sotto voce

Paul had actual somatic illness in Galatia. In Corinth he was merely weak, which may mean nothing more than that he had no idea what he was going to say to the church before he opened his mouth. Plenty of preachers have been in that situation.

One of the standard academic rules about reading Paul in particular is that he must be read in broad passages, not in snippets like that; though your conclusion is quite unjustifiable even from that small selection. Paul was entirely certain that there was no saner person than he in the world; and everyone else knew it, too. But Paul knew that the human propensity to describe as insanity the most rational conclusion, if it made demands beyond toleration, was very strong. He well knew that Greek thinkers called his belief folly, but he knew also that this was a defence reaction in order to obviate an open and fair discussion. And the Corinthians were welcome to call him insane, too, if they dared; it would be only to their disadvantage, because they would have to eat their words if they did that. He knew that he had answers to everyone, no matter who they were, and was the complete master of the gospel he preached. From the same letter:

'The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.' 2 Cr 10:4-6

So the Corinthians knew exactly where they stood. They could stay, and do as Paul commanded; or they could walk away, as happened to Jesus when they realised what was involved in discipleship. They could walk away, saying, "He's insane." But it would have been seen as only sour grapes.

aa5874

Your claim is completely unsubstantiated. You have ZERO corroboration that Paul had somatic illness in Galatia.

When was Paul in Galatia and who SAW him?

stephan huller

I happen to think it is all garbage - the names of places, the craziness etc. Show me another example of two collections of letters, one shorter than the other and addressed often to different individuals/people. I don't believe Paul ever went on a European mission. When I was dating black strippers in Canada I remember going into one lady's house and there was a big picture of black Jesus. I knew right away things weren't going to go well for me. The point is that white people made up this mission to the white people but I don't buy it. Speaking with greater care let me notice that most of these new locations are in Asia Minor and Greece - the very place Polycarp was strongest.

Solo

Stephan, irrespective of what you think, ecdemomania, popularly known as wanderlust, is a medically observed phenomenon. Now, Hans Conzelmann thought Paul's behaviour could not be seen in other than theological terms but we (the Freethinkers) do not find such proscriptions carrying any weight. Especially when Paul's sense of persecution includes the perils of travel (! 2 Cor 11:26). You may want to think of Paul as a headstrong and bright guy who acquired a serious challenge in mid-life (Swedenborg was 55 when he was hit by the prophetic bug !), and a compulsion to tell those who would listen everywhere in the world how the Lord wants them to behave at the time of an imminent collapse of heavens.

I think it is interesting whereto in Galatia went the letter, as Paul seemed to have targetted large cities, where people of interest (those in search of the Lord, or their life's meaning) normally congregated.

Best,
Jiri

sotto voce

Thank you.

Yes, indeed, but in a good way, that put him to inconvenience for the sake of spread of the gospel. One can of course do it the other way round, and compromise one's beliefs according to 'wind direction'.

It's only to say that in Galatia he had a physical illness, something all are susceptible to. We may suppose that his illness did not stop him from gathering interested Galatians and passing on the gospel.

I'm not sure what is meant by this. He was subject to the same laws, biological as well as civil, as everyone else, though he had the advantages of Roman citizenship, and of Pharisaical OT training, which shows in his exposition of the gospel. Paul's most prominent characteristic (apart from his tough constitution, perhaps) was imv his energetic and selfless devotion to people and their best interests as he saw them, whoever they were; Gentile as well as Jew, slave as well as emperor, female as well as male. So it is apt to say that he was all things to all people, in the very best sense of that phrase. It is not hard to understand, imv, why his fellows at Miletus wept at his final departure.

aa5874

Do you by any chance think the words of Paul are inerrant or must be true? Do you understand that it was NOT the Church who have deduced that the Pauline writings were MANIPULATED?

The Pauline writings CANNOT be trusted since there is ZERO corroboration for any Pauline writer before the Fall of the Temple. ZERO.

Presumptions about Galatians are really worthless.

arnoldo

According the the article cited below, "Galatians" may not have been primarily written to a specific geographic location but rather to people (primarily the lost tribes of Israel then Gentiles) residing in a spiritual state of bondage.

See page 10 of the following pdf article by Andrew Gabriel Roth entitled," RECOVERING THE ARAMAIC ORGINS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE LOST VISION OF THE NAZARENES

A key point on page 10 is that the word "Galatians" involves a wordplay relating to the word "galuta" which is a form of slavery.

Duvduv

If Galatians had something to do with them then why the controversy about gentiles and circumcision and faith in the Christ for reconciliation with God?
Presumably that isn't relevant to the Lost tribes.

Solo

Would you care to point me to some verses from Paul, or do you you just want to have a rhetorical contest ?

Jiri

sotto voce

There's no need to get so earnest, surely. I could point you to a list of volumes, mostly now regrettably out of print, written by very sane people indeed, renowned scholars to a man, who studied, analysed and indeed praised the words of Paul, and treated them as those of the Logos himself. But I regret that I do not have that many days spare to complete that task.