Home > Archive > Cobol > February 2008 > Re: Some More Background on St. Paul
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Some More Background on St. Paul
|
|
| HeyBub 2008-02-09, 6:55 pm |
| SkippyPB wrote:
> I should have included this in my post to HeyBub. Sorry. I'm so slow
> sometimes.
>
> Saul (as he was known before he converted) was born into a well-to-do
> Jewish family of Tarsus (a city and a large district in Mersin
> Province, Turkey), the son of a Roman citizen, was sent to Jerusalem
> to be trained in the famous rabbinical school headed by Gamaliel.
>
> Here, in addition to studying the Law and the Prophets, he learned a
> trade, as was the custom. Young Saul chose the trade of tent-making.
> Although his upbringing was orthodox, while still at home in Tarsus he
> had come under the liberalizing Hellenic influences which at this time
> had permeated all levels of urban society in Asia Minor. Thus the
> Judaic, Roman, and Gr traditions and cultures all had a part in
> shaping him, who was so different in status and temperament from the
> humble fishermen of Jesus' initial band of disciples. His missionary
> journeys were to give him the flexibility and the deep sympathy that
> made him the ideal human instrument for preaching Christ's Gospel of
> world brotherhood.
Ah, right. Thanks for refreshing my memory. With Paul's Gr and Roman
background, he would have no conceptual problem with the notion of a god
walking around on earth, a feat clearly impossible from a Jewish
perspective. Also the notion of a god siring a human or semi-divine child
has ample precedent in the religions prevalent in Paul's native lands -
concepts similarily unthinkable to the Jews.
As I may have said before, Jews then, and now, have little trouble with
anything Jesus is reported to have said or done. Paul, however, is a
different matter altogether...
As an aside, we do have a report, probably aphocryphal, that Paul flunked
out of Gamaliel's yeshiva.
Of course Paul is not the only Jew that other Jews have scratched their
heads over. Spinoza was one. Then there was Joseph ben Matthias.
When new of the revolt in Judea reached Nero in A.D. 66, the emperor was
enjoying a season of games and hunting in southern Greece. Nero promptly
dispatched one of his sycophants, Vespasian, to settle the hash. Vespasian,
whose only previous military victory was conquering the Isle of Mann,
assembled an enormous army and set out for the troubled region, collecting
more forces as he went. He reached the northern Galilee in the early spring.
The northern Jewish command was lead by the aforementioned Matthias.
Vespasian laid siege to the town of Jotapata, built enormous earthworks,
towers, and artillery, somewhat akin to attacking Giggleswick with the
Afrika Corps. After fighting valiantly for about an hour, Matthais and a
dozen or so of his followers took refuge in a nearby cave. There, Matthais
convinced his band to commit suicide by the drawing of lots. By complete
chance, Matthais himself drew the last lot and lost no time in surrendering.
Vespasian took a liking to the young Matthais and had him accompany the
expedition. Shortly after the sack of Jerusalem, Nero died and Vespasian was
recalled to Rome to assume the mantle of Emperor, leaving his son, Titus, in
charge of mopping up. Matthais went with Vespasian to Rome and, believe it
or not, Vespasian adopted Matthais.
In gratitude, Matthais Latinized his given name and took the family name of
his adoptive father. Under his new name of Flavius Josephus, he began to
write the history of his interesting life.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2008-02-09, 6:55 pm |
|
"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13qrjr7drpuh94b@corp.supernews.com...
> SkippyPB wrote:
>
> Ah, right. Thanks for refreshing my memory. With Paul's Gr and Roman
> background, he would have no conceptual problem with the notion of a god
> walking around on earth, a feat clearly impossible from a Jewish
> perspective. Also the notion of a god siring a human or semi-divine child
> has ample precedent in the religions prevalent in Paul's native lands -
> concepts similarily unthinkable to the Jews.
>
> As I may have said before, Jews then, and now, have little trouble with
> anything Jesus is reported to have said or done. Paul, however, is a
> different matter altogether...
>
> As an aside, we do have a report, probably aphocryphal, that Paul flunked
> out of Gamaliel's yeshiva.
>
> Of course Paul is not the only Jew that other Jews have scratched their
> heads over. Spinoza was one. Then there was Joseph ben Matthias.
>
> When new of the revolt in Judea reached Nero in A.D. 66, the emperor was
> enjoying a season of games and hunting in southern Greece. Nero promptly
> dispatched one of his sycophants, Vespasian, to settle the hash.
> Vespasian, whose only previous military victory was conquering the Isle of
> Mann, assembled an enormous army and set out for the troubled region,
> collecting more forces as he went. He reached the northern Galilee in the
> early spring.
>
> The northern Jewish command was lead by the aforementioned Matthias.
> Vespasian laid siege to the town of Jotapata, built enormous earthworks,
> towers, and artillery, somewhat akin to attacking Giggleswick with the
> Afrika Corps. After fighting valiantly for about an hour, Matthais and a
> dozen or so of his followers took refuge in a nearby cave. There, Matthais
> convinced his band to commit suicide by the drawing of lots. By complete
> chance, Matthais himself drew the last lot and lost no time in
> surrendering.
>
> Vespasian took a liking to the young Matthais and had him accompany the
> expedition. Shortly after the sack of Jerusalem, Nero died and Vespasian
> was recalled to Rome to assume the mantle of Emperor, leaving his son,
> Titus, in charge of mopping up. Matthais went with Vespasian to Rome and,
> believe it or not, Vespasian adopted Matthais.
>
> In gratitude, Matthais Latinized his given name and took the family name
> of his adoptive father. Under his new name of Flavius Josephus, he began
> to write the history of his interesting life.
Fascinating...
I never knew Josephus was a Jew.
I also have severe reservations about Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus). My problem
with him is nothing to do with religion; it is simply based on his
observable behaviors. To build an entire religion on the actions of this man
seems to me to be risky in the extreme.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-10, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:26:03 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:13qrjr7drpuh94b@corp.supernews.com...
>Fascinating...
>
>I never knew Josephus was a Jew.
>
>I also have severe reservations about Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus). My problem
>with him is nothing to do with religion; it is simply based on his
>observable behaviors. To build an entire religion on the actions of this man
>seems to me to be risky in the extreme.
>
>Pete.
The "entire" Catholic religion was not built solely on St. Paul's
writings. St. Peter and the other apostles as well as gospel writers
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had just as much, if not more, influence.
St. Paul was a profuse writer and converted many thousands of people,
both Jews and Gentiles, to Christianity. True that his early life was
distasteful but it only goes to show that nearly anyone can find God
and have a 180 degree change in their life.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"You can't kill your way to security, and you
can't lead through scaring people."
--Bruce Springsteen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Richard 2008-02-10, 6:55 pm |
| On Feb 10, 1:26 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:13qrjr7drpuh94b@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fascinating...
>
> I never knew Josephus was a Jew.
>
> I also have severe reservations about Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus). My problem
> with him is nothing to do with religion; it is simply based on his
> observable behaviors. To build an entire religion on the actions of this man
> seems to me to be risky in the extreme.
He was probably better than most.
I find it interesting to see how, and why, religions have been built.
In particular, for example, Rastafarian. I can see many parallels,
though I doubt that christians would.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2008-02-10, 6:55 pm |
|
"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:l4auq3ldgaaui7qvnh1l9u30p7l0b3t9nn@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:26:03 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> The "entire" Catholic religion was not built solely on St. Paul's
> writings. St. Peter and the other apostles as well as gospel writers
> Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had just as much, if not more, influence.
> St. Paul was a profuse writer and converted many thousands of people,
> both Jews and Gentiles, to Christianity. True that his early life was
> distasteful but it only goes to show that nearly anyone can find God
> and have a 180 degree change in their life.
But he was no less manic, vicious, and obsessive AFTER his catharsis on the
road to Damascus, than he was BEFORE it. He just directed his focus in a
different direction. When he was persecuting the Christians he was a
bastard, but when he does the same behaviours promoting Christianity, he
becomes a Saint...
Sorry, Steve, it doesn't work for me. :-)
Pete.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-11, 6:55 pm |
| "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
> SkippyPB wrote:
>
> Ah, right. Thanks for refreshing my memory. With Paul's Gr and Roman background, he would have no conceptual problem with the
> notion of a god walking around on earth, a feat clearly impossible from a Jewish perspective.
I don't see why you say that. The account of the "men" and Abraham in
Genesis 18 uses language clearly indicating that one of the "men" was God
Himself, walking around in the form of a man (e.g. Genesis 18:22,23). :-)
Genesis also clearly says that Adam and Eve "heard the sound of God
walking in the garden" *Genesis 3:8).
Jacob wrestled all night with a "man" and the "man" said Jacob had wrestled
"with God" (Genesis 32:28). Note that, like Genesis 18, the text says "man"
not "angel" (messenger), and refers to the "man" as God.
There are a number of other bodily appearances of God, where the context
indicates it isn't merely an angel (messenger), but a physical manifestation of
God Himself. These pre-Christ incarnations of God are called "thophenies."
So I can't imagine on what basis you would say such a thing is "a feat clearly
impossible from a Jewish perspective." :-)
> As I may have said before, Jews then, and now, have little trouble with anything Jesus is reported to have said or done. Paul,
> however, is a different matter altogether...
If that is true, then why did the Jews insist that Jesus be crucified? Pilate,
the Roman governor, said Jesus was innocent and wanted to release Him. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-11, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:46:31 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:l4auq3ldgaaui7qvnh1l9u30p7l0b3t9nn@
4ax.com...
>
>But he was no less manic, vicious, and obsessive AFTER his catharsis on the
>road to Damascus, than he was BEFORE it. He just directed his focus in a
>different direction. When he was persecuting the Christians he was a
>bastard, but when he does the same behaviours promoting Christianity, he
>becomes a Saint...
>
>Sorry, Steve, it doesn't work for me. :-)
>
>Pete.
>
Pete I don't agree with your assertion that St. Paul's attitude and
behavior was just as bad after he converted as it was before he
converted. Here's an excerpt from a letter he wrote to the Galatians:
“The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this, the Good News
I preached is not a human message that I was given by men, it is
something I learned only through a revelation of Jesus Christ. You
must have heard of my career as a practicing Jew, how merciless I was
in persecuting the Church of God, how much damage I did to it, how I
stood out among other Jews of my generation, and how enthusiastic I
was for the traditions of my ancestors.
Then God, who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s
womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his Son in me,
so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did
not stop to discuss this with any human being, nor did I go up to
Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went
off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to
Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit
Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the
other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear
before God that what I have just written is the literal truth. After
that I went to Syria and Cilicia, and was still not known by sight to
the churches of Christ in Judaea, who had heard nothing except that
their one-time persecutor was now preaching the faith he had
previously tried to destroy; and they gave glory to God for me.”
He was a tireless preacher and writer, but to compare his before
conversion life to his after is like comparing night to day. He
realized how much of a "bastard" (to use your word) he was before hand
and took great pains to atone for those actions.
Each day he aimed ever higher; each day he rose up with greater ardor
and faced with new eagerness the dangers that threatened him. He
summed up his attitude in the words: "I forget what is behind me and
push on to what lies ahead."
When he saw death imminent, he bade others share his joy: "Rejoice and
be glad with me!" And when danger, injustice and abuse threatened, he
said: "I am content with weakness, mistreatment and persecution."
These he called the weapons of righteousness, thus telling us that he
derived immense profit from them.
Thus, amid the traps set for him by his enemies, with exultant heart
he turned their every attack into a victory for himself; constantly
beaten, abused and cursed, he boasted of it as though he were
celebrating a triumphal procession and taking trophies home, and
offered thanks to God for it all: "Thanks be to God who is always
victorious in us!"
This is why he was far more eager for the shameful abuse that his zeal
in preaching brought upon him than we are for the most pleasing
honours, more eager for death than we are for life, for poverty than
we are for wealth; he yearned for toil far more than others yearn for
rest after toil. The one thing he feared, indeed dreaded, was to
offend God; nothing else could sway him. Therefore, the only thing he
really wanted was always to please God.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
SAM: "What's shaking Norm?"
NORM: "All four chs and a couple of chins."
--From U.S. TV Show, "Cheers"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-11, 6:55 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't see why you say that. The account of the "men" and Abraham in
> Genesis 18 uses language clearly indicating that one of the "men" was
> God Himself, walking around in the form of a man (e.g. Genesis
> 18:22,23). :-)
> Genesis also clearly says that Adam and Eve "heard the sound of God
> walking in the garden" *Genesis 3:8).
>
> Jacob wrestled all night with a "man" and the "man" said Jacob had
> wrestled "with God" (Genesis 32:28). Note that, like Genesis 18, the
> text says "man" not "angel" (messenger), and refers to the "man" as
> God.
> There are a number of other bodily appearances of God, where the
> context indicates it isn't merely an angel (messenger), but a
> physical manifestation of God Himself. These pre-Christ incarnations
> of God are called "thophenies."
> So I can't imagine on what basis you would say such a thing is "a
> feat clearly impossible from a Jewish perspective." :-)
>
>
> If that is true, then why did the Jews insist that Jesus be
> crucified? Pilate, the Roman governor, said Jesus was innocent and
> wanted to release Him. :-)
Last question first: The priests had no theological quarrel with what Jesus
said but they did view his actions and utterances as a threat to their
secular teachings and laws (but remember, there was no real distinction
between secular and spiritual law).
As to your broader question, Judiasm holds that God is transcendent, outside
space and time. As such He is unable to be changed by earthly forces or
conditions and cannot be contained in a human body (or a tree or a rock).
The Christian overcomes the problem of transcendence by postulating a
Trinity wherein only one part of the God-head has this limitation.
The Jew can't get to that position because the great prayer of Judaism, the
Shema, says that "... the Lord is one." The implication of this prayer is
that God is not zero - and He's not three.
As to your scriptural references, the people who wrote these passages never
understood God to take the form of a human in spite of the actual text. For
example, my commentary on Genesis 3:8 reads:
---
(Rashi and Nachmanides) 'walking'. The verb refers to the 'voice,' not to
God Himself, and means 'sounding': they heard the voice of God resounding.
Abraham Ibn Ezra also quotes another rendering: 'As he (Adam) was walking.'
The general sense is that the Devine Presence manifested itself.
---
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-11, 6:55 pm |
| "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Last question first: The priests had no theological quarrel with what Jesus said but they did view his actions and utterances as a
> threat to their secular teachings and laws (but remember, there was no real distinction between secular and spiritual law).
>
> As to your broader question, Judiasm holds that God is transcendent, outside space and time. As such He is unable to be changed by
> earthly forces or conditions and cannot be contained in a human body (or a tree or a rock). The Christian overcomes the problem of
> transcendence by postulating a Trinity wherein only one part of the God-head has this limitation.
>
> The Jew can't get to that position because the great prayer of Judaism, the Shema, says that "... the Lord is one." The
> implication of this prayer is that God is not zero - and He's not three.
Actually, the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9,11, etc.) uses both plural and singular
forms for God. Many, many other verses, beginning early in Genesis, have
plural forms of God. For example, the well known:
(Genesis 11:7)
"Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language,
that they may not understand one another's speech."
It is more than abundantly clear that the Jews understood that there is a
plurality in God's person. They would have had to be stupid not to see
the large number of times God is referred to in the plural. :-)
> As to your scriptural references, the people who wrote these passages never understood God to take the form of a human in spite of
> the actual text. For example, my commentary on Genesis 3:8 reads:
Sorry, but I'll go with what the Scripture actually says, rather than someone's
interpretation. I suspect the majority of sincere Jews felt the same way. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2008-02-12, 7:57 am |
|
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:lJ5sj.30927$1f.21545@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>>
[color=darkred]
>
> Actually, the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9,11, etc.) uses both plural and
> singular
> forms for God. Many, many other verses, beginning early in Genesis, have
> plural forms of God. For example, the well known:
>
> (Genesis 11:7)
> "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language,
> that they may not understand one another's speech."
>
> It is more than abundantly clear that the Jews understood that there is a
> plurality in God's person. They would have had to be stupid not to see
> the large number of times God is referred to in the plural. :-)
The Queen of England refers to herself in the plural, as have all Royals
since time immemorial. It doesn't necessarily mean there is more than one of
them. :-)
>
>
> Sorry, but I'll go with what the Scripture actually says, rather than
> someone's
> interpretation. I suspect the majority of sincere Jews felt the same way.
> :-)
But you DON'T KNOW what "the scripture actually says" unless you can read
the original. You are "going with" a translation which may or may not have
missed important shades of meaning, or even alternative variations for the
words actually used.
At least HeyBub's commentary points this out and offers clarification.
Why would you simply dismiss it?
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-12, 7:57 am |
| "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> <snip>>
>
>
> The Queen of England refers to herself in the plural, as have all Royals since time immemorial. It doesn't necessarily mean there
> is more than one of them. :-)
I don't think the ancient Jews knew about modern British royal mannerisms,
do you? :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-12, 6:55 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Actually, the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9,11, etc.) uses both plural and
> singular forms for God. Many, many other verses, beginning early in
> Genesis, have plural forms of God. For example, the well known:
>
> (Genesis 11:7)
> "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language,
> that they may not understand one another's speech."
Which has nothing to do with whether God can walk about the earth.
>
> It is more than abundantly clear that the Jews understood that there
> is a plurality in God's person. They would have had to be stupid not
> to see the large number of times God is referred to in the plural. :-)
Your supposition is completely wrong. No Jew, anywhere, anytime, has ever
considered a plurality in the Godhead. God may have different aspects
(merciful, just, all-seeing) but by any definition anywhere no Jew has ever
attributed multiplicity of being.
>
>
> Sorry, but I'll go with what the Scripture actually says, rather than
> someone's interpretation. I suspect the majority of sincere Jews felt
> the same way. :-)
No, the Jews don't feel that way; not the majority, not even one (well,
maybe ONE).
For example: The King James makes constant reference to "Jehova." There is
no "Jehova." Jehova is a completely made-up word, using the letters of one
word and the vowels from another, then the results of that bastardization
were miss-transliterated into English. Moses never heard the word "Jehova,"
neither did Jesus. The word came from a blunder of astronomical proportions
by Martin Luther (that any six-year-old Jewish boy could have corrected).
No, you can't trust the Scriptures (or at least the Jew doesn't).
You see, it is almost irrelevant what the Scripture says. It doesn't even
matter much what God said. What is singularily important is what God MEANT.
Sometimes God didn't say what He meant and sometimes He didn't mean what He
said!
But that's just the Jewish position. The non-Catholic Christian tradition
says that the individual can determine God's will guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Catholic dogma is that the Church, as an institution, determines and
promulgates God's message.
Different strokes for different folks.
|
|
|
|
|