passion:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_15

15:3 "For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

15:4 and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;"

JW:
What's reMarkable is that there is no mention of the most important natural Assertian of Christianity, the supposed crucifixion. Was this Paul's confession that historical witness said there was no crucifixion?

And now "Mark's" Jesus describes his supposed Passion:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_8

31 "And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

32 And he spake the saying openly."

No mention of a crucifixion even though Jesus is speaking plainly.

What Paul and "Mark" have in common in the big picture is both from a witness standpoint are based on Revelation as opposed to Historical witness. Note that subsequent Gospels tried to change that.



Joseph

Paul-Bearer of the Dead (Word). Sources of Paul's Witness. Revelation, Reception or NecRomancy?

spin

If you actually believed that there would be no difference between us.

Paul's gospel may be the kit and kaboodle, but when he talks about a part of it, it has the weight of the whole.

See above.

You aren't reading the text of 1:23.

Here you assume that those who are proselytizing in Galatia were Jerusalem messianists. What makes you think that "those of the circumcision" were restricted to Jerusalem messianists?

It's not there.

Those sort of brain activities you seem to be having don't fit the description.

Quote:

O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, that you do not obey the truth? Before your eyes Jesus Christ was shown to you crucified!

I.e. those people who are disturbing the Galatians don't believe or care about the crucifixion.

Interesting that we have such opposed readings of the same text. Where in Galatians do you get the Jerusalemite crowd talking to Paul's proselytes?

And I think once again you're a pot looking for kettle.

?

As I've already cited 6:13 & 14 to you, why stop at 6:12?

Who's going to do the harassing?

Umm, this is essentially what I've been saying you've been saying. You're advocating the traditional christian interpretation of the text.

I used this analogy:

Believer: my religion says I shouldn't smoke.
Amaleq13: your religion is only about smoking.

Like all analogies, it can be distorted by those who try. When Paul had his revelation -- and I describe your version of it as the "escape clause" --, have you ever thought of escape from what? Naaa. Of course you fucking well meant escape from the Jewish restrictions on messianism (and hence he accepted some sort of messianism). That should plainly not have been a contention. You just want to say that everything other than the escape clause is derivative of the Jerusalem messianists.

However, Paul is flogging a non-messianic messianism. A dead messiah doesn't fit the description of messiah. Salvific acts are for saviors, not messiahs.

When Paul has the messianic groups in Judea saying, "The one who was formerly persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy", do you imagine that Jewish messianists would know the content of the religion Paul started to believe in? Would any Jewish messianist have known what Paul's faith was until he enunciated it as he seems to have done with the pillars? Would Paul even have seen his messianism as anything different? Lots of people have had religious viewpoints that they thought were acceptable only to be considered utter heretics by the mainstream.

Thing is for Jews, ultimately the important thing is the Torah. That means circumcision (no, not just circumcision).

Who might persecute those who wish to make a fair impression in the flesh? And why exactly? What makes you think they were preaching a crucified messiah? What circumstances do you imagine would justify your interpretation?


spin

Amaleq13

It is the position I've held and argued throughout this discussion. If you actually understood that, you wouldn't make such a foolish comment.

No doubt about it. Paul connects his revealed gentile exception directly to the original "good news" (ie the significance of the crucified messiah). But that doesn't change the fact that Paul is talking about opposition to his part and not "the whole".
Yes, I am. And I'm reading it with 1:11-12 and 2:2.

QED

2:12 Those "of the circumcision" clearly "came from James".

Paul says otherwise at 6:12.

1:6
2:4;12
6:12

Obviously because it shows that "those of the circumcision" accepted the crucified messiah.

We aren't told. Relevance?

Back to poisoning the well so soon? I'm advocating what the text supports.

Repeatedly, despite being shown that it was completely wrong. Go figure.

It can also be corrected by those who have an accurate understanding of my position.

No, just the crucified messiah and only because 1) no opposition to it is described and 2) acceptance of it is explicitly stated. :huh:

It apparently wasn't "non-messianic" to "those of the circumcision" since they accepted it and feared being persecuted for it.

The statement indicates they believed it to be their own so, yes.

They wouldn't necessarily know what he added that was specific to gentiles unless they happened to be around when he preached it to them. Paul tells us he was guided by revelation to obtain the approval of the group in Jerusalem but it is certainly possible that this revelation was inspired by actual harrassment.

The point you miss with regard to the visit, however, is that it only makes sense if he is presenting an addition to beliefs held by the Jerusalem group. Your suggestion that the group in Jerusalem has no connection to the beliefs Paul previously persecuted is simply foolishness that ignores the text.

Different from tradition? Obviously. Different from those he persecuted? No.

The persecution is connected to gentiles failing to be circumcized. Those of the circumcision are described as afraid it was expose their acceptance of the crucified messiah. That, in turn, suggests that those of the circumcision were keeping their acceptance of the crucified messiah a secret.

The text justifies my interpretation.

The story I imagine behind the text involves a small group of disappointed Jews* that, subsequent to a revelatory experience, convinced themselves that a sacrificed and resurrected messiah was not only true but hidden within Scripture.

*either disappointed with the apparent failure of traditional messianic expectations (MJ) or disappointed with the apparent failure of their beloved leader (HJ) - it has no relevance to my position

spin

Deep.

So far, I think don't you have read them, Amaleq13.

Paul talks of the gospel in 1:6-9. There is no reason to think that he is talking about a part of it. He explains that the gospel he proclaimed comes from his revelation, 1:11-12. There is no reason in this explanation of his receiving the gospel that it is merely the escape clause and the clarification that the Jerusalem bunch had it right theologically. He clearly and pointedly states that his gospel was not taught by humans. This clearly contradicts your reading as I see it.

Umm, there were others of the circumcison though, weren't there Amaleq13? You know anyone circumcised as a Jew who thought circumcision was the way to go? You deserve a doh! here.

You haven't demonstrated that.

Fail. It doesn't do the job. You are merely following the christian line. You need to say how you know what the different gospel here is. Then how the different gospel compares with the gospel of christ that Paul adheres to.

This one argues against your position. It's not just "freedom", but "freedom in the messiah Jesus".

The Galatians don't live in Antioch.

You don't understand the text, so how can you use it?

That's not what the text says.

Your understanding of the verse.

You haven't stopped, so there's no "back". You aren't reading the text.

When you continue to demonstrate it, you can't expect to be taken seriously with your pretense of innocence.

When your position gets some accuracy, then you might get some clarity.

If Paul showed the Galatians that the Jerusalemites contradicted his position, then he would have to shut up about Jerusalem totally.

And how would circumcising the Galatians change that?

We've been through this. One can misrepresent others without knowing enough about them. Most Americans didn't understand communism during the McCarthy era and most of what was said about communism was simply bullshit. A lot of what people say about psychology is not trustworthy either and communication is a hellovalot better today than in Paul's time.

You can't make any case based on what you guess the harassed messianic groups knew about Paul.

(He says he went to Jerusalem in response to a revelation (2:1). The revelation wasn't given as a cause for his seeking approval.)

Stop misrepresenting my position.

My position is based on the text. Paul's believed an anomalous variety of messianism. The Jerusalemites believed in a form of messianism. He has come to check his beliefs with the beliefs of those in Jerusalem, hoping to gain approval. His negative reaction to the pillars suggests that he didn't get it. You surmise that it was due to his escape clause for the gentiles. I see no reason why it can't be because his views were sufficiently different from the Jerusalemites for them to have little interest in him. A crucified messiah wouldn't make sense to a messianist.

Uh-huh.

(Would he have known that there was any difference, even if there had been if he didn't really understand their position -- other than that it wasn't conservative Judaism -- when he persecuted them?)

On 6:12...
You didn't answer the question.

When you don't seem to understand the text, how can it?

This last section seems to be gratuitous. It is an attempted overview of how the Jerusalemites developed what you consider were their beliefs.

We are left with you accepting that Paul didn't necessarily know that his beliefs were any different from those he persecuted. You accept that the pillars didn't know what Paul had added to messianism -- you seem to think that he must have added something to their messianism, but this is an unfounded assumption.

Now, Amaleq13, you have used the word "foolish" in my direction twice in this excuse of yours for a response (and a couple of times previously). I cannot help your lack of communication skills when you seem to think that you are oh so right, for you are not doing much of a job getting to the demonstration phase of your beliefs.

You haven't shown what the messianists in Jerusalem believed. You haven't shown what Paul inherited faith-wise from his predecessors. You haven't shown how similar Paul's faith was to those he harassed. Your position basically relies on one verse you seem to understand (2:12) and one that you don't (6:12).


spin

Amaleq13

Paul talks of another gospel that perverts and contradicts his own in 1:6-9. The focus of the rest of the letter is on opposition to his gentile exception so we do have reason to conclude that the "good news" being contradicted and opposed in 6-9 was specifically the gentile exception. What we have no reason to think is that anything else was opposed or contradicted and that certainly includes the belief in the crucified messiah for which his opponents fear being persecuted.

He also clearly and pointedly states that he accepted the beliefs he had persecuted so a rational reader must drop the assumption that Paul is referring to everything he believed in Galatians 1:12. The context of Galatians makes it quite clear that Paul's revealed "good news" for gentiles was the abrogation of the purity code requirement and that this "good news" was opposed by representatives of James.

Not in Paul's letter. "Those of the circumcision" are clearly the same opponents to Paul's "good news" throughout and just as clearly connected to James.

For converts? It is my understanding it was a standard requirement.

I don't have to do anything but point to the passage. If you have an alternate interpretation, feel free to share it. Your coyness is boring.

Again? I don't think so. I've explained this too many times, already.

Freedom from what? The requirements of the Law (ie the gentile exception).

This is irrelevant to establishing the connection between James and "them of the circumcision".

Unsubstantiated assertion. Drop the coy act.

Obviously not since he explicitly connects his opponents to James.

Read Paul. He explains it and I'm tired of repeating myself.

One cannot, however, harass others for their beliefs and then accept those beliefs without knowing those beliefs.

You just broke the irony meter.

Paul's beliefs are a combination of what he previously persecuted and what was uniquely given to him by Christ. The "whole package" was specifically intended for gentiles.

Yet, Paul expected his crucified messiah to obtain approval from messianists? You aren't making sense.

He explicitly states that he did obtain approval and that they agreed to continue preaching the gospel to their individual audiences. He goes on to describe a scene suggesting that the approval was either a sham or their representatives weren't accepting it or hadn't heard about it.

The question had no connection to the text and I pointed out how and why. Ask better questions.

You have yet to show that I don't understand the text.

No, it is the sort of imagined circumstances you appeared to be requesting.

I certainly do not since it is an absurd suggestion. Paul certainly knew that the beliefs he persecuted and accepted were the same and seems to have assumed that no one else had been given the same revealed knowledge.

Actually, the spies mentioned in 2:4 suggest at least some suspicions.

Paul claims they offered the "right hands of fellowship" and agreed to preach the gospel to their specific audiences.

Their representatives feared persecution "for the cross of Christ" and are only depicted opposing the gentile exception.

dog-on

Ama...the "other gospel" is the Judaized version...you know, the one contra the marcionite stranger god...

Amaleq13

Yes. It preaches that gentiles must follow the purity codes.

This comes from your imagination and not the text.

dog-on

8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods.

You sure...