1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 » Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:16 am

davidmartin wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:30 pm
There were/are "righteous Gentiles" and requirements for Gentiles in Judaism, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Jesus had a "Pauline style view on gentile converts." Paul said he did not receive his gospel to the Gentiles "from any man, not was I taught it" (Gal. 1:12), but by a revelation he says he received from the heavenly Jesus. And if the human Jesus had taught the same gospel to the Gentiles that Paul did, Paul would have been able to say that he received it from other people who had learned about it from the human Jesus, right?
now that's the interesting question
when Paul says 'his gospel' to me that means the whole Paul package as we see it in his letters and it covers a lot of ground
but you can take specific items of this and look at them separately as whether they might have predated his revelation or been part of it
its possible to go back to the gospels to try and look for those (although most people say they were written after Paul's letters... i think that's still worthwhile and they've got their own tradition)
The gospels do contain some information so if we think these go back to Jesus, not everything Paul taught was unknown before
i recon substantial pieces of what he taught were known before and he presented them in new ways as part of his revelation

I think all gospels were written after Paul, but I'm open to the possibility that some of them contain sayings and doings of Jesus that pre-date Paul. And in what I regard as the earliest gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), Jesus is pro-Jewish Torah observance and (with few exceptions) does not minister to Gentiles or teach his followers to minister to Gentiles, as noted here:

When Jesus began His ministry, it was only to the people of Israel. When He sent out the apostles on their first evangelistic mission, He ordered them, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6). This does not mean that He ignored individual Gentiles, because He did minister to a few (Matt. 8:5-13; 15:21-28), but His major emphasis was on Israel.


https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... es-15-8-13

But Paul's "major emphasis" was on Gentiles, right?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

davidmartin
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by davidmartin » Sat Sep 12, 2020 8:14 am

John2 yes this description is what i find problematic
Jesus is 'pro-Torah observant' - but what does that actually mean?
I think in the context of Christianity it doesn't give sufficient information
If you knew nothing else about Jesus and the history of Christianity you'd think the phrase would mean he was teaching and observing the Torah just like the Pharisees or any other rabbi
Now if that were true then Paul has to be a false apostle for teaching the opposite!

That's my problem with Jesus being presented as religiously conservative, that is fine - but then Paul and his teaching has to be rejected as diverging. This is what some Jews today suggest (and Muslims also) i saw a whole video on this

One solution is to see Jesus as being a reformer with parallels indeed to Pauls gospel, and Pauls claim to receiving 'from no man' to be a bit of hyperbole.
Another solution is to realise his followers saw him as the messiah, thus can claim authority to reform as much as obey tradition

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 » Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:10 pm

davidmartin wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 8:14 am
John2 yes this description is what i find problematic
Jesus is 'pro-Torah observant' - but what does that actually mean?
I think in the context of Christianity it doesn't give sufficient information
If you knew nothing else about Jesus and the history of Christianity you'd think the phrase would mean he was teaching and observing the Torah just like the Pharisees or any other rabbi
Now if that were true then Paul has to be a false apostle for teaching the opposite!

I think Jesus makes it clear in Mk. 7:8-13 that all of the Torah is to be observed, otherwise he would be a hypocrite too for nullifying parts of the Torah with his "tradition." And Mk. 1:27 makes it clear that Jesus' teaching was new, i.e., not entirely like that of the Pharisees.

And I think James' reproval of Paul in his letter and Acts 21 shows that Paul was perceived as teaching against the necessity of Jewish Torah observance, but Nazarenes do not appear to have regarded him as a false prophet because of that.

You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.”

He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the command of God to maintain your own tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever you would have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), he is no longer permitted to do anything for his father or mother.Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters.”
All the people were amazed and began to ask one another, “What is this? A new teaching with authority!

That's my problem with Jesus being presented as religiously conservative, that is fine - but then Paul and his teaching has to be rejected as diverging. This is what some Jews today suggest (and Muslims also) i saw a whole video on this

One solution is to see Jesus as being a reformer with parallels indeed to Pauls gospel, and Pauls claim to receiving 'from no man' to be a bit of hyperbole.
Another solution is to realise his followers saw him as the messiah, thus can claim authority to reform as much as obey tradition

Paul appears to be the "reformer" to me, since he is reproved by Nazarene leaders (in James and Acts), and Cephas and all the Jews sided with James and the "circumcision party" in Antioch, and what they teach is in keeping with what Jesus teaches in the gospels (i.e., Jewish Torah observance). It's thus hard for me to see Paul as being the only early Christian who taught the original gospel and all others as being reformers.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

davidmartin
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by davidmartin » Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:36 pm

I think it's more likely by the time of Acts the author wanted to present Paul and Nazarenes as grudgingly accepting each other (it's hardly presented as being without difficulty). But originally they didn't.
Not so hard if Paul's letters are not widely known at that time only hearsay
But it means the Nazarenes accepting what Paul says about the law 'it's useless/worthless', 'slavery' etc
I don't see how logically they can accept Paul based on his statements about the law. They are different and so are their gospels
I can see how later on it might be presented that they did reflecting what was going on 50-75 years later when some of Pauls and some of the Nazarenes spiritual descendants may indeed have accepted each other and wanted to harmonise their history

The Ebionites?
The Clementine Ebionite writings claim to represent the original Peter and James and they oppose Paul
I've read all the Clementine stuff and analysed it closely for any sign they guys actually had any intimate knowledge of Jesus of N
They don't. There's a ton of their own theology, some interesting historical tidbits but nothing about Jesus, his life or his teachings except what's found in gosp. of Matthew. So i don't think they ever really knew him - this undermines the Ebionites claims

So could Paul have certain things correct?

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 » Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:51 pm

davidmartin wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:36 pm
I think it's more likely by the time of Acts the author wanted to present Paul and Nazarenes as grudgingly accepting each other (it's hardly presented as being without difficulty). But originally they didn't.
But I think the NT letters "present Paul and Nazarenes as grudgingly accepting each other" too. While the letter of James opposes what it perceives to be Paul's position on Jewish Torah observance, it doesn't reject Paul, and while Paul has issues with some Nazarenes, he doesn't reject them either. Paul collected money for the the "saints" and James' letter concludes with the hope that, "if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, consider this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins."

To me Acts looks more like someone's attempt to write a history of the early church using more or less all of the NT letters (and other sources like the "we" writings) and that it is more or less in sync with the "voice" of these letters (as Ben has noted elsewhere). So I think the Nazarene acceptance of Paul was always there (however grudging) and that Acts is simply reflecting it (if in the best light).


Not so hard if Paul's letters are not widely known at that time only hearsay
But it means the Nazarenes accepting what Paul says about the law 'it's useless/worthless', 'slavery' etc
I don't see how logically they can accept Paul based on his statements about the law. They are different and so are their gospels

But they all knew their gospels were different and were fine with it, according to Gal. 2:9 ("And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised").

Now, Paul may have overstepped his boundaries as far as his view on the necessity of Jewish Torah observance goes (for which he was reprimanded in Galatians and Acts), but he was at least willing to pretend to be Torah observant (as per 1 Cor. 9:20), which is in keeping with his presentation in Acts 21 and could explain his acceptance by Nazarenes ("To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law").
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

davidmartin
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by davidmartin » Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:12 am

John2 i think the only difference between us is timing
i think the earliest church was in harmony then got disrupted very early with differences among various groupings
The Acts viewpoint presents the harmonious period as going on longer encompassing the time of Paul and Nazarenes who although they differed ultimately reached some agreement. It was after that the real differences emerged (as per church fathers description of heresies)
It's only a difference of timing
I just think Acts is presenting an agreement that is happening at the time Acts was written not reflecting what happened earlier
I believe in the historical Jesus who was accepted as the messiah by his followers

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 » Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:08 pm

davidmartin wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:12 am
John2 i think the only difference between us is timing
i think the earliest church was in harmony then got disrupted very early with differences among various groupings
Was the earliest church ever in harmony? Doesn't Jesus complain about his followers' lack of faith and understanding? And don't the earliest NT writings (the letters) show that Paul and Jewish Christians had some issues?

The Acts viewpoint presents the harmonious period as going on longer encompassing the time of Paul and Nazarenes who although they differed ultimately reached some agreement.

But "some agreement" is already there in the NT letters, that Paul would preach about Jesus to Gentiles.

It was after that the real differences emerged (as per church fathers description of heresies)
It's only a difference of timing

But the "real differences" are in the NT letters too, that Paul was perceived as overstepping his boundary regarding the necessity of Jewish Torah observance but was willing to pretend to be observant, just like in Acts.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

Post Reply