@Stephen Andrew considers himself to be a true and loyal member of the Catholic Church. The best I can do is just pull up a chair, grab a large carbonated beverage and a sweet treat and then sit and watch as you guys figure it out.
Paul’s Christology = diaspora Christology + Jesus?
- Thread starter Longfellow
- Start date
Stephen Andrew
Active Member
- Messages
- 28
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Peace to all,
So true, RabbiO, you taught me many things, and one, to be more gentel in speech, and forever, Thanks, and how are you today? And God bless you. Saint Paul sees the Light of Faith on the Road to Damascus and delivers the Pentecost to the Gentiles. Stephen Andrew sees The OMNilogical Light and delivers OMNiLogicalGod to the Faithful Catholics becoming logical through The OMNiLogical Pentesost in 2025 A.D.
The Catholic Faith boumd by the Moses Seat says The Holy Spirit is a person and Mary is Not God. OMNiLogics says Mary is God and always together with God the Father and God the Son in One Divine Spirit Family One God in being, OMNiLogically and faithfully.
OMNiLoigic does not protest the Faith of Catholicism, only the logic for all becoming more faithful through OMNiLogicalGod, I believe.
Peace always,
Stephen Andrew
So true, RabbiO, you taught me many things, and one, to be more gentel in speech, and forever, Thanks, and how are you today? And God bless you. Saint Paul sees the Light of Faith on the Road to Damascus and delivers the Pentecost to the Gentiles. Stephen Andrew sees The OMNilogical Light and delivers OMNiLogicalGod to the Faithful Catholics becoming logical through The OMNiLogical Pentesost in 2025 A.D.
The Catholic Faith boumd by the Moses Seat says The Holy Spirit is a person and Mary is Not God. OMNiLogics says Mary is God and always together with God the Father and God the Son in One Divine Spirit Family One God in being, OMNiLogically and faithfully.
OMNiLoigic does not protest the Faith of Catholicism, only the logic for all becoming more faithful through OMNiLogicalGod, I believe.
Peace always,
Stephen Andrew
Last edited:
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I wasn’t thinking of the resurrection as high Christology, but maybe it’s both high and low, or a link between them. The main OT reference for resurrection beliefs might be Daniel 12:2, which is about the judgment. I think that the importance of the resurrection for Paul might also be about the judgment.
Apart from identifying it all with Jesus, I’m thinking that maybe there’s nothing in what they’re saying that wasn’t already being said by Jews. They’re just re-imagining it for gentiles.
Last edited:
Again, Peter had pre-empted Paul by some margin when he baptised Cornelius and his house, which, as Acts 10 records, is clearly a 'pentecost-type' event.
The term Pentecost is from the Greek: πεντηκοστή, pentēkostē, and means 'fiftieth', and in the Septuagint refers to Shavuot, one of Judaism's Three Pilgrimage Festivals, celebrated on the fiftieth day after Passover. It was a few days after this celebration in Jerusalem that Peter was preaching and the Holy Spirit manifested Itself among those gathered. (Acts 2).
There is no similar event recorded during Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, nor is there any similar celebration or remembrance in the Tradition.
One could, of course, speak of a 'pentecost to the Gentiles', but only in a very loose and analogous sense.
Well he does so in a very illogical and largely incoherent manner which pretty much guarantees it will be ignored.
The Christian church generally, and the Catholic Faith in particular, is not 'bound by the Moses seat' and the Scripture references – Mark 7 & Matthew 23 – needs unpacking to understand its meaning.
Quite.
Then OMNiLogic is quite wrong, and clearly so.
Well in this I – and I think I can speak on behalf of Catholics (and Orthodox, Anglican and most Reformed Traditions) – believe you are quite mistaken.
I don't see how anything can get much higher than resurrection as Paul saw it – not just in its fact but its implication – for Paul it's the whole point: "And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain... " (1 Corinthians 15:17).
That, and more.
No, I don't see that, really.
I don't think one can say "apart from identifying it all with Jesus" so lightly!
Identifying it all with Jesus was absolutely the point, and grounds for fierce debate and contention. Jesus was crucified, James and Stephen were murdered, and the knives were out for Paul, who only escaped by claiming Roman citizenship and obliging the local authority to hustle him out of town in the middle of the night under heavy armed guard ...
Paul built on contemporary Jewish belief, but went on from there in his preaching about the mission of Jesus and the nature of Christ ... it wasn't just 'more of the same' nor just Jewish belief in Gentile clothes.
Last edited:
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
Right. Sorry, I didn’t mean it that way. I agree that is the whole point, and not a trivial one.I haven’t seen anything that the NT says about Jesus that wasn’t already being said about one figure or another in Jewish cosmology at that time. I see a different in how it’s being said, but not in what is being said. One significance of that for me is that Paul didn’t need three years to learn all that. He grew up with it. What happened on the road to Damascus was connecting it with Jesus.
As radical as it was, I don’t think that’s what made it a new religion separate from Judaism. I think that what made it separate from Judaism was opening it up to gentiles without them becoming Jews. Obviously. If you don’t need to be Jewish to be a member, then it isn’t Judaism any more. Without that, the teachings about Jesus, and people who believed them, however much they might be denounced, would still have been Jewish.
Last edited:
That, it seems to me, is the point scholars make about the framing of Scripture – it has to be stated in a context the audience can understand, and so it has to be stated in a prior context. if it had no relevance or relation to what the audience believed or understood, it would be incomprehensible.
The Gospels, more than Paul's letters, are structured along common Greco-Roman narrative forms.
It might have already been said, but Paul was articulating a very big message in a new way – and this was somewhat revolutionary and controversial.
I think Paul and the NT did say things that weren't being said. Declaring Jesus was the Messiah was a very big deal, but in terms of Jewish messianic expectation – Jesus failed.
Paul taught that faith in the risen Jesus freed believers from the Law and from Torah observance, whereas Jews understood that the ingathering of the Gentiles would require them to adopt full Torah observance – Paul tried to take a Gentile into the Temple at Jerusalem, and kicked off a riot.
I see it differently.
Stephen Andrew
Active Member
- Messages
- 28
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Peace to all,
OMNiLogical Theory follows the Logical Formulas from the Wondrous Mysteries of the Faith from Abraham. OMNiLogics recompile infinite disciplines for OMNiLogical Understanding for all becoming again in One God in being. Gods can be proven Gods logically from preexistence in Logical intelligence undefiled form Cretion through Transformation for Glorification in all becoming Sons and Daughters of God. The Holy Spirit Family's hypostatically unite dynamically through the flesh in the Life from the spirit becoming transfiguration for all Creation again re-imaged becoming again in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
Peace always,
Stephen Andrew
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,525
- Reaction score
- 650
- Points
- 108
Just to compare and contrast early Christianities, there is “no mention of the death and resurrection of Jesus” in the Didache, an early Christian document that shows a “lack of interest in essential tenets of Pauline Christianity.”
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
I’m thinking that maybe the real reason that Peter agreed for them to be baptized was because if he didn’t, he would have to explain to his wife why not.
Stephen Andrew
Active Member
- Messages
- 28
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Peace to all,
And in Athens, I believe.
Paul’s mention of the resurrection brought a varied response from the philosophers. Some sneered outright. Others said they wanted to hear more from Paul (Acts 17:32). Praise the Lord, some believed. One of the members of the Areopagus, named Dionysius, exercised faith in Christ, and several other Athenians also became Christians that day.
The “unknown God” desires to be known. That is why He has spoken to us through His Word; that is why He sent His Son into the world (Luke 10:22). God can be known through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
Peace always,
Stephen Andrew
And in Athens, I believe.
Paul’s mention of the resurrection brought a varied response from the philosophers. Some sneered outright. Others said they wanted to hear more from Paul (Acts 17:32). Praise the Lord, some believed. One of the members of the Areopagus, named Dionysius, exercised faith in Christ, and several other Athenians also became Christians that day.
The “unknown God” desires to be known. That is why He has spoken to us through His Word; that is why He sent His Son into the world (Luke 10:22). God can be known through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
Peace always,
Stephen Andrew
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
I should have specified that I don’t see anything that the NT says about Jesus that wasn’t being said about one figure or another by *some* Jews at that time. Different ones were saying different things.
Another thought is that even the idea of identifying it all with Jesus wasn’t his own idea. He would have been hearing it from Christians when he interrogated them. At first he would have resisted it, but on the road to Damascus, Jesus was able to overcome his resistance.
It could have been ignorant of Paul? Or evidence of a Jewish-Christian group who thought Paul was something of a heresiarch?
It seems most dependent on Matthew, and draws on other Jewish materials.
Sorry, old chum, but as far as I can see, your theories follow no logic and your statements not so much illogical as incomprehensible.
Stephen Andrew
Active Member
- Messages
- 28
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Peace to all,
So true, "doubting" Thomas, Incomprehensible is for all faithful becoming OMNiLogical, I believe.
Place your fingers in the side of OMNiLogicalGod.
So true, how does the "Mind of God work? We ask, old chum, Stephen Andrew? I know, OMNiLogically.
The OMNiLogics allow understanding, how can Baptism's living waters transform mortality becoming immortality sanctifying from spirit incorruption? Through the created flesh for the created soul from the spirit power preexisting for all becoming through the New Eve Baptized in the Catholic Church, OMNiLogically, faithfully.
Peace always,
Stephen Andrew
So true, "doubting" Thomas, Incomprehensible is for all faithful becoming OMNiLogical, I believe.
Place your fingers in the side of OMNiLogicalGod.
So true, how does the "Mind of God work? We ask, old chum, Stephen Andrew? I know, OMNiLogically.
The OMNiLogics allow understanding, how can Baptism's living waters transform mortality becoming immortality sanctifying from spirit incorruption? Through the created flesh for the created soul from the spirit power preexisting for all becoming through the New Eve Baptized in the Catholic Church, OMNiLogically, faithfully.
Peace always,
Stephen Andrew
Last edited:
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,525
- Reaction score
- 650
- Points
- 108
See hermeneutics.stackexchange.com:
My impression is not that there's good evidence to reject direct dependence of the Didache on Matthew, but rather that the evidence of direct dependence has been called into doubt. There just doesn't seem to be a smoking gun that can show that the Didache is literally copying from a written version of Matthew. Here's one article arguing against dependence, so you can see the sort of arguments that come up. An example suggesting the lack of acceptance of dependence, but not providing an argument, is "Reconstructing the social and religious milieu of the Didache: observations and possible results" where Zangenberg states "In terms of contents, the only manifest connection between Didache and New Testament writings concerns the Synoptic tradition, first and foremost Matthew, but nowhere is it necessary to assume a direct literary dependence."
Furthermore, many scholars think that Matthew and the Didache came from roughly the same community (Syria, though Matthew probably from a city and the Didache from a rural area). This suggests all sorts of other possible relationships. For example, it may be that Matthew and the Didache are drawing on the same oral traditions in the same community. Or perhaps the Sermon on the Mount was being circulated in that community before later being edited and incorporated into Matthew. Or maybe there was an early version of parts of the Didache which influenced the author of Matthew, but the final editor of the Didache did know Matthew. Which is not to say that there's conclusive evidence for any of these options either, just that it's difficult to be certain what the exact nature of the close relationship is. There's several books about what this community may have been like and how that is reflected in the Didache and Matthew (and possibly James), see the collections Matthew and the Didache and Matthew, James, and the Didache.
To summarize, my understanding is that there's not a clear scholarly consensus on the exact relationship between Matthew and the Didache (e.g. earlychristianwritings reports no such consensus). Probably what wikipedia means is that the older consensus of direct literary dependence is breaking down, not that there's a new consensus against direct literary dependence. I wish I had better evidence to back this up (I did look into this in more detail at one point), but ultimately it's a bit hard to provide quick evidence of a non-existence of consensus because of course each individual scholar has their own opinions.
wil
UNeyeR1
Breaking ground or a veritable earthquake?
OK.
- Messages
- 3,641
- Reaction score
- 1,735
- Points
- 108
This link looks intriguing, but there seems to be a paywall