Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Here's the hint to the solution. God offers Abraham's descendants to live as stars in heaven through faith. But there is no antithesis, there are no antitheses in any of this. The antithesis can't be about receiving 'salvation' through the Law. The Pentateuch doesn't use yasha (the verb) in the sense we have learned to (mis)interpret 'salvation.' Yasha means something closer to 'deliverance' but it is still firmly rooted in this world. It's not an 'other-worldly' deliverance.

Secret Alias wrote:meaningless white scholarship

Here we go again...

I'm out...

Secret Alias wrote:Yasha means something closer to 'deliverance' but it is still firmly rooted in this world. It's not an 'other-worldly' deliverance.

Jews don't need to have a salvation ("other worldly") theology in order for my point to stand about how Paul was primarily viewed (positively or negatively).

But you want to have an argument about what Paul was saying in a Jewish cultural environment without having a clue what Jews believe, what their texts say. It's no different that mythicists making up shit to suit their ends.

Paul interacted with Jews. How could he have told Peter about this 'antithesis' you've made up when it has no applicability in the Jewish religion?

Secret Alias wrote:But you want to have an argument about what Paul was saying

No. You're not listening and you're changing topic. We're talking about how Paul was chiefly viewed, correctly or incorrectly, in order to consider answers as to why Acts doesn't talk about him writing letters.

If the Jews weren't expecting 'salvation' from the ten utterances in the first place how could Paul have offered 'faith' in its place. The Jewish tradition already knew that Abraham and his descendants were promised to receive the kind of 'heavenly translation' (= 'salvation') because of faith. It has nothing to do with observance or none observance of the ten utterances.

toejam wrote: ... Non-Christian Jews probably had a variety of ideas about salvation, the afterlife, the nature of "sin", to what extent humans/Jews can be reconciled with God etc., perhaps with no clear consensus view ...

As did the Gentiles.

I'm trying to clarify things for you in a cultural context. The Jews and Samaritans were duty bound to observe the ten utterances because God carried them off as slaves. Paul wasn't offering them a choice between faith and observing the Law. One had nothing to do with the other. If he was saying don't observe the law he wasn't replacing it with something else. He was destroying the commandments. And that is what Paul was ORIGINALLY chiefly remembered for - breaking the obligation for Jews and Samaritans to adhere to the tradition of their ancestors. The fact that Acts doesn't remember to remember this is deliberate.

toejam wrote: ... We're talking about how Paul was chiefly viewed, correctly or incorrectly, in order to consider answers as to why Acts doesn't talk about him writing letters.

Viewed where? Viewed when?