The God That Paul Marketed Over Time.

I feel like I better add actual scripture quotations to this (heavy in commentary) discussion, so people can see some of the more relevant words of Paul, as opposed to a bunch of claims that are taken at full face value as reflecting Paul's views on salvation and judgment day issues specifically as it relates to non Christians.People like to quote from Galatians 5:4 and the (perhaps unreliable with regard to quotes of Paul) Acts of the Apostles when it comes to this "salvation" and "eternal life" judgment issue.

quote:

---

Galatians 5:2-5

​

Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. 4 You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.

​

NRSV

---

People love to take that word "grace" and say that means that only Christians will be judged positively. Paul really wrote many of his letters on the fly (quickly) and perhaps didn't mean for every last word to be legalistically studied.Here is what he said in Roman 2 about non Christian gentiles. (Ill quote verse 12 to the very end of the chapter)

quote:

---

Romans 2:12-25

​

All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.

​

17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relation to God 18 and know his will and determine what is best because you are instructed in the law, 19 and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth, 21 you, then, that teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You that forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 For, as it is written, The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.

​

25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heartit is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.

​

NRSV

---

Read the very end of Galatians 5 now.

quote:

---

Galatians 2:13-26

​

For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence,but through love become slaves to one another. 14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 15 If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

​

16 Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

​

22 By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another.

​

NRSV

---

"Grace" (which he says that Jesus offers and Christian followers enjoy)might mean a free and easy ride to righteousness and judgment, but is it the only way according to Paul's letters?btw, does all this talk of "freedom" in Paul's writings meant he opposed actual human-chattel slavery? (nope!)Read verse 1 of chapter 5

quote:

---

Galatians 5:1

​

For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

---

All scholars regard the epistle to Philemon as from the pen of Paul. Ephesians and Colossians are generally doubted to be his own writings, but see Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22.Perhaps one shouldn't read to much into a single word. "Grace" might just mean a free and easy ride. "Just $9.99 for $500 worth of goods. Call now. The first 100 callers even get $200 more in goods." Paul beat that commercial by about 1900 or more years. It doesn't exclude other options, does it?Here is what Paul said in the Acts of the Apostles. Be warned that quotes of Paul in Acts might not be reliable. (I'm not calling the author of Luke-Acts a liar because he did a good job of not embellishing words of Jesus (to have stuff like the c. 100 A.D. John 3:16 kind of crap dishonestly put into Jesus' mouth) in his Gospel. It really does seem to be based on sources that could be considered credible, of that the author ("Luke") though were credible. Luke 1:1-4 is impressive in that the author admits that his gospel is late and that he used many sources. The gospel of Luke can respectably be placed alongside Mark and Matthew, and it is a credit to the author considering his Acts book has lots of later "you must believe in the specific name Jesus" (or along those lines) theology in it. His gospels are about works (see Luke 2:8-14 for "Luke's" quote of John the Baptist answering how people achieve their "repentance" Luke 3 NRSVUE - The Proclamation of John the Baptist - Bible Gateway) not exclusivity with regards to a name or banner tribalism.)Acts 17 and Paul in Athens:

quote:

---

Acts 17:22-34

​

Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. 23 For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. 26 From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27 so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find himthough indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28 For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said,

​

‘For we too are his offspring.’

​

29 Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. 30 While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.

​

32 When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed; but others said, We will hear you again about this. 33 At that point Paul left them. 34 But some of them joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

​

NRSV

---

I find it interesting that Paul never attacked actual established revelatory religions like Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. He seemed to be responding to the endless (thousands and thousands) worshipping of every little stick and stone idol type of Gods and perhaps the endless sacrifices that were always offered. The Greco-Roman world had lots of dime a dozen type of Gods that people didn't believe. Remember the Spartacus movie and how that Senator responded, when asked about which of the endless god's he believes in (when purchasing animals to sacrifice)? He answered, "publically all of them, privately, none of them".

Phat has quoted multiple verses.

quote:

---

[Phat post #56]
Ephesians 2:8-10 writes:

​

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast.

​

Gal 2:15-16 writes:

​

We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

​

Romans 11:6 writes:

​

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IT IS NO MORE GRACE: otherwise work is no more work. If salvation comes by works, then it is NOT by God’s grace anymore.

---

Then

quote:

---

[Phat in an earlier response to me]
Galatians 5:5

​

5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.
NRSV

---

Let me take Galatians 2:15-16 first as it leads to a very important issue that must be considered about "the law" and how some Mosaic Law commands transferred into vice lists plus the foundational directive to overseas communities of Acts 15.First, understand that most scholars think that the Galatians controversy, (the subject of the entire book) over Jewish Christians and how their following of the law is considered appropriate in the New Testament economy of "salvation by grace" alone, was referring back to the events around the months of the Apostolic Council of circa 50 A.D. (or a year or so earlier). There is a difference of opinion. (Galatians was written the mid-late 40s according to some, such as F. F. Bruce and most British scholars, or the late 50s, as most scholars worldwide think it was written). Most British scholars think Galatians was written before the (Acts 15) Apostolic Council (thus it becomes the earliest book written that we have in the entire New Testament as opposed to 1 Thessalonians being such) and then refers to earlier events from after chapter 10 and before chapter 14.

quote:

---

Galatians 2:8-16
For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas [ Peter] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

​

Paul Opposes Cephas

​

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

​

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

​

15 We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

​

NIV

---

Most scholars verses 8 to 10 as referring to the time just after the Acts 15 Apostolic Council ended.You will see that the council (see Acts 15:20-29) kept certain aspects of both the written Mosaic Law and the Oral Law (not written in the Bible but later preserved in the Mishnah of the Talmud), though it was seen as a new post-Christian command and no longer necessarily "The Law" though that depends on perspective.Don't forget that James lead the council. He was the blood brother of Jesus according to the vast majority of scholars. James leadership is Biblical.See these quotes of the leading historian Steven Mason in his Early Christian Reader, as he annotates the text of the Acts of the Apostles. verses 12:17, 15:19, and 15:13 have subscripted reference letters that lead to these obversations.

quote:

---

p.489

​

[15:19 note] James therefore has the power to preside over the apostles. See note to 15:13

​

....

​

p488

​

[15:13 note]

​

as 12:17 suggested, Jesus' brother James has quietly assumed a leading role in the young church. See notes to 12:17, 21:18.

​

....

​

p.483

​

[12:17]

​

His rise to a leading position in the church (see also 15:13, 19, 21:17) is not documented.

---

We know what "James" also said in James 2:26 of the Bible. I'll quote it later - I promise!Lets look at other quotes of yours Phat.

quote:

---

Ephesians 2:8-10 writes:

​

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast.

​

....

​

Romans 11:6 writes:

​

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IT IS NO MORE GRACE: otherwise work is no more work. If salvation comes by works, then it is NOT by God’s grace anymore.

---

Now here is James 2:26, as I promised.

quote:

---

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

​

NKJV

---

Phat quoted this in an earlier response to me.

quote:

---

Galatians 5:5
5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.
NRSV

---

But see Romans 2:25-29

quote:

---

Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heartit is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.

​

NRSV

---

Paul circumcised a Jewish Christian in Acts 16, which the (earlier chapter 15) Apostolic Council did NOT refer to (it was about requirements for gentiles). James seems to have been strongly supportive of circumcising Jewish Christians, and they existed for another 400 years before being killed off by the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.Jesus seems to have appointed James as the leader.There were differences of opinion back then (between Paul and James), but most of it was a matter of perspective and terminology. There was a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether one should be circumcised or not - perhaps the fear of James was that eventually more and more of the commands would be dropped if a more Pauline type of denomination ended up severely outnumbering the Jewish Christian type of denomination.

quote:

---

Most teachers whom I study with fail to see your vague conclusion.
Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles. James?

​

James 1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:

​

Two different audiences. Of course the message will differ.

---

I assume you are referring to the issue of there being a Jewish Christian denomination of James and a Pauline Christian denomination of Paul?I'll get around to agreeing with you that too much is made of the disagreements behind Paul and James, Peter, etc., but first the actual issue.Lets look at the term used in Galatians. (I'll start by quoting from a source that I consider quite dishonest and deceptive on this issue, but the first 3 paragraphs will be quoted regardless)

quote:

---

Judaizers
Those who adopted Jewish religious practices or sought to influence others to do so. TheGreek verb ioudaizo [Ioudai?zw] ("to judaize") appears only once in theSeptuagint ( Esther8:17 ) and once in the New Testament ( Gal 2:14 ). In theSeptuagint this verb is used in relation to the Gentiles in Persia who adopted Jewishpractices in order to avoid the consequences of Esther's decree ( Esther 8:13 ), whichpermitted Jews to avenge the wrongs committed against them. The Septuagint not only uses ioudaizo[Ioudai?zw]to translate the Hebrew mityahadim ("to become a Jew"), but adds thatthese Gentiles were circumcised.

​

In Galatians 2:14 it means to "live like Jews" (RSV, neb, NASB, Phillips),"follow Jewish customs" (NIV), or "live by the Jewish law"(Barclay). The context for this reference is the episode in Antioch when Paul condemnsPeter's withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile Christians. Peter's actions areviewed by Paul as a serious compromise of the gospel of salvation by grace through faithalone, lending support to the position that sought to impose Jewish ceremonial law on theGentiles. Thus, Paul interprets Peter's withdrawal in terms of its effect in compellingGentile Christians to live like Jews.

​

The term "Judaizer" has come to be used in theological parlance to describethe opponents of Paul and Barnabas at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and those who soughtto preach "another gospel" in the churches of Galatia ( Galatians 2:4 Galatians 2:12 ; 6:12 ; cf. Php 3:2 ). In thissense, "Judaizers" refers to Jewish Christians who sought to induce Gentiles toobserve Jewish religious customs: to "judaize." It appears that theseindividuals agreed with much of the apostolic kerygma but sought to regulate the admissionof Gentiles into the covenant people of God through circumcision and the keeping of theceremonial law. Insisting that "Unless you are circumcised you cannot besaved" ( Acts15:1 ), these "believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees" ( Acts 15:5 ) posed aserious threat to the gospel of grace and the uNIVersality of the Christian mission.

​

Who Were Judaizers? Biblical Meaning and Definition

---

Don't be deceived by what this source says about food laws (in several places) and their sly slight of hand in using the term "ceremonial law" to refer to dietary restrictions. They twist the heck out of the issue.The issue is circumcision (and also animal sacrifices though it isn't explicitly mentioned) essentially.In Philippians 3, Paul said this.

quote:

---

Philippians 3:2-8

​

Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God[d] and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh 4 even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh.

​

If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

​

7 Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. 8 More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord

​

NRSV

---

Those who promote circumcision are the dogs (Jews took to calling gentiles dogs at times).Paul attacked Peter as one of the dogs I guess.Even a 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia (ironically) admits that Peter's followers were referred to as one of these. The article is long but notice that Peter/Cephas is admitted to be a judaizer.

quote:

---

After the foregoing events the Judaizers could do little mischief in Syria. But they could carry their agitation to the distant churches founded by St. Paul, where the facts were less well known; and this they attempted to do. The two Epistles to the Corinthians give good reason to believe that they were at work at Corinth. The party or rather faction of Cephas (1 Corinthians 1:12) very probably consisted of Judaizers. They do not seem, however, to have gone beyond belittling St. Paul's authority and person, and sowing distrust towards him (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:1-5; 2 Corinthians 11:5-12; 12:11-12; 1:17-20; 10:10-13). For while he has much to say in his own defence, he does not attack the views of the Judaizers, as he would certainly have done had they been openly preached. His two letters and his subsequent visit to Corinth put an end to the party's machinations. In the meantime (supposing Galatians to have been written soon after 1 and 2 Corinthians as it very probably was) Judaizing emissaries had penetrated into the Galatian churches, whether North or South Galatian matters little here (see EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS), and by their skillful maneuvers had almost succeeded in persuading the Galatians, or at any rate many of them, into accepting circumcision. As at Corinth they attacked St. Paul's authority and person. He was only a secondary Apostle, subordinate to the Twelve, from whom he had received his instruction in the Faith and from whom he held his mission. To his teaching they opposed the practice and teaching of the pillars of the Church, of those who had conversed with the Lord (Galatians 2:2 sqq.).

​

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Judaizers

---

If you read the entire article, you will be reading out of date stuff (a bit biased too). But it is still helpful.This "Judaizing" issue was a big issue the orthodox attacked in the first 4 centuries. Church councils attacked Jewish Christians. Like the Council of Laodicea .The issue was forgotten. Here is a quote of F F Bruce from an unpublished book (but is found on computer software. He had a timeline of New testament interpretation.
New Testament Interpretation | Logos Bible Software

quote:

---

5. THE TBINGEN SCHOOL
A major event in the history of New Testament interpretation was the publication in 1831 in the Tbinger Zeitschrift fr Theologie of a long essay on the Christ party in the Corinthian church, by Ferdinand Christian Baur.?3#? The study of Paul’s correspondence convinced Baur that apostolic Christianity, far from being a unity, was marked by a deep cleavage between the church of Jerusalem and the Pauline mission. Whereas the church of Jerusalem, led by Peter and other original associates of Jesus, maintained a judaizing version of Christianity, Paul insisted that the gospel involved the abolition of Jewish legalism and particularism. In addition, the genuineness of Paul’s apostleship was questioned by the partisans of Jerusalem, and attempts were made to undermine his authority in the eyes of his converts. There is evidence enough of the sharpness of the conflict between the two sides in the Galatian and Corinthian letters of Paul especially. So thoroughly did this conflict dominate the apostolic age that those New Testament documents which do not reflect it, but present instead a picture of harmony between Peter and Paul, between the Jerusalem church and the Gentile mission, betray by that very fact their post-apostolic perspective. Baur indeed, as he followed what appeared to him to be the logic of the situation, came to ascribe a second-century date not only to Acts, from which the conflict has disappeared, but to the Gospels also. If the Gospels were second-century documents, their value as historical sources for the life and teaching of Jesus was slender indeed, but if the evidence pointed to this conclusion, the conclusion had to be accepted. In the years which followed the publication of his 1831 essay Baur was increasingly influenced by Hegel’s philosophy, which saw the historical process developing in a dialectical pattern of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This pattern seemed to Baur to be exemplified by the course of early Christian history: the first-century thesis and antithesis of Jerusalem rigorism and Pauline proclamation of freedom from law being followed by the second-century synthesis in which these two were reconciled by compromise. But it must be borne in mind that the initial impetus to Baur’s interpretation of early Christian history came from his New Testament exegesis, not from Hegelianism. (Nor should it be overlooked that the historical process frequently does exhibit the features of Hegel’s dialectic, although it is never permissible to impose that dialectic on a historical sequence which does not correspond to it without distortion.) It is illicit, then, to dismiss Baur’s reconstruction of the New Testament record (or, for that matter, Wellhausen’s reconstruction of the Old Testament record)?3#? on the plea of Hegelian influence. Baur, in fact, drew attention to a crucial factor of apostolic history which had received insufficient attention from his predecessors, and he did so to such good effect as to leave a permanent mark on the subsequent course of New Testament interpretation.
Like other pioneers, however, he stated the problems more convincingly than he proposed solutions to them. His second-century dating of the Gospels, for example, could not be maintained: the establishment of their first-century dating as against Baur’s arguments was one of the achievements of the Cambridge school. It might not be too inaccurate, says C. K. Barrett, to say that Baur asked the right questions, and that Lightfoot set them in the right historical perspective.?3#? Even the latest of the four Gospels cannot be dated after the beginning of the second century. But to say that is to say that the synthesis which Baur dated in the second century was already accomplished, or on the way to accomplishment, in the first: it was taking shape simultaneously with the thesis and antithesis. The task of the New Testament interpreter proved to be more complicated than Baur imaginednot only in the problems of the chronological development of the controversies but in their complexity and diversity. Paul had to contend with more than one kind of judaizing activity in his churches, and he had to contend at the same time with more than one variety of incipient Gnosticism. Not only so: at least one of these varieties of incipient Gnosticism was marked by prominent judaizing features. And these were only some of the human tensions within the primitive Christian church. In Baur’s day it was a sufficiently radical advance to recognize that such tensions existed at all; since his recognition that this was so, a good part of New Testament interpretation has had to do with the interplay of these tensions and subsequent dtentes

---

Galatians is interesting.

quote:

---

EARLY CHRISTIAN READER
STEVE MASON

​

p.106
Paul’s letter to the Christian groups of Galatia is fascinating for many reasons. First, it is his most passionate writing. He was on the brink of losing many of his converts to other Christian leaders. More than in any other letter except perhaps 2 Corinthians 10-13, therefore, we see him pleading, angry, and sarcastic-as a believable human being. Finally, it is in the course of his argument with judaizingChristians that Paul incidentally lays out a valuable (though still partial) chronological framework for his own career.
Date
Where to place Galatians among Paul’s letters may seem like a trivial issue, but it is all tied up with larger questions: about the possibility of harmonizing Paul’s letters with Acts, and about possible developments in Paul’s thinking
....
pp.109-10
Paul’s biographical argument (chs.1-2:10) is essentially that he could not have corrupted the apostles’ teaching because he did not get his gospel from them, but directly from Christ. He is independent of the Jerusalem church and, in any case, they acknowledged his gospel when he finally did have time to visit them (1:11-2:10).

---

Now the part about where I think those go too far in exaggerating the differences between Paul and James.

quote:

---

Revelation 2:14
14 But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel, so that they would eat food sacrificed to idols and practice fornication.

---

Robert Eisenman in his book on James the Just, made it sound like Paul was only being sarcastic when he said he was a vegetarian in 1 Corinthians 8:13.

quote:

---

p.260

​

But who, as in the case of Balaam 'casting a net' or 'offence' (scandalon) in Revelation above, is Paul's strength a 'stumbling block' to or 'scandalizing' here? Who are these 'weak brothers' with their 'weak consciences' (always a euphemism for those observing the Law0, who make issues ...?

​

p.261

​

[quotes 1 Cor 8:4-7]

​

A more ingenuous discussion of the subject of 'things sacrificed to an idol' could not be imagines. This has to be seen not only as a discussion of James' directives to overseas communities, enumerated in Acts and here, but also as a direct attack on James, even though it is delivered in the most evasive manner conceivable.

​

Paul discusses this theme under the aegis of the two references, to 'love' and 'building' at the beginning of the chapter in I Corinthians 8:1-13. As he puts it, 'Knowledge" (Greek: Gnosis; at Qumran, Da'at), 'concerning things sacrificed to idols', 'puffs one up, but rather love builds up (8:1).

​

....

​

A clearer attack on such a "puffed-up" individual with 'knowledge' - these same "those reputed to be something' or 'Pillars' in Galatians 2:2-9, among whom Paul places James - could not be imagined.

​

....

​

p.263

​

[then quotes Rom. 14:3-20]

​

That Paul is discussing in this context the issue of 'consuming meat' is irrefutable. In doing so, he inadvertently expresses the opinion, clearly his own basic one. One believes he may eat all things; another, being weak, eats [only] vegetables. (13:2)

​

That this is an attack on James seems almost irrefutable. That its author is cloaking the issue in an attempt to appear accommodating should also be clear. But the basic position here does, once again, redound to the situation of James' vegetarianism...

​

....

​

So, once again, we may see that these traditions about James, preserved via Hegesippus in Eusebius, Jerome, and others, do, in fact, have substance behind them.

​

....

​

p.264

​

...we have, in this passage in Paul's Letter to the Romans, collateral verification of James vegetarianism - insisted on in all the ancient sources...

---

Paul was actually in agreement with the vegetarianism, contra Eisenmann.

quote:

---

Why are we going off topic and discussing circumcision?

---

The law mentioned in Acts 15, Acts 21, and then in Romans and Galatians essentially refers to circumcision. That was the one issue separating a "Jewish Christian" from a "gentile" Christian.Galatians is essentially over circumcision. The entire book.BibleGateway - Keyword Search: GalatiansWhile the issue of circumcision is discussed, the issue of works (such as vice lists or list of sins) always comes up - whether by Paul or James.The 2nd chapter of the book of James is full of quotes on works. James was clearly in favor of the law in 57/58 A.D (for Jewish Christians he was in favor of the law - that is circumcision -. Gentiles only had to avoid non-kosher food and fornication to secure "salvation"). Read Acts chapter 21. Please.Here is James chapter 2.James 2 NRSVUE - Warning against Partiality - My - Bible GatewayHere is Acts 21.Acts 21 NRSVUE - Paul’s Journey to Jerusalem - When we - Bible GatewayNow Romans 2 was actually about non-Christian gentiles and later (in the same chapter) NON-CHRISTIAN Jews. Very important to notice the subtle distinction between gentiles Christians and non-Christian gentiles.Romans 2 NRSVUE - The Righteous Judgment of God - Bible GatewayHere is what Paul said about gentiles who don't "have Jesus" (my quotes are of modern evangelical words and not Paul's necessarily).

quote:

---

Romans 2:13-16

​

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.

​

NRSV

---

Here is the literal NASB translation.

quote:

---

Romans 2:13-16

​

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

​

NASB

---

Paul later said this about non-Christian Jews. (the distinction must be made here too between a Jewish Christian and non-Christian Jewish person)

quote:

---

Romans 2:25

​

For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision

​

NRSV

---

James said this to and about Paul right (about)as he was writing Romans.

quote:

---

Acts 21:17-26

​

When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us warmly. 18 The next day Paul went with us to visit James; and all the elders were present. 19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 When they heard it, they praised God. Then they said to him, You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law. 21 They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. 24 Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law. 25 But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having purified himself, he entered the temple with them, making public the completion of the days of purification when the sacrifice would be made for each of them.

​

NRSV

---

James clearly was in favor of a Jewish-Christian type of denomination and Galatians was about Paul's legitimate disagreement with that type of denomination. Is this issue related to "works". No but the Apostolic Council of Acts 15 clearly was about works gentiles were required to do and it was the avoidance of fornication and non-kosher food. Honest exegesis should recognize the plain reading of the text.Here are quotes from the book of James.

quote:

---

James 2:14-24

​

Faith without Works Is Dead

​

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters,if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

​

18 But someone will say, You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believeand shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

​

NRSV

---

There is a case to be made that everything is about works (on judgment day), when one considers that Paul himself said what he said in Romans 2. It was about non-Christians.The unified Biblical text shows James was very big on following "the law". One who sinned had a negative work. He died before the Temple was destroyed. He passed away in 62 A.D. The Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. But he had a list of sins that went on forever. Acts 15 was about gentile Christians and their requirements from the absolute start. It didn't expire. There were vice lists that were added by Paul and James and they never ended. There were commands that again brought back non-Christian Jewish law.

quote:

---

James 2:8-12

​

You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For the one who said, You shall not commit adultery, also said, You shall not murder. Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

​

NRSV

---

The Jews said "love God and love your neighbor as yourself. THE REST IS COMMENTARY"That part about loving your neighbor wasn't even the Old Testament. Just like not ringing an animals head off. Acts 15 actually was based on a contradiction of the Old Testament.Here are the words of James

quote:

---

Acts 15:19-20

​

Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.

---

Notice the confused 7th Day Adventist commentary. (confused over the so-called "ceremonial" food laws and then confusion over where the heck these laws came from.

quote:

---

Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary
Volume 6
Acts-Ephesians
(Review And Herald Publishing Association, 1980)

​

p.311-312
From fornication. It may be surprising at first to find a moral rule placed along with restrictions that seem purely ceremonial. But the first item in the decree was moral also in so far as it was based on the second commandment of the Decalogue.

---

The commentary went on to justify the fornication ban as somehow related to gentile morays: can be considered almost a characteristic of Greco-Roman life. Idolatry and fornication sometimes were related in the pagan cults.Back to the confused commentary

quote:

---

ibid.
Things strangled. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for the omission of the words, and from things strangled. There is no clear prohibition in the OT against the eating of things strangled. However, the principle involved appears to be the same as that of the next prohibition, abstaining from eating blood. Animals strangled would not normally be bled, and so their flesh would not be acceptable for food(see Lev. 17:13, 14). James’s declaration may also have been based on the Mosaic restrictions against the flesh of animals that had died of themselves or that had been killed by another beast (Lev. 17:15; Deut. 14:21). Such restrictions were observed by the early church, as is testified by Tertullian (died c. A.D. 230), who, writing to pagans, declares: Blush for your vile ways before the Christians, who have not even the blood of animals at their meals of simple and natural food; who abstain from things strangled and that die a natural death, for no other reason than that they may not contract pollution, so much as from blood secreted in the viscera (Apology 9; ANF, vol. 3, p.25). Similarly, an ancient rule in the Eastern Church ordains: If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or indeed any one of the sacerdotal catalogue, eats flesh with the blood of its life, or that which is torn by beasts, or which died of itself, let him be deprived; for this the law has forbidden. But if he be one of the laity, let him be suspended (Apostolic Canon 63; ANF, vol. 7, p. 504). Ancient Jewish tradition declared that when the neck of an animal was broken the blood flowed into the limbs in such a way that it could not be brought out, even with the use of salt (Talmud Hullin 113a, Soncino ed., pp. 621, 622).
From blood. The prohibition against the use of blood as food was made as soon as animal food was permitted for men (Gen. 9:4), and it was frequently reiterated in the Mosaic law (Lev. 3:17; 7:26 ; 17:10; 19:26). To eat blood was counted a sin against the Lord in the days of Saul ( 1 Sam. 14:33).

---

You have to find the Talmud to find the part about loving your neighbor and the (contradiction to the rings the heads of chickens in the O.T.) law against strangling or head wringing.It's a vice.Its a sin.It is a work.It was in the context of making circumcision voluntary.The violation of mishnah-based kosher laws on food we not optional. They were enshrined in the New Testament commands.Google

quote:

---

[Phat]
As you yourself emphasize...knowledge (and quotes from many scholars) puffs the issue up while love (of the scripture itself) builds up.

​

I respect Judaism until through intellectualism they substitute the God revealed in scripture and fully expressed in Jesus Christ for a god of their own vain imagination---even an educated imagination.

---

Paul said that Jews only need to follow the law. But they couldn't make exceptions. They had to follow it all.Christians have to do the same thing according to James and Paul. Didn't Jesus say he didn't want to abolish the law? Matthew 5:17-18.There seems to be commands to follow. Paul said that those with "knowledge" or a "conscience" were not to be offended.

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 8:10-13

​

For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols? 11 So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died are destroyed. 12 But when you thus sin against members of your family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall.

---

Another sin!Another work for which there will be judgment.The "entire" set of commands under grace.Christians must follow them all.Jews have their entire law to follow.