Dharma

What a typical Christian interpretation ...Pagan? The fact that some supposed descendant of King David, named Jesus, was now borrowing hellenic ideas of the "sun God" and "Sun King" and this king's association with healing (more to do with Apollo than King David) and the association with the cross which was another "pagan" symbol of sun worship, pretty much means Christians are "pagans". The manner in which Christianity was practiced (it's constant association with sun worship) is the correct way and not "later pagan additions" as many Judaised Protestants would like to believe.

CJD

I was using 'pagan' in its technical sense, SFB.

Amaleq13

Sorry about that.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. Are you referring to Paul's argument as not being valid from a Jewish standpoint?

And the traditional Jewish argument have been that becoming a true member of the family did require one to adhere to the same Laws?

Doesn't that render Torah effectively irrelevant?

CJD

No, that would be oxymoronic from my perspective. Paul's position is the Jewish standpoint par excellence. What I mean here is simply that the Israelites during this period of time were using Torah (i.e., the revelation and oracles of YHWH) in the wrong direction — by claiming, permanently and inalienably, to be the covenant people of God. The promises made to their forefather Abraham contradict this. Paul knew it; and because he reckoned the messiah had come, he knew that now was the time for the nations to be gathered in — such a feature was part and parcel of the messianic age.

Not quite. "Becoming" a member of the family was never through Torah. The Israelites knew that. The exodus symbolized it: they were redeemed first, then they were given Torah at Sinai. Redemption then Law. The arguments Paul faced were subtly different — keeping, not becoming, in covenant with God depended on Torah observance, for Torah observance was the very marker that delineated who was in and who was out. This doesn't fly, so Paul, much less in the messianic age, where Torah is written on the heart, not on stone. The main thrust of Paul's argument is that while Torah is holy and good and from YHWH, it could not mark people out as God's people because no one could remain faithful to it. Proof positive of this fact for Paul (and other Pharisees and scribes like him) was the reality of exile under which Israel had continued to suffer well into the first century. The only difference between him and other Pharisaical zealots was christology (and it cannot be drawn on Hellinistic/Judaistic lines; for starters, that doesn't do justice to the record of Jesus' constant self-identification with YHWH and his work — not to mention Paul's identification of Jesus with YHWH). If the Christ has come, what does that now mean with respect to God's covenant and the age in which we now live? That is the general question the NT writers are dealing with throughout.

Not if it was always intended to be used otherwise, that is, to fulfill a specific role for a time. Is this clear from the TNK? To be honest, no, not quite. But I think the implications are there, just as they are for the way Jesus went about his messiah-ship. But then you're not speaking with someone who thinks the prophetic literature is a collection of determinative, single, specific prognostications.

Best,

CJD

CJD

What the heck? Interest always seems to wane right about this point …

I was thinking about this exchange:
It might be a good idea to offer an example of what I mean. Jonah comes to mind. It's a story about a Jewish prophet who goes to a Gentile kingdom and commands them to repent lest the creator god (who happens to be Israel's god) destroy them. Implicit in this narrative is the notion that YHWH is the god of the Gentiles too, for they are only commanded to repent, not to undertake Torah.

As to the larger question, that is, did the messianic-age expectations include blessings upon the 'nations' (i.e., the in-gathering of the Gentiles in God's covenant)? Isaiah is the usual suspect in this matter:

"In that day [the day of restoration — return from exile] Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom YHWH of hosts has blessed, saying, 'Blessed be Egypt my people and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance'" (19:24).

The first-century Jewish understanding of this would have been: What was originally in view here (in Isa. 19:24) was the restoration from Assyrian exile. But Babylonian exile intervenes. Then what? This then becomes the expectation for the restoration from Babylon. But enter Daniel, who says that the return from exile is a long way off (due to Israel's lack of repentance). This may help us understand a little bit more about the recorded actions of Paul before the Damascus Road (and of the 'Jerusalem Jews' Amaleq13 mentions above). Their persecutions were motivated precisely in order to bring about the repentance necessary in order for YHWH to make good on his promise — to restore Israel.

But what about the first-century Jewish Christian perspective (of which Paul serves as a good example)? Well, the same as above, except at that point where they deemed the return from exile to have begun with the coming of the Christ. Why wasn't the return like that anticipated by the majority of Jews at that time (earthly manifestation of YHWH's kingdom)? Paul would point us to his messiah's own words and actions: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate" (Matt. 23:37–38). In other words, he wanted to bring full restoration but his people really blew it, so Paul and others (namely, Peter) speak of a future day when the restoration, the return from exile, will be made complete.

Capice?

Best,

CJD

Dharma

hmm, is it soo hard for Christians to understand that the tribal God of the Jews would "choose" the Jews? It's like the Egyptian creator God Ra choosing the Egyptian Pharoah to rule Egypt, is it so surprising? Sheesh...Ra didn't choose you either, get over it -- REPENT!

Amaleq13

Patience is a virtue.

Is that opinion shared by modern Jewish scholars? It doesn't appear to have been accepted by even his Jewish-Christian counterparts.

I think Paul's identification of Jesus is the only significant one of the two described since the former seems to refer to later Gospel stories but aren't you oversimplifying Paul's depiction of his sacrificed Savior? Are you suggesting that nothing Paul believed about Jesus Christ was more similar to Hellenistic beliefs than Jewish?

What about a dying/resurrecting godman?

What about the idea that the world was ruled by evil powers (ie "the god of this world")?

What about the notion of a vicarious atoning sacrifice? Wasn't the Jewish belief that one had to offer one's own sacrifice (ie something personally valuable)?

Yes but isn't it a question that existed only because the Christian Messiah was not like the Messiah expected by Judaism?

Amaleq13

YHWH is implied to be the god of the Gentiles only in the sense of being "the one true god" in general. I think you read too much into this to suggest their repentance, alone, would have made them part of the "Jewish family". It seems to me it would simply have kept them from being destroyed.

Except he didn't.

And what murdered prophets would Jesus have been talking about anyway?

Steven Avery

> CJD ...... Paul's position is the Jewish standpoint par excellence.
Modern Jewish scholars -- maybe to some extent by such as the late David Flusser, and of course Messianic scholars like Michael Brown
Jewish-Christian counterparts -- not sure if this is a reference to his disagreements with Peter, etc ?
Within modern Christian scholarship -- possibly the most relevant similar viewpoint would be N. T. Wright, and some others in the "New Perspective on Paul" since they link Pau's thinking more directly to Israel and covenant.

CJD can indicate if my answers are anywhere close to appropriate :-)

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Amaleq13

I would be more interested in Flusser confirming that "Paul's position is the Jewish standpoint par excellence" but I only find him discussing the Jewishness of Jesus online. Does he offer support for the claim elsewhere?

I'm referring to those who opposed Paul's preaching and attempted to "correct" it after him. Aren't we told in Acts that the boys in Jerusalem sent people where Paul had gone to correct his efforts?