NT Wright,re-evaluating Paul?

[wayseer]

So far all your doing is blurting out things,but have no scriptural proof.Most see John as inspired writ.

Where have I suggested that the Gospel of John is NOT inspire. I have suggest that it is not HISTORIC - note the difference.

Gal 2:15-16
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Indeed - a standard reading for those who subscribe to Replacement Theology - a position rejected by most respected scholars.

Paul was concerned that the end was nigh and the Christ would shortly return and that the 'problem' with the Gentiles had now be resolved through Christ death and resurrection. The 'apocalyptic' thinking clearly impacts on his writings and his urgency is therefore better understood. Standing in self-righteous justification in the 21 St century does tend to bend one's understanding of Paul.

Romans 9:30-32
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone

Indeed the 'stone' is Christ and Paul's mission is of the essence give his apocalyptic vision of the end of times fast approaching. Indeed, it is BECAUSE the Gentiles are so receptive to his message that Paul is convinced that the end is indeed nigh - it proves his case.

But Paul is a master of the rhetoric - his writings are full of these flourishes - and this is another example (a bit like your example with John) - an 'author's license' as it were.

Paul was not suggesting that Israel had to follow the Gentiles. What Paul was illustrating was that the Jews did not grasp what Christ's death means for the Gentiles. What Paul hurls at Israel is that the goal of the Torah had been made manifest as far as the Gentiles were concerned and it is this failure in understanding how all things are coming together at this time that Paul lays at the feet of the Jews - not as what so often has been misquoted - to 'replace' the Torah.

 

[Frogster]

It might 'sound' like that but you cannot put words into the mouth of Paul when he makes no such statement.

Dead then alive.What else might that be?

Ephesians was NOT written by Paul.

And this you know how?

They did? On what evidence do you base this assumption?

No assumption,he said it.

Galtians 4:12
Brethren, I beg of you, become as I am [free from the bondage of Jewish ritualism and ordinances], for I also have become as you are [a Gentile]. You did me no wrong [n the days when I first came to you; do not do it now].

And preached it.No Circumcision.Even James said not to circumcision in Acts 15.

Gal 5:11 But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.

And like Peter,called the law a yoke of slavery.If Paul still lived Torah,he would not have called it as such.See,I post scriptural facts that draw an obvious conclusion,you just insert unfounded things,based on a carnal presumption to fit a liberal theology..

Peter stopped living Torah too,after the vision,as well as Paul said so also.


Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

This is the ONLY reference by Paul to this matter as far as I'm aware. Given that the letter to the Galatians was an attempt at damage control, it may be that Paul said things that fitted this particular agenda rather than make a theological statement.

What Paul was addressing here where his enemies who lay within the Jesus Movement - the 'party of the circumcision' who had their HQ in Jerusalem.

Lol,damage control!?,how about he called it a false gospel,and cursed those who pervert it.Lol,damage control..

The other aspect is that such a blatant statement, which is in direct contradiction with the general thrust of Paul thesis, was a later interpolation and not Pauline at all. Such things do happen when everything has to be copied by hand.

Really Galatians is quite easy to understand,Paul did not want the law for the Galatian churches.That is pretty clear.

The other aspect is that Paul developed his theology over time. Reading the genuine Pauline letters in the order that they were written one can see the change is Paul's stance over time. In such a case as this outburst in Galatians is therefore more indicative of the 'damage control' agenda and not one of theology.

Then show me a scriptural change.A "tone" does not signify a theology change.That indicates temperment.

To make a better case it would be fortuitous that supporting evidence be produced by Paul's hand - evidence that he had abandoned his Jewishness. I see no such supporting evidence. I therefore have to conclude that Paul's statement at Gal 4:12 has been taken with caution.

Ok,scripture time.

First he makes reference to his Judaism

Phil 3:4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

Then he counts it a garbage.


8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ

Interesting wordage here..His FORMER LIFE.

Galatians 1"13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.

Dont also forget Paul persecuted "the Way',because they were not exactly the light of Judaism,then he joined them,what does that tell you? (Acts)

[

Unfortunately such statement assist those who enjoy their own self-righteous position and to promote anti-Semitism. You might note, unlike Wright, I do not subscribe to Replacement Theology.

And if you are hinting that I am anti-semetic,you need to recant your statement.

 

[Frogster]

Where have I suggested that the Gospel of John is NOT inspire. I have suggest that it is not HISTORIC - note the difference.



Indeed - a standard reading for those who subscribe to Replacement Theology - a position rejected by most respected scholars.

Paul was concerned that the end was nigh and the Christ would shortly return and that the 'problem' with the Gentiles had now be resolved through Christ death and resurrection. The 'apocalyptic' thinking clearly impacts on his writings and his urgency is therefore better understood. Standing in self-righteous justification in the 21 St century does tend to bend one's understanding of Paul.



Indeed the 'stone' is Christ and Paul's mission is of the essence give his apocalyptic vision of the end of times fast approaching. Indeed, it is BECAUSE the Gentiles are so receptive to his message that Paul is convinced that the end is indeed nigh - it proves his case.

But Paul is a master of the rhetoric - his writings are full of these flourishes - and this is another example (a bit like your example with John) - an 'author's license' as it were.

Paul was not suggesting that Israel had to follow the Gentiles. What Paul was illustrating was that the Jews did not grasp what Christ's death means for the Gentiles. What Paul hurls at Israel is that the goal of the Torah had been made manifest as far as the Gentiles were concerned and it is this failure in understanding how all things are coming together at this time that Paul lays at the feet of the Jews - not as what so often has been misquoted - to 'replace' the Torah.

As far as all this goes.....Your saying that all his writings and persecutions,and beatings were based on an end time mode? That is silly.You are forgetting the words of Jesus,and Paul's message.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel

The Lord spoke to Paul 3 times in Acts,to encourage him,no mention that Paul was not on message was there?

The Torah could not stand anymore,because it seperated Jew from Gentile.

Remember the words of Peter,who said it straight up.Gentiles were unclean under levitical laws in the Torah.They could not even intermarry,so how could the Torah stand?

Acts 10:28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean

 

[wayseer]

And if you are hinting that I am anti-semetic,you need to recant your statement.

You are the one making the statements.

 

[wayseer]

As far as all this goes.....Your saying that all his writings and persecutions,and beatings were based on an end time mode? That is silly.

Confined to the 'silly bin' again am I?

Rather than calling everything you fail to understand silly you might like to take the time to do some study. You might surprise yourself. On the other hand you could be so full of self-righteous endeavour that you could not possibly think that you might be possibly wrong.

The Torah could not stand anymore,because it seperated Jew from Gentile.

There's your anti-Semitism again. But I will leave you to indulge yourself. Enjoy.

 

[Frogster]

Confined to the 'silly bin' again am I?

Rather than calling everything you fail to understand silly you might like to take the time to do some study. You might surprise yourself. On the other hand you could be so full of self-righteous endeavour that you could not possibly think that you might be possibly wrong.



There's your anti-Semitism again. But I will leave you to indulge yourself. Enjoy.

You mentioned the silly bin prior.Now your name calling,when I asked you to recant that comment in your other post.This conversation can not go on now,as I do not talk with people who because they cant post scripture,try to compensate with name calling.Enjoy.

 

[wayseer]

You mentioned the silly bin prior.Now your name calling,when I asked you to recant that comment in your other post.This conversation can not go on now,as I do not talk with people who because they cant post scripture,try to compensate with name calling.Enjoy.

I return to point out that you are again in error. I have not called you anti-Semantic. Please read more carefully. What I did say was that your argument, your theological position (Replacement Theology), is anti-Semantic. I am sorry if you have the issues confused.

 

[MamaZ]

replacement theory?

 

[Frogster]

I return to point out that you are again in error. I have not called you anti-Semantic. Please read more carefully. What I did say was that your argument, your theological position (Replacement Theology), is anti-Semantic. I am sorry if you have the issues confused.

Fine.What I notice is I have posted alot of scripture which you really have not been able to refute the clear truth they convey.I prove Galatians was much more than a cultural battle,you cant disprove that.I prove by scripture that the Torah cant be lived under as New cov believers etc.So far your just hurling out things.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I return to point out that you are again in error. I have not called you anti-Semantic. Please read more carefully.
What I did say was that your argument, your theological position (Replacement Theology), is anti-Semantic. I am sorry if you have the issues confused.

What about "Replacement" of the OC Levitical priesthood?

Hebrews 7:12 For being translated/metatiqemenhV<3346> (5746) the Priesthood, out of necessity also, of Law a translation/metaqesiV <3331> is becoming/ginetai <1096> (5736),

Reve 5: 10 And Thou make them to the God of us Kings and Priests and they shall be reigning upon the land.

 

[Frogster]

What about "Replacement" of the OC Levitical priesthood?

Hebrews 7:12 For being translated/metatiqemenhV<3346> (5746) the Priesthood, out of necessity also, of Law a translation/metaqesiV <3331> is becoming/ginetai <1096> (5736),

Reve 5: 10 And Thou make them to the God of us Kings and Priests and they shall be reigning upon the land.

You are most wise. Yes..that cov was replaced.

2cor 3;11for if what was set aside came through glory, much more has the permanent come in glory!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You are most wise. Yes..that cov was replaced.

2cor 3;11for if what was set aside came through glory, much more has the permanent come in glory!

Nah.....just a "fool" for Christ like my bro Paul ehehe

1 Corinthians 3:18 No one self let be deluding!
If any is seeming wise to be in ye in the Age, this, a fool/mwroV <3474> let him be becoming!, that he may be becoming wise.

1 Corin 4:10 We are fools/mwroi <3474> because of Christ, ye yet prudent in Christ, we weak, ye strong, ye glorious we yet unhonored

3474. moros mo-ros' probably from the base of 3466; dull or stupid (as if shut up), i.e. heedless, (morally) blockhead, (apparently) absurd:--fool(-ish, X -ishness).

 

[Zeena]

Lets see what a 29 year old guy can do. lets see just how much intellect is required to understand justification is by faith.

Salvation is not a matter of intellect Frogster, otherwise, how would the simple be saved?

Salvation is a matter of faith, all around.

Faith in Jesus who paid the price at the cross.
Faith that He will never leave you, never abandon you to the wind or the flames.

Faith in Jesus, the Living God to infill you with the Power His Holy Spirit, as you seek Him.
Faith that He will complete His Work of salvation within you, conforming you the Eternal Image of The Son.

It's a matter of abiding in Christ by Grace, through faith.

We can do all things through Christ, Who is our Life

Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

 

[cyberlizard]

Not quite.The law seperated Jew from Gentile.They could not intermarry,and Gentiles were unclean,and Jew's could no associate with Gentiles under the old cov.

See Peter's words.They were considered unclean under the law,that is why the ceremonial laws were nailed to the tree,to end the laws.(Eph 2:15)

Acts 10;28And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

if jews and gentiles could have no dealings (your phrase 'no associate'), then how do you account for multiple verses in the torah which speak of Israel being a 'mixed multitude', or of verses in the Torah which speak of commandments relating to the 'stranger' or 'foreigner' (Heb: ger). Yes, there were restrictions on who could marry whom, but that is very different from saying Israel and the nations could not live with one another or have dealings together.

the acts scripture you cite is misleading as the word 'unlawful' does not use the root 'nomos' (the greek word for law/torah) but uses the word 'athemitos' which means contrary to custom... a better rendition of the verse would be 'And he said to them, “You yourselves know how it is against the custom for a Jew to have close contact with, or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

proof of point would be, show us a single verse in the Torah were it says gentiles are unclean?


Steve

 

[wayseer]

proof of point would be, show us a single verse in the Torah were it says gentiles are unclean?

Just a selection ...

Lev. 5:3 Or when you touch human uncleanness

Lev. 7:21 When any one of you touches any unclean thing—human uncleanness

Lev. 10:10 You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean

Num. 19:20 Any who are unclean but do not purify themselves

Num. 19:22 Whatever the unclean person touches shall be unclean, and anyone who touches it shall be unclean until evening.


The whole object of the purity laws was to separate Israel from anyone 'unclean'. Clearly only Jews could follow the complicated, convoluted and intricate purity laws which through practice would exclude anyone not following such laws, which would by necessity include everyone other than a Jew.

 

[Athanasias]

Has anyone heard of this? To me it sounds like some want to "re-evaluate'" scripture.He indicates that we need to learn about first century Judaism. He believes that what Paul meant by justification was an issue of Gentile and Jewish believers getting along and accepting one another. To me that sounds like a watering down of the book of Galatians.And obscuring what justification really is.

It is called NPP,new perspective on Paul.From what I have read on sites already,I dont like the smell of it.I also dont like when a scholar is given to much credence,or is over quoted.


One note I would like to add is this.As far as the climate of the first century goes,we saw the viloence of Paul against the Christians,and then we saw that same collective violence visited upon him,after conversion.So I think that stonings and beatings,give us a good idea,of the times.I say this because Wright indicates that he thinks that there was not a big problem between unsaved Jews,and Christians.

Actually there are several protestant scholars who are teaching this. They are teaching that Romans and really Galatians main concern is judaizing and circumcision in other words the works of the law were mosaic ritual laws. So when Paul say one is not justified by wortks fo the law he does not mean good works done in faith through grace he means mosaic ritual law of circumcision. This is true In fact this is one of several Catholic explanations. So they are coming to see for themselves the truth of these passages that the Catholic church has always taught./ We know for example that Romans 3 does focus on mosaic ritual laws of circumcision as does Galatians in context. Paul could not have meant just any works condemned. Paul in others passages of Rom,ans and Galatians speaks of good works(not mosaic ritual law) that do merit eternal life. Check out Romans 2:5-8, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:6-10. NT wright is a solid scholar but many protestants do not like his scholarship but many protestant also do appreciate his scholarship.

 

[Frogster]

Just a selection ...

Lev. 5:3 Or when you touch human uncleanness

Lev. 7:21 When any one of you touches any unclean thing—human uncleanness

Lev. 10:10 You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean

Num. 19:20 Any who are unclean but do not purify themselves

Num. 19:22 Whatever the unclean person touches shall be unclean, and anyone who touches it shall be unclean until evening.


The whole object of the purity laws was to separate Israel from anyone 'unclean'. Clearly only Jews could follow the complicated, convoluted and intricate purity laws which through practice would exclude anyone not following such laws, which would by necessity include everyone other than a Jew.

Exactly.

 

[Frogster]

if jews and gentiles could have no dealings (your phrase 'no associate'), then how do you account for multiple verses in the torah which speak of Israel being a 'mixed multitude', or of verses in the Torah which speak of commandments relating to the 'stranger' or 'foreigner' (Heb: ger). Yes, there were restrictions on who could marry whom, but that is very different from saying Israel and the nations could not live with one another or have dealings together.

the acts scripture you cite is misleading as the word 'unlawful' does not use the root 'nomos' (the greek word for law/torah) but uses the word 'athemitos' which means contrary to custom... a better rendition of the verse would be 'And he said to them, “You yourselves know how it is against the custom for a Jew to have close contact with, or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

proof of point would be, show us a single verse in the Torah were it says gentiles are unclean?


Steve

Wayseer has done a good job of explaining to you.

Something else for you about what Peter said.Check out the definition for unclean,it was levitically.

Acts 10:28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.


Greek for unclean in that verse.Acts 10:28 (akathartos 169)
Definition:1) not cleansed, unclean
1a) in a ceremonial sense: that which must be abstained from
according to the levitical law
1b) in a moral sense: unclean in thought and life

 

[Frogster]

Salvation is not a matter of intellect Frogster, otherwise, how would the simple be saved?

Salvation is a matter of faith, all around.

Faith in Jesus who paid the price at the cross.
Faith that He will never leave you, never abandon you to the wind or the flames.

Faith in Jesus, the Living God to infill you with the Power His Holy Spirit, as you seek Him.
Faith that He will complete His Work of salvation within you, conforming you the Eternal Image of The Son.

It's a matter of abiding in Christ by Grace, through faith.

We can do all things through Christ, Who is our Life

Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

I agree,I think you may have misunderstood what I said.

 

[Frogster]

Actually there are several protestant scholars who are teaching this. They are teaching that Romans and really Galatians main concern is judaizing and circumcision in other words the works of the law were mosaic ritual laws. So when Paul say one is not justified by wortks fo the law he does not mean good works done in faith through grace he means mosaic ritual law of circumcision.

Yes,but circumcision,meant conversion,which meant obligation tothe whole law.

Gal 5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

This is true In fact this is one of several Catholic explanations. So they are coming to see for themselves the truth of these passages that the Catholic church has always taught./ We know for example that Romans 3 does focus on mosaic ritual laws of circumcision as does Galatians in context. Paul could not have meant just any works condemned. Paul in others passages of Rom,ans and Galatians speaks of good works(not mosaic ritual law) that do merit eternal life. Check out Romans 2:5-8, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:6-10. NT wright is a solid scholar but many protestants do not like his scholarship but many protestant also do appreciate his scholarship.

Yes.I also have read his work,and enjoy some.At least he has the guts to says that these verses are the Torah.

col 2;14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.


eph 2;15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

Yes,I agree works can mean deeds.

Works in the greek,is extremely broad.It means ANY work.So in that sense,we have to also go by context.


Ok,as far as gal 5:6,that could be rendered as "jew or gentile",because dont forget the context.It came after alot of work,explaining against circumcision(conversion).In the end,Paul could be reafirming an earlier point..in essence..this..

Gal 3;28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

In other words,why would he all of the sudden,turn around and say..oh go ahead,forget all I just told you about..

That is why I take it to mean Gal 3;28.