Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 08-11-2009, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

'on the contrary' may refer to the fact that those he met with did not object (or add to ) his message. (end of v 6) regardless, verse 9 is reason enough to come to the conclusion that Galatians says Paul sought and received confirmation of his message.

No, it doesn't. It is merely Paul's spin on the issue. They shook hands to get rid of him. You go to the gentiles; we'll stick with the circumcised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I do not think Peter and Cephas need to be the same person to come to this conclusion.

The conflict of Paul that you are suggesting...
is most definitely not described in the text at all. (or any NY text)

And one wouldn't expect it to be. But then again your interpretation isn't described in Galatians either. My point is that you cannot assume your apologetic stance. I can assume another quite viable understanding of it, invalidating the weight of your assumption. You need to do some legwork to justify your assumption.

It is simpler to see that Paul may have believed his own statement that he didn't get his gospel from other people (at least directly), but had a revelation (whatever that meant to him), rather than to assume a far more complex scenario such as yours.

spin

I think you are reading modern evangelicalism into my response.
I did not claim any complexity or posit any scenario. I only quoted the text.

show_no_mercy · 08-11-2009, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

What's the twisted logic that you're using to say that Acts and Galatians aren't contradictory by citing Acts again? Where in Galatians does it say that Peter or Cephas was preaching to the Gentiles?

you are on a tangent. We are talking about conflicts between Paul and the apostles.

If you want to get pedantic, this whole digression about conflicts between Paul and the other apostles is a tangent to the OP.

spin · 08-12-2009, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

No, it doesn't. It is merely Paul's spin on the issue. They shook hands to get rid of him. You go to the gentiles; we'll stick with the circumcised.

And one wouldn't expect it to be. But then again your interpretation isn't described in Galatians either. My point is that you cannot assume your apologetic stance. I can assume another quite viable understanding of it, invalidating the weight of your assumption. You need to do some legwork to justify your assumption.

It is simpler to see that Paul may have believed his own statement that he didn't get his gospel from other people (at least directly), but had a revelation (whatever that meant to him), rather than to assume a far more complex scenario such as yours.

I think you are reading modern evangelicalism into my response.
I did not claim any complexity or posit any scenario. I only quoted the text.

So you think that your presentation was somehow neutral? that you were "only quoted the text"? You mean that there was no interpretative framework guiding your choice of text?

spin

angelo · 08-13-2009, 03:08 AM

What Would It Take to Convince You God Exists? - Philip Brocum

sschlichter · 08-13-2009, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I think you are reading modern evangelicalism into my response.
I did not claim any complexity or posit any scenario. I only quoted the text.

So you think that your presentation was somehow neutral? that you were "only quoted the text"? You mean that there was no interpretative framework guiding your choice of text?

spin

it is impossible not to have an interpretive framework. I can only hope it was neutral. some level of assumptions are impossible to set aside. I assume Paul existed. I assume Paul wrote the text. I assume you exist. While I do not have solid proof for these assumptions and am working on commitment based on degrees of evidence, I am allowing them to impact my understanding during this conversation.

I am certainly open to hearing out anything that I have said that does not come from the text.

sschlichter · 08-13-2009, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

...Paul's conflict with the people in Jerusalem may be that they, messianists of the John the Baptist flavor do not accept the messiah of Paul....

I believe, without any supporting evidence or references, just a belief, taken on faith, that Constantine assigned the most important holiday of the Pagan calendar to the birth of John the Baptist, not Jesus, because at that time, i.e. about 320 CE, John was the top figure in the nascent Christian tradition.

In that era, if I am not badly mistaken, Constantine was a follower of Arius, i.e. supporting the idea that Jesus was not coexistent, nor consubstantial, with God, in other words, Jesus represented an entity created de novo, by God, not an entity derived by fission of God...

Accordingly therefore, Jesus was nothing more than a prophet, i.e. same idea as one finds expressed three centuries later by the Muslims. As such, Jesus ranked lower than John the Baptist, at least in Constantine's eyes....

Arius himself would have cringed at this notion. He argued that Jesus was of 'similar' substance as God, the firstborn among all creation. all things were created through Christ, inlcuding John the Baptist.

spin · 08-13-2009, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So you think that your presentation was somehow neutral? that you were "only quoted the text"? You mean that there was no interpretative framework guiding your choice of text?

spin

it is impossible not to have an interpretive framework. I can only hope it was neutral. some level of assumptions are impossible to set aside. I assume Paul existed. I assume Paul wrote the text. I assume you exist. While I do not have solid proof for these assumptions and am working on commitment based on degrees of evidence, I am allowing them to impact my understanding during this conversation.

I am certainly open to hearing out anything that I have said that does not come from the text.

As I pointed out to Vinnie elsewhere, it's not easy to know what exactly Paul actually wrote, given that even numerous texts with his name were not written by him. How much of what is in those texts considered his is not Pauline? One must hold any content which reflects post-Pauline orthodoxy with suspicion. The Petrine verses in Galatians is an easy sore point, aimed as they are at giving Petrine priority. (I've argued for a number of items in the Pauline corpus as problematical, such as the use of kurios not as a title but as a direct reference both to god and Jesus: a writer doesn't use a term that indicates two different references without helping the reader to know which is referred to.)

One needs to test Pauline material before citing it.

spin

avi · 08-13-2009, 08:06 AM

Responding to my argument concerning Arius' perspective

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

that Jesus was not coexistent, nor consubstantial, with God, in other words, Jesus represented an entity created de novo, by God, not an entity derived by fission of God...

Steve replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Arius himself would have cringed at this notion. He argued that Jesus was of 'similar' substance as God, the firstborn among all creation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiki Article

None of Arius' original writings remain in existence. Emperor Constantine ordered their burning while Arius was still living, and any that survived were later destroyed by his opponents (the Church). Those works which have survived are quoted in the works of churchmen who denounced him as a heretic, leading some but not all scholars to question their reliability.

sschlichter · 08-13-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Responding to my argument concerning Arius' perspective

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

that Jesus was not coexistent, nor consubstantial, with God, in other words, Jesus represented an entity created de novo, by God, not an entity derived by fission of God...

Steve replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiki Article

None of Arius' original writings remain in existence. Emperor Constantine ordered their burning while Arius was still living, and any that survived were later destroyed by his opponents (the Church). Those works which have survived are quoted in the works of churchmen who denounced him as a heretic, leading some but not all scholars to question their reliability.

Arian Christians were nearly all of the Eastern Empire at one time. It is silly to suggest that we do not know what Arius believed.

Even if the only representation is what is defended against by orthodox christians, it is more than likely much more accurate than what you just made up. If Arius was a worse heretic than he really was, you can expect that those writing against him did not paint his doctrine as closer to theirs than it really was.

sschlichter · 08-13-2009, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

it is impossible not to have an interpretive framework. I can only hope it was neutral. some level of assumptions are impossible to set aside. I assume Paul existed. I assume Paul wrote the text. I assume you exist. While I do not have solid proof for these assumptions and am working on commitment based on degrees of evidence, I am allowing them to impact my understanding during this conversation.

I am certainly open to hearing out anything that I have said that does not come from the text.

As I pointed out to Vinnie elsewhere, it's not easy to know what exactly Paul actually wrote, given that even numerous texts with his name were not written by him. How much of what is in those texts considered his is not Pauline? One must hold any content which reflects post-Pauline orthodoxy with suspicion. The Petrine verses in Galatians is an easy sore point, aimed as they are at giving Petrine priority. (I've argued for a number of items in the Pauline corpus as problematical, such as the use of kurios not as a title but as a direct reference both to god and Jesus: a writer doesn't use a term that indicates two different references without helping the reader to know which is referred to.)

One needs to test Pauline material before citing it.

spin

Why wouldn't you have the same dilemma with kurios in the septuagint?

One needs to test how they determine what is post-Pauline orthodoxy. if you can tell it from the doctrine taught in the suspicious Pauline writings then it is a little circular, don't you think.

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

08-13-2009, 03:08 AM	#204
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	What Would It Take to Convince You God Exists? - Philip Brocum

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.