Page 5 of 15

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:17 pm
by Secret Alias
I know that this is above your pay grade (no offense meant) but I have to go beyond the mere 'popular consensus' into the particulars of early Christian texts now. When Adversus Marcionem begins by saying in Book Four 'this Marcion, he put forward these Antitheses and I am opposed to them' and then appears to forget to mention the Antitheses after the first chapter and then delves into the Gospel and Apostle (letters of Paul) this is completely puzzling. What happened to these Antitheses? The answer is clearly that the letters of Paul ARE the antitheses just recast in a new form by the orthodox editors of the canon.

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:20 pm
by toejam
Secret Alias wrote: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
I don't have much disagreement, hence why Acts emphasises his message more so than his scripture writing. You've effectively gone around in circles, going through your usual racist, anti-establishment, trying to teach naive strawman-toejam (who only listens to mainstream popular consensus) something rant, and in the process have answered your own question!

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:46 pm
by toejam
Anyway, I want to apologize to Joe for any contribution I've made in sending this thread way off topic.

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:47 pm
by MrMacSon
This is noteworthy -
Secret Alias wrote:
When Adversus Marcionem begins by saying in Book Four "this Marcion, he put forward these 'Antitheses' and I am opposed to them", and then appears to forget to mention 'the Antitheses' after the first chapter, and then delves into the Gospel and Apostle (letters of Paul); this is completely puzzling. What happened to these Antitheses? The answer is clearly that the letters of Paul ARE the antitheses just recast in a new form by the orthodox editors of the canon.

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:00 pm
by Secret Alias
For those who are interested in seeing first hand how bad Christian scholarship is on the concept of 'salvation'and the Law here is a sample:
God is Saviour essentially in his capacity as a legislator. Noah was saved because 'he was a righteous man',10 and obeyed God's commandments. It is faithful observance of the divine ordinances which ensures what the Old Testament calls 'life'.11 More precisely, the Mosaic law has been instrumental, ever since its promulgation, in the achievement of salvation and can therefore be προστάγμασιν ζωῆς. Salvation is, to begin with, a privilege imparted to a small part of mankind, namely the holy men of the remote past who lived in accordance with the still unwritten divine will, and, subsequently, God's own people. Salvation is implied in Israel's election and could therefore almost be considered as an event of the past. It took place, by a free decision of divine grace, on Mount Sinai, which, seen from this angle, appears as the Jewish counterpart of Calvary. A Jew is virtually saved by the very fact that he was born into the chosen people. [Marcel Simon Some Aspects of Early Christian Soteriology p. 265]
I can't think of a worse example of how to read the Pentateuch. Marcel Simon was a devout Catholic theologian (don't let the name fool you) who clearly projects Christian concepts onto Judaism. Notice there is little in the way of first hand evidence for any of his assertions.

The few can be disposed of quite quickly. 'Noah was a righteous man' (Genesis 6:9) has nothing to do with God seeing him observe any sort of commandments. Like Abraham Noah is described as 'faithful' but then the commandments are given to Noah long after the flood subsides. In fact in Genesis 6:18 God only says that HE WILL establish a covenant with Noah in the future. So much for Simon's arguments here about covenants and salvation.

The next line - It is faithful observance of the divine ordinances which ensures what the Old Testament calls 'life' - is more of the same stupidity. Life is not salvation, life is life - a long life, a prosperous life, a good life, nothing at all to do with deliverance or salvation. Then the example of Moses and Sinai is equally moronic. God saves Israel first AND THEN gives the commandments. It is amazing how bad Christian 'experts' are in reading the Jewish scriptures. God saves Noah, God saves Israel because of their capacity for faithfulness. Not because they have observed any commandments. There is no trade off here. God doesn't ask for sacrifices as a guarantee for salvation. The reward for properly carrying out the observances faithfully is clearly spelled out - i.e. 'life' which means ... well ... exactly that - life not salvation.

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:06 pm
by Secret Alias
And all of this is precisely Marcion's reading of several key passages in the gospel, namely Mark chapter 10 or its equivalent. When the commandments are mentioned Jesus says a few of them and then adds 'Do this and you will live.' How do I get eternal life or aeonic life? Ah that's another story not revealed by the first Man/second God to Moses ...

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 6:12 am
by Kunigunde Kreuzerin
toejam wrote:Anyway, I want to apologize to Joe for any contribution I've made in sending this thread way off topic.


Yeah, the thread look a bit like a den of robbers ;) I hope that Peter could cleanse some things

Re: Review of Gundry's Peter False Disciple according to GMa

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 7:43 am
by DCHindley
Secret Alias wrote:I know its an old argument that no one pays much attention to any more but isn't it odd that Acts doesn't know anything about Paul's letters even though Paul is chiefly remembered for writing letters. It would be like writing a book about Jackie Robinson and failing to mention baseball.
I've seen stranger.

I once audited the glassblowers union in Toledo, Ohio, USA. The formal union name is "American Flint Glass Workers Union of North America". Now I was at that time not sure what the "Flint" signified, thinking it might have something to do with shaping blown glass with a piece of flint. However, the union was almost exclusively involved with production of automotive glass (windshields and side windows) so I felt their was another significance. Asking the union brass, I realized that while knowing what they made, how it was made, and a bit about the contentious days when they were competing with and eventually merging with a rival union, I realized they had no idea what the term "flint" signified! Reading their literature and their web site produced much the same results. The glass they worked with was "flint glass", but they had absolutely no idea how it got that name.

It seems that "Green glass" is used for blown glass, bottles and some window panes (the ones where the glass somewhat distorts the light passing through). There was another union that handled this kind of glass production, including glass blowing, in the Eastern US at the time that the Flint Glass union was first formed.

"Flint glass" on the other hand, which is what this union was working with when formed in the late 19th century, has additives that increase the clarity and make it more suitable for window glass and molded glass containers.

Only today was I able to find out what "flint" referred to. It refers to the flint nodules found in chalk deposits used as a source of high purity silica to produce a potash lead glass that was the precursor to English lead crystal, circa 17th century. In effect, it was an old fashioned English term for lead glass, but in the 19th century, old fashioned was the norm in the USA.

So, this union's entire literature, while going on quite a bit about union rivalries between green glass and flint glass workers, and their eventual consolidation in the USA in the 20th century, did not so much as explain the significance of the word "Flint" in their name, or more accurately in the name of the type of glass they primarily worked with before the consolidation of the unions.

This tells me that it is entirely possible for an organized and highly cohesive group of people to have absolutely minimal, if any, knowledge of the history of the material they produced and worked with their entire employed lives. If that is the case, then early Christians could utilize traditions and employ rituals the origins of which they had little or no knowledge.

DCH

Re: Did the Author of Acts Know About Paul's Letters?

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:59 pm
by Peter Kirby

Re: Did the Author of Acts Know About Paul's Letters?

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:39 pm
by Bernard Muller
I have two blog posts on that topic:

http://historical-jesus.info/75.html:
Did the author of 'Acts' knew about Paul's epistles, as the Westar Acts Seminar contends?
It took ten years for the Westar Acts Seminar to come up with the conclusion, among other ones, the author of 'Acts' knew the Pauline epistles and wrote 'Acts' in the early decades of the second century. I disagree on both points and here is why.

and

http://historical-jesus.info/76.html:
Arguments against "Luke" knowing Paul's epistles and a late dating of 'Acts'
Neil Godfrey issued some posts on the Vridar's blog about the Acts Seminar members' justifications for a 2nd cent. dating of 'Acts' and the author's knowledge of the Pauline epistles. I answer that here.

Cordially, Bernard