Paul and the Popular Philosophers
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Paul and the Popular Philosophers file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Paul and the Popular Philosophers book.
Happy reading Paul and the Popular Philosophers Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Paul and the Popular Philosophers at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Paul and the Popular Philosophers Pocket Guide.
However, each genealogy on its own disagrees with the genealogies listed elsewhere in the Bible. Some names get added, cut out, or misspelled. The firmament, literally dome, was the sky, and they thought it was a metal covering that God literally sat on The heavens are your throne. They thought that the Sun and moon appeared through holes in the sky and went behind the sky to return to their original locations. And they thought that literal pillars held up the firmament. If you read the book of Enoch not canon , this is all abundantly clear.
I think many disagree with me on the point that Paul did not do away with the Old Testament. I have tackled these points in many posts separately — and prefer not to get into an argument as there are so many verses which are misunderstood in my humble opinion. Paul was never against circumcision as it is abundantly clear through the dialogue between james and paul in Acts What he was against was circumcision for salvation as discussed in the Jerusalem Council in Acts This was the justification through the law, he regularly referred to, in his letters.
My view is that the most of the Old Testament, if not all was the only thing considered Scripture by Christ and His disciples Luk Whether anything was added to the law is questionable. As what we have in our hands is more or less the same Book of Moses first 5 books containing Law as seen among the dead sea scrolls. God does not change.
Will everyone see it as perfect? According to the Old Testament God did kill people who disobeyed Him. God in Hebrew is Eloheem and Lord is Adonia. Can these two different accounts be the same event? If Eretz stands for the land and not the earth. As God was dissapointed that He had created man on the Eretz. There has to be an explanation for the difference in the Genealogies. About the Sperical Earth, I do not know whether Isaiah saw it as round or flat. As the words of Paul are often closely correlated with the teachings of Greek philosophers, the sayings of Jesus also bear incredibly close correlation to dozens of Eastern teachings from 1st millenium, BCE Hindu, Buddhist and Tao teachings.
It is tough to compile a comprehensive list because the Hindu and Buddhist canons are so extensive, but I have encountered dozens of incredibly close correlations in my reading. The Logos of Hericlitus strikes me as analogous to the Tao. The language is exceedingly similar. The Stoic philosophy, which I think resonates very strongly in the teachings of both Jesus and Paul, is very similar to the principles of Buddhism. Plato diverges, but the pre-Socratics and later Neoplanonists were, I think, speaking of God the same way as is found in the East and in the nondual language that Jesus so often used.
Unfortunately, I think this view is largely obscured by dualistic interpretations of the gospel, thanks to the powerful influences of Plato and later Descartes on Christian theology. Especially given the existential meaning most scholars associate with Exodus 3: That is another fascinating rabbit hole. All the references you wrote that Paul had written in his letters which can be traced back to earlier Greek writers is impressive!
I was actually quite blown away by it! You said that if we know of any more parallels or ideas that Paul adapted from Greek Philosophy, please note it down as a comment. I have quite a few which I can add to the list. But I can also add to what you have already written. What I discovered was the following. He says that we are like people chained up in a cave in such a way that we cannot move our heads but can only see the wall opposite us. Behind us is a fire burning and between the fire and us is a wall, and along the wall move all sorts of objects.
This becomes our concept of reality.
Paul Edwards (philosopher)
However, one of the humans is freed and allowed to turn around and walk over to see the real objects. Compare this with what Paul writes in Colossians 2: If we take something like circumcision, for example, the physical act of circumcision becomes a shadow of the true circumcision, the circumcision of the heart, so that although Christians no longer have to be physically circumcised, the toranic ordinance that circumcision is a covenant between Abraham and his descendants forever is maintained.
This is echoed in what Paul writes in I Timothy 2: To see the parallel, we need to understand that other New Testament writers associate Jesus as being the god Love. Both texts dedicate their subject to praising the god Love. For example, in Republic X, there is the Story of Er, a soldier who dies but then comes back to life and then relates what he saw of the afterlife.
In other words, he had a Near Death Experience. Compare this with what Plato writes in Phaedrus: Dear Mark, These are quite interesting. I must get a hold of the book you spoke of. Be a blessing to everyone around you. Paul writes in II Timothy 3: This idea that information from God comes by way of inspiration is shared by both Paul and Plato but differs from how the Torah and the Prophets say how information from God comes. Of course, as someone mentioned earlier, Paul cannot be referring to the New Testament because there was no New Testament when he wrote this so it is inferred that he means the Torah and the Prophets.
From what I have read on this blogsite, the overwhelming evidence of ideas and quotes from the Greek writers stands as testimony to this latter understanding. I also feel that Paul had this in mind. Does not Homer speak of the same themes which all the poets handle? I have yet other information which shows the influence of Plato on the New Testament writers but I will include my information piecemeal in order not to overwhelm other readers.
Hi, I really enjoyed your article about philosophers quotations. Could you name the sources? Dear Andre, You may have missed it… the sources are mentioned at the bottom of the article. Paul is a test. This is how he has been taken by the whole of Christianity. He quoted His words of the Last Supper twice or thrice in his letters. Paul had the right to say this as he was sent directly by Christ, as no one opened his eyes other than Yeshua.
I agree with you that Paul is a Test. This was the case in his day, as it is now. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. Whether Paul equaled himself to Christ and above the other apostles is also doubtful, as he says the opposite many a time in his letters. I know you mean well. Paul never went against the Scriptures, and whoever sees his writings that way loses many good teachings along with the many misunderstandings and twisted words he has written.
Paul and his use of Greek Philosophy Apostolic11's Blog. Reblogged this on All Things are Yours and commented: Many people are not aware of how much the apostle Paul quotes from Greek philosophers in his speaking and writing. Paul was a misleading imposter who lied attempted to lead everyone away from the true Gospel of the Kingdom that Christ taught. Dear Miss L Clark, I believe he is just misunderstood.
He taught that it was ok to eat food sacrificed to idols, provided you had enough faith! Something The Most High forbids. He consented to the death of the first known true saint. He was full of pride like Satan and spoke evil of dignities. He put himself equal with the Apostles of the lamb even though he was not one himself.
Paul and the Popular Philosophers
He had no named witness to his apparent vision on the road to Damascus, to allow him to assume such an high office. And he changed his own name! And as you probably know Saul was a Pharisee. Dear Miss L Clark, I understand that you have reservations about Paul… as many did even at that time. But please do reasearch a bit more before you make up your mind that he was an impostor. If he was an impostor, he fooled many people including James and Peter — 2 of the heads in the 1st century church. Food sacrificed to idols and misunderstandings regarding 1Cor The issue was that the meats which were sacrificed at temples also ended up in the market.
Paul judged that since no one knew the origins of the meat and whether it was from temple sacrifices or not, the Corinthians could eat the meat. We see how he explains his old self in Gal 1: Calling himself an Apostle… does not mean he was prideful as he himself said he is the least of the apostles. But why was he called an Apostle? It was not a title as seen in modern Christianity, but a simple word to state what he was doing. Regarding witnesses to his vision, you forget Ananias, to whom Yeshua spoke saying go to Saul, he has been chosen to share the gospel. Acts 9 introduces us to Ananias and also that Paul spent time with all of the other disciples at Damascus.
So we have many witnesses, but the key witness being Ananias who knew what had happened to him Act 9: On changing his name… sadly this idea is a Christian invention. He never changed his name as we see some people do when they convert to Christianity. Paul had not converted to Christianity, He had simply believed that Yeshua was the true Messiah. This is simply mentioned by Luke in his writing… and what does he say?
So He used a Latin name probably given by his Roman Father. There is no mention that he changed his name. There were many Pharisees who believed in Christ, and some were even part of the Jerusalem Council Acts Dear Sister, I ask you to also consider the witness of James and Peter. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. I am not trying to prove you wrong, so that I become right… I am simply explaining my understanding to you. If we take Paul to be a trap, we also lose out on some of the great teachings God brought to us through him. He was misunderstood then, as he is still misunderstood now. Hope you look at all of the witnesses before you make up your mind. Thank you so much for this article and for citing your sources. I will have to check them out as well.
Principles in the Training of Future Iconographers pt. This is very helpful. I see some phrases in the Iliad that also show up in the NT. Was it common for the Pharisees to study Greek philosophy? Dear Shane, Please share those particular sayings with me please. Thanks for sharing this! To your view that the words of the NT are not all inspired and inerrant and that we should not take them as scripture in the same way that Christ and the apostles took the OT as scripture.
Here is an argument by which I am convinced to the contrary:. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction 2 Peter 3: This statement of Peter tells us several things. They include the following. Second, these writings of Paul were well known by Peter and the other believers. The fact that he could speak of these letters to his audience in this way assumes that they were familiar with them.
This Greek word is used fifty-one times in the New Testament and it refers to the Old Testament writings in every other occurrence. The first verse quoted is from Deuteronomy This saying is not found in the Old Testament.
You are here
Paul uses the exact same Greek words that Luke used. Paul quotes Luke on the same level as Moses. This is significant because neither Paul nor Luke were among the Twelve Apostles. Here is a helpful article on this: The very real danger there is that it leaves you to pick and choose what to take more or less seriously. Dear Brother Jonathan, Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Yes, I have seen both occurrences you have mentioned 1Tim 5: Both were definitely twisted in their day, as they do it even today.
The similarity is that both are twisted. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. Here again, Paul Quotes from Deutronomy and then quotes the words of the Lord not necessarily Luke or Matthew as these words were in use as an Oral tradition. We see words of Yeshua which are never mentioned in the Gospels are sometimes mentioned by Paul Acts And then he quotes Messiah.
St. Paul among the Philosophers
The original quote does not quite say that "The Christian religion has nothing to do with philosophy"; it says rather that "The Christian religion has nothing to do in the field of philosophy" " in der Philosophie " , which is of course not the same thing. Proclamation and Argumentation" is another highlight of the book. With regard to Badiou, he privileges "the most fundamental genealogical universal, preceding the deontological universal so dear" to his colleague namely the "neither Greek, nor Jew" of Gal.
Before the "neither, nor" of Gal.
St. Paul among the Philosophers
Badious's universalism is "abstract"; Taubes was correct to emphasize Paul's "anti-Roman project," notably in Romans 13 Lupton does so in order to develop a deep reflection on universal ism an ideology incapable of respecting the alterity of the other and universal ity as "a recurrent struggle with universalism itself," aiming at truth With Schott, we are "back to Paul," with a sort of lectio continua of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians and of Paul's concern for the unity and well-being of that community.
Reading the entire letter is useful, certainly, but Schott runs the risk of providing an overly quick reading of Paul's text, which makes it difficult to argue what he wishes to establish about the threefold "unity of the call," in scripture, apostolic succession! Part V, "Paulinism and Cultural Critique," opens with Gil Anidjar's intriguing essay on the question of "enmity" in Romans, since that epistle is, in Taubes' words, "a political declaration of war. Is it "death," which Paul calls the "last enemy" 1 Cor. In what sense is it or are they enemies of God?
Is it they who hate God, or God who hates them, or both, since the Greek words theostuges and echthros are ambiguous ? Could it be that the Messiah himself "has become the enemy" ? And what about Jesus' "mad commandment" to love one's enemy? What does it mean, besides the fact that there still are enemies? According to Anidjar it means that the neighbor has "become an enemy" , insofar as the neighbor must be loved.
He suggests, relying on Samuel Weber, that loving one's enemy amounts to the decision "not to isolate the self from the enemy" But can love be expressed in such negative terms, as a "not doing" something? Is it not the case that love is mostly a positive act or intention? And does the commandment to love one's enemy and one's neighbor really imply "the becoming enemy of the neighbor"? Could it not mean, rather, the becoming neighbor, as enemy since forgiveness is not forgetfulness , of the enemy? The link between this essay and "the philosophers" not to mention "Paul" is tenuous, and one wonders how and why it ended up in the volume.
Stathis Gourgouris "Paul's Greek" brings to the fore, with great acuity, the question of Paul and Greek language. Gourgouris first considers it in connection with pope Benedict XVI's critique of any attempt to "dehellenize" Christianity. Later he zeroes in on two key terms in Paul's writings: Mauss and Bataille in the gift which grace is Far from being simply gratuitous, the gift leads to an "acquisition of power", which can only be understood if one is aware of the "exchange economy" that exists in gift-giving and gift-receiving According to Gourgouris, "The discrepancy between language and signification is no doubt the most exhilarating aspect of the Pauline text" , for the apostle achieved, with "perverse ingenuity," "a carnivalesque performance of unprecedented magnitude" in the "domain of signification" Things get even more interesting when Gourgouris all too briefly tackles Badiou's as well as others' interpretation of Gal.
Confering these words "a revolutionary signification that undoes the exclusionary framework of the polis. Gourgouris is probably onto something here but, given the importance of the matter, it would have deserved a more detailed treatment. Is he on target, however, when he claims the bottom line in Paul is the "adoration for the afterlife. Such stark statements will not be convincing to people who are well aware of so many theologians' attempts, throughout the 20 th century, to pay attention to the "masters of suspicion," to whom Gourgouris appears to be deeply indebted.
What is clear is that, according to Gourgouris, "those who seek in Pauline theology signs of human emancipation, whether they call it universalist or messianic" , are sorely mistaken. Part V closes with an essay by Deleuze the original text is a preface to his wife's French translation of D. Lawrence's monograph on the book of Revelation on how Christianity, with its will to power, became the Antichrist My hunch is that it is in the book mostly because of the author's name and perhaps also because he wrote as a philosopher about Paul before Taubes et al.
The book would be slimmer, but not much poorer, without it, in my opinion. Reading Paul Writing", Ian Balfour, after an indeed "disposable" preamble, goes straight to the question: Far from being dead, the letter is alive, and it kills! What it kills, Paul does not specify And what is the "letter"? Paul frequently quotes "Scripture," of course, which as holy "letter" is obviously not completely foreign to the "spirit," and in 2 Cor.
Hays, an important contemporary Pauline scholar, one who has specialized in the ways in which New Testament authors quote the Torah.
The volume's lack of engagement with some sectors of contemporary scholarship on Paul is perhaps its main shortcoming. Balfour's text contrasts with Gourgouris's conclusion about the absurdity of turning to Paul to overcome oppressive, antidemocratic tendencies when he writes: But, following Gourgouris and others, albeit on different grounds, Balfour develops a helpful critique of Badiou's mis use of Gal. Balfour, like other contributors, points out the way in which Badiou truncates Paul's repeated claims: Neglecting the "particular", which grounds universality, clearly distorts what Paul says.
Balfour describes that omission as "violent" And the overcoming of distinctions Paul writes about is probably limited, in his mind, to those who are "in Christ": What are the implications of such claims, which seem warranted, for Badiou's bold thesis about Paul and universalism?
Does that render Badiou's thesis completely erroneous? Not necessarily, I would think. Itzhak Benyamini's article on loving the neighbor, "the sons' community", Freud and Lacan is the most puzzling and problematic piece in the volume. Quoting the King James Bible! In the notes, one reads that the Epistle of James was "probably" written by Jesus' brother , n. The reader also finds "sin" identified with " jouissance " and is invited to consider Paul's "blatant rebellion against the law and his veiled rebellion against the Father-God" , his attempt "to prepare the believer to come to grips with the arbitrary nature of the cruel God, through a coalition with the Son" Feuerbach was a "Protestant theologian" I could go on.
What is the point of these 23 pages? I do not know. The goal here is "to make a sharp distinction between Judaism and Christianity" That is an understatement. Is such a "sharp distinction" helpful when dealing with Paul? Few would think so, nowadays. Empire Politics," worries that the "rehabilitation of Paul" may revive "the terrible heritage that gave rise to twenty centuries of antisemitism" This worry needs to be taken seriously, indeed.
Trigano is probably correct when he states that Paul was much more interested in "identity" than in "universalism," but is it warranted to speak of the "jealousy invoked by Paul against the Jews" in Rom 11, , or to claim that "the Pauline operation is to preserve election while removing the Jews" , ? I doubt many Pauline scholars would agree with these claims. In Trigano's view the metaphor of the olive tree and the grafting, far from being a "proof of Paul's benevolence," "expresses a negation of Judaism" ! Isn't it anachronistic to imagine that Paul defended a "Catholic" but what is the meaning of that term here?
Surely, Trigano is aware that the word " katholikos " does not appear in Paul's epistles, or in the New Testament for that matter. Trigano's paper relies on an interpretation of history dominated by teleological necessity. Paul planted the seeds of all the subsequent antisemitism: But isn't it the case that, in Romans 11 for instance v. As with Benyamini, much in Trigano's article presupposes that Paul was a Christian, and a "Catholic" at that, and so it comes as a surprise when he writes, at one point in his essay: And so it is as a Jew that Paul "delegitimized" the Jewish people?
Did Paul really promote "attraction for the Israel signified, repulsion for the sign" ? Can Europe's recurring anti-judaism and anti-semitism the two should not be confused, even though both are ugly, repulsive and not without correlations be traced back so immediately and directly to Paul? Many episodes of Western history, many twists and turns, often but not always should be taken into account while interpreting the Bible and thus Paul too.
It won't do simply to place the whole weight of anti-Jewish prejudice and hate on Paul's shoulders. It seems to me that Trigano reads Paul as if Paul had been a proto-Marcionite. But the early Church sided with Paul against Marcion's rejection of the Torah, as Kenneth Reinhard reminds us in his paper In "Paul and the Political Theology of the Neighbor," Reinhard presents anew some of the insights he has already defended elsewhere this past decade.
One of his aims is to restore the link between the two commandments of love love of God and of neighbor in political-theological thinking Most theologians, it seems to me, would applaud such an aim.