muffler dragon
Bien. Bien chiludo.
[quote='BusNative;120141;3]Yeah, I was afraid to go right back to Romans, but its what I'm most academically familiar with and can easily reference when I'm supposed to be financial-modeling. [/quote]
Understood. And I recognize that Romans has its place. It's just that since it's the last letter he wrote that's in the canon, it doesn't help much for earlier in his life.
[quote='Bus]So some questions:
1) Where do you start an investigation with regards to pre-Demascus Paul? I admit that I do not have many sources on this part of his life.[/quote]
Primarily the Book of Acts. The means of comparison would be first century Judaic dynamics.
[quote='Bus]2) It is unclear to me - what would you consider Paul's background to be?[/quote]
In our dialogue, I'll primarily be arguing the point that Paul was, at best, a horrendous Pharisee and at worst, not one at all.
Theoretically, as I mentioned before, I find myself attached to the Ebionite tradition regarding Paul which claims that he was a convert to Judaism. Thus, he had no familial roots in Judaism and was rather ignorant of Torah.
[quote='Bus]It is clear to me that he departs from a "strict" adherence to the law with regards to the Gentiles, but there is no reason to assume that Paul has himself diregarded the law.[/quote]
And this is probably one of the HUGE issues with regards to Paul's presentation of Judaism (esp. Pharisaic Judaism): with regard to Torah and the Gentiles, there is no "strict" adherence of Torah. Gentiles are not required to follow all 613 mitzvoh (commandments). Essentially, Paul is dismantling a strawman (at least, from a Pharisaic POV).
[quote='Bus]3) How do you surmise that Paul has a poor understanding of the Torah (#3 of your first post above)?[/quote]
For one example, just as I mentioned above with regard to Gentiles and Torah. Furthermore, as we get more into it, I'll be able to show examples from Paul's own words how he either contradicts Torah or continues to compile more strawmen.
[quote='Bus]If we consider Acts to be post-conversion and the letters to be written with regards to how to admit Gentiles into the Jesus-movement, there is nothing in Scripture to prove his understanding of the Torah one way or another.[/quote]
Actually, there are a number of telling moments through his actions and his words that rather deflate his knowledge. Remember, it is claimed that Paul learned at the feet of Gamaliel. Learning under Gamaliel is not rudimentary halacha, but instead, advanced courses.
[quote='Bus]It is interesting to me that Paul does not engage in any real debate about the law as it applies to Jews in his letters - IMO it's because there is no need to when corresponding with the various communities.[/quote]
Actually, Paul internally debates the Law as it applies to his "Jewish" self. His internal projection is something that he seems to admonish others to follow. At least, that's how I interpret some of the situations in the Epistles.
Understood. And I recognize that Romans has its place. It's just that since it's the last letter he wrote that's in the canon, it doesn't help much for earlier in his life.
[quote='Bus]So some questions:
1) Where do you start an investigation with regards to pre-Demascus Paul? I admit that I do not have many sources on this part of his life.[/quote]
Primarily the Book of Acts. The means of comparison would be first century Judaic dynamics.
[quote='Bus]2) It is unclear to me - what would you consider Paul's background to be?[/quote]
In our dialogue, I'll primarily be arguing the point that Paul was, at best, a horrendous Pharisee and at worst, not one at all.
Theoretically, as I mentioned before, I find myself attached to the Ebionite tradition regarding Paul which claims that he was a convert to Judaism. Thus, he had no familial roots in Judaism and was rather ignorant of Torah.
[quote='Bus]It is clear to me that he departs from a "strict" adherence to the law with regards to the Gentiles, but there is no reason to assume that Paul has himself diregarded the law.[/quote]
And this is probably one of the HUGE issues with regards to Paul's presentation of Judaism (esp. Pharisaic Judaism): with regard to Torah and the Gentiles, there is no "strict" adherence of Torah. Gentiles are not required to follow all 613 mitzvoh (commandments). Essentially, Paul is dismantling a strawman (at least, from a Pharisaic POV).
[quote='Bus]3) How do you surmise that Paul has a poor understanding of the Torah (#3 of your first post above)?[/quote]
For one example, just as I mentioned above with regard to Gentiles and Torah. Furthermore, as we get more into it, I'll be able to show examples from Paul's own words how he either contradicts Torah or continues to compile more strawmen.
[quote='Bus]If we consider Acts to be post-conversion and the letters to be written with regards to how to admit Gentiles into the Jesus-movement, there is nothing in Scripture to prove his understanding of the Torah one way or another.[/quote]
Actually, there are a number of telling moments through his actions and his words that rather deflate his knowledge. Remember, it is claimed that Paul learned at the feet of Gamaliel. Learning under Gamaliel is not rudimentary halacha, but instead, advanced courses.
[quote='Bus]It is interesting to me that Paul does not engage in any real debate about the law as it applies to Jews in his letters - IMO it's because there is no need to when corresponding with the various communities.[/quote]
Actually, Paul internally debates the Law as it applies to his "Jewish" self. His internal projection is something that he seems to admonish others to follow. At least, that's how I interpret some of the situations in the Epistles.
Last edited:
Upvote
0