Posts by CalebInFloroda

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

@Opusdei

in line with you last comments, the answer is a definitive "yes" from Catholic Church scholars, at least in reference to texts that are clearly redactions.

Convservative Catholics in the United States hate and have disowned the official Catholic translation of the Bible for use in America, the NABRE, because it contains in its footnotes philology citing texts like these as likely interpolations to the text. This, as you can imagine, has altered some doctrinal issues (likely for the better), and while the majority of Catholics are satisfied, conservatives in the Church call the work heretical.

This smaller group of Catholics in the U.S. has been very vocal and even resurrected the older text of the RSV Catholic edition as an alternative. But as you can imagine the USCCB will have none of it, not even including the RSV Catholic edition as an approved translation on its website.

The NABRE is the work of some 100 scholars from several denominations, has been in production since 1946 and will be officially completed by 2025 (the current 2011 edition is an ad-hoc "holdover" version). It is really outstanding and has been praised even by Jews and referred to as the cause of Bible-envy by one popular Protestant reviewer.

To see it rejected by its own people by such a vocal group is actually disheartening for me, and I'm not even Catholic! It appears to me that regardless of the scholarship and critical approaches involved and the beautiful and accurate results that can be obtained, some people are determined to remain in the dark and want to pull others down into the dark with them.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

@John Aquila

I do know that Jewish women could read in synagogues of the Second Temple era, and there are some indicators that some had to act as prayer leaders and even in a capacity similar to rabbis. Lydia of Thyatira seems to have been a convert to Judaism that acted in such a capacity according to Acts 16.

While I know that Chrisitans often use the verse you mention to claim that Paul was following some Jewish practice of not allowing women to teach, that restriction only came into Judaism after the fall of the Second Temple and did not last very long. Judaism has generally remained quite egalitarian throughout most of its history (not that we didn't have our dark times however). Today only Orthodox Jews carry such restrictions.

But pagans were not this way. They treated women quite differently in society. Paul must be referring to his rules that he was establishing as an apostle to the Gentiles, much like the head covering rule, for churches he was establishing. Outside of this I cannot say what else Paul had in mind because it doesn't reflect Jewish practices.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

@Opusdei

I see this as a possible indicator of pseudonymous redaction. Since the heretic Marcion of Sinope was the first to assemble and introduce the idea of a Christian canon into Christianity, and since his ideas were mainly Gnostic, I wonder if Marcion or his disciples did not have a hand in editing Paul into the works that have come down to us today.

Marcion's canon was essential Paul's epistles, and Marcion claimed that Paul championed Gnostocism. The verses you point out sound very Gnostic and incompatible with a Jew who learned at the foot of Gamiliel. Did the Catholic Church manage to capture each and every interpolation Marcion may have included into Pauline texts by the time it re shaped the NT to include 27 books? Me thinks not.

This is but my own theory on the matter, but the texts you offer do read contradictory to other statements where "knowledge" is not placed above Paul's main arguments regarding the superiority of grace and faith.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

Lieu,

You are mistaken in some of what you say because you don't understand Jews or Judaism.

Being Torah-observant doesn't mean you sacrifice animals at a temple. It means following "Halacha" or the application of Torah.

To illustrate, Torah doesn't describe or make allowances for everything that was eventually established at the Temple, and some of what was practiced at the Temple later grew into redactions of the Torah text itself. But Torah is more than the 613 laws of Judaism. It contains of mythology and history and our mores and conventions.

Now obedience to Torah has always been observing its laws or Halacha, the current understanding of Torah in the era and circumstances you are in, not in following the Torah as written. Even Orthodox Jews are not like Christian Fundamentalists who believe in a literal, step-by-step following of what is written in Torah.

Mitzvah comes from Halacha which stems from Torah. It's always been that way. sacrifices of animals at a literal Temple are elements of an ancient society that have no meaning to Jews of today.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

Megaboy,

Interesting views but, when you touch on such points, not reflective of any actual Jewish philosophy or theology, not officially representative anyway.

But the question that the OP is raising is one that perplexes even the best Biblical scholars and academics who study the Pauline epistles.

Some of the texts raise great questions, even whether or not not the historical Paul wrote all the texts that are traditionally attributed to him. If they all do come from the same person, then it isn't the imagination that makes readers question Paul's honesty.

A good example is 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16. In light of Romans chapter 11, this oft-labeled anti-Semitic text is either clear indication that Paul would say anything to win an argument or prove his point (and that would prove dishonesty) or, as most scholars agree, this suggests that the writings were either altered or written by people who only claimed to be Paul.

While I tend to agree with those in academia who believe this to be either an anti-Semitic interpolation or that someone other that Saul of Tarsus wrote this, this is not the only instance where a surface or literal reading makes "Paul" look a bit twisted. What Jew would write in one letter (Romans) that he would rather be accursed and sacrificed on behalf of his brother Jews that they might accept Christ and even exclaim that God's call to them is irrevocable but then turn around and call them Christ killers in a letter to the Thessalonians? Because the JWs insist this is totally fine, it can produce quite an odd picture of this character to others who hear of this view.

Even the scholarly answers about this cannot be set in stone. It's a valid question that deserves to be asked again and again. Whatever the actual answer remains at present elusive but nonetheless important as much harm has been caused by accepting the words of these epistles as holy writ directly composed by an apostle of Christ.

35

DOES BELIEF IN THE BIBLE DESTROY ONE'S INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY?

by TerryWalstrom in

based on information to be found at: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_dont_the_highly_educated_believe_in_evolution_the_bible_believers_effe/.

the bible-believers effect.

those who believe the bible is the word of god (bible believers) and those who dont believe the bible is the word of god (bible nonbelievers) differ in their beliefs that humans evolved from earlier species of animals.

CalebInFloroda

DJS is correct about us Jews.

Even among the most religious of Jews there is no such thing as "belief" being central to the practice. Jews don't "believe" that G-d exists, as such in the manner that this is important to Christians.

While I've noticed Christians have a hard time with this when I say it, atheists seem to grasp the concept each time: we don't have "faith" or mental acknowledgement of G-d as an element of our religion. Whether or not a Jew views G-d as real as any material thing on the planet or merely as part of our mythology, the whole concept of the G-d of Abraham and Sarah is very real. Response to this is what makes a Jew a Jew, not belief. Belief (mental acknowledgment) of doctrines can't do anything for a person in Jewish theology. Responses however mean everything.

Jews can be atheist because Jews act as if G-d is not present to end suffering, help people, make the world better. Jews believe that it is our responsibility to do this. This is what the "chosen" in "chosen people" means to us. We are chosen to be as G-d would act in these circumstances. This philosophy is called "Tikkun Olam" and it replaces the "faith" that is so important to Christians.

So we do tend to reject things that require credulity. Even those who believe G-d is real have far different and often very logical concepts of what and who Elohim is, many of which would probably insult Christians.

While parts of Orthodox Judaism is still a little behind in some areas, generally speaking Judaism seeks to avoid being intellectual dishonest with itself and others. That's why it is not earth-shattering to admit that many of our traditions and texts stem from various sources that don't originate with direct revelation from our G-d. And you will find we don't believe that our mythology is true as much as we seek to find values and cherished truths that can be practically applied as Tikklun Olam.

35

DOES BELIEF IN THE BIBLE DESTROY ONE'S INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY?

by TerryWalstrom in

based on information to be found at: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_dont_the_highly_educated_believe_in_evolution_the_bible_believers_effe/.

the bible-believers effect.

those who believe the bible is the word of god (bible believers) and those who dont believe the bible is the word of god (bible nonbelievers) differ in their beliefs that humans evolved from earlier species of animals.

CalebInFloroda

In support of what DJS is stating...

The study above and others like it show a correlation between Christian Fundamentalism and a lower intellectual quotient as demonstrated in rejection of accepted scientific paradigms.

A "Bible-believer" is generally limited to this type of Christian because their doctrine is limited to a literal reading of Scripture to the exclusion of outside sources. This expression sometimes gets confused with others who read or also use Scripture, but it is limited to these others.

The priest who first proposed the Big Bang comes from a religious tradition that not only discovered the expansion theory but accepts evolution and critical Biblical analysis. Catholics not only believe in Scripture but also a rich Tradition that actually shaped the New Testament while it was being composed and canonized.

Judaism is similar. The religion of my people also came first before the Scriptures were composed and set as we now have them. This means they do not get read at face value as they also do not do in Catholicism. The Scriptures were never intended to be used outside of the liturgical and cultural world in which they were composed.

"Bible-believing" Christians refer to members of Christianity that reject Apostolic Tradition and Jewish theology in exchange for a face-value reading and literal interpretation of Scripture. This formula requires an individual to ignore the historical development of Scripture and the intentions with which these texts came with. A life of confirmation bias is all you can entertain to do this successfully.

Both the question raised by the OP and the comments made by DJS cannot be confused with a declaration that use of Scripture in itself limits the use of intellect. What is being said is that there exist religious approaches, Bible-only groups, which fit a pattern of denial that seems necessary in order to hold on to a theology that itself is far from being intellectually honest or satisfying.

35

Where did Jesus get the Idea of an After-life in Heaven?

by John Aquila in

the ancient jews did not believe in an after-life as far as i can tell, correct me if i'm wrong.

the watchtower says yes.

they say all the prophets believed in a paradise earth..

CalebInFloroda

@John Aquila

Check the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) sections 1042-1050 entitled "The Hope of the New Heavens and a New Earth." Some of the more interesting parts of this text reads:

"Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man...

The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, "so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just," sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.

We know neither the moment of the consummation of the earth and of man, nor the way in which the universe will be transformed. The form of this world, distorted by sin, is passing away, and we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, in which happiness will fill and surpass all the desires of peace arising in the hearts of men.

Far from diminishing our concern to develop this earth, the expectancy of a new earth should spur us on, for it is here that the body of a new human family grows, foreshadowing in some way the age which is to come."

Likely you might recall that the Apostles Creed ends with the words: "I believe...in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting." And the Nicene Creed makes a literal mention of Olam Ha Ba at the end stating belief in "life of the world to come." Catholics believe that at the end of time the resurrection will occur of both the righteous and the unrighteousness. Since the Greek term for resurrection means to "physically" stand, the Catholic teaching is that the bodies of all will be raised to join with their souls whether these were in Heaven or Hell (Purgatory is emptied at this time). The bodies become supernatural as was Christ's who was able to ascend to heaven with his, and the resurrected unrighteousness will return to Hell to suffer in body and soul, but the righteous will enter into the re-creation. (Hell in Catholicism is not a burning pit of fire, but eternal separation from G-d and anything that reflects G-d's qualities.)

I have always found it striking how many Catholics are unaware of what the Catechism teaches or that the blessings of Heaven and taught to be brought to earth after the re-creation. It should also be noted that this belief in a restored paradise earth home for humankind is about 2000 years older than that of the JWs who often believe that this teaching is unique to them.

35

Where did Jesus get the Idea of an After-life in Heaven?

by John Aquila in

the ancient jews did not believe in an after-life as far as i can tell, correct me if i'm wrong.

the watchtower says yes.

they say all the prophets believed in a paradise earth..

CalebInFloroda

@Crazyguy

Not a problem. I can see how it can read that way.

The OP asked where Jesus got his teachings, and I was merely stating that all the concepts were already fully developed part of the Jewish eschatology that Jesus was exposed to from childhood onward during the Second Temple era.

Judaism, unlike Christianity, believes that truth can sometimes be found among the Gentiles. So it is not odd to find adaptations of foreign concepts in its theology. Where these reflected an accepted truth they have been used from the time of Abraham up till today.

35

Where did Jesus get the Idea of an After-life in Heaven?

by John Aquila in

the ancient jews did not believe in an after-life as far as i can tell, correct me if i'm wrong.

the watchtower says yes.

they say all the prophets believed in a paradise earth..

CalebInFloroda

Ding,

Jews don't read those Scriptures in Job that way.

The NJPS version of the Tanakh renders these verses as:

But I know that my Vindicator lives;
In the end He will testify on earth—

This, after my skin will have been peeled off.
But I would behold God while still in my flesh,

I myself, not another, would behold Him;
Would see with my own eyes:
My heart pines within me.

This Hebrew text is ambiguous (at least the way we read it) and any reference to a resurrection just as much so from this.