Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Zeek,
I think this question is misleading. It was Jesus in the gospels (including Matthew) that violated the Sabbath day based on "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath". Then it was Peter who violated the prohibition of eating with the Gentiles and baptized them into the church.
It is also clear that they were not required by Peter or by the Lord's vision, to be circumcised first. Instead the Vision said that they had already been cleansed and Peter understood that to mean that the Lord's redemptive work on the cross opened the New Covenant to them.
This was then confirmed in a council headed up by James. All of the so called "Judaizers" got to weigh in and everyone agreed that the Lord's redemptive work applied to Gentiles who were not required to be circumcised or convert to Judaism first. None of this had anything to do with Paul whose ministry came later. Since circumcision in the OT was simply the "signature of God on your flesh" that you had a covenant with God it was clearly not required when Peter baptized the gentiles.
Therefore, what is the sign in our flesh that we have a covenant with God if not circumcision? That is the question that Paul answers. He is not the one who told us Gentiles don't need to be circumcised, that was already decided. He merely explained how this decision was consistent with the Bible.
Since most agree that the Gospel of Mark is essentially the Gospel of Peter and that there is a very strong correlation between Mark and Matthew this seems to be much to do about nothing.
|
It isn't a leading question much less misleading one. All that is required is an up or down vote plus the evidence to back up your choice. I suppose it might lead someone to think and possibly do some research. It would only be misleading to someone who supposed that the Bible represents absolute authority that should not be questioned.
Those questions about the Sabbath seem to be matters of interpretation of law not it's abrogation. The sabbath laws were ambiguous so interpretations varied. So, for instance, according to Rabbi Akiba one should not desecrate the Sabbath for things that can be done the day before or the day after but no desecration exists when such a possibility is not offered. Like Akiba's, Jesus' interpretation fits within the context of Judaism.
In Galatians 2:16, Paul says that no flesh shall be justified by the works of the law. Matthew 16:17 says for the son of man will come in the glory of his father with his angels and then he will reward each according to his works. How do you reconcile those verses? It's not unwarranted to question whether Paul and the author of Matthew would have been at odds if they had been contemporaneous and aware of one another. See post # 163 for Ehrman's more detailed elaboration of the problem that Awareness kindly provided.
The document that we call Mark doesn't have the author's name on it. That it was written by Mark a follower of Peter is matter of tradition begun by Papias. Eusebius mentions it centuries later, but few historical scholars accept it as conclusive.