Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

I am surprised...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    He never uses the word to refer to himself. He writes that he is "circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee" but he never writes that he is a Jew. Idumean converts were not considered [by some Jews] to be real Jews. That might be the reason he does not refer to himself as Ἰουδαῖος . However, Robert Eisenman has a less flattering view of Paul:

    From James the Brother of Jesus

    The ‘freedom’ he [Paul]is talking about is freedom from the Law; the ‘slavery’ both enslavement to it and the Jerusalem Leadership – the ‘we’ referring here to his own communities.[...] It is in these passages, which end in an insistence that he ‘does not lie’- again important for parallel Qumran aspersions on a person known as ‘the Liar’ – that he describes how he first ‘made Peter’s acquaintance’ and ‘saw none of the other Apostles, except James the brother of the Lord’ (Gal. 1:18-20). In doing so, Paul states categorically that he did not ‘go up again to Jerusalem for fourteen years’ (2:1) which completely contradicts both chronological and factual claims in Acts.” [..]“He [Paul] did not recognise earthly authority, nor the ‘Jerusalem Church’ leaders, nor the decisions of the so-called ‘Jerusalem Council’. This was all very well and good for Paul, but one can imagine the kind of problem it might have caused him among his contemporaries.

    We can get an inkling of these by reading between the lines in his letters and comprehending the doctrine about him in the Pseudoclementines and materials of similar orientation.
    Paul was obviously being mocked by some- within the Church not outside it- as ’the Man of Dreams’, ‘Lies’, or ‘Lying’, or what was also characterised in a parallel parlance as ‘the Enemy’. This is confirmed tangentially by Paul’s defensiveness with regard to such epithets, as evidenced at the end of his testimony in Galatians to his all important meeting with Peter and James in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:20 and 4:16".

    The Church at this period, being the Jerusalem Church led by James.






    He was circumcised on the 8th day. Doesn't sound like a "converted Jew" to me.

    Also he claims to be a decendant of Abraham, an Israelite, a Hebrew from the tribe of Benjamin. The Jews were named after the remaining two tribes, Judah and Benjamin.

    But no, you go right ahead and stick with your stupid argument. You are sure to convince many with your brilliant find.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

      He was circumcised on the 8th day. Doesn't sound like a "converted Jew" to me.

      Also he claims to be a decendant of Abraham, an Israelite, a Hebrew from the tribe of Benjamin. The Jews were named after the remaining two tribes, Judah and Benjamin.

      But no, you go right ahead and stick with your stupid argument. You are sure to convince many with your brilliant find.
      Now that she has started to recycle through the same arguments that have already been given seppa, I'm wondering if she will vary the order of presentation.
      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

        Now that she has started to recycle through the same arguments that have already been given seppa, I'm wondering if she will vary the order of presentation.
        Jesus never wrote in the bible that he was a Jew either!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          He never uses the word to refer to himself. He writes that he is "circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee" but he never writes that he is a Jew. Idumean converts were not considered [by some Jews] to be real Jews. That might be the reason he does not refer to himself as Ἰουδαῖος . However, Robert Eisenman has a less flattering view of Paul:

          From James the Brother of Jesus

          The ‘freedom’ he [Paul]is talking about is freedom from the Law; the ‘slavery’ both enslavement to it and the Jerusalem Leadership – the ‘we’ referring here to his own communities.[...] It is in these passages, which end in an insistence that he ‘does not lie’- again important for parallel Qumran aspersions on a person known as ‘the Liar’ – that he describes how he first ‘made Peter’s acquaintance’ and ‘saw none of the other Apostles, except James the brother of the Lord’ (Gal. 1:18-20). In doing so, Paul states categorically that he did not ‘go up again to Jerusalem for fourteen years’ (2:1) which completely contradicts both chronological and factual claims in Acts.” [..]“He [Paul] did not recognise earthly authority, nor the ‘Jerusalem Church’ leaders, nor the decisions of the so-called ‘Jerusalem Council’. This was all very well and good for Paul, but one can imagine the kind of problem it might have caused him among his contemporaries.

          We can get an inkling of these by reading between the lines in his letters and comprehending the doctrine about him in the Pseudoclementines and materials of similar orientation.
          Paul was obviously being mocked by some- within the Church not outside it- as ’the Man of Dreams’, ‘Lies’, or ‘Lying’, or what was also characterised in a parallel parlance as ‘the Enemy’. This is confirmed tangentially by Paul’s defensiveness with regard to such epithets, as evidenced at the end of his testimony in Galatians to his all important meeting with Peter and James in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:20 and 4:16".

          The Church at this period, being the Jerusalem Church led by James.






          Eisenman???

          https://www.irishtimes.com/news/the-...n-plot-1.59486

          Presumably, he doesn't expect his readers actually to check. This is one of very many instances when my critical faculties, not to mention-common sense, made me uncomfortable with Eisenman's approach. One fears he is trying to pull a fast one on the unsuspecting reader who trusts his use of source-texts and mistakes the confidence of his assertions for objective expertise.
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Jesus never wrote in the bible that he was a Jew either!
            Nor did He ever write in the Bible.

            (there was that incident, of course, where He wrote in the dirt)

            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              He never uses the word to refer to himself. He writes that he is "circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee" but he never writes that he is a Jew.
              already dealt with, repeatedly. By today's terminology, Saul was a Jew.

              Idumean converts were not considered [by some Jews] to be real Jews. That might be the reason he does not refer to himself as Ἰουδαῖος
              As previously noted, Idumean converts were not Benjamites.


              The ‘freedom’ he [Paul]is talking about is freedom from the Law; the ‘slavery’ both enslavement to it
              He does at that.

              and the Jerusalem Leadership – the ‘we’
              Piffle. The Jerusalem Church leaders were not Judaisers. James explicitly repudiated the troublesome ones.

              We can get an inkling of these by reading between the lines in his letters
              That is a red flag, right there. Reading between the lines just makes it possible to force the text to mean whatever the reader wants it to. It is not something a scholar will endorse. "We can infer," with a reasoning that the audience can follow is another matter.

              Paul was obviously being mocked by some- within the Church not outside it- as ’the Man of Dreams’, ‘Lies’, or ‘Lying’, or what was also characterised in a parallel parlance as ‘the Enemy’. This is confirmed tangentially by Paul’s defensiveness with regard to such epithets, as evidenced at the end of his testimony in Galatians to his all important meeting with Peter and James in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:20 and 4:16".


              It would take a lot of hard work to avoid noticing the problems encountered by Paul

              The Church at this period, being the Jerusalem Church led by James.


              That would be the church under supervision from Jerusalem, with James as the chairman.
              Last edited by tabibito; 09-16-2021, 03:49 PM.
              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                Idumean converts were not Benjamites.



                and his descendants were not Hebrews, whether Benjamite or any other tribe.
                He was still Abraham's son!
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                  Nothing unnatural about craving, nor is it intrinsically wrong.
                  Paul does use the word ‘επιθυμία (desire) in a morally neutral sense as when he ‘desires’ to see someone or do something (e.g. Phil 1:23 and I Thes 2:17). However, whenever he writes on the topic of sex and sexual desire he has nothing good to say about it. Hence we find in I Corinthians 7 that nowhere in that chapter does he mention any kind of positive kind of desire as opposed to the ‘burning’ that he hopes marriage will quench. The same exclusion of sexual desire can be seen in I Thessalonians 4, I Corinthians 10, and of course Romans 1.

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                  As Sparko noted - stoicism had no connection with early Christian teaching.
                  What a ridiculous comment. Your religion developed in the Hellenised world. and without Hellenism in all its forms [including the Greek language] your religion would never have existed. From where do you imagine the fourth century Church got its ideas to explain the Trinity?

                  Paul came from the Hellenised world and your religion did not develop in a religious vacuum. The ancient world teemed with various religions, of which early of Christianity was just another.

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  We do know that he didn't. His admonition to chastity was prompted by the circumstances that prevailed in a limited area and for a limited time.
                  Paul believed the Parousia was imminent and would take place in his lifetime and therefore considered such trifling issues as love, marriage, and children somewhat unimportant when placed against that event.

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  All of which was divorced from any Biblical teaching.
                  Not necessarily from Paul though.

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  Marriage does not defile the person - try again.
                  For Paul the ideal is to be a celibate virgin. Marriage is for those who cannot "be as myself".

                  For Paul passion is part of the polluting and defiled cosmos that is acting in opposition to God. Paul wants the men of his congregation to avoid the dangers of prostitutes and fornication (πορνεία) and passion (πάθει) and use their wives as a safe receptacle for their sexual overflow. For Paul the very root of sin is desire and lust (‘επιθυμία). There is no such thing as honourable passion and he never has a positive word to say about sex or sexual desire.

                  What a difference from the Song of Songs a paean to the joys of sex and the delights to be found in the body of one's lover. Those very sexual passions that Paul found so abhorrent. Compare those texts with this ῇ γυναικὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν ὀφειλὴν1 ἀποδιδότω, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἡ γυνὴ τῷ ἀνδρί.

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  That is an argument that people reject the plain readings (which would often be sustainable). It is not an argument against the existence of plain readings.
                  These texts do not have a "plain reading" because they are being read in translation and a translation is by its very nature an interpretation which may therefore risk distorting the original meaning.


                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

                    Eisenman???

                    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/the-...n-plot-1.59486

                    Presumably, he doesn't expect his readers actually to check. This is one of very many instances when my critical faculties, not to mention-common sense, made me uncomfortable with Eisenman's approach. One fears he is trying to pull a fast one on the unsuspecting reader who trusts his use of source-texts and mistakes the confidence of his assertions for objective expertise.
                    Isn't he the guy who basically thinks that James is "The Teacher of Righteousness" mentioned in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, or something to that effect?

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      Isn't he the guy who basically thinks that James is "The Teacher of Righteousness" mentioned in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, or something to that effect?
                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                        He was still Abraham's son!
                        Already demonstrated to be wholly irrelevant.
                        sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

                          Yeah, and a couple rather strange beliefs about who Paul was as well. Shoulda known he would be H_A's go-to.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                            Already demonstrated to be wholly irrelevant.
                            Entirely irrelevant to the point.
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Isn't he the guy who basically thinks that James is "The Teacher of Righteousness" mentioned in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, or something to that effect?
                              [intended with sarcasm] Oh of course we are all forgetting that you have worked on the Qumran texts and are fluent in Hebrew and Greek. Such a polymath as yourself is perhaps casting his pearls on a board such as this.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                                Already demonstrated to be wholly irrelevant.
                                And this should matter to H_A eggzackly why?
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, Yesterday, 01:18 PM
                                3 responses
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 10:44 AM
                                2 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 01:15 AM
                                13 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Started by whag, 10-26-2021, 11:02 PM
                                29 responses
                                199 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by mikewhitney, 10-26-2021, 10:44 PM
                                21 responses
                                116 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Working...
                                X