Tabor on Paul

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
PseudoPaul
Star B
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:12 pm

Re: Tabor on Paul

Post by PseudoPaul »

huckelberry wrote:
Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:39 pm

PseudoPaul you have somewhat different picture of this than I do. I was not going to state my difference but in truth I have zero interest in discussing Daniel Peterson so am casting about for some other diverting difference in viewpoints for exchange.

I realize Marcion favored Paul but it seems unlikely that he was the only one. For some reason there were people who saw Paul as enough of an authority to write letters in his name. Part of you observation is that Paul is instrumental in creating a Christianity outside of Judaism. Those followers would have included Marcion but would include many more people as well.
Others certainly viewed Paul as authoritative. But the Jewish disciples who knew Jesus, like Peter and James, seemed to view Paul as a nuisance and were content to sort of keep him busy with fundraising duties and teaching the gentiles.

You can read about Marcion's influence in making Paul so prominent in Christianity here:

https://www.westarinstitute.org/blog/ma ... -testament

huckelberry wrote:
Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:39 pm
I can see some point in observing that Jesus did not fit many messianic ideas. However it is pretty clear that the first followers of Jesus after he died were Jewish.I do not think that the trajectory of thought for those people was completely different than with Paul. They were close enough together to fight over circumcision.
Jesus' followers must have initially been dejected after Jesus' death - that wasn't supposed to happen. But some of them had some kind of vision that convinced them that Jesus not only had been raised from the dead, but also adopted as the Son of God and taken to heaven. That vision convinced them not only that Jesus was the messiah, but also the apocalyptic Son of Man and the Son of God.

To any ordinary Jewish person who didn't have this vision, it would have sounded crazy to say that an unclean person executed by the state would hold these kinds of titles.

huckelberry wrote:
Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:39 pm
Paul does some reinterpretation of Jewish scripture as Tabor points out. He also pointed out the Jewish rabbis do some of the same. What the scriptures mean is in some ways a moving target. Paul's handling of scripture does not make him a weirdo but perhaps you were thinking of other things. ..well obviously somebody devoting his life to spreading a new religious understanding is clearly unusual, perhaps that is weird.
I guess I mean he's a weirdo by contemporary standards. Some of his views are very in line with ancient Jewish thought, and others were more in line with Greek thought.

There isn't a contemporary Christian tradition that really holds to Pauline Christianity, they just pick and choose a few themes and ignore the rest.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Tabor on Paul

Post by huckelberry »

PseudoPaul wrote:
Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:19 pm


Others certainly viewed Paul as authoritative. But the Jewish disciples who knew Jesus, like Peter and James, seemed to view Paul as a nuisance and were content to sort of keep him busy with fundraising duties and teaching the gentiles.
...

Jesus' followers must have initially been dejected after Jesus' death - that wasn't supposed to happen. But some of them had some kind of vision that convinced them that Jesus not only had been raised from the dead, but also adopted as the Son of God and taken to heaven. That vision convinced them not only that Jesus was the messiah, but also the apocalyptic Son of Man and the Son of God.

To any ordinary Jewish person who didn't have this vision, it would have sounded crazy to say that an unclean person executed by the state would hold these kinds of titles.

huckelberry wrote:
Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:39 pm
Paul does some reinterpretation of Jewish scripture as Tabor points out. He also pointed out the Jewish rabbis do some of the same. What the scriptures mean is in some ways a moving target. Paul's handling of scripture does not make him a weirdo but perhaps you were thinking of other things. ..well obviously somebody devoting his life to spreading a new religious understanding is clearly unusual, perhaps that is weird.
I guess I mean he's a weirdo by contemporary standards. Some of his views are very in line with ancient Jewish thought, and others were more in line with Greek thought.

There isn't a contemporary Christian tradition that really holds to Pauline Christianity, they just pick and choose a few themes and ignore the rest.
pseudoPaul
Marcion may be seen that way , ok. You are probably right about the view of Paul held by some leaders in Jerusalem , your words make an amusing bump in expectations.

I am genuinely curious and puzzled as to what you see in Paul which is being ignored by contemporary Christian tradition. (unless you are referring to adoration of the Trump versions of Christianity which ignore pretty much anything Christian)
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Tabor on Paul

Post by Kishkumen »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:41 am
Yeah, I am growing on Tabor myself... truly, the guy just has so many insights we never got in church because of the controlled proof texts they always used and we thought was the meaning of them. Tabor's analysis uses scripture I never knew existed... :D
Yep. Mormonism has a definite take on scripture. And what Tabor shows is that Paul did too. Paul found new meanings in old texts. That is what transformed Judaism into Christianity, even more than the career of Jesus did. It is because Jesus became the key and Jesus became God that Christianity departed so radically from the rest of Judaism.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Tabor on Paul

Post by Kishkumen »

huckelberry wrote:
Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:19 am
Well I listened to the link had reserved reaction. I can see that Paul struggled to express his ideas and in doing so made some stretches with scripture references. He was a bit of a risky thinker and the loose ends have occasioned disagreement for close to 2000 years now. I find Paul interesting and inspiring but not inerrant. Sometimes he narrows in his thought or rhetoric. I found the observation about muzzling the ox an interesting example.

I find no reason to think I have to like everything about Paul but I hold a very positive view of what I think Paul was reaching for and trying to point to.

And of course he realized he was involved in something new.

I suppose if a person does not like the idea of hope in just one person , all the eggs in one basket some alternative could be proposed. Perhaps people hope in Jesus , Tom Brady and Donald Trump a little something for everybody. Of course one person does not present the total of all valuable ideas and wisdom. Maybe it would be nicer if I proposed a team of like minded or at least harmonious folks. I was thinking that desirability of likeminded might suggest a value in one person who most clearly presents the center of that unity, well if such a person is to be seen.

/////////// adding something a day later,
Kishkumen, I realize there are fundamental reasons you may be thinking of when you see serious problems in placing final trust in one person. what I noted above leaves much unaddressed. People need openness to further learning which too much weight on one person might block (but to my view not necessarily)
Yes, Paul is not inerrant. There are plenty of things I don't like about him. I do like his teaching on charity, which remain my strongest link to Christianity.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
PseudoPaul
Star B
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:12 pm

Re: Tabor on Paul

Post by PseudoPaul »

huckelberry wrote:
Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:20 pm

I am genuinely curious and puzzled as to what you see in Paul which is being ignored by contemporary Christian tradition. (unless you are referring to adoration of the Trump versions of Christianity which ignore pretty much anything Christian)
One area would be the subject of Christology. Paul's Christology was a bit higher than the Christology of the original Jewish disciples, but it's still quite low compared to what became Christian orthodoxy. Let me try to contrast the three views:

Jesus' original disciples:

• Originally considered Jesus a human prophet and/or the messiah (future king of Israel)
• After Jesus' death, convinced he had been raised by God from the dead
• Believed that at that point Jesus was adopted by God as the son of God and made into a divine being


Paul

• Thought Jesus was a lesser divine being before his birth - probably an angel
• Believed that through his obedience unto death, he was not only raised from the dead but made into the Son of God
• Believed that Jesus was subordinate to God but carried God's authority and name

Mainstream Christianity

• Believe that Jesus was always God from the beginning
• Believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity and reject that he is subordinate (or most do)


But Paul has other beliefs that I think are weird. He believed that sexual abstinence was superior to marriage, saying people should only get married if they absolutely can't control themselves. He believed the end of history would come in his lifetime so part of that was not having children because there wasn't a point to it. He thought monotheism was more ancient than polytheism, and that God punished polytheists by essentially turning them gay. He may have held to an ancient view that hair on the head would pull semen away from the body, so it was better for males to have short hair.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Tabor on Paul

Post by Kishkumen »

PseudoPaul wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:42 pm
One area would be the subject of Christology. Paul's Christology was a bit higher than the Christology of the original Jewish disciples, but it's still quite low compared to what became Christian orthodoxy. Let me try to contrast the three views:

Jesus' original disciples:

• Originally considered Jesus a human prophet and/or the messiah (future king of Israel)
• After Jesus' death, convinced he had been raised by God from the dead
• Believed that at that point Jesus was adopted by God as the son of God and made into a divine being


Paul

• Thought Jesus was a lesser divine being before his birth - probably an angel
• Believed that through his obedience unto death, he was not only raised from the dead but made into the Son of God
• Believed that Jesus was subordinate to God but carried God's authority and name

Mainstream Christianity

• Believe that Jesus was always God from the beginning
• Believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity and reject that he is subordinate (or most do)
Great summary! Thanks!
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Tabor on Paul

Post by huckelberry »

PseudoPaul wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:42 pm
huckelberry wrote:
Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:20 pm

I am genuinely curious and puzzled as to what you see in Paul which is being ignored by contemporary Christian tradition. (unless you are referring to adoration of the Trump versions of Christianity which ignore pretty much anything Christian)
One area would be the subject of Christology. Paul's Christology was a bit higher than the Christology of the original Jewish disciples, but it's still quite low compared to what became Christian orthodoxy. Let me try to contrast the three views:

Jesus' original disciples:

• Originally considered Jesus a human prophet and/or the messiah (future king of Israel)
• After Jesus' death, convinced he had been raised by God from the dead
• Believed that at that point Jesus was adopted by God as the son of God and made into a divine being


Paul

• Thought Jesus was a lesser divine being before his birth - probably an angel
• Believed that through his obedience unto death, he was not only raised from the dead but made into the Son of God
• Believed that Jesus was subordinate to God but carried God's authority and name

Mainstream Christianity

• Believe that Jesus was always God from the beginning
• Believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity and reject that he is subordinate (or most do)


But Paul has other beliefs that I think are weird. He believed that sexual abstinence was superior to marriage, saying people should only get married if they absolutely can't control themselves. He believed the end of history would come in his lifetime so part of that was not having children because there wasn't a point to it. He thought monotheism was more ancient than polytheism, and that God punished polytheists by essentially turning them gay. He may have held to an ancient view that hair on the head would pull semen away from the body, so it was better for males to have short hair.
PseudoPaul, well I guess I asked you to post something I would have to think about so I try and think a bit.

It should be clear that Paul does not attempt a detailed explanation of Jesus relation to the father but held views roughly as you note. People can say he contributed to the Christian doctrine that developed further after his life.

Yes it is clear Paul thought the end was about to happen and he clearly was wrong. His comments about marriage seem to have at least two things in view. The trouble of the end and the idea of singleness being an advantage in some ministry work. The second consideration with its strengths and drawbacks has been an important tradition in the largest Christian group to the present.

Does Paul associate marriage with the concerns of the flesh? A little? I might wonder if Paul was just a bit non sexual. I have certainly scratched my head a few times over wonder why and what does he mean with his favored division, concerns of the flesh and concerns of the spirit. It sounds a bit like a gnostic rejection of the creator of the world and the material world as bad. Marcion might have felt some kinship there. Yet when Paul lists the fruit of the flesh he has all sorts of things that are disordered or hostile human relationships. Idolatry sorcery enmity strife jealousy anger selfishness, it is a sort of grab bag of stuff.

Mr Tabor in link I posted upthread points out how spirit flesh division has in that time become a popular cultural theme. Perhaps the convenience of these available categories are a large part of why he uses them.Paul does try to use the category to propose we die to the flesh as Jesus died in the flesh. This may be one of Paul's least clear explanations but he is trying to point at something.

I usually interpret flesh as a loose category used to simplify discussion and accept that it does not have an actual explanation of a ruling dynamic or single principal. Or I could try and see or create one.

You bring up that abrasive discussion of idolatry and homosexuality in first chapter of Romans. It is abrasive as he has no sense of history of religion and sees polytheism solely through the lens of oppressive Roman rule. civilization. I have read commentators who propose that Paul is thinking of or aware only of then cultural arrangements where homosexual activity was for dominance enforcement only and he was unaware of loving arrangements between same sex individuals which should not be condemned . I am sympathetic to that reading but I suspect that it is a reappropriation of Paul's thought that Paul would likely not recognize. I suspect he held to traditional hard line Jewish views. I think there is an underlying path of thought in Paul which fits the reapropriated reading. Paul see the world as seriously disordered by cruelty violence and abuse of the weak by the strong. He sees idolatry as something which people create for those purposes. (the comparison function not so much as sequence but as relative principal) We may well see polytheism as more diverse in purpose and result and we may be more aware how people may use monotheism as a foundation to oppress others.These may create a distance or barrier for us to Pauls vision. It appears there were people in Paul's time who hoped to eliminate the brutal Roman version of social order and replace it with something more humane. Paul thought he had the beginning of that change in hand in what he offered. People were drawn to his message in that hope. It is of course the exact same hope he extols in his hymn to love which is pleasanter to read than some of his crabbed arguments to support it.
Nomomo
Priest
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:44 pm

Re: Tabor on Paul

Post by Nomomo »

Kishkumen wrote:
Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:36 am
Increasingly, I find it hard to say I am Christian. I am not an atheist, and it is not as though I dislike Judaism and Christianity. I just see them as historically contingent phenomena. The ideas of human beings, perhaps with some divine insight, but certainly not uniquely or exclusively true. Christianity, in particular, became an imperial belief system. It started as a tiny following of an apocalyptic preacher. Paul turned it into a mystery cult of Jesus the dying and deified savior god. Jesus is the key.

The idea that one person is the key to eternal life doesn’t work for me. Tabor has some worthwhile things to say about Paul’s creation of Christianity. I recommend it.
Agreed with all of the above. For me the belief in the Second Coming of Christ myth as a real thing is particularly frickin' ridiculous. Humans intelligence has a long way to go in their development till they finally reach the point that they no longer believe insanely ridiculous myths are reality.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Tabor on Paul

Post by Philo Sofee »

Nomomo wrote:
Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:58 pm
Kishkumen wrote:
Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:36 am


Increasingly, I find it hard to say I am Christian. I am not an atheist, and it is not as though I dislike Judaism and Christianity. I just see them as historically contingent phenomena. The ideas of human beings, perhaps with some divine insight, but certainly not uniquely or exclusively true. Christianity, in particular, became an imperial belief system. It started as a tiny following of an apocalyptic preacher. Paul turned it into a mystery cult of Jesus the dying and deified savior god. Jesus is the key.

The idea that one person is the key to eternal life doesn’t work for me. Tabor has some worthwhile things to say about Paul’s creation of Christianity. I recommend it.
Agreed with all of the above. For me the belief in the Second Coming of Christ myth as a real thing is particularly frickin' ridiculous. Humans intelligence has a long way to go in their development till they finally reach the point that they no longer believe insanely ridiculous myths are reality.
Agreed, myths were never meant to mean literal reality, yet they show truth. If only the literalists would mature a bit... sigh...
Post Reply