aa5874

The very writings of Josephus contradict you. The War of the Jews against the Romans was based on the Belief that a Jewish Messianic ruler would come to deliver the Jews from Roman rule.

[u]Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 Tacitus and Suetonius also corroborate Josephus. See Suetonius Life of Vespasian and Tacitus Histories 5.

Davka

Nonsense. The New Testament is a very Jewish text. There are numerous phrases in the Greek which make sense only in a Hebraic Jewish context. For example, the passage which states "that which is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven, and that which is loosed on Earth is loosed in Heaven" only makes sense if you consider the Hebrew words asur and mootar, which mean (respectively) Bound/Halakhically forbidden and Loosed/Halakhically permitted.

Any serious scholar of first-century Judaism will tell you that the NT is a Jewish text. This includes Orthodox Jews who reject the message of the NT as well as secular scholars who have no dog in the fight.

aa5874

Your posts are filled with fundamental errors.

Eusebius contradicts you. It is claimed that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language FIRST.

Eusebius Church History 3.24. 6.

aa5874

Again, you have no evidence whatsoever that any Jew was a member of the Jesus cult. No non-apologetic writer wrote about Jesus of Nazareth and his supposed disciples including the so-called apostle Paul.

There are no Jewish writers of antiquity who claimed to be members of a Jesus cult or was in contact with any one named Jesus of Nazareth or worshiped a man as a God who abolished Jewish Law since c 30 CE.

The Jesus story that he was the Son of God, born of a Ghost and was God the Creator is NOT from the Jews and is confirmed in the very story that the Sanhedrin found Jesus gulity of death for BLASPHEMY and the people demanded that he be Crucified.

Virtually all the literature recovered about Jesus from the 2nd century -4th century was found in Egypt or was bought in Egypt.

There is virtually no trace of Jesus of Nazareth in Judea. No Jewish writer mentioned Nazareth or that Jesus did did anything in Nazareth.

The Dead Sea Scrolls show ZERO trace of Jesus of Nazareth and his so-called disciples.

The early Jesus story was fabricated by Non-Jews using the Septuagint or some similar source AFTER c 70 CE.

Iskander

It is good evidence for the existence of an early Jewish Christian sect.


Professor Sciffman evaluation of the changes made in the Amidah circa 80 AD

Lawrence H. Schiffman, Who was a Jew?, Ktav Publishing House Inc.,Hoboken , New Jersey,1985 ISBN 0881250546 In pages 51 to 67 he discusses Judaism with early Christianity. In pages 60-61 he writes:



Also:


And

TedM

We don't know what he was preaching, from the text. We can only assume. You are assuming more than what is said, and your assumption is the most common one. But it may be wrong. As I pointed out before, the next chapter speaks of BELIEVERS -- ie those who believed Jesus rose from the dead -- who knew of John's baptism but not that of Jesus -- ie the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Apollos may have been the same.



I highly doubt that Paul would refer to believers 'in Christ', who had the same 'faith' as them without nary an indication that they didn't believe in Jesus and his resurrection. The idea is absurd. Paul's enemies make a HUGE deal about Gentiles not observing Jewish laws and Paul addresses that. Do you think those same enemies would simply be silent about Paul teaching a resurrected Messiah named Jesus if they didn't ALSO believe in one? Of course not!

One support for the claim that Paul was the first to preach about someone named "Jesus" that is made commonly here in this forum is his statement earlier in the chapter that he got his gospel 'from no man'. But, to derive that claim from his statement is an enormous stretch. Paul says he stayed with Cephas for 15 days, one of the 3 pillars in Jerusalem. And, in 1 Cor he again mentions Cephas as having been a fellow-worker in Christ among the Corinthians. Of course Cephas had heard of Jesus.

What was Paul's gospel? Very simple: Salvation to ALL men through faith in the resurrection of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah.

Gal 3:28The unique part is the 'ALL' part. No man told him that Gentiles can be saved. This in no way should be interpreted to mean that Paul was the first to talk about Jesus!

Paul even says that the gospel revealed to him pertained to the Gentiles:
If Jesus hadn't been previously preached before Paul, why does Paul make the above statement and not stress salvation to Jews too? Why does Paul stress the Gentiles? Makes no sense. The part of Paul's 'gospel' that was unique to Paul was about Gentile involvement, and NOT about whether there was a Jewish Messiah named Jesus who had lived, died, and resurrected.

Paul gives us NO reason to conclude anything other than this: The message of salvation to Jews through a resurrected Jewish Messiah was the SAME gospel Cephas believed, James believed, John believed, and all of the believers he persecuted in Judea who had the 'same faith' believed. This in my view is what the text most clearly supports.

If you believe Galatians is legit, then prior to Paul there were Jewish Christians throughout Judea who believed Jesus was their Messiah who had died and been resurrected, and their leaders resided in Jerusalem.

James The Least

Where are you getting this information? Scholars who think that -- at the very least -- gMark, gLuke, Acts, gJohn, 1 & 2 Peter, and the Pastorals are somehow "Jewish texts" are in a very distinct minority.

aa5874

The attempt to place Paul as the first to start the Jesus cult is hopelessly flawed. There is an abundance of evidence from antiquity which tend to establish the Pauline writings are extremely late.

1. If Jesus Christ did exist then it would be more likely that he Jesus started the cult.

2. If Jesus Christ was non-historical and was just a fiction character then the Pauline Corpus is NOT credible.

3. If People had visions of Jesus--the Pauline writer claimed he was LAST after OVER 500 people.

4. If the Jesus cult was PERSECUTED by Paul then the Jesus cult STARTED WITHOUT Paul.

5. By the time Paul wrote to Romans their Faith was already known throughout the WHOLE WORLD.

6. No Pauline letter have been recovered and dated to any time before c 70 CE.

7. The Pauline Corpus contains letters that were deduced to have been composed after c 70 CE.

8. There is NO corroboration for Pauline letters before at least c 59-63 CE in the Canon itself.

9. Apolgetic source claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation.

10. Apologetic sources knew of the story of Jesus but did not acknowledge PAUL.

Chili

How can something be forbidden if there are no churches in the New Jerusaslem, where all is lawful and censorship is by nature only = total freedom from slavery and sin while singing in prison even.

Knowledge/truth is bound or tied into the whole while mere opinion is loosed when truth is seen. This is how and why the scraps were bigger that the 2 fishes used to feed the 5000 etc., which also is not a physical meal.

maryhelena

I'm amazed that this Pauline statement has got so many in the mythicist camp befuddled. This statement, as you have indicated below, does not, in view of other Pauline statements, indicate that 'Paul' was not indebted to those in the faith that preceded him. What 'Paul' got 'from no man' was his own take on that faith that preceded him. i.e. he has a vision, was inspired, to take that faith in a new direction - to the gentiles. That was his gospel, his outreach program. Intellectual developments for that faith that preceded 'Paul'. 'Paul' was, strictly speaking, more a great heretic than a one man show.

In one sense, 'Paul' can be credited with christian origins i.e. with the gentile outreach, but to cut off the source of 'Paul's developing theological, or philosophical, thinking (as some mythicists seem to want to do) is to cut 'Paul' off from the faith he once persecuted; the faith that preceded him.

Whether one runs with the idea that the faith that preceded 'Paul' was based upon a historical Jesus figure (whatever gospel variant) or whether 'Paul' himself was part of the NT story of early christian origins - the fundamental premise is the same - 'Paul' is a late arrival on the scene. It is irrelevant how one dates the NT manuscripts. It is the story the manuscripts contain that is primary. As to that story - one either views it as an account of a real flesh and blood Jesus figure (of whatever gospel variant) - or one views the NT story as a story of early christian origins.

The first option is a closed book - it does not, it cannot, take one close to early christian origins. Yes, it's a plausible option, a simple option. But it's an option that fails to satisfy inquiring minds.....too many questions are left unanswered.

The second option presents possibilities for advancing the search, for advancing understanding, for early christian origins.

Methinks some mythicists have created their very own stumbling block: 'Paul' getting his gospel 'from no man' cannot be interpreted to mean that 'Paul' was a one man show and was not indebted to the faith, and to those who were in that faith, who preceded him. Yes, 'Paul' was a persecutor of that faith; 'Paul' was a 'heretic' from that faith; 'Paul' had his own take on how that faith was to be developed. But 'Paul' was not the originator of the faith that he choose to develop and take on its evolutionary, intellectual, journey.

That's the NT story - whether read literally or whether read allegorically, mythologically, philosophically or as prophetic, salvation, history. What cannot be done with this NT story is to read it back to front. That's the way to creating nonsense - and allowing the JC historicists a field day for heaping scorn upon the ahistoricist/mythicist position.