Corpus-Paul

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

I started this thread. Please allow me to restate the argument.

>The ingestion of blood is prohibited by the covenant made with Noah, by the 
>covenant made with Moses and by the Jerusalem decree (Acts 15:20 & Acts 
>21:25).

There are three prohibitions in the Jerusalem decree. Two of the four terms 
of the Jerusalem decree prohibit ingesting blood.

The Eucharist, as taught by Paul, includes ingesting blood.

Therefore, Paul's teaching of the Eucharist was prohibited by the Jerusalem 
decree.<

It's simple logic. If it's not a valid argument, there would have to be some 
reason it's not. Is there?

If it is valid, this would of course mean that the direct successors to the 
Jesus tradition did not practice Paul's Eucharist and that the blood imagery 
did not originate with Jesus.

In Galatians 1 Paul argues that others are preaching a gospel contrary to 
his and that his gospel did not originate with the followers of Jesus or any 
other person, but was revealed to him by supernatural means. And, though he 
had formerly persecuted the church he met with its leaders, Peter and James.

On a subsequent visit, Peter, James, John and the elders at Jerusalem 
forbade this element of Paul's teaching because they did not approve of 
ingesting blood, according to the author of Luke/Acts.

That would explain the incident at Antioch. It seems safe to assume the 
leaders at Jerusalem knew what Paul was teaching at the time that they 
disapproved of it. Paul had been accused, on that same visit, of not 
following the customs of Moses and of teaching others to do the same, 
according to Acts. Since in his own writings we find Paul teaching the 
ingestion of Christ's blood, Paul was in fact guilty of doing so.

It would seem, consequently, that Paul changed tactics from violent 
persecutor to competing propagandist in his opposition to the direct 
successors of the Jesus tradition, assuming the argument presented above is 
valid.

I would like some scholarly feedback - using conventional critical methods, 
if you would be so kind - regarding why it is not obvious, given the 
evidence, that the body and blood imagery associated with the Eucharist 
originated with Paul and not with Jesus.

James Tabor presented this same argument regarding the probability that Paul 
was the originator of the blood symbolism in his book The Jesus Dynasty last 
spring. Have scholars been exploring the possibility that the body and blood 
imagery of the meal originated with Paul since the publication of that book?

Is anybody interested in discussing it here?

Respectfully,

Russell Booth
Minneapolis, Minnesota
russbooth281 AT msn.com