197 replies to this topic

[CASteinman]

Ron Beron, on 30 June 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

I disagree.

So you think that they do recognize his influence over them?  When do they EVER admit to this?

[CASteinman]

Ron Beron, on 30 June 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

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]

CASteinman, on 30 June 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

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]

Ron Beron, on 30 June 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

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]

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.

[Valentinus]

CASteinman, on 29 June 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

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.

[CASteinman]

Valentinus, on 30 June 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

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]

CASteinman, on 30 June 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

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?

[CASteinman]

volgadon, on 30 June 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

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]

CASteinman, on 30 June 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

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.

[Ron Beron]

volgadon, on 30 June 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

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.

Good books, but if I could add Hyam Maccoby's "The Mythmaker".  Great read from a Jewish perspective.

[Ron Beron]

CASteinman, on 30 June 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

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".

I, Paul, the apostles and countless others as well  proposed this.  The belief by all was that Jesus would return shortly, hence the term Maranatha.  People were told to sell all they had, not to engage in marriage, and to prepare for His coming.  That is what Paul believed and practiced in his missionary endeavors.

[Valentinus]

Quote

We owe the existence of our canon to Marcion

Is there any substantial evidence of Marcion's influence on the canon outside of his rejection of Jewish and Jewish Christian literature?

[Valentinus]

CASteinman, on 30 June 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

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.

Umm...can we find a place to insert the Muratorian Canon here somewhere?

Somebody? Anybody?

[CASteinman]

Ron Beron, on 30 June 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

I, Paul, the apostles and countless others as well  proposed this.  The belief by all was that Jesus would return shortly, hence the term Maranatha.  People were told to sell all they had, not to engage in marriage, and to prepare for His coming.  That is what Paul believed and practiced in his missionary endeavors.

First of all, I am aware of this story.   But you spoke up about it as though my position depended upon it and I presented it.  It does not and I did not.  That is why I asked "Where did this come from?"  Because it has nothing to do with my position.


Second, although perhaps some people were running around with a Harold Camping approach to things, I reject and consider it imaginary that this was taught by the Apostles.  There is no reasonable evidence that they taught this and there is evidence to the contrary.  

For example:  "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as (allegedly) from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first.  

Here Paul is actually sayinjg that such rumors are NOT from them and that the story is not true.  So, whether the apostles and people thought that time frame might be 100 years or 300 or 1000 or 10,000, they were not teaching the people to sell all they had and to avoid marriage because Jesus was coming real soon.  Indeed Paul was countering the rumors that this was something he taught.

Incidentally, the word maranantha in the New Testament is part of a curse, not some joyful expectation.

Edited by CASteinman, 01 July 2012 - 09:20 AM.

[CASteinman]

Valentinus, on 30 June 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

Is there any substantial evidence of Marcion's influence on the canon outside of his rejection of Jewish and Jewish Christian literature?

Yes.  He compiled the first canon and built churches to his views with a strong ecclesiastical structure, in just about every major city of the empire.

Many Christians today do not like the idea that Marcion the Heretic drew the first lines and affected their canon (and beliefs) so much but ... Oh well.

Edited by CASteinman, 01 July 2012 - 06:06 AM.

[CASteinman]

Valentinus, on 30 June 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Umm...can we find a place to insert the Muratorian Canon here somewhere?

Somebody? Anybody?

The Muratorian fragment is after Marcion.   Marcion even predates the Diatessaron.

Marcion's influence was so great that the traditional headings and prologues to books of the Bible (well, the ones he accepted) as found in the Catholic Church were (despite his apostasy) written by him.

Edited by CASteinman, 01 July 2012 - 06:21 AM.

[Ron Beron]

CASteinman, on 01 July 2012 - 05:54 AM, said:

Incidentally, the word maranantha in the New Testament is part of a curse, not some joyful expectation.

So,

If coupled with Anathema.

[CASteinman]

Ron Beron, on 01 July 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

If coupled with Anathema.

Does it appear in the Bible without that anathema?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Ron Beron, on 30 June 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

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.

No it doesn't. No one's prophetic nature trumps academia without evidence. The only sure way in this life we can actually come to KNOW is through reasoning, analysis and evidence, otherwise we fall back to faith which is not knowedge. ALL things are to be PROVEN........ not merely accepted because it's labeled with assumptions operating the show. I want reasoned truth, not something simply that wins automatically because of a tradition of reverence or impression