CASteinman Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Paul was NOT a first century CHRISTIAN........ he was purely JEW all his life...... er that is unless he invoked his Roman citizenship...... or became a gentile when it suited his purposes, after all he did say to the Jew he was a Jew, to the Gentile he was a Gentile, etc. You know, the ends justify the means.....Have you taken this up with Ron Beron?
Ron Beron Posted June 30, 2012 Author Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) Paul was NOT a first century CHRISTIAN........ he was purely JEW all his life...... er that is unless he invoked his Roman citizenship...... or became a gentile when it suited his purposes, after all he did say to the Jew he was a Jew, to the Gentile he was a Gentile, etc. You know, the ends justify the means.....Kerry, that said it all. May I add that he also became a Jew when it furthered his objectives. 9:20 To the Jews I became like a Jew to gain the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) to gain those under the law. 9:21 To those free from the law I became like one free from the law (though I am not free from God’s law but under the law of Christ) to gain those free from the law. 9:22 To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some.9:23 I do all these things because of the gospel, so that I can be a participant in it. Edited June 30, 2012 by Ron Beron
CASteinman Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Kerry, that said it all. May I add that he also became a Jew when it furthered his objectives. So he was a Jewish Christian or not?
CASteinman Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 'CASteinman' writes...He was Jewish by birth and training, but not by his future intent. Any interpretation on your part is simply out of context of the times. We only have Paul's word, but we also have the words of James as reported in Acts. Paul was a distinct outsider to the other apostles. Paul was full of contradictions it is hard to determine what side he was batting for...Yet you have asserted that he was on a side, that it was contrary to the brethren who called and ordained him and sent him out and you teach it contrary to the insights of Joseph Smith who seems to have some better knowledge than your "scholars". You get to choose who to believe. That's part of the deal.
CASteinman Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) Some scholars do while others do not. I feel he taught a perversion of the gospel and helped herald in the apostasy.I understand that feeling but it is contradictory to the official doctrines of the Church and the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Granted that you have a right to your own beliefs... but why should any faithful Latter-day Saint accept your beliefs as anything but contradictory? Edited June 30, 2012 by CASteinman
Ron Beron Posted June 30, 2012 Author Posted June 30, 2012 So he was a Jewish Christian or not?Of course he was a Jew, but today he would be a Reformed Jew. It's hard to tap his thinking, but I think his state in Corinthians said it all. He would do whatever it took to bring the gospel to the gentiles even to the point of compromising his beliefs he held from birth. I think the best that can be said about Paul was that he was a Hellenized Jew.
CASteinman Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Where did he say this? The word church in the NT is not a building, a structure, or orthodox hierarchy, but a term for the believers.I did not talk about a building or a structure. I said "Church" and of course it includes believers --- but ALSO orthodox hierarchy.
CASteinman Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Of course he was a Jew, but today he would be a Reformed Jew. You have a vivid imagination.
CASteinman Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 That doesn't change truth only slants it. If the U.S. had not collectively won WWII we would be having a different world view today.Yes but if Hitler had not started it (or more properly, if Continental European Powers had not arranged things to start WWI) things would have also been vastly different. The specre of World War and Hitlers and consequences haunt us to this day and have colored the strategic and political landscape ever since. Same with Marcion. The scholars you adore are blind to his influence over them.
Ron Beron Posted June 30, 2012 Author Posted June 30, 2012 Yet you have asserted that he was on a side, that it was contrary to the brethren who called and ordained him and sent him out and you teach it contrary to the insights of Joseph Smith who seems to have some better knowledge than your "scholars". You get to choose who to believe. That's part of the deal.If we include the beliefs of Joseph Smith I would have to say, "no contest", because obviously his prophetic nature trumps my academic, but we are also encouraged to seek things out of the best materials we have at hand. As to the brethren who called and set him there is wide and divergent beliefs as to what that meant. Given the words of James I would have to believe they wanted to get rid of him.
Ron Beron Posted June 30, 2012 Author Posted June 30, 2012 I did not talk about a building or a structure. I said "Church" and of course it includes believers --- but ALSO orthodox hierarchy.If Jesus were to return within their lifetimes then why the need for a formal hierarchy?
Ron Beron Posted June 30, 2012 Author Posted June 30, 2012 Yes but if Hitler had not started it (or more properly, if Continental European Powers had not arranged things to start WWI) things would have also been vastly different. The specre of World War and Hitlers and consequences haunt us to this day and have colored the strategic and political landscape ever since. Same with Marcion. The scholars you adore are blind to his influence over them.Adore?? Respect, but not adore. And, I disagree.
Ron Beron Posted June 30, 2012 Author Posted June 30, 2012 You have a vivid imagination.How would you define him, then. Was a orthodox given his denigration of the Mosaic Law? Was he Hellenized? How would you characterize him?
CASteinman Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 If we include the beliefs of Joseph Smith I would have to say, "no contest", because obviously his prophetic nature trumps my academic, but we are also encouraged to seek things out of the best materials we have at hand. As to the brethren who called and set him there is wide and divergent beliefs as to what that meant. Given the words of James I would have to believe they wanted to get rid of him.I do include Joseph Smith and his insights and revelations in all of that. Otherwise, I would not be LDS and I might think the Bible was all hooey anyway.
CASteinman Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 If Jesus were to return within their lifetimes then why the need for a formal hierarchy?Where on earth did this come from? I never proposed any idea that he would return in their lifetimes. I almost feel like asking with Jesus "You are an Elder in Israel yet you do not know these things?"The formal hierarchy was given for order in the Church, for the work of the ministry "till we all come in a unity of the faith".
CASteinman Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 I disagree.So you think that they do recognize his influence over them? When do they EVER admit to this?
CASteinman Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 How would you define him, then. Was a orthodox given his denigration of the Mosaic Law? Was he Hellenized? How would you characterize him?I would define Him as the Son of God, sent to proclaim the Gospel and do the great work of the Atonement. He was Himself. He was the leader of the Church in His day, seeking to give unto Israel the Gospel --despite knowing it would be lost again. That is how I would characterize Him.And when I read about the more modern and more details of the life of Joseph Smith, I feel a get a taste of what things might have been like for Jesus as he worked among the people. His question "Will ye also go?" upon the desertion he faced when declaring the full import of His Mission and His Relationship with God it touching. His times were even harder than Joseph Smiths, but still, I feel a get a glimpse of how mens hearts are hardened.
Ron Beron Posted July 1, 2012 Author Posted July 1, 2012 I would define Him as the Son of God, sent to proclaim the Gospel and do the great work of the Atonement. He was Himself. He was the leader of the Church in His day, seeking to give unto Israel the Gospel --despite knowing it would be lost again.That is how I would characterize Him.And when I read about the more modern and more details of the life of Joseph Smith, I feel a get a taste of what things might have been like for Jesus as he worked among the people. His question "Will ye also go?" upon the desertion he faced when declaring the full import of His Mission and His Relationship with God it touching. His times were even harder than Joseph Smiths, but still, I feel a get a glimpse of how mens hearts are hardened.I was referring to Paul.
CASteinman Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 I was referring to Paul.Oh.. my mistake.I would consider him to be a pharisee who became a Christian and over time became an Apostle. I would say that he was so convinced, that he was not as concerned with things like "truth" and "justice" -- things we might think of as appropriate for a holy teacher -- as much as "what works" in promoting the cause of Christ. I think he was stubborn.
volgadon Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 I am fond of Alan Segal's "Paul the Conert:The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee." Segal looked at Paul from the perspective of his conversion experience, particularly how it shaped his relationship to his past and to his former community. Paul's upbringing as a Pharisee heavily informed his life as a Christian, but it was through the lens of his conversion, his mystical enocunter with Christ. Ron Beron is one of the old stalwarts here, one of my favourites, but his perspective on Paul is far radicaler than mine. Paul was at once Christian, Jew, and Hellene. The three were not mutually exclusive, Daniel Boyarin has shown how border lines became sharply defined only during a much later date and Lee Levine noted that everyone in the ancient Mediterranean and Middle East was Hellenised. The difference is to what extent. Even among groups and individuals, certain aspects, such as clothing and architecture, might be thoroughly Hellenised, whereas in many religious and philosophical attitudes, Hellenism might be far more selective. In my opinion, one of the most frustrating figures in the study of Judaism was Erwin Goodenough. He did a lot to create the study of Jewish art, how it can teach us about ancient beliefs, but he also (unintentionally) misrepresented the facts. Goodenough percieved of a Hellenistic Judaism in opposition to Rabbinic Judaism. The former was Spiritualised, allegorical and mystical, whereas Rabbinic Judaism was legalistic, rational and dry. Subsequent evaluation has shown how untenable the divide is. 1
Damien the Leper Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 Ehrman, Wilson, Stark, Dunn, et al have all been deceived -- most notably by Marcion.This statement is problematic. I'm not as familiar with Wilson, Stark and Dunn. However, if you read The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Ehrman and even some of his other commentaries you'll find that he is not the fan of Marcion as you would propose. 1
CASteinman Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 This statement is problematic. I'm not as familiar with Wilson, Stark and Dunn. However, if you read The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Ehrman and even some of his other commentaries you'll find that he is not the fan of Marcion as you would propose.Actually, I propose that he is not a fan of Marcion and is nevertheless deceived by him.
volgadon Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 Actually, I propose that he is not a fan of Marcion and is nevertheless deceived by him.Perhaps I missed it, but would you mind clarifying what you mean when you say decieved by Marcion? 1
CASteinman Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 Perhaps I missed it, but would you mind clarifying what you mean when you say decieved by Marcion?Sure.Marcion set the tone and influenced a great many early Christians. He established the first canon of scripture and instigated the collection of Paul's writings much sooner than other writings were collected. Meanwhile their writings were lost.As a result, Paul is more overly represented in both the Bible and in the extrabiblical literature than any of the other Apostles and various stories surrounding him were created that make him superhuman. Even if you do not accept Marcion, you are affected by him because of his pervasive and early influence. Now, from a space of 1900 years, you try to untangle Paul from the legend intentionally created by the heretic and apostate Marcion and you lose your way. Unless guided by divine inspiration.All these guys who like to talk about how Paul was out on his own doing renegade stuff are substantially influenced by Marcion who insisted that only Paul knew the truth and the rest were Pikers. Even Paul, who loved his independence, never went that far, and acknowledged and accepted the authority of the others.
Ron Beron Posted July 1, 2012 Author Posted July 1, 2012 Oh.. my mistake.I would consider him to be a pharisee who became a Christian and over time became an Apostle. I would say that he was so convinced, that he was not as concerned with things like "truth" and "justice" -- things we might think of as appropriate for a holy teacher -- as much as "what works" in promoting the cause of Christ. I think he was stubborn.On that we can agree.
Recommended Posts