What happens to the unbaptized gentiles in Paul?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: What happens to the unbaptized gentiles in Paul?

Post by Ken Olson »

I started a much longer post, but I'm going to attempt to just summarize here. I think the issue of Paul's authority over the Corinthian church and the issue code of conduct that Gentile Christians should follow are inseparable because, at this time, Gentile Christianity (a Christianity that does not follow the Mosaic law or its traditional interpretation in Judaism) is an idea that Paul has in his head. Paul is basically the only one who knows what it ought to look like. Paul has convinced the Corinthians that they should leave the worship of the Greek gods and follow the God of Israel, but they don't have to follow the rules given in the books about the God of Israel. So what rules do they need to follow? The ones Paul gives them. And don't go by what other teachers say. Just Paul. And Timothy, because he's repeating what Paul told him.

The problem is Paul is not on hand to answer all their questions. The Corinthians are trying to follow the Paul's teachings, but in his absence differences of interpretation have arisen. So Chloe has sent some people to find Paul and get him to rule on the various issues that have arisen (1 Cor. 1.11). It's pretty clear that some of the interpretations the Corinthians have extrapolated from Paul's teachings have had consequences Paul had not foreseen and he's trying to deal with the consequences without admitting that any of his earlier teachings had been wrong. It's good to be celibate, right? Well, yes, but if you're married and you unilaterally decide to be celibate, the your spouse may seek sex outside of marriage and that would be much worse than you not being celibate. The pagan gods don't actually exist and all foods are clean, right? So it's alright to attend festivals and feasts in pagan temples along with the rest of the Corinthians? Well, yes, there is only one God and meat is just meat, but if your fellow Christian sees you doing this he or she might take this to mean worshipping pagan gods rather than the one God is also alright, and that would be really, really bad. So Paul comes up with a supplementary ethic that something might be permissible in and of itself, but if it causes your fellow Christian to fail in his or her faith, then it becomes not permissible. As one of my classmates in a course on 1 Cor. many years ago put it (quoting his grandmother): "Just because you have the right to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."

Best,

Ken
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: What happens to the unbaptized gentiles in Paul?

Post by robert j »

In the link below, a solution is suggested for the cultural context and the point-of-view of those among the Corinthians that triggered these comments from Paul ---

Paul accused some of the Corinthians of claiming to be “wise in Christ” (1 Cor 4:10). And Paul mocked them ---
Already you are filled; already you have been enriched; apart from us you reigned; and I wish that really you did reign, so that we also might reign with you. (1 Cor 4:8)

and ---

Some of the Corinthians rejected Paul’s version of a resurrection from the dead ---
… how do some among you say that there is no resurrection from the dead? (1 Cor 15:12)


"Paul and those Pesky Corinthians" ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2797
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: What happens to the unbaptized gentiles in Paul?

Post by davidmartin »

The Corinthians are trying to follow the Paul's teachings, but in his absence differences of interpretation have arisen
I don't think that can be substantiated
There's other teachers apart from Paul wanting to be leaders, and maybe they were before him
Why is it that everything is so Paul centric as if there weren't others teaching their own thing?
Yes, Paul himself has a narrative that suggests only his views are correct and attempts to say everyone believes the same thing
But he flunks by clearly mentioning his opponents, and some of their doctrines
It looks like a power struggle was going on
I find it strange to debate Paul by first accepting his ground rules and operating within a Paul centric argument instead of everything being up for debate
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: What happens to the unbaptized gentiles in Paul?

Post by Ken Olson »

davidmartin wrote:
I don't think that can be substantiated
I claimed that the Corinthians were trying to follow Paul's (previous) teachings and gave a few examples (celibacy, pagan gods don't exist) to substantiate it immediately after the sentence you quoted.
There's other teachers apart from Paul wanting to be leaders, and maybe they were before him
Since I wrote that Paul was telling the Corinthians not to go by what the other teachers say, I think your speculation that they may have been before him is your only substantial disagreement with me. There is, of course, a possibility that they were before him, but do you have any evidence that that possibility was, in fact, the case?

My evidence that Paul was the one who converted the Corinthians is that he says so in the letter (1 Cor. 3.6, 10; 4.11-12;. He also bases at least some of his arguments, which are meant to persuade his audience, on his being the one who converted them. If his audience knew that he was not the one who converted them, this would be an extremely counter-productive argument.
Why is it that everything is so Paul centric as if there weren't others teaching their own thing?
This is too vague to answer. I don't know what you mean by Paul centric. I definitely think there were others "teaching their own thing."
Yes, Paul himself has a narrative that suggests only his views are correct and attempts to say everyone believes the same thing
But he flunks by clearly mentioning his opponents, and some of their doctrines
He doesn't say everyone believes the same thing about everything and I haven't said that either. He seems to be horrified, or at least greatly disappointed, by some of the things that have been going on in Corinth since he was last there and writes to correct them.
It looks like a power struggle was going on
Vague. A power struggle over what, specifically? I think there is a very vaguely defined non-Jewish Christianity in Corinth and that different people have different ideas about what its content ought to be and that Paul is claiming unique authority to define its content on the grounds that he founded it.
I find it strange to debate Paul by first accepting his ground rules and operating within a Paul centric argument instead of everything being up for debate
This is, again, awfully vague. I don't know what your categories of "accepting his ground rules" or "operating within a Paul centric argument" mean, though you seem to have placed my views in them. I'm certainly not ascribing any normative value to Paul's opinions. I suppose what I've written is Paul centric in the sense that I use Paul's letters as sources, am trying to explicate Paul's views, and suggested that at least some of the issues have arisen are consequences of Paul's own teachings. (N.B. - I am arguing against a widespread notion among some Christians that Paul taught the Corinthians how to follow Christianity clearly and the issues that arose in the Church are due to the presence of backsliding pagan sinners who rejected Paul's teachings in the church at Corinth).

I have accepted Paul's claim that he is the one who first converted the members of the Corinthian church to Christianity, and I've argued that he bases his claim to have greater authority than other teachers to tell them how to live as Christians than other teachers on that (1 Cor. 4.15-16). I've also argued that at least some of the problems that have arisen in the Corinthian church (fornication and attending pagan feasts) are unforeseen consequences of Paul's own teachings which he has to scramble to try and fix.

Best,

Ken
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: What happens to the unbaptized gentiles in Paul?

Post by davidmartin »

Ken, i'm not really trying to place your ideas in a box just trying to spur some debate

What i'm objecting to is a logical inconsistency i see
You have Paul complaining about 'super apostles' and it's obvious there are heavy duty preachers other than him about, claiming authority. All this Paul says is the facts on the ground

Paul on the one hand admits this, but on the other tries to reduce and eliminate their influence but he can't completely ignore them
I think a neutral position would be to credit his opponents with an equal voice and influence ignoring Paul's own attempts to dominate debate and claim unique authority, or by claiming he is teaching what everyone else does, which is questionable

That some of these preachers came before him, he also admits when he calls himself 'the last' apostle.
It might be he founded the Corinthian church but that the earlier ones founded other existing churches and are now preaching in Corinth

When I look at it, I just see competing claims to authority and Paul being driven to desperately hold on to his own position and forced to use all his powers of persuasion. The power struggle is over who is the leader, same as always!
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: What happens to the unbaptized gentiles in Paul?

Post by Ken Olson »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:37 am Ken, i'm not really trying to place your ideas in a box
And yet you continue to manage to do so, perhaps unconsciously.
just trying to spur some debate


You have succeeded in that. Though it seems to be a debate about the interpretation of my posts, not about Paul or the Corinthians.
What i'm objecting to is a logical inconsistency i see
Which I don't think exists outside your imagination. Or at least, you have not established that it does.
You have Paul complaining about 'super apostles' and it's obvious there are heavy duty preachers other than him about, claiming authority. All this Paul says is the facts on the ground
Yes, though I would hesitate to use "super apostles," which comes from 2 Corinthians 11.5, which reflects a later situation with somewhat different circumstances. We could expand the discussion to include that, but so far I've been talking about the situation of 1 Corinthians.
Paul on the one hand admits this, but on the other tries to reduce and eliminate their influence but he can't completely ignore them.
He's not ignoring them, he's claiming he ought to have greater authority to determine the shape of Gentile Christianity at Corinth than they do. I don't get why you use the "on the one hand"/"on the other" construction as though there was some sort of conflict or contradiction between the two. It's like saying, "on the one hand, the General knew the enemy's location, but on the other, he launched an attack on them there."
I think a neutral position would be to credit his opponents with an equal voice and influence
This is just baffling. I'm not trying to settle a dispute between Paul and his opponents over who ought to have voice and influence over the shape of Christianity in Corinth. I'm not making any claim about what ought to be. I'm discussing what Paul thinks ought to be.
ignoring Paul's own attempts to dominate debate and claim unique authority,
I'm trying to explain the dynamics of what's going on in Corinth and explicate how they affected the development of Paul's views, which were later adopted by the emerging orthodox Church and held as normative for Christians by virtue of Paul's letters being accepted as inspired scripture. I can't imagine any good reason to ignore Paul's attempts to dominate the debate and claim unique authority. It's data relevant to the topic I'm discussing.
or by claiming he is teaching what everyone else does, which is questionable
It's not just questionable. It's wrong. Paul does not claim to be teaching what everyone else does and I haven't said he is either. He wrote the letter to correct what he considered to be wrong opinions of some of the Corinthians.
That some of these preachers came before him, he also admits when he calls himself 'the last' apostle.
Yes, but I'm talking about what's going on in Corinth, as you allow below.
It might be he founded the Corinthian church
BINGO!!!
but that the earlier ones founded other existing churches
I accept that they did. (Parenthetically, when Paul writes to the Romans, a church he did not found, he uses a different tone and, of course, does not claim authority to tell the Romans what to do on the grounds that he founded the church in Rome. Because he didn't).
and are now preaching in Corinth
This is possible, but I would like to see some specific evidence for it. In any event, I don't see that this would much affect my observation that Paul claims the Corinthians should follow his teachings because he founded the church in Corinth.
When I look at it, I just see competing claims to authority
I see this too, though not just this.
and Paul being driven to desperately hold on to his own position and forced to use all his powers of persuasion.
And you think I've said something that contradicts this? What? (Well, I suppose I would qualify the word desperately by saying his tone isn't as desperate as it would be in 2 Corinthians, let alone Galatians).
The power struggle is over who is the leader, same as always!
*Sigh*

You seem to be taking what I've written to mean the opposite of what I intended by it. I wrote:
I think there is a very vaguely defined non-Jewish Christianity in Corinth and that different people have different ideas about what its content ought to be and that Paul is claiming unique authority to define its content on the grounds that he founded it.

What part of this do you see as denying there was a power struggle in Corinth? As far as I can tell, I've affirmed there was a power struggle in Corinth and defined the nature of the power struggle I'm talking about. Again, as far as I can tell, the difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is that I'm more concrete and less vague.

A general rule I formulated a decade or so ago after years of online discussions is that if someone misunderstands what you wrote the first time, it might well be your fault for not expressing yourself clearly, and you should write a clarification. If they misunderstand you a second time in the same way that you just clarified, there's probably something at issue for them that keeps them from understanding your position. A single additional clarification isn't likely to do help. You might eventually get there with multiple posts, but you might not, and it's not always a good use of your time.

So let me assume as a hypothetical that I am the one misunderstanding you. There is some crucial distinction between my position and yours that I am failing to recognize. What, in as concrete terms as you can manage, is this distinction? I will make an effort to understand it.

Best,

Ken
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: What happens to the unbaptized gentiles in Paul?

Post by davidmartin »

Ken,
appreciate the level of detail in your reply!
i think forum posting has to involve some level of disagreement to make it interesting
but still, i'm really not trying to oppose your specific views and don't really think i've tried to, certainly not consciously anyway
Yes, though I would hesitate to use "super apostles," which comes from 2 Corinthians 11.5, which reflects a later situation with somewhat different circumstances. We could expand the discussion to include that, but so far I've been talking about the situation of 1 Corinthians
OK, in terms of 1 Corinthians the 'super apostles' may still be there though, that's an interesting question in itself
I'd never really thought of separating the two letters and assumed they describe pretty much the same overall situation give or take the odd extra event or two
He's not ignoring them, he's claiming he ought to have greater authority to determine the shape of Gentile Christianity at Corinth than they do. I don't get why you use the "on the one hand"/"on the other" construction as though there was some sort of conflict or contradiction between the two
The only reason i put it like that is because Paul doesn't seem to like talking about his opponents that much, and doesn't say much about them. that's what i take away from statements he makes about 'wishing to cut the ground from under those who claim equality with us in these things' (from memory/paraphrasing)
So the conflict i tend to see is simply he ends up doing so. So i just sense he's out of his comfort zone a bit here
Probably we're lucky to have these letters
This is just baffling. I'm not trying to settle a dispute between Paul and his opponents over who ought to have voice and influence over the shape of Christianity in Corinth. I'm not making any claim about what ought to be. I'm discussing what Paul thinks ought to be
Right. I meant scholars in general not you, i didn't think how you would read that, but i was thinking more generally - should take a neutral position when dispassionately analysing the situation at Corinth
That's how to look at it from other angles. I just think it would be interesting to try and recreate the situation there even hypothetically using Paul's writings as a base, not so much what Paul thinks of various things. To me that would just be interesting. There's possibly enough to come up with a few workable scenarios to try and work out what his opponents were teaching

guiseppe gets to talk about outer space crucifixions and all kinds of nebulous stuff, i just am curious about the early church and Paul's role in it and his opponents
For me Paul is a source of information over what/who is Christ that all these people were trying to preach even if they disagreed
Post Reply