Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by iskander »

outhouse wrote:
iskander wrote:
Yes , Paul used the " Assembly of YHWH" in Gal 1:13 as meaning the same YHWH as before . An assembly of observant Jews and with the addition of gentiles for whom YHWH is their God .

And I argue Paul was a perverter of Judaism not the same as Israelite pious Judaism.

Pauls Judaism still debated today and one can and they do create many different classes of a Hellenistic Jew

It is impossible to pick out verses like that to determine Pauline theology as context is more key then a phrase on its own.
Jesus and Paul were Jewish
See file
Attachments
boya 1.PNG
boya 1.PNG (112.95 KiB) Viewed 8896 times
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Jesus was Jewish. he was an oppressed Jew. Paul was not an oppressed Aramaic Jew

Paul was a Hellenistic Jew at best, and he mirrors a Hellenistic Proselyte who uses a authority status to sell his theology to communities that would never know the difference.

Pauls Judaism is still debated today, he can be described from Proselyte to Pharisee.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

The relationship between Paul the Apostle and Second Temple Judaism continues to be the subject of much scholarly research, as it is thought that Paul played an important role in the relationship between Christianity and Judaism as a whole. Paul's influence on Christian thinking is said to be more significant than any other New Testament author.[1]

Some scholars see Paul (or Saul) as completely in line with 1st-century Judaism (a "Pharisee" and student of Gamaliel or as part of Hellenistic Judaism),[2] others see him as opposed to 1st-century Judaism (see Pauline passages supporting antinomianism and Marcionism), while the majority see him as somewhere in between these extremes, opposed to "Ritual Laws" (see for example Circumcision controversy in early Christianity) but in full agreement on "Divine Law". These views of Paul are paralleled by Christian views of the Old Covenant. See also Antithesis in the Bible and Christianity in the 1st century.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by iskander »

outhouse wrote:Jesus was Jewish. he was an oppressed Jew. Paul was not an oppressed Aramaic Jew

Paul was a Hellenistic Jew at best, and he mirrors a Hellenistic Proselyte who uses a authority status to sell his theology to communities that would never know the difference.

Pauls Judaism is still debated today, he can be described from Proselyte to Pharisee.
All of it is kosher at the beginning
see file
Attachments
boya 2.PNG
boya 2.PNG (71.48 KiB) Viewed 8889 times
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

iskander wrote: All of it is kosher at the beginning
I was just commenting about the first baby steps away from Judaism before crucifixion with INRI and its possible connection to the "son of god" title.

But my honest opinion is that the massive amounts of gentiles that came to Passover every year from the Diaspora led to an Empire with many monotheist who didn't want to be Jews but found value in their god.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Michael BG »

spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Paul writes,
and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
Interesting to get the verse that demonstrates that Paul said nothing openly about Jesus. The one thing that sets him on the path away from his earlier zealous Judaism is his belief in Christ crucified. And he didn't talk about it (outside closed session). You don't find that in any way strange.
Bold added
No I don’t. It seems that Paul thought that James, Cephas and John might reject his gospel. For this reason he wouldn’t want to present his gospel about the anointed Jesus to the whole assembly of “Christians” (or if you prefer the group of Jews in Jerusalem who saw James, Cephas and John as their leaders). At work it is normal for a manager to have a discussion with a worker about their performance in private and not in public. It is also normal for a worker to raise their issues in private and not public. In politics it is normal to talk to small groups about your ideas not everyone.

This verse does not state that Paul didn’t say anything about the anointed Jesus to others in Jerusalem it only states that he asked for approval of the leadership of the group and not the whole group.
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I have already stated that Paul states that James, Cephas and John have approved of his gospel to the Gentiles.
First, Paul states that there is only one gospel (Gal 1:6ff), so maybe they approved of his gospel, but Paul did not write about a gospel to the gentiles. There were not two gospels and presenting a gospel to the circumcised and a gospel to the uncircumcised is discounted by Paul. Gal 2:7b-8 which injects Peter rather than Cephas into the text does not reflect Paul, but later values that wish to put Paul in his place.
I am happy to see Gal 2:7b-8 as an interpolation. However Gal 2:7a has “when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised” and Gal 2:9 has “that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised”. It still seems different gospels are being considered.
spin wrote:Paul clearly shows his lack of respect toward the pillars (Gal 2:6). Whatever the ethos of the meeting and the bad vibe Paul expresses to the Galatians, he can turn a positive view out of it for those Galatians. If the pillars had left an account of their own, it might have shown them happy to get rid of Paul out of their hair, extracting a promise that Paul would contribute to the poor. How much weight can you put on the approval?
When I looked up δοκουσιν Strong translates it in the sense of in the view of the person speaking. Therefore it should be translated “before those who I consider important”. This applies in 2:9 “those who I consider pillars”. Kata Biblon states that it means “suppose/seem/think/consider” implying it comes from good opinion and is “less visceral than "φρονέω"(think)” http://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php ... ritics=off; which can be used in a bad way as presumptuous, conceited or proud.

Therefore while we might read “James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars” in a negative sense we should read it in the more positive sense of “James and Cephas and John, who I consider pillars”.

You are correct we do not have the view of James and Cephas and John. All we know is that they approved of Paul and Barnabas and their “gospel” and as part of this approval wanted the people who Paul and Barnabas “converted” to send money to the poor (and we assume that means the poor in Jerusalem).
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:We have Paul’s account of it. If you think he is lying then provide evidence that he is. I don’t think such evidence exists. All you can do is state that you don’t believe him.
Human interaction is usually more complex than is accounted for by the neat separation between truth and lies. There is no reason to think Paul was lying, when he presents a narrative that tells us very little factually. You have to be careful not to read too much into the little there is, though there is a lot between the lines. Paul is writing to a Galatian audience about his teachings, not giving us a historical narrative.
I am glad you are not saying that Paul is lying. However you wish to read in between the lines while criticising me for “reading too much into” what Paul writes. I don’t think I am adding anything that is not stated by Paul but you are reading things between the lines that don’t exist!
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:If we assume that Paul is writing to gentiles then his point is that because they have Christ they do not need to be circumcised and follow the law. This does not mean that he rejects from those who will be saved those who are circumcised and follow the law if they believe in Jesus Christ. As I have already pointed out Paul has not rejected all Jews from being saved either.
I have outlined that he does make it clear that circumcision is opposed to his Jesus teaching, suggesting that those of the circumcision, including James and maybe the vacillating Cephas, did not hold a Jesus cultist position. He says that in Christ being circumcised or not doesn't matter (Gal 5:6). Emphasis on circumcision does. That's one of the reasons I have doubts about the Jerusalemites....
Again we are not using the same language. You seem to use unique definitions to ensure your position is different! I don’t recognise anything as “a Jesus cultist position.” You read more into Paul’s position than is there because of his black and white positioning in his arguments that do not reflect the reality of his position which I have already set out in what you are responding to. Paul I think is clear that the law does not apply to Gentiles:
Gal 3:8, 14 RSV
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith,…
that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Therefore there is no need for anyone anymore to be circumcised.

Where does Paul talk about Jesus’ teaching on circumcision or even “the Lord’s teaching”?
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:What is interesting is that Paul does not state that James, Peter and John accepted that there was no need for circumcision. Perhaps it was not discussed. He states that both Barnabas and Peter had eaten with gentiles (Gal 2:12, 13). It is only after James sends people to Antioch that Barnabas and Peter stop eating with gentiles.
...That is another reason to doubt the Jerusalemites, who seem unaware that the gospel Jesus shared his table with everybody.
Please can you let me know where Jesus eats with gentiles in the Synoptics?
(We have Mark’s editorial work at Mk 7:19d RSV “(Thus he declared all foods clean.)”.)
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I don’t understand how you fail to see the evidence. You accept that Paul’s “gospel” includes Jesus Christ. You seem to accept that Paul was acceptable to James, Peter and John. But you dismiss the idea that Paul “laid before them … the gospel which (he) preach(ed) among the Gentiles”.
Paul makes clear there was no public discussion of Jesus. You could hold any unhinged view and still be (perhaps begrudgingly) seen to be a Jew. We don't know what the Jerusalemites thought of his flavor of messiah, one who'd already come. That they agreed with a handshake that Paul went to the uncircumcised and they stuck with the circumcised shows no skin off their nose. That said the Galatians, unlike the Corinthians had a background in Jewish thought, otherwise his midrash on Hagar in Gal 4:21 would have made no sense.

Paul constructs a view of his visit to Jerusalem for the Galatians, but how we deconstruct it requires care. Face value is not an option, because that has been compromised by two thousand years of christian hermeneutics passively received. I don't think it good to start of with the notion we know what the Jerusalemites were or what they thought. It constrains our reading of the material. Acts was not written yet and may have been written a century later. We need fresh eyes on what happened when Paul went up to Jerusalem to get the lie of the land.
This is all supposition.
You suppose that James and Cephas and John would accept any view on the messianic figure. You have no evidence of this. The only evidence we have is:
and I laid before them (but privately before those who I consider important) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
You accept that Paul is not lying. Therefore logically you must accept that he tells them about the message he is spreading regarding the anointed Jesus. Logically for whatever reason they accepted that they were fine with this message. It would be illogical to approve Paul’s message about a crucified Jesus who has been anointed by his resurrection if you thought that the anointed one was someone else and still to come.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by spin »

Michael BG wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Paul writes,
and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
spin wrote:Interesting to get the verse that demonstrates that Paul said nothing openly about Jesus. The one thing that sets him on the path away from his earlier zealous Judaism is his belief in Christ crucified. And he didn't talk about it (outside closed session). You don't find that in any way strange.
Bold added
No I don’t. It seems that Paul thought that James, Cephas and John might reject his gospel. For this reason he wouldn’t want to present his gospel about the anointed Jesus to the whole assembly of “Christians” (or if you prefer the group of Jews in Jerusalem who saw James, Cephas and John as their leaders). At work it is normal for a manager to have a discussion with a worker about their performance in private and not in public. It is also normal for a worker to raise their issues in private and not public. In politics it is normal to talk to small groups about your ideas not everyone.

This verse does not state that Paul didn’t say anything about the anointed Jesus to others in Jerusalem it only states that he asked for approval of the leadership of the group and not the whole group.
I don't think you've got further than when you started. Paul laid his stuff before the Jerusalemite bigs privately. That means he didn't speak publically about it.
Michael BG wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I have already stated that Paul states that James, Cephas and John have approved of his gospel to the Gentiles.
spin wrote:First, Paul states that there is only one gospel (Gal 1:6ff), so maybe they approved of his gospel, but Paul did not write about a gospel to the gentiles. There were not two gospels and presenting a gospel to the circumcised and a gospel to the uncircumcised is discounted by Paul. Gal 2:7b-8 which injects Peter rather than Cephas into the text does not reflect Paul, but later values that wish to put Paul in his place.
I am happy to see Gal 2:7b-8 as an interpolation. However Gal 2:7a has “when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised” and Gal 2:9 has “that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised”. It still seems different gospels are being considered.
No, not different gospels, just different pool of potential converts. The addition of "(gospel) to the uncircumcised" makes no sense without the alternative gospel to the circumcised. Paul's was not the gospel to the uncircumcised. There was just the one gospel, and he took it to the uncircumcised.
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:Paul clearly shows his lack of respect toward the pillars (Gal 2:6). Whatever the ethos of the meeting and the bad vibe Paul expresses to the Galatians, he can turn a positive view out of it for those Galatians. If the pillars had left an account of their own, it might have shown them happy to get rid of Paul out of their hair, extracting a promise that Paul would contribute to the poor. How much weight can you put on the approval?
When I looked up δοκουσιν Strong translates it in the sense of in the view of the person speaking. Therefore it should be translated “before those who I consider important”. This applies in 2:9 “those who I consider pillars”. Kata Biblon states that it means “suppose/seem/think/consider” implying it comes from good opinion and is “less visceral than "φρονέω"(think)” http://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php ... ritics=off; which can be used in a bad way as presumptuous, conceited or proud.

Therefore while we might read “James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars” in a negative sense we should read it in the more positive sense of “James and Cephas and John, who I consider pillars”.
Gal 2:2's δοκουσιν is a declined (dative plural masculine) participle. δοκουντων in Gal 2:6 is genitive plural masculine. In 2:9 δοκουντες is nominative plural masculine. The word is not treated as a verb, but as a nominalized participle. You cannot insert a subject, so your "those who I consider pillars" has little to do with the sense of the text. As to the meaning of the verb, try here.
Michael BG wrote:You are correct we do not have the view of James and Cephas and John. All we know is that they approved of Paul and Barnabas and their “gospel” and as part of this approval wanted the people who Paul and Barnabas “converted” to send money to the poor (and we assume that means the poor in Jerusalem).

We don't even know that. That is just how Paul chooses to see what happened. What they actually thought needs their side of the encounter.
Michael BG wrote:
Michael BG wrote:We have Paul’s account of it. If you think he is lying then provide evidence that he is. I don’t think such evidence exists. All you can do is state that you don’t believe him.
spin wrote:Human interaction is usually more complex than is accounted for by the neat separation between truth and lies. There is no reason to think Paul was lying, when he presents a narrative that tells us very little factually. You have to be careful not to read too much into the little there is, though there is a lot between the lines. Paul is writing to a Galatian audience about his teachings, not giving us a historical narrative.
I am glad you are not saying that Paul is lying. However you wish to read in between the lines while criticising me for “reading too much into” what Paul writes. I don’t think I am adding anything that is not stated by Paul but you are reading things between the lines that don’t exist!
People see things the way they want. We can also expect Paul to present things in the best light for the pastoral care of the Galatians. We are functionally observing a political situation. One side may be insufficient to understand the reality.
Michael BG wrote:
Michael BG wrote:If we assume that Paul is writing to gentiles then his point is that because they have Christ they do not need to be circumcised and follow the law. This does not mean that he rejects from those who will be saved those who are circumcised and follow the law if they believe in Jesus Christ. As I have already pointed out Paul has not rejected all Jews from being saved either.
spin wrote:I have outlined that he does make it clear that circumcision is opposed to his Jesus teaching, suggesting that those of the circumcision, including James and maybe the vacillating Cephas, did not hold a Jesus cultist position. He says that in Christ being circumcised or not doesn't matter (Gal 5:6). Emphasis on circumcision does. That's one of the reasons I have doubts about the Jerusalemites....
Again we are not using the same language. You seem to use unique definitions to ensure your position is different! I don’t recognise anything as “a Jesus cultist position.”
You are right: we are not. Christianity has baggage I won't impute at the time of Paul. You choose to be more "ecumenical", ie sloppy. Christianity for example holds to Jesus spending thirty-odd years traipsing around Galilee and Judea. We don't know anything of the sort for people in Paul's time. Christianity is trinitarian, but Paul certainly is not. It makes little sense to talk about the formative era as "christian".
Michael BG wrote:You read more into Paul’s position than is there because of his black and white positioning in his arguments that do not reflect the reality of his position which I have already set out in what you are responding to. Paul I think is clear that the law does not apply to Gentiles:
Gal 3:8, 14 RSV
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith,…
that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Therefore there is no need for anyone anymore to be circumcised.
I agree with the last sentence, but the issue is more complicated. Paul is clearly contrasting Jesus with law/circumcision. If you want the latter, then forget Jesus. Yet it was representatives of the latter who came and browbeat Cephas into acting like a good table fellowship observer. This is not coincidental. If you are of the circumcision you are not a follower of Jesus.
Michael BG wrote:Where does Paul talk about Jesus’ teaching on circumcision or even “the Lord’s teaching”?
?
Michael BG wrote:
Michael BG wrote:What is interesting is that Paul does not state that James, Peter and John accepted that there was no need for circumcision. Perhaps it was not discussed. He states that both Barnabas and Peter had eaten with gentiles (Gal 2:12, 13). It is only after James sends people to Antioch that Barnabas and Peter stop eating with gentiles.
spin wrote:...That is another reason to doubt the Jerusalemites, who seem unaware that the gospel Jesus shared his table with everybody.
Please can you let me know where Jesus eats with gentiles in the Synoptics?
(We have Mark’s editorial work at Mk 7:19d RSV “(Thus he declared all foods clean.)”.)
I had in mind publicans and prostitutes, not necessarily gentiles. His table was open.
Michael BG wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I don’t understand how you fail to see the evidence. You accept that Paul’s “gospel” includes Jesus Christ. You seem to accept that Paul was acceptable to James, Peter and John. But you dismiss the idea that Paul “laid before them … the gospel which (he) preach(ed) among the Gentiles”.
spin wrote:Paul makes clear there was no public discussion of Jesus. You could hold any unhinged view and still be (perhaps begrudgingly) seen to be a Jew. We don't know what the Jerusalemites thought of his flavor of messiah, one who'd already come. That they agreed with a handshake that Paul went to the uncircumcised and they stuck with the circumcised shows no skin off their nose. That said the Galatians, unlike the Corinthians had a background in Jewish thought, otherwise his midrash on Hagar in Gal 4:21 would have made no sense.

Paul constructs a view of his visit to Jerusalem for the Galatians, but how we deconstruct it requires care. Face value is not an option, because that has been compromised by two thousand years of christian hermeneutics passively received. I don't think it good to start of with the notion we know what the Jerusalemites were or what they thought. It constrains our reading of the material. Acts was not written yet and may have been written a century later. We need fresh eyes on what happened when Paul went up to Jerusalem to get the lie of the land.
This is all supposition.
You suppose that James and Cephas and John would accept any view on the messianic figure. You have no evidence of this.
You are accusing me of what you are doing. I said nothing about the pillars accepting "any view on the messianic figure".
Michael BG wrote:The only evidence we have is:
and I laid before them (but privately before those who I consider important) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
You accept that Paul is not lying. Therefore logically you must accept that he tells them about the message he is spreading regarding the anointed Jesus.
To some degree. We cannot know what he said or how far he explained his views.
Michael BG wrote:Logically for whatever reason they accepted that they were fine with this message. It would be illogical to approve Paul’s message about a crucified Jesus who has been anointed by his resurrection if you thought that the anointed one was someone else and still to come.
This is speculation based on what may even have been speculation on Paul's part. All we know is that the pillars who he did not respect—contra your attempt to rehabilitate those who seemed pillars—shook his hand and sent him on his way to the uncircumcised. It may have been as sweet and innocent as Paul paints the scene for the Galatians, but without notes from the pillars we cannot know.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by iskander »

Michael BG wrote:...the term Christianity to apply to the “Jesus movement” once Jesus has been crucified.
...
Gal 2
7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles)
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Galatians+1


Paul understood Jesus differently from his opponents in Jerusalem: he preached the gospel for the uncircumcised and he wanted the preachers of the gospel for the circumcised to accept gentiles into the assembly of YHWH.
It was the interpretation of the life of Jesus that which separated them , it was the same gospel with a different commentary.

He went to meet with the managers of the circumcise cabal to secure peaceful coexistence between them.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Michael BG »

spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:First, Paul states that there is only one gospel (Gal 1:6ff), so maybe they approved of his gospel, but Paul did not write about a gospel to the gentiles. There were not two gospels and presenting a gospel to the circumcised and a gospel to the uncircumcised is discounted by Paul. Gal 2:7b-8 which injects Peter rather than Cephas into the text does not reflect Paul, but later values that wish to put Paul in his place.
I am happy to see Gal 2:7b-8 as an interpolation. However Gal 2:7a has “when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised” and Gal 2:9 has “that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised”. It still seems different gospels are being considered.
No, not different gospels, just different pool of potential converts. The addition of (gospel) to the uncircumcised" makes no sense without the alternative gospel to the circumcised. Paul's was not the gospel to the uncircumcised. There was just the one gospel, and he took it to the uncircumcised.
I don’t understand your argument. In Gal 2:7a Paul states that his gospel is to the uncircumcised and in Gal 2:9 that “they (James, Peter and John) [go] to the circumcised”. Therefore Paul is implying a difference between the messages to the uncircumcised and the circumcised.
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:When I looked up δοκουσιν Strong translates it in the sense of in the view of the person speaking. Therefore it should be translated “before those who I consider important”. This applies in 2:9 “those who I consider pillars”. Kata Biblon states that it means “suppose/seem/think/consider” implying it comes from good opinion and is “less visceral than "φρονέω"(think)” http://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php ... ritics=off; which can be used in a bad way as presumptuous, conceited or proud.

Therefore while we might read “James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars” in a negative sense we should read it in the more positive sense of “James and Cephas and John, who I consider pillars”.
Gal 2:2's δοκουσιν is a declined (dative plural masculine) participle. δοκουντων in Gal 2:6 is genitive plural masculine. In 2:9 δοκουντες is nominative plural masculine. The word is not treated as a verb, but as a nominalized participle. You cannot insert a subject, so your "those who I consider pillars" has little to do with the sense of the text. As to the meaning of the verb, try here.
According to your link to Perseus “I. expect (δέκομαι) think … 1. … thought … 2. an opinion … 3. methinks … 5. to be considered … II. … 3. seem good … 4. … b it seems good to me, methinks … 5. … men of repute”.
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:You are correct we do not have the view of James and Cephas and John. All we know is that they approved of Paul and Barnabas and their “gospel” and as part of this approval wanted the people who Paul and Barnabas “converted” to send money to the poor (and we assume that means the poor in Jerusalem).

We don't even know that. That is just how Paul chooses to see what happened. What they actually thought needs their side of the encounter.
Your position only makes sense if you think Paul is wrong to write that they (James, Cephas and John) gave Paul and Barnabas “the right-hand of fellowship or partnership” (Gal 2:9). But you have already stated you don’t think Paul is lying!
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:We have Paul’s account of it. If you think he is lying then provide evidence that he is. I don’t think such evidence exists. All you can do is state that you don’t believe him.
… There is no reason to think Paul was lying, when he presents a narrative that tells us very little factually. …
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote: I am glad you are not saying that Paul is lying. However you wish to read in between the lines while criticising me for “reading too much into” what Paul writes. I don’t think I am adding anything that is not stated by Paul but you are reading things between the lines that don’t exist!
People see things the way they want. We can also expect Paul to present things in the best light for the pastoral care of the Galatians. We are functionally observing a political situation. One side may be insufficient to understand the reality.
How can Paul state that James, Cephas and John gave Paul and Barnabas “the right-hand of fellowship or partnership” if James and Cephas and John didn’t give the impression to Paul that they had done so?
spin wrote:You are right: we are not. Christianity has baggage I won't impute at the time of Paul. You choose to be more "ecumenical", ie sloppy. Christianity for example holds to Jesus spending thirty-odd years traipsing around Galilee and Judea. We don't know anything of the sort for people in Paul's time. Christianity is trinitarian, but Paul certainly is not. It makes little sense to talk about the formative era as "christian".
You are correct lots of people bring their own baggage to their definition of Christian. I don’t think there ever was one “Christianity”. Christianity has always included different views and the church councils are evidence of some Christians trying to restrict the definition of Christianity. There are Christians who are not “trinitarian”. I don’t understand why a non-Christian would define Christianity to exclude those who consider themselves Christians.
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:You read more into Paul’s position than is there because of his black and white positioning in his arguments that do not reflect the reality of his position which I have already set out in what you are responding to. Paul I think is clear that the law does not apply to Gentiles:
Gal 3:8, 14 RSV
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith,…
that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Therefore there is no need for anyone anymore to be circumcised.
I agree with the last sentence, but the issue is more complicated. Paul is clearly contrasting Jesus with law/circumcision. If you want the latter, then forget Jesus. Yet it was representatives of the latter who came and browbeat Cephas into acting like a good table fellowship observer. This is not coincidental. If you are of the circumcision you are not a follower of Jesus.
Paul does not state that James, John, Cephas and Barnabas are not followers of Jesus. As I keep saying Paul does not reject the circumcised.
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Logically for whatever reason they accepted that they were fine with this message. It would be illogical to approve Paul’s message about a crucified Jesus who has been anointed by his resurrection if you thought that the anointed one was someone else and still to come.
This is speculation based on what may even have been speculation on Paul's part. All we know is that the pillars who he did not respect—contra your attempt to rehabilitate those who seemed pillars—shook his hand and sent him on his way to the uncircumcised. It may have been as sweet and innocent as Paul paints the scene for the Galatians, but without notes from the pillars we cannot know.
We can agree that we know that James, John and Cephas gave Paul the impression they were happy for him to preach his gospel of Jesus Christ to the uncircumcised. You think that we cannot assume this means that James, John and Cephas accepted a gospel regarding Jesus Christ. While I think it is illogical for messianic Jews to give the impression that they would be happy for a false message to be preached to gentiles.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by spin »

Michael BG wrote:I don’t understand your argument. In Gal 2:7a Paul states that his gospel is to the uncircumcised and in Gal 2:9 that “they (James, Peter and John) [go] to the circumcised”. Therefore Paul is implying a difference between the messages to the uncircumcised and the circumcised.
There is no other gospel than the one that Paul preaches. There is no other gospel. You cannot represent Paul as thinking of a gospel to the uncircumcised and a gospel to the circumcised. There is just one gospel. Talking of a gospel to the uncircumcised would not make sense to Paul.

The interpolation 2:7b-8 included the words "to the uncircumcised".
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:Gal 2:2's δοκουσιν is a declined (dative plural masculine) participle. δοκουντων in Gal 2:6 is genitive plural masculine. In 2:9 δοκουντες is nominative plural masculine. The word is not treated as a verb, but as a nominalized participle. You cannot insert a subject, so your "those who I consider pillars" has little to do with the sense of the text. As to the meaning of the verb, try here.
According to your link to Perseus “I. expect (δέκομαι) think … 1. … thought … 2. an opinion … 3. methinks … 5. to be considered … II. … 3. seem good … 4. … b it seems good to me, methinks … 5. … men of repute”.
You missed out on all the part about the participle and the unjustifiable insertion of a subject.

(And my link to Perseus is a link to the Liddell and Scott entry on the verb. L&S is a reliable source for Greek. Strongs definitely is not.)
Michael BG wrote:
Michael BG wrote:You are correct we do not have the view of James and Cephas and John. All we know is that they approved of Paul and Barnabas and their “gospel” and as part of this approval wanted the people who Paul and Barnabas “converted” to send money to the poor (and we assume that means the poor in Jerusalem).
spin wrote:We don't even know that. That is just how Paul chooses to see what happened. What they actually thought needs their side of the encounter.
Your position only makes sense if you think Paul is wrong to write that they (James, Cephas and John) gave Paul and Barnabas “the right-hand of fellowship or partnership” (Gal 2:9). But you have already stated you don’t think Paul is lying!
For fuck's sake, why keep talking about Paul lying??? I think Paul is quite capable of self-delusion.
Michael BG wrote:
Michael BG wrote: I am glad you are not saying that Paul is lying. However you wish to read in between the lines while criticising me for “reading too much into” what Paul writes. I don’t think I am adding anything that is not stated by Paul but you are reading things between the lines that don’t exist!
spin wrote:People see things the way they want. We can also expect Paul to present things in the best light for the pastoral care of the Galatians. We are functionally observing a political situation. One side may be insufficient to understand the reality.
How can Paul state that James, Cephas and John gave Paul and Barnabas “the right-hand of fellowship or partnership” if James and Cephas and John didn’t give the impression to Paul that they had done so?
The notion of hospitality must be quite foreign. You don't have to agree with someone to be hospitable. You can shake hands and wish someone well, despite not agreeing with their views.
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:You are right: we are not. Christianity has baggage I won't impute at the time of Paul. You choose to be more "ecumenical", ie sloppy. Christianity for example holds to Jesus spending thirty-odd years traipsing around Galilee and Judea. We don't know anything of the sort for people in Paul's time. Christianity is trinitarian, but Paul certainly is not. It makes little sense to talk about the formative era as "christian".
You are correct lots of people bring their own baggage to their definition of Christian. I don’t think there ever was one “Christianity”. Christianity has always included different views and the church councils are evidence of some Christians trying to restrict the definition of Christianity. There are Christians who are not “trinitarian”. I don’t understand why a non-Christian would define Christianity to exclude those who consider themselves Christians.
Self-definition is not necessarily accurate. I know people who define themselves as feminist, yet to my mind are certainly not. A joke I recently read: hear the one about the male feminist who walked into a bar? It was set very low.
Michael BG wrote:
Michael BG wrote:You read more into Paul’s position than is there because of his black and white positioning in his arguments that do not reflect the reality of his position which I have already set out in what you are responding to. Paul I think is clear that the law does not apply to Gentiles:
Gal 3:8, 14 RSV
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith,…
that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Therefore there is no need for anyone anymore to be circumcised.
spin wrote:I agree with the last sentence, but the issue is more complicated. Paul is clearly contrasting Jesus with law/circumcision. If you want the latter, then forget Jesus. Yet it was representatives of the latter who came and browbeat Cephas into acting like a good table fellowship observer. This is not coincidental. If you are of the circumcision you are not a follower of Jesus.
Paul does not state that James, John, Cephas and Barnabas are not followers of Jesus. As I keep saying Paul does not reject the circumcised.
That is repetitive without adding anything new or explanatory. Paul is circumcised, yet doesn't reject himself. You don't seem to understand what you are responding to. Paul is offering a choice to the Galatians between Jesus and the law/circumcision. Circumcision says Paul has no meaning in Jesus. Anyone can follow Jesus, be they circumcised or not. However, if you are "of the circumcision" you are not of Jesus, ie if you choose to stay with the law and what circumcision embodies, then Jesus is of no use to you. The picture Paul paints of the Jerusalemites is that of people who choose to follow the law. This is demonstrated in the case of Cephas not adhering to table fellowship and being browbeaten by messengers from James. The choice is Paul's Jesus or Jerusalem's law.
Michael BG wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Logically for whatever reason they accepted that they were fine with this message. It would be illogical to approve Paul’s message about a crucified Jesus who has been anointed by his resurrection if you thought that the anointed one was someone else and still to come.
spin wrote:This is speculation based on what may even have been speculation on Paul's part. All we know is that the pillars who he did not respect—contra your attempt to rehabilitate those who seemed pillars—shook his hand and sent him on his way to the uncircumcised. It may have been as sweet and innocent as Paul paints the scene for the Galatians, but without notes from the pillars we cannot know.
We can agree that we know that James, John and Cephas gave Paul the impression they were happy for him to preach his gospel of Jesus Christ to the uncircumcised. You think that we cannot assume this means that James, John and Cephas accepted a gospel regarding Jesus Christ. While I think it is illogical for messianic Jews to give the impression that they would be happy for a false message to be preached to gentiles.
You are happy with non-trinitarians self-defining as christians. I'm sure many christians are for the sake of a spirit of ecumenicalism will accept all sorts of astandard christian views, but you don't think the broad church of Judaism is able to do the same. There were so many different flavors of Jewish belief at the time representing the one ethnos, Pharisaism, Essenism, Rechabitism, Messianism, Gnostic Judaism.... Within some of these there were different sub-flavors. Paul and the pillars might not have agreed, but it doesn't mean they would have acted out on a disagreement. Paul left unimpressed with them, "what they actually were makes no difference to me" (2:6), but he still presented the departure positively.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Post Reply