Post by Jeff on Aug 7, 2005 19:16:32 GMT -5
Here are some quotes from Chapter 1 of Roetzel's tLoP that I found interesting:
1. "Except for the references to 'love,' the virtue list [at Galations 5:19-23] contains nothing that would be unusual in a catalogue of conventional Greek ethics." p11
2. "With the benefit of historical criticism we know that the prophets spoke to their own time and their predictions had a fairly limited horizon." p17
3. "'The traditional convenient dichotomy between Judaism and Hellenism was largely false. In the fusions of the first century the boundaries between these are now seen to have been very fluid'" p19
4. "Whereas the term 'conversion' suggests a radical break with the past, Paul's Damascus experience produced no such repudiation." p19
5. "Only reluctantly did Paul's converts surrender their view that matter was evil, that salvation was an individual, not a corporate experience, that history was circular, or that God could be apprehended directly without need of historical media like Scripture or apostles." p28
I think that any one of these would be a nice topic for discussion. But let me ask you guys a question: The last quote (#5) is hard for me to parse. Is Roetzel claiming that Paul, hence Christianity, defends the following views:
1. Matter is not evil;
2. Salvation is a corporate experience;
3. History is linear;
4. God cannot be apprehended directly?
While my own reading of Paul would have him defend the first claim, #2 and #4 look antithetical to Paul's message and #3 is at least questionable.
Am I just reading it incorrectly?
PS Remember I am working from an old edition, the second. My pages are probably not numbered the same as yours. Further, Roetzel has made many changes to the text over the years.
1. "Except for the references to 'love,' the virtue list [at Galations 5:19-23] contains nothing that would be unusual in a catalogue of conventional Greek ethics." p11
2. "With the benefit of historical criticism we know that the prophets spoke to their own time and their predictions had a fairly limited horizon." p17
3. "'The traditional convenient dichotomy between Judaism and Hellenism was largely false. In the fusions of the first century the boundaries between these are now seen to have been very fluid'" p19
4. "Whereas the term 'conversion' suggests a radical break with the past, Paul's Damascus experience produced no such repudiation." p19
5. "Only reluctantly did Paul's converts surrender their view that matter was evil, that salvation was an individual, not a corporate experience, that history was circular, or that God could be apprehended directly without need of historical media like Scripture or apostles." p28
I think that any one of these would be a nice topic for discussion. But let me ask you guys a question: The last quote (#5) is hard for me to parse. Is Roetzel claiming that Paul, hence Christianity, defends the following views:
1. Matter is not evil;
2. Salvation is a corporate experience;
3. History is linear;
4. God cannot be apprehended directly?
While my own reading of Paul would have him defend the first claim, #2 and #4 look antithetical to Paul's message and #3 is at least questionable.
Am I just reading it incorrectly?
PS Remember I am working from an old edition, the second. My pages are probably not numbered the same as yours. Further, Roetzel has made many changes to the text over the years.