Amaleq13

Were messianists being persecuted in the 1st century just for being messianists?

I've specifically and explicitly identified the incoherencies in the story resulting from your position several times. Your failure to pay attention is not my problem.

Not just "faith in Jesus" but Paul's specific interpretation and, yes, they did not accept that interpretation.

Paul's repeated and unapologetic references to a dying and resurrected Jesus indicate Paul clearly assumed that his readers shared this belief.

It is not a question of whether I grasp the point you are trying to sell. I grasp it quite well and simply do not find it credible.

No, it is more of the same "I don't believe it is likely that Paul's opponents would completely ignore his dying/resurrecting messiah to focus exclusively on torah adherence." Get used to it unless you improve your position.

No, Paul only contrasts his interpretation of the significance of the death and resurrection for gentiles. He never contrasts the bald fact of a dying and resurrecting messiah with anything. It is as though his opponents didn't object to such a ridiculous notion. :banghead:

Even the fact that a ridiculous belief like a dying and resurrected messiah is what inspired that lack of fulfillment? That wouldn't be a part of any challenge to Paul's preaching? Sorry, but that just isn't credible.

Nope, other folks have had no problem whatsoever following my "message". The problem is between your ears.

Said the man whose extraction results in an incoherent story. Your efforts are meaningless if they can't tell a coherent story.

You are compounding your confusion. It came directly from reading the texts.

No, I would have preferred to keep my previous conclusion because it agreed with others I held.

:rolling:

There is nothing arbitrary about it. I'm just taking into consideration everything Paul writes when trying to understand his beliefs.

spamandham

When Paul uses 'gospel' as a noun in regards to his teachings, he's usually referring to a specific set of beliefs that his audience is already familiar with. That isn't the same implication when used as a verb. A nice example is in Rom 10:15

And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them {that preach the gospel} of peace, and {bring glad tidings} of good things!

In context:

I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now {preaching as gospel} the faith he once tried to destroy." And they praised God because of me.

This is not the same as a claim by Paul that his gospel is the same as their gospel.

Right, because in their teachings, the crucifixion is not theologically important. How can that be, if they are teaching the same crucifixion/resurrection gospel as Paul!?

Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.

They're pushing circumcision for social reasons, because the cross is unimportant to their theology.

Ben C Smith

I do not understand this example. Paul is quoting the LXX of Isaiah 52.7 and applying it to his own preaching of the gospel (see verses 14 and 17).

So, when Paul preaches as gospel the faith that he once tried to destroy, this does not mean that the faith that he once tried to destroy is gospel for Paul? :huh:

It is not important in the same way as it is to Paul. Cross equals no circumcision is not an obvious equation. Paul definitely believes that, but it requires explanation.

Ben.

ETA: I am gone for a couple of days. Have a great weekend, Robert.

aa5874

Who had earlier religous experiences similar to Paul? And there is very little from Paul about how he became converted.

In Galations, Paul claimed "he was separated from his mother's womb to preach the gospel, why isn't that "bollocks".

In 2Corinthians, Paul claimed "I met a man, whether in the spirit or out of the spirit, I cannot tell, only God knows...." why isn't that "bollocks".

The road to Damascus conversion is repeated three times in the canonised Acts of the Apostles and was regarded as authentic and was written by a follower of Paul, according to church writers.

If you think Acts is bollocks, then what prevents Paul's statements about his so-called separation from also being bollocks?

spin

Why don't you want to deal with what Galatians says?

What makes you think the Jerusalem group thought any differently about the messiah? Wouldn't you expect most messianic Jews to believe in the expected messiah rather than a dead and therefore falsified messiah?

Hmm, dead messiah victorious? Liberated the Jews? Established world reign? Paul's messiah is certainly not a messiah.

What do you reckon? Paul says in Galatians 1:11f:

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

This is in direct conflict with the implications of 1 Corinthians 15:4-8, suggesting purely on that front that 1 Cor 15 is suspect.

This is just the sort of stuff that I have been pointing out cannot be justified from Paul.

Now you're dressing speculation up as fact.


spin

spin

There were conflicts between different sects of Judaism.

What you do is project your assumptions on what Paul must have meant according to your limited perspective. Any incoherence is where what I've presented conflicts with your assumptions.

Sorry, it was shorthand for "both faith in Jesus (2:20f) and in the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Jesus to bring justification from sin.

They are after all his proselytes. There is no reason to believe that his opponents shared such a belief.

That's why you run off and don't deal with the source text, but try to apologize for another view.

My position is based on the text. You want to contradict it. with the simple ruse of Paul not meaning all the gospel was revealed to him. Just those bits that set him separate in your mind from the others who you know nothing about.

You can see what is important for his opponents, torah observance. You can see what is important for Paul, faith in Jesus and the efficacy of his death, etc. They are talking at cross-purposes, just as we are. You have no reason to suspect that the opponents believed what you want them to have believed, but you have backed yourself into a corner.

Who cares why the person is not fulfilling their obligations, when the non-fulfillment excludes the non-Jew from becoming a Yahwist?

A lot of people want to believe in the notion of a "historical Jesus".

You claim incoherence, but when scratched you bleed it.

Yes, Paul says he didn't get his gospel from other people and you said he did. Right. Let's not talk about confusion then, when you start off that way.

That sure shows your state of incoherence.

What position do you imagine I'm selling there Amaleq13?

This is an idiotic position. You don't know what Paul wrote and what Paul didn't. That's why I've stuck to Galatians to understand Galatians. The statement in Galatians contradicts the source of your quibbling. Now as Gal 1:11-12 are closely related to 1:1-2, it looks as if it has a good claim to being an integral part of the text. What can you say about 1 Cor 15:4-8?

(Could someone post the link to the forum's last analysis of 1 Cor 15? I can show that at least part of it is post-Marcan.)


spin

Toto

Try this:

On the authenticity of 1 Cor. 15

GakuseiDon

Since when is taking into consideration everything someone writes when trying to understand their beliefs "an idiotic position"? Short answer: It isn't. In fact, it is a very sensible position. Your statement is simply bizarre.

And claiming that "you don't know what Paul wrote and what Paul didn't" is a strawman. :angry: I've seen you do this many times -- other people's speculations are dismissed because they "don't KNOW", while your speculations are reasonable deductions built on the evidence. Of course, nobody really KNOWS. I'm a Christian, and I think the evidence points towards historicity, but I would never claim to KNOW that there was a historical Jesus.

If you want to tell us how you KNOW that Paul wrote Galatians, then do so. Otherwise, allow others to build positions based upon what they understand is probably authentic to Paul. It doesn't mean there can't be disagreements over what passages are interpolations, and how this affects one's argument. But please stop this double-standard where others must KNOW something in order for their position to have validity.

spin

To try once again to make the issue clear: until you comprehend as much as you can of what the text you are analyzing actually says to the best of your ability, it doesn't matter what else you read. You must first read the text and get what is obtainable from it. That is basic and simple. There should be no problem with this idea. To do anything else is as I said an idiotic position, for you prevent yourself from understanding the source text. Once you've done what you can with the source text then you can turn to other sources for what that's worth.

I contend that Galatians is in conflict with 1 Corinthians 15. Which is one reason why one should suspect 1 Cor 15.

Getting angry won't help you. It is not a strawman. I know Paul has been interpolated. There are simple examples and more complex ones. Galatians is short and relatively coherent to me, so I feel safer using it. And it was me who introduced this idea based on Galatians that we should read Paul for what he says here.

Is there any interpolation that I have suggested that hasn't had a number of reasons for thinking it an interpolation?

It is sufficient for me to argue that the same person wrote Galatians much of 1 Corinthians and much of a few other texts (Romans - but not the last chapter, 2 Corinthians, some of Philippians, 1 Thes... and what have I forgotten?).

There is no double standards here. Everything one bases arguments on is up for challenge. If there is a reasonable objection to any text, it should be heard and evaluated.


spin

spamandham

I do not understand this example. Paul is quoting the LXX of Isaiah 52.7 and applying it to his own preaching of the gospel (see verses 14 and 17).[/quote]

The same expression you pointed out, is used here in two places to mean two different things, neither of which reasonably refer to Paul's gospel. I think this is why mainstream translations of Gal. 1:23 simply translate it as "preaching" instead of "preaching as gospel". If you want to go down that road, it would be "preaching as good news".

Unfortunately, gospel is an overloaded term that sometimes refers to Paul's specific theology, other times refers to someone else's theology, and at other times just means "good news".

I think we've hashed through this enough already. I contend there is nothing in Paul's writings that tells us the cross had theological significance to the Jerusalem crowd, and instead Paul makes statements that bring that assumption into question. You have correlated different passages to infer that it did. Unless you're holding a trump card you haven't played yet, I think we're just at an impasse.

It requires almost no explanation at all if we just take Paul at his word that his crucifixion/resurrection theology, really is his innovation. If that's the case, it explains perfectly well why Paul see's circumcision as unnecessary.

The Jerusalem sect might have believed in the crucifixion, but if so, it did not have theological significance to them. That's why they went out of their way to undermine Paul at every opportunity. Otherwise, why would they even care that gentiles were uncircumcised? Being Jewish, as demonstrated by circumcision, was what they thought important, not the message of the cross.

It only becomes complex when you start with the assumption that the Jerusalem sect held the same crucifixion/resurrection theology as Paul.

Dang. What will I do then?

Have a great weekend Ben.