Paul advocates for Jewish law minus adult circumcision

[acgoldis]

What happens if Paul resolves the circumcision debate by saying:

"You have to follow Jewish law in order to join our community. According to the law, infants must be circumcised at 8 days old.

The time of a ritual is important in many of our traditions. If you join us at an age later than 8 days, you've lost your chance to perform this mitzvah. As such, circumcision is not required but you may do so if you wish. However, boys born into the community must undergo the procedure."

 

[PrinceofApathy]

Then he isn't advocating for Jewish law, because that isn't the case. Eight days old is preferred, but you're never too late either (unless it would be medically unsafe).

 

[acgoldis]

the point is the convert has to follow everything else

 

[Lalli]

It would be really hard to find new converts due Kosher requirements.

 

[acgoldis]

Islam seemed to do OK.

 

[Mildtryth]

Islam seemed to do OK.

The circumstances of their growth were radically different, though.

 

[Jürgen]

Islam seemed to do OK.

Not really similar rules, halal rules are far more liberal than kosher rules.

 

[Lalli]

Islam seemed to do OK.

Islam had better chances to spread their religion quickly unlike Christians whom had work from scratch.

And Halal orders and not anywhere as strickt as Kosher orders.

 

[Silver01]

Islam seemed to do OK.

It's very different because when it spread out of Arabia and even before it was powerful force with the caliph being king of Arabia by this point by an alt council of Jerusalem Christianity is still a minor cult

 

[Lalli]

It's very different because when it spread out of Arabia and even before it was powerful force with the caliph being king of Arabia by this point by an alt council of Jerusalem Christianity is still a minor cult

And since major characters of Council of Jerusalem decide to follow Moseic Law instead mostly abandoning that, they not become their own religion but remain as some Jewish cult which hardly gets much support at least not due its Kosher requirements.

 

[Ilúphatar]

What happens if Paul resolves the circumcision debate by saying:

"You have to follow Jewish law in order to join our community. According to the law, infants must be circumcised at 8 days old.

The time of a ritual is important in many of our traditions. If you join us at an age later than 8 days, you've lost your chance to perform this mitzvah. As such, circumcision is not required but you may do so if you wish. However, boys born into the community must undergo the procedure."

The issue with this suggestion is that it assumes that Paul's attitude towards the Jewish Law was arbitrary, and he simply 'cherry-picked' those parts that he wished to retain and did away with the rest.

That's not how Paul's theology works - or indeed most thought-through theology. Paul's premise was the Jesus of Nazareth had come as the Messiah and established a New Covenant based upon faith rather than the Old Covenant of the Law, 'ingrafting' Gentile believers into the 'tree' of believing Jews. His view was that Gentiles would be reconciled to God as Gentiles, in line with Old Testament prophecy, and not as members of the Jewish national community, yet united with them as part of God's redeemed people.

This was the reason for his belief that Christians were no longer bound to observe the ceremonial elements of the Jewish Law, because they were the marks of the Old Covenant and not of the New Covenant.

Perhaps a question like, 'What if the Incident at Antioch let to an early schism within Christianity?' (which it may have done in a relatively minor sense, if we consider groups like the Ebionites) might get you somewhere towards what I think you might be going for?