outhouse

LOL It is a word foreign to me

Toto

You have pulled one sentence from a wikipedia article, but that sentence is not footnoted, and makes no sense out of context, or in context.

I think the meaning intended was that the calling was the spiritual equivalent of circumcision, not that Paul was circumcised as an adult.

In other places, Paul wrote

Sheshbazzar

It IS found in the NT documents.

I CAN identify a JEW in antiquity who states;
These statements are made by Paul the Pharisee from Tarsus -long after his conversion- to the Messianic Faith, and are in the present tense.


Paul declares that he IS a Ἰουδαῖος Ioudaios = 'JEWISH' (KJV gives 'a JEW'), and from the city of Tarsus.


Paul declares that he IS of the γεγεννημένος root γεννάω 'gennaō' -genealogically- of Israel. That is that he, by his birth and parentage is of the Nation and the geneology of Israel.
(as an inalterable fact of his birth. Changing his religious views could in no way change that natural relationship.)


Paul declares that he IS φυλῆς Βενιαμίν' 'phylēs Beniam(e)in' = 'of the tribe of Benjamin'
(as an inalterable fact of his birth. Changing his religious views could in no way change that natural relationship.)


Paul declares that he IS a Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων 'Hebraios ek Hebraiou' = 'Hebrew of the Hebrews'.
(as an inalterable fact of his birth. Changing his religious views could in no way change that natural relationship.)


Paul states that; κατὰ νόμον 'kata nomos' > 'regarding the law' (more accurately rather, 'according to moral instruction' (νόμον 'nomos' having the meaning of 'moral instruction', not in a legalistic sense but in ethical training.)
IS a Φαρισαῖος a 'Pharisaios' = 'a Pharisee' -present tense.

Paul IS a Jewish Pharasee. a clearly stated fact of his birth, upbringing, and ethical training.

That is how Paul describes himself throughout his ministry.

Paul's Messianic views were unconventional in that unlike most of contemporary Judaism who awaited a coming Messiah, Paul believed and taught that The Messiah of Israel had already came, and that salvation was accomplished and now freely available to anyone that believed.
A message not too palatable to a religious establishment that considered that they held an exclusive Divine right to run the show, and to decide who could be saved and who could not.


Paul never stops being a Ἰουδαῖος a 'JEW'.
(He couldn't. It was an inalterable fact of his birth. Changing his religious views could in no way change that natural relationship.)


Paul never stops being of the γένος 'genos' (genealogy) of Israel.
(He couldn't. it was and is an inalterable fact of his birth. Changing his religious views could in no way change that natural relationship.)


Paul never stops being φυλῆς Βενιαμίν 'phylēs Beniam(e)in' = 'of the tribe of Benjamin'.
(He couldn't. It was and is an inalterable fact of his birth. Changing his religious views could in no way change that natural relationship.)


Paul never stops being a Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων 'Hebraios ek Hebraiou' = 'a Hebrew of the Hebrews'.
(He couldn't. It was and is an inalterable fact of his birth. Changing his religious views could in no way change that natural relationship.)


Paul never stops being a Φαρισαῖος a Pharisee which was the foundation of his views and his ethics.

That is your opinion. One that is not supported by these texts.

Paul tells us that he is JEWISH. Paul NEVER once anywhere ever tells us he is a 'christian', or that he practices any religion called 'Christianity'.

Paul never once anywhere ever calls or identifies himself as being a 'Christian'.
(The word itself was an insult invented by the mockers in Antioch. It was a foreign term and one virtually unknown to the Apostles and disciples living in Jerusalem.
The word or title 'Christianity' is nowhere to be found in the text of any translation of the Bible. It is a late gentile invented term, alien even to the latest Greek texts.)

Paul made many claims in the canon. Being a 'Christian' was not one of them. Paul addressed his audiences principally in Jewish synagogues,
There he would have spoken of the promised Jewish Messiah, and of the fulfillment of that promise.

Paul never once in any place ever refers to himself as a 'Christian', and never ever calls anyone else a 'Christian'.
The word 'Christianity' is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Paul DID NOT create a religion called 'Christianity'.

'Christianity' was invented latter by pagan murderous renegade gentiles to describe a despotic gentile devised religious system, a gentile political perversion of both the Hebrew Scriptures and of Paul's teachings.


'And if Messiah be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins.'

Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews and a JEW, as JEWISH as a Jew could be, who traveled and preached in the Jewish synagogues that the Messiah of Israel had indeed came, had been crucified, and had arose from the dead to be the ראשית בכור or ἀπαρχή aparchē = 'The Firstfruits of them that sleep'.

Paul the Ἰουδαῖος Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων Φαρισαῖος
was literate and fully proficient in both Hebrew and Greek and knew to the very foundations what it was he was teaching, unlike you.

.

outhouse

Understood. You may be right. I dont know the debree or percentage scholars are split on Pauls Judaism, but they are. I persoanlly have no reason to see tht any other way then fiction, due to Pauls own actions and words.


we also have this to follow up

"real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal" (Rom. 2:29, RSV).

Duvduv

Apparently the very fact of a lack of corroborative material or material to fill the gaps about the life of "Paul" was never sufficient reason to question the historicity of Paul/Saul. It's like the issue of the NT being promulgated by "the Church" in a set.
It just is.....that's what there is, and he had to have been a historical figure in the 1st century. Is there an "Ehrman" theory about a historical Paul too?

Interestingly, even those considered heretics such as Nestorians, Arians, etc. themselves HAD ACCEPTED the official canon and even according to the official church writers never questioned the "authenticity" of the canonical texts or offered variations of them.

It must have been an interesting experience for new Roman converts to at first accept the official doctrine when there was leeway on certain theological or christological doctrines, and then to find themselves thrown out because of their disagreement about these types of issues when the official church ultimately came down officially on one side of the doctrinal dispute. It must have felt like a "Gotcha" moment.

srd44

Baffled. "Gentiles" is not a Greek work; it derives from the Latin gens. In the Greek Bible, it is ethna, ethnos/oi, ethnikos/oi, and means "nations" referring to non-Jewish nations. In the ENglish NT it is this word that is usually translated as "Gentiles"

aa5874

Again, no such thing is in the Pauline writings.

The Pauline Gospel is clearly NOT related at all to the Pharisees.

Galatians 2:16

Sheshbazzar

Paul was a Hebrew Jewish Pharisee from Tarsus. Paul the Jew taught;
Paul being a Hebrew Jewish Pharisee demonstrates that THIS 'Hebrew' 'Jewish' 'Pharisee' 'of the tribe of Benjamin' taught that no man was justified by the works of The Law,
Thus it is related to the known teaching of THIS self-identified 'Pharisee', Paul of Tarsus. And thus is a doctrine known to be held by the world's best known 'Pharisee'.

Would you care to recite for us the teaching of some other famous known Pharisee on this matter of whether a man is justified by the works of The Law aa?

You actually claim to know what every single 'Pharisee' in the ancient world thought and taught on this matter of justification aa ???
Amazing! ....but really not all that believable.

Sheshbazzar

Do you know and understand what the Hebrew word פרש means aa? or what the plural term פרשים (Greek Φαρισαῖε ) 'pharisee' signifies ?

It is not just a meaningless name of an old Jewish political party but is an ethical way of carefully examining and living.

Any Hebrew who is a very careful or very 'particular' man (or even a very careful and very particular Gentile) is פרש. It a matter of personal conduct.
Each person to the extent of their personal abilities. We all fall short, but the goal is to apply yourself and do your level best.

If you are sloppy in your scholarship, and/or do not hold to set and precise STANDARDS, you are not פרש.

The word פרש 'paresh' describes an ethical state of being. ALL men who conduct themselves in that careful meticulous manner are by nature פרשים 'parushim' sic 'Pharisees'.

Obviously there were some who took on the name without the ethics.