Galatians; Not compromising the gospel

a reply to: DISRAELI
Saul false prophet

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith
Paul true prophet.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Not according to scripture

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith
Better read it there are only 12 Apostles

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
Not according to scripture

What Paul says is part of scripture, by the way that Christian scripture has always been defined.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith
Part of the definition is having an encounter with the risen Lord and being "sent out" by him.
"Am I not an Apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" 1 Corinthians ch9 v1

a reply to: [post=20263413]DISRAELI[/still a lying false prophet

a reply to: DISRAELI

I don't care about the definition 12 is 12

a reply to: DISRAELI

And no Saul you are not an Apostle.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith
I don't think he cares what you think.

a reply to: DISRAELI
You mean know.

a reply to: DISRAELI
I can count to twelve

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith
I accept the amendment.
"I don't think he knows what you think".

a reply to: DISRAELI

As little as I care what you think?

a reply to: DISRAELI

Hes dead so he doesn't know anything.

a reply to: DISRAELI

This would certainly not have been the issue in Paul's time, because Roman tax collectors did not get involved until after A.D. 70.

That's not true. Jews were complaining about taxes during Herod the Great's reign. Pilot took advantage of the Jews pocket book as well, and was so vicious in his persecution that he was recalled to Rome. Nero taxed the Jews after the fire and Claudius persecuted and expelled the Jews from Rome, as written about by Paul, around 41 AD.

If Roman persecution and unjust taxation wasn't being imposed on the Jews, there would have no reason for Jesus to say, "Render unto Caesar...."

Paul's gospel is about something much more important than "following some Jewish tradition".

Circumcision was more than "some Jewish Tradition". It represented a promise and was a covenant between the Jews and God that was offered through Abraham and continued through the LAWS of Moses, the Prophet. Jesus supported the prophets and the LAW tirelessly during his ministry.

"Do not think that I come to destroy the Prophets or the LAW."

2Luke 16:7
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Never did Jesus preach to ignore the prophets, the LAW or the covenant of circumcision. That one was a pretty BIG DEAL! One would think that Jesus would have at least endorsed the upcoming rebellion against circumcision in some form, that Paul would lead in his name, but he did not.

Unless, of course, Paul was one of the FALSE PROPHETS and ANTI-Christ that Jesus did foretell....

a reply to: windword

Right on.

originally posted by: windword
That's not true. Jews were complaining about taxes during Herod the Great's reign. Pilot took advantage of the Jews pocket book as well, and was so vicious in his persecution that he was recalled to Rome.

Now you are talking about the taxation imposed on the province.
I was talking about, because I thought you were talking about, the way the Romans took over and appropriated the Temple Tax after the destruction of the Temple.
Only the latter taxation would have been relevant to the Jewish diaspora in the wider Empire, and then only after A.D. 70.

I have already pointed out the willingness of Jesus to disregard individual laws.
Moses wanted adulterers to be stoned to death. Jesus did not. Which one do you think was right?

a reply to: DISRAELI

That happened too. But the persecution and discontent that led up to the Jewish Wars has everything to do with the schism in the Jewish community and rise of Christianity.

It's fairly transparent, looking at from the outside in, that Paul's plea to eliminate the requirement of circumcision for new Pagan converts to his (new) Jewishy sect was a desperate effort to gain followers. It was a clever compromise and way to hide from Roman taxation and persecution, as uncircumcised Christian Jews could more easily blend in within the Pagan community.

a reply to: windword
Yes, but this debate between Paul and the Galatians is taking place before that time of crisis.
In those days, the Jewish faith was actually privileged as a RELIGIO LICITA, giving them exemption from some of the religious demands of the Roman state. So if the Roman authorities were slow to recognise that there was a difference between the two groups, the Christians were benefitting from the confusion. Consequently, as early writers complained, Jewish malice could take the form of bringing the Christian communities to official notice and pointing out that they were not true Jews and could not claim the benefits of Jewish exemption.

In other words, "evading taxing and persecution of the Jews" does not really apply as a motive for the Galatians not to be circumcised. Indeed that motive, if it had existed, would have been so strong that this letter need not have been written. With money involved, the Galatians would have resisted circumcision on their own account, without needing Paul's arguments to talk them out of it.

It is better to take at face value the motive Paul presents himself; circumcision was part of an intolerable and unnecessary legal burden, which amounted to a form of slavery. Hence all the talk in this chapter and later about the "liberty" offered by the gospel.