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.