Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1Corinthians 13:3
#16
Yes by ethnicity/culture etc he was a Pharisee, that I do not argue with. Even Jesus was most likely a Pharisaic Judean as He was no Sadducee, Essene or violent Zealot! But that is ethinicity. Paul religionwise was a Christian. And Jesus of course hevaily criticised the Pharisaic religion, from which comes modern Rabbinnical Judaism.
Reply
#17
drmlanc Wrote:Yes by ethnicity/culture etc he was a Pharisee, that I do not argue with. Even Jesus was most likely a Pharisaic Judean as He was no Sadducee, Essene or violent Zealot! But that is ethinicity. Paul religionwise was a Christian. And Jesus of course hevaily criticised the Pharisaic religion, from which comes modern Rabbinnical Judaism.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "Christian." I really can't find any evidence that either the Messiah or Paul set out to start a new religion. Paul speaks of "the Way" which the Pharisees call a sect, but I actually don't find Paul ever calling himself "Christian" in Scripture. The closest you get is Agrippa speaking to him and using the term in Acts 26: 28. Not that I don't think that Paul wasn't a believer in Messiah, mind you, but this is simply a matter of Biblical terminology. Today, I think that the definition that Christians would attach to "Christian" is far different than Paul's Torah-observant lifestyle. However, that is perhaps getting too much into theology.
Reply
#18
As Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots go: there's nothing ethnic or cultural about them, they were all Jews in the sense of 'nation' or 'people' (actually the German 'Volk' applies best). Judaism had quite a number of gentile proselytes in the first century, contrary to modern Judaism, so ethnicity or culture would be the worst term to use vis-a-vis Jews.
Judaism and Christianity only became two separate religions after the destruction of the second temple (slightly earlier in Rome under the emperor Nero; you know, the one fiddling while Rome was on fire).
Until that time 'Christians' considered themselves Jews, and Jews considered Christians a heretical sect within Judaism at worst, as Jews at best.
There's a difference between writing Aramaic to Corinth and Latin to Rome. Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman empire: large parts of the population in Rome could speak Greek, much in the same way that most people in Europe speak English, and Paul probably did not speak Latin. Aramaic speaking people living in Corinth would constitute a tiny minority. Given Paul's interest in converting also gentiles, Greek would be the obvious choice, not Aramaic.
May I also note that in the above discussion a distinction is failed to be made between the importance of Aramaic to the Jews and the holiness of the language.
And what's a 'Zorban'?
Reply
#19
Judaism has nothing to do with Paul and Jesus. Ask Moses if he was a member of Judaism...

""May I also note that in the above discussion a distinction is failed to be made between the importance of Aramaic to the Jews and the holiness of the language.""

Well, the OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The Talmud was written in Aramaic as are many other "Churchish" works. Even to this day, that the Israelites have taken Hebrew back, Aramaic is still common in traditions such as the bar mitzvah.

Zorban is my pathetic attempt to create a word out of one that existed... Zorba is the name we give to the translators of original Aramaic to Greek. Zorban is what I call a person who believes in Greek primacy. Zorba and the Zorbans <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->
Reply
#20
drmlanc Wrote:Judaism has nothing to do with Paul and Jesus.
Apart from them being Jews of course...

drmlanc Wrote:Well, the OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The Talmud was written in Aramaic as are many other "Churchish" works. Even to this day, that the Israelites have taken Hebrew back, Aramaic is still common in traditions such as the bar mitzvah.
This adresses the importance of the language, not its percieved holyness.

drmlanc Wrote:Zorban is what I call a person who believes in Greek primacy. Zorba and the Zorbans <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->
Sounds like you're being religious about it... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#21
@Paul Younan

Hi Paul,

I recently researched this Cor 13:3, but I cannot find any reference to that word y-q-d neither on CAL or PS, that it can mean either burn or boast.
Do you have any reference?
Thanks

(09-11-2003, 03:04 AM)Paul Younan Wrote: Shlama Akhay,

In some manuscripts of the Greek versions of the NT we read with astonishment:

Quote:"And if I give all my possessions to feed {the poor,} and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3, GNT)

Dear Paul,
Doing some research, I cannot confirm using CAL or PS the polysemy for y-q-d.
Please some support here. Which one did you use?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)