Bernard's website: my answer to comments

[outhouse]

Paul only wrote of “His coming”, a parousia,

.

Its not about "only" what Paul writes these text did not take place in a vacuum.

…the dead in Christ will arise first, then we the living, those remaining, will be caught up together with them… (1 Thess. 4:16-17)

Can be evidence that Paul expected a first century Parousia

I agree that in Paul's letters there was a clear expectation of the coming of Jesus Christ soon, within the lifetime of many in Paul's congregations.

That's what I'm rounding into.

Paul was teaching an apocalyptic Judaism based on a mans crucifixion and perceived sacrifice.

My point was Doherty and Carrier take foundation of the text out of context as if pauls communities words were created in a vacuum

[MrMacSon]

Paul was teaching an apocalyptic Judaism based on a mans crucifixion and perceived sacrifice.

... based on an alleged man's crucifixion -- based on 'revelation'

[outhouse]

Paul was teaching an apocalyptic Judaism based on a mans crucifixion and perceived sacrifice.

... based on an alleged man's crucifixion -- based on 'revelation'

You will never be able to support the bolded sentence as an origin

[MrMacSon]

... based on an alleged man's crucifixion -- based on 'revelation'

You will never be able to support the bolded sentence as an origin

so, nor should Paul be able to support revelation as an origin??

[outhouse]

... based on an alleged man's crucifixion -- based on 'revelation'

You will never be able to support the bolded sentence as an origin

so, nor should Paul be able to support revelation as an origin??

Paul joined a movement in progress and originated nothing.

His claim of personal contact with the divine was a rhetorical move to build authority in his words as he longed to be an apostle.

Its non sequitur to the conversation.

Paul was not alone nor the only teacher in the 50's, nor was he in possession of the only written material on the subject, his works is just what survived due to popularity, and what was popular was absorbed into traditions found in the text we are left with.

There is no credible evidence anywhere that places paul as an origin to or for the movement. And nothing credible anywhere that places him out of the mid 50's

[TedM]

outhouse, I see no reason to reject the orthodox view that Paul originated the idea that salvation through Jesus was available to the Gentiles, and was available through faith and faith alone. I see that as a revelation he felt he had through his understanding of prophetic scriptures - primarily in the last part of Isaiah. In my view, that is what Paul was referring to as being his 'gospel'.

I didn't read several pages of this thread so if you have addressed this already, I apologize.

[outhouse]

outhouse, I see no reason to reject the orthodox view that Paul originated the idea that salvation through Jesus was available to the Gentiles, and was available through faith and faith alone..

You see no reason to reject the apologetic view? Scholars do not look at Paul as originating the gentile movement.

While he was viewed as an apostle to the gentiles, the movement started in the Diaspora in many different wide geographic areas far removed from Pauls work.

The movement was well under way in gentile communities when Paul joined.

.

I didn't read several pages of this thread so if you have addressed this already, I apologize

Your fine.

[TedM]

outhouse, I see no reason to reject the orthodox view that Paul originated the idea that salvation through Jesus was available to the Gentiles, and was available through faith and faith alone..

You see no reason to reject the apologetic view? Scholars do not look at Paul as originating the gentile movement.

While he was viewed as an apostle to the gentiles, the movement started in the Diaspora in many different wide geographic areas far removed from Pauls work.

The movement was well under way in gentile communities when Paul joined.

I am not aware of any evidence for this. I'm sure a case can be made for Jewish Christians far and wide, but I'm not aware of the 'faith' message for Gentiles pre-existing Paul. I see Pauls visit to Jerusalem in Galatians as evidence for my view. If the controversy about his faith-only gospel for Gentiles pre-existed Paul, his writings don't seem to give a hint of it.

[outhouse]

If the controversy about his faith-only gospel for Gentiles pre-existed Paul, his writings don't seem to give a hint of it.

Sure they do.

We are talking about Diaspora Hellenistic Judaism, and Pauls communities flat state there were other teachers and gospel, meaning good word and evidencing traditions of a long this nature.

Pauls communities teachings in themselves are dealing with different sects with different adherence to Mosaic laws.

Paul joined a movement in the Diaspora, not in Israel.

We also know from this tome Proselytes to Judaism in some cases simply had to swear off pagan deities and were accepted into worship the one god concept.

Pauls text also do not tell us by your own methodology here, that Christians were all "cut" and observing Jewish laws in full. Instead we see conflict.

Without the anthropological context here, Paul is hard to read based on text alone. This does not mean however we get to throw it all out. It has to be applied in context.

By Pauls communities text alone, we know he was not alone. We know he joined early but NOT in the movements infancy either. He started slightly afterwards. And by Paul fighting those who would adhere to laws regarding circumcision, we know in the mid fifties many gentiles were already causing riffs in the diversity.

Diversity is key here. Judaism was very diverse, and so was the movement divorcing cultural Israelite Judaism.

[outhouse]

Much of this comes down to how much Bultmann and how much Hengel one adopts.

I see mistakes in both, and have a hybrid view due to the non contested diversity in Judaism and early Christianity.

I would lean if I had to, 65% Hengel and 35% Bultmann as both are correct and wrong in places.