Religious Beliefs and Morality

[TheLightWithin]

I too have appreciated reading this discussion.
I've run across many opinions over the years of people who really dislike Paul (I've heard most seminary students hate Paul) and thoughts even somewhere recently where someone said the whole bible makes more sense if Paul is left out of it. Maybe I don't know.
Now, anytime you want a real Paul basher you can always look for Rabbi Tovia Singer. Lots of YouTube videos.
(He's a complete Christianity basher though) Interesting to listen to, but WOW.

 

[moralorel]

Paul stands out from other apostles because his writing style is different and because his teachings were meant to match the understanding of his audience.

1. Paul was a Roman. So he often takes a reader one way, and then takes us to a different conclusion. One of the common examples I see of this is in the book of Romans. In the book of Romans Paul says we are not under the law, but under grace. So just like that so many people have stopped reading and then said the law was done away with and that we can sin all we want. But like many of Paul's writings, you have to keep reading. Because shortly after this he explains that we have to be obedient (so still following the law).

2. He was complicated and hard to understand. His writings needed a lot of study. That's why Peter himself spoke of Paul's writings. 2 Peter 3:15-16 is where Peter spoke about how Paul's writings are complicated, but that people distort his writings to go and sin. This is true today.

3. Each of Paul's letters was to a different audience. Each audience had a different level of understanding and maturity. The Corinthians were not understanding Jesus's teachings and Paul could not get through to them. That is why the letters to the Corinthians aren't as complicated as other letters. The Corinthians were still "nursing" and couldn't eat solid food (in regards to spiritual matters), so Paul kept the letters simple. The Corinthians would not be able to understand many of Paul's other letters. Many people today struggle with Paul's complicated writings because they don't have a foundation of spiritual knowledge to build on.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Paul stands out from other apostles because his writing style is different and because his teachings were meant to match the understanding of his audience.

1. Paul was a Roman. So he often takes a reader one way, and then takes us to a different conclusion. One of the common examples I see of this is in the book of Romans. In the book of Romans Paul says we are not under the law, but under grace. So just like that so many people have stopped reading and then said the law was done away with and that we can sin all we want. But like many of Paul's writings, you have to keep reading. Because shortly after this he explains that we have to be obedient (so still following the law).

2. He was complicated and hard to understand. His writings needed a lot of study. That's why Peter himself spoke of Paul's writings. 2 Peter 3:15-16 is where Peter spoke about how Paul's writings are complicated, but that people distort his writings to go and sin. This is true today.

3. Each of Paul's letters was to a different audience. Each audience had a different level of understanding and maturity. The Corinthians were not understanding Jesus's teachings and Paul could not get through to them. That is why the letters to the Corinthians aren't as complicated as other letters. The Corinthians were still "nursing" and couldn't eat solid food (in regards to spiritual matters), so Paul kept the letters simple. The Corinthians would not be able to understand many of Paul's other letters. Many people today struggle with Paul's complicated writings because they don't have a foundation of spiritual knowledge to build on.

You make an excellent point and I'm sure the way Paul wrote made it impossible for others to write letters and claim they were Paul's writings. To me that is just another way God legitimized Paul.

 

[Thomas]

Paul stands out from other apostles because his writing style is different and because his teachings were meant to match the understanding of his audience.

1. Paul was a Roman.

We-e-e-ll ... Paul was Jewish, born in Tarsus in Turkey, then part of the Roman Empire. It's traditionally believed he was a citizen – how that came about we don't know, it's not automatic – Paul never claims it.

2. He was complicated and hard to understand. His writings needed a lot of study.

He sure is!

Most of his epistles are dealing with 'problems' in the communities he founded, so that's where the emphasis is – a good insight into early church problems – Romans is addressed to a community he does not know, and is a more detailed exposition of his theology. Having said that, N.T. Wright offers this:

"...neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul's lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece. It dwarfs most of his other writings, an Alpine peak towering over hills and villages. Not all onlookers have viewed it in the same light or from the same angle, and their snapshots and paintings of it are sometimes remarkably unalike. Not all climbers have taken the same route up its sheer sides, and there is frequent disagreement on the best approach. What nobody doubts is that we are here dealing with a work of massive substance, presenting a formidable intellectual challenge while offering a breathtaking theological and spiritual vision."
(Lifted from wiki)

I rate Paul along with John as the two NT authors with a spiritual/mystical insight – I am always surprised when people fail to see the mystical side of Paul.

 

[juantoo3]

Certainly Paul had a major impact, but as I understand it, from Jewish scholars, it was a belief in Judaism that God would eventually bring the gentile world into the fold, and Paul saw that.

I totally agree with juantoo3 also in that people rock up here with various versions of Paulianity and the assumption that Paul Hellenised the Gospel. I'd take the view of Jewish scholars any day, and their take is that Paul was thoroughly Jewish, and his gospel echoes Jewish mystical speculation and a belief in his own revelation.

As I understand subject to correction, I think the Jewish view of the time was that the Gentiles would become Jewish...afterall, they are the Chosen People. A bit of a shock that things went the other way around...

Jesus met people on their own turf. Usually that was on Jewish turf, but there are exceptions noted (the Roman Centurion, the woman at the well - though this is disputed by some as a late addition). Paul picked that up, it was his specialty, it came to him naturally due to his background.

And I do believe Paul did have Roman citizenship, noted in the Acts, and how Paul was able to appeal his death sentence meted by the Sanhedrin. Paul was escorted out of Jerusalem under a guard of Roman soldiers to have his case heard on appeal in Rome.

25 And as they bound him (Paul) with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

26 When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.

27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He (Paul) said, Yea.

28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.

29 Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

 

[juantoo3]

someone said the whole bible makes more sense if Paul is left out of it. Maybe I don't know.

That is essentially the Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson, and I do admire and respect the man, was a Deist, and he put together a translation of the Bible that edited Paul and probably other passages he deemed improper, one of his many "contributions" to humanity.

Again, if that is the path that speaks to you, I cannot and will not stand in a person's way, provided they mean me no harm.

I am sufficiently versed in Messianic Judaism, it is a path I walked for many years myself. But it is a very challenging path with virtually no assistance and no empathy from either Judaism or Christianity. It didn't require demolishing Paul to walk that path. Having said that, it does shed a different light on the teachings of Paul, and probably why I interpret Paul's teaching a good bit differently than typical mainstream Christian sects do today.

 

[juantoo3]

1. Paul was a Roman. So he often takes a reader one way, and then takes us to a different conclusion. One of the common examples I see of this is in the book of Romans. In the book of Romans Paul says we are not under the law, but under grace. So just like that so many people have stopped reading and then said the law was done away with and that we can sin all we want. But like many of Paul's writings, you have to keep reading. Because shortly after this he explains that we have to be obedient (so still following the law).

Bingo.

2. He was complicated and hard to understand. His writings needed a lot of study. That's why Peter himself spoke of Paul's writings. 2 Peter 3:15-16 is where Peter spoke about how Paul's writings are complicated, but that people distort his writings to go and sin. This is true today.

I'm not bringing Peter to mind, it's been awhile and I am pressed for time.

Paul was a trained Pharisee - duly trained legalistically. Paul never taught outside of that legalism.

If anything, there are translational errors...not like someone deliberately inserted something to change the text, although there are some scholars that imply such. The Greek Septuagint was already widely available in Jesus' and Paul's time, so it is no wonder the New Testament is written in Greek (although we also have available the Peshitta which is translated from the Aramaic, and why I use that as a study Bible as well). I would be inclined to think Paul taught, at least among the Pagans, in Greek - that was the Lingua Franca of his day. So Paul is translating Hebrew concepts into Greek for an audience that is unfamiliar with the nuances. That isn't where this ends. The King James version is Elizabethan English, the Greek New Testament of the Textus Receptus (which dates to 400a.d.+/- and is the oldest *complete Biblical manuscript) was translated into Elizabethan (also called Shakespearian) English...which then we today (400 years later) try to understand (as English speakers). It took me a couple of years to sort out what the frequently used term "divers" meant in the Bible...Ye Olde English left off the final "e."

So modern English speakers reading this Olde English insert modern understanding onto very old concepts, that are themselves translations that miss a good deal of nuance. Approaching from a more Jewish perspective, the text of Paul's Epistles makes a very different sense, and in my opinion a more appropriate sense. I almost never hear scholarship approach the text from this angle.

3. Each of Paul's letters was to a different audience. Each audience had a different level of understanding and maturity. The Corinthians were not understanding Jesus's teachings and Paul could not get through to them. That is why the letters to the Corinthians aren't as complicated as other letters. The Corinthians were still "nursing" and couldn't eat solid food (in regards to spiritual matters), so Paul kept the letters simple. The Corinthians would not be able to understand many of Paul's other letters. Many people today struggle with Paul's complicated writings because they don't have a foundation of spiritual knowledge to build on.

And this problem persists among mainstream churches. No church I have been in for the last 40 years ever...ever...teaches the meat of the Word. They are too busy doling out pablum, they never get around to weaning their parishioners. At one time I thought "the pulpit" knew better, but over the years I've come to think that even the pulpit is still nursing the teat. Can't teach what you don't understand...

 

[Thomas]

As I understand subject to correction, I think the Jewish view of the time was that the Gentiles would become Jewish...afterall, they are the Chosen People. A bit of a shock that things went the other way around...

I take my understanding from Paula Fredrikson, of the Hebrew University, who argues that in Paul's time, there was a strand of Jewish Restoration theology – not univocal, but strong – that believed in the turning of the nations to the God of Israel at the end of the age. ‘Turning’ is not ‘conversion,’ and these end-time pagans do not thereby ‘become’ Jews. Rather, they enter God’s kingdom as they are – gentiles – and this is how Paul saw his mission – to bring about that 'turning'.

 

[juantoo3]

I think it is largely a matter of degree. A lot of Isaiah is vague enough to go either way.

Looking at the Hasmonean Zealots, I think the driving hope was that they would prevail over the Romans and from there move into the World at large. It didn't happen.

The vision of Daniel was either misunderstood, or ignored. Not that that doesn't happen quite a bit, most prophecy is only seen clearly in hindsight.

 

[juantoo3]

I take my understanding from Paula Fredrikson, of the Hebrew University, who argues that in Paul's time, there was a strand of Jewish Restoration theology – not univocal, but strong – that believed in the turning of the nations to the God of Israel at the end of the age. ‘Turning’ is not ‘conversion,’ and these end-time pagans do not thereby ‘become’ Jews. Rather, they enter God’s kingdom as they are – gentiles – and this is how Paul saw his mission – to bring about that 'turning'.

Now that I'm not at work and can answer a bit more leisurely...

I think the difference between turning and converting is largely semantic. The bottom line is the Hasmoneans prayed fervently to prevail. Whether that was converting or dominating isn't really important as long as they came out on top.

It didn't happen the way they hoped. It took from a.d. 120 (Bar Kochba, diaspora) or so until 1948 to regain their homeland.

I can see the possibility of Paul acting towards the Hasmonean dream, but I don't think the Pharisees, which were by and large status quo folks willing to collude with the Romans to keep the peace, generally pointed in that direction. After 60 a.d. and the destruction of the Temple, I would say all bets are off, and the Pharisees probably splintered and threw in with whoever they individually thought would prevail, but I have nothing to support that with. In other words, Paul may or may not have had a bigger picture in mind, I think he had enough on his plate simply sharing the message that Messiah had come.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Bingo.

I'm not bringing Peter to mind, it's been awhile and I am pressed for time.

Paul was a trained Pharisee - duly trained legalistically. Paul never taught outside of that legalism.

If anything, there are translational errors...not like someone deliberately inserted something to change the text, although there are some scholars that imply such. The Greek Septuagint was already widely available in Jesus' and Paul's time, so it is no wonder the New Testament is written in Greek (although we also have available the Peshitta which is translated from the Aramaic, and why I use that as a study Bible as well). I would be inclined to think Paul taught, at least among the Pagans, in Greek - that was the Lingua Franca of his day. So Paul is translating Hebrew concepts into Greek for an audience that is unfamiliar with the nuances. That isn't where this ends. The King James version is Elizabethan English, the Greek New Testament of the Textus Receptus (which dates to 400a.d.+/- and is the oldest *complete Biblical manuscript) was translated into Elizabethan (also called Shakespearian) English...which then we today (400 years later) try to understand (as English speakers). It took me a couple of years to sort out what the frequently used term "divers" meant in the Bible...Ye Olde English left off the final "e."

So modern English speakers reading this Olde English insert modern understanding onto very old concepts, that are themselves translations that miss a good deal of nuance. Approaching from a more Jewish perspective, the text of Paul's Epistles makes a very different sense, and in my opinion a more appropriate sense. I almost never hear scholarship approach the text from this angle.


And this problem persists among mainstream churches. No church I have been in for the last 40 years ever...ever...teaches the meat of the Word. They are too busy doling out pablum, they never get around to weaning their parishioners. At one time I thought "the pulpit" knew better, but over the years I've come to think that even the pulpit is still nursing the teat. Can't teach what you don't understand...

There are some churches that reportedly teach the bible verse by verse.
I found one that was local, and looked at their youtube channel. Husband-wife couple. Drove me crazy -- their demeanor and their asides.
But found another Youtube channel, Bible Truth and Prophecy - that does a pretty good job. I've known about that one for awhile and have been listening to it more.
Transparency - It's a Christadelphian channel.

 

[Thomas]

I think the difference between turning and converting is largely semantic.

Generally, I agree, but in the particular case, it applies inasmuch as 'converting' implies 'becoming Jewish' – circumcision, etc., whereas 'turning' was away from pagan deities towards the God of Israel, so gentiles could and would be fully Christian and not second-class citizens.

But, as you point out, there was a lot going on ...

 

[juantoo3]

Generally, I agree, but in the particular case, it applies inasmuch as 'converting' implies 'becoming Jewish' – circumcision, etc., whereas 'turning' was away from pagan deities towards the God of Israel, so gentiles could and would be fully Christian and not second-class citizens.

But, as you point out, there was a lot going on ...

Hard to argue against your argument, but I could quibble with your conclusion.

To misquote you if you will allow, please: ...so (G)entiles could and would be semi-Jewish and not second-class citizens.

The Hasmoneans distanced themselves from Christians, and both were essentially Jewish at this time...no distinction of note to an outsider, hard to tell them apart without a program.

So I still stand by my assertion that the distinction between conversion and turning is semantic (and essentially moot). Comme ci, comme ça

 

[RabbiO]

The Hasmoneans distanced themselves from Christians, and both were essentially Jewish at this time...no distinction of note to an outsider, hard to tell them apart without a program.

What Hasmoneans?

 

[juantoo3]

Were not the Zealots longing for and working towards restoration of the Hasmoneans, at least up to when Rome came knocking? What's Hannukah about? The one night's worth of oil burned for seven or eight days, I may be fuzzy on the details - easy to look up, Antiochus IV, usually celebrated in the Yule season. And that commemorates the Hasmoneans...or am I mistaken?

 

[juantoo3]

I also have 1-4 Maccabees. Letter of Aristeas. A couple others purportedly from the period, excellent reading, particularly the martyrdom of the 7 brothers.

 

[juantoo3]

My goodness...who among the people put forth the unfortunate men to be "messiah" up to Bar Kochba? It wasn't the Priestly class that put the guy(s) forward, the Priests merely ordained them...I don't know why, some vain hope to keep the peace? Or was it some thought of Divine Providence avenging such a Roman indignity as razing the Temple? I don't know. But if I recall, and I've only seen allusion...nothing definitive, texts may be out there or not - I don't know, could be fake or rumor, of two other men initially put forward but had rather short careers as messiah...leading them into battle as the prophecies were then interpreted, a Warrior King - believed among some if not "all."

Maybe that's all bullsh!t, I don't know. But I can see it happening during that period of time. If nothing else we have Josephus which lays pretty clear groundwork for the period around the Fall of the Temple. And Bar Kochba should go without saying.

And no later than the Diaspora after Bar Kochba was taken down by the Roman soldiers, Judaism and Christianity entered a rift, and began to separate. At no time ever again were the Christian Jews of any significant political authority...unless you believe the rumors, and I'm on the fence.

 

[RabbiO]

Were not the Zealots longing for and working towards restoration of the Hasmoneans, at least up to when Rome came knocking. What's Hannukah about? The one night's worth of oil burned for seven or eight days, I may be fuzzy on the details - easy to look up, Antiochus IV, usually celebrated in the Yule season. And that commemorates the Hasmoneans...or am I mistaken?

Your post spoke about the Hasmoneans distancing themselves from Christians. I asked what Hasmoneans because basically there were no Hasmoneans by the time of Jesus. As for the Zealots, they were neither hoping for nor working for the restoration of the Hasmoneans. Certainly the Zealots were inspired by the Maccabees and wished to emulate them, but the Hasmoneans very rapidly became as rotten as the forces their forebears had fought against.

As for Hanukkah, the story of the oil is Talmudic. It does not appear in the various books of the Maccabees nor anywhere else prior to the Talmudic midrash. The victory against the Syrians is true, the rededication of the Temple, which is what the name of the holiday means, is true, hence the holiday. There is a reason why there is a story in the Talmud about a miracle. Some othe time perhaps.

 

[juantoo3]

You say so little, RabbiO...you ask any of the oldtimers here, that know me from 20 years ago, and for the 10 plus I served as moderator, with one other (active) person, and the last few years did so with no tools and no higher level assistance. I managed for a few years, but I had a conflict with a member and the boss' solution was to fire me.

Eh, life happens.

I've been in and out of here since.

Two of my favorite, not counting our local Kitty Crush Phyllis, folks to interact with were Bananabrain and Dauer, one very orthodox and one pretty darn liberal but still had common sense.

Mercury is in retrograde, I guess I'm backward looking right now.

Pleased to meet you, nice to finally get more than a grunt warning out of you. I'll count that as an honor.

 

[Faithfulservant]

*Dauer and Bananabrain* I miss them too. And Q.. and iBrian. I'm sending them all psychic messages.. it worked on you!