NT Wright,re-evaluating Paul?

[MamaZ]

I wonder how all those who are busy looking for 'personal relationships' would look upon your 'assurance'.

The rather more obvious point is - if Paul 'met' this Jesus it must have been a very different Jesus to the one who had met with James, Peter, John et al.

Why do you say that?

 

[MamaZ]

It matters not that they were Jews. For in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. For in Christ one is a new creation and part of the Spiritual Kingdom of God. Not the fleshly one according to the law.

 

[Frogster]

I wonder how all those who are busy looking for 'personal relationships' would look upon your 'assurance'.

The rather more obvious point is - if Paul 'met' this Jesus it must have been a very different Jesus to the one who had met with James, Peter, John et al.

Then show 2 or threee "different" ones (Jesus) in the scriptures.

 

[wayseer]

It matters not that they were Jews. For in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. For in Christ one is a new creation and part of the Spiritual Kingdom of God. Not the fleshly one according to the law.

You have taken scripture out of context to support your own view.

Here is the full quote ...

'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.'

... which did not mean the end of slavery was nigh. Likewise, neither did Judaism end, nor Greek culture, nor male or female suddenly become something else.

What Paul means is that we are all 'free' to become part of God's creation - one no longer needs to be born into some exclusive order despite our cultural baggage.

 

[wayseer]

Then show 2 or threee "different" ones (Jesus) in the scriptures.

As I indicated previously - stop jumping on the computer and go and read the Bible then you wont have to keep asking for scripture every time you don't understand something.

 

[Frogster]

So, tell me, what do you think this 'new foundation' is exactly? A rock?



Open the Bible - in the OT you will find all the 613 commandments which Jews must met.

Jesus was a Jew, as was Paul, as was James et al.



What church? What yoke?

For all your quoting of scripture it appears you don't know what Paul is talking about.

Yes I quote,because you dont!

So what is this 'yoke'?

[Hint - it is NOT the 'law']

PS. IF you are so concerned with scripture how is it you are interested in what Wright might say at all? Or do you subscribe to the 'literal'

Jesus,Peter,Paul,Steven,stood on the scriptures,so I will be happy to join them in the "silly bin"

are interpretation of scripture and what anyone else says is consigned to the 'silly bin'?

No,your tactc is obvious.It is circular.613,yes,who does not know that? your point?

Your rock comment does not disprove the fact,that there is a church,no more circles please.

The yoke is the law.Read Acts 15, I already posted it,where it was reference to the law,as per Peter.Said again by Paul in Galatians.

Prove it was not the law?.See I can ger circular too.The whole context was about the law.

ok,here we go again.Stay with me dude.

First it says no YOKE OF SLAVERY.

5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Then it says if you accept circumcision,you are abligated to keep the WHOLE LAW.That is obviously the YOKE OF SLAVERY,IN THE PREVIOUS VERSE.

2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

There is more,but here is another verse to show it was about Paul not wanting law for the Galatian churches.

Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?

Gentiles are not in the old cov.

30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”

 

[Frogster]

As I indicated previously - stop jumping on the computer and go and read the Bible then you wont have to keep asking for scripture every time you don't understand something.

Yawn,your just acusing,and raising silly questions,your MO,is getting apparent,Show me scripture.

 

[wayseer]

.... and you still don't know what Paul is talking about.

 

[Frogster]

You have taken scripture out of context to support your own view.

Here is the full quote ...

'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.'

... which did not mean the end of slavery was nigh. Likewise, neither did Judaism end, nor Greek culture, nor male or female suddenly become something else.

What Paul means is that we are all 'free' to become part of God's creation - one no longer needs to be born into some exclusive order despite our cultural baggage.

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.

 

[Frogster]

.... and you still don't know what Paul is talking about.

And your just hurling unsubstantiated scriptureless claims.Show me scripture.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It matters not that they were Jews. For in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. For in Christ one is a new creation and part of the Spiritual Kingdom of God. Not the fleshly one according to the law.

So much Truth in so few words

 

[MamaZ]

You have taken scripture out of context to support your own view.

Here is the full quote ...

'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.'

... which did not mean the end of slavery was nigh. Likewise, neither did Judaism end, nor Greek culture, nor male or female suddenly become something else.

What Paul means is that we are all 'free' to become part of God's creation - one no longer needs to be born into some exclusive order despite our cultural baggage.

Incorrect. We may be born female with different roles in our lives here on earth.. We may be born greek according to our flesh. We are to be born again in order to enter into Gods Kingdom. This is a Spiritual rebirth wrought by God. So in order to be in Christ one must be born again. Judaism has not ended true nor did the greek culture but when one is born again we are brought together through not culture nor Judiasm but through the very Spirit of God.. This is what Paul is stating..

 

[wayseer]

Incorrect. We may be born female with different roles in our lives here on earth.. We may be born greek according to our flesh. We are to be born again in order to enter into Gods Kingdom. This is a Spiritual rebirth wrought by God. So in order to be in Christ one must be born again. Judaism has not ended true nor did the greek culture but when one is born again we are brought together through not culture nor Judiasm but through the very Spirit of God.. This is what Paul is stating..

I am willing to be corrected. Please show me where Paul says anything about being 'born again'.

 

[Frogster]

I am willing to be corrected. Please show me where Paul says anything about being 'born again'.

Boy! before yopu implied the "silly Bin" for those who take the bible literally,now you seek literalsim.

Ok,first we see Jesus.

John 3:3
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

John 3:7
Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[1] must be born again.’

Then we have Peter.

1 Peter 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,


1 Peter 1:23
since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;

Now,read this,and tell me if you do not see Paul saying "born again".

Romans 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

And...

Romans 6:8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.

There you have it.

 

[wayseer]

There you have it.

There I have what?

All you have done is confirmed that Paul said nothing about being 'born again'.

This thread is about PAUL and what he has contributed. The argument was made that it does not matter what we are we are all 'born again' (whatever that may mean). I have just pointed out that PAUL never said anything about needing to be 'born again'.

And as Paul wrote decades before anyone else put words on paper it seems that Paul's association with Jesus was rather different to what came later.

So please tell me where Paul advocated that everyone has to be the same? Show me where Paul wanted to start a new Christian church.

What Paul was on about is that one is justified through faith and not by adhering to the 'law'. Paul said nothing about Jews to stop being Jewish - he wanted Gentiles to be accepted through their faith commitment and not by their 'becoming' Jews through conforming to Jewish custom and ritual. The 'others' - the Jerusalem mob - wanted all converts to undergo the full monty - that is the difference between the two groups. Justification through 'faith' or through 'works'.

 

[MamaZ]

I am willing to be corrected. Please show me where Paul says anything about being 'born again'.

Jesus states one must be born again. Saul was born again.. Peter was born again. It is the regeneration of the Holy Spirit wrought by God. This is the Spiritual kingdom.

 

[Frogster]

There I have what?

All you have done is confirmed that Paul said nothing about being 'born again'.

This thread is about PAUL and what he has contributed. The argument was made that it does not matter what we are we are all 'born again' (whatever that may mean). I have just pointed out that PAUL never said anything about needing to be 'born again'.

And as Paul wrote decades before anyone else put words on paper it seems that Paul's association with Jesus was rather different to what came later.

So please tell me where Paul advocated that everyone has to be the same? Show me where Paul wanted to start a new Christian church.

What Paul was on about is that one is justified through faith and not by adhering to the 'law'. Paul said nothing about Jews to stop being Jewish - he wanted Gentiles to be accepted through their faith commitment and not by their 'becoming' Jews through conforming to Jewish custom and ritual. The 'others' - the Jerusalem mob - wanted all converts to undergo the full monty - that is the difference between the two groups. Justification through 'faith' or through 'works'.

Dead,then alive,that sounds like being born again to me.

Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—

Of course a person can be a Jewish Chrisitian,but the law was removed which was a major part of Judaism.If the law was not removed,there could not be one people.

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,

Also,Paul said he stopped his Judaisitc lifestyle as far as the law went.Peter did to,as per the confrontation where Paul said he was living as a Gentile.

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].

 

[wayseer]

Jesus states one must be born again.

Jesus did not state such. Mark (written some time in the 70s AD) is silent on the issue as is Matthew and Luke (written sometime during the 70 - 90s AD). Only John (written late 1st century) makes any mention of requiring to be 'born again'. John is more gnostic than any of the other Gospels and can in now way be interpreted as 'history'.

Saul was born again.. Peter was born again.

None of these make any reference to being 'born again'.

The trouble with using Christian jargon is that before using it one should be conversant with the genesis of such terms - otherwise all one is doing is repeating, mantra like, what someone else has said.

So to get back to the original point of discussion - Paul was NOT talking about everyone being 'born again' because he knew nothing about the new jingoistic jargon being invented at some time in the future.

The drum Paul was beating was that scripture had come to pass for the Gentiles and they were welcomed into the Kingdom of God through their FAITH. Israel was still accepted into the Kingdom through WORKS of the law. Paul makes it abundantly clear that as a Jew he still practiced as a Jew. And despite Paul's caution, unfortunately, Christians have become arrogant and proud of their inclusion and now boast that Paul was somehow 'born again' and it is the Jews who have been left behind - Paul apparently no longer being a Jew. Perhaps Jesus was not really a Jew?

 

[Frogster]

Jesus did not state such. Mark (written some time in the 70s AD) is silent on the issue as is Matthew and Luke (written sometime during the 70 - 90s AD). Only John (written late 1st century) makes any mention of requiring to be 'born again'. John is more gnostic than any of the other Gospels and can in now way be interpreted as 'history'.



None of these make any reference to being 'born again'.

The trouble with using Christian jargon is that before using it one should be conversant with the genesis of such terms - otherwise all one is doing is repeating, mantra like, what someone else has said.

So to get back to the original point of discussion - Paul was NOT talking about everyone being 'born again' because he knew nothing about the new jingoistic jargon being invented at some time in the future.

The drum Paul was beating was that scripture had come to pass for the Gentiles and they were welcomed into the Kingdom of God through their FAITH. Israel was still accepted into the Kingdom through WORKS of the law. Paul makes it abundantly clear that as a Jew he still practiced as a Jew. And despite Paul's caution, unfortunately, Christians have become arrogant and proud of their inclusion and now boast that Paul was somehow 'born again' and it is the Jews who have been left behind - Paul apparently no longer being a Jew. Perhaps Jesus was not really a Jew?

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

Show me where Jews are saved by works of the law,post scripture,there are many to disprove you,but I will just post two,unless you want more,let me know.


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.

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

 

[wayseer]

Dead,then alive,that sounds like being born again to me.

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

Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—

Ephesians was NOT written by Paul.

Also,Paul said he stopped his Judaisitc lifestyle as far as the law went.Peter did to,as per the confrontation where Paul said he was living as a Gentile.

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

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].

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.