I am surprised...

[Cow Poke]

That is a neat " cop out".

"cop out"? I stated a fact. A sincere regret. It's called "being honest". I realize it's a concept totally foreign to you.

[Gondwanaland]

And they'd have to have actual proof. Perhaps you have some that you'd like to discuss?

They have just as much proof as you and your sect do. i.e. none.

[Sparko]

ethical =/= moral.

Ethics:

1.moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
"medical ethics also enter into the question"


2.the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

[rogue06]

I have never contended Paul was a Jew. I have repeatedly pointed out [much to the chagrin of @Sparko] that Paul never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself.


He may well have been a Jew but he never uses that word in reference to himself. Furthermore, it has always struck me as unusual that a Jew [even a renegade] would imbue the standard blessings of a meal with theophagic significance.

Wow you are really seeking to shelter behind a sprig with your reliance on such things like the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality because that specific word wasn't coined until the 1860s and Paul wasn't a Jew because he never specifically used that word -- ignoring that he didn't have to considering how he described himself.

As GotQuestions.com puts it

Paul was a Jew who took great pride in his Jewish heritage. He lays out his Jewish in credentials Philippians 3:6–5: “If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee.” The fact that he was circumcised on the eighth day means that his parents followed the commandment God gave to Abraham in Genesis 17:2. He was an Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin, one of the two tribes that remained loyal to David’s line after the kingdom divided (see 1 Kings 12). It is also interesting that Israel’s first king, Saul, was of the tribe of Benjamin and Paul’s Hebrew name was Saul. Although Paul was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:28) of the city of Tarsus (Acts 21:39), he was “a Hebrew of Hebrews,” meaning that he was raised according to Hebrew law and culture. He eventually moved to Israel and became a Pharisee (cf. Acts 26:5), which means that he was dedicated to keeping the Law in minute detail.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"cop out"? I stated a fact. A sincere regret. It's called "being honest". I realize it's a concept totally foreign to you.

Your admission that you did not to keep up your study of Greek reads as an excuse, given that there are plenty of interlinear New Testament texts available on the net.

[Cow Poke]

Your admission that you did not to keep up your study of Greek reads as an excuse,

To somebody or your ilk, perhaps.

given that there are plenty of interlinear New Testament texts available on the net.

And I use them all the time --- still, I wish I had kept up with my Greek.
Unfortunately, I took Greek not to "learn Greek", but to "pass that class", as it was a required course.
(that's another honest confession - a true regret)

[rogue06]

I have not been following this particular part of the discussion closely, but I won't let that stop me from barging in.

I am actually sympathetic to your complaint. Too many Christians are far too glibly confident in making dogmatic assertions about the Mosaic civil, ritual, and moral laws, as if they are clearly and explicitly delineated. I think those divisions can reasonably be inferred, but that's a long way from saying with certitude which laws, if any, are still extant under the New Covenant.

Eph. 2:15 uses the same word for "commandments" that is elsewhere in the NT and LXX used for the Decalogue and the Great Commandments. In the NASB, ESV, and NKJV it is paired with "dogma" translated as "ordinances," probably to call to mind the various places in the Law where "commandments" and "ordinances" are paired. The context does not suggest that Christ only bore the "ceremonial" parts of the Law.

Col. 2:14 also uses "dogma," but more often translated as "decrees." The context does not suggest that our only transgressions causing indebtedness were "ceremonial" ones, and that only they were nailed to the Cross.

Jesus Himself said that the entire Law -- and Prophets -- could be summed up as "Treat others the way you wish others to treat you."

Paul *repeatedly* said that the entire Law, explicitly including the Ten Commandments, is fulfilled by "Love your neighbor as yourself."

For my part, I am willing to live with the tension, cognitive dissonance, whatever, of knowing that the entire Law of the Obsolete Covenant has been taken away, that the New Covenant comes with the New Commandment to "love one another," and yet that those who engage in homosexuality, adultery, other sexual misbehavior, drunkenness, verbal abuse, greed, and swindling will be excluded from the Kingdom.

You correctly note that in virtually every effort to categorize things there will inevitably be some gray areas where something could fall into either category. If you ever studied biology you'll find virtually everything is a gray area in one way or another. But with that said I think it would be hard to place sexual behavior into the category of ritual laws like the dietary codes rather than in the moral codes of conduct.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

To somebody or your ilk, perhaps.



And I use them all the time --- still, I wish I had kept up with my Greek.
Unfortunately, I took Greek not to "learn Greek", but to "pass that class", as it was a required course.
(that's another honest confession - a true regret)

Your education and various regrets are somewhat extraneous to the simple fact that nowhere in the Greek does Paul ever use the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself. In fact I Corinthians 9.20 appears to be an acknowledgement that he is not a Jew.

NRSV translation "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law." [My emphasis]

[Cow Poke]

Your education and various regrets are somewhat tangential ....

Yet, like the you are, that's where you decided to go.

[rogue06]

Your education and various regrets are somewhat extraneous to the simple fact that nowhere in the Greek does Paul ever use the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself. In fact I Corinthians 9.20 appears to be an acknowledgement that he is not a Jew.

NRSV translation "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law." [My emphasis]

While I'll agree that this specific passage does not provide strong support for Paul being a Jew (and I note that you ignore all the other passages provided that do to focus solely on this one), it looks like you're trying to read something into it that just isn't there.

To continue with the next paragraph from GotQuestions:

The gospel was more important to him than his Jewish heritage. Although, as a Christian, he was no longer under obligation to follow the Jewish Law, he would do so if that would give him the opportunity to share the gospel with other Jews. When with the Gentiles, Paul adapted to their practices. “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law” (1 Corinthians 9:20–21).

[tabibito]

I have, albeit that was along ago, and I haven't kept up with my Greek like I should have.

You're trying way too hard to see what you want to see, and a lot of people way smarter than you see something different.

Luke reports that Paul identified himself as a Jew:
Acts 21:39 ειπεν δε ο παυλος εγω ανθρωπος μεν ειμι ιουδαιος ταρσευς της κιλικιας
Given that he was speaking to a Roman official at the time, the use of "Jew" was appropriate, where in many contexts it would not have been.

Your call to Paul's claim to be a Hebrew, Israelite, and descendant of Abraham is telling, as is the reference to his status as a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 Cor 11:22 εβραιοι εισιν καγω ισραηλιται εισιν καγω σπερμα αβρααμ εισιν καγω
Romans 11:1 - και γαρ εγω ισραηλιτης ειμι εκ σπερματος αβρααμ φυλης βενιαμιν

In the First Century, "Jew" is not particularly useful as a term other than when dealing with foreigners. A Jew might be a member of the sect of temple-adherent Jews, alongside such groups as the Herodians, Essenes, and yes, even Christians (and perhaps others). In those terms, Paul had been a Jew.before he became a Christian. It also goes a long way toward explaining how he could "become as a Jew" to Jews.
Alternatively, Jew might refer specifically a member of the tribe of Judah - to which Paul does not belong (As you cited, he was a Benjamite, Romans 11:1). That verse demolishes the claim that Paul had "become a Jew" determines whether Paul was ethnically a Jew. He uses his ethnicity as a Benjamite as concrete evidence that the Jews had not been rejected by God.

The critical factors in determining Paul's ethnicity are "Hebrew" and "descendant of Abraham."

[Bill the Cat]

They have just as much proof as you and your sect do. i.e. none.

Why are you dodging my question? Do you have specific examples, or are you just trying to be obtuse?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

While I'll agree that this specific passage does not provide strong support for Paul being a Jew (and I note that you ignore all the other passages it looks like you're trying to read something into it that just isn't there.

None of the other examples offered by Cow Poke specifically mentioned the English translation Jew.

However, Paul's claim to be of the "Tribe of Benjamin" is likewise interesting. Benjamin sometimes functioning as a variation of the "Belial/Balaam" terminology. Bela in OT genealogies [reliable or not] is not only an Edomite King but the "son of Be'or" the same parentage ascribed to Balaam. It is therefore not inconceivable that Saul/Paul was a Herodian.

To continue with the next paragraph from GotQuestions:

The gospel was more important to him than his Jewish heritage. Although, as a Christian, he was no longer under obligation to follow the Jewish Law, he would do so if that would give him the opportunity to share the gospel with other Jews. When with the Gentiles, Paul adapted to their practices. “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law” (1 Corinthians 9:20–21).

That is is all later apologetic premised on preconceived ideas.

However, the textual fact remains that Paul never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself.

[rogue06]

None of the other examples offered by Cow Poke specifically mentioned the English translation Jew.

However, Paul's claim to be of the "Tribe of Benjamin" is likewise interesting. Benjamin sometimes functioning as a variation of the "Belial/Balaam" terminology. Bela in OT genealogies [reliable or not] is not only an Edomite King but the "son of Be'or" the same parentage ascribed to Balaam. It is therefore not inconceivable that Saul/Paul was a Herodian.

That is is all later apologetic premised on preconceived ideas.

However, the textual fact remains that Paul never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself.

As I said...

Wow you are really seeking to shelter behind a sprig with your reliance on such things...

[Cow Poke]

Luke reports that Paul identified himself as a Jew:
Acts 21:39 ειπεν δε ο παυλος εγω ανθρωπος μεν ειμι ιουδαιος ταρσευς της κιλικιας
Given that he was speaking to a Roman official at the time, the use of "Jew" was appropriate, where in many contexts it would not have been.

Your call to Paul's claim to be a Hebrew, Israelite, and descendant of Abraham is telling, as is the reference to his status as a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 Cor 11:22 εβραιοι εισιν καγω ισραηλιται εισιν καγω σπερμα αβρααμ εισιν καγω
Romans 11:1 - και γαρ εγω ισραηλιτης ειμι εκ σπερματος αβρααμ φυλης βενιαμιν

In the First Century, "Jew" is not particularly useful as a term other than when dealing with foreigners. A Jew might be a member of the sect of temple-adherent Jews, alongside such groups as the Herodians, Essenes, and yes, even Christians (and perhaps others). In those terms, Paul had been a Jew.before he became a Christian. It also goes a long way toward explaining how he could "become as a Jew" to Jews.
Alternatively, Jew might refer specifically a member of the tribe of Judah - to which Paul does not belong (As you cited, he was a Benjamite, Romans 11:1). That verse demolishes the claim that Paul had "become a Jew" determines whether Paul was ethnically a Jew. He uses his ethnicity as a Benjamite as concrete evidence that the Jews had not been rejected by God.

The critical factors in determining Paul's ethnicity are "Hebrew" and "descendant of Abraham."

I think H_A scours the internetzweb for attacks on Christianity and simply regurgitates those.