₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO:
I do not see what was written in that link as any sort of challenge against the notion that Paul was influenced by rabbinical sources.  It just makes a statement:

Possible Rabbinic influences face the same problem; a superficial reading seems to support the conclusion that Paul was influenced by them, but analysis invariably exposes such links as forced.

This happens too often in the writings of christians apologists.  I think the motivation is that if you say something authoritatively enough then it will go unchallenged.  Since everybody has been reading the matter 'superficially' what the writer needs to do is go deeper into the matter and demonstrate for us the analysis that exposes the links as forced. 
Or at the very least point us to a link where it is done.  It is not enough to just say the connections are forced and our readings are superficial, show us how and where we are being superficial and where we are forcing links. All that dismissive rhetoric without back up was exhausted a long time ago by Davidylan.

I had deliberately let the red bolded go previously but it is a point to be addressed. When we (e.g. myself or Davidylan) or even the so-called "christian apologists" are dismissive of allegations against the Bible and its writers based on myths and fanciful scholarship, it is precisely because knowledge/understanding of the Bible and experience of scholarship has shown and continues to make it fairly easy to identify such myths and fanciful scholarship. That one stops at the dismissive comments sometimes without going into further detail or attempt to debunk the claims is simply because of the boredom and ennui involved in the process.

Take e.g. the Adam Kadmon thing, of course the articles I referred to knocked it on the head without necessarily stretching that issue as they had more important points to address. The Gladd article actually contains plenty of information that puts paid to the idea but even if all one sees is this one line from footnote 5, it should be enough to show the stance of the article:

As Albert Schweitzer so aptly puts it, ‘‘The Second Adam is, in Paul, an eschatological not a mythical conception’’

Beyond that if we consider the importance of the claim about the introduction of the word "them" to the case about the androgynous Adam and Adam Kadmon, the Gladd article knocks out the basis of the whole argument presented on this thread again in an aside even while making other important points. The theory presented to us here started and was hanged on the case that 'male and female created He them' is a wrong translation with unproven allegation of twisting etc concerning the word "them".

Now this was used as the foundation of the whole argument that the first Adam was androgynous etc. However, the article shows that the word 'Adam' is used to denote either a specific person Adam or to denote 'mankind', which thus explains the legitimate use of 'them' and is according to context as I had pointed out earlier. In that alone the article wholly undermines any suggestion that Paul's argument believed that Adam was androgynous.

Here is footnote 11 from that article:

It is common to view ‘‘man’’ in 1:26-28 and 2:7 as distinct from 5:3. Cf. Richard S. Hess, ‘‘Splitting the Adam: The Usage of Genesis I–V,’’ in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J. A. Emerton;VTSup 41; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990), 1-15. Typically, when  dℵappears without the article, it is translated ‘‘Adam.’’ But if the noun is articular (,dℵh), then the general noun ‘‘mankind’’ is normally used. Perhaps the root cause of this confusion is the so-called ‘‘J’’ and ‘‘P’’ traditions. Sections 1:1–2:4a and 5:1-28 are the ‘‘P’’ document and 2:4b–4:26 is ‘‘J.’’ The two documents purportedly reflect two creation accounts. But in 5:1 the P tradition uses the proper name ‘‘Adam,’’ whereas in 1:26-27 the generic ‘‘mankind’’ is used (see Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17 [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 160, for a discussion of this higher-critical problem). Though in 2:7 ‘‘man’’ occurs, in the remainder of the narrative in 2–3 (esp. 3:17-21) ‘‘Adam’’ and ‘‘Eve’’ are certainly names. Therefore, though ‘‘man’’ (,dℵ) occurs in 1:26-28 and 2:7, in the light of 5:1 and 3:17-21, it is appropriate for us to view these accounts as the creation of Adam and Eve.

We may finish with another question: where in and in how much of Christianity has there been this belief or even acceptance of the Adam Kadmon myth?

^ What you are adding to the text is not merely 'oxen'; rather that the law was (or was not) made for oxen!

The text simply says what was written or said is/was for 'us'; for our beneft. At no time does Paul indicate that the rule/saying concerning oxen does not apply, has ceased to apply or was not intended to (or to continue to) apply --- about oxen. His point is that the law is written for 'us', for 'our benefit', for man to apply --- thus, legitimately, the saying about not muzzling the oxen can be applied even in a different context to mean he who ploughs/threshes in hope should be partaker of the hope.

The saying 'when the king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful' is altogether for our benefit ------ thus we can apply it even when the hut of a very poor man (far from a king) burns down. 

Nevertheless, the questions I posed in my last post remain.

First, you have not shown us from anywhere, not even from the Hultgren article, that Paul believed in the myth about Adam Kadmon! You have simply asserted but shown us nothing to support the idea that Paul believed in the Adam Kadmon myth.

Further, an argument that Paul believed in the Adam Kadmon myth and speculation and other, arguably, minority Jewish mythology and/or was teaching them in his 'first and last Adam' theology is a misunderstanding of the literature and scholarship and, not to say the least, of Paul! It is one thing to say Paul was aware of Jewish/rabbinical tradition & mythology and another to say Paul accepted and taught such tradition & mythology as part of Christianity (Jews and even the vaunted rabbinical tradition  even consider Paul a heretic for seeing the last Adam as Christ or Messiah!)

The argument in the literature is that being aware of the Jewish/rabbinical traditions and that his audience was similarly aware, Paul took advantage of imageries from such tradition to paint a picture and make an imagery of his own for the purposes of his own different theology.

Here is one simplistic example from http://ejmmm2007..com/2007/01/adam-kadmon-i-spiritual-man-primordial.html

What is most striking to me is Paul’s insistence on the “order” of being. Paul pointedly states the “spiritual Adam” was not first. I take that to mean that Paul is making sure his readers understand that what he is teaching is markedly different from what they might assume. And that indicates to me that Paul is both aware of and modifying for his own theologic purpose an already well-known doctrine of a “spiritual Adam” that people believed preceded the earthly Adam. Since Jesus came millenia after human creation, Paul finds it necessary for the spiritual Adam be the culmination of humanity, rather then its origin. So in response to the question, all in all, I would think that this idea of being incorporated into the "body of Christ" is likely a specifically Christian re-retooling of the Jewish esoteric doctrine.

Here is a further example from another article which actually highlights a range of Jewish mythological speculations or "rabbinical tradition": http://www.satsonline.org/userfiles/Asumang,PutontheLordJesusChrist.pdf

It is important to point out again that these examples in ancient Jewish beliefs only serve to illustrate not that Paul borrowed from these speculations, but that he sometimes presented his teaching either to refute or to demonstrate a far superior teaching about the glorious inheritance of the saints in Christ. Our knowledge of these speculations, I suggest, enhances our understanding of the background of Paul’s teaching.

For now, let me pose the following questions:

A. First and Last Adam

1. Who is the first Adam according to Paul? What was the nature of this first Adam according to Paul? Was he androgynous according to Paul? Was he Adam Kadmon, according to Paul?

2. Who is the second Adam according to Paul? What was the nature of this second Adam according to Paul? Was he androgynous according to Paul? Was he Adam Kadmon, according to Paul?

3. Who is the last Adam according to Paul? What was the nature of this last Adam according to Paul? Was he Androgynous according to Paul? Was he Adam Kadmon, according to Paul?

4. Does Hultgren suggest that Paul believed and/or taught or even base his theology on the Adam Kadmon myth?


B. The Adam Kadmon myth in Judaism

5. How much of Judaism believes in the Adam Kadmon myth today?.

6. How much of Judaism has ever believed in the Adam Kadmon myth?

7. How much of Judaism has always believed in the Adam Kadmon myth?

So Jesus was created, then? Jesus is a created being?

Still adding to the text, I'm afraid.

The sense we get is: this was spoken for our benefit; this was written for our benefit; he was speaking to us; he was speaking for our benefit.

Talk of "Mosaic law was not written for animals" is really adding to the text.

Unresolved questions.

How many Adams have there been?

1. The "primordial Adam" or Kabbalah "Adam Kadmon"?
2. The second Adam - who was later divided into Adam and Eve?
3. The last Adam of Paul?

Was Paul's last Adam the same as kabbalah "Adam Kadmon"?

By the way is not the same "pantos" again translated as "altogether" in the second verse below - and what is the effect there then?


1 Cor 5

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

EDIT and the same word is translated elsewhere as: "by all means", "surely", "must needs", "no doubt", "in no wise", "at all".

Why?

See http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3843&t=KJV

As far as I can see, the sense of the text is clear enough --- whatever you make of "pantos" not only the word but also the appropriate punctuation.

A selection of translations of the verse.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

But it is understood that he said it for our sake and for our sake it was written, because it is incumbent upon the plower to plow for hope, and whoever threshes, for the hope of a crop.

NLT

Wasn't he actually speaking to us? Yes, it was written for us, so that the one who plows and the one who threshes the grain might both expect a share of the harvest.

NIV

Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.

ESV

Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.

ISV

Isn't he really speaking for our benefit? Yes, this was written for our benefit, because the one who plows should plow in hope, and the one who threshes should thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.

NASB

Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.

KJV

Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Pastor AIO:
I think that Paul answers his own rhetorical question with the subsequent statements.  Let me paraphrase what he said:

Does God Care enough for Oxen to make a law for them?

No, but the law was made Altogether for us humans.  (The word 'altogether' or 'entirely' removes any suggestion that the law could be applied to animals. the law was entirely for us, not us and animals). 

If I ask if the lamborghini in my drive is Olaadegbu's, and then I follow with the question or is it mine, and then I follow that with the statement that in fact it is entirely mine . . . does that no equate to saying that No, the lamborghini is not Olaadegbu's.

Is that merely a paraphrase or an addition to the text?

Bear in mid your own allegations about people adding stuff to Bible text!

A youth corper in my office kept telling me she had to go to church and pay in all her allowance as a first seed offering.

Pray God opens her eyes so that she stops being fooled by peddlers of false doctrine and perhaps even charlatans.

Maybe this little exercise could help demonstrate the point?

Are you harassing me because of 100 naira?

Are you harassing me because of only 100 naira?

Difference?

^^^ The point is really simple and not that hard to understand. I agree that indeed Paul does not say God does not care for oxen. It really boils down to something like does God care only* about oxen?

*And yep, I added "only"; well not only me, some Bible translations do too.

Kay 17:
@Enigma

You hang a man for another man's crime. I expected you to take out a passage in Darwin's own book which suggests racism, and inferiority of Negro. "Descent of Man" is very likely to provide that evolution is a religion and a conspiracy and represents every misconception Ola has about science.

That's not good enough.

What on earth are you talking about?

Is 'The Descent of Man' not Darwin's book? And are the words not the words of Charles Darwin?

Or is 'Origin of Species' his only book?

Kay 17:
I will use a rational approach. But I have bias toward the Supernatural. Reason does also.

I am not surprised you don't give a straight answer; at least you admit some bias. All good. 

Kay 17:
@Enigma

Is your quote from the book??

In the preservation of races, what do you think he meant? . . .

The quotation is from 'The Descent of Man'. I thought you might ask that, so I want to remind you that what Olaadegbu referred to was Darwinist theory and I'd be surprised if you were to say we should only look at 'Origin of Species' for that.

On your other question, why don't you tell us what you think he meant? EDIT Also, in this respect, please tell us what you think he meant by the quotation I've extracted.

Meanwhile, note that you have not answered the question I have asked you at least twice now!

Will YOU apply the same standard you use for judging criticism of Darwin's work when someone (especially an evangelical atheist) makes a similarly unseemly allegation about Christianity?

^^^ If you say so. I have read it too and I see different. Even the argument of Hultgren, the article of whose extracts you relied upon, was addressed.

Kay 17:
Plz provide what's racially offensive in the title and the book itself.

Firstly: will YOU apply the same standard you use for judging criticism of Darwin's work when someone (especially an evangelical atheist) makes a similarly unseemly allegation about Christianity?

Second, all I have done is point to the title of Darwin's work and, in any event, he did write the below:  

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

@Jesoul

We can respect his wishes - and I have definitely done so - and at the same time point out his hypocrisy. It is "definitely" hypocrisy.

^^ Apply a similar standard or approach next time somebody (especially an evangelical atheist) makes an unseemly allegation about Christianity.

@ davidylan

[digression]The interpretation that Peter was wealthy because he had a boat is possible and I have heard very good and knowledgeable people make it; but at the same time alternatives are also possible e.g. that fishermen on Lagos lagoon have boats does not mean that they are rich ---- even granted we are talking about different times. [/digression]

The background context (to an extent) of Joagbaje 's claim that: Jesus DEFINITELY sold some stuff.

From https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=883166.msg10307999#msg10307999

Joagbaje:
[quote author=Mopoli link=topic=883166.msg10301769#msg10301769 date=1330544121]I find it very difficult to comprehend why Churches contemporary that is meant to be a holy place of worship or sanctuary has now been turned RUSHING HOUR BIZ CENTRES. For example:churches selling G.o books,messages on vcd or dvd,magazines,stickers,miracles aprons,handkerchiefs,church polo,church special prayer recharge card(at minimum of N500) church hand bags,etc etc right inside the church with an additional prices, cajoring their members to buy them in disguise of maximum blessing and miracles. I have experienced these on many occassion i don't know about you? What exactly is christendom turning into? Irrespective of Jesus oppositional actions in John2:15,Matt21:12

I don't see anything wrong in selling and buying books and tapes . We should rather give God thanks for such inventions. If a man labour to acquire knowledge and he could take time to put his life study in a document for us to learn from thats commendable. Some people have died with the knowledge they had.

People paid to have books in bible days. Duplicates of book were made by scribes.

Proverbs 23:23
23 Buy the truth, and sell it not;also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.



How Did Ethiopian eunuch get the copy of book of isaiah which  he was traveling with when Philip met him ? He bought it. Paul had collections of books too.

2 Timothy 4:13
13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

Nothing s wrong if a church sell things. It depends on purpose and motives. Some people give things that can not be used and they have to be sold. Jesus definitely sold some stuff.If not,his desciples  would not have asked for the perfume to be sold.

Mark 14:5
5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.

Remeber jesus also had once counselled a man to sell his belonging and use for the poor.

Matthew 19:21
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.[/quote]

^^^ Actually the debate has been taken out of its original context. I will find the original quote and link to it here.

If someone says Jesus probably worked with his father as a carpenter and might have sold carpentry work, I don't think people will argue with that.

Here the argument that "Jesus definitely sold some stuff" was being used to justify the merchandising of the gospel by people selling anointing oil, 'anointed' handkerchief, tapes, books etc.

It is a significant difference and Joagbaje is enjoying the fact that the original context of his statement is missing on this thread.

OLAADEGBU:
. . .You should be concerned with the Darwinist theory of evolution that indoctrinates you that black people are closer to baboons and you believe it.

Well Darwin's most famous book is titled:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

^^^ The lemon* supporting the hypocrite, what's new?



*copyright nuclearboy

Joagbaje:
my i.d is joagbaje. if you want response from me adress me appropriately

Without meaning to derail the thread and discussion, cross reference for rebuttal of this post here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-505782.800.html#msg10338741

@Joagbaje

I like to say you are engaged in shameful and shameless double standards and you are quite lucky to have the indulgence of the moderator(s).

In the past you have frequently advertised your business and linked to pages with your full name

You have posted several videos which start by you introducing yourself with your full name; (and you even clearly call yourself Pastor 'JA' bla bla bla.).

You even posted a video of yourself "giving" to Police

You have linked to other things including neswpapers with your name in it.


Now, you are crying wolf hypocritically and disgracefully.

What did that fellow say? "You can fool some people all the time . . . etc BUT . . . "


EDIT Heck, even each post of yours is an ad --- with your email BB Pin and all that.  (2-faced hick!)

OLAADEGBU:
. . .

At least he now knows that there is intelligence responsible for the DNA which is a positive step in the right direction and if he is wise he will not stop there. . . .

He is dead now, sadly. At the time of his renouncing atheism, he maintained his renunciation of Christianity also. However, he was always in private communication with Christian ministers and theologians with whom he was good friends and some of whom were partly responsible for convincing him of the existence of God (especially Gary Habermas and perhaps also N T Wright). 

Arijẹ ni madaru ẹ jẹ lọ j'awọ!

^^ No need to waste any time on this particular one about Josephus; informed people know where current scholarship is on that one and the outcome, even putting the scholarship at the most disadvantageous level to Christianity, is that Josephus is indeed an independent corroborating account.

OLAADEGBU:
[quote author=Deep Sight link=topic=869536.msg10309264#msg10309264 date=1330623705]Why is anyone wasting energy over Dawkins, one of the most unintelligent people on the planet? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

He is supposed to be the most intelligent atheist evolutionist. [/quote]He is the pope of evangelical atheists!

OLAADEGBU:
. . . You better learn about DNA which is a molecule of heredity . . . .

See the impact that knowledge/understanding of what DNA represents had on one of the evangelical atheists' greatest champions of all time. 

[flash=400,300]http://youtube.com/v/X1e4FUhfHiU[/flash]