Clivedurdle

The victory is over death - death where is thy sting? This is the good news, the gospel! So unless Gentiles do not die as Jews do, the gospel is logically to all mankind.

There is a complete logic here - Christ in the heavens has a victory over death. The Jewish god shows he is El Shaddai - the Almighty - byallowing the death of a god and raising his son gives a sign that we are near the beginning of the kingdom of heaven on earth, where the lion will lay down with the lamb, the lamb of god slain for all.

It is completely derived from the scriptures, studied deep into the night possibly with the assistance of annointing oils until another eureka moment occurs, it is all shuffled around so that this Joshua messiah annointer sorts everything out. Paul has had revealed to him the keys to life, the universe and everything. He knows how to conquer death by believing on the Yahweh Joshua Annointer - (is that not the Trinity?)

In the cold light of day the cracks appear - do we need to get circumcised, what of the law, what of those who have died, what is death,is this Jesus a new Adam?

Mark is another formulation of the greatest story ever told, putting some flesh on this spiritual being, and leading to all sorts of mayhem over the centuries.

Fascinating what happens when cultures cross pollinate and an idea is exposed to questions!

Mummy mummy, why is it we don't die?

Amaleq13

That simply does not appear to be true and nothing you have offered against it seems to alter that appearance one bit. As Rick notes, it is your position that seems to ignore what the text states. As far as I can tell, you've really got nothing to support an incomprehensible story but snide comments.

Only when Paul is specifically referring to his "good news" for the gentiles in opposition to and differentiated from those who are teaching his Galatians that they must follow the Law in addition to having faith in Jesus. No hint of opposition to the name he gives the messiah and no hint of opposition to the means of death he attributes to the messiah and no hint of opposition to the claim that he had risen from the dead exists to support your generalization of 1:12.

And there continues to be nothing in Galatians to support the notion that a crucified messiah was in any way unique to Paul's preaching while there are ample indications that what was unique about Paul's preaching related to the need for believing gentiles to adhere to the Law.

Paul, throughout Galatians, contrasts his good news that faith in Jesus is sufficient for gentiles with those who insist that they must also adhere to the Law. There is nothing to suggest that the name of the messiah or the means of his death or that he rose again was in any way opposed in Galatia.

Yes, not Jesus. There is no evidence to suggest that anything about Jesus was a source of contention between the two groups in Galatia and simple logic should tell you that Paul must have shared core beliefs with those to whom he went for support. The idea that they would not oppose a false identification of "the messiah" or that they would not oppose the notion that "the messiah" had been crucified, if they did not already believe those things is simply not credible. Yet that is precisely what your position on Galatians requires one to assume.

aa5874

So why did the letter writer claim over 500 people saw Jesus after he resurrected? And why did the letter writer claim some of the 500 people have died?

Those people must have died in heaven, too.

And why did the letter writer claim that Jesus would come back for dead believers?

There may have been Gods that died in heaven, but the letter writer implied that his Jesus died during the time of Pilate and people saw him after he should have dead on earth.

gurugeorge

Then there would have been no point in the writers called "Paul" in writing the letters called "Paul" - how could they hope to compete with an already-existing direct line?

What on earth were the letter writers called "Paul" up to (with your timeline), coming on the scene at this late stage with this oddly gnostic, highly spiritual schtick?

And, more importantly - why did orthodoxy plonk this stuff in the Canon? What reason would they have had for including such stuff, with its product of dreams, etc., considering they already believed they had the direct lineage?

As I've said before, the fact that "Paul" is included in the Canon and includes odd spiritual stuff that doesn't seem to gel with orthodoxy, seems to suggest they had to include it for some reason. Why would they have to include this product of dreams? Why fence it around with interpolations and invented letters?

aa5874

All that is necessary, is to recognise the contradiction. Justin Martyr's Jesus believers have a gospel and their gospel is not from "Paul", it is from the memoirs of the apostles.

The Jesus believers of Justin do NOT need "Paul".

And if we suppose that the gospel of "Paul" predated the memoirs, it would seem Justin's Jesus believers never heard of it, rejected it or it was not written yet. They said nothing about it.

So, perhaps the orthodoxy probably preceeded "Paul".

And perhaps "Paul" words are final. Perhaps it is not even necessary that you know "Paul" or can recognise him or know when he wrote, his words are final authority, he represents the Church. Maybe that's why "Paul" must be canonised.

Galations 1.8 Perhaps, "Paul" wrote that last, perhaps he wrote after Justin, he was the final authority on Jesus, not even an angel can contradict the gospel of "Paul".

spin

Personal views aren't of any use here. You are supposed to be working from the text, so stop the bull.

Yet Rick didn't use the text. Examples? I provided examples which you both ignored. So stop the bull.


You only have Paul's presentation of the data and you are being arbitrary. He repeatedly tells you through Galatians what his gospel involves. You ignore it.

1. freedom in christ Jesus, 2:4
2. not through the works of the law but through faith in Jesus christ, 2:16
3. if justification comes through the law, then christ died for nothing 2:21
4. christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us 3:13
5. for in christ Jesus you are all children of god through faith 3:26
6. I am again in the pain of childbirth until christ is formed in you 4:19
7. For freedom christ has set us free... do not submit again 5:1
8. In christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision accounts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love. 5:6

Deal with the text.

Umm, he contrasts it frequently with the other gospel and its insistence on the performance of the law.

You start to sound like those who want to say that the frescoes at Dura Europos because they don't come with captions.

Yup that's partially it, isn't it?

When you know that the other gospel is not faith in Jesus but practice of the law, you might stop and pause, but no. Although I didn't mention the being raised from the dead, the dying and the means of death are plainly there in 3:13f.

This is rubbish. You still don't appear to understand the notion of what Jewishness means in this issue. For a practising Jew, performance of the law is the first and foremost issue. Paul has repudiated that. And in dealing with the conflict in Galatians he doesn't simply contrast the performance of the law with non-performance, but with faith in Jesus throughout the text.

As what is credible to you isn't based on evidence from the time, it is simply personal view. You are supposed to be working from the text, so stop the bull.

The text is clear. The conflict there is between performance of the law and faith in Jesus, whose death brings justification. The first represents the other gospel, the second is Paul's.


spin

gurugeorge

That's not a contradiction, it's just a datum alongside the datum that "Paul" was included in the Canon. There could be any number of reasons why Justin apparently doesn't mention "Paul".

Then why was he included in the Canon later, by Justin's orthodox spiritual descendants?

The simple fact is that Justin doesn't mention him - as I said, which reason you choose for why he wasn't mentioned is up to your overall theory. There's nothing in the sheer fact of non-mentioning that proves "Paul" didn't exist. It's one datum amongst a whole, complicated bunch of data.

Again, it just makes no sense to give someone who's connection with the cult figure is claimed to be only visionary final say when there were (according to the orthodox story) people around with direct lineage connection to the cult figure (originating from people who had eyeballed him).

On your story, yes, you can use the Justin non-mention, and perhaps some other things like a Detering-like reading of the situation - but if you take this route (which I've thought about, believe me) the inclusion of "Paul" - this cantankerous visionary with close-to-heretical elements - in such a prominent place in the Canon seems odd and difficult to account for.

In my theory, which (like Doherty's) has the virtue of relying on less unorthodox scholarship than yours, the reason is simple: they had to include him because they wanted to bring the "heretics" on board, and he was "the apostle of the heretics". It was risky, and they had to escort him with orthodox writings, and interpolate some, but they couldn't alter him too much, because some of the writings were fairly well-known, and they needed him in part to give them legitimacy.

And if (as Walter Bauer outlines) the majority of early Christians were "heretics" then this orthodox move can be understood as part of a ploy to unify a growingly disparate religion.

For you see, although Justin doesn't mention any "Paul", he does mention Simon Magus.

Once again: as Price points out, some of the story elements of Simon Magus are pretty similar to the "Paul" story elements. Most significantly, "Simonism" echoes "Paul"'s episode with the Jerusalem crowd in Galatians (is it? I mean the one with the money ruckus). "Paul"/"Simon Magus" was whoever it was who started the majority of churches that were "heretical" that the early orthodoxy (according to W Bauer) found themselves coming up against wherever they went.

Amaleq13

Who do you think you're kidding with this nonsense? It always comes down to one's "personal view" and you are certainly no exception.

Anyone can see this is not true by simply reading his posts. You both used the texts but I only find his reading to actually follow them and make sense.

Yes, he taught the gentiles that their faith in Christ meant that they weren't in bondage to the Law and every one of those points are consistent with that teaching. None of those points has been ignored but note that none of them offer the slightest hint that his opponents taught anything else that was different from his preaching.

Ummm, with no reference or even hint that any other aspect of what he taught the Galatians was opposed or obtained any objection. That is a serious problem with your position. Deal with it.

No, your argument in that thread is sound IMO.

Gosh, it is almost as though my conclusions are based on my personal evaluation of the argument and evidence offered. Sometimes you don't make good arguments and this is one of those times.

There is nothing in the text to support the additions you wish to impose.

The other gospel is not just faith in Jesus but also adherence to the Law. As I've already pointed out, there is no evidence that any other aspect of Paul's preaching was opposed but that is simply absurd if his opponents did not believe in the same crucified and resurrected Jesus Paul preached and renders his visit to the "pillars" incomprehensible.

And that isn't an arbitrary line to leave out belief in the resurrection?

There is nothing in Galatians 3 that suggests the claim Jesus had been crucified or raised was opposed.

No, it is what the text offers.

Yes, for gentiles who believe in Christ. He may have also believed that Jews who believed in Christ also didn't have to adhere to the Law but I don't think you get that from Galatians.

Of course he does! It is their faith in Christ that makes adherence to the Law unnecessary. Their opponents say otherwise but they apparently said nothing about denying the messiah was Jesus or that he had been crucified or that he had been raised.

You don't think they would have opposed Paul teaching such beliefs if they did not share them? They would have just honed in on the Law part and let the rest ride?

aa5874

No. Justin Martyr has no datum of "Paul". Justin did not show any influence at all by the "Pauline" letters, no influence by Acts of the Apostles, or no influence by the revelations of "Paul".

The Jesus believers in ALL the churches (in the cities and the country) did not read any letters of "Paul", they read from the memoirs on Sundays, according to Justin.

Justin has no datum for "Paul", this could indicate that "Paul" is after Justin, that is one of the possibilities.




I am exploring possibilities not claiming that my position is proof. Without any external evidence for "Paul", then any possibility can be examined.

This theory is not simple at all. By the way, who are "they"?

And, who were the heretics in the middle of the 1st century?

Based on your theory, wouldn't the heretics come after "Paul" was dead?

Your theory is not simple, you have to assume you know what was interpolated, and that Jesus was only known as a spiritual being.

So, what happened to "Paul's" spirtual Christ? Has this Christ become Simon who was declared to be a god.

Your theory is just all over the place.

spin

You are partially correct. You pointedly omit information though, information contrary to your claim. Paul's gospel clearly includes the death of Jesus by crucifixion and it is that death which brings justification. This makes circumcision and uncircumcision meaningless. This also contrasts with the other gospel as the death negates praxis. You omit the death by crucifixion of Jesus as a key to Paul's gospel, 2:21.

Wrong. The justification through the death of Jesus is essential to the contrast with the other gospel.

When Paul contrasts faith in Jesus with performance of the law, he is pitting his crucified Jesus against their law.

This seems to be eisegesis. What's your source for it? The other gospel certainly is adherence to the Law, but what else can you demonstrate that it is?

Galatians doesn't lead you to think that the pillars knew anything about a Jesus. More eisegesis.

I merely pointed out that I'd said nothing about resurrection, though you had: "or that he rose again". If you want to introduce it into the discussion, perhaps you might like to give some justification.

How did the christ redeem Paul and co from the curse of the law? Through crucifixion. The death of Jesus is part of the parcel contrasted with performance of the law.

That's what he said, but he said more. Justification comes with Jesus, not the law. If it came through the law then Jesus died for nothing. The text is plain: Jesus' death and its implications are part of the equation on Paul's side.

Paul's gospel says that the death of Jesus renders praxis useless, for the death took the curse of the law away from those who have faith in Jesus. This places the death of Jesus in contrast with praxis, the crux of the other gospel.

I've given evidence for thinking that the death of Jesus is key to Paul's gospel. Now please give me your evidence that the other gospel involved the death of Jesus, or even just Jesus. Also, please cut down the useless responses: I've cut out what I could of them and if you want to harangue, please do so while providing evidence, otherwise desist. Thanks.



spin