Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Putting Paul in His (Historical) Place

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Putting Paul in His (Historical) Place

    Paula Fredriksen wrote a book entitled: Paul: The Pagans' Apostle. Her book was reviewed by James Crossley, Margaret Mitchell, and Matthew
    Novenson. Paula's rejoinder to their review(s) is found here.

    Please read Paula's response to Matthew Novenson, beginning on page 15. Share your thoughts once you finish. Thank you.

  • #2
    It is an excellent write-up. Of particular note (p16):
    I knew something that Paul evidently did not know,
    namely, that ancient Jews were “monotheists.” 31 They
    thought that their god was the only god. This was the premier
    Jewish theological idea, after all. It set Jews apart from
    everyone else. Indeed, it defined them. Or so, for a long
    time, I thought.
    [/quote]

    Therein is a truth that is seldom spoken.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't find Fredriksen's response as an accurate view on Paul inasmuch as I was able to discern it while skimming through various points she was making.

      First, her mention of 1 Cor 8:5 (104 or pdf page 16) neglects that Paul has said, in the same verse, "there are many things called 'gods'." Thus, Paul already dispels the sense that this is any true deity apart from God, as revealed among the Jews. One can readily find that a creature, Satan, has been identified as 'god of this world.' But this designation as 'god' is not identifiable (within Paul's writing) as anything of true deity -- just as something sort of 'spiritual' that influences people. By 'spiritual', I would say that Satan doesn't seem to be represented in general as being seen visibly day-to-day.

      Fredriksen may be right about 'ancient' Jews not perceiving monotheism -- but this depends on what we mean by 'ancient.' Clues about the Jewish God as the only true God could be obtained from the incident of Elijah confronting the Baal worshipers (1 Kings 18:33ff). I think there would be better evidence too.

      It is an okay observation to note, to some degree, that the Roman population held that their 'gods' were true deity. We see this, for example, in Paul's shipwreck situation. We also see where silversmiths were upset at the threat that idol worship in Ephesus could be threatened; the silversmiths were concerned about loss of income if idols weren't selling well. (Acts 19:28)
      Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-21-2019, 01:54 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        "there are many things called 'gods'."
        So - Paul called himself an "apostle" and not an apostle?
        κλητος αποστολος Romans 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1
        The Christians at Corinth and Rome are called "saints," and not saints? Romans 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2

        Or should the translation be considered just a bit deficient?

        "There are many that are called gods, as there are indeed many gods" might be better read sans the lens of monotheistic presupposition.
        Last edited by tabibito; 06-21-2019, 04:17 PM.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • #5
          The very use of κλητος seems to be a term used to convey a new attribute about someone -- in the two cases you have given.

          But 1 Cor 8:5 doesn't use κλητος. So we have a different discussion here.

          I'm not a Greek scholar but the use of lego sounds more like a claim that these are gods rather than the assertion of fact

          Verse 4 already said "there is no other God but one." I am unsure how this (and the whole context of 1 Cor 8) leaves it unclear that monotheism is essentially described here.
          Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-21-2019, 04:51 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            And verse 6 says "yet to us (there is only) one god" In combination, the whole is not saying that the total number of gods is one. It is saying (and as was held to be true in first century Israel) that a particular god is the only god that Paul (and Christians generally) acknowledges.
            (2 Thess 2:4) the beast opposes everything that is called (λεγομενον) god.
            Most commonly, λεγομεν~, when used in roughly similar contexts, singles something out as a particular member of a class, as in μεσιας ερχεται ο λεγομενος χριστος "the messiah, he that is called Christ, comes" (John 4:25) The messiah is not a "so called" Christ. A man called Jesus ... anointed my eyes (John 9:11) The feast of unleavened bread, called Passover, was near (Luke 22:1). In such circumstances, a good interpretation for λεγομεν~ would be "known as." "Many are known as gods" is neutral, and allows for the rest of the context to be more properly interpreted.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #7
              More details would have to be fleshed out to make an argument that Paul (and proper Christian doctrine) was not monotheistic. Paul has argued there is only one God so as to show that there was no problem eating of food sacrificed to idols -- this seems to rely on the sense (and an ensuing argument) that any other claims to deity are false. If these claims to deity were valid, then the Gentiles would be participating in the empowerment of these other supposed gods.

              Part of the logic is that idols are not anything real (i.e, not anything in the world) and are only so-called gods. (verses 4-5)

              Then it would seem that verse 6 is saying more to the idea "yet, as is known to us, there is one God." It is nonsensical then to find that God has made all things (v6) but that the audience (and Paul) also thought there were other gods. This would mean that God created deities equal to himself.

              I just think there are many elements of passages like 1 Cor 8 which have to be counteracted to say that Paul wasn't monotheistic.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes - an idol is nothing. Many things are declared "nothing" without the implication that they do not exist. Fredriksen's case is solid enough. Even in the ante-Nicene fathers' writings, pagan gods are not declared to be imaginary: they are declared unworthy of consideration.
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  Yes - an idol is nothing. Many things are declared "nothing" without the implication that they do not exist. Fredriksen's case is solid enough. Even in the ante-Nicene fathers' writings, pagan gods are not declared to be imaginary: they are declared unworthy of consideration.
                  Does she then say that the Jewish God created these pagan gods equal to Himself? Or are these gods only of something of limited influence, as of any creatures, such as that of Satan? Are these influences understood by Paul to be misinterpreted by people to be gods? Are we to gain insight about monotheism from scripture ... and do we thus have more knowledge from Paul's writings than Paul had himself? Or are you a polytheist with the sense that all these gods are co-equal with God or that God subdued these other gods?

                  Note that I would not see error in saying that there were creatures (roughly to be called spiritual beings) who had some limited abilities to make people think there were gods. But Paul's holding to this idea would not make him polytheistic.
                  Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-21-2019, 06:47 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    No - Paul's assent to the existence of other gods, deeming them unworthy of notice, and adhering to only one particular god would make him henotheistic, not polytheistic. Nor does henotheism of and by itself indicate that the god that the adherent chooses is considered by that adherent to be either inferior or superior to other gods. But, context shows that Paul considered his god to be the "all-highest," so in his particular case, he considers all other gods thoroughly inferior to the one to whom he gives allegiance, YHWH, triune - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Fredriksen may have a reasonable explanation for the origins of some heresies when she notes (106 or pdf page 18):
                      "Once cut free of his ethnic moorings in these later gentile theologies, this high god floats wide of the deity represented in the LXX. And he becomes the father of a non-Jewish — indeed, of an anti-Jewish — messiah. At that point, “Christianity” exists — or, rather, multiple Christianities exist. And they exist as movements that are both other than and, in a sense, over-against “Judaism.”38 "
                      But such issues are not the birth of Christianity. These are just issues in the middle of Christianity that had to be resolved. The distinguishing of Christianity from Judaism simply was a result of incompatibilities due to some among the Jew who didn't approve of the Messianic followers and some over Messianic follower who rejected Jews.

                      I don't agree with the sense that the prophesied events were delayed (over against the point on 107 or pdf page 19). But that discussion is for another day. Nor would I agree with her ideas on Rom 11:25-26.

                      She says (on 108, 20) she says:
                      The risen Christ, for this generation, was the first swallow of the impending eschatological spring. The men and women committed to his message, accordingly, were not founding a new movement. They were not “founding” anything. They were declaring the fulfillment of God’s ancient promises to Israel.
                      I think the mention of Rom 11:25-26 sought to push this fulfillment way to the future, but other than the difference on this, I would agree that that the Messianic followers represented the fulfillment of promises to Israel which also was to benefit Gentiles. (It is a truth that Gentiles had perceived their acceptance of the Messiah as their joining into the Jewish culture -- but understood in light of the Messianic message.)

                      Most of her discussion on 108 (pdf 20) is a bit of an exaggeration of the problems of understanding Paul. A big problem, as I brought out in an earlier post, is trying to say Paul was henotheistic or polytheistic when the context likely expresses monotheism.

                      Her ideas on the features of the kingdom of God are sort of correct but these features can be found in the context of the first century. Such fulfillment just doesn't fit her vision of how things should have been fulfilled. I indeed see that the Kingdom of God applies to reign over the nations but not necessarily in the visible reign that she seems to anticipate.

                      She ends the response by improperly highlighting heretical views (diverting from the broad Christian community) which promoted anti-Jewish standpoints. The problem is that Christianity isn't defined by the heresies.
                      Still, I might have a degree of commonality with Fredriksen by noting that the second century writers had forgotten much of the Jewish context (primarily eschatological) surrounding the message and arrival of the Messiah. Also, we could find many Greco-Roman philosophical and cultural concepts that have distorted elements of the doctrine. However, the essential message has survived.

                      It helps to have some different perspectives introduced into the discussions on the New Testament, so it is useful that Fredriksen has discussed such issues.
                      Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-21-2019, 08:47 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        {JJMJS 5, 2018, p106}
                        no one in Paul’s generation would have looked at his euangelion
                        as anything other than a particular — perhaps peculiar — inflection of late
                        Second Temple Judaism. Thus our commitment, no matter what our various
                        conclusions, to construing Paul’s letters within and with those criteria of
                        meaning specific to late Second Temple Jewishness. “Christianity” as an idea and
                        as an entity is born only long after Paul’s lifetime. To echo Pam Eisenbaum’s
                        felicitous title, Paul was not a Christian.


                        Seems OK to me - there wouldn't be many saying that Post-Nicene Christianity didn't
                        radically diverge from Paul's Christianity - which he himself termed a sect of the Jews.

                        (I will admit though, that the wording is a bit unfortunate. Paul was not a
                        post Nicene Christian; nor for that matter were the ante-Nicene fathers.)
                        Last edited by tabibito; 06-21-2019, 09:39 PM.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          {JJMJS 5, 2018, p106}
                          no one in Paul’s generation would have looked at his euangelion
                          as anything other than a particular — perhaps peculiar — inflection of late
                          Second Temple Judaism. Thus our commitment, no matter what our various
                          conclusions, to construing Paul’s letters within and with those criteria of
                          meaning specific to late Second Temple Jewishness. “Christianity” as an idea and
                          as an entity is born only long after Paul’s lifetime. To echo Pam Eisenbaum’s
                          felicitous title, Paul was not a Christian.


                          Seems OK to me - there wouldn't be many saying that Post-Nicene Christianity didn't
                          radically diverge from Paul's Christianity - which he himself termed a sect of the Jews.

                          (I will admit though, that the wording is a bit unfortunate. Paul was not a
                          post Nicene Christian; nor for that matter were the ante-Nicene fathers.)
                          I'm not sure how Fredricksen envisions the gospel in such fashion.

                          I don't think that any Jews in the first century anticipated that the Messiah would die on the cross and be raised from the dead. Then, the people would need to repent for forgiveness of sin which came through the sacrifice of God's only begotten son, who was God incarnate.

                          Maybe some details of the kingdom could fit loosely into the imaginations of the Jews -- except that they would expect to see Jesus physically leading them against the Roman Empire.

                          What is the concept of the gospel that Fredriksen envisions here?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            I'm not sure how Fredricksen envisions the gospel in such fashion.

                            I don't think that any Jews in the first century anticipated that the Messiah would die on the cross and be raised from the dead. Then, the people would need to repent for forgiveness of sin which came through the sacrifice of God's only begotten son, who was God incarnate.

                            Maybe some details of the kingdom could fit loosely into the imaginations of the Jews -- except that they would expect to see Jesus physically leading them against the Roman Empire.

                            What is the concept of the gospel that Fredriksen envisions here?
                            It seems, from the content of pp 107-108, that Fredriksen's opinion is; Paul's gospel had Jesus returning, sometime in the near future, to take up the role of messiah as it had been envisaged by the Jews, with whistles and bells. So far, so good. As a broad overview, she cites enough to see where she's coming from, and it's a good broad-brush-strokes assessment. However, some of the finer detail presented needs tweaking, methinks. She hasn't dug deep enough into the Kingdom of Heaven story, seeing it too much as imminent, not enough as immanent.
                            Last edited by tabibito; 06-22-2019, 01:43 AM.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              And then there's "Paul: The Pagans' Apostle" p4

                              I'll be looking very carefully at that one.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                              35 responses
                              166 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                              4 responses
                              49 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                              10 responses
                              119 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mikewhitney  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                              14 responses
                              71 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                              13 responses
                              59 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Working...
                              X