Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Paul and the Judaizers

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

  • Paul and the Judaizers

    As Diogenes has decided to close his thread and as he has declared that a question I posed to him concerning Paul and the Judaizers was

    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    Hardly an awkward question and hardly unable to answer.


    From which remark it follows that it is easy to answer, I offer him the chance to do so here.

    For those who have not followed the progress of his thread; my question arose from an exchange following my remarks concerning Paul's use of the word "Son" in Galatians chapter four verse four [But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law] and to which I included the following possibility:


    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    it could be emphasising Jesus' Jewish identity
    To which Diogenes replied:

    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    Seeing as Paul was against the Judaizers
    That remark prompted my question:

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Why was Paul so "against the Judaizers" given that Jesus lived and died as an observant Jew?

    "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

  • #2
    *sigh* I may regret this, but...

    1) "Against the Judaizers" does not equate to "against Judaism." Paul remained observant himself, but also recognized that he was part of a New Covenant and no longer "under" the Law, hence had liberty to at times live as one not under Law in order to minister to non-Jews. 1 Cor. 9:20-21

    (However Paul did realize that for Jews who did not / do not accept Jesus as Messiah and LORD, Judaism is a dead end. Rom. 10-11, e.g.


    2) In general, and especially in the given context, it would be unlikely that Paul was referring to Jesus's Jewishness in referring to Him as God's "Son" (irrespective of our convention of capitalizing that). It speaks of Jesus as being God's Son, and of those who trust in Jesus also being adopted and becoming sons of God, without any need of following the Law to receive full rights of sonship. (The traditional view, as I understand it, was that the Judaizers were claiming one must follow the Law to be saved. The newer view seems to be that the Judaizers grudgingly acknowledged the Galatians were "saved," but barely, and that to be fully "in" as the people of God, they needed to add Torah observance. Paul says no, we continue in our salvation the way we began -- by faith and the Spirit, Gal. 3.)


    3) The degree to which Jesus "lived and died" as "observant" is somewhat questionable. When He said that "Treat others as you wish others to treat you" "is" or "fulfills" or "sums up" the "Law and Prophets," (Matt. 7:12) He was certainly relegating a lot of details, especially about ritual, to a much lower level. When He said that "the Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27), He was pretty clearly loosening the interpretation, since under Torah defiling the Sabbath could be a capital offense. And the parenthetical statement in Mark 7:19 shows the author believed Jesus had directly revoked the Food Laws. (I am inclined to interpret Peter's vision in Acts 10 as suggesting that God expected Peter to recall the events in Mark 7, and apply the broader implications.)
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Federalist.

    Nationalist Christian.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

    Justice for Matthew Perna!

    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
      *sigh* I may regret this, but...


      Last edited by Diogenes; 01-07-2023, 03:10 PM.
      P1) If , then I win.

      P2)

      C) I win.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post

        By H_A's reckoning, Those in Jerusalem, having found no conflict with Paul's gospel, having not been able to contribute anything extra to Paul's gospel, having not required that Titus be circumcised, having only pressed Paul to be considerate of the poor

        were now being criticised by Paul as promoting a false gospel.



        It is a spectacular leap of logic.
        What you forget is that we only have Paul's side of all this. There are no authentic letters from James or Peter or any other of the men who knew the Jew we call Jesus of Nazareth.
        "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


        • #5
          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

          1) "Against the Judaizers" does not equate to "against Judaism." Paul remained observant himself, but also recognized that he was part of a New Covenant and no longer "under" the Law,
          Do kindly explain how a Jew in the first century CE could have remained observant while no longer conforming to and observing Jewish law?

          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
          However Paul did realize that for Jews who did not / do not accept Jesus as Messiah and LORD, Judaism is a dead end. Rom. 10-11, e.g.
          Those again are only Paul's idiosyncratic ideas and notions.

          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
          2) In general, and especially in the given context, it would be unlikely that Paul was referring to Jesus's Jewishness in referring to Him as God's "Son" (irrespective of our convention of capitalizing that). It speaks of Jesus as being God's Son, and of those who trust in Jesus also being adopted and becoming sons of God, without any need of following the Law to receive full rights of sonship. (The traditional view, as I understand it, was that the Judaizers were claiming one must follow the Law to be saved. The newer view seems to be that the Judaizers grudgingly acknowledged the Galatians were "saved," but barely, and that to be fully "in" as the people of God, they needed to add Torah observance. Paul says no, we continue in our salvation the way we began -- by faith and the Spirit, Gal. 3.)
          Again these are Paul's ideas. The Jews in the first century CE had [and today still have] their own means of expiation and those do not include vicarious human atonement [basically human sacrifice].


          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
          3) The degree to which Jesus "lived and died" as "observant" is somewhat questionable. When He said that "Treat others as you wish others to treat you" "is" or "fulfills" or "sums up" the "Law and Prophets," (Matt. 7:12) He was certainly relegating a lot of details, especially about ritual, to a much lower level. When He said that "the Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27), He was pretty clearly loosening the interpretation, since under Torah defiling the Sabbath could be a capital offense. And the parenthetical statement in Mark 7:19 shows the author believed Jesus had directly revoked the Food Laws. (I am inclined to interpret Peter's vision in Acts 10 as suggesting that God expected Peter to recall the events in Mark 7, and apply the broader implications.)
          I recommend that you read Geza Vermes, Jesus in his Jewish Context, or indeed Hyam Maccoby's two works on Paul [the latter author is not very complimentary].
          Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 01-08-2023, 04:34 AM.
          "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


          • #6
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

            What you forget is that we only have Paul's side of all this. There are no authentic letters from James or Peter or any other of the men who knew the Jew we call Jesus of Nazareth.
            Yet you have interpreted the passage in question as portraying Paul's disdain for the people in question. What he actually says about those people is in conflict with your interpretation of the content of that pericope.

            Thus, you have misinterpreted or misrepresented Paul's intent.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tabibito View Post

              Yet you have interpreted the passage in question as portraying Paul's disdain for the people in question. What he actually says about those people is in conflict with your interpretation of the content of that pericope.

              Thus, you have misinterpreted or misrepresented Paul's intent.
              I offer you the same advice I gave to rogue06. Read Acts and Galatians dispassionately and critically. I realise this might present some problems for you, but do try.
              "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


              • #8
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                Read Acts and Galatians dispassionately and critically.
                You keep using those words (etc.)

                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • #9
                  Galatians 2
                  1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.



                  the second trip to Jerusalem.
                  2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,
                  but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.



                  Paul was prompted to go to Jerusalem because of a revelation. He presented an account of his gospel to a select group with a sound reputation.
                  He had some concern that his gospel might be deficient.
                  3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.



                  >>> An aside. Circumcision was not an issue. The sentence proper continues from verse 4.
                  4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty
                  which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.



                  The concern that Paul felt was prompted by the actions of the false brethren.
                  5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.



                  Paul was steadfast in his teaching. "We" is somewhat ambiguous - Paul and Barnabas probably.
                  6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me;
                  God shows no partiality)–well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.



                  Those who were of high reputation, not saying that reputation is significant, had no issue with Paul's gospel particularly with regard to his opposition to circumcision.
                  7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
                  Those people gave Paul recognition as an authorised workman.
                  8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
                  >>> aside. Paul and Peter hold equal authority, and from the same source.
                  9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars,
                  gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
                  James, Peter, and John extended friendship to Paul and Barnabas

                  So then, Paul had been troubled by the Judaisers, with the issue or main issue being circumcision. People who were in the know agreed with Paul.

                  And from this we are to conclude that Paul had a problem with the apostles in Jerusalem, despite having been given the right hand of friendship from the "pillars" of the Jerusalem church?!?
                  Last edited by tabibito; 01-08-2023, 05:58 AM.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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
                    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?
                    As you have contended in a later post on that:

                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    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.


                    What you are contending is pure supposition premised on your later preconceived theological beliefs.

                    All we have as testimony for Paul's gospel are the opinions of Paul. No one else has left us any attested historical record of their views on his teachings.

                    However, from his own letters [i.e. those deemed to be authentic] there is clear of animosity towards those whom he considered were undermining his gospel. There is also a distinct hint of arrogance, that his gospel is the only true gospel "not that there is another gospel," and that his gospel is superior because of its alleged divine origins. There are also his comments concerning those who were "supposed to be acknowledged leaders" and that "those leaders contributed nothing to me".

                    Who were these acknowledged leaders? One must presume they are the men in Jerusalem who had actually known a Jewish man we call Jesus of Nazareth and those men continued to identify themselves entirely with Judaism.

                    The phrase Jewish Christians invariably causes confusion because of the later theological association of the word Christian. However, for a Jewish Messianic [Christian] sect [which is what the followers of the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth] were, Jesus was not the deity nor a divinity. Such notions completely contravene Judaism with its one immanent and ineffable deity. Divine figures within Judaism are another topic. However, none of those divine figures were ever equal to the deity.

                    We also have to place this first century CE Jewish Messianic [Christian] sect in its socio-historical and religious context when for many Jews the End Times were imminent. It is possible that the men who knew Jesus believed the Almighty would sent him back to complete his mission [possibly with divine assistance]; or that his leadership of the sect was taken on by others [possibly his brother James].

                    The only sources we have for the life of Jesus of Nazareth are later Christian texts. However, the four canonical gospels show that during his preaching Jesus only addressed Jews "the lost sheep of Israel". His disciples are instructed not to approach gentiles or Samaritans and on the few occasions in those narratives that we are told Jesus ventured beyond his homeland he never addressed non Jews. From those texts therefore we are shown that Jesus' own perspective was exclusively Jewish and he was only concerned with his fellow Jews.

                    The instruction to "all the nations" found in Matthew chapter twenty-eight verse nineteen appears to be inspired by Paul's ideas and such an instruction is not found anywhere else in those four gospels - apart for the spurious longer ending of Mark chapter sixteen and that is missing from all the older manuscripts of that gospel.

                    "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


                    • #11
                      [QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n1446479]

                      As you have contended in a later post on that:



                      What you are contending is pure supposition premised on your later preconceived theological beliefs.

                      All we have as testimony for Paul's gospel are the opinions of Paul. No one else has left us any attested historical record of their views on his teachings.
                      The fact that Paul's letters were received as canonical sort of hints that maybe there was general consensus that his works were canonical.

                      However, from his own letters [i.e. those deemed to be authentic] there is clear of animosity towards those whom he considered were undermining his gospel. There is also a distinct hint of arrogance, that his gospel is the only true gospel "not that there is another gospel," and that his gospel is superior because of its alleged divine origins. There are also his comments concerning those who were "supposed to be acknowledged leaders" and that "those leaders contributed nothing to me".
                      There is a slight difference in the way things are expressed in Koine Greek and the Germanic languages (of which, IIRC, English is one). Fact remains, Paul does show that he is on cordial terms with the people of repute - namely (but perhaps not exclusively) Peter, John, and James.

                      Who were these acknowledged leaders? One must presume they are the men in Jerusalem who had actually known a Jewish man we call Jesus of Nazareth and those men continued to identify themselves entirely with Judaism.
                      Peter, John, and James are mentioned by name.

                      The phrase Jewish Christians invariably causes confusion because of the later theological association of the word Christian. However, for a Jewish Messianic [Christian] sect [which is what the followers of the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth] were, Jesus was not the deity nor a divinity. Such notions completely contravene Judaism with its one immanent and ineffable deity. Divine figures within Judaism are another topic. However, none of those divine figures were ever equal to the deity.
                      It would be interesting to see the citations that might support your contention.

                      We also have to place this first century CE Jewish Messianic [Christian] sect in its socio-historical and religious context when for many Jews the End Times were imminent. It is possible that the men who knew Jesus believed the Almighty would sent him back to complete his mission [possibly with divine assistance]; or that his leadership of the sect was taken on by others [possibly his brother James].
                      That they expected Jesus' imminent return is pretty much a matter of Biblical record. Also a matter of Biblical record, a story was circulating in which Lazarus was not expected to die before Jesus returned (or at all): also a matter of Biblical record, Lazarus himself declared that story untrue. There were quite obviously some misunderstandings.

                      The only sources we have for the life of Jesus of Nazareth are later Christian texts. However, the four canonical gospels show that during his preaching Jesus only addressed Jews "the lost sheep of Israel". His disciples are instructed not to approach gentiles or Samaritans and on the few occasions in those narratives that we are told Jesus ventured beyond his homeland he never addressed non Jews. From those texts therefore we are shown that Jesus' own perspective was exclusively Jewish and he was only concerned with his fellow Jews.
                      Oddly, the Syro-Phonecian woman was not a Jew, nor was the Samaritan woman at the well along with quite a number of the townsfolk of her locality - somewhere in the vicinity of Mount Gerizim, nor was one of the ten lepers who were cured, nor presumably, the centurion's servant. While Jesus was not sent to outsiders, he did not deny help to outsiders. And after the resurrection, he changed the mission parameters to explicitly include outsiders.

                      The instruction to "all the nations" found in Matthew chapter twenty-eight verse nineteen appears to be inspired by Paul's ideas and such an instruction is not found anywhere else in those four gospels - apart for the spurious longer ending of Mark chapter sixteen and that is missing from all the older manuscripts of that gospel.
                      Are Mark 13:10 and Matthew 24:14 somehow missing from your copies of the Bible?
                      Last edited by tabibito; 01-08-2023, 10:24 AM.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                        What you forget is that we only have Paul's side of all this. There are no authentic letters from James or Peter or any other of the men who knew the Jew we call Jesus of Nazareth.
                        It's widely agreed that Mark represents Peter's view through the lens of one of his secretaries.

                        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


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                          You keep using those words (etc.)



                          bd4e3e0c-2fe6-478f-9bbd-a5bbe124a49b.jpg
                          Probably another classic movie she's glad she missed

                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                            As you have contended in a later post on that:



                            What you are contending is pure supposition premised on your later preconceived theological beliefs.

                            All we have as testimony for Paul's gospel are the opinions of Paul. No one else has left us any attested historical record of their views on his teachings.

                            However, from his own letters [i.e. those deemed to be authentic] there is clear of animosity towards those whom he considered were undermining his gospel. There is also a distinct hint of arrogance, that his gospel is the only true gospel "not that there is another gospel," and that his gospel is superior because of its alleged divine origins. There are also his comments concerning those who were "supposed to be acknowledged leaders" and that "those leaders contributed nothing to me".

                            Who were these acknowledged leaders? One must presume they are the men in Jerusalem who had actually known a Jewish man we call Jesus of Nazareth and those men continued to identify themselves entirely with Judaism.

                            The phrase Jewish Christians invariably causes confusion because of the later theological association of the word Christian. However, for a Jewish Messianic [Christian] sect [which is what the followers of the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth] were, Jesus was not the deity nor a divinity. Such notions completely contravene Judaism with its one immanent and ineffable deity. Divine figures within Judaism are another topic. However, none of those divine figures were ever equal to the deity.

                            We also have to place this first century CE Jewish Messianic [Christian] sect in its socio-historical and religious context when for many Jews the End Times were imminent. It is possible that the men who knew Jesus believed the Almighty would sent him back to complete his mission [possibly with divine assistance]; or that his leadership of the sect was taken on by others [possibly his brother James].

                            The only sources we have for the life of Jesus of Nazareth are later Christian texts. However, the four canonical gospels show that during his preaching Jesus only addressed Jews "the lost sheep of Israel". His disciples are instructed not to approach gentiles or Samaritans and on the few occasions in those narratives that we are told Jesus ventured beyond his homeland he never addressed non Jews. From those texts therefore we are shown that Jesus' own perspective was exclusively Jewish and he was only concerned with his fellow Jews.

                            The instruction to "all the nations" found in Matthew chapter twenty-eight verse nineteen appears to be inspired by Paul's ideas and such an instruction is not found anywhere else in those four gospels - apart for the spurious longer ending of Mark chapter sixteen and that is missing from all the older manuscripts of that gospel.
                            Decide to have another go at it?

                            Your first response (in the thread my post comes from) was

                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            Read Acts and Galatians dispassionately and critically. I realise this might present some problems for you, but do try.
                            which garnered you a well deserve horse laugh


                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            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.


                            And now I see that you are urging tab to also follow your advice.

                            Advice that you stubbornly refuse to follow yourself. Hence...

                            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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              It's widely agreed that Mark represents Peter's view through the lens of one of his secretaries.
                              Majority consensus is that Mark was written in the late 60s early 70s, with some views supporting mid 30s to mid 40s. Even the more commonly accepted opinions are well within range for a second generation author. My own opinion - sometime before 60CE, with the admission that I can't prove it.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              39 responses
                              137 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              425 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X