| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 962.1 | same dude? | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Luke 1.78-79 | Sat Aug 27 1994 15:33 | 14 |
| I am verily a man [which am] a Jew, born in Tarsus, [a
city] in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of
Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the
law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are
this day.
Acts 22.3 (KJV)
I have wondered if Paul's teacher was the same Gamaliel mentioned
earlier in Acts (See 962.0).
Shalom,
Richard
|
| 962.2 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Sun Aug 28 1994 17:09 | 1 |
| Yes, it's the same guy man who was Paul's teacher.
|
| 962.3 | | POWDML::FLANAGAN | I feel therefore I am | Mon Aug 29 1994 13:07 | 7 |
| There are many historic reasons to believe that Paul was not a student
of Gamaliel. There are contradictions between the letters of Paul and
the book of Acts. Where there are contradictions, scholars use the
writings of Paul as the historic source and the book of Acts as a later
literary source, selling Lukes POV.
Patricia
|
| 962.4 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Mon Aug 29 1994 13:25 | 5 |
| I do not get the correlation between letters of Paul and the book of
Acts? And I do not see any contradictions that would lead to an
understanding that Gamaliel was not Paul's teacher. On the contrary.
|
| 962.5 | More than one Gamaliel? | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Luke 1.78-79 | Mon Aug 29 1994 14:14 | 10 |
| Gamaliel must've been a fairly common name. There's a Gamaliel
mentioned a few times in the book of Numbers in the Hebrew Bible.
I mostly wondered if there was evidence that the link could be made,
that the Gamaliel mentioned in two places in Acts was one and the
same.
Shalom,
Richard
|
| 962.6 | Paul's "POV" | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Tue Aug 30 1994 07:38 | 11 |
|
Re 962.3 Patricia
Paul's POV
We should remember that Paul went through a radical change of theology
from the book of Acts to the pastoral epistles, of course it would appear
that his point of view was different, because he had gone from law to grace.
From Moses to Jesus.
Hank
|
| 962.7 | About names in the bible | JGO::ODOR | | Tue Aug 30 1994 10:33 | 44 |
| RE: <<< Note 962.5 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Luke 1.78-79" >>>
-< More than one Gamaliel? >-
Hallo Richard,
>> Gamaliel must've been a fairly common name. There's a Gamaliel
>> mentioned a few times in the book of Numbers in the Hebrew Bible.
It is good to know that names in the bible are repeated plenty of time,
although they sometimes point to different persons.
Like the name Gamaliel it is not so common as you might think.
Take for instance the name "JESUS".
This name happens a lot of time in Hebrew Scripture as well as in the
Greek Scriptures.
The 6th biblebook of the hebrew Scripture carries the name Jesus.
But is definitly not the Christ (The anointed one).
Joshua or Je-Hosua means: Jehovah is my Savior, and that's exactly
what the name Jesus means.
And so, there are a lot of other examples in the bible.
=======================================================
>> I mostly wondered if there was evidence that the link could be made,
>> that the Gamaliel mentioned in two places in Acts was one and the
>> same.
No, the same names occurred very often in the bible.
There were 12 Apostles in the Greek Scriptures right?!
The question is: What was their names?
Right. Some of them had the same name.
So there is nothing peculiar about names in the bible.
Rgds,
Alex
|
| 962.8 | not consistent | POWDML::FLANAGAN | I feel therefore I am | Tue Aug 30 1994 12:14 | 37 |
| Hank,
I don't know what you mean by the Pastoral episteles. Are you refering
to all of Paul's letters are are you specifically referring to what I
call the pseudo-Pauline letters of Timothy and Titus?
I agree with the scholars who attribute eight of the letters to Paul.
(Rom, 1Cor, 2Cor, Gal, 1Thes, Philipians, Philemon, one more)
The book of acts is a third person after the fact 'history' of the acts
of the apostles including Paul. One of its major purposes is to
minimize the differences between Jewish Christianity and Gentile
Christianity. It attempts to create harmony between the two factions
where harmony does not really exist.
Paul's letters are authentic letters from the "apostle to the
Gentiles". His frustration and anger at the Jewish Christian faction
is strongly evident in his works particularly in the book of Galatians.
There are major descrepencies to be found between the account of Paul's
life found in Acts and the book of Galatians.
The descrepencies do not weaken my faith but in fact strengthen it.
They give me much insight into the passion and struggle in the
development of early Christianity and the character of Paul. A belief
in the 100% accuracy of the Bible would in fact weaken my faith as it
would require my accepting things that I rationally know are not true.
The need to make consistent that which is not consistent is for me a
game that tries to make concrete the mystery of faith. I have not
truly studied Luke and Acts yet but when I do, I know I will find
inspiration in it but only in understanding what I can about the author
and why he writes with his point of view. I find beauty in knowing I
have 5 major interpretations of the Jesus story and several minor
interpretations.
Patricia
|
| 962.9 | partial agreement | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Tue Aug 30 1994 15:29 | 33 |
| Re 962.8 Patricia,
Pastoral Epistles : Timothy and Titus? Yes.
Acts : > It attempts to create harmony...
My view is that Acts is a 'history' of the acts of the Apostles without
the quote marks with the additional qualifier of being inspired.
Personally, I put the quote marks around the word 'discepancies' which
you have found in the Bible.
There are enough 'discrepancies' in life, which have latter been revealed
as apparent , for me to know and trust that what might give the appearance
of an inconsistancy is just that, an appearance. Such things I leave alone
and occasionally mull them over until I discover the reality behind the
appearance. Some things will have to wait until we arrive at our heavenly
home for an answer, until then my faith is not weakened by any of these
"problem" areas.
I respect your approach, and in deed inerrancy does not leave out the
personality and point of view of the human author of scripture, on the
contrary, as you suggest, it adds to the depth and richness of the scripture
and speaks to us of the intimate relationship that our Heavenly Father wants
with us as individuals.
Differing points of view does not necessarily means contradiction.
Remember the story of the blind men and the elephant?
Hank
|
| 962.10 | | POWDML::FLANAGAN | I feel therefore I am | Tue Aug 30 1994 15:42 | 21 |
| Hank,
You and I are clear on what our differing assumptions are so therefore
we can have reasonable dialogue. Both of us come to significantly
different conclusions based on our differing assumptions.
My conclusion is that Paul did not spend time in his youth in
Jerusalem, was not a disciple of Gameliel. My conclusion is also that
the book of Acts gives us a very distorted image of Paul and his
disagreements with Jewish Christianity. By the fact that the
discrepencies are noted in the Bible, that Acts deliberately attempts
to present a unified picture of Christianity that did not exist, we in
fact learn a lot about the History of Christianity. From the very
beginning there were factions within Christianity with radically
different practices, rituals, and beliefs.
Adding Timothy and Titus to the discussion probably adds nothing to the
discussion regarding Gameliel and introduces a new set of issues,
mainly who wrote these Pastoral letters.
patricia
|
| 962.11 | stalemate (or something) | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Tue Aug 30 1994 17:15 | 17 |
|
Re .10 Patricia
> Adding Timothy and Titus to the discussion probably adds nothing new...
Unless Gamaliel's influence can be seen in them.
Your view on the book of Acts and its purpose as a deliberate attempt
to present a unified picture of Christianity is in my view a conjecture
as mine (a true, accurate and inspired account) is to you.
Again the question of the authorship of the pauline pastorals can be an
endless exchange of (is, isnt, is, isnt, is, isnt...).
Our differences can not be reconciled...
Hank
|
| 962.12 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | | Tue Aug 30 1994 17:26 | 9 |
| Patricia:
Is it your position then that if these epistles were not written by
Paul, then they in themselves are forgeries? This is a genuine
question. I have in the past year drawn my own conclusion that Paul
did not write the book of Hebrews...but I still believe it is God
breathed!!
-Jack
|
| 962.13 | | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Luke 1.78-79 | Tue Aug 30 1994 17:47 | 11 |
| It is the speculation of some biblical scholars that the so-called
pastoral letters were not of Paul's hand, but may have been written
by disciples (students) of Paul.
In those times, it was not uncommon to honor a teacher in this way.
The people living in NT times didn't view forgery the same as we
moderns do. Neither did they have copyright laws.
Shalom,
Richard
|
| 962.14 | | POWDML::FLANAGAN | I feel therefore I am | Tue Aug 30 1994 18:27 | 32 |
| I too do not see the books as forgeries for many of the same reasons
stated by Richard.
Ephesians for instance is a book of great merit(except for the
household codes) and I do not believe that it was written by Paul. It
is a book that is perhaps more Pauline than Paul in that it creates a
more systematic theology of Paul's writings and was obviously very
familiar with all of Paul's writings. it does however have some
differences.
The Scriptures are richer for the collection of authors. By studying
the dating, the content, the images etc we get a great picture of the
evolution of early Christianity.
I feel that some books are more inspired than others. I will go back
to those books that I have difficulty dealing with right now because I
do think they are valuable even if they present theology that I do not
accept.
When we read philosophy, we can gain value from it even if we do not
accept all the premises. I have difficulty with being as objective
with the Bible because I somehow was indoctrinated with the belief that
the Bible was "Gospel". That is a pretty difficult indoctrination to
set aside. A scholarly examination of the Bible helps me both set
aside certain prejudices and also be able to be inspired by the best of
a book while learning to objectively understand the other parts as
cultural, or human, or unique to the author or times.
The similarity between you and I though, is the more I study the Bible,
the richer I find it.
Patricia
|
| 962.15 | | FRETZ::HEISER | Maranatha! | Tue Aug 30 1994 18:35 | 2 |
| Paul has never been given unquestioned credit for Hebrews. Some say it
may have been Dr. Luke.
|