Ritual aesthetic surgery or Paul the Great Hater
I honestly don't understand how you can't see the narrative fiction of the second chapter of Galatians. It is difficult to call Paul's approach to circumcision and Jewish tradition anything other than pure hate. Paul claims to be Jewish and at the same time manipulates aspects of Jewish tradition. As an author, he uses the motif of circumcision more often than all the NT and LXX writers combined, in an absolutely perverse way. He simply threatens circumcision as a real consequence for those who abandon his congregation and start listening to others. The preachers of testimony about the historical Jesus are a bunch of lunatics with knives who dream of taking care of your foreskin. The situations described at the beginning of the letter to the Galatians simply could not have occurred. Paul talks a lot about freedom from the Law because it is in his interest. He enters into an alleged agreement with these fanatics of home aesthetic surgery, giving him exclusive rights to missionary activities among the pagans. He recognizes the seniority of the pillars and at the same time ridicules them. Paul deliberately packages all competition related to the historical Jesus into the niche market of followers of Judaism.
In Judaism, circumcision of an adult Gentile is the final stage of conversion. An honorable ritual requested by the person concerned. It is preceded by conversion and adaptation to life according to the complicated and detailed Law.
In Paul's case, the conversion is trivialized and has inverted logic. Paul is surprised that Titus was not forced to be circumcised and expresses this in a public letter. As if something like this was ever expected. As if he didn't know that a circumcised pagan is not a Jew but a guy without a foreskin.
The author of the letter to the Galatians chose a perverse method of criticizing competing heroes from the early Christian tradition in order to defend the figure of the Great Apostle he created. He himself chose a hero implementing the traditional scenario - revelation and joining the new movement as a great propagator, inspired by God.
Other authors have surpassed this by developing the figure of the historical Jesus based on the testimonies of his companions. That is why Jesus' entourage is hated by Paul in his letter to the Galatians.
The historical Jesus was not preached by Paul. It was not Jesus of Nazareth. Paul avoids these stories like the plague. He does not believe in their future success, he considers them too risky. Paul's Jesus was a human not located in time and place
I honestly don't understand how you can't see the narrative fiction of the second chapter of Galatians. It is difficult to call Paul's approach to circumcision and Jewish tradition anything other than pure hate. Paul claims to be Jewish and at the same time manipulates aspects of Jewish tradition. As an author, he uses the motif of circumcision more often than all the NT and LXX writers combined, in an absolutely perverse way. He simply threatens circumcision as a real consequence for those who abandon his congregation and start listening to others. The preachers of testimony about the historical Jesus are a bunch of lunatics with knives who dream of taking care of your foreskin. The situations described at the beginning of the letter to the Galatians simply could not have occurred. Paul talks a lot about freedom from the Law because it is in his interest. He enters into an alleged agreement with these fanatics of home aesthetic surgery, giving him exclusive rights to missionary activities among the pagans. He recognizes the seniority of the pillars and at the same time ridicules them. Paul deliberately packages all competition related to the historical Jesus into the niche market of followers of Judaism.
In Judaism, circumcision of an adult Gentile is the final stage of conversion. An honorable ritual requested by the person concerned. It is preceded by conversion and adaptation to life according to the complicated and detailed Law.
In Paul's case, the conversion is trivialized and has inverted logic. Paul is surprised that Titus was not forced to be circumcised and expresses this in a public letter. As if something like this was ever expected. As if he didn't know that a circumcised pagan is not a Jew but a guy without a foreskin.
The author of the letter to the Galatians chose a perverse method of criticizing competing heroes from the early Christian tradition in order to defend the figure of the Great Apostle he created. He himself chose a hero implementing the traditional scenario - revelation and joining the new movement as a great propagator, inspired by God.
Other authors have surpassed this by developing the figure of the historical Jesus based on the testimonies of his companions. That is why Jesus' entourage is hated by Paul in his letter to the Galatians.
The historical Jesus was not preached by Paul. It was not Jesus of Nazareth. Paul avoids these stories like the plague. He does not believe in their future success, he considers them too risky. Paul's Jesus was a human not located in time and place
Statistics: Posted by JarekS — Sun Apr 14, 2024 8:06 pm