The Paradigmatic Rhetoric of Paul's Seven Authentic Letters

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: The Paradigmatic Rhetoric of Paul's Seven Authentic Lett

Post by robert j »


PhilosopherJay wrote of chapters 1 and 2 of Galatians,
"Paul's whole discussion of his fights with the Jews in Jerusalem would be a long and pointless digression unless these Jews were the same people trying to get the Galatians to follow Jewish laws."
beowulf wrote,
"I don’t know what is it that you believe happened in Galatia, but for Martyn, and others, Galatia is only one incident more in a long protracted ‘cold war’ between him [Paul] and powerful elements in the Jerusalem church."
beowulf asked,
"What do you think happened in Galatia?"

Paul does not provide enough information to clearly characterize the local opposition in Galatia. Perhaps he's not even really sure who they were beyond the fact that they were promoting circumcision.

But he certainly doesn't give enough information to conclude they were representatives from Jerusalem --- nor does he provide enough information to conclude they were even another group of Christians for which no other evidence exists. However, Jews were widespread throughout the Diaspora.

I believe the most logical and simple solution is this ----

The local opposition in Galatia were Jews --- likely friends, neighbors, or other associates of some from Paul's congregation. Many in Paul's congregation were well-versed in the Jewish scriptures, otherwise Paul's complex arguments from the scriptures in chapters 3 and 4 of his letter would be of little meaning to his group. Perhaps before Paul came along, some within his group were Gentile “God-fearers” participating in some Jewish activities. What is clear, is that being part of the “Israel of God” was of utmost importance to Paul's Galatian congregation.

The local opposition in Galatia was not concerned that Paul's group revered and honored a novel heavenly spirit ---- a “good savior” derived from the Jewish scriptures by means of allegorical midrash. But what the opponents did object to was that members of Paul's congregation would claim to now be full participants with the people of Israel without the benefit of circumcision for the men.

robert j.
steve43
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:36 pm

Re: The Paradigmatic Rhetoric of Paul's Seven Authentic Lett

Post by steve43 »

The perception that the Communion ceremony was somehow related to cannibalism probably played a role. Now, it is accepted that it is purely symbolic.
Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: The Paradigmatic Rhetoric of Paul's Seven Authentic Lett

Post by Andrew »

steve43 wrote:The perception that the Communion ceremony was somehow related to cannibalism probably played a role. Now, it is accepted that it is purely symbolic.
Not entirely. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and some other Protestant denominations do not believe that the Eucharist/Communion is symbolic, but that it is really Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity under the appearances of bread and wine.
bcedaifu
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:40 am

Re: The Paradigmatic Rhetoric of Paul's Seven Authentic Lett

Post by bcedaifu »

Andrew wrote:Not entirely. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and some other Protestant denominations do not believe that the Eucharist/Communion is symbolic, but that it is really Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity under the appearances of bread and wine.
Working backwards: Jesus = sacrificial lamb; Exodus 12:4-8 command to eat an unblemished lamb for passover feast. When was it written?

According to William D. Johnston, writing in Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible (2003), the first draft of Exodus was completed following the Babylonian exile. Is there evidence, dating from the era before the captivity/destruction of the first temple, of a ritual lamb sacrifice and roasting by fire (explicitly not by boiling), (i.e. in harmony with the Zoroastrian thoughts about fire), with command to eat the flesh?

Is consumption of blood another Zoroastrian practice? Paul acknowledges the practice of cannibalism in 1 Corinthians.
Post Reply