For someone who Really understands Soteriology

[Fidelis]

reen12:

That we, in modern times, cannot know what the
Mosaic Law was, 2000 years ago?
That we cannot access Judaic sources, from the time?
Scholarship?
I don’t think so.

You are mischaracterizing my comments. I said only that we can’t know better than Paul what his observations of that practice of the Law were in his time.

That, somehow, the “understanding” of the Mosaic Law of Saul’s day *differs *from the Mosaic Law, as it is still followed today?
How would Roman Catholics respond to the concept
that Church teaching today differs from the teaching,
2000 years ago?

Again, a mischaracterization of what I said. I didn’t say the Law was different, or even that no one had a proper understanding of it, only that Paul was obviously speaking from his own experience and observation.

No, Paul used the Mosaic Law to support a theological
position that was wholly new…and presented it in a way
that would be unrecognizable to a modern day follower
of the Mosaic Law…or to his former co-religionists.

You are welcome to speculate, of course.

That he learned from Gamaiel, and then went on, years later,
to depict the Jews as groaning under the weight of a Law
which they could not fulfill perfectly…and that the Law
constituted a propaedeutic function, in terms of God’s
plan of salvation?

Neither Paul nor I ever said his observations about the contemporary practice of the Law came from Gamaliel.

The only way Saul’s theology could cohere, was to
give us all his unique view of the Law, and then employ
this* view* to introduce a concept- again, wholly new-
of Original Sin, and a transmorgrification of the Judaic

In other words, he purposely lied about Judaism to invent Christianity. I won’t dignify that one with an answer.

In my view, Luther used the same approach:
He was superbly trained in Catholic theology and Scripture.
Yet, he went on to claim that he knew the real way to
interpret Scripture i.e., definitions of sola fide, sola gratia, etc.No wonder Luther relied on the letters of Saul, for his
own unique view of things.What’s called “heretical” by the Church…i.e. departing from 1500 years of doctrine and understanding, is called “inspired”, when Saul claims to* really* understand the “meaning” of the Mosaic Law?

Same answer as above.

It would helpful in the future if when addressing the comments of others you address what they actually say, rather than attacking a distorted quote. Thanks.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I’m staying out of this unless I see something specific I think is important. That said:

The only way Saul’s theology could cohere, was to
give us all his unique view of the Law, and then employ
this view to introduce a concept- again, wholly new-
of Original Sin, and a transmorgrification of the Judaic

I don’t think the Mosaic Law has much to do with Original Sin. It’s also not necessary to say that Paul used a particular interpretation of the Law to arrive at the idea of Original Sin. Remember that (speaking from a Christian standpoint) Paul had a vision from Christ. Even if nobody had ever heard of Original Sin or anything like it before (which is [arguably] unlikely given some of the psalms), it only required that Christ revealed the idea to him. He may then have done one of two things:

1. Realized the true nature of the Law based on this new information and constructed arguements based on his new understanding

or

1. Knowing absolutely from Christ that Original Sin existed, made an effort to interpret the Law in such a way so as to enable it to lead in to the idea of Original Sin. This does not make his arguements less valid simply because they are based on his own interpretation. Throughout history and today there have been countless Rabbis with countless ideas on how to interpret different aspects of Scripture and The Law, yet they are regarded as authoritative (some more than others). Paul’s interpretation would actually be more valid than these because He would be basing His interpretation on a fact revealed by God which is not present in the thoughts of the various Rabbis. In other words, if Christ told Paul that Original Sin was a reality, and he tried to interpret the Law to fit it with this reality, than this interpretation holds more weight than one made by one whom denies or is ignorant of this revealed truth.

There is in fact, a third possibility. That would be that Christ revealed to Paul not only Original Sin, but a full understanding of the Law itself. In other words, Paul’s interpretation may not be an interpretation at all, but rather a factual understanding from the mouth of God.

This thought may become even more important when we consider a purely Judaic aspect of theology: the Levitical code and Mosaic Law itself. Prior to the incident of the golden calf, various sacrifices and burnt offerings were made to God by His people. The nature of these sacrifices and offerings was understood in a certain way. However, when the people chose to worship the calf, a new set of rules was instituted by God. This Levitical code contained a number of different aspects to the sacrifices which it called for than were previously present. In fact, some very substantial changed were made, of which the changing to a Priesthood of the Levites from a Priesthood of the first born was one of the most prominent. I’m not greatly familiar with Exodus and Numbers, so I can’t comment speicifically, but it is possible that Moses made explanations of these changes to the people. Even if it was not recorded in Scripture, it is still possible that he explained them to some or all of the people. His interpretation of the earlier relationship with God was not made based on his own personal beliefs or understandings, but rather based on a new revealed truth from the Lord.

This is also very evident in the Deuteronomic Covenant insofar as are concerned the declaration of the curses. These curses are stated based on a relatively deep understanding of God and His intentions. It is not likely that anybody would have understood God and His earlier relationships with his people in the way They were understood by Moses and Joshua after the declaration of the Deuteronomic Covenant. The curses are based on God’s desire that His people seek Him and His ways, and on His desire to lead them to the understanding of the importance of this. Because there was less disobedience in times prior to the bondage, this aspect of God was far less well understood. Neither Moses nor Joshua reinterpreted the old understandings to explain the new, but rather both began to interpret the old in light of the new.

 

[reen12]

Dear Fidelis,

quote: Fidelis

It would helpful in the future if when addressing the comments of others you address what they actually say, rather than attacking a distorted quote. Thanks.

It would be additionally helpful, if you would read, carefully,
what I wrote:

quote:** reen12**

So, what am I saying? That Saul proposes to
convey the “meaning” of the Law, without understanding it?
Highly unlikely.

Note the word “I”. :tiphat:

quote: Fidelis

Neither Paul nor I ever said his observations about the contemporary practice of the Law came from Gamaliel.

I can’t say that I’m surprised.

My point is not whether Saul acknowledged his
indebtedness to Gamaliel, but whether Gamaliel
would have recognized Judaic belief when Saul
got through “explaining” the meaning of same.

quote: Fidelis

I didn’t say the Law was different, or even that no one had a proper understanding of it, only that Paul was obviously speaking from his own experience and observation

…Paul was obviously speaking from his own experience and observation

So was Luther, vis a vis Catholic doctrine.

I suggest that others read my views and try to address them.

And if my views generate opposition, think of the
experience of the Jewish contemporaries of Saul,
when his views of* their* faith were propagated.

I’m sure they, too, found his views hard to take.

reen12