➡📚amzn.to/4djXKNb [Galatians and the Rhetoric of Crisis: Paul - Demosthenes - Cicero] ➡📚 amzn.to/4diet3f [The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authorship]
Woah! 😳 Jacob, I think it would be advantageous for all involved to have Dr. Nina Livesey in a conversation with Drs. Markus Vinzent, Mark Bilby, and Jack Bull, with you as the moderator, Jacob.
Thanks for this. Her new book _The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authorship_ will hopefully shake up some of conservative academia's positions regarding Paul and the canon.
Curious, because my impression of this interview was that she's justifying and even praising Paul's writings in Galatians, which I find a very conservative position.
@@robinstevenson6690 She suggests, and her new book's blurb also suggests, that the canonical Paul letters were not really letters. My suspicion is that she'll argue that the canonical Paul epistles are 2nd century rhetorical redactions of whatever actual letters had been circulating in the 1sts century.
@@robinstevenson6690I don’t think she’s condemning or praising the writings. Her current position seems to be that the letters are filled with hyperbole and manufactured enemies and straw men he could knock down, to establish his authority and bona fides. I think she appreciates the genre and rhetoric for what it is.
@@hardwork8395 Ok, so she's simply arguing that this is literature of the era, and doesn't focus much on the theological implications. Perhaps this is meant to take some of the sting out of "Galatians."
2Peter 3:15-18 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Great talk, and I love the focus on Galatians. Disagree with the speaker about how these disjunctive tensions didn't exist until Paul framed them rhetorically. Would be helpful to consider on-the-ground historical realities like the tensions between Jew and Greek that came to a head in 38 A.D. in Alexandria, as well as the Jewish expulsions from Rome in 19 A.D. and 49 A.D. Important to know that many gentiles were converting to Judaism, and that Jews constituted as much as 10% of the population of Rome. The Galatians letter did in fact free gentiles from "mental slavery" to the world-view inflicted by the Law, though we find this hard to imagine in contemporary times.
The line between "Jew" and "Greek" is a pretty blurry one at the time. Most Jews were Hellenized to one degree or another, especially in the diaspora. Many were even polytheistic. I have no idea what you mean by "mental slavery," but Paul had no authority to tell anyone they were free from Torah. Jesus himself said the law was in effect for all time and he could not have taught otherwise because his brother and closest disciples still taught that.
@@Ken_Scaletta I assume you know that Christians believe Luke, author of, you know, Luke, and Acts - who endorsed Paul thoroughly, acknowledging that Jesus spoke to Paul directly. To try to imagine a Christianity without Paul makes no sense. The key law-endorsing verse from Jesus was in a context where his entire audience was Jewish and he was admonishing them “until the end of the age.” And of course, the age ended with the destruction of the temple. AND, gentiles were never supposed to keep the law. It was given specifically to Israel until the time of the messiah. I assume you know all of this and are just trolling or subverting ineffectively.
@@GodwardPodcast Luke-Acts was not written by a companion of Paul. The author is unknown, but the name "Luke" was not attached to it until the late 2nd Century. It is an expansion of Marcion's Gospel, uses Josephus' *Antiquities* (published in the mid 90's CE) and also knows Marcion and the letters of Paul putting it into the 140's CE. It's true Paul invented Christianity, not Jesus and Paul did not teach what Jesus taught. Paul lied to Gentiles and told them they could become Jewish without getting circumcised. Jesus said not to even go to Gentiles or Samaritans but "only to the lost sheep of Israel." Jesus called Gentiles "pigs" and "dogs." Jesus also never claimed to be the "Messiah or that he was going to die for anybody's sins, that shit was made up by Paul. James taught what Jesus taught, which means that Jesus taught Torah law and circumcision and required circumcision for Gentiles. He also never told anybody to evenagelize gentiles because then Paul would not have had to seek permission for it. Christianity is Paulism, true enough. What Jesus actually taught is lost to history. The only Jesus Paul ever knew was the one in his own "visions." if he really had visions at all (I tend to think he was just a Joseph Smith sty;e scammer). After the Jewish revolts, the original Jewish Jesus movement vansihed from historical record. Paul's gentile, churches became "Christianity," especially in Rome, but Pauline Christianity never had any historical connection to Jesus himself. By the time the gospels were writtenm nobody had any real information about him so the authors used Old Testament narratives, Homer, Euripides and other Hellenistic litertature and tropes to fabricate a biography for Jesus. That's not to say no Jesus existed, but either way the Gospels don't know anything about him. The real guy was just a Jewish preacher talking to Jews and never passed himself off as a redeemer of sins and didn't get crucified on purpose.
@@GodwardPodcast If you're going to do a "Godard podcast," you should make an effort to know what NT scholarship actually says. You will not find a credible NT scholar who thinks that Luke-Acts was written by a companion of Paul. You should also research Stoicism, because all the stuff you like about Christianity was Stoic first.
Any idea why Dr Livesey's book, The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authorship, is no longer available so soon after its coming out?
Did anybody else peep Jacob's subtle smile at the end, when Livesey starts talking about how late the Pauline letters were composed and the context for their anti-Torah rhetoric? He was like, "now we're getting crunk!" 😂
I did indeed. I thought perhaps he might have ben climaxing in his jeans. Subjectivity has no place in true scholarship. It seems lately that Jacob has been desperately seeking conformations to fit his narrative.
The author seems to be taking a non-critical approach to Paul's rhetoric, and what she says here could be interpreted as a complete justification of Paul's rhetoric in Galatians. Unfortunately, Paul's rhetoric in Galatians is extremely harsh and divisive, and it caused many difficulties in early Christianity - - including difficulties which continue to divide readers today.
@@GodwardPodcast Canonical Galatians is also an anti-Jewish screed in some respects, and it signaled the early development of anti-semitism within the Pauline movement.
@@robinstevenson6690 well it’s odd that the author of Luke’s gospel didn’t mention this - and in fact confirmed Paul’s authority throughout Acts. And it’s even odder the way the Jerusalem Council in 50 A.D. went. It’s almost like you’re making up a Christianity and imagining it got subverted even though we have no evidence of it, rather than just, you know, reading the texts.
quote _persuasion took precendence over factuality_ Here is an interesting case. Does Mark persuade you that Jesus has risen? Does he persuade you that Jesus is judged as the eschatological messiah? Does Mark fit the premises of classical rhetorical education? Even when we have a different genre before us we still have an author with an agenda. Btw to me Mark looks 10 times more authentic relative to it's author's intention than any of Paul's letters. I even find considerable redaction in 1Thes.
If there were 2nd century forgeries claiming to be letters written by Paul, wouldn't that suggest that there was a guy named Paul that was known to write these type of letters?
@@todradmaker4297 the whole thing is absurd Did they make jesus repeat himself time and time again so the scribe could get it all down Who cares If paul was or wasnt real anyway even if he was real it's still a bunch of absurd bullshit at the highest level
Why is it that the sceptics, like Bart Ehrman & Nina, never understand what they're reading? They make assertions about the mind of Paul or Jesus, and yet have misconstrued everything that Paul was trying to convey. Paul said that the Law was perfect, and that in and of itself it did not promote sin. But rather, that it is human nature that once given a prohibition, it arouses its members to temptation and sin. Paul was not denouncing the Law, but merely indicating the implications of enacting a law - '...I would not have known sin had the Law not interdicted it...' and '...where there is no law, there is no sin..' These cynics are so dull and shallow.
They aren’t cynics, in any sense. When it comes down to it, the real issue you have with them stems from their treatment of Paul’s letters like any other literature: Homer, Shakespeare, etc.-it’s not special to them. If you’ve ever taken a Lit class in college, you’d find that they apply the same types of tools you’d find there. To you it looks like cynicism, but in reality they are being as fair as any other scholar would any other piece of literature. They are trying to advance the field by turning the coin’s sides and seeing if they see anything from another vantage point.
@@hardwork8395 But they are being extremely biased, it is not an objective analysis of the text. To say something as foolish as there was competition between the Apostles, can only be derived from not understanding the context, the expressions, or the text itself. These men had one mission: spread the Gospel to all nations at any cost, even to the point of death - they all died martyrs. How could these men of such conviction and solicitude compete with one another - for what goal, for what prize? Are they striving to gain salvation and eternal life, and at the same time wordly praise or prestige?
O my goodness Nina, you too follow Christianity which has a false teaching of Galatians. Paul does not criticise the Torah from Abraham, he only condemns those who think they have licence to sin. Paul criticises Peter who is under grace yet sins with the Gentiles, which also the Circumcision know is breaking the Torah, not about Circumcision and law keeping which is essential teaching for Jews. Paul highlights in Galatians and Romans that no man is justified by works of the law, which are sins, so whether a Mosaic Jew or Born Again Jew like Paul and Peter, the actions of Peter with the Gentiles was against God's law the Torah. The Circumcision were not trying to get Peter for associating with Gentiles, but sinning with Gentiles. Paul does not condemn the Torah before Moses, only the lack of power to make righteous those in the system of sin and sacrifice, who were like Saul the lost sheep of Israel. Nine you rely on the false premise of Christianity that claims Paul is against the Torah, and that Jesus got rid of it, as it is only the Temple polity that has gone to heaven. Paul talks of himself as a substitute for Peter so that he can preach the truth of Peter, that is Peter is unable to do as this example from Jerusalem is bring repeated in Galatia. Paul does direct his audience away from the Torah amendment given to Moses at Mt Sinai due to sin, and back to the covenant with Abraham which brings faith in Christ by repentance for remission of sins. Paul does nothing but humble himself as one who no longer could boast from sin and sacrifice for atonement, but the need of repentance and faith. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' which covers the false premises of Christianity, as 'Is Christianity the truth of the NT? No. #31 Myths in so-called Christianity'.
Paul was ķìĺĺing off disciples then Paul became the authority over the remaining disciples he didn't get to ķìĺĺ. How ironic is that? Why was Paul ķìĺĺing disciples in the first place? His whole vision is sketchy!
@@juannifer32 Keep an open mind as the epistles reflect the complexity of AD30-AD70. Who better to enlighten than Saul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, whose trade was hypocrisy as they gave the law but did not keep the law. Yes Saul killed as a Mosaic Jew, but not an Abrahamic Jew relying on faith, but sin and sacrifice for atonement misunderstanding the nature of atonement, as they lacked faith God had cast them as unbelievers. When Saul saw sin and sacrifice replaced by grace without the law, another misunderstanding as the law remained and grace comes by law keeping, he knew as lawless they could not be Jews. A Jew must obey God's law, and converts become Born Sgaun Jews, but many like Peter sinned. Paul now born again recognised Peter as a Born Again Jew who relied on grace to sin, but as Paul says no man is justified by works of the law (sin). Nina has based her criticism on Christianity not Paul, Paul has not culled the other apostles and sets himself below John, and he only wanted to go to heaven not anymore than an apostle. My friend Christianity divorced from its roots in the 2nd century, and is the religion warned of by Paul as beguiling and bewitching, the truth is of the Born Again Jew. I have 32 Ytube videos 'Is Christianity the truth of the NT? No. #31 Myths in so-called Christianity' explains the problem of Nina or anyone critiquing the NT, as they do not have the truth I do.
@@juannifer32 Keep an open mind as the epistles reflect the complexity of AD30-AD70. Who better to enlighten than Saul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, whose trade was hypocrisy as they gave the law but did not keep the law. Yes Saul killed as a Mosaic Jew, but not an Abrahamic Jew relying on faith, but sin and sacrifice for atonement misunderstanding the nature of atonement, as they lacked faith God had cast them as unbelievers. When Saul saw sin and sacrifice replaced by grace without the law, another misunderstanding as the law remained and grace comes by law keeping, he knew as lawless they could not be Jews. A Jew must obey God's law, and converts become Born Sgaun Jews, but many like Peter sinned. Paul now born again recognised Peter as a Born Again Jew who relied on grace to sin, but as Paul says no man is justified by works of the law (sin). Nina has based her criticism on Christianity not Paul, Paul has not culled the other apostles and sets himself below John, and he only wanted to go to heaven not anymore than an apostle. My friend Christianity divorced from its roots in the 2nd century, and is the religion warned of by Paul as beguiling and bewitching, the truth is of the Born Again Jew. I have 32 Ytube videos 'Is Christianity the truth of the NT? No. #31 Myths in so-called Christianity' explains the problem of Nina or anyone critiquing the NT, as they do not have the truth I do.
2Peter 3:15-18 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
➡📚amzn.to/4djXKNb [Galatians and the Rhetoric of Crisis: Paul - Demosthenes - Cicero]
➡📚 amzn.to/4diet3f [The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authorship]
Such a clear exposition. These new contextualisations of ealy Christianity and other late classical ideologies are exciting.
Glad you interviewed her! I saw her book is due soon and was intrigued.
Another good interview. More files to put in brain file cabinet. And more thoughts to think thru. Thank u for ur work.
Woah! 😳
Jacob, I think it would be advantageous for all involved to have Dr. Nina Livesey in a conversation with Drs. Markus Vinzent, Mark Bilby, and Jack Bull, with you as the moderator, Jacob.
I can't imagine why such a panel would drive massive viewership. It could be a very esoteric and highly technical discussion.
I think they mentioned they already booked her.
@@hardwork8395 Well, I hope someone enjoys it. I'm unlikely to be tuning in.
@@robinstevenson6690 That may be, but I am exactly the narrow audience that would appeal to so I would like to see it.
@@Ken_Scaletta hope you enjoy it
Fabulous interview! What a knowledgeable scholar- seems to be outside the circle of gainsayers.
Thanks for this. Her new book _The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authorship_ will hopefully shake up some of conservative academia's positions regarding Paul and the canon.
Curious, because my impression of this interview was that she's justifying and even praising Paul's writings in Galatians, which I find a very conservative position.
@@robinstevenson6690 She suggests, and her new book's blurb also suggests, that the canonical Paul letters were not really letters. My suspicion is that she'll argue that the canonical Paul epistles are 2nd century rhetorical redactions of whatever actual letters had been circulating in the 1sts century.
@@robinstevenson6690I don’t think she’s condemning or praising the writings. Her current position seems to be that the letters are filled with hyperbole and manufactured enemies and straw men he could knock down, to establish his authority and bona fides. I think she appreciates the genre and rhetoric for what it is.
@@hardwork8395 Ok, so she's simply arguing that this is literature of the era, and doesn't focus much on the theological implications.
Perhaps this is meant to take some of the sting out of "Galatians."
@@TheDanEdwards Oh...that would have been more interesting. I wish she had gotten into something like that.
I'm curious if she thinks Paul's rhetoric is 'coincidentally similar' or 'directly inspired' by the Greek & Roman rhetoric cited.
But is this rhetorical material present in Marcion's version of Paul? The others all did a show on how the canonical version is trying to convince
2Peter 3:15-18
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Great talk, and I love the focus on Galatians. Disagree with the speaker about how these disjunctive tensions didn't exist until Paul framed them rhetorically. Would be helpful to consider on-the-ground historical realities like the tensions between Jew and Greek that came to a head in 38 A.D. in Alexandria, as well as the Jewish expulsions from Rome in 19 A.D. and 49 A.D. Important to know that many gentiles were converting to Judaism, and that Jews constituted as much as 10% of the population of Rome. The Galatians letter did in fact free gentiles from "mental slavery" to the world-view inflicted by the Law, though we find this hard to imagine in contemporary times.
The line between "Jew" and "Greek" is a pretty blurry one at the time. Most Jews were Hellenized to one degree or another, especially in the diaspora. Many were even polytheistic. I have no idea what you mean by "mental slavery," but Paul had no authority to tell anyone they were free from Torah. Jesus himself said the law was in effect for all time and he could not have taught otherwise because his brother and closest disciples still taught that.
@@Ken_Scaletta I assume you know that Christians believe Luke, author of, you know, Luke, and Acts - who endorsed Paul thoroughly, acknowledging that Jesus spoke to Paul directly.
To try to imagine a Christianity without Paul makes no sense. The key law-endorsing verse from Jesus was in a context where his entire audience was Jewish and he was admonishing them “until the end of the age.” And of course, the age ended with the destruction of the temple.
AND, gentiles were never supposed to keep the law. It was given specifically to Israel until the time of the messiah. I assume you know all of this and are just trolling or subverting ineffectively.
@@GodwardPodcast Luke-Acts was not written by a companion of Paul. The author is unknown, but the name "Luke" was not attached to it until the late 2nd Century. It is an expansion of Marcion's Gospel, uses Josephus' *Antiquities* (published in the mid 90's CE) and also knows Marcion and the letters of Paul putting it into the 140's CE. It's true Paul invented Christianity, not Jesus and Paul did not teach what Jesus taught. Paul lied to Gentiles and told them they could become Jewish without getting circumcised. Jesus said not to even go to Gentiles or Samaritans but "only to the lost sheep of Israel." Jesus called Gentiles "pigs" and "dogs." Jesus also never claimed to be the "Messiah or that he was going to die for anybody's sins, that shit was made up by Paul. James taught what Jesus taught, which means that Jesus taught Torah law and circumcision and required circumcision for Gentiles. He also never told anybody to evenagelize gentiles because then Paul would not have had to seek permission for it.
Christianity is Paulism, true enough. What Jesus actually taught is lost to history. The only Jesus Paul ever knew was the one in his own "visions." if he really had visions at all (I tend to think he was just a Joseph Smith sty;e scammer). After the Jewish revolts, the original Jewish Jesus movement vansihed from historical record. Paul's gentile, churches became "Christianity," especially in Rome, but Pauline Christianity never had any historical connection to Jesus himself. By the time the gospels were writtenm nobody had any real information about him so the authors used Old Testament narratives, Homer, Euripides and other Hellenistic litertature and tropes to fabricate a biography for Jesus. That's not to say no Jesus existed, but either way the Gospels don't know anything about him. The real guy was just a Jewish preacher talking to Jews and never passed himself off as a redeemer of sins and didn't get crucified on purpose.
@@Ken_Scaletta So tiresome. Good luck, Ken.
@@GodwardPodcast If you're going to do a "Godard podcast," you should make an effort to know what NT scholarship actually says. You will not find a credible NT scholar who thinks that Luke-Acts was written by a companion of Paul.
You should also research Stoicism, because all the stuff you like about Christianity was Stoic first.
Any idea why Dr Livesey's book, The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authorship, is no longer available so soon after its coming out?
Unfortunately it hasn't been released yet, the release date keeps being pushed forward
@@stepheneastment6344 Thank you! I just hope there is no pressure from whatever lobby.
Did anybody else peep Jacob's subtle smile at the end, when Livesey starts talking about how late the Pauline letters were composed and the context for their anti-Torah rhetoric? He was like, "now we're getting crunk!" 😂
I did indeed. I thought perhaps he might have ben climaxing in his jeans. Subjectivity has no place in true scholarship. It seems lately that Jacob has been desperately seeking conformations to fit his narrative.
Very interesting
The author seems to be taking a non-critical approach to Paul's rhetoric, and what she says here could be interpreted as a complete justification of Paul's rhetoric in Galatians. Unfortunately, Paul's rhetoric in Galatians is extremely harsh and divisive, and it caused many difficulties in early Christianity - - including difficulties which continue to divide readers today.
Based on what, your opinion? Galatians was necessary for keeping Judaizing out of the church.
@@GodwardPodcast Disagree - Galatians was Paul's declaration of defiance against the teachings of Jesus.
@@GodwardPodcast Canonical Galatians is also an anti-Jewish screed in some respects, and it signaled the early development of anti-semitism within the Pauline movement.
@@robinstevenson6690 right. And?
@@robinstevenson6690 well it’s odd that the author of Luke’s gospel didn’t mention this - and in fact confirmed Paul’s authority throughout Acts. And it’s even odder the way the Jerusalem Council in 50 A.D. went. It’s almost like you’re making up a Christianity and imagining it got subverted even though we have no evidence of it, rather than just, you know, reading the texts.
quote _persuasion took precendence over factuality_
Here is an interesting case. Does Mark persuade you that Jesus has risen?
Does he persuade you that Jesus is judged as the eschatological messiah?
Does Mark fit the premises of classical rhetorical education?
Even when we have a different genre before us we still have an author with an agenda.
Btw to me Mark looks 10 times more authentic relative to it's author's intention than any of Paul's letters.
I even find considerable redaction in 1Thes.
No, Paul didn't write Galatians. Someone used snips of Paul and made a book called Galatians.
I pick up some connections to the work of Dr Robin Faith Walsh such as “paedia” at 6:00.
Paul who? Is there any historical evidence doe anybody named Paul or was paul just created by script writers and just a character in a story
If there were 2nd century forgeries claiming to be letters written by Paul, wouldn't that suggest that there was a guy named Paul that was known to write these type of letters?
@@todradmaker4297 the whole thing is absurd
Did they make jesus repeat himself time and time again so the scribe could get it all down
Who cares If paul was or wasnt real anyway even if he was real it's still a bunch of absurd bullshit at the highest level
Pauls Gospel of Salvation is a Rattlesnake Theology like Rapture, cuz Paul was shipwrecked in Malta(Knights of Malta) and he was bitten by a Snake.
Why is it that the sceptics, like Bart Ehrman & Nina, never understand what they're reading? They make assertions about the mind of Paul or Jesus, and yet have misconstrued everything that Paul was trying to convey.
Paul said that the Law was perfect, and that in and of itself it did not promote sin. But rather, that it is human nature that once given a prohibition, it arouses its members to temptation and sin. Paul was not denouncing the Law, but merely indicating the implications of enacting a law - '...I would not have known sin had the Law not interdicted it...' and '...where there is no law, there is no sin..'
These cynics are so dull and shallow.
"Why is it that the sceptics, like Bart Ehrman & Nina, never understand what they're reading?"
Wait until you find out what Drs. Markus Vinzent, Mark Bilby, and Jack Bull have to say about Paul's letters!
They aren’t cynics, in any sense.
When it comes down to it, the real issue you have with them stems from their treatment of Paul’s letters like any other literature: Homer, Shakespeare, etc.-it’s not special to them.
If you’ve ever taken a Lit class in college, you’d find that they apply the same types of tools you’d find there. To you it looks like cynicism, but in reality they are being as fair as any other scholar would any other piece of literature. They are trying to advance the field by turning the coin’s sides and seeing if they see anything from another vantage point.
@@hardwork8395 But they are being extremely biased, it is not an objective analysis of the text. To say something as foolish as there was competition between the Apostles, can only be derived from not understanding the context, the expressions, or the text itself. These men had one mission: spread the Gospel to all nations at any cost, even to the point of death - they all died martyrs. How could these men of such conviction and solicitude compete with one another - for what goal, for what prize? Are they striving to gain salvation and eternal life, and at the same time wordly praise or prestige?
O my goodness Nina, you too follow Christianity which has a false teaching of Galatians. Paul does not criticise the Torah from Abraham, he only condemns those who think they have licence to sin. Paul criticises Peter who is under grace yet sins with the Gentiles, which also the Circumcision know is breaking the Torah, not about Circumcision and law keeping which is essential teaching for Jews.
Paul highlights in Galatians and Romans that no man is justified by works of the law, which are sins, so whether a Mosaic Jew or Born Again Jew like Paul and Peter, the actions of Peter with the Gentiles was against God's law the Torah.
The Circumcision were not trying to get Peter for associating with Gentiles, but sinning with Gentiles.
Paul does not condemn the Torah before Moses, only the lack of power to make righteous those in the system of sin and sacrifice, who were like Saul the lost sheep of Israel.
Nine you rely on the false premise of Christianity that claims Paul is against the Torah, and that Jesus got rid of it, as it is only the Temple polity that has gone to heaven.
Paul talks of himself as a substitute for Peter so that he can preach the truth of Peter, that is Peter is unable to do as this example from Jerusalem is bring repeated in Galatia. Paul does direct his audience away from the Torah amendment given to Moses at Mt Sinai due to sin, and back to the covenant with Abraham which brings faith in Christ by repentance for remission of sins.
Paul does nothing but humble himself as one who no longer could boast from sin and sacrifice for atonement, but the need of repentance and faith.
I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' which covers the false premises of Christianity, as 'Is Christianity the truth of the NT? No. #31 Myths in so-called Christianity'.
Paul was ķìĺĺing off disciples then Paul became the authority over the remaining disciples he didn't get to ķìĺĺ.
How ironic is that?
Why was Paul ķìĺĺing disciples in the first place? His whole vision is sketchy!
@@juannifer32 Keep an open mind as the epistles reflect the complexity of AD30-AD70.
Who better to enlighten than Saul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, whose trade was hypocrisy as they gave the law but did not keep the law. Yes Saul killed as a Mosaic Jew, but not an Abrahamic Jew relying on faith, but sin and sacrifice for atonement misunderstanding the nature of atonement, as they lacked faith God had cast them as unbelievers.
When Saul saw sin and sacrifice replaced by grace without the law, another misunderstanding as the law remained and grace comes by law keeping, he knew as lawless they could not be Jews. A Jew must obey God's law, and converts become Born Sgaun Jews, but many like Peter sinned. Paul now born again recognised Peter as a Born Again Jew who relied on grace to sin, but as Paul says no man is justified by works of the law (sin).
Nina has based her criticism on Christianity not Paul, Paul has not culled the other apostles and sets himself below John, and he only wanted to go to heaven not anymore than an apostle.
My friend Christianity divorced from its roots in the 2nd century, and is the religion warned of by Paul as beguiling and bewitching, the truth is of the Born Again Jew. I have 32 Ytube videos 'Is Christianity the truth of the NT? No. #31 Myths in so-called Christianity' explains the problem of Nina or anyone critiquing the NT, as they do not have the truth I do.
@@juannifer32 Keep an open mind as the epistles reflect the complexity of AD30-AD70.
Who better to enlighten than Saul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, whose trade was hypocrisy as they gave the law but did not keep the law. Yes Saul killed as a Mosaic Jew, but not an Abrahamic Jew relying on faith, but sin and sacrifice for atonement misunderstanding the nature of atonement, as they lacked faith God had cast them as unbelievers.
When Saul saw sin and sacrifice replaced by grace without the law, another misunderstanding as the law remained and grace comes by law keeping, he knew as lawless they could not be Jews. A Jew must obey God's law, and converts become Born Sgaun Jews, but many like Peter sinned. Paul now born again recognised Peter as a Born Again Jew who relied on grace to sin, but as Paul says no man is justified by works of the law (sin).
Nina has based her criticism on Christianity not Paul, Paul has not culled the other apostles and sets himself below John, and he only wanted to go to heaven not anymore than an apostle.
My friend Christianity divorced from its roots in the 2nd century, and is the religion warned of by Paul as beguiling and bewitching, the truth is of the Born Again Jew. I have 32 Ytube videos 'Is Christianity the truth of the NT? No. #31 Myths in so-called Christianity' explains the problem of Nina or anyone critiquing the NT, as they do not have the truth I do.
2Peter 3:15-18
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
You are using as quoted text a letter certainly not written.by Peter but later by a forger using Peter's name to gain gravitas.