tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-932063478786335171.post8498861652299604782..comments2023-10-04T10:59:03.854-05:00Comments on The Science of Knowing God: Rehabilitating Marcion (Part Two): The Gospel of PaulDan Dunlaphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13047038778505771540noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-932063478786335171.post-39811313822027915692012-02-24T21:24:16.826-06:002012-02-24T21:24:16.826-06:00"Rather a 'canonical' approach to Chr...<i>"Rather a 'canonical' approach to Christology begins with Paul, the first witness, and then moves on to consider the stories about Jesus as remembered, as passed down, as believed, and, yes, even as embellished by the pious theologizing that inevitably took place in the context of the communities from which they emerged."</i><br /><br />I don't believe the modern flaptrap about the Pauline epistles predating the gospels. I do believe the gospels were redacted after the Pauline epistles were written in order to bring them more in line with Paul, but I think the original form of the gospels came long before Paul.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-932063478786335171.post-58658497109988255282012-02-24T21:17:23.584-06:002012-02-24T21:17:23.584-06:00"Better than any other early Christian writer..."Better than any other early Christian writer, Paul had worked through the Jew/Gentile issue in a way that left no doubt as to the possibility of redemption for all, Jew and Gentile alike."<br /><br />I have to take exception with this. Mainly because Paul's arguments for invalidating the law are contradictory. His treatment of the law is abysmal because it implodes on itself. Justin Martyr's treatment is far superior, and it is lamentable that Justin's writings weren't canonized instead of Paul's in my estimation. Obviously, however, Justin was not before Marcion and Paul was. Justin undoubtedly saw the defects in Paul's treatment of the law precisely because he was able to see how Marcion ran with Paul's contradictory ideas. The church should have taken Justin's cue and instead of going with the Pauline theory which is stated multiple contradictory ways but usually boiled down to "the law is too hard to keep, so instead just believe; that's why the law was obsoleted" the church should have adopted Justin's "all the ceremonial stuff of the law is obsoleted but not the moral parts" view. In truth, more or less in its oral teaching it did take Justin's view, but by canonizing Paul's writings instead of Justin's, it shot itself in the foot. The oral teaching based on Justin's view is constantly undermined by the Pauline epistles and their subpar, illogical, and contradictory views on the law. This is a point discussed in some depth in Heikki Räisänen's "<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=MByQXPgNyF8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=paul+and+the+law&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g1JIT_OIKbDKsQKP2YjrCA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA" rel="nofollow">Paul and the Law</a>".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com