Paul's Angelic Conundrum

[Conversator]

To adequately comprehend Paul's Gospel, it is crucial to grasp his view on God's Law. Paul considered the Law to be spiritual and humanity to be hopelessly unspiritual ( e.g., Romans 7:14), and utterly incapable of remedying the dilemma through sheer resolve ( .e.g., Romans 3:10-18 and 7:18). This is basic Christianianity and hardly a matter of disputation. The focus of this deliberation is the agency through which the Law was given.

Classic Judaism unambiguously considers the Law to be transmitted to Moses directly by God himself. The Talmud ( covering rabbinic musings from 5th century BCE, to 2nd century CE) repeatedly and unequivocally gives this statement of faith such credal significance that nothing surpasses it in relevance, except only the doctrine of monotheism itself (Note:the Talmud preserves only the Pharisees' views, and is scarcely a fair background for varying Jewish sects of the time. i.e., The Talmud says nothing of the Essenes, and verly little about the Zealots, Sadducees, Christians etc)

Paul's Angelic Conundrum: Paul's convictions, received by various esoteric revelations, e.g., "whether in the body or out of the body, only God knows" ( 2nd Corinthians 12:3); departed drastically from the Pharisees' Judaism. Paul considered angels, not God, to be the agency through which the Law was given. Galatians 3:19 " Why the Law then? Sin necessitated that it be arranged ( Gk, diatasso: to arrange, prescribe) by angels". Acts, which espouses Paul's doctrines and defends his Apostolic authority echoes this : "you received the Law by Angelic arrangement, and have not kept it", 7:53. Paul describes the Law as a "tutor", (Galatians 3:24), which restrained people " in custody " (Galatians 3:23), and illustrates the angelic agency of the Law as " guardians and managers", Galatians 4:2.

Paul castigated Christians who desired to convert to Judaism, as returning to the "worthless elements to which you desire to be enslaved again", Galatians 4:9. Though the Greek word, stocheion, denotes anything of elementary principle ( be it a basic natural element or an abstract, conceptual element ), it seems clear that the angels are implied here, since the stocheion are referenced as " by nature are not gods" ( Galatians 4:8), thus eliminating a natural element as stocheion. Seems highly implausible and contextually strange that Paul would call the Law "not gods" ( so says the apologetic minority ). Or that he merely meant the elementary religious rules of pagans are " not gods " ( so says the apologetic majority ). The author of Colossians ( a pupil of Paul's epistles) seems to settle the matter when he rebukes " the worship of angels" (2:18) , as the height of absurdity since the angelic Law had been "cancelled" (2:14), and the angelic rulers "disarmed" (2:15).

Paul's angelic agency of the Law puzzled early Christians, whether these angels were supposed to be cursed for their Law (" reviling angelic majesties and rejecting their authority" , Jude 8. " Those in the flesh with corrupt desires, despise authority ... and revile angelic majesties ", 2nd Peter 2:10 ) or even cursing Christ for their Law, 1st Corinthians 12:3! The author of Titus ( another pupil of Paul's epistles ) seeks to alleviate the angelic conundrum Paul's earlier epistles created altogether : " Avoid controversies and genealogies ( angelic rank is implied here, not patriarchal pedigree. ) ... about the Law, for they are worthless, 3:9. Indeed, as worthless as the elements Paul lamented in Galatian 4:9!

These angelic genealogies are further belittled by the author of Hebrews, who insinsts that Christ has, " become greater than the angels" ( 1:4 ). To this Paul agrees, and has no reservation calling Christ an angel: " you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus" ( Galatians 4:14 ), but a Son nonetheless ( Galileans 4:6). Paul's mystery ( Romans 16:25-27, Ephesians 6:19,Colossians 2:2 ), received by esoteric revelations, was mankind's need to be redeemed from the angelic agency of the Law. A Law relegated by angels necessitated an angelic redeemer from it; and thereby a lofty promotion to the angelic redeemer above the angelic genealogy of it; and certainly a curse to any angel who held a grievance with it, ( Galatians 1:8 ).

This is the Gospel of Paul. Indeed, the Gospel of the New Testament. Though traces of opposition to it can be found, i.g., the Galilean tradition verses the Jerusalem tradition. The Galilean tradition, inadvertently preserved by Mark, insisted Christ's resurrection occured only in Galilee, and by implication designated it as the environment of the kingdom of heaven. The Ebionites ( Aramaic, 'the impoverished', i.e., those who sold all their possessions and gave everything to the poor ) were considered Galilean monks who disavowed the virgin birth by the early Church Fathers and scant else is known of them. The Galilean primacy of the Ebionites unilaterally rejects not only the prominence of the Jerusalem church, but the Syrian church ( Antioch's later prominence as the birthplace of Christians, Acts 11:26 ) more broadly. Unfortunately, nothing is know of their angelical views. Whether they shared anything remotely similar to Paul's angelic conundrum is unknown, and thus they are irrelevant for the sake of this deliberation.
1) Did Paul's angelic agency of the Law redifine Christianianity or could it have somewhat resembled the historical Jesus's own views? 2) How could Paul's angelic agency of the Law have originated from what is known of 1st century Judaism? i.g., The Essenes held a similar obsession with angels and their agency of the Law, as well as a belief that a ' righteous teacher was killed by the Sadduceen priests of Jerusalem ' (1st to 2nd century BCE). 3) Was the obsession with angels and their angelic agency of the Law, the sole reason why Jesus was deified, or were there other considerations? I am not a Christian, but this fascinates me greatly.

[JehovahsWitness]

Paul's angelic terminology: principalities, rulers of this age, guardians and managers etc., is definitely not Pharisaic ( Paul was supposed to be a Pharisee taught by famous Rabbi Gamaliel). ...

Emphasis MINE

Paul converted from first century "Judaism" to Chistianity, so obviously in writing to fellow Christians he his terminology would no longer reflect his Jewish religious origins.

... Every time Paul quotes the Tanach, it is nothing even slightly resembling the Hebrew Masoretic text ( which Pharisees used exclusively ).

Whichever text Paul quoted from (presumably he favored the Greek septuagint), or whether he chose to paraphrase or not, it seem reasonable to assume he would have adapted his lexicon to his audience and his current belief system. In short Paul didnt write like a Pharisee because he was no longer a Pharisee.

GALATIANS 3: 28 29a

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman,+ there is neither male nor female,+ for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring ...

RELATED POSTS

Was Paul a Jewish imposter?
viewtopic.php?p=1109378#p1109378

Why didn't the Apostle Paul write like a Pharisee?
viewtopic.php?p=1109231#p1109231

Could Paul have legitimately been able to make claims as to his Jewish heritage?
viewtopic.php?p=420232#p420232

For further details please go to other posts related to ...

PAUL, THE MOSIAC LAW and ...THE WRITING OF THE APOSTLE PAUL

[Conversator]

Literally everything I said in post # 1 and # 9 has been condensed to: ' er, Paul believed in the angels, so? ' Fine, so be it. Paul's angelic terminology: principalities, rulers of this age, guardians and managers etc., is definitely not Pharisaic ( Paul was supposed to be a Pharisee taught by famous Rabbi Gamaliel). Paul's angelic terminology is exclusively Gnostic. Every time Paul quotes the Tanach, it is nothing even slightly resembling the Hebrew Masoretic text ( which Pharisees used exclusively ). This is super bizarre!

Paul converted from first century "Judaism" to Chistianity, so obviously in writing to fellow Cnristians he his terminology woild no lo'ger reflect his Jewish relgious origins. Whichever text he quoted (presumably he favor3d the Greek greek septuagint, he wojld have adapted his lexicon to his audience and his current belief system.

" Paul converted from Judaism to Christianianity", I concur. Absolutely nothing Paul every taught or wrote was even slightly Jewish.

[JehovahsWitness]

" Paul converted from Judaism to Christianianity", I concur. Absolutely nothing Paul every taught or wrote was even slightly Jewish.

I have fully addressed this point. Paul was writing to CHRISTIANS of both Jewish and non-Jewish origins, he would arguably not have wanted to sound even "slightly Jewish" when discussing bible truths and יהוה השם‎‎ (Jehovah God).

Do I sound African?

Why didn't the Apostle Paul write like a Pharisee?
viewtopic.php?p=1109231#p1109231

Could Paul have legitimately been able to make claims as to his Jewish heritage?
viewtopic.php?p=420232#p420232

JEHOVAH'S (יהוה)* WITNESS


* Hashem ("the name" of God YHWH)

[Thomas123]

Hi Conversator,
Please consider this previous submission of mine with regard to the deification of Jesus. Was Paul dependant on the Judaic Traditional Genesis 1. ...which was simply a modified Sumerian Origin Mythology. Did Paul need the precedent of Adam to sell the God Son...Jesus Christ. Did Paul believe or invent Original Sin?
...........

"And God created humankind in the divine image,
creating it in the image of God—
creating them male and female."

This is the theological cornerstone of the God in Man Story. Would you like to guess when this declaration first appeared and perhaps suggest it's origins. This is part of Judaic tradition, but where did they get it from? The Christian Christ is an untenable notion without this Judaic precedent.

How robust is the above declaration as a perceived truth or is it assumed to be allegorical in its essence and used in the Judaic tradition to have God speak, get angry, etc etc. Your knowledge and opinions are welcomed here. Thanks!

[Thomas123]

Hi Conversator, I was impressed by the fervour of your tone in Post 16.

I was reading John 2

19:“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Now that's not very nice!
Paul had been on the receiving end of this, I think, as Saul.
Is this used as part of his anti-semitic indoctrinizations, that eventually lead to the emergence of the Christ concept?
Am I miles off?

[Conversator]

Hi Conversator, I was impressed by the fervour of your tone in Post 16.

I was reading John 2

19:“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Now that's not very nice!
Paul had been on the receiving end of this, I think, as Saul.
Is this used as part of his anti-semitic indoctrinizations, that eventually lead to the emergence of the Christ concept?
Am I miles off?

I'll speak to your heart and what I believe is the motive for your curiosity in this. I do not doubt a historical Jesus of Nazareth for a moment. He obviously made such an impact on a group of blue-collar Galilean Jews, and what an impact! It remains, and will remain as long as humanity has a pulse. Who doesn't delight themselves in Jesus's invitation: "come to me all who are weary and heavy-laden and I will give you rest?" Who isn't weary in this misery-filled world? Who isn't weighed down with fears, loneliness, frustrations, and most of all heavy-laden with the desire to be loved? Those illiterate, insignificant, Galilean Jews met Jesus in a horribly impersonal environment. The kingdom of Cesar, with all its wealth, pomp, and military might. Its sophisticated philosophies, and confusing politics. Did any of it feed the poor? Clothe the vagrant? Console a prostitute? Touch and talk to disease ridden lepers? Oh, those Galilean peasants had their synagogues. The kingdom of Cesar wasn't there, but alas, the kingdom of religion. Those privileged few who got to study the sacred Torah of Moses, were just as impersonal and confusing as the politics and philosophies of Cesar's kingdom. Divisions amongst scholars and priests. Disputes over laws and rules and interpretations. Here comes Jesus, inspired by John the Baptist. "The kingdom of God is near." A kingdom without philosophies and politics, divisions and disputes, scholars and priests. Time is cruel! It catches up with us all. Those Galilean Jews passed away, but their stories about Jesus were passed down orally, by their brethren in spirit. The poor, the illiterate, the downcast. Then religion does what it always does. It turned it into philosophies and politics, scholars and priests. Disputes over laws and rules, words and interpretations, complicated theological beliefs, Divisions, schisms, sects, and books.

[Conversator]

Bye Thomas, I'm leaving this website. Have a blessed life

[Thomas123]

Hi Conversator, you probably have good reasons to leave, but...

This is the coal face of religious thought. This is the place to forge strength into your studies. I have left this place more times than I can remember, only to return. It is now extremely 'depopulated' and the flow of insightfulness is at a trickle because of the lack of numbers. Everyone tries their best to sail their own particular boat. Use this place to refine everyday relevance into your conclusions. I enjoy your writing!
Thanks!