Refutation of Pauline Controversy

[RJM]

Well, this is how I see it.
The Homepage has different sections for the various religions.
Most people would not see atheism as a religion .. so they can be represented by "general articles" as to why they
may be agnostic etc.
The proper place for debate is in the forum.

You say that you don't want the articles deleted .. why would that be?
..perhaps we should go into the other "sections" and append our own opinions!?

Or we could just change the name from interfaith articles section to something else. What name do you suggest?

As to appending balancing opinions to biased and conjectural or factually incorrect articles in other sections, I would say by all means: but post in the forums first, and let's have a look at them, of course primarily consulting opinions by the members of those faith sections, and also the authors of those flawed articles if they are still alive and contactable?

 

[juantoo3]

Well, this is how I see it.
The Homepage has different sections for the various religions.
Most people would not see atheism as a religion .. so they can be represented by "general articles" as to why they
may be agnostic etc.
The proper place for debate is in the forum.

You say that you don't want the articles deleted .. why would that be?
..perhaps we should go into the other "sections" and append our own opinions!?

In the interest of starting over, and presuming you are sincere, the first question I have for you is why do you object so strongly?

Not so long back you commented to me that (paraphrased) you don't mind challenges to your beliefs, they help you grow stronger. I agree with that, in fact that is the one statement you made that I can most identify with. I've lived my life and honed my personal philosophy by that very rule. It is only by challenges to understanding that we even begin to see "chinks in the armor," so to speak. Where we differ in response is that I don't automatically lash out in defense, using any and all possible means at my disposal to entrench myself.

I've said before, I meant it then, I mean it now, I don't care what you believe. If it works for you, awesome! I can say the same for so many thoughtful people in my experience, none of whom shared my own understanding, because each of us is unique. Praise G-d!

I have had exchanges with at minimum 4 other people over the years (and I see 2 more on the site now) that behave as though no rebuttal of Mr Garaffa's work was even possible...there's no response so that MUST be the end of the discussion. Let me ask, were you even aware of my conversation with him, and my rebuttal? I had that challenge placed in front of me a number of times, by Brian, and by others...if someone writes a rebuttal it will be added. That was promised to me. I declined and declined, no one else, not even Thomas, rose to the challenge. Time may have played a factor, I can't speak for others, I know I invested probably somewhere around 12 hours composing what I did in our conversation, and then condensing into a point by point "apology" probably added another 6 hours or so. Mr Garaffa said he had decades of late nights invested into his position - and I have no reason to doubt, I continue to learn and explore and contrast ideas daily. I did not accept the challenge until Mr Garaffa - Victor - asked me personally. I would have loved dearly to continue our conversation, and it pains me knowing that will never happen now. I have personal messages here from him saved, and I cherish them. He was a sweet, kindly old man. I simply disagreed with his conclusions.

 

[Thomas]

I think there's a valid case for articles to become 'defunct', as it were, when current scholarship has shown that previous assumptions have been mistaken.

For example, it was long believed that the Prologue of John evidenced 'Gnostic' tendencies, until further scholarship revealed a much broader diversity of views and expressions in 2nd Temple Judaism, and notably the commonality of analogy (light and darkness) used in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qmran finds generally.

Today, no scholar would suggest such a thing, and that view is well past its sell-by date.

The 'New Perspective on Paul' – a significant step in Pauline studies – was around for 35 years prior to Garaffa's essay, but he seems unaware of contemporary scholarship, and most of his bibliography in terms of critical study seems quite dated.

Significantly he takes no account of the NPP nor the contribution of Jewish scholarship which has demonstrated that Paul was thoroughly orthodox in his Judaism, to the degree that he never stopped being Jewish! Rather, he saw Christ in the context of Jewish Messianic expectation, in which the inclusion of the Gentile world was a sign of its fulfilment.

I would say that the critical position that Paul theological mindset was was Greek, or that he 'Hellenised' the Jewish teachings of Christ, is not given credence among scholars, and I see no reason why OP should be a platform for such polemical essays.

 

[juantoo3]

@Thomas, OK, but we both know that sometimes scholarship can be cyclical, and even if this argument is not applicable old thought patterns often persist long after their "sell by" date. Grown folks who should have long ago known better still call it a Brontosaurus even though it has long been recognized officially as Apatosaurus.

That's the thing with Comparative Religion (which was the original name of this place) and / or Interfaith, is that uncomfortable ideas and concepts are going to exist. It's the nature of the animal. We are not promoting something like Eugenics, these do represent (at least those I've looked at, primarily the one by Garaffa) previous ways or alternate ways of looking at the subject (religion). It may be convenient to "cancel" those ideas we disagree with, but then do we not become the monster we rail on about? I don't know that my gist is clear, but there is something untoward to editing out those thoughts and ideas because of convenience (and power) rather than allowing for growth of understanding. To me it is the difference between teaching a child how to think as opposed to teaching a child what to think. I will always be a strong proponent for "how to think" teaching. You can't do that by cancelling competing thoughts.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Or we could just change the name from interfaith articles section to something else. What name do you suggest?

It just says "Main Sections / General Articles" in my browser

As to appending balancing opinions to biased and conjectural or factually incorrect articles in other sections, I would say by all means..

Would you? MOST religions will appear as if they are biased, by their very nature.
Atheist / agnostic is no different in this regard. They have their reasons for believing what they believe .. as you do.

 

[juantoo3]

Would you? MOST religions will appear as if they are biased, by their very nature.
Atheist / agnostic is no different in this regard. They have their reasons for believing what they believe .. as you do.

Precisely. If the site begins cancelling alternate views, where does it stop? "Official" positions of the different faiths? By whose standard? Someone has to make the judgment call, and that judge will be biased.

Cancelling is fine as long as you are the canceller...but the view isn't so pretty when you become the cancelled. And that by default eliminates any pretense to Interfaith.

(Just to be clear, not talking at you, M_I, I'm agreeing with you here)

 

[muhammad_isa]

In the interest of starting over, and presuming you are sincere, the first question I have for you is why do you object so strongly?

I will give you my honest opinion.
I don't see the point of people writing articles just to have their work "defaced". The proper place for debate is in the forum.
If the majority of members don't think an article is "suitable", then it can be deleted.
If the reason why it is "unsuitable" is primarily because they don't agree with it, that would be a shame for an interfaith agenda.

I have had exchanges with at minimum 4 other people over the years (and I see 2 more on the site now) that behave as though no rebuttal of Mr Garaffa's work was even possible..

Of course it is possible, but we all have different opinions and civilised debate is the answer, and not "rebuttals" stamped onto the article by those who dislike the opinion of the author. If the article is is unintelligible { but it is not ! ] ..

if someone writes a rebuttal it will be added.That was promised to me."

Sure .. if somebody wants to write "a general article" arguing according to their OWN opinions .. why not?
It's up to the "Editor" at the end of the day .. which I believe is Roger, atm

 

[RJM]

It just says "Main Sections / General Articles" in my browser

Would you? MOST religions will appear as if they are biased, by their very nature.
Atheist / agnostic is no different in this regard. They have their reasons for believing what they believe .. as you do.

Nothing to do with what the religions do, but with the articles themselves being biased, conjectural, factually wrong and unsupported by decent references

If the majority of members don't think an article is "suitable", then it can be deleted.

@juantoo3 has made the point that deleting them would amount to 'cancel culture' or 'book burning' as @A Cup Of Tea expressed it.

However they are out of date -- often referencing 1920s Biblical studies -- and needed updating

 

[RJM]

Sure .. if somebody wants to write "a general article" arguing according to their OWN opinions .. why not?
It's up to the "Editor" at the end of the day .. which I believe is Roger, atm

Well if it is clearly labelled 'My Opinion' and not even pretending to be unbiased research scholarship, why didn't you just say so? It's up to everybody. Which means not just you.

 

[juantoo3]

I will give you my honest opinion.
I don't see the point of people writing articles just to have their work "defaced". The proper place for debate is in the forum.
If the majority of members don't think an article is "suitable", then it can be deleted.
If the reason why it is "unsuitable" is primarily because they don't agree with it, that would be a shame for an interfaith agenda.

Holding an opinion, idea or concept as inviolable is every bit as counter-productive to Interfaith communication as cancelling or deleting "unpopular" opinions, ideas and concepts. This is merely the reverse extreme.

Of course it is possible, but we all have different opinions and civilised debate is the answer, and not "rebuttals" stamped onto the article
by those who dislike the opinion of the author. If the article is is unintelligible { but it is not ! ] ..

Ah, I think I see what you are trying to get across:

12 – ephesians

summary

bibliography



Response to Summary of Pauline Controversy

by Juantoo3

SUMMATION

It is also a given fact that the religion practiced as Christianity is Pauline Christianity ...

Yeah, the appendation is more than a bit awkward.

Perhaps it would be better if my rebuttal was posted as a stand alone article, maybe putting a link at the bottom of Garaffa's index, underneath Bibiography

Might also amend my brain flatulence from that time and correct "Controversy" to "Conspiracy", and a proper link on the main board as well. Likewise a reciprocal link back to the front page of Garaffa's work can be on the bottom of my essay.

 

[RJM]

Holding an opinion, idea or concept as inviolable is every bit as counter-productive to Interfaith communication as cancelling or deleting "unpopular" opinions, ideas and concepts. This is merely the reverse extreme.



Ah, I think I see what you are trying to get across:

Yeah, the appendation is more than a bit awkward.

Perhaps it would be better if my rebuttal was posted as a stand alone article, maybe putting a link at the bottom of Garaffa's index, underneath Bibiography

Might also amend my brain flatulence at that time and correct "Controversy" to "Conspiracy", and a proper link on the main board as well. Likewise a reciprocal link back to the front page of Garaffa's work can be on the bottom of my essay.

Ok. If others agree, will do it tomorrow.
@muhammad_isa do you agree to that?
@Thomas?
Anyone else?

 

[juantoo3]

if someone writes a rebuttal it will be added.That was promised to me."

I want to clarify this, the promise was made by Brian well over a decade ago.

 

[RJM]

I want to clarify this, the promise was made by Brian well over a decade ago.

If no-one objects we'll fix it tomorrow. Let's give others a chance to air opinions if they need to?

 

[juantoo3]

Nothing to do with what the religions do, but with the articles themselves being biased, conjectural, factually wrong and unsupported by decent references

juantoo3 has made the point that deleting them would amount to 'cancel culture'

However they are out of date -- often referencing 1920s Biblical studies -- and needed updating

I don't think they should be inviolable, but they shouldn't be defaced either.

The thing is, who is going to rebutt? Without a rebuttal, where's the argument? If there's an argument, write a rebuttal.

Easy peesy.

 

[RJM]

I don't think they should be inviolable, but they shouldn't be defaced either.

The thing is, who is going to rebutt? Without a rebuttal, where's the argument? If there's an argument, write a rebuttal.

Easy peesy.

Look what they've done to my song, Ma?

I would regard defacing a writer's work as changing it, editing the order, removing or adding words to alter the meaning or inserting 'editor' comments interspersed with the body of the original text etc, without the author's consent. Garaffa's work remains just as it is, unchanged by jot or tittle.

But perhaps it does look a bit clunky, as you say. The point was to provide an alternative viewpoint while waiting for the proper essays to come in?

 

[juantoo3]

Yes, agreed. The same applies to the other essays. If no one is reading them, there is no argument. If there is no argument, what difference does it make?

Folks will gravitate to the subjects that interest them. If all we host are Christian topics, everyone else will fade away. If all we host are Islamic topics, everyone else will drift away. That defeats the intended purpose of Interfaith.

You can lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink. The essays are there for anyone who wants to peruse them. Can't make someone go through the hosted essays, but can't honestly deny them the opportunity either and stay true to the stated aims of the site.

 

[RJM]

Can't make someone go through the hosted essays

I don't think most people could read through all that impenetrable jungle of words even if you threatened hitting them around the head with a stick, lol.

Of course they should be representative. The point is IMO not only are they not representative of interfaith but they also not good articles ... for all the reasons previously discussed ...

Good night @juantoo3
It's getting late around here
Best regards and great to have you back

 

[RJM]

Sorry. I'm just tired

 

[muhammad_isa]

@muhammad_isa do you agree to that?

Absolutely .. there's no hurry..
..and I'm sorry for those I've offended while discussing the trinity etc.

 

[RJM]

Perhaps it would be better if my rebuttal was posted as a stand alone article, maybe putting a link at the bottom of Garaffa's index, underneath Bibiography

Ok it has been published as a stand alone article. I've tried to do it neatly, but if you or anyone else would like adjustments, just say.
https://www.interfaith.org/articles/response-to-pauline-conspiracy/

I think as an article it needs an introduction, but I don't know what to write, so I have said this:

‘The Pauline Conspiracy’ linked at the bottom of this article: ‘concerns the accusation that Saul of Tarsus did not simply usurp the embryonic Jerusalem Church under Jesus’s brother James, but that he also corrupted the entire original message of Christianity.’
This is a response to the main points of that accusation contained in the summary of that article:

Can you come up with something better?