Corpus-Paul

["RUSSELL BOOTH" <russbooth281 AT msn.com>]

Tony Costa wrote: The proscriptions of Acts 15:29 reflect in fact the terms 
of the Nohadic covenant which even rabbinic sources believed Gentiles should 
observe. The prohibition to eat blood is also part of the Nohadic covenant 
(Gen.9:2-4)and thus believed to be binding on all. Note that in Gen.9:2-4 
the permission is given to eat all animals. It is only later with the Mosaic 
law that certain animals are forbidden only for the Jews (Lev.11).

Russell Booth: I agree that Acts 15:29 is a partial restatement of the 
Noahide or Nohadic Covenant. There are seven covenantal proscriptions for 
non-Jews. The Jerusalem decree lists only three of them with the prohibition 
of blood being repeated (strangled things contain blood). Blood is an 
element of the Eucharist as described by Paul and would therefore be 
prohibited to non-Jews by this decree unless the wine is not in any way 
actually blood. Then the legal violation would be merely symbolic. Where is 
the text that states the wine is not actually blood?

1 Cor 11:29 - "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body 
eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (RSV) - would seem to preclude the 
possibility that participants would not perceive the blood as in some way 
actual blood. Such people should refrain from participating according to 
Paul. This is an argument by extension, but I think it is valid. It is in 
accordance with modern church doctrine - unless I have just not been able to 
find any reference to the wine being only wine and not in any way actually 
blood.

"(Thus He declared all foods clean.)" is a gloss, not a parenthetical 
statement by the author of Mark. It is not found in the oldest manuscripts. 
It was added during manuscript transmission by a copyist. Greek manuscripts 
contained no punctuation. The key to symbols used in the NASB should be 
found somewhere before Genesis 1:1. I don't have that version, but the RSV 
and Jerusalem translations use the same notation. This gloss is evidence 
that the effort to ascribe the lifting of covenantal proscriptions to Jesus 
persisted beyond the original writing of Christian scripture.

I'm not sure why you would think this passage would not support my argument 
unless you are asserting the extreme forgetfulness of Peter. If Jesus had 
declared all foods clean to his Jewish listeners during his lifetime - and 
hosted a meal featuring blood which is prohibited under both covenants - why 
would Peter decree a continuation of an obsolete covenant?

Peter's vision of the sheet gave Peter permission to no longer observe the 
Mosaic Covenant. (I presume we would agree that Peter was bound by the 
Mosaic Covenant.) Why would he not take advantage of his new freedom? Why 
would he not even be aware that he had been granted this new freedom if it 
had originated with Jesus?

Paul taught that both old covenants were passing away and being combined 
into a New Covenant. The Eucharist is given by Paul as a symbol of this 
development in history. The body and blood elements can be traced by 
historical-critical methods to Paul, but not to Jesus or his followers.

Many thanks for helping me test this proposition,

Russell Booth
Minneapolis, Minnesota
russbooth281 AT msn.com