This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What do you make of Peter and unclean foods in Acts? What sorts of things do you think were peculiar to Paul? What do you make of him checking notes with the apostles in Galatians 2?
Interestingly, that bit actually has surprisingly little to do with foods. It tells you what it's on about:
Sure, they're related, but it also has to do with foods. See the application of that in Acts 15.
Many many treatises could and have been written about what Acts 15 does and does not do. But yeah, there's very little that is particularly on point for what Peter's vision was about. I mean, Peter was a main character there; you'd think he'd have brought up his vision and been like, "Yo dawgs, god told me in a vision that we can eat dawgs, so we can definitely throw that bit out."
Fair, but the situation immediately following the vision is applied at least to say that gentiles can exist, as gentiles, that is, not following the Jewish ceremonial law.
Small nitpick, but many timelines have these events almost ten years apart.
Right. Most of the debate is concerning what counts as "Jewish ceremonial law". Insert the many treatises.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think Galatians 2 emphasizes the kind of separateness Paul has with the Jewish sect, you have some calling Paul's authority or teachings into question, probably because of not following the law and the other ideas of Paul, so he goes to get the blessing of the James etc. (who he says added nothing to his message), and they decide to accept what he's doing, but then that's it and he goes back off on his own. I don't think the groups were enemies or cut off from each other, just that they were different groups with differences of belief and that there was probably some tension there.
Specifically I think Paul's peculiar beliefs were in the holy spirit which I think he invented, how rapture/apocalypse works and ideas around afterlife which I think draw from Greek philosophy and Platonism, and not needing to follow Jewish law.
I don't have a ready explanation for the unclean foods thing, but I tend to think that the more visions are involved the less I'm inclined to believe it. It's one thing if Paul has his visions and I think that probably happened, since he seemed very intently motivated by whatever he experienced. I don't think all the other apostles were also getting visions from god, nor do I think they were actually healing people in miraculous ways etc. after Jesus' death. This story is also very convenient for Paul if you have Peter have a vision that confirms that you don't need to follow the law if God says so. Compare that to James 2:8.
Sure, Paul's careful to emphasize his own authority in Galatians—you see it a lot more there than in most of the other letters.
The Holy Spirit features prominently throughout Acts, including in the time before the conversion of Paul, and you see it in all the gospels (e.g. Mark 1:8). I just checked a reconstruction of Q, and it's in there as well. I don't see it in James, so perhaps that means it doesn't count, if that's the only thing you consider not Pauline, but I think it's quite clearly there otherwise. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by how the rapture/apocalypse happens. What do you think draws from Greek philosophy and Platonism? I'll grant that Paul was probably the one of the apostles most advocating for not needing to follow the ceremonial law, and that the others followed him in that. That's what Acts 15 seems to witness to.
How is James 2:8 in conflict there? Look at the passage? He is affirming that the law there is good, and that we will not adequately fulfill it—that matches Paul. (See, e.g. Galatians 3:10ff.)
No I consider Q Jesus' teachings, but it was placed into the bible from the Pauline school, and I don't think the way the holy spirit is referenced in Q has the kind of theological qualities that it does in the more explicitly Paul writings, it's more just used as a kind of addendum or exclamation mark, there's not much meaning in how it's used there and could be removed without changing the meaning of things.
Corinthians 15:35 (and a bit preceding it) goes over what I think are his unique ideas that I don't think the Jewish followers of Jesus really had in mind, and have that platonic quality. When he's talking about "glories" of things that is basically Platonic "ideal" versions of things.
I think that contrasts with James' "whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." I'm not totally familiar with all the evidence on what Jewish Jesus followers believed, I think there would be knowledge of Greek ideas and the traditional Jewish views of it not being much, but I don't see anything like passage of Paul in the above passage along with his certainty. I only find one passage in Q that seems anything like an afterlife heaven and that may have been phrased differently in Jesus' original words, referring to what I think most scholars understand that he believed in an earthly heaven that he would rule.
And sorry I meant James 2:10 which I think Paul very much disagrees with.
No, he definitely agrees with James 2:10. Compare "but fails in one point" of James 2:10 with "does not abide by all things written" in Galatians 3:10. And then, in the context of each of those passages, both similarly draw from that that we cannot satisfy the full measure of the law.
What do you make of the crown of life in James 1:12? I think it is probably fair to say, though, that the book is considering more the second coming of Christ than an explicit reference to the resurrection. I think 1 Peter 1:23-24 is interesting here—we see there a quotation of a passage like the one you are pointing to, but he frames that as something that is only true of those who are not born again. That maybe fits James, as James emphasizes that especially of the unrighteous, but I'm not sure.
Do you think, e.g. Acts 5:1-11 is Pauline in character?
I don't know, I think they are actually disagreeing and I think that's the common view of it. Paul is prioritizing faith over works, and James is more emphasizing works. James seems to be saying, just like you shouldn't discriminate between parts of the law (I.E. you should follow all of it), you shouldn't discriminate between rich and poor (treat everyone equally).
I think the Jewish followers still believed in some form of coming heaven on Earth, I think they probably believed Jesus would come back, but I think it's unlikely that they invented/incorporated the Platonic ideas Paul preached. I imagine them being pretty shaken and confused after Jesus' death, and having lost a lot of followers presumably, but still believing in the mission and believing they would be rewarded in some way on Earth by God. I think that would've contrasted with the manic energy of Paul's movement which was probably pretty a pretty exciting thing to be a part of, and Paul seemed to have a very clear idea of what was going to happen next. But I just imagine after their meetings, a bewildered James saying "just remember the poor, whatever you're doing out there..."
If Peter 1 was written by Peter then that would be good evidence for the jewish sect being on the same page with the afterlife, but I think it's a pretty common view that it's a forgery.
I don't know what the significance of Acts 5 is, I think both gentile and jewish groups were preparing for a looming apocalypse, maybe Paul more fervently, but I could see the story fitting both Paul's thoughts and the original Jesus-style apocalyptic ideas.
Re: 1 Peter—I figured you would say that. I just thought it was interesting that both ideas were in direct conjunction.
I was actually wondering in Acts 5 mainly about the Holy Spirit.
I still think James and Paul are on the same page there. Yes, the verse is introduced by reference to how that would make one a lawbreaker, but it's followed up by talking about how if you attempt to judge people by the full measure of the law, well, you would be condemned by that measure. And in Paul, in Romans 13:10, for example, you see love as a fulfilling of the law, along the same lines as James (and Jesus, for that matter).
The witness of Acts is of a large increase in followers following Christ's death. You may think that's fabricated, but I see no reason to think so—Luke (or whoever the author is) says he was investigating things carefully, and was clearly in his gospel putting sources together rather than fabricating things. I see no reason to doubt that the account was given by those who were around at the time.
James pretty clearly speaks of the coming of the Lord (5:7), which is probably Jesus (e.g. 2:1).
Yeah rereading that you're right about the followers, so my characterization would not have been totally accurate, but I have to imagine there was some turnover and generally that the apostles were reacting to unexpected events at the death of Jesus, and didn't have the intense spiritual hallucinogenic experiences Paul had to give them as clear of a direction forward beyond just waiting for the apocalypse and continuing Jesus' teachings and proselytizing.
So I'd mark out the difference by saying that they didn't "know" what was going to happen next in the way Paul did, beyond reference to Jewish apocalypticism. When James says the Lord it is ambiguous if he means Jesus or God, and Paul says Jesus is Lord but does that mean he is God? Jesus probably comes back as a messiah figure but is it Jesus as God or is it just because all the prophets are coming back too and everyone lives forever with heaven on Earth? I just think there's a lot more ambiguity compared to the crystal clear metaphysics with Paul. Obviously it helps that we have his letters but I also feel like it fits the events that occurred, and the personality of Paul that comes through his letters where it seems like the mechanics of how everything works interests him far more than it did Jesus and James.
Regarding the holy spirit I don't think it's totally clear what the holy spirit was which is why I think it took a while to eventually flesh it out as part of the trinity down the line, but to me it just seems like a Paul thing, where he's differentiating between those with faith in Jesus as having this spiritual thing that connects them with God, ensures their heavenly body, and also affects their actions to be more "Godly", and I imagine it's something all his followers said all the time, "holy spirit" this and "holy spirit" that, and so it crops up in the stories the ended up writing about Jesus and the other apostles, but it's basically just when they act Godly, it just looks like word substitution to me.
Paul says, 1 Corinthians 15:3, that he delivered to them what he received, and proceeds to list a bunch of post-resurrection encounters with Jesus. This includes with the 12. Seeing as he spoke with some of the 12 himself (and really, how would things like this not come up, if you had the opportunity to talk about it), presumably they at least thought that they encountered a resurrected Jesus.
I agree that James is ambiguous re:God vs. Jesus. If you think that Q is an authentic portrayal of whatever Jewish community's beliefs, then, Luke 17:26-30~Matthew 24:37-39 certainly looks like it's Jesus coming as the son of man, in judgment.
I'll yield that we see a much more fleshed out theology in Paul's letters than in much of the rest of the New Testament.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link