Comments on: Reinventing Paul http://www.thepaulpage.com/reinventing-paul-3/ Just another Marketing WordPress Legion site Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:32:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Will http://www.thepaulpage.com/reinventing-paul-3/comment-page-1/#comment-77 Will Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:01:23 +0000 http://www.thepaulpage.com/?p=145#comment-77 "Jewish-Christians, including Peter, loyal to their Jewish roots, demanded that Gentiles be circumcised and Paul vehemently disagreed" I'm not sure what source you are utilizing but your assertion is just plain wrong. Peter was the first according to Acts 9 to understand that God's plan was to bring in the Gentiles. In Act's 15 we see that James, Peter, and the elders were the main proponents of not laying any extra burdens on the Gentile except for 4 basic laws all of which Paul clearly insisted upon his Gentile converts and then some. BTW those laws were very similar to today's noahide laws, so there may be some precedent that they were utilizing. Since we are in the business of making blind assertions here I could easily make the following one. A singular focus on the redemption of Israel from Gentile occupation, coupled with a disdain for all things Gentile, led to complete antipathy and in fact aversion toward the Gentiles on behalf of James and the Jerusalem church. The roots of this are evidenced in Acts 11:2, by James and the “Circumcision” group. “So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” Gee fellas try not puke on my sandals okay. The early Jewish Christians had no concern for anything but the redemption of Israel, James and the “Circumcision group” cared very little what happened to or in the Gentile world. This was more likely the issue which Paul had with James and Peter and the Jerusalem church. Even a cursory reading of Paul's letters shows us that he not only calls the Gentiles to a life of holy living including following the basic rules of the Torah, but he calls them to an even greater degree of personal Holiness. This holiness according to Paul is achieved spiritually by faith in the work done on the cross as anticipated in Isaiah 53. That BTW was also the dominant viewpoint of early rabbinic teachings. So which one is it? Do we need atonement as in Isaiah 53 a view which is in accordance with the earliest rabbinic sources, or can we do it just by following the law? Finally, If Paul was indeed a usurper of the early Jewish Christian message and went into Gentile nations spreading his own brand of Christianity, why on earth would he go back after 14 years of successfully undoing and subverting all of the Jerusalem church’s work and willingly submit himself to James and the Elders? Doesn’t make a lot of sense does it. “Jewish-Christians, including Peter, loyal to their Jewish roots, demanded that Gentiles be circumcised and Paul vehemently disagreed”
I’m not sure what source you are utilizing but your assertion is just plain wrong. Peter was the first according to Acts 9 to understand that God’s plan was to bring in the Gentiles. In Act’s 15 we see that James, Peter, and the elders were the main proponents of not laying any extra burdens on the Gentile except for 4 basic laws all of which Paul clearly insisted upon his Gentile converts and then some. BTW those laws were very similar to today’s noahide laws, so there may be some precedent that they were utilizing.
Since we are in the business of making blind assertions here I could easily make the following one. A singular focus on the redemption of Israel from Gentile occupation, coupled with a disdain for all things Gentile, led to complete antipathy and in fact aversion toward the Gentiles on behalf of James and the Jerusalem church. The roots of this are evidenced in Acts 11:2, by James and the “Circumcision” group. “So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” Gee fellas try not puke on my sandals okay. The early Jewish Christians had no concern for anything but the redemption of Israel, James and the “Circumcision group” cared very little what happened to or in the Gentile world. This was more likely the issue which Paul had with James and Peter and the Jerusalem church.
Even a cursory reading of Paul’s letters shows us that he not only calls the Gentiles to a life of holy living including following the basic rules of the Torah, but he calls them to an even greater degree of personal Holiness. This holiness according to Paul is achieved spiritually by faith in the work done on the cross as anticipated in Isaiah 53. That BTW was also the dominant viewpoint of early rabbinic teachings. So which one is it? Do we need atonement as in Isaiah 53 a view which is in accordance with the earliest rabbinic sources, or can we do it just by following the law?
Finally, If Paul was indeed a usurper of the early Jewish Christian message and went into Gentile nations spreading his own brand of Christianity, why on earth would he go back after 14 years of successfully undoing and subverting all of the Jerusalem church’s work and willingly submit himself to James and the Elders? Doesn’t make a lot of sense does it.

]]> By: rey http://www.thepaulpage.com/reinventing-paul-3/comment-page-1/#comment-76 rey Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:21:45 +0000 http://www.thepaulpage.com/?p=145#comment-76 "It is the opinion of this writer that Mr. Gager’s ecumenical wish to heal old wounds of Jewish-Christian relations has come at the expense of biblical integrity and balanced exegesis." I think he is trying to give the Pauline corpus an integrity that it never had and doesn't deserve to be given. As you quote him as saying, "Until the emergence of the new Paul, in recent decades, the only readers who have been able to break free from the old Paul are the contradictionists — those who abandon all efforts to find a consistent meaning in Paul" (p. 129) -- This is the truth: Paul is an unreliable and protean author, a man who seeks to become all things to all men so that he might by all means win over some smucks to join the cult of Paul. There is no integrity there. Gager is trying to redeem the unredeemable. “It is the opinion of this writer that Mr. Gager’s ecumenical wish to heal old wounds of Jewish-Christian relations has come at the expense of biblical integrity and balanced exegesis.”

I think he is trying to give the Pauline corpus an integrity that it never had and doesn’t deserve to be given. As you quote him as saying, “Until the emergence of the new Paul, in recent decades, the only readers who have been able to break free from the old Paul are the contradictionists — those who abandon all efforts to find a consistent meaning in Paul” (p. 129) — This is the truth: Paul is an unreliable and protean author, a man who seeks to become all things to all men so that he might by all means win over some smucks to join the cult of Paul. There is no integrity there. Gager is trying to redeem the unredeemable.

]]>