Paul..fake liar or apostle?

[angellous_evangellous]

I can warn you also that the Galen citation is going to be very difficult to find.

Unless I recall incorrectly, I think that I had to order a copy of it from a library in Europe.

 

[Shermana]

Well, you see the word "understand," don't you?

Did you forget what you were doing?

Trying to find an online version with the Greek, if it uses Akouo for "It should be heard as", you may have a single use out of the hundreds of times it is used as "hear" as "understand", even though the direct meaning is "Hear" as in "Hear from the reader who is speaking", it is nonteheless used as "interpret".

Whether this is what Paul meant or not is up to debate, but if I can find the Greek, you may have this one on a SINGLE account, but that doesn't clear up the issue of his companions seeing the light.

 

[earlwooters]

Another Saturday night and we ain't got nobody?

 

[Shermana]

Now if I can find a Greek version of Aelian's Various History, you may have a second point with 13:46.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now if I can find a Greek version of Aelian's Various History, you may have a second point with 13:46.

You didn't look very hard.

But if you do read Greek and Latin (if you could, we won't be having this silly discussion), Perseus is an amazing resource.

Greek and Roman Materials

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Trying to find an online version with the Greek, if it uses Akouo for "It should be heard as", you may have a single use out of the hundreds of times it is used as "hear" as "understand", even though the direct meaning is "Hear" as in "Hear from the reader who is speaking", it is nonteheless used as "interpret".

Whether this is what Paul meant or not is up to debate, but if I can find the Greek, you may have this one on a SINGLE account, but that doesn't clear up the issue of his companions seeing the light.

I'm wondering if you can count.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm wondering if you can count.

With his disdain for scholarship and fondness for fallacy I suspect he could easily manage to count to three on both thumbs. Three what is anyone's guess.

 

[Shermana]

As for Aelian's history, I say that the issue is debatable. The definition of "listening" as an indicator of "understanding" has an obvious connection in this case, as well as , at the same it can be read as "able to understand" (a difference) but whether or not that's what Paul meant is up to debate. In Philo's example, if the term "Heard as" as a meaning for "understand" it is still nonetheless initially, literally "heard as", and then from there, the interpretation of "interpretation" comes at hand. If I said "The word "too" should not be heard as the number after 1", I'm nonetheless saying "heard", even if the connotation is "interpret". There is another word for "understand" for the same context, but Paul could have said "They were not able to listen" in which you'd be correct, but this would be 1/300+ cases of the word in the NT. (The cases in Mark and Corinthians are arguably just "hear")

I would like to see the 4th Oration example they are using so we could see if this is indeed pattern by the Lexicon authors of using the concept of "listen" as "understand".

In the end, there are over 300 examples in the NT of using "Hear" as only "hear", and even the "Shema" simply means "HEAR Israel", such as "Listen to this Israel", whereas it doesn't necessarily mean "Understand oh Israel', it COULD have that meaning, but it's base meaning is "Hey Israel, listen to this!"So in the end, the word is "listen" as in "able to understand", but the question is whether it can directly mean "understand" or "able to understand".

With this in mind, we can give Paul a benefit of the doubt though, but did his friends see the light or not? We have the context perhaps that the writer of Acts at least in Chapter 22, may have made an accidental switch, and if that is the case, then it probably did mean physically "hear".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As for Aelian's history, I say that the issue is debatable. The definition of "listening" as an indicator of "understanding" has an obvious connection in this case, as well as , at the same it can be read as "able to understand" (a difference) but whether or not that's what Paul meant is up to debate. In Philo's example, if the term "Heard as" as a meaning for "understand" it is still nonetheless initially, literally "heard as", and then from there, the interpretation of "interpretation" comes at hand. If I said "The word "too" should not be heard as the number after 1", I'm nonetheless saying "heard", even if the connotation is "interpret". There is another word for "understand" for the same context, but Paul could have said "They were not able to listen" in which you'd be correct, but this would be 1/300+ cases of the word in the NT. (The cases in Mark and Corinthians are arguably just "hear")

I would like to see the 4th Oration example they are using so we could see if this is indeed pattern by the Lexicon authors of using the concept of "listen" as "understand".

In the end, there are over 300 examples in the NT of using "Hear" as only "hear", and even the "Shema" simply means "HEAR Israel", such as "Listen to this Israel", whereas it doesn't necessarily mean "Understand oh Israel', it COULD have that meaning, but it's base meaning is "Hey Israel, listen to this!"So in the end, the word is "listen" as in "able to understand", but the question is whether it can directly mean "understand" or "able to understand".

With this in mind, we can give Paul a benefit of the doubt though, but did his friends see the light or not? We have the context perhaps that the writer of Acts at least in Chapter 22, may have made an accidental switch, and if that is the case, then it probably did mean physically "hear".

That's irrelevant.

The whole point of this exercise is whether or not akouo can mean "understand." This is obvious from the lexicon, and if you are good enough at Greek to correct the lexicon, you should write a journal article about it. I don't think that you can read Greek, so that's really not an issue.

I do agree - and I said as much when I first saw it - that in Acts it probably means "hear." But I don't think that "understand" is an attempt to cover anything up because the problem about seeing the light remains. I said that before, too.

You obviously don't have the tools / competency to get to the bottom of the akouo thing. You don't even know where to look. Best to stick to what you can actually do, especially if you hope to use it in argument // debate.

 

[Shermana]

Back to the issue of Paul being a liar or a true apostle...

Perhaps the issue, as the "New Perspective on Paul" states, is not so much that Paul led a sect of lawlessness, but rather that the sect of Lawlessness used Paul's writings.

There is a noted interpolation for example that only the KJV corrects in 1 Corinthian 9:20 ("Though I myself am not under the Law"). That could be a very smoky gun to some Marcion-esque interpolators. There's also the issue that half of the Epistles are probably spurious, so it's no shocker to suggest the idea that some people tried to use the name of Paul to suit their own doctrines as time went on.

There's also the issue of the overall reliability of Acts, from which the very basis of Paul's claims are based. There are those who say Luke had a different author than Acts, despite Iraneus' claims.

Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Paul was a true Apostle, the objective evidence is weak and purely relative based on what the individual thinks is "True Revelation" or not. With an historical approach of Yashua's very pro-Torah message (though anti-Pharisee), it's clear to see that unless the "New Perspective on Paul" is correct, they don't match whatsoever. If the "New Perspective" on Paul is accurate, then he was indeed a Pro-Torah Jew whose views were simply misunderstood as Lawlessness later on. (For instance, grouping Circumcision with the rest of the law, as there is no real command to circumcize anyone but your son, Abraham was 90.)

Nonetheless, when Paul was put on trial at the end of Acts, he is not found guilty of preaching any lawlessness. The only resolution for the "Lawless Paul" version is that he lied to the Jews in Jerusalem about his beliefs and didn't actually believe you had to obey the Law. Their view of his taking of the Nazirite vow for the Jerusalem Church must either be that he didn't really believe it and was putting on a show just to "fit in" and that the Jerusalem Church was wrong, or he was indeed responding to rumors of Lawlessness with an honest display of adherence to the Law.

If the Christian Community can accept the "New Perspective" on Paul and that he was pro-Torah, then that would smooth out the doctrinal clashes greatly. This is how I've viewed Paul as recently, but I still can't decide.



New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Particularly important however, that all those who believe in Paul, should take note of is the very meaning of the word "Grace", which should be read as "Favor" as in "favor you have earned for obedience".

Grace, or favor

Old perspective writers have generally translated the Greek word charis as "grace" and understood it to refer to the idea that there is a lack of human effort in salvation because God is the controlling factor. However those who study ancient Greek culture have pointed out that "favor" is a better translation, as the word refers normally to 'doing a favor'. In ancient societies there was the expectation that such favors be repaid, and this semi-formal system of favors acted like loans.[16] Therefore, it is argued that when Paul speaks of how God did us a 'favor' by sending Jesus, he is saying that God took the initiative, but is not implying a lack of human effort in salvation, and is in fact implying that Christians have an obligation to repay the favor God has done for them. Some argue that this view then undermines the initial 'favor' - of sending Jesus - by saying that, despite his incarnation, life and death, Christians still have, as before, to earn their way to heaven. However, others note this is the horns of a false dilemma (all grace versus all works). Many new perspective proponents that see "charis" as "favor" do not teach that Christians earn their way to heaven outside of the death of Christ. Forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ is still necessary to salvation. But, that forgiveness demands effort on the part of the individual

So....they don't teach it has to be earned...but it requires effort....yeah....well that's a good start for trying to undo years of Lutheranism.

 

[Desert Snake]

Back to the issue of Paul being a liar or a true apostle...

Perhaps the issue, as the "New Perspective on Paul" states, is not so much that Paul led a sect of lawlessness, but rather that the sect of Lawlessness used Paul's writings.

There is a noted interpolation for example that only the KJV corrects in 1 Corinthian 9:20 ("Though I myself am not under the Law"). That could be a very smoky gun to some Marcion-esque interpolators. There's also the issue that half of the Epistles are probably spurious, so it's no shocker to suggest the idea that some people tried to use the name of Paul to suit their own doctrines as time went on.

There's also the issue of the overall reliability of Acts, from which the very basis of Paul's claims are based. There are those who say Luke had a different author than Acts, despite Iraneus' claims.

Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Paul was a true Apostle, the objective evidence is weak and purely relative based on what the individual thinks is "True Revelation" or not. With an historical approach of Yashua's very pro-Torah message (though anti-Pharisee), it's clear to see that unless the "New Perspective on Paul" is correct, they don't match whatsoever. If the "New Perspective" on Paul is accurate, then he was indeed a Pro-Torah Jew whose views were simply misunderstood as Lawlessness later on. (For instance, grouping Circumcision with the rest of the law, as there is no real command to circumcize anyone but your son, Abraham was 90.)

Nonetheless, when Paul was put on trial at the end of Acts, he is not found guilty of preaching any lawlessness. The only resolution for the "Lawless Paul" version is that he lied to the Jews in Jerusalem about his beliefs and didn't actually believe you had to obey the Law. Their view of his taking of the Nazirite vow for the Jerusalem Church must either be that he didn't really believe it and was putting on a show just to "fit in" and that the Jerusalem Church was wrong, or he was indeed responding to rumors of Lawlessness with an honest display of adherence to the Law.

If the Christian Community can accept the "New Perspective" on Paul and that he was pro-Torah, then that would smooth out the doctrinal clashes greatly. This is how I've viewed Paul as recently, but I still can't decide.



New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Particularly important however, that all those who believe in Paul, should take note of is the very meaning of the word "Grace", which should be read as "Favor" as in "favor you have earned for obedience".



So....they don't teach it has to be earned...but it requires effort....yeah....

Not following every Torah or Rabbinical law does not make
someone 'anti-Torah'. Christianity has always had a seperate
standard of rules, varying from group to group. 'Christians'
following the 'law' in the manner you describe makes no
intellectual or historical sense.

 

[Desert Snake]

"pro-Torah...meaningless term.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"pro-Torah...meaningless term.

haha - no kidding. Particularly with reference to Paul.

 

[Shermana]

Not following every Torah or Rabbinical law does not make
someone 'anti-Torah'. Christianity has always had a seperate
standard of rules, varying from group to group. 'Christians'
following the 'law' in the manner you describe makes no
intellectual or historical sense.

Why does it make no historical or intellectual sense? Why did Marcion even get popular if there wasn't a Lawful movement for him to oppose?

Matthew 5:19 clearly says anyone who preaches against the least of the Laws shall be called the Least in Heaven. Luke 16:17 says that none of the Laws shall ever be void.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why does it make no historical or intellectual sense? Why did Marcion even get popular if there wasn't a Lawful movement for him to oppose?

Matthew 5:19 clearly says anyone who preaches against the least of the Laws shall be called the Least in Heaven. Luke 16:17 says that none of the Laws shall ever be void.

Marcion got popular because his acceptance of the Pauline corpus and the Gospel followed the reception history in his area and those churches that followed him. And his complete theological separation between Judaism and Pauline theology was appealing to the Gentile church.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why does it make no historical or intellectual sense? Why did Marcion even get popular if there wasn't a Lawful movement for him to oppose?

Matthew 5:19 clearly says anyone who preaches against the least of the Laws shall be called the Least in Heaven. Luke 16:17 says that none of the Laws shall ever be void.

hhaha

Matthew wasn't in Marcion's canon, and I'd bet a buffalo nickel that he cut out Luke 16:17.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why does it make no historical or intellectual sense? Why did Marcion even get popular if there wasn't a Lawful movement for him to oppose?

Matthew 5:19 clearly says anyone who preaches against the least of the Laws shall be called the Least in Heaven. Luke 16:17 says that none of the Laws shall ever be void.

It depends on what 'laws' are being referred to. Historically it can't make
sense, as new converts to Christianity would and could never be expected
to conform to them. I don't doubt that some Jews held onto their previous
convictions, however as the new religion spread, this would inevitably
have been an insignicant minority.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Here we go from Marcion:

17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away,
even as the law and the prophets [have passed away],
than one tittle of my words to fail.

Gospel of the Lord IV

 

[angellous_evangellous]

BTW, I'm not arguing agains't your position that some
people held those convictions.

haha, me too. It just doesn't have anything to do with any ancient texts. :biglaugh:

 

[Desert Snake]

O.k. :d