Christological Sidebar

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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

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.

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?

Read Acts and Galatians dispassionately and critically. I realise this might present some problems for you, but do try.

[Diogenes]

And here we have tabibito referring to logic.

I am not entirely where the logic is derived from this:

Followed by this:

Leads to justifying this claim: My emphasis:



All you have provided in all those posts is an excuse for not answering.

Cambridge Dictionary


answer
noun [ C ]
US /ˈæn.sɚ/ UK /ˈɑːn.sər/answer noun [C] (REACTION)


A1
a reaction to a question, letter, phonecall, etc.:

[tabibito]

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.

Paul died within three decades of Jesus' execution - technically "decades later" but his letters were presumably written before he died.

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

By my reckoning, Paul and Barnabas were appointed as apostles concurrently in Antioch (Acts 13:1), sometime after Paul's trips to Jerusalem - though your next comment might bring that into question.


[quote]B) When they did meet, he was regarded as an equal

III/ He had the authority to rebuke even Peter.

That he did, and Peter or James or Apollos to rebuke him - had the occasion arisen.

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, 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.

Assuredly

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Cambridge Dictionary


answer
noun [ C ]
US /ˈæn.sɚ/ UK /ˈɑːn.sər/answer noun [C] (REACTION)


A1
a reaction to a question, letter, phonecall, etc.:

Do not worry. I realise you were "put on the spot" and so declined to continue!

[Diogenes]

Do not worry. I realise you were "put on the spot" and so declined to continue!

Personally I think you're irritated I won't play your game or that I won't stop my "charade" of being an agnostic or not an anti-theist. Given that you chose to be tedious about both "mystery" and "Incarnation", you've lost the bait.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Personally I think you're irritated I won't play your game or that I won't stop my "charade" of being an agnostic or not an anti-theist. Given that you chose to be tedious about both "mystery" and "Incarnation", you've lost the bait.

You are free to think as you wish.

However, precision in language is important when discussing certain topics.

[Diogenes]

However, precision in language is important when discussing certain topics.

Hence why I used the terms that I did. I was being precise.

[rogue06]

Read Acts and Galatians dispassionately and critically. I realise this might present some problems for you, but do try.

Oh the delicious unintended

Iron E.jpg
being told to not only "read Acts and Galatians dispassionately and critically," which is
already enough for a full meal, but coming from someone who has never read the Bible
in any manner save for snippets extracted by various critics.

You cannot refute what I posted so you do an H_A and simply try to hand wave it off with a curt dismissal, although in this case it back-fired hilariously.

[rogue06]

Paul died within three decades of Jesus' execution - technically "decades later" but his letters were presumably written before he died.
[INDENT]

By my reckoning, Paul and Barnabas were appointed as apostles concurrently in Antioch (Acts 13:1), sometime after Paul's trips to Jerusalem - though your next comment might bring that into question.

It would have been more accurate to say Paul didn't come up with it a bit over a decade later given the dating of his letters.

I'm not sure how his becoming an Apostle before meeting the other Apostles could contradict that

[tabibito]

It would have been more accurate to say Paul didn't come up with it a bit over a decade later given the dating of his letters.

I'm not sure how his becoming an Apostle before meeting the other Apostles could contradict that

It wouldn't. Nor, insofar as I can tell, does his theology change or develop. The expression of that theology does evidence a certain refinement of terminology though, which is only to be expected.

[rogue06]

It wouldn't. Nor, insofar as I can tell, does his theology change or develop. The expression of that theology does evidence a certain refinement of terminology though, which is only to be expected.

To me the fact that his theology is fully developed from the onset is strong support for his claims

[tabibito]

Oh the delicious unintended

Iron E.jpg
being told to not only "read Acts and Galatians dispassionately and critically," which is
already enough for a full meal, but coming from someone who has never read the Bible
in any manner save for snippets extracted by various critics.

You cannot refute what I posted so you do an H_A and simply try to hand wave it off with a curt dismissal, although in this case it back-fired hilariously.

You forgot to mention that the snippets are usually (invariably?) mangled out of all recognition, or disconnected from their context.

[rogue06]

You forgot to mention that the snippets are usually (invariably?) mangled out of all recognition, or disconnected from their context.

You'll have to forgive me. I was still laughing at someone telling me to read something "dispassionately and critically" that in all her decades of complaining about it, has never once bothered to read it herself "dispassionately and critically" or otherwise.