Formulation as a command from the Lord is extreme. Yes, Christ said something similar, but he also said that the Law must be adhered to–the exact opposite of Paul’s view.

Hence, it’s reasonable–especially in the absence of a citation by Paul of the authority of a saying of Jesus that probably had not yet been codified–to interpret this as Paul’s assertion that he has received the rule directly from God, presumably by revelation.

Note that in 12 here, he distinguishes another highly significant rule as his own, rather than God’s.

Divorce? Nothing done, never in accordance with Mark. I Think that marriage is forever, Of course we have some exception. In the marriage, the main is the pardon.

Our Lord Jesus Christ’s command on this is given in
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

As in the discussion groups, understanding the historical context is key. Note that the husband had power of divorce, but the wife none. She could separate, but not divorce. We also see in vs. 8 that unmarried and widows are encouraged to remain so, but no mention of widowers. Of course, this could mean simply that there were not a lot of men who outlived women at this time, but it is also consistent with the fact that men were in control of the social relationships and might very well need a wife to run the household and look after any children from a previous marriage.

I think that ShelleyMae is correct, this is Paul’s opinion and what he thought was what a “couple” should do at that time!

Ailsa: The commitment is life-long. The reason – The Lord has forbidden divorce.

This is a good example of how a religion needs to have a means to change over the ages as society changes. Many Christians today have no qualms about divorcing their spouse.

I have to wonder how much of Paul’s instructions/guidance/laws given to others, are influenced by his own opinion. What he thinks is right, and how he thinks it should be.

When Paul says “…not I but the Lord..” he probably base this on his past learning of the Judaic laws rather than spiritual revelation. Paul could not have heard it directly from Jesus and would not have read it from the gospel as he was not among the twelve and the gospel of Mathew was written after Corinthian. So it is the Lord’s command but from the Judaic law.

Galatians 1 greeting seems like one of a General. A General appointed by God not man. Paul asserts his power through Christ and condemns those who pervert the teaching of the ministry. He further reminds the readers that the true gospel comes from God, not man. I found it interesting that Paul made a point about to tell readers that he went to Arabia. In the text, Arabia could be anywhere and nowhere. Paul wanted the letter to act as a testament that one could be alone and still be with God, as he was in Arabia.

They had heard. Rather, they kept hearing. That he was busy planting churches in Syria and Cilicia at this time we know from the fact that we find them in existence soon after -Acts 15:41.
“the faith”. We should keep in mind that the term “faith” is used by Paul often in a sense that means more than the act of belief. When it is put in contrast with the law, it is used in the sense of “The Faith”, that is, The Gospel. It comprehends what is believed, believing, and the results of believing. The fact that the apostles so often place the definite article before the word faith, so that in the Greek he speaks of The Faith, leaves no doubt of his meaning.

I thin the fact that it says that the churches in Judea “rejoiced greatly” and “gave glory to God” over Paul’s conversion serves to show that the theology of Paul was in no way distinct from that of the other apostles.

This lines seems to be the blast of his rhetoric. He appears to be signalling that there may be others like him who persecuted the followers that he has now joined and that by doing so, he is special and they can also do the same.

He wants the Galatians to understand that he and his message is important because the message was not revealed to him by another human, but from God.

Paul is referring back to Jesus, who spoke of the ones, not Apostles, whom Peter complained were curing demonic possession…….Jesus said “no house can stand that is divided, if they do His will do not be concerned” [not quite a quote

The gospel is that Christ died, Christ rose from the dead and Christ lives today to change lives. The Paul here shows that the old Paul has been put to death (by God through Christ) and a new man lives in Paul (an apostle, a prisoner for Christ). If this is how God has changed a life, then the Galatians must believe in the gospel.

Ailsa: the story of the terrorist-turned-missionary and theologian had however reached the churches in Judea (and no doubt other places also). And they rejoiced at the work of God in Paul’s life. Hallelujah!!

What does his testimony and conversion message have to do with the rest of Galatians? Since he talks a lot about law vs grace in Galatians, his testimony serves as a great mirroring of that. Paul advanced in the “law” more than any of his brethren, yet it turned out to be useless, leading to death, but by grace he was saved through Christ’s predestined will. This serves to mirror what he’s trying to convince the Galatians of.

Paul is remembering his readers about his past pointing to the fact that he didn’t accept such a big change (persecutor of Christians) for nothing: his Gospel is the correct one.
It also shows tolerance on the part of the first and second generation Christians in that they accepted a former persecutor among them. It would be a little more difficult for us today to easily place on the highest platforms someone who experienced such a big turn

Must have been a great source of joy indeed. On a personal note, I once shared the Gospel with someone who looked at me as if I told him the craziest thing he had ever heard. Three years later we ran into each other at an event and he told me: You were right! I thought you were crazy but now I know Jesus Christ is Lord!

I have to admit that I was so happy for him and his salvation. I can only imagine how christians back then must have felt. Especially that persecution back then was way more intense that what is usually seen in contemporary North America.

As Saul, zealous persecutor of Christ’s followers, Paul must have had quite the reputation among the Jews in Judea, especially since he was educated in Hebrew scripture. And to learn of his complete conversion some years later must have been as shocking and unbelievable to the Jews as it was to the ekkesiai. But still it presented Paul with a powerful tool to help enlist new conscripts to the new Church.

“the one who formerly was persecuting us” is significant in that it took the Lord to pacify even Ananias who baptized Paul. From Ananias' actions, many rumors would have spread throughout the ekklesia and maybe even caution thrown to the wind due to this acceptance of a former persecutor.

Paul’s conversion caused a commotion in the Church, and was proof that Jesus continued his ministry even personally, caused a feeling of certainty, admiration and enthusiasm. But they do not got Paul as a man of God, but as a persecutor, but now a preacher

I think He is emphasizing the so very particular experience about conversion that he got at Damascus´ journey; we must to take on account that this matter is the principal one, the core of all the job of evangelism that Paul developed at the time of the Early Christianity.

This is what we do today…we have only heard (or read) what was said and what happened. Ultimately it comes down to Faith, for both us and the churches of Judea.

As in previous suggestion, Paul makes sure to stress that apart from mentioned apostles no one else had met him the however the key is that people did recognize him as a person who was persecuting the people following the same faith that he was now teaching. More importantly Paul was aware that the apostles knew of his activities and deeds

‘Blessed are the ones who believe without seeing’. Paul presents himself as a miracle of Christ. Real believers should have no doubt about his conversion nor the way it happened. Those who believe ‘blindly’ will be blessed by God.

That is to say that it ought to take a lot of time to build the confidence among his former victims.

The implication of Paul’s wording seems to be that no-one had anything bad to say about Paul, and that He Paul was now known for proclaiming the faith he once attacked.

I think from 21 through 24 should be read together. He has not been to this regions and the people only heard of him.He was the one persecuting them before but now are an apostle for the faith, this showed the glory of God through the change brought over him.

This idea must have fed the Docetists.

Paul know and recognizes there are different relationships with God, sililar to the one he has, then all of these people work together in the same spirit, with the same goal, which is dictated by God himself

Paul mentions Prisca and Aquila who are co-workers with him in the faith of Jesus Christ. There has been mention of these ladies of faith in Acts 18:1, Timothy 4:19, again in Acts 19.

I understand that Paul meant that the three, Paul and the couple, were servants of Christ before anything else.

“the true meaning of the phrase has been lost through 18 centuries of interpolation to suit Trinitarian doctrine.” I would like to know just how this can be shown. Are you saying that the “true meaning” is simply not extant? I find that hard to believe. When Paul says, in this case, “…who work with me in Christ Jesus.” He is talking about those who are members, with him, in the body of Christ. How is it possibly meaningful to the context to gloss the Gnostic definition of “Logos” on the body of Christ?

Further, your assertion that, “It is used in salutation to emphasize a most worthy degree of salvific achievement.” is from some other theology. Paul NEVER emphasized that there was in any manner any degree of salvific achievement on the part of a believer. Salvation is the result of what Christ did not anything that any individual can do. Masons have “salvific acheivement” not Christians.