tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
In this case, the NLT has actually moderated what Paul has said: "Listen! I, Paul, tell you this: If you are counting on circumcision to make you right with God, then Christ will be of no benefit to you." While Paul wrote that you have no hope of salvation if you are circumcised, the evangelical text softened that considerably to suggest that circumcision isn’t beneficial when it comes to salvation.
quote:
The author of the text you give has made the interpretation that Paul is forcing one to choose between him and God. This, it would appear, is the same mistake that some of the Galatians were making, which is why Paul wrote the letter to firmly say the law is outdated.
From what I have read, tazzygirl, the conflict was not between Paul and God. It was between Paul and James, the brother of Jesus, and head of the church in Jerusalem. The issue arose when Peter was reprimanded by a messenger sent by James for eating with gentile christians in Antioch because they were not keeping kosher. Paul took the opposing view. Of course, Paul was interested in converting pagans. James, who did not follow Jesus when he was alive, was interested in maintaining the Law of the Covenant as given by Moses and argued therefore that converts must first come to the Judaic Law before they could become Christians. Such a firm position would have been disastrous to Paul's mission.
quote:
This book is very important because it is a clear difference in the new testament from the old. Paul promotes the viewpoint that the Law justifies one before God not because it has been obeyed but because one has done so faithfully. It is the faith that makes one justified according to Paul. In particular now Christ has made his sacrifice one can/should throw out the old convenant and believe in Christ, the new convenant. As such Paul feels the law as no longer required.
There is no doubt in my mind that Paul, and later the Gospel of John, advocated a new covenant focused on the resurrection of Jesus. Especially in John, Jesus becomes the lamb sacrificed at the Seder.
Paul in Galatians 2:16 "know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."
I am greatly intrigued by your interpretation that according to Paul the circumcised had no hope of salvation. I presume that means unless they came to faith in Jesus. At least that is what the Catholic Church inferred as did Martin Luther as well, I think. Anyway, the Catholic Popes and Church hierarchy for sure spent the next nineteen hundred years either trying to convert Jews to Christianity or destroying them. Christians were greatly offended by the Judaic rejection of the Christ.
This isnt my interpretation. I am merely asking questions based upon something i was shown.
quote:
The methods of persuasion included Crusades, Inquisitions, and Ghettos along with various laws that proscribed professions and property to Jews. At various times in feudal Catholic Europe Jews were made to wear yellow markings on their clothing and yellow conical hats centuries before the appearance of Hitler. They were herded into ghettos and forced to listen to Christian sermons. Jewish children were kidnapped and forcibly baptized. Jews were brought before Inquisition counsels and offered conversion or death. Some, like Augustine argued that Jews should be left unharmed because their wretched condition would be “witness” to the righteousness of Christian belief.
It is a hideous history. I depend here upon Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll. Carroll's thesis was that while it may be difficult or in error to trace cause and effect, at the very least the long history of maltreatment of Jews by Christians planted the seeds for Hitler's anti-semitism.
I don't mean to run off with your thread, tg, but I would be interested in any views on this tangential topic as well.
quote:
The reason I say this is that the preponderance of Christians are predisposed to believe that Paul’s letters are Scripture, and thus truthful. And by that definition, they are beyond reproach—and thus cannot be questioned. And as evidence of this mindset, while Christians will say that their faith is predicated upon "Jesus Christ," when asked to explain it, they will almost always cite Pauline Doctrine rather than the words of the Messiyah Yahshua. But the notion that Paul’s teachings differ substantially from "Christ’s" is lost on these Christians.
http://questioningpaul.com/Questioning_Paul-Galatians-00-Letter_to_the_Reader.Paul
Im intrigued by the writer and his assertions. Take for example the following...
quote:
We’ve come to a place I could never have imagined. I had expected that errant translations and misinterpretations of Galatians had been responsible for Christendom promoting the myth that the Torah had been annulled. But in actuality, Paul has been the problem. He has gone well beyond simply relegating the Torah to a bygone era. He has assailed the Covenant codified therein, calling it a source of slavery, rather than liberation.
Paul has hung himself with his own words. And if that were it, so be it. But unfortunately, Paul’s noose was woven into a net which has ensnared billions of Christian souls. And for that reason, we will press on, unraveling his trap.
As we turn the page and open the fifth chapter of Galatians, Paul remains fixated on the distinction between the liberty he promises and the servitude he has associated with observing the Torah. And in the context of having made Yahweh’s Covenant man’s mortal enemy, the concluding clause is exceptionally demeaning, even for Sha’uwl. "[With] this (te), our (ego) freedom (eleuthera – liberty) [in] Christos (ΧΡΣ – the Messiyah (without the definite article, the errant name Christos is a better grammatical fit than the title "the Implement of Yah") He was set free (eleutheroo – are liberated) intending you all to stand and persevere (steko – to persist and be established). And (kai) therefore (oun) do not (me) go back again (palin – again) [to] a yoke (zygos) [of] subservience (douleia – slavery and bondage), to you all being hostilely opposed, unfairly burdened, and controlled by someone holding a grudge (enechomai – to you all surrendering and submitting to someone who bears ill-will, feeling resentment for having been violently harassed and forcibly controlled by an individual who is quarrelsome)." (Galatians 5:1)
There is a rather complex grammatical situation occurring in the initial clause which can only be appreciated through close scrutiny. Eleutheroo was written eleutherosen, in the third person singular (he), past tense (aorist indicative). It therefore conveys "He was set free." The associated verb, steko, was rendered stekete, in the second person plural (you all) present tense imperative mood (expressing a command or purpose), and thus it conveys: "intending all of you to stand." And since the only way to render these verbs accurately and sensibly is to convey everything that is being communicated by way of the Greek grammar, we are confronted by something rather "a-Paul-ling." You see, Paul is suggesting that "Christos" Himself "was set free" of "the enslaving Torah" with the "intent of establishing our" "freedom." And while separating Yahshua from Yahweh and the Messiyah from the Torah is Sha’uwl’s modus operandi, it is the exact opposite of what actually occurred, as the Messiyah Yahshua was held accountable to the Torah so that we would be freed and established.
So that you don’t assume that the pendulum has swung to the point I’m working against Sha’uwl, here is the same verse as presented in the Nestle-Aland: "In the freedom us Christ freed stand then and not again in yoke of slavery be held in." But here, they ignored the Greek grammar in the initial clause and the intent of the concluding verb enechomai was inadequately, perhaps even inaccurately conveyed. According to the ten most respected lexicons, its primary meaning is "to bear a grudge against someone and to violently control, harass, and burden them against their will in a hostile fashion." It speaks of "the hatred and resentment which flows from being ensnared and entangled in a trap, and thus having to surrender and submit to a hostile foe."
And keep in mind, Sha’uwl has relentlessly sought to identify this "yoke of slavery" which "ensnares, burdens, and controls" its victims as being Yahweh’s "Torah." But this is personal. Paul has now gone so far as to slander God and demean His character.
So as to remove any doubt that I have inappropriately associated enechomai with Yahweh’s influence over humankind (at least from Paul’s perspective), recognize that it was written as enechesoe, in the second person plural, present passive imperative. The passive voice signifies that "you all" (from the second person plural) are being acted upon by a verb which is in this case quite maniacal. And since the imperative mood is used to express a command and one’s intent, Sha’uwl is saying that our forced submission is the intended result of God’s announced declaration.
Therefore, the opening stanza of the fifth chapter of Galatians actually conveys: "With this, our freedom in Christos, He was set free intending you all to stand and persevere. And therefore do not go back again to a yoke of subservience, slavery, and bondage, to you all being hostilely opposed, unfairly burdened, and controlled by someone holding a grudge, surrendering and submitting to someone who bears ill-will, and who has violently harassed and forcibly controlled you." (5:1) That was hard to write, much less read.
So, based upon Paul’s attitude, and the nature of his completely misguided and inverted thesis, it wasn’t much of a stretch for the New Living Translation to suggest: "So Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don’t get tied up again in slavery to the law." Paul’s intent is obvious. So as a thought for thought translation, the NLT nailed it.
By comparison, the KJV was a bit slow on the uptake: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." At least the King James accurately reflected one aspect of enechomai with "entangled." And it was even a slight departure from the Latin Vulgate which is rare. Jerome wrote: "Stand fast and be not held again under the yoke of bondage."
Im still working my mind around this. Thought many would enjoy a lively debate about the Bible and someone who had another point of view beyond christianity.
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|
RE: Paul vs God - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread