Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 03-02-2012, 06:10 AM

What entitled Barnabas or anyone else to be involved then?
It's rough running a one man show that involves secret information from heaven to preach to gentiles with some Jews like the apostles Junias and Androcinus tagging along in Christ but whose connection is thus hopelessly inferior for lack of heavenly revelation.
In any case Ephesians doesn't prevent someone else getting grace. But they better stick to his gospel.
And how would Paul know that the gospel he happened to preach to Jews, or that others were preaching to Jews was exclusive if it wasn't revealed from heaven?!

But I guess this whole view was "coincidentally " convenient for the Constantinian religion ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

"Paul" is saying that unlike anyone else who had the idea of preaching to gentiles HE. got his teachings directly from Christ in heaven.

Total, prize-winning, undiluted balderdash.

'Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.' Eph 3:8 NIV

Grace! Undeserved benefit!

The fact that he was apostle to Gentiles had no relevance to the means of his spiritual birth, which was anyway a matter of disgrace, not something to be proud of. It was his physical birth, in Tarsus, his familiarity with Greek ideas, and his Roman citizenship, that made him the obvious choice to go to the Gentiles. And in Jerusalem, that was picking the short straw. Going to the dogs, if you like.

Chili · 03-02-2012, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So how would you interpret those explicit verses in Galatians 1, Sotto Voce?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

.....AND as a "late-comer" he both praised these two people as "apostles" who had been "in Christ" before him, and insisted that his gospel was exclusively revealed to him as the true one.....??

He did not say that the gospel was exclusively revealed to him. It was the gospel that he persecuted, and the Twelve, Stephen, Philip and many others had accepted that gospel before Paul. Paul eventually preached what they preached, alongside Barnabas and Silas.

As always with Paul, in full context, or in as full context as can be readily mustered.

'I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another. Because there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ [that is, people who want to destroy it with legalism. Not gospel at all, but its antithesis]. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Am I now seeking the favour of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. Because I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. Because I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.' Gal 1:6-12

The comparison here is not of Paul's gospel rather than that of any other apostle. That is not the problem of the wretched Galatians. They, in Paul's view, have got the poison of the Pharisees, that John the B and Jesus had opposed. Paul called them dogs, Jesus and John called them vipers. That's where the real contradiction lies, not in imagined differences between apostles. So Paul is saying that the Galatians are not defying him personally, or any other apostle, but God himself. Though, just in case they think that Paul is trying it on with his story of personal conversion, or was deluded about it, Paul after this goes on to confirm to the Galatians that his message was no different from that of Cephas, John, Barnabas and James, members of the Jerusalem church, at least three of whom had known Jesus personally, as a man. Paul is emphatic that the message that the Galatians have received is both unified and authentic, and no other 'gospel' should be entertained, even if he, or even an angel, should be the bearer.

Yes, the same Gospel but 2 different ends is what this is all about. I think he calls them 'bewitched' Galatians too, to say that witchcraft is the difference between his Gospel and the other Gospel, same Christ, same words, just a little different reception of the maxim wherein for Paul religion must be left behind, or Christ is no longer the same Christ is the one who set them free.

I think that circumcision must not be part of it, which shows obedience to the Laws of Moses for which Christ died to set us free, and so it is wrong to attach sinfulness in restraint to the idea of liberty in salvation.

The poison of the pharisees is like bible thumping, which may require some effort to leave behind, I am not sure, and that is what his urgency was all about. Paul urged them to employ restraint from scripture reading so that inspiration may fill the void and give the proper answers as their personal needs required. So let's maybe say that Paul's salvation was the first step only towards endearment of the self and so 'the race is on' wherin religion must be left behind to find completion in the self.

Not mine to say, but it is true indeed that there is reason why Jesus or James in Matthew and in Mark went back to Galilee to preach to the Jews 'back home' as his God had also forsaken him before he even died.

'Striving to please men' instead of God sounds like to fall in line, and so 'to obey' instead of 'freedom in the self' as bond-servant of Christ who set them free, seems like opposites to me.

sotto voce · 03-02-2012, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

"Paul" is saying that unlike anyone else who had the idea of preaching to gentiles HE. got his teachings directly from Christ in heaven.

Total, prize-winning, undiluted balderdash.

'Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.' Eph 3:8 NIV

Grace! Undeserved benefit!

The fact that he was apostle to Gentiles had no relevance to the means of his spiritual birth, which was anyway a matter of disgrace, not something to be proud of. It was his physical birth, in Tarsus, his familiarity with Greek ideas, and his Roman citizenship, that made him the obvious choice to go to the Gentiles. And in Jerusalem, that was picking the short straw. Going to the dogs, if you like.

What entitled Barnabas or anyone else to be involved then?

Personal credibility, like anyone else in the church. Then, as now.

Quote:

It's rough running a one man show that involves secret information from heaven

That's what Muhammad and Joseph Smith found out, anyway. Had to resort to rough methodology!

Quote:

to preach to gentiles with some Jews like the apostles Junias and Androcinus tagging along in Christ but whose connection is thus hopelessly inferior for lack of heavenly revelation.

Paul felt they were superior because they had been in Christ before he had. Even though they may all have been witnesses at Stephen's stoning, Paul had taken the opposite meaning.

Quote:

In any case Ephesians doesn't prevent someone else getting grace. But they better stick to his gospel.

People could take him or leave him. And many left him. Others doubtless infiltrated his 'children', in the Roman fashion. So there were many ways of crossing Paul and the other apostles (and if you crossed one, you crossed them all); though not so many ways as there are now.

Quote:

And how would Paul know that the gospel he happened to preach to Jews, or that others were preaching to Jews was exclusive if it wasn't revealed from heaven?!

He didn't know it was exclusive. Because it wasn't. What Paul received on the way to murder in Damascus was a kick in the backside. Probably as much from his own guilty conscience as anywhere.

Chili · 03-02-2012, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

"Paul" is saying that unlike anyone else who had the idea of preaching to gentiles HE. got his teachings directly from Christ in heaven.

Total, prize-winning, undiluted balderdash.

'Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.' Eph 3:8 NIV

Grace! Undeserved benefit!

The fact that he was apostle to Gentiles had no relevance to the means of his spiritual birth, which was anyway a matter of disgrace, not something to be proud of. It was his physical birth, in Tarsus, his familiarity with Greek ideas, and his Roman citizenship, that made him the obvious choice to go to the Gentiles. And in Jerusalem, that was picking the short straw. Going to the dogs, if you like.

Not sure about this as Jews were Jews and were OK as Jews and so still are today without hearing the Gospel.

To preach the Gospel to the Jew is to hang another burden on his neck wherein he could not carry his mat on Sunday even, and so was identified as twice the sinner that he really was. Firstly torn by the prophets of old and now also the example set by Jesus for whom the seventh day was holy and without end for those in Christ in the total abandonment of passage reading.

Chili · 03-02-2012, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

'Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.' Eph 3:8 NIV

Grace! Undeserved benefit!

Sure, but grace does not equal wisdom but only the ability to receive the unsearchable riches of Christ and for this Paul must speak not to the mind of man but to the blood of Christ that is alive in them.

Quote:

The fact that he was apostle to Gentiles had no relevance to the means of his spiritual birth, which was anyway a matter of disgrace, not something to be proud of. It was his physical birth, in Tarsus, his familiarity with Greek ideas, and his Roman citizenship, that made him the obvious choice to go to the Gentiles. And in Jerusalem, that was picking the short straw. Going to the dogs, if you like.

Not really and just the opposite is true. Paul was not a Reformer of the Old but a Transformer of the Old for which the Old is needed, but he now saw this potential also in the gentiles but not the heathens.

His urgence was to leave the Jews alone as Jew to reach their own desitiny as Jew in time when they were ready to receive. Instead he went to the Gentiles to show that functially the blood of Chirst was Universal and worked for them as well . . and so his Church would be like a mother hen that can take all minor mythologies under her wings, and so expose them to the inspired and unsearchable riches of Christ.

Quote:

He didn't know it was exclusive. Because it wasn't. What Paul received on the way to murder in Damascus was a kick in the backside. Probably as much from his own guilty conscience as anywhere.

It is a bit naive to believe that in those days you could just be an exortionist and demand money from other people or burn their church or kill them if they liked that better. I think that Paul was just 'raising the ax' on his own life here and have his own religion provide the answer.

Solo · 03-02-2012, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

.....AND as a "late-comer" he both praised these two people as "apostles" who had been "in Christ" before him, and insisted that his gospel was exclusively revealed to him as the true one.....??

It is possible that Paul's 'in Christ' refers to the experience of rapturous grandeur (followed by depressive psychosis), and his designation of 'apostle' means having a correct interpretation of this experience - according to his gospel. So, in the case of Andronicus and Junias (Junia ?), Paul acknowledges they received 'Christ' before he did without saying they developed their own gospel variant. Most likely, his commending the two means they followed Paul's gospel line.

Best,
Jiri

Chili · 03-02-2012, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

.....AND as a "late-comer" he both praised these two people as "apostles" who had been "in Christ" before him, and insisted that his gospel was exclusively revealed to him as the true one.....??

It is possible that Paul's 'in Christ' refers to the experience of rapturous grandeur (followed by depressive psychosis), and his designation of 'apostle' means having a correct interpretation of this experience - according to his gospel. So, in the case of Andronicus and Junias (Junia ?), Paul acknowledges they received 'Christ' before he did without saying they developed their own gospel variant. Most likely, his commending the two means they followed Paul's gospel line.

Best,
Jiri

Paul sure did see a difference and did have a beatific vision of rapturous grandeur (nice phrase, of which I saw a painting once to show that image). Your notion that it was followed by 'depressive psychosis' is not always true and was not true for Paul. To this end 'a manger and swaddling clothes' are the very place he landed in when he crashed from the high horse he was riding on and so depressive psychosis did not haunt him to lead him back to the 'yoke of slavery and sin' that he sought delivery from when that vision set him free from that.

Duvduv · 03-02-2012, 10:44 AM

As far as I know the writer of Romans is writing to gentiles. So any Jewish "apostles" would have no significance to any gentiles because "Paul" was given the exclusive franchise to preach to the gentiles. But he humbles himself in relation to Junias and Androcinus as apostles (THROUGH WHOM?) before himself as if this were important to the gentiles.

And if these two people are working to preach to gentiles how did they get to be apostles to gentiles BEFORE HIMSELF without the revelation from the Christ?
Especially since in Galatians we see HE got it first.

The apostles in Jerusalem were not apostles to gentiles, but they must have gotten their revelation from somewhere of equal value about which Paul never mentions a word at all. And they most certainly must have been of greater importance than Junias and Androcinus.

If Paul wants to say that preaching to gentiles (which was now acceptable) had to be first cleared with him, then he most certainly was the most important person in the world because he would be able to preach and preselytize to both Jews and gentiles.

And lo and behold in Romans 15:19-20 the man whose job it was to preach to the gentiles based on an exclusive revelation in Galatians says he doesn't want to tread on anyone else's territory:

So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. 20 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.

This cannot possibly be written by the same person who wrote Galatians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

.....AND as a "late-comer" he both praised these two people as "apostles" who had been "in Christ" before him, and insisted that his gospel was exclusively revealed to him as the true one.....??

It is possible that Paul's 'in Christ' refers to the experience of rapturous grandeur (followed by depressive psychosis), and his designation of 'apostle' means having a correct interpretation of this experience - according to his gospel. So, in the case of Andronicus and Junias (Junia ?), Paul acknowledges they received 'Christ' before he did without saying they developed their own gospel variant. Most likely, his commending the two means they followed Paul's gospel line.

Best,
Jiri

sotto voce · 03-02-2012, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

As far as I know the writer of Romans is writing to gentiles. So any Jewish "apostles" would have no significance to any gentiles because "Paul" was given the exclusive franchise to preach to the gentiles. But he humbles himself in relation to Junias and Androcinus as apostles (THROUGH WHOM?) before himself as if this were important to the gentiles.

And if these two people are working to preach to gentiles how did they get to be apostles to gentiles BEFORE HIMSELF without the revelation from the Christ?
Especially since in Galatians we see HE got it first.

He can't have got it first, because he was on his way to kill people who already had it when he got it.

Chili · 03-02-2012, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. 20 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.

This cannot possibly be written by the same person who wrote Galatians.

Of course it was the same person and what Paul is telling us here is that it is not possible to change the heart of those who already claim to know Christ as that removes the 'thief in the night' image that he presented to them as gentile. I essence he is saying that it is not possible to change the heart of man if the mind is the blockade to get there.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.