Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

The event on the road to Damascus was not just God appointing him to his calling, but he was given faith. "No man can say Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit". What is the first thing Paul says? "Who are you, Lord?".

---

Two problems. One, he didn't say "Jesus is Lord". Asking who someone is isn't the same thing. And the second problem is the scripture says when he received the Holy Spirit, and it wasn't then - it was when Ananias laid hands on him: "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit"

---

Yes, of course, I know when the scales fell off his eyes. It's not the point. The totality of the event is what led to his conversion and regeneration in the Holy Spirit.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
I'm not sure the point of making this distinction about religion and conversion. The real point is that Paul's "religion" prior to conversion was in error and Jesus had rather strong words to say about that.

---

Well, perhaps it would be more productive to ask instead of telling me what I am saying and then arguing with it. You may not think it is important that St Paul didn't change religions, but I do, because the idea that over here there was this thing called Judaism, and over there was this thing called Christianity, and St Paul stopped being a Jew to become a Christian is wrong - and a lot of people believe it. And that gives rise to all sorts of misunderstandings and misconceptions.

St Paul's "religion" (were such a thing true) was not in error - his entire sect of Judaism was solely focused on living righteously by the Torah, and going even further to put a hedge around it to avoid violating the Torah even by mistake. He was a fanatic about keeping the Torah, an extremist. That wasn't bad! The problem was he missed the point of the Torah, and missed the very Messiah he was truly working so hard to welcome.

It is as if modern Christians want so badly for there to be a major disjunction between the Old Testament and the New - between Yahweh and Jesus. But there was not. Jesus taught the Torah as it was meant to be taught. He did not change it, He didn't negate it, or end it. He literally said as much. His issue with the Pharisees wasn't that they were wrong, it is that they were hypocritical. They followed the Torah diligently but forgot mercy. "You tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Torah: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." Meaning - their diligence about the Torah was good and they should do it! But not without the other. St Paul teaches the exact same thing: merely following the Torah in an external way did not and could not make them righteous. Since following the Torah is literally what made you a Jew, even being a devoted Jew could not make you righteous. THAT is the teaching that St Paul repeats over and over again, and THAT is the same thing Christ Jesus told the scribes and the Pharisees. St Paul and Christ Jesus are perfectly in sync. Rather than throwing out the Torah, they both upheld it. I think the reason for this desire is probably because if we are supposed to have the same faith as the Apostles, and the Apostle's faith looked like first century Judaism vs modern Christianity, then there is a problem. So people re-invent first century Christianity and imagine it looked like theirs. It did not.

---

Brother, I'm not attacking you and I agree with most of what you're saying here, but you're making an implication that Paul wasn't converted.

In your OP,

Quote:

---

Instead of conversion, when St Paul talks about what happened to him, he describes it as a revelation and calling - he explicitly likens himself to the prophets of the Old Testament.

---

There's no "instead of conversion", he was in fact, converted into Christianity. Being a Christian is not a description of religion, its a designation of New Covenant membership. That's not me trying to say I want some disjunction between the Old and New Covenants. Paul was a zealous Jew, Pharisee of Pharisees, but he gained Christ in this event and "counted everything else as loss for the sake of Christ". He was a Jew outwardly, according to the flesh, per his own words. And no, I disagree with you that following the Torah is what literally made you a Jew. That made you ethnically jewish, but a Jew is one inwardly, according to the heart. That's why there's a remnant of "Jews" amongst the ethnic Jews, those according to the promise. Why do you think Paul was so amazed by mercy in his testimony in 1 Timothy? He was the foremost of sinners, insolent in his unbelief, but God showed mercy not because God excused his sin due to ignorance, but because God was going to use him for His glory by pure grace unmerited.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
I would also disagree that Paul's religion didn't change. Paul very much understood the "types and shadows" were now gone and there is no longer distinction, "Jew or Greek". So even though he may have carried on some practices (Nazarite Vow), he very much understood there were things he couldn't go back to, hence the scolding remarks he gives to the Galatians. You're religion can't help but change when you put on Christ.

---

"Religion" as a category of thing didn't exist in the first century. There wasn't a secular / religious divide, there wasn't a cultural / religious divide, and there wasn't an ethnic / religious divide. All of those things were wrapped up into one. That's part of the point of the OP. Reading modern categories back is an error, and it makes people say things like the above which really don't make any sense in the context of the first century. Your "religion" can't help but change - no - your life and who you are? Yes.

The lack of distinction between Jew or Greek was about being able to come to God, not "religion". And your comments about the Galatians miss the point - the exact issue I was talking about in the OP.

The Galatians did change their faith, and their religion, and their way of life, because they were pagans. They were separated from God, and did not know the God of Israel. They were living a life that was incompatible with faithfulness to God, so their entire life had to dramatically change. How they worshipped, their daily pattern of life, the food they ate, the clothes they wore, how they had sex, how they got married, how they understood their marriages and family obligations, their jobs, all of it had to be tested and changed and baptized. Some of it had to completely go, some could be redeemed. They had to stop being Galatians, in some ways completely withdraw from public and civic life, and start being something new and different - Christian Galatians, a category of being and people that had never existed before. A new creation!

This is precisely the difference between the conversion of a pagan to following the Messiah and someone like St Paul. St Paul's way of life and practice were not abhorrent to God. His understanding of right and wrong, how to live, morality, sexuality, worship, all of these things were informed by the Torah -- the words of God -- and the teaching of the prophets. The pattern of life he was trying to follow was in and of itself good - as he says, "indeed, the Torah is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." But all of this was nothing without the point of the Torah - the culmination or telos of the Torah - which is the Messiah. Which is why he says all of that is garbage compared to faithfulness to Jesus and the righteousness that brings.

The Lord's words to St Photini at the well are similar, and drive this point home. The Jews worship what they know - Yahweh - because He revealed Himself to them. The Samaritans did not know God, and like all of the other people of the nations (the gentiles) were separated from God, were not clean, and were ignorant. But the hour came, the once-for-all atonement happened, the people of all nations were made clean in the blood of Jesus ("do not call unclean what God has made clean") and that grace opened the way for them to be joined to the heir, the true vine, which is Jesus - and the vine he planted, which is Israel. This is the major point of St Paul's gospel, literally how he describes it ("The mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus...")

St Paul was part of the vine already - at danger of being cut off for his hypocrisy and error - but by grace he remained. He received mercy and grace for his ignorance and disbelief. Had he rejected the Lord, he would have been cut off. But he was a natural branch of that vine as a son of Israel. The Galatians, the Samaritans, the Greeks, the Germans... your ancestors and mine.... we were all grafted in. They converted to something new. St Paul did not. He changed, but his "religion" didn't.

---

The lack of distinction between Jew and Greek is precisely because of what I'm saying above. Once a person is spiritually regenerated, you are a child of God, heir according to promise. Paul was not of the vine. As I've said, Paul heard the gospel, rejected Jesus as the Christ and was cut off. You saying he was of the vine is incongruous with Paul saying about himself: "9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith".

Everyone is saved through Christ, even Abraham. Yes, even Abraham was converted into Christianity effectively through the perfect work and sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ. It is the only covenant God provided that offered salvation. The Old Covenant didn't have the power to save anyone. All this talk about "religion" is literally pointless. Religion is the outworking of your faith. It's an effect, not a cause of anything. Paul became a Christian and thus his religion changed even if he held to some Jewish practices, but clearly according to Hebrews, elements of the Torah were now of the past. All the apostles converted to Christianity likewise. Christianity is not a religion, it's an inheritance.

What would be (or is) the implication of Christ fulfilling the law?

So it's your position that there were two priesthoods: Jesus being the high priest after the order of Melchizedek, and Caiaphas et.al. after the order of Aaron? And all Jews were under both until the destruction of the temple?

Quote:

---

Did St Paul "condescend" to St James??

Evangelicals always appeal to the plain reading of the text. The plain reading of the text is by doing the purification, St Paul showed that the rumors and accusations that he taught Jews to not be circumcised and forsake Moses were false, and that he himself lived in observance of the Torah.

---

Again, I'm not sure how you are using the term "evangelicals".

Verse 10. For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Observe the consummate cleverness with which the false apostles went about to bring Paul into disrepute. They combed Paul's writings for contradictions (our opponents do the same) to accuse him of teaching contradictory things. They found that Paul had circumcised Timothy according to the Law, that Paul had purified himself with four other men in the Temple at Jerusalem, that Paul had shaven his head at Cenchrea. The false apostles slyly suggested that Paul had been constrained by the other apostles to observe these ceremonial laws. We know that Paul observed these decora out of charitable regard for the weak brethren. He did not want to offend them. But the false apostles turned Paul's charitable regard to his disadvantage. If Paul had preached the Law and circumcision, if he had commended the strength and free will of man, he would not have been so obnoxious to the Jews. On the contrary they would have praised his every action.

-Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians

26. Whereas some accuse Paul of subtilty, as if he did play the hypocrite, I have before refuted this. Yet I do not deny but that he granted to do thus much at the request of the brethren, being thereunto in a manner enforced. Therefore, it hath more color, and is (as they say) more disputable, that he was too easily entreated, and too ready to obey; and yet I do not admit that which some men say, that it went not well with Paul, because, taking upon him a new and unwonted person, he did not so constantly, as he was wont, maintain the liberty purchased by Christ. I confess, indeed, that God doth oftentimes punish foolish purposes with unhappy success; but I see not why this should be applied to Paul, who through voluntary subjection sought to win the favor of the rude, and such as were not thoroughly instructed, that he might do them good; being about to do that not willingly, but because he had rather yield to the brethren than stick to his own judgment. Furthermore, when he was once admitted, he might fitly have passed over to moderate that zeal. His courtesy doth rather deserve great praise, in that he doth not only gently abase himself for the unskillful people's sake, but doth also obey their foolishness who did unworthily, and against reason, suspect him. He might well have reproved them, because they had been so ready to believe reports contrary to his estimation [reputation]. In that he abstaineth, he showeth great patience; in that he winneth their favor so carefully, it is singular modesty.

-John Calvin, Commentary on Acts

V. Here is Paul's compliance with it. He was willing to gratify them in this matter. Though he would not be persuaded not to go to Jerusalem, yet, when he was there, he was persuaded to do as they there did, Acts 21:26. Then Paul took the men, as they advised, and the very next day, purifying himself with them, and not with multitude nor tumult, as he himself pleads (Acts 24:18), he entered into the temple, as other devout Jews that came upon such errands did, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification to the priests; desiring the priest would appoint a time when the offering should be offered for every one of them, one for each. Ainsworth, on Num. 6:18; quotes out of Maimonides a passage which gives some light to this: If a man say, Upon me behalf the oblations of a Nazarite, or, Upon me be half the shaving of a Nazarite, them he brings half the offerings by what Nazarite he will, and that Nazarite pays his offering out of that which is his. So Paul did here; he contributed what he vowed to the offerings of these Nazarites, and some think bound himself to the law of Nazariteship, and to an attendance at the temple with fastings and prayers for seven days, not designing that the offering should be offered till them, which was what he signified to the priest. Now it has been questioned whether James and the elders did well to give Paul this advice, and whether he did well to take it. 1. Some have blamed this occasional conformity of Paul's, as indulging the Jews too much in their adherence to the ceremonial law, and a discouragement of those who stood fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free. Was it not enough for James and the elders of Jerusalem to connive at this mistake in the Jewish converts themselves, but must they wheedle Paul to countenance them in it? Had it not been better, when they had told Paul how zealous the believing Jews were for the law, if they had desired, whom God had endued with such excellent gifts, to take pains with their people to convince them of their error, and to show them that they were made free from the law by their marriage to Christ? Rom. 7:4. To urge him to encourage them in it by his example seems to have more in it of fleshly wisdom than of the grace of God. Surely Paul knew what he had to do better than they could teach him. But, 2. Others think the advice was prudent and good, and Paul's following it was justifiable enough, as the case stood. It was Paul's avowed principle, To the Jews became I as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews, 1 Cor. 9:20. He had circumcised Timothy, to please the Jews; though he would not constantly observe the ceremonial law, yet, to gain an opportunity of doing good, and to show how far he could comply, he would occasionally go to the temple and join in the sacrifices there. Those that are weak in the faith are to be borne with, when those that undermine the faith must be opposed. It is true, this compliance of Paul's sped ill to him, for this very thing by which he hoped to pacify the Jews did but provoke them, and bring him into trouble; yet this is not a sufficient ground to go upon in condemning it: Paul might do well, and yet suffer for it. But perhaps the wise God overruled both their advice and Paul's compliance with it to serve a better purpose than was intended; for we have reason to think that when the believing Jews, who had endeavoured by their zeal for the law to recommend themselves to the good opinion of those who believed not, saw how barbarously they used Paul (who endeavoured to oblige them), they were by this more alienated from the ceremonial law than they could have been by the most argumentative or affecting discourses. They saw it was in vain to think of pleasing men that would be pleased with nothing else but the rooting out of Christianity. Integrity and uprightness will be more likely to preserve us than sneaking compliances. And when we consider what a great trouble it must needs be to James and the presbyters, in the reflection upon it, that they had by their advice brought Paul into trouble, it should be a warning to us not to press men to oblige us by doing any thing contrary to their own mind.

-Matthew Henry, Commentary on Acts

Quote:

---

The totality of the event is what led to his conversion and regeneration in the Holy Spirit.

---

Ok. Where did I say otherwise? The point isn't that St Paul wasn't changed, it wasn't that he didn't become a new creation in Jesus, it wasn't that he didn't receive the Holy Spirit. It was that he didn't stop being a Jew in order to become a Christian - because he did not stop being a Jew.

Quote:

---

There's no "instead of conversion", he was in fact, converted into Christianity. Being a Christian is not a description of religion, its a designation of New Covenant membership.

---

If you want to define "being a Christian" as "faith in Jesus" then sure, I agree with you. But then we have to say that Christianity is not incompatible with Judaism, that the Apostles similarly converted into Christianity, while remaining Jews, etc. In this regime being a Christian adds to being a faithful Jew; it does not take away.

Quote:

---

And no, I disagree with you that following the Torah is what literally made you a Jew. That made you ethnically jewish, but a Jew is one inwardly, according to the heart.

---

The first century world had no concept of ethnicity versus religion. This is one of the anachronisms we should guard against. I agree with what you're saying here, but I think it is important that this was a nuanced take that St Paul made. To the world: following the Torah is what made you a Jew. You had to do what the Torah required - be circumcised, follow Moses, eat the Passover - and you were Jewish. St Paul says that being a true Judaean is about the heart, and faithfulness to the Messiah. This adds, it does not take away. A true Judaean keeps the Torah and is one inwardly. In other words, keeping the Torah does not make you a true Judaean - but not keeping it absolutely does make you not Judaean at all.

Quote:

---

That's why there's a remnant of "Jews" amongst the ethnic Jews, those according to the promise.

---

The faithful remnant is always the faithful to Yahweh. At this point, the unbelieving Judaeans have been cut off. They are not part of the faithful remnant, because they are not faithful to Jesus. Some will be, someday. This is the hope St Paul has for his people. But they are not the faithful remnant now. The faithful remnant were those among the Judaeans who recognized Jesus as Messiah, in the same way that the faithful remnant among Israel were those who didn't worship Ba'al - in other words, continued to be faithful to Yahweh.

Quote:

---

Paul was not of the vine. As I've said, Paul heard the gospel, rejected Jesus as the Christ and was cut off.

---

That doesn't make him not "of the vine". He's was still a natural branch, as are all Judaeans. That's what he says in Roman 11:24. We have to recognize that there is value in being a Judaean - you make it to be nothing, but that isn't the case. There are natural branches, the people of Israel which was whittled to the people of Judaea are the natural branches from the vine the Lord planted. Israel was broken off. Those of the nations were grafted in.

Quote:

---

Everyone is saved through Christ, even Abraham. Yes, even Abraham was converted into Christianity effectively through the perfect work and sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ. It is the only covenant God provided that offered salvation. The Old Covenant didn't have the power to save anyone. All this talk about "religion" is literally pointless. Religion is the outworking of your faith. It's an effect, not a cause of anything. Paul became a Christian and thus his religion changed even if he held to some Jewish practices, but clearly according to Hebrews, elements of the Torah were now of the past. All the apostles converted to Christianity likewise. Christianity is not a religion, it's an inheritance.

---

As I said above, if you want to define it this way being a Christian adds to being a faithful Jew; it does not take away. There is no indication that St Paul stopped being a Jew at all - not "some" practices. All of them. He never stopped being a Pharisee.

And no, the Torah was never abrogated. This makes Christ Jesus a liar.

Basically you're just saying that religion is irrelevant. I don't think that's true - I think the externalities of the system of faith and practice matter a great deal. There are things which are compatible with faith in Christ and things that aren't. And the distinctions I'm making matter as well, because they reveal these kind of wrong thinking, which make it very, very difficult to understand what St Paul was saying in his letters and when he preached.

I think people miss how divided the people of the other nations truly were from Israel, and how radical it was that the god of one nation would want to be the god of other peoples. That is a major crazy shift, and when you miss it, you miss practically all of what St Paul is talking about.

Great, so Luther thinks that St Paul was a trickster. Matthew Henry thinks St Paul was willing to gratify St James.

Quote:

---

Now it has been questioned whether James and the elders did well to give Paul this advice, and whether he did well to take it. 1. Some have blamed this occasional conformity of Paul's, as indulging the Jews too much in their adherence to the ceremonial law, and a discouragement of those who stood fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free. Was it not enough for James and the elders of Jerusalem to connive at this mistake in the Jewish converts themselves, but must they wheedle Paul to countenance them in it?

---

Literally laughing at this. Boy that St James sure was a weak-willed dummy, huh?

I agree with you that the Reformers held this belief. I think it is wrong.

For what it is worth, St John Chrysostom is similar but not identical. He believes keeping the Torah didn't injure the faith but wasn't required. But, I think he missed on this issue. He very clearly misunderstands the letter from the council of Jerusalem - when he sees prohibition against "blood" he understands it as "murder" which is simply not correct - Lord have mercy on me for presuming to correct him, but I think this is abundantly clear.

Would like to know what you think about the words of Jesus saying that you do not put "new wine" in "old wineskins"?

My understanding (RCC) is that Jesus came to establish a church to preach the good news of the kingdom of God.

This was the church that baptized Saul. .

Quote:

---

I agree with you that the Reformers held this belief. I think it is wrong.

For what it is worth, St John Chrysostom is similar but not identical. He believes keeping the Torah didn't injure the faith but wasn't required. But, I think he missed on this issue. He very clearly misunderstands the letter from the council of Jerusalem - when he sees prohibition against "blood" he understands it as "murder" which is simply not correct - Lord have mercy on me for presuming to correct him, but I think this is abundantly clear.

---

Ok, so the Reformers and John Chrysostom disagree with you. I think we're beyond the term "evangelicals".

That parable is not explained by Christ Jesus in the text like others are. I am not sure how broadly to apply it, and it is also kind of difficult for me to see how it answers the question about fasting. So I turn to St John Chrysostom:

Quote:

---

"Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?" Before, He called Himself a physician, but here a bridegroom; by these names revealing His unspeakable mysteries. Yet of course He might have told them, more sharply, "These things depend not on you, that you should make such laws. For of what use is fasting, when the mind is full of wickedness; when you blame others, when you condemn them, bearing about beams in your eyes, and do all for display? No, before all this you ought to have cast out vainglory, to be proficient in all the other duties, in charity, meekness, brotherly love."

However, nothing of this kind does He say, but with all gentleness, "The children of the bridechamber cannot fast, so long as the bridegroom is with them" recalling to their mind John's words, when he said, "He that has the bride, is the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom, which stands and hears Him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice."

Now His meaning is like this: The present time is of joy and gladness, therefore do not bring in the things which are melancholy. For fasting is a melancholy thing, not in its own nature, but to them that are yet in rather a feeble state; for to those at least that are willing to practice self-control, the observance is exceedingly pleasant and desirable. For as when the body is in health, the spirits are high, so when the soul is well conditioned, the pleasure is greater. But according to their previous impression He says this. So also Isaiah, discoursing of it, calls it an affliction of the soul; and Moses too in like manner.

Then what He had done before, this He does here again. I mean, that as He, when they were attempting to prove Him blameable for eating with sinners, proved to them on the contrary, that His proceeding was not only no blame, but an absolute praise to Him: so here too, when they wanted to show of Him, that He knows not how to manage His disciples, He signifies that such language was the part of men not knowing how to manage their inferences, but finding fault at random.

"For no man," says He, "puts a piece of new cloth unto an old garment."

He is again establishing His argument by illustrations from common life. And what He says is like this, "The disciples have not yet become strong, but still need much condescension. They have not yet been renewed by the Spirit, and on persons in that state one ought not to lay any burden of injunctions."

And these things He said, setting laws and rules for His own disciples, that when they should have to receive as disciples those of all sorts that should come from the whole world, they might deal with them very gently.

"Neither do men put new wine into old bottles."

Do you see His illustrations, how like the Old Testament? The garment? The wine skins? For Jeremiah too calls the people a girdle, and makes mention again of bottles and of wine. Thus, the discourse being about gluttony and a table, He takes His illustrations from the same.

---

you're right. Evangelicals was too narrow.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

What would be (or is) the implication of Christ fulfilling the law?

---

Sorry man I didn't see this.

I think sometimes people take fulfil as to complete, to bring about and end by completion.

But that doesn't really work with what Jesus says about the Torah, because then he would have said something that contradicted itself - I didn't come to abolish (end) the Torah, but to fulfill (end) it. Fulfill has to mean something different than abolish, because He contrasts the two things.

I have been taught that in this context fulfill means fill to the brim, fill to overflowing. He took the Torah, which was good, and showed what it was meant to be, how it was meant to be followed. He perfectly followed it, not just by the details but the intent behind it. It was His teaching anyway, so He demonstrated perfectly to them what His teaching really was all about. Some had followed the teaching by narrowly focused on it and missed the intent. This doesn't make anything about the teaching wrong. It just means there are right and wrong ways to follow it and apply it.

The whole of the Torah is just an explanation of all of the ways it looks like to love God, and love your neighbor. The Lord Jesus, St James, St John, and St Paul all say this. Since the Lord perfectly loved us, showed the greatest love for us in laying down His life for us as our friend when we were not his friends -- when we were actually his enemies -- he showed the greatest fulfillment of the Torah. The cross is what the Torah looks like, perfected. Which is why St Paul says that Jesus is the culmination of the Torah for those who are faithful to Him. He is what it looks like, which is kind of cool because He is also what the Father looks like.

Zobel said:

---

Great, so Luther thinks that St Paul was a trickster.

---

I know it's an unpopular position here, but I totally belive that he was.

He never personally met Jesus, except for his alleged vision on the road to Damascus with no corroborating witnesses.

He seemed to hate the laws of the Torah and tried to led Jews away from it, despite the Torah clearly stating that it's eternal and making it a capital crime to change it. Despite Jesus directly answering "keep the commandments" when asked how to get eternal life.

Which is why he couldn't get many followers in Judea, and changed his focus to Gentiles who were never under the 613 commandments in the first place.

While I don't agree with this take - and I don't want to downplay that I think it is 100% wrong - I think it is more coherent than the alternative that the Torah did change.

Sorry to interject, but I want to make sure I understand the claim. Please correct this if I'm wrong:

The reformers believed the Paul gave the appearance of compliance to the original apostles to win their trust, and then go on to teach a gospel different than the original apostles?

I am honestly lost with where this is at now, so for that reason I am out.

The Banned said:

---

Sorry to interject, but I want to make sure I understand the claim. Please correct this if I'm wrong:

The reformers believed the Paul gave the appearance of compliance to the original apostles to win their trust, and then go on to teach a gospel different than the original apostles?

---

Of course not. Maybe the Ebionites taught this. It was an accommodation to avoid unnecessary division.

Paul speaks about a gospel that was revealed to him alone that was confirmed at the meeting with Peter in Jerusalem. A gospel based on the grace given by God for salvation. Is this what you are referring to?

Division with whom over what?

Zobel said:

---

Division with whom over what?

---

Seems clear between the Zealots and a strawman Paul over the issue of keeping the Mosaic law.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am honestly lost with where this is at now, so for that reason I am out.

---

Agree.i am way over my head here.

"Paul was not a Christian"
Found a book on Amazon… here's a summary:

"Pamela Eisenbaum, an expert on early Christianity, reveals the true nature of the historical Paul in Paul Was Not a Christian. She explores the idea of Paul not as the founder of a new Christian religion, but as a devout Jew who believed Jesus was the Christ who would unite Jews and Gentiles and fulfill God's universal plan for humanity. Eisenbaum's work in Paul Was Not a Christian will have a profound impact on the way many Christians approach evangelism and how to better follow Jesus'sand Paul'steachings on how to live faithfully today."

For me, this is a debate I was unaware of between Christians (probably Protestants and Orthodox/Catholics) about the writings of Luther regarding the Apostle Paul.

From what I am now reading on this particular point, for Catholics, we see Paul's theology as a Gospel of Grace that explains what Jesus's ministry did and told his disciples to do. This starts with repentance and baptism (first gift of grace) that applies to all followers.

I thought you were going to bring up the circumcision of Timothy. That seemed to be the most clear instance of Paul giving in to the Christian Jews.

What is the "strawman Paul"? It seems like you think the accusations against him were true.

Have not read that book. This is based on Fr Stephen de Young's podcasts and books, primarily.

He touches on it here on his introduction to the book of Acts:
https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/wholecounsel/romans_introduction/

And here is the discussion on Acts 9
https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/wholecounsel/acts_chapter_9/

He touches on this in depth in his book the Religion of the Apostles
https://store.ancientfaith.com/the-religion-of-the-apostles/

and again in Saint Paul the Pharisee which I am reading now
https://store.ancientfaith.com/saint-paul-the-pharisee-jewish-apostle-to-all-nations/

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

This seems like some flavor of NPP. Is it?

---

I don't know what NPP is. I'm an Orthodox Christian.

---

NPP is the New Perspective on Paul originally conceived by E.P. Sanders in the 70s and made popular among laypeople by N.T. Wright. It is advocated in a blog post by Fr Stephen de Young (your apparent source for the OP) here:

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2022/01/08/pauls-works-of-the-law-in-the-perspective-of-second-century-reception-by-matthew-j-thomas-a-review/

Cool. Yeah. That is a great summary, too.

Quote:

---

What makes this book so important is that the evidence here adduced makes the Lutheran perspective on St. Paul's writings untenable. To maintain it, beyond a stubborn fideism, requires a belief that St. Paul completely misunderstood the Judaism which he practiced for much of his life and in which he had advanced to the status of being a teacher. It also requires that the churches founded by St. Paul and the Christians therein, whose grandparents had known him personally, completely misinterpreted his words and likewise completely misunderstood the religion of the Jewish communities in their midst. It requires that though the Apostle's real teaching was lost for a millennium and a half, it was rediscovered by Western Europeans engaged in a contest with Rome. It requires that the resemblance between their reconstructed Pharisees and their caricatures of Rome is pure historical happenstance. It requires that in the late twentieth century, Protestant scholars came up with a new reading of St. Paul independently which somehow matches up with the mistaken reading of the first ancient commentators. Luther's reading of St. Paul, which undergirds Protestant identity and the Protestant theological system, requires all of the stretching and twisting required above and more. Or, as Thomas here lays out, one can simply accept that St. Paul's earliest readers got him right.

---

Quote:

---

What makes this book so important is that the evidence here adduced makes the Lutheran perspective on St. Paul's writings untenable.

---

I would just say be cautious of it even though it may seem appealing because it weakens the Lutheran perspective. A wise man once told me "what is new is not good, and what is good is not new." I'm surprised an Orthodox theologian has embraced it. It's mostly seen as an inter-Protestant debate.

I have no interest one way or another in the Lutheran perspective. Fr Stephen's point isn't that it is new, it's that it is old and the evidence bears that out.

chuckd said:

---

Quote:

---

What makes this book so important is that the evidence here adduced makes the Lutheran perspective on St. Paul's writings untenable.

---

I would just say be cautious of it even though it may seem appealing because it weakens the Lutheran perspective. A wise man once told me "what is new is not good, and what is good is not new." I'm surprised an Orthodox theologian has embraced it. It's mostly seen as an inter-Protestant debate.

---

Luther was new. He was literally the definition of new theology.