Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
It appears that you are abandoning this notion that the concept of Jesus being God and not merely some "Galilean Jewish charismatic" is something Paul came up with decades later when we can see it clearly expressed in other books, including the Gospels of Matthew and John. That would be wise, so I figure you'll be along to renounce it shortly.
Basically, in the opening of Galatians, Paul took on any challenge to his authority as an Apostle, using his life experiences to declare that
His message was of divine origin and he didn't make up the Gospel message that he was delivering. It wasn't something that he concocted, it wasn't something he got from other people, and neither was he watering down the Gospel to please people, but instead it came directly from Jesus Himself.
IOW, both Paul's conversion as well as his commission came from God and not from any man. He used his conversion from fanatical persecutor to preacher as evidence that God had been at work on him and he was authentic.
This is why he sounds like he was "dismissive" of the other Apostles. Because he was making it clear they were all on equal footing.
This is why, in the beginning of the second chapter of Galatians, Paul makes it clear that during his second trip to Jerusalem that he "set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles" and that the Apostles there agreed with the Gospel that Paul was preaching as noted in verse 9: "and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Still, as Galatians 1:11-12 makes clear, that while Paul had the approval from the primary eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, he claimed that his ultimate authority did not come from them but directly from Jesus’ revelation to him.
As to interpolation. That's the word I meant. As you noted its just a synonym for an addition. It is popular among critics to simply declare a passage (or more) that shoots down a pet theory is just a later addition to the text in order to dismiss it.
In keeping with the sweeping and over-generalized declaration made without a whit of support that you made.
So why are you whining?
Basically, in the opening of Galatians, Paul took on any challenge to his authority as an Apostle, using his life experiences to declare that
1. He was already an Apostle before he ever met any of the other Apostles
B) When they did meet, he was regarded as an equal
III/ He had the authority to rebuke even Peter.
B) When they did meet, he was regarded as an equal
III/ He had the authority to rebuke even Peter.
His message was of divine origin and he didn't make up the Gospel message that he was delivering. It wasn't something that he concocted, it wasn't something he got from other people, and neither was he watering down the Gospel to please people, but instead it came directly from Jesus Himself.
IOW, both Paul's conversion as well as his commission came from God and not from any man. He used his conversion from fanatical persecutor to preacher as evidence that God had been at work on him and he was authentic.
This is why he sounds like he was "dismissive" of the other Apostles. Because he was making it clear they were all on equal footing.
This is why, in the beginning of the second chapter of Galatians, Paul makes it clear that during his second trip to Jerusalem that he "set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles" and that the Apostles there agreed with the Gospel that Paul was preaching as noted in verse 9: "and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Still, as Galatians 1:11-12 makes clear, that while Paul had the approval from the primary eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, he claimed that his ultimate authority did not come from them but directly from Jesus’ revelation to him.
As to interpolation. That's the word I meant. As you noted its just a synonym for an addition. It is popular among critics to simply declare a passage (or more) that shoots down a pet theory is just a later addition to the text in order to dismiss it.
In keeping with the sweeping and over-generalized declaration made without a whit of support that you made.
So why are you whining?
Comment