Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: "of God"

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: thevoidboy AT sprynet.com (J. Amador)
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: "of God"
  • Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:22:58 -0400 (EDT)


I am suggesting a slight equivocation on your part. On the one hand, "of
God" means things like "divine authority", "good", etc., which is not a
question of pedigree, but of authority. I could say, "such and such is
God's teaching", the way people said, for example, that being
anti-communist is "in the Bible" or is "God's word". No, it's not, and no,
it isn't. But one could argue (perhaps torturously) that being
anti-communist is "of God", meaning the reasoning and values behind it are
commensurate with the Bible. In other words, "of God", meaning "acceptable
to".

But that's not what you were saying. You were saying "of God" as though
the pedigree were the issue; i.e., "from" God, meaning "out of God". And
then you went on to suggest that such an "out of" reduces the question of
whether, epistemologically, it was cooked up in Paul's brain or whether
someone else contributed to it.

Now Paul might have said, and hyperbolically asserted, just such a point -
"I got it out of God's (my) brain/revelation", but he does so in order to
emphasize its authority, not its pedigree. He isn't interested in pedigree
at all. Hence his rhetorically creative biography in Gal 1&2.

In other words, even if Paul said "of God" as though it were "out of God",
the issue here is authority, i.e., "acceptable to". This allows for an
epistemological nuance your argument was trying to exploit by avoiding -
that Paul could very well have been influenced by others, but he wasn't
interested in pedigree, just authority.

Clear as mud?

-David Amador, Ph.D.

>Ok, what does "of God" mean?
>Does it not mean "divinely inspired?"
>Does it just mean "good?"
>Does it mean "having divine authority?'
>If so, what does that mean?
>Does that not mean "from God?"
>Liz
>
>Lisbeth S. Fried
>Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies
>New York University
>51 Washington Sq. S.
>New York, NY 10012
>lqf9256 AT is3.nyu.edu
>lizfried AT umich.edu
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeffrey B. Gibson
>> [mailto:jgibson000 AT mpdr0.chicago.il.ameritech.net]
>> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 9:52 AM
>> To: Corpus-paul
>> Subject: Re: Ideas
>
>>
>>
>> But "of God" is not "from God". It is quite possible that insights
>> culled =
>> from reading, pondering, arguing, learning (all very human acts with
>> human =
>> agents) could very well be "of God". Paul's assertion is therefore
>> about =
>> the validity of the gospel he preaches. He is not arguing so much about
>> =
>> pedigree as he is about authority and legitimacy.
>>
>> -David Amador, Ph.D.
>> Santa Rosa, CA
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeffrey B. Gibson
>> 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
>> Chicago, Illinois 60626
>> e-mail jgibson000 AT ameritech.net
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: lizfried AT umich.edu
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>> $subst('Email.Unsub')
>>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: thevoidboy AT sprynet.com
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>$subst('Email.Unsub')

TheVoidBoy AT sprynet.com
J.D.H. Amador, Ph.D.
Dept of Humanities
Santa Rosa Junior College
Santa Rosa, CA





  • RE: "of God", Liz Fried, 06/28/1999
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • RE: "of God", J. Amador, 06/28/1999
    • RE: "of God", Liz Fried, 06/28/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page