Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Michael BG »

spin wrote:We disagree. I'll continue to refer to christianity as the religious movement that has an established corpus of texts and some notion of itself as a single entity. That is post-Pauline and probably past mid-2nd century.
Indeed, but hopefully you will remember that I use the term Christianity to apply to the “Jesus movement” once Jesus has been crucified.
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote: I don’t think you have made out a plausible case that Paul excludes non-Christian Jews from the term used for Jews in the Old Testament - “the Assembly of God”.
I don't see how this comment concerns what you are responding to. I was attempting to remove some of the common obfuscation of Gal 1:13, ie one cannot assume that the term "assembly of God" refers to anything other than the body of believers of the Hebrew god. His perspective changes.
Michael BG wrote:We are also arguing from different positions. I am arguing that because it is unlikely that Paul would call Christians “the assembly of God” and so exclude Jews it is unlikely he would have used the term to mean Christians. You are arguing that Paul could have used “the assembly of God” because we have no idea what he meant by the term. I am taking the meaning from the way the term has normally been interpreted.
I don't think you have grasped my view on the matter. I don't think that your retrojecting christians into "assembly of God" is meaningful and I see no reason to think the Jerusalemites were christians. They evince no sign of being Jesus cultists, knowing nothing of Jesus's views of eating, and Paul doesn't indicate any discussion about Jesus with them.

The scenario I am working from is that Paul, when still a conservative Jew, harassed non-conservative Jews, who I presume to be messianists. In hindsight when now a messianist himself he looks back at his actions from a more inclusive perspective.
I think you are correct that I have misunderstood what you are presenting. I think this might because of your rejection of using the term Christianity in the same manner as me.

You seem to be saying that “the assembly of God” is being used to define a sub-group of Israel which Paul has now joined. If this is so I don’t think it is much different from the view that Paul is referring to early Christians and he is now one of them. The only difference seems to be that you don’t use the term Christians.
spin wrote: I see no reason to think the Jerusalemites were christians. They evince no sign of being Jesus cultists, knowing nothing of Jesus's views of eating, and Paul doesn't indicate any discussion about Jesus with them.
Would I be correct that you accept that Paul has joined the same group as James and Peter, but you don’t think that James and Peter shared something in common with Paul regarding his belief in the resurrection of Jesus?
robert j wrote:
Michael BG wrote:From Galatians we know that Paul lost the argument with the circumcision party in Antioch and split from Barnabas. We also know that members of this circumcision party were in Galatia because Paul is telling the Galatians that they should not live under the law.
This may be your opinion, but we do not know from Galatians that any members of the “circumcision party” that Paul placed in Antioch were in any way associated with the ones troubling Paul’s congregation in Galatia --- beyond the issue of circumcision and the law. Your argument --- your “because” --- does not establish that at all. The letter to the Galatians does not provide adequate information to establish who the opposition was.

Those encouraging circumcision for Paul’s Galatians could very well have been local Jewish friends and neighbors. Diaspora Jewish friends of his converts that may have been amused, but had no big objection to Paul’s salvific spirit --- a heavenly son of the Jewish God found in the Jewish scriptures by means of creative readings. But such Jews would very likely object to claims that Paul’s Gentiles could be sons of Abraham and could be full participants with the God of Israel without the benefit of circumcision.
I think my conclusion is the more probable, because it provides a good reason for Paul to discuss his previous conflict with the “circumcision party”. However I expect a case could be made for the opposition being non-Christian Jews.
robert j wrote:
Michael BG wrote: Paul might waffle with his gardening metaphor, but in the end Israel is saved. God promised Israel will be saved and nothing is going to change this.
We’ll have to disagree on this. I’m not interested in debating the point with you any further, except to say that I think Romans is clear that Paul hopes that he can save some of the Jews, but no individual Jew will be saved if they persist in their unbelief. In the future, from the perspective in Romans, the salvation may or may not include all of Israel. But Paul has high hopes, because "until the full number of Gentiles might come in (aorist, active, subjunctive in the Greek), and in this way all Isreal will be saved, as it is written" (Romans 11:25-26). It's conditional.

Of course selecting pertinent portions is fine, but you added-to and expanded upon my response, and represented it as what I cited (i.e.,the citations from Romans).
Please accept my apologies for adding to your quotation from Romans and representing it as being part of what you posted rather than making it clear what I was adding.

With regard to Paul’s view on the salvation of Israel I am happy to agree to disagree. I think it might be something where there is no scholarly consensus.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by spin »

Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:We disagree. I'll continue to refer to christianity as the religious movement that has an established corpus of texts and some notion of itself as a single entity. That is post-Pauline and probably past mid-2nd century.
Indeed, but hopefully you will remember that I use the term Christianity to apply to the “Jesus movement” once Jesus has been crucified.
I don't know if there was any such pre-Pauline Jesus movement. I don't reify the contents of the gospel and I don't talk about Jesus as though I'm sure he existed. Paul certainly didn't need him to have, though he believes he did exist. I haven't seen evidence that he did, though he may have.
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote: I don’t think you have made out a plausible case that Paul excludes non-Christian Jews from the term used for Jews in the Old Testament - “the Assembly of God”.
I don't see how this comment concerns what you are responding to. I was attempting to remove some of the common obfuscation of Gal 1:13, ie one cannot assume that the term "assembly of God" refers to anything other than the body of believers of the Hebrew god. His perspective changes.
Michael BG wrote:We are also arguing from different positions. I am arguing that because it is unlikely that Paul would call Christians “the assembly of God” and so exclude Jews it is unlikely he would have used the term to mean Christians. You are arguing that Paul could have used “the assembly of God” because we have no idea what he meant by the term. I am taking the meaning from the way the term has normally been interpreted.
I don't think you have grasped my view on the matter. I don't think that your retrojecting christians into "assembly of God" is meaningful and I see no reason to think the Jerusalemites were christians. They evince no sign of being Jesus cultists, knowing nothing of Jesus's views of eating, and Paul doesn't indicate any discussion about Jesus with them.

The scenario I am working from is that Paul, when still a conservative Jew, harassed non-conservative Jews, who I presume to be messianists. In hindsight when now a messianist himself he looks back at his actions from a more inclusive perspective.
I think you are correct that I have misunderstood what you are presenting. I think this might because of your rejection of using the term Christianity in the same manner as me.

You seem to be saying that “the assembly of God” is being used to define a sub-group of Israel which Paul has now joined. If this is so I don’t think it is much different from the view that Paul is referring to early Christians and he is now one of them. The only difference seems to be that you don’t use the term Christians.
Just take your whole notion of christians out and you're right.
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote: I see no reason to think the Jerusalemites were christians. They evince no sign of being Jesus cultists, knowing nothing of Jesus's views of eating, and Paul doesn't indicate any discussion about Jesus with them.
Would I be correct that you accept that Paul has joined the same group as James and Peter, but you don’t think that James and Peter shared something in common with Paul regarding his belief in the resurrection of Jesus?
Whatever the Jerusalemites believed, Paul attempted to gain creds with them, perhaps so that he didn't seem alienated from the bigger picture of messianism. Having relations with folks in Jerusalem elevates Paul's status in the eyes of prospective proselytes.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

spin wrote: Whatever the Jerusalemites believed, Paul attempted to gain creds with them, perhaps so that he didn't seem alienated from the bigger picture of messianism. Having relations with folks in Jerusalem elevates Paul's status in the eyes of prospective proselytes.

Exactly, the community involved in Pauline textual traditions wrote in rhetorical prose and used these names for authority building of Pauline theology.

And I like how you call them Jerusalemites, its my opinion they had nothing to do with Jesus Aramaic followers. Whether Paul attributed James and Peter or whether they had leaders who had these common names makes no difference to me. Or whether they adopted perceived teachings of a James or Peter, it makes no difference.

I see no evidence Aramaic pious Galilean Jews would be teaching Christianity in Jerusalem
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Michael BG »

spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote: I see no reason to think the Jerusalemites were christians. They evince no sign of being Jesus cultists, knowing nothing of Jesus's views of eating, and Paul doesn't indicate any discussion about Jesus with them.
Would I be correct that you accept that Paul has joined the same group as James and Peter, but you don’t think that James and Peter shared something in common with Paul regarding his belief in the resurrection of Jesus?
Whatever the Jerusalemites believed, Paul attempted to gain creds with them, perhaps so that he didn't seem alienated from the bigger picture of messianism. Having relations with folks in Jerusalem elevates Paul's status in the eyes of prospective proselytes.
Paul describes himself as an apostle (Gal 1.1) and he calls those in Jerusalem apostles (Gal 1.17) Cephas [Peter] (Gal 1:18) and James (Gal 1.19). Paul states he has given the Galatians “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1.7). Paul implies that his gospel gives “freedom in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2.4) and that James, Cephas and John have approved of his gospel to the Gentiles (Gal 2.9). This seems to me to be evidence that James, Peter and John accepted that Paul’s message regarding the anointed Jesus was acceptable. Why would they approve of Paul preaching about an anointed Jesus if they believed in a different messiah? It seems odd for Paul to tell of a major difference between himself and James and Peter and the “circumcision party” (Gal 2:11ff.) if Paul’s aim is to gain credence from his relationship with James and Peter. He also distances himself from them (Gal 1:11ff.).
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

[quote="Michael BG"] Why would they approve of Paul preaching about an anointed Jesus if they believed in a different messiah?

[quote]

Pauline authors were building up Pauls authority using this fiction so Paul could sell his version to Diaspora residents as the most authoritative.

Why would real Aramaic Galilean apostles who knew Jesus personally and knew what Johns movement was, and Jesus movement was, accept a Hellenistic perversion of Judaism from a guy who had a bad reputation against followers ?

Had the biblical text portrayed Jesus and John preaching to large cities like Sepphoris and Tiberius then you might have a point.

BUT face it, they are said to be going to small Aramaic villages, and reality was Hellenist perverting Judaism were their oppressors in Galilee. Hellenist were their enemies.

Hellenist were not who they were proselytizing their religion to. They were the enemy they forced over taxation and it made their lives a living hell.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by spin »

Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote: I see no reason to think the Jerusalemites were christians. They evince no sign of being Jesus cultists, knowing nothing of Jesus's views of eating, and Paul doesn't indicate any discussion about Jesus with them.
Michael BG wrote:Would I be correct that you accept that Paul has joined the same group as James and Peter, but you don’t think that James and Peter shared something in common with Paul regarding his belief in the resurrection of Jesus?
spin wrote:Whatever the Jerusalemites believed, Paul attempted to gain creds with them, perhaps so that he didn't seem alienated from the bigger picture of messianism. Having relations with folks in Jerusalem elevates Paul's status in the eyes of prospective proselytes.
Paul describes himself as an apostle (Gal 1.1) and he calls those in Jerusalem apostles (Gal 1.17) Cephas [Peter] (Gal 1:18) and James (Gal 1.19).
If you went to a traveling salesman's convention, would you expect everyone to sell the same stuff?
Michael BG wrote:Paul states he has given the Galatians “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1.7). Paul implies that his gospel gives “freedom in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2.4) and that James, Cephas and John have approved of his gospel to the Gentiles (Gal 2.9).
And these pillars who Paul plainly did not respect were probably happy to see the end of him. Did you note any sign of Paul having talked of Jesus to the people of Jerusalem? Paul is packaging his visit in the best light for his message to the Galatians.
Michael BG wrote:This seems to me to be evidence that James, Peter and John accepted that Paul’s message regarding the anointed Jesus was acceptable.
There is nothing to support the notion that Paul even spoke to the pillars about Jesus.
Michael BG wrote:Why would they approve of Paul preaching about an anointed Jesus if they believed in a different messiah?
We don't know exactly what happened in this meeting in Jerusalem, so your assumed context cannot have much meaning to it.
Michael BG wrote:It seems odd for Paul to tell of a major difference between himself and James and Peter and the “circumcision (party)” (Gal 2:11ff.) if Paul’s aim is to gain credence from his relationship with James and Peter. He also distances himself from them (Gal 1:11ff.).
Paul shows to the Galatians that he can run with the big boys, but also that he rises above them. He makes clear in 5:3 "every man who accepts circumcision is obligated to keep the whole law." Through Galatians he contrasts Christ with the law... "justified by faith in Christ, not by doing the works of the law" (2:16). "If justification comes through the law, Christ died for nothing" (2:23). "If you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you" (5:2). The choice is clear in Paul's message to the Galatians: Christ or circumcision. It seems obvious that the people in Jerusalem were of the circumcision, not of Christ, so would you imagine that Paul has found like-minded Jesus cultists? Paul now being a messianic Jew would probably cause a stir to those people he once harassed and they would want to know what happened, so naturally they'd talk to him. The religion of the Hebrew god was quite an umbrella: it could encompass John the Baptist and his followers, Pharisaic associations, the temple cultists. All you need to be is a Jew and Paul was that. To be acceptable to Paul all you needed to do was follow Jesus, but there is no sign the Jerusalemites did that.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Michael BG »

spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Paul states he has given the Galatians “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1.7). Paul implies that his gospel gives “freedom in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2.4) and that James, Cephas and John have approved of his gospel to the Gentiles (Gal 2.9).
And these pillars who Paul plainly did not respect were probably happy to see the end of him. Did you note any sign of Paul having talked of Jesus to the people of Jerusalem? Paul is packaging his visit in the best light for his message to the Galatians.
Paul does not state that he preached in Jerusalem and I see no reason to question this. As you do not accept a historical Jesus I don’t understand why you would even expect it.

Paul writes,
and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
Gal 2:2 RSV
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:This seems to me to be evidence that James, Peter and John accepted that Paul’s message regarding the anointed Jesus was acceptable.
There is nothing to support the notion that Paul even spoke to the pillars about Jesus.
Paul, as I have already pointed out, stated that his gospel includes the anointed Jesus and in Gal 2.2 he tells those of repute of the gospel he is preaching.

I have already stated that Paul states that James, Cephas and John have approved of his gospel to the Gentiles.
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Why would they approve of Paul preaching about an anointed Jesus if they believed in a different messiah?
We don't know exactly what happened in this meeting in Jerusalem, so your assumed context cannot have much meaning to it.
We have Paul’s account of it. If you think he is lying then provide evidence that he is. I don’t think such evidence exists. All you can do is state that you don’t believe him.
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:It seems odd for Paul to tell of a major difference between himself and James and Peter and the “circumcision (party)” (Gal 2:11ff.) if Paul’s aim is to gain credence from his relationship with James and Peter. He also distances himself from them (Gal 1:11ff.).
Paul shows to the Galatians that he can run with the big boys, but also that he rises above them. He makes clear in 5:3 "every man who accepts circumcision is obligated to keep the whole law." Through Galatians he contrasts Christ with the law... "justified by faith in Christ, not by doing the works of the law" (2:16). "If justification comes through the law, Christ died for nothing" (2:23). "If you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you" (5:2). The choice is clear in Paul's message to the Galatians: Christ or circumcision. It seems obvious that the people in Jerusalem were of the circumcision, not of Christ, so would you imagine that Paul has found like-minded Jesus cultists?
If we assume that Paul is writing to gentiles then his point is that because they have Christ they do not need to be circumcised and follow the law. This does not mean that he rejects from those who will be saved those who are circumcised and follow the law if they believe in Jesus Christ. As I have already pointed out Paul has not rejected all Jews from being saved either.

What is interesting is that Paul does not state that James, Peter and John accepted that there was no need for circumcision. Perhaps it was not discussed. He states that both Barnabas and Peter had eaten with gentiles (Gal 2:12, 13). It is only after James sends people to Antioch that Barnabas and Peter stop eating with gentiles.
spin wrote:To be acceptable to Paul all you needed to do was follow Jesus, but there is no sign the Jerusalemites did that.
I don’t understand how you fail to see the evidence. You accept that Paul’s “gospel” includes Jesus Christ. You seem to accept that Paul was acceptable to James, Peter and John. But you dismiss the idea that Paul “laid before them … the gospel which (he) preach(ed) among the Gentiles”.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by spin »

Michael BG wrote:Paul writes,
and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
Interesting to get the verse that demonstrates that Paul said nothing openly about Jesus. The one thing that sets him on the path away from his earlier zealous Judaism is his belief in Christ crucified. And he didn't talk about it (outside closed session). You don't find that in any way strange.
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:This seems to me to be evidence that James, Peter and John accepted that Paul’s message regarding the anointed Jesus was acceptable.
There is nothing to support the notion that Paul even spoke to the pillars about Jesus.
Paul, as I have already pointed out, stated that his gospel includes the anointed Jesus and in Gal 2.2 he tells those of repute of the gospel he is preaching.
As you only have Paul's side of the story, we don't get the full picture. He is certainly shaping his narrative....
Michael BG wrote:I have already stated that Paul states that James, Cephas and John have approved of his gospel to the Gentiles.
First, Paul states that there is only one gospel (Gal 1:6ff), so maybe they approved of his gospel, but Paul did not write about a gospel to the gentiles. There were not two gospels and presenting a gospel to the circumcised and a gospel to the uncircumcised is discounted by Paul. Gal 2:7b-8 which injects Peter rather than Cephas into the text does not reflect Paul, but later values that wish to put Paul in his place.

Paul clearly shows his lack of respect toward the pillars (Gal 2:6). Whatever the ethos of the meeting and the bad vibe Paul expresses to the Galatians, he can turn a positive view out of it for those Galatians. If the pillars had left an account of their own, it might have shown them happy to get rid of Paul out of their hair, extracting a promise that Paul would contribute to the poor. How much weight can you put on the approval?
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Why would they approve of Paul preaching about an anointed Jesus if they believed in a different messiah?
We don't know exactly what happened in this meeting in Jerusalem, so your assumed context cannot have much meaning to it.
We have Paul’s account of it. If you think he is lying then provide evidence that he is. I don’t think such evidence exists. All you can do is state that you don’t believe him.
Human interaction is usually more complex than is accounted for by the neat separation between truth and lies. There is no reason to think Paul was lying, when he presents a narrative that tells us very little factually. You have to be careful not to read too much into the little there is, though there is a lot between the lines. Paul is writing to a Galatian audience about his teachings, not giving us a historical narrative.
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:It seems odd for Paul to tell of a major difference between himself and James and Peter and the “circumcision (party)” (Gal 2:11ff.) if Paul’s aim is to gain credence from his relationship with James and Peter. He also distances himself from them (Gal 1:11ff.).
Paul shows to the Galatians that he can run with the big boys, but also that he rises above them. He makes clear in 5:3 "every man who accepts circumcision is obligated to keep the whole law." Through Galatians he contrasts Christ with the law... "justified by faith in Christ, not by doing the works of the law" (2:16). "If justification comes through the law, Christ died for nothing" (2:23). "If you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you" (5:2). The choice is clear in Paul's message to the Galatians: Christ or circumcision. It seems obvious that the people in Jerusalem were of the circumcision, not of Christ, so would you imagine that Paul has found like-minded Jesus cultists?
If we assume that Paul is writing to gentiles then his point is that because they have Christ they do not need to be circumcised and follow the law. This does not mean that he rejects from those who will be saved those who are circumcised and follow the law if they believe in Jesus Christ. As I have already pointed out Paul has not rejected all Jews from being saved either.
I have outlined that he does make it clear that circumcision is opposed to his Jesus teaching, suggesting that those of the circumcision, including James and maybe the vacillating Cephas, did not hold a Jesus cultist position. He says that in Christ being circumcised or not doesn't matter (Gal 5:6). Emphasis on circumcision does. That's one of the reasons I have doubts about the Jerusalemites....
Michael BG wrote:What is interesting is that Paul does not state that James, Peter and John accepted that there was no need for circumcision. Perhaps it was not discussed. He states that both Barnabas and Peter had eaten with gentiles (Gal 2:12, 13). It is only after James sends people to Antioch that Barnabas and Peter stop eating with gentiles.
...That is another reason to doubt the Jerusalemites, who seem unaware that the gospel Jesus shared his table with everybody.
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:To be acceptable to Paul all you needed to do was follow Jesus, but there is no sign the Jerusalemites did that.
I don’t understand how you fail to see the evidence. You accept that Paul’s “gospel” includes Jesus Christ. You seem to accept that Paul was acceptable to James, Peter and John. But you dismiss the idea that Paul “laid before them … the gospel which (he) preach(ed) among the Gentiles”.
Paul makes clear there was no public discussion of Jesus. You could hold any unhinged view and still be (perhaps begrudgingly) seen to be a Jew. We don't know what the Jerusalemites thought of his flavor of messiah, one who'd already come. That they agreed with a handshake that Paul went to the uncircumcised and they stuck with the circumcised shows no skin off their nose. That said the Galatians, unlike the Corinthians had a background in Jewish thought, otherwise his midrash on Hagar in Gal 4:21 would have made no sense.

Paul constructs a view of his visit to Jerusalem for the Galatians, but how we deconstruct it requires care. Face value is not an option, because that has been compromised by two thousand years of christian hermeneutics passively received. I don't think it good to start of with the notion we know what the Jerusalemites were or what they thought. It constrains our reading of the material. Acts was not written yet and may have been written a century later. We need fresh eyes on what happened when Paul went up to Jerusalem to get the lie of the land.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by iskander »

Michael BG wrote:..
iskander wrote:Paul would have used this expression in his previous religious life.
Deuteronomy 23
2 He that is crushed or maimed in his privy parts shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD
I am sorry if anyone misunderstand me when I wrote:
I thought I was clear that Paul would NOT have used the term for Christians. I do accept that the term could be applied to Israel (i.e. the community of Jews).
Therefore these non-Christian Jews are still part of “the Assembly of God”.

Yes , Paul used the " Assembly of YHWH" in Gal 1:13 as meaning the same YHWH as before . An assembly of observant Jews and with the addition of gentiles for whom YHWH is their God .

Boyarin wrote : see attached file
Attachments
boya 0.PNG
boya 0.PNG (28.56 KiB) Viewed 8552 times
Last edited by iskander on Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

iskander wrote:
Yes , Paul used the " Assembly of YHWH" in Gal 1:13 as meaning the same YHWH as before . An assembly of observant Jews and with the addition of gentiles for whom YHWH is their God .

And I argue Paul was a perverter of Judaism not the same as Israelite pious Judaism.

Pauls Judaism still debated today and one can and they do create many different classes of a Hellenistic Jew

It is impossible to pick out verses like that to determine Pauline theology as context is more key then a phrase on its own.
Post Reply