I don't think Paul ever opposed circumcision. Paul talked about "circumcision of the heart" and "circumcision of the spirit rather than the flesh". Paul seemed to have come to regard circumcision in the flesh as less important than circumcision "of the spirit", but IFAICS Paul didn't oppose people getting circumcised. He just didn't consider it necessary in order to be Jewish.rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:51 pmAnd prior to that they have Paul to to James and be subordinated to James, where he professes that he supports circumcision. This is all because Paul actually opposed circumcision, which was the law of the land in Judea and among other Jewish communities that followed Torah law. That was the motivation behind whatever persecution took place.
Examples of Paul's attitudes about circumcision/uncircumcision: Judaism is something that is on the inside, not the outside:
Rom 2:
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Paul suggests that Jesus was circumcised and/or supported circumcision:
Rom 15:
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a servant of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a servant of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Paul discounts both fleshly circumcision and fleshly uncircumcision:
1Co 7:
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Not that any of that really is opposed to your points. They may be interpolations. But Paul constantly stresses the dynamic of "according to the spirit" vs "according to the flesh", not just in circumcision but in eating and other things. He seems to have seen his "new age" brand of Judaism as being all about the spirit, and this was opposed by the more traditional minded Jewish authorities. The Jewish Christians of James and Peter were somewhere in the middle. For the later Ebionite Christians, it seems Paul was thought to be an apostate of Jewish law. They didn't seem to think much about "circumcision of the spirit".
Marcion seems to have picked up Paul's theme about the spirit and run with it, to the point that Marcion thought that Jesus himself wasn't flesh.