Corpus-Paul

["Eric Zuesse" <cettel AT shoreham.net>]

Re: David Inglis note August 15, re.: Galatians vs. Acts:

Thanks, Dave, for your carefully thought-out timeline.

Questions and comments:

> ·  49 AD.  14 years after the Gal 1:18 trip, Paul, Barnabus and Titus made
> the private trip to Jerusalem to see the leaders (Gal 2:10).  This trip is
> not recorded in Acts precisely because it was private!

That may be the case, but it seems to me unlikely because Acts 15 and Gal. 2
both describe a council meeting in Jerusalem debating the very same question
of whether salvation is via faith or via obedience to the commandments of
God. The similarities between the two accounts are major; the differences
are relatively minor (such as what precise demands James ended up placing
upon Paul). Therefore, are you assuming here that there were *two* different
climactic meetings in Jerusalem, at different times, at which Paul defended
his faith-over-Law practises to the council?

> ·  49 AD.  Peter and others from Jerusalem came to Antioch, and stated
> that it was necessary to obey the Mosaic law to be saved (Gal 2:11-21,
> Acts 15:1-2).

I agree with your inference that James changed his mind right after the
council meeting concluded, and sent Peter and the other agents to inform
Paul to impose the Law after all.

Do you then, as I do, infer that Paul's *refusal* to impose the Law, as was
described by him in Gal. 2:11-21, saying "No!" to Peter and to James' other
agents, was Paul's bolting from James's organization, abandoning Jesus's
sect of Judaism, in order to form his own, entirely new, non-Jewish
Christian religion?

If you don't see this as Paul's bolting from the James group and starting
his own new faith, then what *is* your scenario for what happened after Paul
said "No!" to Peter and to the other agents from James?

Eric Zuesse
cettel AT shoreham.net