tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post295525020653961287..comments2022-03-26T00:48:43.572-05:00Comments on Pauline Theology: Jesus and PaulDavid A. Largehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10257670823752544132noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-35158724626747336392008-12-14T14:20:00.000-06:002008-12-14T14:20:00.000-06:00Has anyone given any thought to the possibility th...Has anyone given any thought to the possibility that "the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel" is Luke (2Cor5.18ff.)? He was "appointed by the churches to travel with [Paul & co.]." If not Luke, surely the brother knows of the Jesus tradition. I wonder if perhaps Paul received any information from this brother.<BR/><BR/>I realize postulating that Luke = "the famous brother" opens the door to possibilities which rub against scholarship at large. For example, if such a connection can be made, then perhaps Luke's Gospel was written at an earlier date than expected. I believe there is good reason to date GLuke (or a proto-GLuke) in the early 40s. This, of course, is negotiable. But that a travelling companion of Paul's was famous for his preching of the gospel of Jesus surely implies more than a working knowledge of the Jesus tradition.LTDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763471967807102067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-20046400271625018662007-10-11T17:19:00.000-05:002007-10-11T17:19:00.000-05:00Boy, I'm rushing to keep up with you guys. Let me...Boy, I'm rushing to keep up with you guys. Let me respond to a couple of the comments. First, Betsy has made a good point. A point I think that resonates with Paula Fredriksen at Boston Universty. The claim that Jesus is Christ (i.e., Messiah or King) and Jesus is Lord (so Caesar is not) are implicitly political and in-your-face to the power structures. It may well be that Saul and his ilk persecuted Christians in order to keep the Romans happy. Perhaps they said, if you don't do something about those Christians, we'll do something about all of you. So persecution of the Christians becomes a way of self-preservation. The Romans who crucified the King of the Jews, probably didn't like it that a growing company of Christ-followers were still naming him as their king and Lord.<BR/><BR/>Barbara made a comment regarding God and time. I attended an Iftar dinner (breaking the fast of Ramadan) and met a fellow from Turkey. He is finishing up his PhD in Islamic metaphysics. We had a rather long discussion regarding time. Likewise, we discussed the idea of what it means to say God exists. So my head is swimming today. These are two complicated questions. The question regarding time is this: does God exist in time? does God exist as time? does God exist outside of time? It seems to me that these are the options. If time exists in relation to the created universe, then God is before and above time. If time exists apart from the created universe, then you could say that God exists in time. But again his mode of existence would be different than our mode of existence or the way in which my computer exists. Still these are tough questions. Where's a philosopher when you need one?David A. Largehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10257670823752544132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-35071872808390084682007-10-10T18:58:00.001-05:002007-10-10T18:58:00.001-05:00Does the truth of Christianity and Jesus render Ju...Does the truth of Christianity and Jesus render Judaism false? If so, in what way?<BR/><BR/>I want to take a stab at this. I do not think that the truth of Christianity renders Judaism false at all. As people have commented, I believe that the truth of Christianity is the truth of Judaism. Christ came as mentioned as the fulfillment of Scripture or fulfillment of Judaism. If it fulfills Judaism how can it render it false? <BR/><BR/>Are Betsy's comments typical of the old or new perspective on Paul/ Judaism? If she adopted the other perspective, would her conclusions stand or would they be different?<BR/><BR/>My knowledge on the new perspective is elementary at best but here goes. It appears to me the Betsy’s answer represents the new perspective in that the new perspective believes that Judaism needed to keep themselves separate in order to accentuate their Jewish priviledge. “They perceived bringing in outsiders would somehow contaminate their identity…” The Old perspective is the thought obedience to the law gave credit before God. <BR/><BR/>Finally, does the wrong practice of a religion render that religion untrue? In other words, if the majority of Christians think and practice that the Kingdom of God is mainly about getting people into heaven when they die, does that mean that Christianity is not true? Assuming, of course, that Jesus meant something else about the Kingdom.<BR/><BR/>I do not think that a wrong practice renders a religion untrue unless that religion is completely made up of these practices and the religion requires perfect adherence to them. I can see where this old view would come into play here as maybe thinking that the Jews were “practicing” the faith incorrectly, hence the coming of Jesus as Lord and Savior, but I have a very hard time in stating that Judaism in and of itself is untrue. I think the truth in Jesus renders Judaism complete, not untrue.bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08867705131558702358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-45425059229726157132007-10-10T18:58:00.000-05:002007-10-10T18:58:00.000-05:00Does the truth of Christianity and Jesus render Ju...Does the truth of Christianity and Jesus render Judaism false? If so, in what way?<BR/><BR/>I want to take a stab at this. I do not think that the truth of Christianity renders Judaism false at all. As people have commented, I believe that the truth of Christianity is the truth of Judaism. Christ came as mentioned as the fulfillment of Scripture or fulfillment of Judaism. If it fulfills Judaism how can it render it false? <BR/><BR/>Are Betsy's comments typical of the old or new perspective on Paul/ Judaism? If she adopted the other perspective, would her conclusions stand or would they be different?<BR/><BR/>My knowledge on the new perspective is elementary at best but here goes. It appears to me the Betsy’s answer represents the new perspective in that the new perspective believes that Judaism needed to keep themselves separate in order to accentuate their Jewish priviledge. “They perceived bringing in outsiders would somehow contaminate their identity…” The Old perspective is the thought obedience to the law gave credit before God. <BR/><BR/>Finally, does the wrong practice of a religion render that religion untrue? In other words, if the majority of Christians think and practice that the Kingdom of God is mainly about getting people into heaven when they die, does that mean that Christianity is not true? Assuming, of course, that Jesus meant something else about the Kingdom.<BR/><BR/>I do not think that a wrong practice renders a religion untrue unless that religion is completely made up of these practices and the religion requires perfect adherence to them. I can see where this old view would come into play here as maybe thinking that the Jews were “practicing” the faith incorrectly, hence the coming of Jesus as Lord and Savior, but I have a very hard time in stating that Judaism in and of itself is untrue. I think the truth in Jesus renders Judaism complete, not untrue.bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08867705131558702358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-17878502063162473752007-10-10T08:24:00.000-05:002007-10-10T08:24:00.000-05:00This is a follow up to David's question about wron...This is a follow up to David's question about wrong practice of a religion and its subsequent validity. I agree that Jesus meant more in his teaching about the Kingdom of God than a means into heaven. Christians that believe this narrow view, as I did for most of my life, are not wrong just incomplete. I believe it was Barbara that pointed out that Jesus came not to abolish the law but fulfill it. However, Christianity and Judaism alike are incomplete and thus lacking apart from the fulness that is offered in Christ. You could argue that they are thus wrong, or at least wrong in practice. But this does not mean that the essence of the faith is wrong. I like how Besty points out that dependence on the Holy Spirit is the source of power. This is what we get in Paul's letters. The Holy Spirit is what brings the power of the kingdom of God and the resourse to know God and live out the righteous requirements of the law. The the Old Testament scriptures and Jesus' teaching on the kingdom anticipate this time. This reminds me of what Fransisco was saying when he said that for Paul, "the kingdom was a work in progress." We see the Paul encouraging the church to live out the kingdom life and the fulfillment of the law through the power of the Holy Spirit that comes through faith in Jesus.Luke Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17401564313057249778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-47915400258337124352007-10-10T08:22:00.000-05:002007-10-10T08:22:00.000-05:00This is a follow up to David's question about wron...This is a follow up to David's question about wrong practice of a religion and its subsequent validity. I agree that Jesus meant more in his teaching about the Kingdom of God than a means into heaven. Christians that believe this narrow view, as I did for most of my life, are not wrong just incomplete. I believe it was Barbara that pointed out that Jesus came not to abolish the law but fulfill it. However, Christianity and Judaism alike are incomplete and thus lacking apart from the fulness that is offered in Christ. You could argue that they are thus wrong, or at least wrong in practice. But this does not mean that the essence of the faith is wrong. I like how Besty points out that dependence on the Holy Spirit is the source of power. This is what we get in Paul's letters. The Holy Spirit is what brings the power of the kingdom of God and the resourse to know God and live out the righteous requirements of the law. The the Old Testament scriptures and Jesus' teaching on the kingdom anticipate this time. This reminds me of what Fransisco was saying when he said that for Paul, "the kingdom was a work in progress." We see the Paul encouraging the church to live out the kingdom life and the fulfillment of the law through the power of the Holy Spirit that comes through faith in Jesus.Luke Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17401564313057249778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-87963343996965081592007-10-08T23:17:00.000-05:002007-10-08T23:17:00.000-05:00Insurrections against Rome or the emperor were ext...Insurrections against Rome or the emperor were extinquished, and the emperor would have thought nothing of eliminating all Jews, if one of them, Jesus, was pronounced as "king" of a "kingdom" for that could have been perceived as a threat against the emperor and empire, socieity hierarchy including the elite and retainers, peace and security, the very gods who had bestowed power and good fortune upon the empire as evident in victories. The gods might no longer favor the Roman empire if some king other than a leader elected by them reigned. The price for Jesus to be recognized as "king of the Jews" was potential anihilation of all Hebrew people. That's one reason why Jesus was such a threat to the Jews, not merely the religious authorities.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932248937362310292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-13769489926616671812007-10-08T10:26:00.000-05:002007-10-08T10:26:00.000-05:00David,A few thoughts on the most recent questions ...David,<BR/>A few thoughts on the most recent questions that have been raised…<BR/>• The Old Testament proclaimed One God, Jesus and Paul both proclaimed One God – certainly there is something about the Oneness of God that brings continuity to the whole story of the people of God and continuation of God’s plan. Are the Jews somehow our fore fathers and mothers of the faith providing a basis or foundation? Jesus said he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. And your question, does the wrong practice of a religion render it untrue…do any of us rightly practice Christianity all the time? We Presbyterians have a belief that we are “reformed and always reforming” – there is always something to learn and ways to grow into the fullness of Christ.<BR/>• And what did Paul understand about the covenant with Abraham and the call to be a light to the Gentiles? Did he see his mission as a continuation of that in any way? If so, then I would say he didn’t discard his Jewish background completely but rather saw it as a continuation of God’s work in and through God’s people. <BR/>• I took an IDL course from Charles Van Engen entitled, “Biblical Foundations of Mission” and one of things we discussed was the concept of the eternal present and how God’s time is different than our time – that God’s time is the eternal now, seeing and existing in all time simultaneously – God’s time is not linear as our is and to make a line graph of how God works in time might help us but might cause us more confusion…I would love to hear your thoughts on that concept.<BR/><BR/>BarbaraUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04013438504874437030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-21421934693653579152007-10-07T14:09:00.000-05:002007-10-07T14:09:00.000-05:00Betsy offers some interesting thoughts to my last ...Betsy offers some interesting thoughts to my last question? What do the rest of you think?<BR/><BR/>Are Betsy's comments typical of the old or new perspective on Paul/ Judaism? If she adopted the other perspective, would her conclusions stand or would they be different?<BR/><BR/>Finally, does the wrong practice of a religion render that religion untrue? In other words, if the majority of Christians think and practice that the Kingdom of God is mainly about getting people into heaven when they die, does that mean that Christianity is not true? Assuming, of course, that Jesus meant something else about the Kingdom.David A. Largehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10257670823752544132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-10697907661625958902007-10-07T11:43:00.000-05:002007-10-07T11:43:00.000-05:00The truth of Christianity renders Judaism's eschat...The truth of Christianity renders Judaism's eschatology regarding the coming Messiah false, for the kind of Messiah they expected to see was political and worldly and the kind of rewards they sought were more materialistic rather than spiritual. Their perception lead them to erroneous conclusions and to placing undue focus on tradition and to themselves as "the chosen ones" to the exclusion of the rest of the world. They perceived bringing in outsiders would somehow contaminate their identity, rather than being able to see how Christ's way of being and living could render new life in the spirit and community, which would bring about kinds of changes Christianity ushers in. It produces whole new creation under the Lordship of heavenly King, rather than lordship under earthly king, thus the kind of power given to the disciples and future followers is not dependent on what they do to please God; it is determined by who they are in relation to God. God's Spirit is the source of power, and is dependent on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and issues from the Triune God as each person manifests in distinct ways, remaining One in Spirit and identity, which is at once our identity.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932248937362310292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-13301075313587856352007-10-06T17:09:00.000-05:002007-10-06T17:09:00.000-05:00There's been a lot of traffic lately and I haven't...There's been a lot of traffic lately and I haven't had a chance to respond to each. Let me respond to several in this comment. These are more thought-provoking questions than any final comments or conclusions.<BR/><BR/>First, in Galatians 1 Paul says that he spent 15 days with Cephas (aka Simon Peter). The verb there means "to visit to get information from." One scholar quipped: Paul and Peter had more to talk about than the weather. Paul had both opportunity and motive to gain information about Jesus from an authentic source.<BR/><BR/>The admonition to imitate Christ makes sense only if a person knows how he lived not only how he died. I argued in an article published a few years ago (copies available on request) that one of the reasons the Gospels were written was to provide "a script for imitation." Although I think there were other reasons for the writing down of the oral stories about Jesus, I do think imitation is one of those factors.<BR/><BR/>Paul persecuted "the Way" out of some knowledge of the movement. Whether the knowledge was based in fact or rumor we don't know. Larry Hurtado has written a good article on this. See if you can find it.<BR/><BR/>Likely he persecuted believers because of either what they believed or what they practiced. I'd certainly entertain a paper on why the pre-Christian Paul persecuted the church. It is not as self-evident as you might think. What would cause him to consider these people so dangerous that they should be imprisoned, killed, etc. See the DPL article on "zeal." <BR/><BR/>Question: to what degree are Paul's actions based upon imitation of Christ? Can you point to actions that are similar to Jesus' actions?<BR/><BR/>Question: why does Paul pray only 3 times that the thorn in the flesh might be removed? (2 Corinthians 12:1-7)<BR/><BR/>Paul Randall reminds us that Paul's faith is holistic. To what degree is Jesus' Kingdom project holistic?<BR/><BR/>Betsy draws a conclusion, I think, or perhaps more of an observation that leads me to a question:<BR/><BR/>Does the truth of Christianity and Jesus render Judaism false? If so, in what way?<BR/><BR/>I'll try to catch up more later.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your contributions.David A. Largehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10257670823752544132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-81516678698326207892007-10-06T10:59:00.000-05:002007-10-06T10:59:00.000-05:00I appreciate Francisco's comment: "maybe we don’t ...I appreciate Francisco's comment: <BR/>"maybe we don’t need to look for a common language, just actions in accordance to the resurrected Christ..."<BR/><BR/>This fits also with Barbara's comment: "[Paul's] life spoke loudly of who Jesus was and is…and ours should as well even when we don’t expound upon the details of Jesus’ life."<BR/><BR/>I think this is a beautiful reminder that our life of faith is much more than words, concepts & head-knowledge, but is holistic: "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (Gal.5:6b). Barbara rightly points out that Paul lived accordingly and we are called to follow his example.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479123173259321198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-74611144958854685112007-10-05T18:53:00.000-05:002007-10-05T18:53:00.000-05:00OOPS...Forgot one thing. Barbara mentioned human ...OOPS...Forgot one thing. Barbara mentioned human curiosity getting the best of Paul. I might take this even further. Like you and I, we have this insatiable thirst to learn more and more about our Redeemer. I would think Paul would be in this category. Just look at the way he learned Torah!bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08867705131558702358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-89164894250284059242007-10-05T18:50:00.000-05:002007-10-05T18:50:00.000-05:00After continuing to think on this...I feel Paul kn...After continuing to think on this...I feel Paul knew all about Jesus, his sayings, as well as, what this "new" Judaism was doing. I would think that in order to be in the uproar that Betsy mentioned, which I believe, Paul would have HAD to know details on The Way. I do not think he would pursue so ardently this new church if it was only one small group of Jews. I think it was probably growing exponentially and this is the case Luke makes in the early chapters of Acts. This was growing SO fast that Paul was super inclined to do something about it. IN order to DO something, he would need to know something about this group. The War on Terrorism, the War on Drugs...any war on we can think of will involve learning the details of what we war on (even if these details seem to be terribly off base...)! There were rumors that these Christians were cannibals...heck they were also into incest according to some! I have a real hard time seeing Paul as NOT knowing much about Jesus and The Way. The rumor mill justt turns way too strong. The information Paul had may have been wrong, right, who knows. I simply have a hard time thinking he had nothing or little at all.bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08867705131558702358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-26627083418658362432007-10-05T10:47:00.000-05:002007-10-05T10:47:00.000-05:00Thank you all for some wonderful thoughts. I want...Thank you all for some wonderful thoughts. I want to respond to some of the points that a couple of you made. Brad thank you for the reminder that Paul spent time with the disciples and if human curiosity got the best of him, surely he inquired more about the life of Jesus, even having to re-learn what he knew and had heard as a faithful Jew. And his words to the Corinthians, “be imitators of me, as I am of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1) speak volumes about his desire for himself as well as the churches to live as Christ not just know details about his life. Even though the Gospels were not yet written, isn’t it possible that these towns were circulating the stories? And I agree, too much is being written into Paul’s silence for in many ways he was not silent…his life spoke loudly of who Jesus was and is…and ours should as well even when we don’t expound upon the details of Jesus’ life.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04013438504874437030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-35498577767740588472007-10-04T18:28:00.000-05:002007-10-04T18:28:00.000-05:00I would have to argue that Paul had limited inform...I would have to argue that Paul had limited information regarding Jesus. From his perspective as a Pharisee, he reacted violently to what he perceived in the sayings, activities, deeds of Jesus and effects on persons as being threatening to Judaism. Judasim, the foundation of Hebrew identity,of his own identity, was being challenged in it's way of being human in relation to God. It was threatening to him because it meant that everything he had invested his whole self and life in might not be true. If it weren't true, what were the implications for Israel's identity and for his own? He fought zealously to maintain the integrity of his own people as well as himself by persecuting Jewish Christians. However, it was precisely because of these conflicts that existed prior to the Damascus road experience, that the vision of the risen Christ was so transforming. God had been working in the context of Paul's whole life in order to use him for the purpose for which he was created. I imagine that the controversy stirred up by Jesus works and teachings and subsequent convictions that dramatically changed lives of those he touched, evoked further investigation for a mind like Paul's. Initially, however, he was coming from the perspective of a different sort of Messiah, including one that would not be crucified. Perhaps many events leading up to the Damascus experience were making subtle impressions on Paul, and when the time was right, he has a vision of the risen Christ, The implications that encompassed would be realized both, as a 'glimpse of eternity' in a single moment, as well as revealed over time. Similar to the 'already' but 'not yet.' character of the Kingdom. We don't have access to what Paul experienced and knew of Jesus and his disciples prior to Acts when Stephen is stoned. Life is never black and white, and certainly Paul was laboring under the pain of becoming a new creation. He just didn't know it at the time, but later writes about it. I suggest that Paul understands the truth of these words as it applies to the world, because he experienced how he himself had become a new creation. Paul reveals the telos of the praxis of his lived own life, which is at the same time true for humanity. He is representative of fallen man who is redeemed. It is the vision of the risen Christ that puts all of it into perspective for him. His old and new life. Paul is the effective spirtual leader that he is because he went from death to life. He draws from Jesus whole life of unswerving commitment and inexplicable devotion to the Father as a model for what he is to do and how God willed that he live, to fulfill the purpose for his creation as "son of the Most High God." Paul realizes his true identity and fulfills his human potential in the way God intended from the beginning, in spirit and truth, not because of observance of law, not because of his status that he achieved, not because he was zealous for religion or fought to preserve a national identity. Paul does God's will as appropriate to the situation. He makes Jesus Spirit relevant and come to bear in practical ways: on disease, disability, captivity, exclusive practices, removing walls and erasing divisions, on poverty. I believe Paul knew these things about Jesus both before his vision, and from communities and contact with those who knew Jesus. However, at the time, who Jesus was was being seen from a different frame of reference. Paul brings to us a new, broader consciousness having seen Jesus with new eyes. Wisdom became both the solvent and adhesive to undo what was disordered in persons and society, and to reconstruct according to God's plan for humanity. It is with this wider lens that we must examine Paul's letters. It is serious mistake to examine 'letter' of Paul's letters to the exclusion of the 'spirit' of Paul's letters. Paul's unique backgroud, personality, knowledge, skills made him the primary person God sought to initiate elements of Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. If we believe that Scripture is God inspired, it is not merely the words, but the silences that speak to us. God works through concrete structures of reality and persons, but also through the process of history, which means that at the time some letters were not preserved, and Paul does not focus on Jesus words and works as does the Gospels because his was a different perspective which illuminates another dimension of what it means to be disciples living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932248937362310292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-65903370164012140702007-10-04T16:26:00.000-05:002007-10-04T16:26:00.000-05:00In the article of this Blog you say "As in the Gos...In the article of this Blog you say "As in the Gospels, there is an “already-not yet” aspect to Paul’s teaching of the kingdom. Likely Paul’s ideas about the kingdom originate in the Jesus tradition. Still the language of the kingdom is not as common in the letters as it is in the Gospels."<BR/>I believe that the key factor for Paul’s lack of common kingdom language in his letters is the same reason why other authors in the Bible didn’t do it either, the Kingdom of God is at work, is a work in progress and a common language is not complete it’s still being worked. I came to this conclusion after reading references about the kingdom outside the Pauline letters trying to find what the rest of the authors mentioned. For example, there is a reference on the Luke-Acts about the kingdom (Act 1:3) and it implies that not even the disciples had a clear idea of what the fullness of the Kingdom of God really meant but they knew Jesus came to enact it . James 2:5 speaks of it as something achievable only by those who love God, a practical love maybe just like Jesus saying ‘love your neighbor’, but James never said those exact words even when we know that there is a lot of the sermon of the mount sequence in the book of James. The language of Hebrews 12:22 presents a cosmic representation of the kingdom that is timeless but reachable during a worship service, the kingdom then becomes the place to be but also the source of strength. So what is timeless has a moment of encounter and what is cosmic becomes real in the individual with God’s presence, may be just like Jesus saying, “the kingdom of God is at hand’ and at the same time ‘no one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God’ Luke 9:59. The way I see it I see a lot of the sequel of Jesus message of the Kingdom in all scripture. That is why to me is like neither of the writers got it, or all of them did, maybe we don’t need to look for a common language, just actions in accordance to the resurrected Christ who has the Kingdom of God in his hands (1 Corinthians 15:24,Luke 22:29;23:42) and is owner of the Kingdom.francisco Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13933772309264186594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-31846116088822973062007-10-04T10:44:00.000-05:002007-10-04T10:44:00.000-05:00I am going to agree with the comments made as to t...I am going to agree with the comments made as to the purpose and intentionality of the letters. I think I also stated this in my original post. I really like what Luke posted:<BR/><BR/>"Though Paul does not use the words Kingdom of God (or heaven) as many times as the gospel writters, I believe all of Paul's epistles give us insight into Kingdom of God living." <BR/><BR/>This WAS Paul's mission. He in essence says watch me in his letters. He was taking the life of Jesus and living it out in his time through the power of the risen Lord. He cites his own living examples of Kingdom of God living.bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08867705131558702358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-12023990832627498662007-10-04T10:35:00.000-05:002007-10-04T10:35:00.000-05:00I want to address this in the order that it was di...I want to address this in the order that it was discussed in second paragraph of the article. On the first point, I would disagree with those scholars who state that Paul had limited knowledge to the life and sayings of Jesus. IN Acts 9 we see that Paul spent time with the disciples in Damascus. After that, he spent time with the apostles in Jerusalem. I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that Paul would NOT have been inundated with the stories of the living Jesus while with them. In fact, I would argue that most likely, given the nature of the oral tradition in Judaism, he would have memorized the stories and saying of Jesus while staying with them. In the second point, it is argued that he would have limited interest in the Jesus of history. Again, I would disagree. The Jesus of history and the resurrected Jesus is one continuous story, not two parts as these critics seem to suggest. The risen Lord IS the APEX of the story, not just for Paul but for all of humanity. For the same reason that we do not focus on what Jesus said or did when he was 7, 14, or 17 years old. We do not have this information and for the most part, we do not care! Would it be helpful, interesting, and fun to read? Absolutely, but it is hardly necessary. I do agree with the third point that too much is being read into Paul's silence. Paul is writing these letters (except Romans) to communities he has already visited. They know the Jesus of history. These are the stories that were told and told over again, repeated until memorized. To go over what is already done is not needed in a letter who's purpose is other than telling this story. He has a different purpose in these letters and I think Paul felt retelling the Gospel accounts was simply not necessary.bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08867705131558702358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-49013168372869930372007-10-04T06:59:00.000-05:002007-10-04T06:59:00.000-05:00Though Paul does not use the words Kingdom of God ...Though Paul does not use the words Kingdom of God (or heaven) as many times as the gospel writters, I believe all of Paul's epistles give us insight into Kingdom of God living. Paul met the glorified and risen Lord. It is only appropriate that Paul's words portray Jesus through a paradigm of exaltation. <BR/>Jesus' imminent announcement of the Kingdom of God in the Gospels anticipates the power and victory that will be received upon His death and resurrection (Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:3-4) Paul's reliance on the Spirit and emphasis on walking in the Spirit points us to Kingdom living. Gorman does us great good in highlighting how cruciformity is an underlying theme in Paul's writings which reinterprets Paul's understanding of faith, hope, love, and humility. These fruits of the Spirit are essential to living out the Kingdom life that Jesus proclaims in the gospels.Luke Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17401564313057249778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-91333361138026285172007-10-04T06:41:00.000-05:002007-10-04T06:41:00.000-05:00I like where Paul and Barbara are going.The author...I like where Paul and Barbara are going.<BR/><BR/>The authors of the Gospels wrote with a specific purpose. They were giving an orderly account of the life of Jesus (Luke 1:1-4). As, Paul Randall points out, Paul's letters were occasional and intended to give pastoral counsel and instruction to specifics situations in the churches.Luke Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17401564313057249778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-22165496320849263512007-10-04T06:40:00.000-05:002007-10-04T06:40:00.000-05:00When Paul encountered the risen Jesus, he understo...When Paul encountered the risen Jesus, he understood that redemption was achieved through His death and resurrection. This epiphany was so powerful that it informed Paul’s message. If he neglected to retell the narrative of the earthly Jesus and his teaching of the Kingdom, it was not due to a lack of knowledge of the Jesus tradition, as your essay shows. We can’t fault Paul for not writing another gospel. Paul describes the Kingdom much as the prophets did; it would be characterized by justice, peace, and joy in the spirit (Rom. 14:17). Paul’s urging the imitation of Christ indicates his familiarity with the life and teachings of Jesus.Billihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08835124069557677833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-12257408252339797312007-10-04T06:39:00.000-05:002007-10-04T06:39:00.000-05:00When Paul encountered the risen Jesus, he understo...When Paul encountered the risen Jesus, he understood that redemption was achieved through His death and resurrection. This epiphany was so powerful that it informed Paul’s message. If he neglected to retell the narrative of the earthly Jesus and his teaching of the Kingdom, it was not due to a lack of knowledge of the Jesus tradition, as your essay shows. We can’t fault Paul for not writing another gospel. Paul describes the Kingdom much as the prophets did; it would be characterized by justice, peace, and joy in the spirit (Rom. 14:17). Paul’s urging the imitation of Christ indicates his familiarity with the life and teachings of Jesus.Billihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08835124069557677833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-61046872752770855802007-10-03T19:53:00.000-05:002007-10-03T19:53:00.000-05:00Thanks, Paul. Skepticism can be a healthy thing. ...Thanks, Paul. Skepticism can be a healthy thing. It is the beginning of critical thinking. <BR/><BR/>It may not have occurred to Paul that letters are an appropriate genre for transmitting Jesus' sayings. You are right to use an analogy. The best analogies for Paul--speaking now as a historian--would be from Paul's own day. But lacking that, we might notice that we have a healthy interest in the Jesus of history and yet we don't quote them constantly in either oral or written form. We take them for granted. They become the presuppositions from which we as believers work. Put another way, they are the foundation as Paul says in Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. But notice, foundations are all but invisible. What is seen is everything built on the foundation. In our analogy, that means Paul's letters. I think it was Beker who described the Jesus material as the deep structures from which Paul built his gospel, letters and his churches.David A. Largehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10257670823752544132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8452932106993986211.post-53262748917031203432007-10-03T07:00:00.000-05:002007-10-03T07:00:00.000-05:00I think Barbara's point about the situational purp...I think Barbara's point about the situational purposes of each unique letter is key. Most authors can write an entire book about one subject, but it may not encapsulate all of their thought & theology. Obviously we are trying to piece Paul's theology together from his letters, which are both occasional and relatively short (vs. our modern books). Of course it would be nice to have more direct connection points, but Paul's letters were written with different intentions (and to different audiences) than Jesus' teachings. The argument from silence which would separate Paul & Jesus does not hold water for me.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479123173259321198noreply@blogger.com