col8loc8 said

You misread. After the words ‘Your words’ I quoted your actual words ‘there’s good reason to think Paul’s theological writing might not “apply” to Jewish Christians’. I wasn’t saying that percentage stuff *I said* was your words.

Well you might want to spend some time learning about quoting and organizing thoughts so that  readers understand your argument. It’s hard to understand why you mention percentages when they have no bearing on the discussion.

 

What do your words ‘very different’ mean? Completely different (Jewish Christians did not hold Paul’s view on sin and salvation at all)? You have to show that the uniqueness of Paul’s views is found in his teaching on sin on humanity under Adam, and that Christ for Jewish Christians removed our curse and punishment by falling under curse/punishment (crucifixion as curse) himself even though he was completely guiltless and did not deserve to be under the curse/punishment.

Very different? Hmmmm……. I would have to they mean what they always mean in the English language. Here again you have changed the idea non Christian Jews that you first spoke of to Jewish Christians WHY? Are there Jewish Christian or alternatively(depending on what day it is, I suppose) non Jewish Christian writings to compare to Pau’s?

To wit,

“According to the writer of Acts, Paul claims to have been trained in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts chapter 22 verses 3 to 5), and if one accepts that as truthful then Paul has some credentials in regards to Jewish non-Christian thought in Jerusalem….”

1.) Why do we believe the author of Acts when his account repeatedly contradicts Paul’s own?

2.)  Why does Paul need special credentials to understand his people and customs?

3.) If his ideas were even remotely similar, why was there so much acrimony between him and the Jewish Christian or non christian        Jews?  Paul clearly changed his mind on the crucial idea of whether one needed to follow the law. This last was purely a                   consequence of his conversion. How you could think  their ideas were similar.

 

Paul taught the Law of Moses needed to be obeyed, not for the sake of obeying the Law, but rather because it is the proper response to what God has done. This is very Jewish idea. The Ten Commandments, for example, begin by highlighting what God has done (Exodus chapter 20 verse 2). That is why the Law of Moses must be obeyed…,

But the remaining 600 and something commandments weren’t? Neither Paul or Jewish Christians wrote Exodus so I don’t understand how it is relevant. Paul rejected circumcision. There was quite a rowe over just that. Why does Paul confront Peter “to his face” if everyone was on the same page? 

There’s not one spec of writing in Paul’s letters telling  Gentiles they need to obey the law. In fact, Paul clearly insisted they did not which is why Christians don’t get circumcised, why they don’t keep kosher, why they don’t need to convert to Judaism.