Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 09-11-2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

For some reason you think people follow your lead and don't actually read the text?

(Gal 2:6) But from those who were influential (whatever they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism between people ) - those influential leaders added nothing to my message.

This could mean they had squat to say about his message but it is clear from the context that it does not mean that. Paul is clarifying his message of justifcation by faith in christ...

(Gal 2:16) yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified

this message has not been added to at all. i.e. the pillars of the church that Paul is submitting himself to is confirming that no other act or work is required for justification, no additional requirements.

Who is the "we" in Gal 2:15?? You seem to assume that it includes Cephas. 2:15 actually starts a discourse to his Galatian readers. The people he has been arguing with expressly don't know that a person is justified not by the works of the law. Cephas being lax in Antioch got reminded of his responsibilities by people from James and he corrected his behavior to adhere to the works specified by the law.

Paul is talking to his Galatians and the "we" are he and Barnabas, who the Galatians knew and who did believe 2:16.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

(Gal 2:7) On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised
(Gal 2:8) (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles)

(You seem to suffer from short term memory loss. These verse are interpolated.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

In fact, they not only confirmed my message but acknowledged that I was also commissioned to preach that same gospel (outlined in Gal 2:16) to the gentiles by the risen christ, the same risen christ that commissioned Peter.

You're jumping around here, playing mix and match and take no notice of the context of 2:16.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

(Gal 2:9) and when James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Now, those pillars of the movement that I joined have extended their hand in a partnership in our shared mission.

Once again reading wrongly. Notice how these people "who were thought to be pillars" (not simply "pillars" for Paul cannot help undercutting them and showing his contempt) recognized Paul's grace while he rejected them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

No doubt that you play with the words but the meaning always seems to be hidden from you.

It seems that you raise your gullibility level when reading religious material.

Why don't you answer the question about Mani?? Would you call Mani a christian or would he be the starter of a new religion?

spin

sschlichter · 09-11-2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

(You seem to suffer from short term memory loss. These verse are interpolated.)

I remember the claim. it is the evidence that seems to escape me. All I get is the text without verses 7 and 8 fit your theory and your theory holds up better wothout verses 7 and 8. the earliest fragemnts available all seem to have verses 7 and 8, don't they? maybe I am wrong on that. I am sure you will let me know.

Amaleq13 · 09-11-2009, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

The last part sounds like Paul did not have a choice?

No, but the first part certainly does. Self-contradiction appears to be the rule.

:huh:

Deus Ex · 09-11-2009, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

(You seem to suffer from short term memory loss. These verse are interpolated.)

I remember the claim. it is the evidence that seems to escape me. All I get is the text without verses 7 and 8 fit your theory and your theory holds up better wothout verses 7 and 8. the earliest fragemnts available all seem to have verses 7 and 8, don't they? maybe I am wrong on that. I am sure you will let me know.

Seems odd that text changes from Peter to Cephas within a few verses.

sschlichter · 09-11-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I remember the claim. it is the evidence that seems to escape me. All I get is the text without verses 7 and 8 fit your theory and your theory holds up better wothout verses 7 and 8. the earliest fragemnts available all seem to have verses 7 and 8, don't they? maybe I am wrong on that. I am sure you will let me know.

Seems odd that text changes from Peter to Cephas within a few verses.

yes, is hacking out the entire paragraph arbitrarily the solution to that.

spin · 09-11-2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

(You seem to suffer from short term memory loss. These verse are interpolated.)

I remember the claim.

Thank god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

it is the evidence that seems to escape me.

Par for the course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

All I get is the text without verses 7 and 8 fit your theory and your theory holds up better wothout verses 7 and 8. the earliest fragemnts available all seem to have verses 7 and 8, don't they? maybe I am wrong on that. I am sure you will let me know.

Actually, 2:7-8 don't change very much: they merely contradict the notion that it was the three pillars who were for the circumcised, not Peter. You with your christian apologetic baggage associate Cephas and Peter, though I've pointed out that the Epistle of the Apostles happily mentions both as separate figures.

Now that you've quibbled about Gal 2:7-8 and not added anything to your discussion perhaps you'll return to the message you didn't respond to and do so now.

Issues still for you to resolve include the "we" and Mani. Also Paul's attitude toward those who were opined to be of importance, ie the pillars.

spin

spin · 09-11-2009, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Seems odd that text changes from Peter to Cephas within a few verses.

yes, is hacking out the entire paragraph arbitrarily the solution to that.

Putting the cart before the horse as usual. I advocated the interpolation of Gal 2:7-8 long before reading Paul as not getting his Jesus info from others.

The Peter and Cephas issue doesn't really change anything for you. It is just another issue you can protest loudly and ineffectually about.

spin

sschlichter · 09-11-2009, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

yes, is hacking out the entire paragraph arbitrarily the solution to that.

Putting the cart before the horse as usual. I advocated the interpolation of Gal 2:7-8 long before reading Paul as not getting his Jesus info from others.

The Peter and Cephas issue doesn't really change anything for you. It is just another issue you can protest loudly and ineffectually about.

spin

good for you. you were an early adopter of interpolation in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

Who is the "we" in Gal 2:15??

it appears to me that the 'we' is referring to the Jewish Christians that are guilty of the hypocrisy exhibited in Gal 2:11-14 and should know better.

We (the Jewish converts) are jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

I don't have any thoughts on Mani. You will just have to make your point on how he is relevant.

jakejonesiv · 09-11-2009, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

identifying one statement in the Bible about Jesus that is not true.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

To answer your question more specifically, Luke 23:34 is one example of something that may or may not have been said, but was likely not in the original version.

"'Father forgive them for they know not what they do" (Luke 23.34). What is wrong with it??

Jake

spamandham · 09-11-2009, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Your willingness to butcher 1 Cor 15 in spite of the lack of evidence of interpolation...

Spin is not alone in concluding that 1 Cor 15 has been interpolated. He is in good company with several respected scholars in that regard (none of whom are atheists as far as I know), and is not merely resting on authority but has offered his own independent analysis of the situation as well. Personally I think 1 Cor. 15 is a later addition in total....but no need to get into that here.

The idea that Jesus actually was god incarnate is patently absurd and rejected outright with no further justification required. So that leaves us with the task then of figuring out how Christianity really started. It's not an easy task, but the clues are there for those willing to analyze rather than just blindly believe of absurd ancient nonsense.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.