shalom82 wrote:So for the benefit of Paul who quotes from everyone from Epimenides to Menander and even puts Greek drama into the very mouth of Yahushua we are going to take one word and conclude that Yahuchanan was into Greek philosophy based on that one word that is a translation of the Hebrew dabar.....I find that suspect.
It seems as if the concept had been around for a long time in Greek philosophy before John penned his letter. John was probably well aware of Greek philosophy, but I do strongly doubt he was in any way influenced by it.
I think KP summed it up nicely somewhere saying something along the lines of even a blind squirrel finding an acorn from time to time. In other words, some concepts, i.e. love your neighbour, are so obvious anybody could discover the principles and write books about it. Therefore we will find similarities across borders, languages and cultures, especially if they had some sort of contact, like trading of goods for example.
shalom82 wrote:That would be a fine analogy Matthew if these people had nothing but the writing of Yahuchanan to guide them and teach them but I believe there is also a book called the Tanakh.
The article opens up with Paul's body metaphor representing the Ekklesia (Church, per the article). Now, I know it's a long stretch and not directly linked, probably not even linked, but Nebuchadnezzar had a dream of a statue of a body in Daniel 2. Daniel interprets it to represent people and nations.
Running a race (1 Corinthians 9:24)? Yes, the Greeks could obviously relate to that. But David did say "I run in the path of your commands, for you have broadened my understanding" (Psalm 119:32). Again, I must admit they are not directly linked and David is far more concise, but running and going by the rules for a purpose are found in both.
I do admit the metaphors have been obviously given a Greco-Roman adaptation, but in this case it doesn't make Paul wrong, well in my opinion it doesn't. To me he just sounds like a well read guy trying to relate to his audience better.
Regardless of the metaphors, I guess the question is: are the concepts he teaches wrong? That's the question at the root of this whole debate and it seems we don't all agree on it.
shalom82 wrote:Please do not make the mistake of thinking even for one moment that I am completely against you Matthew. I just want to say straight away that though at times the dialogue has been intense I can say for myself and I think I speak for others when I say that I appreciate your contribution. You have kept us honest and kept us on our toes and you have striven to make valid and challenging points. You have spoken the truth on many issues. It is my strong conviction that Yada would benefit immensely if he ammended QP in light of many of the issues that you have brought up. Indeed, you are correct chariti/charis-grace is a term not exclusively used by Paul. And I don't think it is right to give it some pagan goddess connotation even if you disagree with the theology if Y'aqob, Shimon Kepha, and Yahuchanan are all using the same terminology. I never really saw eye to eye with Yada on the whole "Gesus" thing either. I am not in favor of messing with the placeholders...if they are there...they are there. The style of questioning Paul is something that sometimes makes me squirm. The tone of the book is too personal for many. Could the points still be made without the "Paul was a homo" as Daniel puts it? The answer is yes....they could be. As I said Yada could benefit from these criticisms. I don't agree with or ascribe to everything that is in QP, but I will say this. QP makes some very valid points and brings attention to some very disconcerting facts that escape those who have been lulled into sleep by accepting at the outset that everything that is found in the "bible" is trustworthy and true. For the sake of brevity I will only name a few. The conflicts of the accounts of Paul's Damascus road experience, the Moshiach's admonitions about false prophets in Matthew and Paul fitting the character of many of those warnings, the fact that there had to be a deceiver in the generation of the disciples that would even deceive those that were chosen, the fact that Paul said he was tortured with a prod by a demon, the fact that according to Paul Messiah was quite a fan of Greek drama, the fact that one second Paul is saying yeah, Torah is great and the next second he is comparing it to Hagar and saying it was a task master am not comfortable with Paul's egoism and I will agree with Yada that he comes off more like Muhammad that YashaYahu. It is all about Paul all the time. It is one big sad pathetic pity party half the time and a braggadocio's fanfare the other half. I am not comfortable with what I have to say is deception on the part of Paul...being all things to all people. And just what is the law of Messiah if it is not Torah? For these reasons and many others I am not going to accept Paul. I have said it before and I will say it again. Paul troubled me long before QP was written. I had to jump though hoops and torture the text to make it flush with the Tanakh and with the words of Yahushua. And I wrote several pieces on the YY forum that were apologies for Paul that I now regret. I tried to gain peace of mind by lying to myself. I will say one more thing. In our circumcision debates I did not rely on QP for my arguments. This is not merely about Yada's Questioning of Paul....this is also my own QP
I feel I really need to answer to match what you've said, but I'm quite speechless actually. You've displayed an attitude here that we could all benefit from. I have been in almost daily contact with Ken, and he dropped a piece of advise along the lines of us having to realise we're all in the walk together, none of us have perfect knowledge and that we should all be praying for each other to find the Way to Yahweh. We should argue as if we're brothers. My children fight, they don't like it but they do it. Fortunately, they live under the same roof, they kinda have to forgive, learn, move on and accept there will be things they won't agree on. As long as they call me Papai (or Papi as my son puts it) and my wife Mamãe, our apartment Casa (home), and generally take our parental advise then I'm happy.
I can say that we (you know who) are hoping to compile a list/doc of what we think are errors in QP, from translation to comments. As the idea came the first thing I said was the way in which we present it is crucial, we must see Yada as our brother, as the mentor he once was to us.