NT Wright,re-evaluating Paul?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Once again, I confess to you that I am still in the process of exploring this topic for myself, so I am not the best person to articulate specifics. If you are looking for a more thoroughly researched opinion on this topic, you might begin with this article: [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]New Perspectives on Paul. It is only 17 pages long, so it should not take you any longer than one might normally spend on CF in a day.[/FONT]

Forget NT Wright and just focus on the Bible itself

 

[dies-l]

Wait a minute..lol..that is another topic that I love,but is really another thread.I would like to see this,"change in the epistles".Thanks!

I think that this is all ties together in the NPP thread. I am not going to debate or discuss the development of Paul's theology at this point, because I admit that I am still in the process of really looking at it from this perspective. As for the topic of what it means to be under the law, from what I have read so far, this is a central question in understanding Paul's teaching from a first century perspective (which is ultimately what the NPP discussion is about, is it not?).

So, I guess I am at a loss here. You want to discuss N.T. Wrights take on NPP, but you do not want to read anything that he has written on the subject, and now it seems that you do not want to discuss the main theological issues that NPP seeks to resolve, namely the question of what it means to be under Grace. I am not quite sure how to have an intelligent discussion with you under those conditions.

 

[dies-l]

Forget NT Wright and just focus on the Bible itself

I do focus on Scripture, but, if the question is whether I agree with NT Wright, it would be difficult to make that assessment without findout first finding out what NT Wright has to say. Also, it never hurts one's understanding of Scripture to read it in light of quality historical and theological scholarship. Obviously, Scripture trumps the opinions of theologians, but theologians, biblicists, and historians have a lot to offer the Christian who has a serious desire to understand Scripture.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I do focus on Scripture, but, if the question is whether I agree with NT Wright, it would be difficult to make that assessment without findout first finding out what NT Wright has to say. Also, it never hurts one's understanding of Scripture to read it in light of quality historical and theological scholarship. Obviously, Scripture trumps the opinions of theologians, but theologians, biblicists, and historians have a lot to offer the Christian who has a serious desire to understand Scripture.

Ahhh. I understand

Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better? - Christian Forums
Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

 

[Frogster]

I think that this is all ties together in the NPP thread. I am not going to debate or discuss the development of Paul's theology at this point, because I admit that I am still in the process of really looking at it from this perspective. As for the topic of what it means to be under the law, from what I have read so far, this is a central question in understanding Paul's teaching from a first century perspective (which is ultimately what the NPP discussion is about, is it not?).

So, I guess I am at a loss here. You want to discuss N.T. Wrights take on NPP, but you do not want to read anything that he has written on the subject, and now it seems that you do not want to discuss the main theological issues that NPP seeks to resolve, namely the question of what it means to be under Grace. I am not quite sure how to have an intelligent discussion with you under those conditions.

Well..you seemed to agree with ebia,that Paul was expanding,or learning,or something like that anyway.You mentioned a school kid or Paul's development.So I asked to see it in scripture.Should be pretty easy,wheter you hold the plenary idea,or dictatorial.

 

[Frogster]

I think that this is all ties together in the NPP thread. I am not going to debate or discuss the development of Paul's theology at this point, because I admit that I am still in the process of really looking at it from this perspective. As for the topic of what it means to be under the law, from what I have read so far, this is a central question in understanding Paul's teaching from a first century perspective (which is ultimately what the NPP discussion is about, is it not?).

So, I guess I am at a loss here. You want to discuss N.T. Wrights take on NPP, but you do not want to read anything that he has written on the subject, and now it seems that you do not want to discuss the main theological issues that NPP seeks to resolve, namely the question of what it means to be under Grace. I am not quite sure how to have an intelligent discussion with you under those conditions.

Ok,so apparently there is no discrepency,or "evolving Paul".Now you mentioned another NT theme,knowing first century Judaism.Ok,lets see some facts that would prove that Paul did not mean what the apparent conclusion was,when reading his works.After all he was a first century Jew,who wrote out of that time zone.

 

[Frogster]

What I mean is this.Lets see how "knowing first century Judaism" would alter the clear intent of the scripture,in any substantial way.Like if you could post scripture,but then say,it did not mean this or that,if you know what I am saying.

 

[dies-l]

What I mean is this.Lets see how "knowing first century Judaism" would alter the clear intent of the scripture,in any substantial way.Like if you could post scripture,but then say,it did not mean this or that,if you know what I am saying.

How do you know that "clear intent of Scripture" is without knowing the cultural context in which it was written? Do we interpret meaning in Scripture according to the "clear intent" of what it would mean to a person who spoke the same words today? Or, do we look to determine "the clear intent" of the words would have meant to the person who actually said them (or a similarly situated person in the same cultural context)? Language is strongly dictated by culture, and an elementary principal of exigesis (a fancy word for biblical interpretation) is that the cultural context is an essential element of meaning.

 

[max1120]

Paul needs to be revaluated but also looked at for what he was, very anti-woman, had a very big problem with sexulity (his own and others), and likely suffered from mental illness acording to some psychistric pathologist, he may have been bipolar. His writtings do suggest this as a possible explanation of his "road to Domacus" converson.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Paul needs to be revaluated but also looked at for what he was, very anti-woman, had a very big problem with sexulity (his own and others), and likely suffered from mental illness acording to some psychistric pathologist, he may have been bipolar. His writtings do suggest this as a possible explanation of his "road to Domacus" converson.

HUH?

 

[max1120]

By that I mean that if you read his account of what happen on the "road to domacus" one could see it as a hellucination of the variaty sometimes associated with bipolar disorder. He also tended to teach a very anti-female form of theology. He sees women as less worthy of trust. He has issues with almost all forms of sexuality including masturbation. He actually seems to support the idea of becoming a eunich and sees this a better than marriage. His theology is one of absolute self denial, especially denial of the flesh.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

By that I mean that if you read his account of what happen on the "road to domacus" one could see it as a hellucination of the variaty sometimes associated with bipolar disorder. He also tended to teach a very anti-female form of theology. He sees women as less worthy of trust. He has issues with almost all forms of sexuality including masturbation. He actually seems to support the idea of becoming a eunich and sees this a better than marriage. His theology is one of absolute self denial, especially denial of the flesh.

Perhaps that is why the Jews and Muslims [and some sects of the Messianics] view him as a "false Apostle".

I sure as heck hope that your view isn't the views of others here concerning my bro

Paul the false apostle

Paul
The False Apostle​

 

[Frogster]

How do you know that "clear intent of Scripture" is without knowing the cultural context in which it was written? Do we interpret meaning in Scripture according to the "clear intent" of what it would mean to a person who spoke the same words today? Or, do we look to determine "the clear intent" of the words would have meant to the person who actually said them (or a similarly situated person in the same cultural context)? Language is strongly dictated by culture, and an elementary principal of exigesis (a fancy word for biblical interpretation) is that the cultural context is an essential element of meaning.

I know what exigesis is,and I also know when somone is avoiding the issue.Lets see what it is needed,give examples,where the clear intent,is somehow not able to be read and understood.The law was the law of Moses,613 of them,grace was grace,the law was nailed to a tree,no one is justified by law,the law strengthens sin,ceremonial laws were nailed to a tree,Paul died to the moral law also in Rom 7.I dunno..what great exigesis was needed for that?

 

[Frogster]

Perhaps that is why the Jews and Muslims [and some sects of the Messianics] view him as a "false Apostle".

I sure as heck hope that your view isn't the views of others here concerning my bro

Paul the false apostle

Paul

The False Apostle​

thats right!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

thats right!

What I find so ironic and uncanny was how much the guy in the top middle with the cropped beard and mustache and the female sitting in front right of this picture resembles my brothers' son in law and daughter!!! Both of whom are Messianics......:o

edit to delete picture.....copied in post #137

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/index.htm#Outline%20Mark

​

 

[ebia]

No.You made a statement,back it up please.

I really think it is an exercise one needs to do for oneself, but (as I said) if it were to be done for you I couldn't do it, because I didn't come from the Evangelical tradition in question, so I can (and have done) the equivalent exercise for myself, but I can't do the same one.

Why would reading the epistles in a different order ,change one's views if Galatians?

What tends to happen in Evangelical circles (and there are equivalents in other traditions) is that Galatians and Romans get read first, a picture is built up of an individualised system of salvation, and then the rest of the epistles are read in the light of that. But what one finds is that the prison letters don't fit into that very well in places, which is what leads some to then question whether they were written by the same person. On the other hand, if you start with the prison letters you end up with sufficiently different picture that all the letters gell really well and the question of authorship never arises. It's not that you end up with a radically different picture of Galatians, but a subtly different one more in tune with Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians.

 

[ebia]

Thanks about the sig,ribit ribit!
Gal,Eph,Phil,and Col,were all wirtten about the same time period.Alowing room for Gal.Can you please show me discrepency that would have some substance to show all this expanding revelation in the mentioned books.About the law,and justification.

I think we have gone of track. As I understand it, Wright isn't suggesting we read them for a development of ideas in Paul so much as in the order that assists our development of the ideas. And not there are discrepancies, but that people who read Galatians/Romans first and the Prison letter second tend to find discrepancies or at least bits that don't fit well, which simply doesn't happen if you read them the other way around.

Don't worry, it's not suddenly going to completely change the reading of Galatians so you are required to keep the law or anything like that. We are talking about much more subtle ideas than that - eg that Colossians and Ephesians are much more concerned with salvation of all creation so if we read them first we avoid reading Galatians and Romans in the over-individualised way common in the modern western world.

On the subject of dates, it's maybe worth noting that Tom Wright dates the prison letters to Paul's imprisonment in Ephesus, not Rome, and therefore has them much closer in date to Galatians and Romans than most scholars.

 

[Frogster]

What I find so ironic and uncanny was how much the guy in the top middle with the cropped beard and mustache and the female sitting in front right of this picture resembles my brothers' son in law and daughter!!! Both of whom are Messianics......:o


Yeshua/Jesus and Judaism versus Paul and Christianity

I dont get it though? Is that your family.or as you texans say.."kin"?

 

[ebia]

Paul needs to be revaluated but also looked at for what he was, very anti-woman, had a very big problem with sexulity (his own and others), and likely suffered from mental illness acording to some psychistric pathologist, he may have been bipolar. His writtings do suggest this as a possible explanation of his "road to Domacus" converson.

Just to make it clear, that this is a view that Tom Wright would definitely not support - indeed he shows quite well that Paul is not anti-women (for example) but has been consistently misread that way.

 

[Frogster]

I think we have gone of track. As I understand it, Wright isn't suggesting we read them for a development of ideas in Paul so much as in the order that assists our development of the ideas. And not there are discrepancies, but that people who read Galatians/Romans first and the Prison letter second tend to find discrepancies or at least bits that don't fit well, which simply doesn't happen if you read them the other way around.

Don't worry, it's not suddenly going to completely change the reading of Galatians so you are required to keep the law or anything like that. We are talking about much more subtle ideas than that - eg that Colossians and Ephesians are much more concerned with salvation of all creation so if we read them first we avoid reading Galatians and Romans in the over-individualised way common in the modern western world.

On the subject of dates, it's maybe worth noting that Tom Wright dates the prison letters to Paul's imprisonment in Ephesus, not Rome, and therefore has them much closer in date to Galatians and Romans than most scholars.

I am just looking for you to back it up.Give me an example how the order of the reading of the epistles,would alter my perception of Galatians,or any other book that is about,or has justification in it.Do you have any scripture to offer,as far as Paul's learning or evolution when it came to law/grace?Give me something besides alot of this or that,show me.Show me how somehow I need this vast knowledge of first century Judaism to understand Romans or Galatians,to "understand" what the climate was,in order to know what Paul is saying.