storytime

Are you using the exact quotes?

You're saying Paul didn't have influencial Jewish friends in political circles?

How would you describe non Jewish people[Gentiles] who had no knowledge of Jewish laws and tradition? Intelligent or gullible? Why did they believe Pauls Gospel? Why did they not believe traditional Jewish doctrine, doctrine of the Pharisees that taught observance in commandments and circumcision? Paul was himself a Pharisee after all and never turned his back on that position he claimed, and as such would have been knowledgeable of his Jewish laws that prohibited lawless and uncircumcised people from being recognized as "a people" of his Hebrew god. Did Paul then lie to Gentile people in order to further his Jewish interest? Remember, Paul never denied his Judaism, his Jewish belief, which was different than what he taught Gentiles. According to Pauls Jewish tradition that he did not turn from, his traditional belief and its doctrines had nor held reason to recruit people who had no intention of observing Judaism. But there was a reason for Paul to create a new religion for Gentiles if he perceived a threat to Jerusalem,Jews, and Judaism. And this is what I think he did, and purely for Jewish interest. Of course you are free to think otherwise.


Speculation is neither true or false. You remain to be free in what you think.

I think "the conspiracy of Paul" is evident due to his being fully knowledgeable of his own laws and covenant requirements that prevented Gentiles being equal to Jews in the covenant of "a people". There was only one people, called Israel, "one seed" of the promise. Laws and covenant required converting from Gentile[lawless] to Jew[observant to cir., and laws of Moses]. According to OT, the Hebrews God did not change his required protocol. However, Paul Gospel did.

I'll ignore your "too close" inuendo's of halocaust denial
and antisemitism.

sugarhitman

Read the book of Acts it was Paul vs the Jews, and Paul was promoting the Gospel which the Jews considered as heresy. So how could he (and those non-existent Jewish Senators) be conspiring to protect Judasim? Judasim without Christ, and Judasim with Christ are at odds with one another, so how could Paul be conspiring to protect non-Christian Judasim by converting Gentiles into the Judasim that recognises Christ as the Messiah?


Your theory has not a shred of sense to it.

sugarhitman

Exactly!

storytime

Basic research told me that Jews were not always persecuted by Rome. Sometimes they were engaged to aid and assist in political matters. This could have been as emmisaries or what we called today 'ambasadors'. The term 'senator' might project a more highly held position later used. (my mistake in using the term). As Caesar was friends with the Jews, I don't think Roman Jews would have been seen then as they are today portrayed by Christians and SHM - as forever the poverty stricken, slaves, no rights of religious worship. Synagogues were built for Jewish worship and these also called colleges of study. So it seems to me that Jewish citizens of Rome were among the class system at least some of the time, and according to who was in power. While those at Jerusalem and elsewhere may not have enjoyed or been priveledged to that Roman lifestyle at all.

Paul, as a Roman citizen[Roman Jew] seemed to have received no persecution from Romans but instead was favored with his own hired house, which means, Paul was able to pay his servants. It is not said that he ever returned to Jerusalem. However, Jews made visits to Paul who had never heard of the resurrection or that Jerusalem Jews were out to kill Paul. The story says some of them believed Pauls gospel and some did not.

storytime

No it wasn't "Paul vs the Jews" as in your portrait. Paul said he taught the same as the Pharisees, resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees had even agreed with Paul on this doctrine. What "they call heresy" referred to Jesus the man. It was for this reason that Paul said he was brought before the governor because the Pharisees had ordered Paul not to preach such a lie. Why? Were the Pharisees just being bullies, those mean ol Pharisees? No, they had reason for their behavior toward Paul. The Pharisees had not seen Jesus.

The resurrection of a dead corpse could not be proved. No one had said, "come here you doubting Pharisees and take a look at Jesus standing with a big spear hole in his side and wounds all over his body." And no one thought to bring forth the guys who had made those BIG holes in Jesus body. How big were they? What size spears were used in that time?

There was no Jesus as evidence because there was no Jesus. But there is a story, a mythical tale.

storytime

Please strive to communicate without baiting the audience. My atheist friends know I'm perfectly capable in speaking for myself.

sugarhitman

Listen to yourself. Dont you know that what the Pharasees called a lie, is in their view heresy? Your theory is one of confusion. On one hand you say Paul preached what the Pharasees preached (resurrection) and on the other he preached what the Pharasees considered a "lie". My friend dont you know until this day that Judasim is divided on this issue...so how could Paul (and those Jewish Senators) be conspiring to protect non-Christ Judasim? Your theory is one of confusion....just like all Jewish conspiracy myths (lies).

sugarhitman

Storytime your theory has been proven false...stop trying to save this dead theory.

Also Rome was a persecuter of Christians. Judasim (which includes "Christianity") were two (actually one and the same) were hated by the Romans.

steve_bnk

The history I read said thyat at the time of JC the diaspsora Jews inn the Roman ampire fared well and there was a time when HJus daism became a fad relgion with Romnas taking on outer trappings of the faith. The stronmg patroarchal Jeish famikly was respected.

The Romans considiered 'early christians' Jewish heretics and recevied the same considerations as diaspora Jews until they began to distinguish themselves from Judaism.

matthijs

I wonder the extent to which Cassius Dio is exaggerating with his "many," or if only Domitian had such a dislike for Jewish converts. Suetonius makes it sound like Flavius Clemens had it coming for other reasons ("Domitian," §15), so perhaps the conversion is just a scapegoat here.