corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: RSBrenchley AT aol.com
- To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
- Subject: Re: Jerusalem conference
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 04:46:44 EDT
In a message dated 23/08/02 04:58:46 GMT Daylight Time,
corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu writes:
> In order to understand the Jerusalem Council, one must take into account the
> existence of the Noahide Laws, which formed a kind of Torah for Gentiles,
by
> which they could be counted as belonging to God. These laws do not include
> any requirement for circumcision, which was required only for Gentiles who
> wished to become converted to full Jews. Various versions of the Noahide
> Laws exist in the sources but none of them includes circumcision.
> The question before the Jerusalem Council was whether Gentiles could
> belong to the Jesus movement without becoming full Jews, but merely by
> becoming 'God-fearers', i.e. Noahides (benei Noach). This was a difficult
> question, since the Messiah was regarded as the King of the Jews, and it
was
> doubtful whether non-Jews could come under his jurisdiction. In other
> words, could Noahides belong to a Messianic movement, thus becoming
subjects
> to a Jewish king, or must they retain their own nationality under their
own
> rulers?
When would you say a consensus on something like the Noahide commandments
emerged? I can well imagine that a movement like that of Jesus, which soon
opened itself to Gentiles, would have been willing to embrace some such idea,
even if the regulations of the time might not have been exactly what was
subsequently laid down in the Mishnah. What is there to prevent the
circumcisers of Gal 2:12 from being members of another, more powerful and
stricter local group, pressurising Peter et al to abandon their concession to
Gentiles, and insist on strict membership of Israel for every member of the
community? I'm not sure I'm expressing myself very well, but there's no clear
reference to the Messianic age, and while you may well be right, I'm not
clear in my own mind which of several available options to take.
Regards,
Robert Brenchley
RSBrenchley AT aol.com
Birmingham UK
-
RE: Jerusalem conference
, (continued)
- RE: Jerusalem conference, Loren Rosson, 08/22/2002
- RE: Jerusalem conference, Eric Zuesse, 08/22/2002
- RE: Jerusalem conference, Doug Ward, 08/22/2002
- RE: Jerusalem conference, Eric Zuesse, 08/22/2002
- RE: Jerusalem conference, Hyam Maccoby, 08/22/2002
- RE: Jerusalem conference, David C. Hindley, 08/24/2002
- RE: Jerusalem conference, Eric Zuesse, 08/24/2002
- RE: Jerusalem conference, Stephen C. Carlson, 08/25/2002
- RE: Jerusalem conference, David C. Hindley, 08/25/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, RSBrenchley, 08/26/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, RSBrenchley, 08/26/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Hyam Maccoby, 08/26/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Eric Zuesse, 08/26/2002
- Fw: RE: Jerusalem conference, Eric Zuesse, 08/26/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Bob MacDonald, 08/27/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Bob MacDonald, 08/28/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Hyam Maccoby, 08/28/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Eric Zuesse, 08/28/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Eric Zuesse, 08/28/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Vince Endris, 08/28/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Bob MacDonald, 08/30/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.