How Paul wrote the old testament.

[metis]

We know that the very early church believed that the mark of the "true church" was not the scriptures but whether your appointees could be traced back to the apostles, is called "apostolic succession" of course. This is not any speculation on my part, nor do I have any stake in this, but this is how the early church that came out of the apostolic leadership saw itself. It wasn't until Origen, whereas it was put forth by himself, that the church should begin to rely more on the scriptures that had been circulated and preserved.

 

[Kolibri]

Galatians calls these ones "superfine apostles" and in 6:12 defines these one as those wanting to compel all to get circumcised "to avoid being persecuted for the torture stake of the Christ."
That does not sound like the Twelve at all!

Rather these were Judeizers like those of Acts 15:1 who were insisting "Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
In verse 24 recites an official letter which defined these "men from Judea" as the some that "went out from among you and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert you, (or "your souls.") although we did not give them any instructions."

2 Corinthians 11:13 calls them "false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ."
Romans 16:17,18 defined them as "those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned....that sort are slaves...of their own appetites, (or "bellies.") and by smooth talk and flattering speech they seduce the hearts of unsuspecting ones."

Peter of Ga 2 was not creating a division, he was succumbing to peer pressure. That was why he was called out. Really it was in the Galatians benefit to know this. If Peter can make a mistake, then "we" should not feel so bad about needing to be corrected as well.

 

[Simplelogic]

We know that the very early church believed that the mark of the "true church" was not the scriptures but whether your appointees could be traced back to the apostles, is called "apostolic succession" of course. This is not any speculation on my part, nor do I have any stake in this, but this is how the early church that came out of the apostolic leadership saw itself. It wasn't until Origen, whereas it was put forth by himself, that the church should begin to rely more on the scriptures that had been circulated and preserved.

Agreed. Thanks for weighing…its been a while!

 

[metis]

Galatians calls these ones "superfine apostles" and in 6:12 defines these one as those wanting to compel all to get circumcised "to avoid being persecuted for the torture stake of the Christ."
That does not sound like the Twelve at all!

Rather these were Judeizers like those of Acts 15:1 who were insisting "Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
In verse 24 recites an official letter which defined these "men from Judea" as the some that "went out from among you and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert you, (or "your souls.") although we did not give them any instructions."

2 Corinthians 11:13 calls them "false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ."
Romans 16:17,18 defined them as "those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned....that sort are slaves...of their own appetites, (or "bellies.") and by smooth talk and flattering speech they seduce the hearts of unsuspecting ones."

Peter of Ga 2 was not creating a division, he was succumbing to peer pressure. That was why he was called out. Really it was in the Galatians benefit to know this. If Peter can make a mistake, then "we" should not feel so bad about needing to be corrected as well.

The impression I'm getting from glancing at a couple of your posts is that you seemingly think that Jesus and the apostles taught that there was no early structure of the church and that it was pretty much a "do your own thing" approach. Sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Simplelogic]

Galatians calls these ones "superfine apostles" and in 6:12 defines these one as those wanting to compel all to get circumcised "to avoid being persecuted for the torture stake of the Christ."
That does not sound like the Twelve at all!

Actually it does! Besides the "avoiding persecution" comment that Paul slips in their. As you can probably tell, I don't give Paul's opinions on such matters very much stock.

Remember, Paul defines exactly who this "circumcision party" was in Gal 2:

For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. Gal 2:12

Yes, Paul is ranting against James' followers. Yes James the brother of Yeshua and the leader of the Jerusalem congregation!

Once again. Acts 15 was not a slam on circumcision.

19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Acts 15:19-21

James was introducing a stop gap measure for new gentile converts. He lists the four main commandments which gets a person expelled from the land so that they could be included. He follows this up with a declaration that Moses will be taught on each Sabbath. Obviously implying that the rest of the Torah will come with time…including circumcision. Which is why we find James' disciples circumcising gentiles. It is necessary for any Gentile who wants to keep the Passover and be a full fledged Israelite. It will even be necessary in the coming millennial kingdom:

'Thus says the Lord GOD, "No foreigner (Gentile) uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary. Eze 44:9

 

[Kolibri]

The impression I'm getting from glancing at a couple of your posts is that you seemingly think that Jesus and the apostles taught that there was no early structure of the church and that it was pretty much a "do your own thing" approach. Sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth.

sorry that was not the impression nor the thought I had. There certainly was a central governing arrangement. That is why Paul was called in for a review because his apostleship skipped the normal channels.

 

[Simplelogic]

The impression I'm getting from glancing at a couple of your posts is that you seemingly think that Jesus and the apostles taught that there was no early structure of the church and that it was pretty much a "do your own thing" approach. Sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Agreed. There was certainly a structure. James (Yeshua's brother) was in charge of the Jerusalem assembly.

 

[metis]

sorry that was not the impression nor the thought I had. There certainly was a central governing arrangement. That is why Paul was called in for a review because his apostleship skipped the normal channels.

Sorry that I misinterpreted what you were saying, so please accept my apology.

 

[Simplelogic]

sorry that was not the impression nor the thought I had. There certainly was a central governing arrangement. That is why Paul was called in for a review because his apostleship skipped the normal channels.

Yes, he was called into question and forced to offer animal sacrifices to prove his loyalty to the Torah. Pretty interesting that James and the apostles were still keeping animal sacrifices.

 

[metis]

Agreed. There was certainly a structure. James (Yeshua's brother) was in charge of the Jerusalem assembly.

... as the CEO. And Peter was more the spiritual head and Judas was the financial head and John may have been the lovy-dovy head and ...

 

[Simplelogic]

... as the CEO. And Peter was more the spiritual head and Judas was the financial head and John may have been the lovy-dovy head and ...

hahaha. Except Judas was long gone by this point. Matthias had taken his place as the twelfth apostle.

 

[metis]

Yes, he was called into question and forced to offer animal sacrifices to prove his loyalty to the Torah. Pretty interesting that James and the apostles were still keeping animal sacrifices.

That latter part is not clear as they may not have been allowed later on as they were being kicked out of synagogues. It's been speculated that this problem may have inspired Paul to get into his "final sacrifice" theology.

 

[metis]

hahaha. Except Judas was long gone by this point. Matthias had taken his place as the twelfth apostle.

That was the last straw-- er, I mean first straw.

 

[Simplelogic]

I'm really enjoying this conversation but I realize we haven't even discussed the OP at all!

Is anyone at all interested in the fact that Paul's misquotes of the Tanakh are found in the Greek LXX? I find this remarkable.

 

[Simplelogic]

That was the last straw-- er, I mean first straw.

 

[metis]

I'm really enjoying this conversation but I realize we haven't even discuss the OP at all!

Is anyone at all interested in the fact that Paul's misquotes of the Tanakh are found in the Greek LXX? I find this remarkable.

There's a lot of "misquotes", and it's not just from Paul, let me tell ya. I'll spare ya the rather looooooooooong story of how I came to realize that.

 

[metis]

By "lot"-- remember?

 

[Simplelogic]

Metis- I don't know why we parted ways. Hope I didn't offend you earlier and I am sorry if I did. I really enjoy the convo's

By "lot"-- remember?

Ahhhhhhhhhhh…..got it. I'm pretty slow tonight.

 

[Simplelogic]

There's a lot of "misquotes", and it's not just from Paul, let me tell ya. I'll spare ya the rather looooooooooong story of how I came to realize that.

Yes, there are many. I have also documented many misquotes in the Gospels. Not by Yeshua though.

Yet this one is interesting imho. Paul goes on a long rant were he cherry picks 6 different verses from the Psalm's and Isaiah, he pastes them together and reads it all as one quote. Just crazy.

 

[Kolibri]

Regarding Ga 2:12. Was Peter wrong before or after he put on a pretense of class distinctions? Not what Paul thought. What do you think? Which was the correct behavior? Eating with all Christians or only eating with those that had been circumcised already? Why was it that the Jewish Christians and even Barnabas joined in only after Peter set the example? Does that not imply that before Peter adjusted his way of doing things they were all doing it the other way before?

If Peter was correct only after he separated himself, then who should have called him out for his wrongness before? Was not Peter the one that had 3 dreams about eating unclean foods before visiting Cornelius? Was he not convinced when the holy spirit did something unique with these first Gentile Christians by anointing them even prior to their baptisms?

It really does not matter what Paul's opinion was if Peter was wrong before he segregated himself and set a pattern for others to do the same. Either way Peter was being a hypocrite. The question is, was it a life pattern or a momentary lapse in good sense?

Also, just because these sent off by James represented him does not mean they did so in all matters. Perhaps some of them were seeing this 'field trip' an opportunity to promote their own agendas.