Galatians; Not compromising the gospel

a reply to: windword

And a way to make the real Apostles out to be teaching something they weren't

a reply to: DISRAELI

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.

I believe that to be a very naive approach to take. One must use critical thinking when reading the Bible, lest we take all these thing too literally. We don't have an original of this book. What you take as faith, that what you're reading is exactly what was written prior to 50AD by one self appointed Apostle Paul, I look at from a more critical historical viewpoint.

Surely, this book has been copied and recopied to reflect the correct Christian position, as laid out by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The result was the progressive and continued persecution of the Jews, through Christian rule, and the eventual Christian doctrine outlawing "all thing Jewish". Brought to you by Saul of Tarsus and the Holy Roman Catholic Church!

Jewish hate is reflected all over the New Testament, especially in Paul's epistles. To think that the origin of these books weren't and aren't politically motivated, is "pie in sky, head in the clouds delusion. Galatians is not true teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, but a carefully laid out plan of attack on Judaism.

originally posted by: windword
Surely, this book has been copied and recopied to reflect the correct Christian position, as laid out by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The result was the progressive and continued persecution of the Jews, through Christian rule, and the eventual Christian doctrine outlawing "all thing Jewish". Brought to you by Saul of Tarsus and the Holy Roman Catholic Church!

Yet your theory of "it got changed from the original" has no evidential base either; it is just as agenda-driven as any other approach.
The book had already taken this form long before there was any such thing as "Christian rule" in the Empire.
As for the "Roman Catholic church", that was an even later development.

a reply to: DISRAELI
The oldest new testament in existence is at least 300 yo

a reply to: DISRAELI

No....I'm saying that it was interpolated to reflect the times. Are you saying that there's NO interpolation in any of Paul's writings, or in any of the Gospels? PLEASE!

Jews were unhappy that the LAW was backfiring on them, and once again, because of their traditions, they were being occupied, enslaved and persecuted for their noble faith. Galatians is nothing more than convenient OUT dangled in front of Jews tired of being persecuted because of their traditions. Paul, cleverly creates a NEW Jew, that doesn't have to be circumcised, or have to wear tasseled prayer shawls or anything else that Jewish law required that made them stand out and be vulnerable for persecution. Conveniently, now Pagans can also follow Paul and be a part of this NEW quasi Jewishness.

But, to claim that following the LAW becomes SIN once one vows devotion to the Jewish Messiah is blatant dishonesty and nothing more than a treasonous attack on Judaism. The result is apparent in the historical record.

a reply to: DISRAELI
The Christian religion is not history

originally posted by: windword
No....I'm saying that it was interpolated to reflect the times. Are you saying that there's NO interpolation in any of Paul's writings, or in any of the Gospels?

You are intent on removing all the things you don't like and calling them interpolations. That is agenda-driven.

Jews were unhappy that the LAW was backfiring on them, and once again, because of their traditions, they were being occupied, enslaved and persecuted for their noble faith.

And all that was happening at a much later time than the context of this letter.
Your technique for discovering motivations involves confusing different periods of history.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith
Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, Book V.
3rd century, amounts to a detailed commentary.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You are intent on removing all the things you don't like and calling them interpolations. That is agenda-driven.

Paul's doctrine was agenda driven and not divine. The historical record is obvious.

And all that was happening at a much later time than the context of this letter.

Not that much later....

Your technique for discovering motivations involves confusing different periods of history.

The Bible's timeline is questionable and blurs the historicity of the events.

a reply to: DISRAELI

They didn't know Jesus

a reply to: DISRAELI

300 years of speculation doesn't amount to history

a reply to: windword

Doubt is humble

Disrael. from reading some of these replies I have learned one major thing.

These guys don't have a Bible they can hold in their hand that contain all the words of God preserved just the way God meant them to be and promised he would.

How sad is that?

I do like your series. Don't be too disappointed by the anti-Paul crowd. Paul promoted Jesus and the cross as the only way for salvation and they don't beleive that. So shake the dust from your feet and move along.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
I know what you mean.
I think they prefer to have books that have been dug up out of the sand.

a reply to: ChesterJohnI have 5 bibles and have read it cover to cover more than once.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Paul was the first person to corrupt the teachings of Jesus

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Your talking out of ur ass

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith

Again a violation of T&C

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith

I have read my preserved (as promised by God Ps12:6) well over 100 times cover to cover, not to mention the countless smaller studies, teachings and preaching's I have done over the last 21 years as a Christian.

It is sad my one copy of the preserved Bible has more light and life than your five corrupt versions or any 350 plus English perversions of the Bible that can be found since 1830, the Age of Critical Bible thinking.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
You don't know what versions I have so that was a stupid thing to say. And shame on you for accepting a 13th Apostle violating the sacred number 12. Shame on you for lacking the necessary astuteness to spot a false prophet