|
Replies: 53
| visibility 2517
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians
3
Aug 25, 2025, 8:19 AM
|
|
Every now and again someone mentions something on the board that really piques my interest. And a few days ago, someone said something about Galatians. So, I decided to take a closer look.
I’ve long said that the 1st Century AD is my favorite period in history. How could it not be? It’s like a county fair…a whole carnival…of ideas and practices. Long before orthodoxy set in, the 1st Century was wild and wooly. Sort of a Jello Fruit Salad swishing around in the bowl before it all coagulated.
Mmmmm.
You had Jewish-Christians, Gnostics, Ebionites (who insisted, like later Muslims, that Jesus was just a man) and all sorts of other sects, all trying to figure out who this guy Jesus really was.
You had people not only worshipping Jesus, but Peter and Paul. Who worships Peter and Paul?
1 Cor 1:12
“One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
You had people wife-swapping…
Rev 2:15
“…you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.
…and sacred prostitution.
Rev 2:20
“You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols…I will strike her children dead…and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.”
I mean, how often does Jesus say he’s gonna strike children dead? The 1st Century has Everything. If you don’t find that interesting, what IS interesting?
And, you had Paul, Mr. No Law/Faith Only himself, still participating in Temple Animal Sacrifice Rites, nearly 30 years after Jesus died and went to Heaven. So a wild and wooly time.
Acts 21:24
“[Paul], take these men, join in their purification rites…Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the Law.”
“The next day…[Paul] went to the Temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering (Numbers 6:13-21) would be made for each of them.”
So old habits die hard, and changing your religion isn’t quite as easy as flipping a light switch. The entire history of the Jews is one long struggle to keep them focused on God. And now Paul was fighting that same tide in his churches, with Gentiles.
Paul’s letters are fantastic, because they show what is going on in each of his churches, in the crazy mid-late 1st Century. And in the churches in Galatia, it’s backsliding. Presumably to James’ guys preaching circumcision and works, based on Paul’s comment in Gal 4:21.
“Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?”
But Paul is SO devoted to his anti-James message that he even says, “even if an angel from heaven tells you differently than I have, curse them!” I wonder what God though about that. Yikes.
Gal 1:8
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”
Paul, stay in your lane…
In writing to the Galatians, Paul recounts his mission (2:2), and a little disagreement that is worked out by preaching Jews one version of Christianity (Law and Circumcision), and Gentiles another version (Faith+4).
By Chapter 3, Paul is laying out his argument to the Galatians why he is right and the James Gang is wrong. And it’s a doosey. Paul was a pretty smart guy, trained in debate by Gamaliel, no less, but you might need to buckle up for this ride.
I can see Matlock easing back in his chair right now as he takes this one in. And, I was expecting to be disappointed by the Kathy Bates version, but it was pretty good…and not what I thought. So give it a chance.
Paul’s argument is basically in 5 parts. So let’s dig in…
First, Paul says the Gentiles are the children of Abraham. Boing. That’s quite a start. Is it because of a blood connection? Nope. It’s because they will receive Abraham’s blessing.
Gal 3:8
“Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith…“All nations will be blessed through you.”
That’s kinda true. The Jews do figure they will be a light to the world, including Gentiles, someday. But that’s so everyone, including Gentiles, can learn the Torah and Judaism, not Christianity.
Nevermind that Gen 22:17, and a half dozen other verses, specify “offspring.” “I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky…and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed.”
Paul musta missed those.
Second, Paul curses Christ. Boing. Or says Christ cursed himself, rather, which is marginally better, I guess?
Gal 3:13
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” (I’m assuming that doesn’t include Peter, crucified upside down)
Third, Paul redefines “seed” to mean not Abraham’s descendants, but Jesus.
Gal 3:16
“The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.”
Even though again, Genesis specifies offspring.
Gen 22:17
“Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me. (not had faith in me)”
Christ might trace his lineage back to Abraham, but no Gentile does that I know of. But to Paul, that doesn’t matter. Just redefine it. Seed means ‘Jesus’, offspring means ‘follower.’
Fourth, Paul splits the Law from the promise to Abraham. Basically saying, God’s promise to Abraham and his seed was before the Law, and so the promise lives on after the law.
But, that also ignores that the promise included an everlasting covenant, which also predated the law, circumcision.
Gen 17:7
“I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you…Every male among you shall be circumcised…My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.”
So Paul can shed the Law, but a direct, everlasting contract with God? For Paul, no problem. Circumcision counts as the Law, even though Abraham and his circumcised kin lived 400 years before Moses, and it’s an everlasting covenant direct from God.
Fifth, Paul says that scripture (the Law, specifically) is the agent of Sin. And so, to be free of scripture, via faith, is to be free of Sin. Again, remove the Law, remove the Sin.
Gal 3:22
“But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.”
“If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
That’s quite an argument. I can’t say if it’s right or wrong, but there it is, straight from Galatians. I wonder what Gamaliel thought…much less Matlock.
In Chapter 4 Paul makes an impassioned plea for his flock to return to him. It’s clear that he truly believes what he believes, and he’s very disturbed that his preachings have not stuck.
He even goes so far as to reinterprets Abraham’s sons to make his point. But instead of Hagar’s Ishmael being father of the Arabs, and Sarah’s Isaac being father of the Jews, Paul scrambles it up a bit.
In Paul’s argument, the Jews are illegitimate, slave children, and the Gentiles are the true heirs. For Paul, Hagar is Jerusalem and the Law, and Sarah is faith and freedom. Go figure.
“Now Hagar…corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son (Jerusalem and the Law), for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” Ouch.
Paul’s plea goes on in Chapter 5.
“Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.”
But that didn’t turn out to be true. James pared away 609 law commandments at Antioch. Then Paul gets downright nasty about those pushing for circumcision.
“As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves.”
Paul closes his letter with some advice to be nice and love others. Whether his arguments worked or not, we don’t know. But they are interesting and they show the gyrations that Paul went through to explain his position via 1500-year-old scripture.
Given that the Gentiles presumably knew nothing of Jewish Law or history, why bother with scripture? One might have thought that, since his new foundation is faith alone anyway, who needs written justification of any kind?
Why not just say, “God told me this…believe it, or don’t.” That’s what he did with the Church hierarchy. Only Paul knows his reasons.
And now, the Pron part. Let’s hear it for Galatia and Turkey!
|
|
|
|
 |
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
Re: Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians
3
Aug 25, 2025, 9:31 AM
|
|
1. Were Peter and Paul Worshiped?
Claim: 1 Corinthians 1:12 shows people worshiped Paul, Peter, and others.
Correction:
The passage shows factionalism, not worship.
Paul rebukes this: “Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor 1:13).
The point is clear: Only Christ is the object of worship.
2. The Nicolaitans and Jezebel’s Teaching
Claim: Nicolaitans practiced wife-swapping and sacred prostitution (Rev 2:15, 20).
Correction:
The Nicolaitans represent compromise with pagan idolatry and immorality, not an organized sex cult.
Jezebel’s error was syncretism—mixing pagan practices with Christian worship, echoing OT Jezebel (1 Kings 16–21).
Christ’s rebuke is about tolerating sin, not inventing salacious practices.
3. Did Paul Continue Temple Sacrifice?
Claim: Acts 21 shows Paul clung to Jewish sacrificial rites even after Christ’s sacrifice.
Correction:
Paul took a Nazarite-style vow to avoid scandal among Jewish believers (Acts 21:24–26).
He explicitly taught the sacrificial system was obsolete (Heb 10:1–14).
His actions were missionary concession (1 Cor 9:20), not theological compromise.
4. Paul vs. James – Enemies or Allies?
Claim: Paul opposed James, teaching “faith only” vs. James’ “works.”
Correction:
At the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), Paul and James agreed salvation is by grace, not Law.
Paul emphasizes justifying faith (Rom 3–4).
James emphasizes living, working faith (James 2:14–26).
Their teachings are complementary: faith saves, and true faith works.
5. Paul’s Use of Scripture in Galatians 3
a. Gentiles as Abraham’s Seed
Genesis 12:3 promised blessing to all nations. Paul rightly applies this to Gentiles by faith (Gal 3:8).
b. Christ Became a Curse
Paul cites Deut 21:23 to show Christ bore the curse of sin for us (Gal 3:13). This is atonement, not Paul “cursing Christ.”
c. Seed = Christ
Paul interprets “seed” typologically. Jewish midrash often drew singular truths from plural words. Christ is the promised seed who fulfills the covenant (Gal 3:16).
d. Law vs. Promise
Circumcision (Gen 17:7–14) is fulfilled in Christ (Col 2:11). “Everlasting” covenant language in the OT often points to eternal realities in Christ.
e. Law as Custodian
The Law is not “sin’s cause,” but the mirror exposing sin (Rom 3:20). It was a tutor leading to Christ (Gal 3:24).
6. Paul’s Allegory of Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4)
Claim: Paul “twists history” to say Jews are illegitimate children.
Correction:
Paul openly says this is an allegory (Gal 4:24).
Hagar represents bondage under the Law; Sarah represents freedom in Christ.
He’s contrasting covenant systems, not rewriting genealogies.
7. Why Paul Appeals to Scripture for Gentiles
Claim: Gentiles didn’t know Jewish Scripture, so Paul’s use of it is pointless.
Correction:
Paul roots the gospel in the OT to show continuity of God’s plan.
This answers the charge that Christianity was a novelty.
He also insists his gospel was given by direct revelation from Christ (Gal 1:12). He uses both testimony and Scripture.
Conclusion
The common errors fall into three traps:
Reading faction as worship.
Misrepresenting Jewish practices.
Forgetting Paul’s Jewish interpretive methods.
Paul did not invent Christianity, nor oppose James and the other apostles. He preached the same Christ, using Scripture and revelation to show that God’s promises to Abraham find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians
3
Aug 25, 2025, 11:24 AM
|
|
Whatcha got there 88? An AI paper-checker? 😊. Well…
1. On Paul worship. I’d say the fact that Paul had to address it shows it was happening, yes? Just more evidence of how wild the 1st Century was.
2. On wife swapping. Other church historians corroborate Nik: "The Nicolaites (Nicolaita) are so called from Nicolaus, deacon of the Church of Jerusalem, who, along with Stephen and the others, was ordained by Peter. He abandoned his wife because of her beauty, so that whoever wanted to might enjoy her; the practice turned into debauchery, with partners being exchanged in turn.
3. On Paul’s Continued Temple Sacrifice? His actions were missionary concession, not theological compromise.
I actually agree with that, but the point is he still did it. And there were other times, too. In other towns he left, or was even tossed out or stoned, but here, he hid behind the thing he loathed the most – ritual Law. I find that fascinating, and ask, why then, and why there?
4. On Paul vs. James - At the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), Paul and James agreed salvation is by grace, not Law.
Not so sure about that one. It seems they decided that for Jews, salvation is through Faith with all Laws intact, and for Gentiles, through Faith+4 Laws.
But it’s two fundamentally different systems. Even the Jews never said salvation was purely by Law. That was a stopgap till God judged you at the resurrection. By the same token, Sin goes on, even after Jesus’s death. So apples and oranges as to how Sin was understood.
5. On Paul’s Use of Scripture in Galatians 3
a. Gentiles as Abraham’s Seed - Paul rightly applies this to Gentiles by faith (Gal 3:8).
Hold on. God said descendants…offspring. Abraham was proved righteous by his faith, but the nations would be blessed by his offspring…by learning Judaism.
b. Christ Became a Curse. Paul cites Deut 21:23 to show Christ bore the curse of sin. This is atonement, not Paul “cursing Christ.”
But he does cite scripture saying cursed is one who hangs on a pole. True?
c. Seed = Christ
d. Law vs. Promise
Circumcision (Gen 17:7–14) is fulfilled in Christ (Col 2:11).
e. Law as Custodian
With enough re-definitions all requirements go away? Jesus=Circumcision? That brings me back to “Why not just say ‘God told me this…believe it or don’t.” Why so much justification for folks with no Jewish background whatsoever?
6. Paul’s Allegory of Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4): He’s contrasting covenant systems.
Yes, but why at all and why with that example?
7. Why Paul Appeals to Scripture for Gentiles: Paul roots the gospel in the OT to show continuity of God’s plan.
But what value is continuity to people who don’t know God, or the OT?
Paul did not invent Christianity, nor oppose James and the other apostles.
Well, except for here: “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”
He preached the same Christ…
That’s the biggest question of all I think. Did they preach the same Christ? How do we know? Jesus was circumcised. Did he want others circumcised? Jesus said the Law would not end until Heaven and Earth pass. Did Paul teach that?
Lots of interesting questions still to be answered. 😊
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
Re: Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians
2
Aug 25, 2025, 2:08 PM
|
|
I have no respect for church historians' opinions on anything. The Bible says what it says and needs no critique but rather worship filled study.
If someone might read the entire 2nd chapter of James he might be able to grasp that the Hebrews to which the letter was sent were 'respecting person,' by preferring what is most likely the wealth and powerful over the poor and powerless.
Jame simply pointed out that their behavior indicated their faith was dead since they chose and picked who they respected rather than respecting all men. The Hebrews to whom the ###### was sent may have been differentiating one social class of Christian brothers from another.
I Cor 9:
" 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you."
This was exactly how God wanted Paul to approach difference groups. Remember the Greek who sat about all day waiting to hear or tell something new. Yeah, Paul worked within their framework to preach the Gospel to them too.
If Abraham was justified by his faith and I'm justified by mine the law has no role other than to show me that I can't be justified by it. Abraham was before the law and he wasn't a Jew. The term came from Judia some two generations past Abraham.
Pauls letter were passed around so many Hebrews read Paul's letter to the churches. Some synagogues housed churches. Be liberal estimations there may have been a synagogue in every location which a Hebrew population resided. Some cities had multiple synagogues. The law, even though no man was ever justified by it, was a school master to teach us that we can not be justified by works alone but by faith. Again, James simply said his works proved his faith.
Paul used the allegory of Hagar and Sarah to explain (law) slavery (Hagar was Sarah's slave) and Sarah the freeborn as the example of promise (faith)? That allegory drives to the roots of the Gospel.
Jesus was a Jew, all males were circumcised on the 7th day, it was The Law. Jesus lived according to The Law and sacrificed Himself for us. Had he not been circumcised (or violated the law in any manner) He would not have been suitable as God's Holy Lamb without blemish.
Paul, while being of the strictest order of the Pharisees did not preach circumcision to the gentiles, circumsicion is a function of obeying the law, a certain obedience which showed works of the flesh. Being the gentiles' apostles he confronted Peter about leading the gentiles toward justification by works and probably had something to say about other works of the flesh which the Hebrews were so proud of.
No, I misspell too many words to have any spell checker. I mostly see the red squiggly lines below mispelled<--- words and correct them as I go. At times I just type and let the misspellings fall where they be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
That ###ed out word is probably 'scr ipt,' which I used to identify the forms...
2
Aug 25, 2025, 2:10 PM
|
|
in which the epistles were delivered. IDK, it might have been on bonded paper fit for legal documents. I'm just speculating and using words I can't define. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians
2
Aug 25, 2025, 6:16 PM
[ in reply to Re: Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians ] |
|
>I have no respect for church historians' opinions on anything.
Ah, but you would agree that their insight into contemporary events has some value, yes? For instance, it was the Church historians who documented who Nicolas was. Without them, we'd only know Jesus hated their practices, but not why. And how many examples do we have of Jesus hating anything? That's interesting enough from someone who taught love thy neighbor. What could evoke hate from someone like that? Those are burning questions. ">">">">
>This was exactly how God wanted Paul to approach difference groups.
I don't disagree with that at all. In fact, I've always said "Why can't God come to different people in different ways?" Not only via the many hats of Paul, but also as the Buddha, or the Tao, or any number of Hindu Gods. Who's gonna say what God can or can't do, you know?
>If Abraham was justified by his faith and I'm justified by mine the law has no role other than to show me that I can't be justified by it. Abraham was before the law and he wasn't a Jew.
Now you're sounding just like Muhammad, my friend ">">">">
>Again, James simply said his works proved his faith.
Yeah, I mostly agree with that. But there are several places in the Bible where it is said that one will be judged, or held accountable, but their acts, as well.
What really interests me though is that Paul, as a prior studied, practicing Jew, full well knew that the Law never saved anyone. Every jew knew that. The law was a laundry, to clean you up periodically.
So what we really seems to be saying, and getting at, is that through Jesus, you can be saved BEFORE you die, and not have to wait till resurrection. That's my next project I'm working on. What does that mean, and why was it so important to him? Millions of Jews in the past lived good lives, and simply waited, dead, to be taken into Heaven when the resurrection comes. They're all buried right there by the Eastern gate, where God will return, bringing New Jerusalem with him.
But Paul seemed to think you could circumvent the judgement process by being saved in advance? I don't really know. I'm trying to get into his mind just like I am Jesus, or Muhammad.
>Had he not been circumcised (or violated the law in any manner)...
But he did violate the Law on a few occasions. He healed on the Sabbath, he plucked grain, he ate with sinners, he declared all food clean, he didn't purify or wash his hands. Lots of examples. What Paul says, and what seems to be the case, is that by this point in time, NO ONE followed the Law, on a daily basis, and the hypocrisy of the Priest class stood out like a sore thumb. Paul even got in Peter's face and said "You are a Jew and even you don't follow the Law. So why are you making Gentiles follow it? A clear case of ideal vs. reality. Speeding is illegal, yet everyone does it...even cops.
Another great response 88. I never read your replies without coming away with a few more questions, or ideas ">">">">
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
Re: Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians
2
Aug 25, 2025, 7:06 PM
|
|
Ah, but you would agree that their insight into contemporary events has some value, yes? For instance, it was the Church historians who documented who Nicolas was. Without them, we'd only know Jesus hated their practices, but not why. And how many examples do we have of Jesus hating anything? That's interesting enough from someone who taught love thy neighbor. What could evoke hate from someone like that? Those are burning questions.
'God hates sin,' it took Bible scholars to determine this and without them we'd not know?
Revelation 2:
"20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not."
Pretty obvious that this short passage indicates 'fornication,' but more than literal fornication also spiritual fornication of false doctrine and ungodly behavior from the following passage:
"22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."
'Children,' here isn't referring to physical children but to the offspring of the moral debauchery practiced by WHO?
"Yeah, I mostly agree with that. But there are several places in the Bible where it is said that one will be judged, or held accountable, but their acts, as well."
Yes, all those who failed to receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior will be judged according to the law because the law is what each and every man is born under. That's like, OH NO, the Gospel.
Jesus never violated the Law but did bust the rules set forth and called 'traditions.' Yes, He was quite rude about it because He was exposing the pharisees' hypocrisy.
What I think may be top to bottom on the pharisees' accusations of Jesus' lawlessness; I'm assuming you won't require me to find and list the scripture...
On blasphemy: Claiming to be equal with God...He was called 'Emanuel,' and introduced by angels.
The Sabbath law itself (Exodus 20:8–11) forbade "work," but what counted as “work” was defined by the Pharisees’ 39 added categories in their oral traditions. Jesus never broke God’s Sabbath law — only their extra rules.
Accusations rooted in traditions, not Law
Not washing hands before eating (Mark 7:1–5).
This was never in Moses’ Law — it was a ritual purity custom from the elders.
Jesus calls them out directly: “You nullify the word of God by your tradition” (Mark).
Eating with sinners and tax collectors:
No command in the Law forbade this. It was a Pharisaic purity/separation custom.
Not fasting like their disciples.
The Law required fasting only once a year, Day of Atonement.
Pharisees expanded it to twice a week (Luke 18:12). That was tradition, not Torah.
Allowing His disciples to “violate” ritual purity (touching lepers, corpses...
Purity laws existed (Leviticus), but Jesus cleansing lepers or raising the dead wasn’t a violation.
The Pharisees considered Him unclean by association — which was tradition, not the written Law...
and who wouldn't know that siding with the pharisee would be counter to the basic tenants of Christianity?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIOsPR-Vu7Y&t=20s
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
I missed it being sleepless most of the night.
2
Aug 25, 2025, 7:09 PM
[ in reply to Re: Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians ] |
|
Your accusation of me using artificial intelligence can be taken two ways. Either you think I'm right or you think I'm intelligent. I don't know if that's upsetting me or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: I missed it being sleepless most of the night.
1
Aug 25, 2025, 7:19 PM
|
|
It just didn't have all your usual charm and humor.
So I suspected an outside source ">">">
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27463]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 15476
Joined: 2001
|
Re: I missed it being sleepless most of the night.
2
Aug 26, 2025, 7:28 AM
|
|
No way! Outside sources? In here? What crazy idea you gonna come up with next?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27463]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 15476
Joined: 2001
|
Re: I missed it being sleepless most of the night.
2
Aug 26, 2025, 9:39 AM
|
|
Next thing you know we'll be posting videos and purdy wimmin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20969]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4149]
TigerPulse: 84%
36
|
Re: Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians
1
Aug 25, 2025, 1:08 PM
|
|
Here is a doozy...
Why didn't god just create us without foreskin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
Because when Saul set the price on Michal, his daughter,...
1
Aug 25, 2025, 2:16 PM
|
|
of 100 foreskins David wouldn't have been cutting off 200 Philistines' peckers to get her to wife.
All yoke aside. Circumcision was an identifier of the Hebrew people starting with Abraham. Did you not see 'Year One?'
![]()
They actually slipped out of camp before the knife was sharpened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4149]
TigerPulse: 84%
36
|
Re: Because when Saul set the price on Michal, his daughter,...
1
Aug 25, 2025, 3:58 PM
|
|
“Circumcision was an identifier of the Hebrew people”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Because when Saul set the price on Michal, his daughter,...
1
Aug 25, 2025, 6:30 PM
|
|
88's right. It was basically an identifier. One that couldn't be undone. Though it can now, but I don't recommend you looking up the medical photographs...yikes.
It was a way of saying, "They are them, and we are Us." Very tribal. Sort of a more permanent form of a tattoo.
So far as I know, the circumcision itself had no religious value, other than being a visible marker for the Abrahamic Covenant, which of course did, and does, have religious value.
Sort of God saying, "Here's our deal, signed with a snip for all to see." "You are my people, and anyone can quickly see that with a quick glance." It also means you can't go run off and hide in someone else's tribe...not for very long, at least.
The idea of it being a marker is also seen in the concept of "Circumcision of the Heart", which doesn't imply that you get your heart cut, but that your heart is "marked" by Jesus, or God. That is, you belong to Jesus, your faith (and maybe acts) indicating your tribal allegiance...hence, circumcised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Because when Saul set the price on Michal, his daughter,...
Aug 25, 2025, 6:41 PM
|
|
As a side to all that, the debate over circumcision really shows the difference between the way James and Paul thought.
For James, the religion was still very closed. Just like Judaism. You had to earn your way into the club, and being in the club meant something...a status of sorts. The exclusivity had value. "We are us, they are them."
But for Paul, he came at it completely differently. For Paul, the whole world was the club..."There is no man, no woman, no jew, no gentile, no poor, no rich...etc."
So two guys with completely different ideas about what this new religion was going to be. One thinking very regionally, if not locally. One thinking globally.
But Judaism had always been about the God of Israel...not other people, not other Gods. So James' view was completely consistent with the whole history of Judaism. Except that now they were integrating a sort of limited 'soul saver', Jesus, not a 'nation saver' into the mix.
Paul said, it's not just about Israel anymore.
And those two viewpoints are reflected in their missions. The James Gang stayed in Jerusalem and explained how Jesus fit into the older religion of the locals. And Paul hit the road and spread the word to anyone who would listen, anywhere his feet could carry him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
Re: Because when Saul set the price on Michal, his daughter,...
1
Aug 26, 2025, 4:39 AM
|
|
NO, actually circumcision preceded the law. It was part of establishing the Hebrews as a family and began with Abraham, a man who trusted in God. It doesn't appear the 11 actually intended for gentiles to follow the law but something more like having the same trust in God as Abe who was the founder of their people.
That lends a lot of insight as to just how trivial the difference between Paul and the 11 were. Bring snipped is not what Abraham into heaven and not being snipped wasn't keeping anyone out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Because when Saul set the price on Michal, his daughter,...
1
Aug 26, 2025, 5:58 AM
|
|
This gets into the 'hidden history' of the earliest church years.
And it's a project I'm working on right now. I think there may have been a remarkable difference between the Jerusalem church and Paul. I'm just gathering the scriptural evidence right now.
Look at this incredible exchange from Acts 15. This is in the year 50ish, mind you. Some 20 years after Jesus's D-n-R:
Acts 15:1
"Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
Now, that's not Jews. That's Jewish-Christians. Because they are talking about being 'saved', which no Jew would ever do.
That means that in the year 50, the Christian church in Jersualem was demanding circumcision and adherence to Moses's Law. That is a far cry from "scripture fulfilled."
Acts 15:2
"This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. (um, Yeah.)So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question."
Again, P&B aren't going to the Jewish Temple, they're going to see Jesus's apostles...the early Christian Church, to figure this mess out. Why is the Christian Church telling people to be circumcised and follow the Law TWENTY years after Jesus died? Unless that's all they ever taught...?
[Peter said] Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
That is, not circumcision, not Law, like you guys up here in the Jerusalem Christian Church are teaching.
James, Jesus's brother, makes the ruling:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. (Faith+4 Commandments).
But then comes the clincher. And the real clue as to what's been going on. The Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, are still Jews...they just believe in Christ.
James concludes with: "For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
That is, we early Christians are still reading it, every Sabbath. We just include Jesus now.
And when the 'compromise' word goes out, it doesn't go to Jewish Christians at the Church in Jerusalem...it ONLY goes to the Gentile Churches.
"To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia..."
So James is saying "we're gonna keep doing what we do, LAW and all, and you guys in the boondocks get the "Lite" version...Faith in Jeusus, plus 4 Commandments from the Law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
Good on you.
1
Aug 26, 2025, 6:38 AM
|
|
Believe it or not, Christians read the law everyday even yet. I have many times said that I read 3 chapters of the OT, 3 of Psalms, portions of Psa 119 and 3 chapters of the NT daily.
The benefits of studying/reading the law and OT in general is to remind us of Israel's plight, the struggle of flesh against the world. A study of Israel, if guided by God's Spirit, reveals that what that people encountered in the world of flesh is exactly what Christians today encounter in spirit.
Israel suffered faults to teach the Church about our faults and how Israel trusted in God to preserve a nation we should trust in God to keep us confident in Him to preserve our souls.
If the law was a schoolmaster, Gal 3, then why would we not remember our class notes? I think you're blowing this all out of proportion. Yes, there were false teachers who wanted to enslave the Church just as they'd enslaved the Hebrew people. They wanted to maintain their status which was being chiseled away by Jews converting to Christian. That was not what the 11 apostles were doing. Read their own words.
They all agreed that circumcision was not required. I don't see how asking more of them is necessary for though circumcision was, according to:
"[Peter said] Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
That is, not circumcision, not Law, like you guys up here in the Jerusalem Christian Church are teaching.
James, Jesus's brother, makes the ruling:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. (Faith+4 Commandments)."
I insist, this is the resolution given and agreed upon by the entire 12 apostles. It wasn't begun by the apostles it found its beginnings by pharisees who attempted to put the general population of Christians under their thumbs.
"...but they were Jews..." Yes, God didn't require Hebrews to give up their nationality or tribe when they got saved, He doesn't require me or you to become Jewish, He doesn't require a Brit to become Jew...You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Good on you.
Aug 26, 2025, 7:07 AM
|
|
Well, all that's true from Paul's perspective. What fascinates me though, is that James and Co. WALKED with Jesus. Paul has a vision, but Jesus's brother knew him personally.
And this split didn't end in 50 AD. (it went on until the Roman Army ended it, and the Temple in 70).
Look what happened when Paul returned from his missions to the Gentiles. He had to hide in Jerusalem, and pretend to be a Law-Zealous Jewish-Christian just to save his life. And he STILL nearly got killed.
Acts 21 Paul’s Arrival at Jerusalem
"When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present.
Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed (and become Jewish Christians), and all of them are zealous for the law."
"They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs."
(That don't fly in the Jerusalem Christian Church.)
"What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a (sacrificial Nazirite) vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved."
Then James tells them why every Christian in Jerusalem is SO upset.
"Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the Law. As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
"The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the Temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering (sacrifice) would be made for each of them."
Paul Arrested
"When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our Law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks (Gentiles) into the temple and defiled this Holy Place.”
Now to me, that sounds like two churches under one name.
One church, in the city, under James and the original disciples, that requires circumcision to be saved, is crazy Law-Zealous, and is ready to kill anyone who even associates with Gentiles.
The other church, Paul's collection of country worship houses, that gets saved by Faith and 4-dietary Laws.
Which Church did Jesus want? And, it's worth noting that Paul and Barnabus went to James for guidance, not the other way around. So they KNEW who the mothership was in 50 AD.
So what would Christianity look like if Rome didn't destroy Jerusalem 20 years later? That's the curious question to me. ">
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20969]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
Jumping in
1
Aug 26, 2025, 7:55 AM
|
|
Certainly, there was confusion among the Jews concerning their need to follow the "Law" of Moses. Scripture has taught us, however, to see the Law for what it was - and is - a thermometer that measures the sickness of man's heart. None can live a single day without breaking one of the Laws given by Moses. Therefore, it is a burden - but not a curse. Sin is the curse from which the seeds of burden are born.
The Jews had more of a battle than the gentiles as well. Family, national traditions, pharisees, etc. They also loved their synagogues (see church in our world) - and the same sentiment was there as we have in the church today when change comes - "We never did it that way before."
The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus. They continued to fight against Him and His teachings - as they still do. (on a side note, this is why there will be the Time of Jacob's trouble - end times) There is also this passage in Hebrews - many believe Paul wrote but it is not settled:
The New King James Version (Heb 10:1–18). (1982). Thomas Nelson.
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
Christ’s Death Fulfills God’s Will
5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:
“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’ ”
8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Christ’s Death Perfects the Sanctified
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
Message was edited by: HuntClub®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Jumping in
1
Aug 26, 2025, 8:45 AM
|
|
Good post, Hunt.
Yes, the Jews did reject Jesus.
BUT, Jesus was a Jew himself, and all of his disciples, (I think) and early followers were Jews themselves.
So you have this situation where all the very earliest Christians HAD to be Jews. And as lifelong Jews, it's unlikely they just dropped their old religion on a dime. I think for them it was more of a question of "how do we understand Jesus, in the context of our Judaism?" He was a Jew too.
That's where the category of Jewish-Christian comes into play. A full-on Jew...who believed in a fellow Jew, Jesus. And, the very concept of a Messiah was a JEWISH concept.
So in their minds, the ones that believed in Jesus might have simply thought, "Oh, there he is, the messiah...finally. We've been waiting 500 years. When is he gonna vanquish Rome?"
Now, as it turned out, Jesus wasn't the type of Messiah they were expecting. He was a soul-saver, not a nation-saver. Israel didn't break free of Roman bondage like the Exiles did 500 years earlier, when the last Messiah, Cyrus, freed them.
So if you're worshipping a messiah who doesn't save your nation, why are you worshipping him? That’s the big question.
Undoubtedly, it had to do with a change in the nature of what being ‘saved’ meant. Over time, Paul’s ‘Faith Only’ view has been the idea that persisted…mainly because it was the one that survived.
But in those earliest years, 30-70, what did Jesus bring to the table that attracted followers?
It’s clear from ACTS that his followers in Jerusalem WANTED the Law. They nearly killed Paul when they found out what he had been teaching about removing it to communities outside the city walls.
And, they WANTED sacrifices, and still performed them. As is shown by James, the leader of the Jerusalem Christian Church, suggesting Paul conduct a Nazirite Rite (which involved animal sacrifice) to save his life. (Just act like us Jerusalem Christians and you’ll be just fine.)
So switching religions isn’t quite like switching a light switch. Change comes slow. And it seems that while the earliest Christians in Jerusalem (30-70) were willing to go along with Jesus saying “The End is Near” and “Forgiveness of Sin can be Permanent, not temporary”, they weren’t willing to yield on much more.
And if you look very, very closely at what Christ said, I’m not sure he meant what Paul later meant. Paul is pretty (though not exclusively) All Faith.
But even in Mark 5:17, Jesus said
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
“For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
The key words there being, “Till Heaven and Earth Disappear.” Which to this day, they have not. So for Jesus, was the Law intact till the End of the World?
And maybe that ‘s what he meant by “Everything is Accomplished.” Not his death, but the Return of God and New Jerusalem.” That has been the traditional “Jewish End Game” forever. The return of God to his people. – the ultimate accomplishment of everything.
And look here. Jesus even hedges some on his mission. Which was to warn of the End, and save “some” souls, along the way.
Matthew 20:28
“…just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Not ALL, many.
So maybe he thought of himself as a “Super-Sacrifice”, worth 1000 lambs…but not a universal sacrifice. And so after he died, the Jerusalem Jews who believed his End of Time message, just kept on sacrificing.
The fact that early Jewish-Christians were still conducting sacrifices, 20 years after his death, might indicate they thought they needed to. Because he wasn’t the end to all sacrifices. Except in Paul’s mind. (and in later works like Hebrews…not written by Jesus himself, mind you.)
ACTS tells us the disciples were still going to the Temple for all sorts of reasons, LONG after Jesus’s death. What all were they doing there?
Acts 3:1
“One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon.”
So we all know who won out…Paul and “All faith.” But what I’m trying to figure out is, WHAT was the original Jerusalem Christian Church teaching? And why?
We know the earliest Christian Church still taught the Law, we know it still conducted circumcision. At least 20, and maybe 40 years after Jesus died. Why? And what else did they teach? I mean, these were the guys who actually walked with Jesus…so they should have the best first hand knowledge on what he said and wanted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Jumping in
1
Aug 26, 2025, 9:21 AM
|
|
But here's the bombshell question, from Acts 15:1
"Certain people came down from Judea (Jerusalem) to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
So WHY is James, who walked with Jesus, and the Jerusalem Christian Church, composed of former Apostles who walked with Jesus, teaching that circumcision is necessary to be saved, 30 years after Jesus's D & R? Idk, but I'm trying to find out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20969]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
Re: Jumping in
1
Aug 26, 2025, 12:08 PM
|
|
Well, because that is not the way they always did it before.... they were resisting the change.
Early in His teachings, Jesus, He focused on the "Heart of the problem being a Problem with the Heart". You know, "if you have sinned in your heart, you have sinned before God" teaching. The Pharisee's were certainly not going to give up their pie in the sky positions for the "would be " Messiah - May I add here that the Pharisees considered Jesus a[bas-tard] child as well. How would God use that illegitimate child as the Messiah?
The sacrificial system was about to be closed by God - through His Son, Jesus. Why, even John the Baptist knew this and proclaimed as much when he gave the greatest sermon ever preached - "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
When Caiaphas ripped his clothing in front of Jesus - during the mockery of a trial - he disqualified himself as the high-priest of Israel before God (see Leviticus). Jesus is now the High Priest before God the Father.
Jesus came to the Jews because they were/are the chosen people - from which God reveals Himself to all. They had to [see] the Messiah and reject Him so that the "Lamb" could be sacrificed outside of the walls of Jerusalem. Like the sacrifice in the days of Moses and Aaron - one of the two lambs would have the sins of the nation "laid" upon its head and turned loosed in the wilderness - outside of the encampment walls. This would allow the [world] to destroy that lamb without mercy or protection. Just as Jesus was crucified outside of Jerusalem - in the [wilderness].
With Jesus being the singular Lamb that takes away sin, one, not two, and as He was cast out into the wilderness, there is no other lamb left for a sacrifice on the Temple altar. It is Finished.
so little time to continue... hope my quick rambling makes sense...
Edit to Add: Jesus was the last sacrifice that can ever appease the wrath of God against the sin curse upon the individual. Offered to all, but few will come.
Message was edited by: HuntClub®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Jumping in
Aug 26, 2025, 3:33 PM
|
|
I think this stuff leads to great fun in speculating. To me, it really shows the two tracks of early Christianity very clearly. What the Jerusalem church of apostles was teaching in the city, and what Paul was teaching outside of the city.
But let's see what we can glean from their actual words.
In Acts 15:1, the James Gang say "You cannot be saved except by circumcision."
Now, being "saved" would have been foreign to any traditional Jew, so they got that new concept from Jesus, presumably. Being 'saved' was different than your regular temple ritual cleansing of sin. But how?
Maybe they saw it as permanent, or maybe they saw it as an extended 'sin-cleansing.' I'm not sure we can tell from their words. But it was different, by whatever means, than what they had been doing before Jesus. So that's definitely Jesus impacting their view.
We know the Church only had 15 days of contact with Paul in about 14 years. Not much. So maybe the Jerusalem Church never even heard of Paul's "Faith Only" vision, until the confrontation at Antioch.
From Galatians 1:18 we know Paul only saw Peter and James...and no one else when he visited Jerusalem. So maybe he never told anyone in Jersualem about his vision. He just went on his way, with his method.
Gal 1:18
"I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother."
That's not a lot of contact between the two camps.
Paul didn't, but the James Gang clearly tied being saved to circumcision, though maybe not to other aspects of the Law...stuff that James was willing to yield on. Everything but blood, immorality, strangled animals, etc.
Maybe the Jerusalem Church figured "Well, Jesus didn't talk about circumcision when we walked with him, and he was circumcised, so I guess we just keep doing it, just like our new savior. And Jesus said the earth would end before the Law stopped, so I guess we keep doing that, too.
Idk. It could have been anything.
But what amazes me is that it went on for 40 years, presumably. That's a long time, with Jews in Jerusalem getting circumcised to be saved, and Gentiles outside of Jerusalem getting saved without circumcision.
So which way did Jesus want? The way his brother taught being saved, or the way Paul taught being saved. What a question!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Jumping in
Aug 27, 2025, 1:49 AM
|
|
There are contemporary implications too. Let's say God inspired James and Paul to agree on Gentiles needing Faith, +4 commandments, to be saved. One of those being a prohibition on eating blood.
Does that still hold today?
I know it sounds silly, but can a person (gentile) be saved if they eat blood sausage? Blood pudding? Rare or Medium steak?
The ruling came down 2000 years ago, but we still have the letter preserved in Acts.
"We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."
"Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."
Farewell.
The faith part still applies. But do the +4 still apply? Quite a question, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
Hold on now, who told you that lie about Acts 15-1
1
Aug 27, 2025, 7:59 AM
[ in reply to Re: Jumping in ] |
|
"1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."
Moreover, why are the faithful here not reading the verses you paraphrase and why do you paraphrase rather than posting the verse itself?
I covered this in a post later in the progression of this thread. When was 'the James Gang, ever referred to as 'certain men,' rather than presenting James' credentials, an apostle?
Are you reading one of the perversions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Hold on now, who told you that lie about Acts 15-1
Aug 27, 2025, 8:29 AM
|
|
Hahah I do read lots of perversions, but not here. ">">">">">">">">">">"> Crump and Bmiest won't let me post them. I think I addressed my take of the "Certain men" below, but if not I can recover it.
As I said in another post, I think it's very telling that Paul didn't say "Skru those guys...God talked to me directly"
But instead, he ran to James for a "ruling". So he knew the pecking order at the time, and knew where the power base was in the religion, at the time.
You don't ask for permission if you are the top dog, you know? You tell people how it's going to be.
Now, all that would change as Paul's base grew outside the city. But in 50, it's pretty clear it seems who the "core" Christians were, and who the "periphery" Christians were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Hold on now, who told you that lie about Acts 15-1
1
Aug 27, 2025, 8:44 AM
|
|
I mean we know that the Church in Jerusalem was conducting circumcisions after Jesus's death, because it says it right here..."believers"
15:5 "Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
But, it also says "some"...which leads me to believe there could have been factions even in the Jerusalem Church. Which wouldn't surprise me in the least.
That's what makes the 1st Century so great.
Plus, James wording here makes me think he was getting complaints in Jerusalem, too.
"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:"
That sounds like "yeah, people here are complaining it's a burden, too.
What I'm saying is, he doesn't say "Circumcision is a sacred, everlasting compact between you and God"...he says "It's a burden," see?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
I don't think James was teaching circumcision.
1
Aug 28, 2025, 6:18 AM
|
|
I'm not sure he even knew about it. It's just as likely that Paul heard about it and was the first to inform James. I conceded that James may have given it consideration. I also know that circumcision came not first by the law. It was the sign of being Hebrew which was long before Moses. I can see why even the Hebrews who knew it was grace that saved them, not the law, would consider it.
So do we also today. Many, upon receiving Christ as savior, make list of things which they need to 'give up,' or 'do,' to please God. THAT'S THE DEVIL'S LIE.
We can only please God by trusting Him and trusting in Him. The rest is God's business. He has a paddle to fit all butts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
Context tells the tale.
2
Aug 27, 2025, 7:39 AM
[ in reply to Re: Jumping in ] |
|
"1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved...."
'CERTAIN MEN,' had they been apostles surely that wouldn't have been omitted, surely.
"5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
Spiritually ignorant, not apostles. Not those who walked with Jesus, grew up with Him or were called to apostleship.
"7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."
Peter's claim to be the originator of the evidence that God was also calling gentiles to salvation due to his adjoining a chariot...Acts 8. He was testifying.
"24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
Now 'meats offered to idiols,' was founded in Paul saying 'If eating meat offend my brother I will eat no meat.' That wasn't a veggie tale. It was specifically about eating meat offered to idols of which Paul plainly said 'an idol is nothing.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Context tells the tale.
1
Aug 27, 2025, 8:18 AM
|
|
All good points 88.
But when P&B go to Jerusalem to sort it out, they don't go to "certain men", they go to James. Which makes me think James sent those 'certain men." (Or the church did, rather)
If they had been some other group, P&B would have went to them, or, James would have said "Why are you bothering me about this? I didn't send them. Talk to them about it."
It's also interesting that James doesn't tell P&B "Faith Alone." Even though Paul would have liked that, I'm sure.
I notice in Acts 9 that God told Ananias "But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel."
But Paul himself said (Gal 2:9) "James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised."
It's interesting that Paul didn't say "God told me to preach to the circumcised Israelites, too, guys. ">
What seems to be a glaring omission in the NT is what James and the disciples were doing for 50 years after Jesus's death. We have a very detailed account of what all Paul did, where he went, who he met, etc. But nothing, or very little, concerning the men who walked with Jesus, James and others.
I'm starting to feel like we've only been told half the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27463]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 15476
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Context tells the tale.
1
Aug 27, 2025, 11:33 AM
|
|
A clarifier, sil vous plait. I know you guys have been at this awhile, very well detailed and presented. So I am not asking either of you to go through it again. Having followed this, I am missing the point of disagreement, so a quick question (two parts):
1. Judaism being a religion of separateness and exclusion (mostly), and Jesus being Jewish, it would be surprising if the first Christians, including the 12, didn't think Jesus's atonement was applied only to them.
2. Before Acts 15 was Acts 11. Peter has to face the relationship between law and atonement. The 12 have to face the existence of an unexpected new community in Antioch made up of these unwashed neanderthals. They send Barnabas to make sure this is for real. This is new-ish to them at this point, though it shouldn't have been.
Acts and Paul then openly tell of the conflicts and misunderstandings that occurred as the first Christians learned to relate with Gentile Christians. Acts seems to read as a story of how the first Christians, imperfect as they were, had some false starts in that process.
So, in this thread I am reading that much is being made of Acts 15:1, and that it happened 30 or 40 years after the resurrection. It seems to me that the guys in Acts 15 said some wrong stuff. We read about what then happened. It likely wasnt 30-40 years after Jesus, more like 15 per my outside sources, but in any case was shortly after the events in Antioch. They seemed to have dealt with it as it came up, and we are told that story.
Miss and I have some of the same arguments we did 40 years ago, plus new ones. Almost always, at least one of us is wrong. It is not the nature of the wedding that is changing.
All that to ask: It seems to me this thread is reading much more into 15:1 than is there, so what am I missing?
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4149]
TigerPulse: 84%
36
|
Re: Context tells the tale.
1
Aug 27, 2025, 1:25 PM
|
|
So you are basically saying that Jesus led the first Christians which would have been those that walked and talked with him astray?
He never once told them they didn’t need to follow the law, in fact it was the opposite. He repeatedly said to follow the commandments and that the law would never pass.
Then he decided later to send this Paul to straighten everything out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27463]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 15476
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Context tells the tale.
1
Aug 27, 2025, 4:21 PM
|
|
The answer to "so, you are saying" is almost always "no", as it is here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4149]
TigerPulse: 84%
36
|
Re: Context tells the tale.
1
Aug 27, 2025, 4:24 PM
|
|
You said they had “false starts”.
Those we be attributed to Jesus based on the gospel accounts.
Paul seems to contradict him multiple times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [859]
TigerPulse: 97%
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
Re: Context tells the tale.
1
Aug 28, 2025, 7:03 AM
[ in reply to Re: Context tells the tale. ] |
|
For the fitfy-eleventh time.
The law is in full force and will be until the Judgement is finished. Jesus' fulfilled the law with His body when He died upon the cross.
You and I have discussed the legal ramifications of one going into court and the judge showing grace amd mercy but the accused refuses to accept the mercy of the court and ends up facing the full penalty of the law for his crimes.
Just because he judge can extend mercy doesn't change the law. It remains in effect until it's changed.
This is too simple to be twisted, perverted and have such nonsense slung around.
For the fifty-twelfth time, Jesus lived under the law in order to fulfill it for those who would accept THE JUDGE's grace. How could He fulfill the law if He refused to submit to it? You don't know because that's not how God chose the law to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Context tells the tale.
2
Aug 27, 2025, 9:46 PM
[ in reply to Re: Context tells the tale. ] |
|
Well, what I'm trying to get at (and I think all your points are well made) is, "Where is the story of the Guys who Walked With Christ?"
It's never really struck me until now, and my most recent reading of Galatians, but there seems to be a whole untold story that we only get glimpses of via the stories that Paul tells.
In the NT, there are 22 books and letters attributed to Paul and Paul's associates. And only one, James, attributed to those in the Church in Jerusalem. 22-1. Why? These were the guys who walked with Jesus. And they are completely silent?
Where are the Books of Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew and Simon the Zealot? Where's the Book of Matthias?
Where are the stories of James preaching to crowds of Jews that Faith Alone is the way? They're not there...that I know of. Because I don't think it went down that way. I think there was a raging internal debate over the Law, sacrifice, and circumcision, and works, and maybe other things.
They all seemed to agree that the End was near, and they all seemed to agree that Jesus 'saved' them...whatever that meant specifically at the time seems up in the air though. But beyond that, some pretty big differences in opinion on a lot of topics.
When Paul talks about the Law, he says this:
Gal 3:10 "For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse..."
Romans 7:5 "...the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death"
2 Cor 3:7 "Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone..."
When you go to the Book of James, you see this:
James 1:25 "But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do."
James 2:8 "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right."
James 2:10
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
James 4:11 "When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it."
James 4:12 "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge (God/Jesus), the one who is able to save and destroy.
So this is more than just 15:1. This is a fundamental difference on many topics that led right up till Rome abruptly ended the debate ">">">
That's why I'm counting 40 years. Jesus D&R in 30, Antioch in 50, Temple destruction in 70.
I think James and the Jerusalem church were still practicing the Law, still sacrificing animals, still being VERY Jewish, AND having newfound faith in Jesus, right up until Rome destroyed them.
And so their story was never fully told. But Paul's story, outside the city, survived. So were they both right? Were the guys who walked with Jesus destroyed because they got his message wrong? Did Paul 's message flourish because his was the "correct" interpretation? I have no idea. But what a question.
In any event, it's compelling enough to me that I'm hard at work gathering my evidence for "The Two Christianities, from 30AD-70AD", for a future post. I hope it will make for some good discussion ">">">
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27463]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 15476
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Context tells the tale.
1
Aug 28, 2025, 12:26 AM
|
|
Sorry to be late getting back. But its not too late where you are. Met a couple guys for a cigar at a place in downtown Greer. Maybe you have not had a chance to go there lately, but make it a to-do in your next visit. If you havent seen it recently, you will be amazed. Much preferable to downtown Greenville, imo. Way fun.
Understood. Thanks. Certainly those are things any reasonable person could wonder about.
Two things come to mind:
- A conclusion that James was advocating salvation-via-law is one an individual can hold, but a general proposal of 'two Christianities' would have to stand against centuries of countering scholarship. As you know, including "James" in the first place was controversial for that reason, but a robust discussion concluded that the letter was not advocating such a thing. A back and forth on that here could require more words than they used then, but the traditional interpretation, in the face of sincere challenge, has at the least stood the test of time.
Ultimately, the view that the Law is two things but not a third thing is considered to be the consistent message of the OT, Jesus, and the NT. The law is (1) a statement of external truth that precedes verbal law (ie; adultery is wrong because of how we are created, so following the law is good for anybody) and (2) a mirror that shows us we have all abandoned that truth. The law is not, therefore, a means of salvation. James is not considered by Christians to counter that view. I cant imagine a new way to propose otherwise.
- A picture of a 'raging debate' for 40 years, with the offering of sacrifices as common Christian practice, would need quite a bit of historical basis. I am no historian, and less an academic, but a similar discussion some time ago caused me to read a book by a prof at Stanford named Rives, who wrote about animal sacrifices in the Roman Empire (that might even be the title of the book). In the chapter on
Christianity he said (my condensing of a chapter into one sentence), "It might have continued a while in a limited way, but it was officially rejected". And "Hebrews" seems written to a community that understood why they stopped the practice.
In other words, you would be proposing that when Peter wrote that Paul is on the right track, and that James wrote that faith without works is dead (et al), those two letters would be two early Christians voicing two sides of a clearly split community. That will take some doing, I think, again counter to centuries on historical scholarship. But I have confidence in you. Not in that prospect, but in you.
There is no question that the relationship between atonement and continuing personal behavior is not intuitive. It is difficult for Christians, including this one, to adopt three seemingly competing realities: (1) moral equality with Jesus has been imputed to the follower of Jesus, (2) this creates greater expectations of faith behavior, not less, and (3) imperfection in #2 does not diminish #1. One way to reconcile this is to see conflict between Paul and James, which the non believer often does, but even the early church saw the cross as reconciling the apparent conflict.
Minor point, but I do not agree that only one NT book is attributable to 'those in the church in Jerusalem'. But be that as it may, I might refer to you in rebutting a comment that there are no eyewitnesses in the NT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Context tells the tale.
1
Aug 28, 2025, 1:36 AM
|
|
>- A conclusion that James was advocating salvation-via-law is one an individual can hold...
I'm not sure that's where the evidence will lead me, at least in a contemporary way. That is I'm not sure what a 1st Century Jew meant when he used the word "saved." That is, he had a complete system, without Jesus. You live, you do the best you can to follow the Law, you fail, you atone, and you repeat, over and over, till you die...and then, are resurrected and judged. So millions of Hebrews through history lived, and died, and still live, within that understanding of existence.
So what did Jesus bring to the table that appealed to those guys? No more community picnics to atone for Sin? "Hey, now that you believe in Jesus, you no longer have to go to the brisket BBQ everyday?"
They were still going to be judged in death either way...so was there some promise of a better shot at Heaven in you believed in Jesus or not? Many of them clearly did not want to give up any aspects of the Law...they nearly killed Paul when they found out he was in Jeru. So they seem to have taken faith in Jesus IN ADDITION TO still practicing the Law. How did that work? That's what I'm trying to find out.
>- A picture of a 'raging debate' for 40 years, with the offering of sacrifices as common Christian practice, would need quite a bit of historical basis.
Well, by raging I mean intensely separated camps. Like the Paul near death incident. Or the incident in Acts 23:6 where Paul was nearly ripped to shreds by getting into a resurrection argument between Pharisees and Sadducees.
"The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks."
So I don't think the Jerusalem camp had much love at all for what Paul was teaching, and vice versa. Paul just stayed away from Jerusalem almost entirely. See Gal 2:6
"As for those who were held in high esteem—they added nothing to my message." Basically Paul saying "I don't care if you did walk with Jesus and his is your brother. he told ME what he told ME."
So, the bottom line is, I'm gonna be reading between the lines to try and fully color the picture. Like I said, why is the story of the men who walked with Jesus not front and center? The NT seems to be The Story of Jesus and the Apostles till Jesus's D&R, and then The Story of Paul.
Why aren't there 22 books on what the those in the Church of Jerusalem were doing for 40 years? Idk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Context tells the tale.
Aug 28, 2025, 2:56 AM
|
|
>"Hey, now that you believe in Jesus, you no longer have to go to the brisket BBQ everyday?"
What I mean is, many Jewish-Christians STILL wanted the Law, and many of them STILL wanted circumcision. So what did they hear in Jesus's message that appealed to them if they wanted to keep those two things?
Acts 21:20
"When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law."
Was the appeal that Jesus promised to do the Law was right, instead of hypocritically? Idk. It's a real mystery, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Context tells the tale.
Aug 28, 2025, 3:09 AM
|
|
Even in the Book of Revelation...the last of multiple End Visions that go back all through the OT, the Law is present in Heaven.
Rev 11:19
"Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. (where the Law, and Moses's tablets, were kept)
Rev 20:12
"The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. (what other standard of moral conduct was there other than the Law?)
Matt 5:19
"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
So there are all these glimpses, and snippets, of a 1st Century vision that is different than "Faith Alone." A vision where you are judged based not on faith, but adherence to Law, and where the Law ends up in heaven, with Jesus. Not removed or supplanted, but eternally relevant.
Psalm 119:89 - "Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27463]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 15476
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Context tells the tale.
1
Aug 28, 2025, 11:37 AM
[ in reply to Re: Context tells the tale. ] |
|
If Andrew or Bartholomew had written anything, i think we'd know it. Sometimes the simplest explanations are the right ones.
Paul preaching Jesus, and having trouble with Jews over it, does not indicate a long term divide within Christianity. Jesus was executed, so we know the issues that caused.
The argument about whether to keep the law in the religious/ceremonial sense is well known, from the NT itself. It didnt seem to last long. I suppose we can discuss what 'long' means. A claim that this then turned into two camps of long term divide would not seem to be one of conjecture from the NT we all know. Will take quite a bit of external evidence. Good luck.
(This was in response to your first post only. Will look at the other two.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
That which we've omitted is eternally more significant that that which is...
2
Aug 28, 2025, 6:27 AM
[ in reply to Re: Context tells the tale. ] |
|
covered.
The entire act of circumcision denotes the struggle the 'newborn,' has with Satan and the flesh. We make list of what to do and what not to do. We are so enthused in our fresh love, first love of Jesus and the new family in which we are adopted that we easily become overzealous. Like a 2 yr old who is learning to walk while no yet having spiritual balance we do face first into the carpet.
We have ignored the gnat and swallowed the camel here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [104989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 99770
Joined: 2009
|
I hope you don't mind me responding to your post in a thread starter...
1
Aug 28, 2025, 5:21 AM
[ in reply to Re: Context tells the tale. ] |
|
for I believe the significance of the matter goes much deeper than just two good men asking the age old question, 'To snip or not to snip, that is the question.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27463]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 15476
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Jumping in
3
Aug 26, 2025, 10:48 AM
[ in reply to Jumping in ] |
|
Fun to read all this, this and the thread. Wish I could remember it. You academicians intimidate me.
Reading your comments about atonement over the law:
In about 2020 a 35-ish woman moved to Greenville from New York state for a job, and the company went caput a week later. She wandered into a small (15 people) church meeting in a downtown restaurant one Sunday morning, maybe looking for a job. About 4 months later she came to faith during a communion, God painting his blood on the doorpost of her heart. We thought that happened, so we asked her the next Sunday. You've never seen eyes sparkle like that. "I'm free", she said. "I didn't even know God existed, and now he lives in me."
She was dead before dark. Turns out, she was addicted to heroine before moving here, a shock to us all. Most in the little church play in rock bands, some have done every substance there is, play with people who still do. We know who is using. Had no clue about her; sweetest, happiest thing you ever saw. Her brother in NY said one reason she took a job here was to get away from her drug circle there. But of course wherever we go, there we are, and a boyfriend supplied her with something that likely had fentanyl in it. [He told the police he went out to 'buy some Sprite', and she was dead when he got home. Yeah, we believe that.]
How does one make sense of that? Can't. But Isaiah 57:1 says this (you've read it): "The righteous perish and no one takes it to heart; the devout are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil." Chrissy died by her own actions, and whatever happened to her, or was going to happen, was deserved by her own decision to get caught in what we know is evil. God might well have seen all that and said, "Nah, we're bringing her home now." The Blood was on her doorpost.
While we can't know what actually happened that afternoon (we will one day), it is nevertheless an example of your post. Earthly consequences remain, but the death of the law ended with Jesus's. You laid it out well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4149]
TigerPulse: 84%
36
|
Re: Jumping in
Aug 26, 2025, 7:33 PM
|
|
“
While we can't know what actually happened that afternoon (we will one day)”
What makes you think you will know that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27463]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 15476
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Jumping in
Aug 27, 2025, 12:03 PM
|
|
If necessary, I'm going to ask her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [-16]
TigerPulse: 70%
-1
|
Re: Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians
1
Aug 26, 2025, 8:01 AM
|
|
There's literally nothing in the Bible that tells us that Nicolaitane = sexual immorality. That is an entire fabrication by tradition & the paid clergy class who seek to obscure what the word means in greek.
Which is very ironic considering how at any other turn, they don't hesitate to use their alleged foreignlinguistic chops as a weapon & cop-out to silence the great unwashed who dare call them out for their lies & grifting.
But Nicolaitane means "conquering the laity" & it points the finger right smack dab at the current false religious system practiced by most on this planet, whether it be Prot, Eva, or RCC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [-16]
TigerPulse: 70%
-1
|
Re: Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians
1
Aug 26, 2025, 8:01 AM
|
|
"foreign linguistic"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32444]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians
Aug 26, 2025, 8:52 AM
[ in reply to Re: Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians ] |
|
You're right.
It's all from Church fathers, written mainly in the second century. But why they would besmirch one of the original 7 Church deacons, at the Jerusalem Church, no less, I have no idea.
But the point is that John heard about it, and responded to it in his letter. So it must have been real enough to merit a reply from God himself, via John and the angel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27463]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 15476
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Religious Pron: Paul's Letters - Galatians
1
Aug 26, 2025, 10:53 AM
|
|
Ancient Jewish women. 21st century makeup. In heaven there is no time and space. Think about that and consider Jesus again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 53
| visibility 2517
|
|
|
50
