aa5874

What you say is illogical.

You made a claim that was NOT logically valid.

People can plant trees and know that people will make tables from the lumber or the tree-planter can have a binding contract with a TABLE maker.

Now, It is quite logical that a person could have written any story and believe it is Holy Writ.

That is PRECISELY why there are so many different Christian Cults and Religions.

Even "Paul" claim he got his Gospel from the resurrected Son of God, and NOT from man.

Perhaps, he wanted people to believe his gospel was Holy Writ with IMMEDIATE effect.

Ga 1:9 -

Doug Shaver

You say so.

aa5874

The Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles appear to be ALL late writings. They all appear to be AFTER the Jesus story was already written, circulated and known by people of antiquity or AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c70 CE.

After the Jewish Temple fell in the War of Jews against the Romans, and Josephus wrote ALL his books, he ONLY remembered that it was Jesus Son of Ananus who had PREDICTED the Fall of the Temple.

There should have been books and PAULINE EPISTLES written about JESUS the Messiah and the PREDICTION of the Fall of the Temple by Jesus of Nazareth BEFORE Josephus wrote ALL his books.

Josephus wrote NOT one thing about the PREDICTION of Jesus the Messiah or Jesus as a Messiah even though he was a CONTEMPORARY of Paul who supposedly traveled ALL over the Roman Empire claiming that Jesus the Messiah had essentially ABOLISHED the LAWS of the JEWS.

How could such a SIGNIFICANT claim go unnoticed by Jewish writers when it was INITIATED by a JEW, a PHARISEE?

The Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, have effectively destroy the credibility of the Pauline writings.

Examine the words of Josephus in "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.

And now "Paul" to the ROMANS.

Romans 10:4 - The Pauline writings are historically BOGUS.

Jewish writers of the 1st century wrote NOTHING about a Jewish Messiah called Jesus or a Pharisee called "Paul" who supposedly went ALL over the Roman Empire claiming that Jesus was the END of the LAW because he was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day.

Both Acts of the Apostles and ALL the Pauline writings appear to be part of a scheme to FALSIFY the history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

It was in the 2nd century that we hear EXTERNAL non-apologetic NOISE about the Jesus story and the non-apologetic NOISE was NOT about the Pauline writings or Acts of the Apostles.

The abundance of evidence suggests that whether or not the author of Acts was aware of Galatians that both Acts of the Apostles and ALL the Pauline writings are historically BOGUS and were most like written AFTER the Fall of the Temple and even AFTER the middle of the 2nd century.

dog-on

And the best part is that the table doesn't even require real lumber, but remains a table, nonetheless...

Solo

Circumcision was a traditional 'ratification' of the covenant based on God's direct instruction to Abraham (Gen 17:10). It would have been hard to argue that the rite was 'according to man'. Moses himself did not circumcise his son and it was only after Zipporah did it for him that YHWH stopped persecuting his emissary to Pharaoh (Ex 4:24-26).

I don't think it was as much the influence of the Saducees as the general Hellenist cultural milieu which accounted for the distaste for the rite among some Jews in the diaspora. The Greeks notoriously disdained circumcision. Antiochus Epiphanes made circumcision a capital offence (1 Macc 1:48, 60, 2:46). Philo's passionate defence of the rite, extolling its virtues, was probably an attempt to stem the tide among the Hellenized Jews.

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

Solo,

There is no point arguing against my citation of well established arguments from the rabbinic literature. As I have said ALMOST EVERYTHING that gets passed around in popular discussions of Judaism is stupid.

Heschel demonstrates over countless pages that the original term 'Torah' applied only the ten utterances in the earliest rabbinic witnesses.

Agrippa asked Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus why the rite of circumcision was not listed among the Ten Commandments if it were holy (Tanhuma (printed version) Lech Lecha 20; Aggadat Bereishit (ed. Buber,2 pp. 30-31). The latter version may also be found in Ish-Shalom's edition of Pesiqta Rabbati, p. 117a, n.31.

In parallel versions of this story ascribe the question to "a Roman matron" or, mutatis mutandis, to Aquila the Proselyte. For gentile interest in circumcision see M. Whittaker, Jews and Christians: Graeco- Roman Views (1984), pp. 80-85. See also GLA III, p. 1 14 (index, sv). As for the Ten Utterances, see FT Berachot 1:8 (3c) (and cf. BT Berachot 12b) which reports that although they were once recited as part of the Temple service, this practice was suspended due to "heretics" (minim) who claimed that only these laws had been delivered to Moses at Mount Sinai. That these minim were Christians L. Ginzberg, A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud, I, New York 1941, p 166.

This is the real 'fault line' that the controversies between Jews and Christians ran along in the early period. The argument against circumcision was tied to an original understanding that only the Ten Utterances were from heaven.

The fact that you can come up with the example of Moses and his son really doesn't add anything to the discussion. We are discussing history and historical debates in antiquity not abstract theological concepts.

There were parties known to the Jewish sources who are identified as Christians who made the case that circumcision was not binding because it was included in the ten utterances. These can't be 'Ebionites' given that our sources claim that they were 'circumcisers'

I think they were Marcionites

aa5874

Something is seriously wrong with your thoughts.

Marcion appears to have LIVED in the 2nd century and was preaching his doctrine around the middle of the 2nd century so the Marcionites were NOT really "early Christians".

arnoldo

Perhaps the author of Acts was unfamiliar with Galatians simply because Acts was written before Galatians. Another author who may've been unfamiliar with Galatians was Ignatius who wrote the following in his Epistle to the Philadelphians.

Little Dot

Hello jgreen44, I'm new to the forum glad to meet you. :wave:

The point is, in Galatians 2:12,13 Peter acted in an offensive hypocritical manner, and, caused others to follow his actions. Paul only did what he did in Acts so that the Jews he would be talking to wouldn't be offended.

Hope this helped.

aa5874

It did NOT help. Peter, described as an apostle of Jesus, did NOT exist in the 1st century. Peter/Cephas was a fictitious character in the Jesus stories that an unknown writer under the name of "Paul" FALSELY claimed he met.