Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-22-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Only madmen with suicidal tendencies would tell the Jewish community to worship a crucified blasphemer as the son of their God during the days of Pilate.

I agree, that's why I don't think there was an historical Jesus who died outside Jerusalem under Pilate. But there were Jews who believed in apocalyptic predictions of the end, if Daniel and the DSS are any indication.

What source are you using to support your thinking?

Philo the Jew lived through the reign of Tiberius and the time of Pilate and did not record that the Jewish community had apolyptic predictions of the end of the Law or the world around 33 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Whoever wrote Romans, Galatians, Thessalonians wanted to include Gentiles in the Christian movement. Whether we call him Paul or not is secondary. If you're saying that this material came after the fall of the temple I can't refute it, other than wondering why it was never mentioned. Wouldn't such an event have attracted speculation from contemporaries? Why not use it as an example of God's abandonment of Israel?

It cannot be that it does not matter who wrote the Epistles. If it was known who wrote the Epistles it may be possible to know when the Epistles were written.

aa5874 · 09-22-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Which Jewish writer external of the NT and apologetics recorded any new interpretation of Jewish scripture before the fall of the Temple?

Neither Philo, a contemporary of the so-called Son of God of the Jews , nor Josephus, a contemporary of the so-called Paul, ever mention any new interpretation of scripture by the Jewish community.

Up to 135 CE, approximately 65 years after the fall of the Temple, or one hundred years after the so-called Jesus, it would appear that the Jewish community still expected a miltary-styled Messiah, not a son of a God that would ascend through the clouds after being crucified as a blasphemer.

Neither Philo nor Josephus wrote any thing about the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues or the gifts of the Holy Ghost, including the gift of miracles, as stated by the so-called Pauls in their epistles.

According to Josephus, when he himself fell off his horse he went to a physician, it would appear he did not know that Peter and Paul could have performed miracles through the Holy Ghost or Jesus.

There is just no information, external of the NT and apologetics, to support the theory that the Jewish community had a new interpretation of Jewish scripture during the reign of Tiberius or up to Nero.

Yes, there is no confirmation of these things before the 2nd C. The simplest explanation is that nobody noticed this particular flavour of messianism at the time. They were probably lumped together with other Jews by the gentiles.

I assume your theory has already been examined here in detail in other threads?

Have your simplest explanation been examined?

No-one could have noticed your flavour of messianism, if there was no such flavour at the time.

bacht · 09-23-2008, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No-one could have noticed your flavour of messianism, if there was no such flavour at the time.

Of course. Basically the only source we have is Josephus, if I understand the text situation. He does mention messianic ideas and actors in the years before the revolt.

Do you agree that the Christ message in the epistles was a new spin on the Jewish scriptures? It was a variation of the messiah theme, but using a manifestation of God himself, something like the older figure of Wisdom, maybe with a dash of Logos. And the end of all things was clearly on these writers' minds.

We know the starting point: apocalyptic Jewish literature. We know the end point: the Christian church. Isn't the discussion about connecting these dots?

aa5874 · 09-23-2008, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No-one could have noticed your flavour of messianism, if there was no such flavour at the time.

Of course. Basically the only source we have is Josephus, if I understand the text situation. He does mention messianic ideas and actors in the years before the revolt.

We have MULTIPLE sources. There are Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius who all wrote that the Jewish community expected some kind of Messiah at around 70 CE.

And, it is you who claimed or believed that there was some new interpretation of Jewish scripture, but you should note that Josephus always appeared to subscribe to messianic ideas and actors that were military/political, that would END Roman rule, not any Holy Ghost, parable-talking, crucified blaspheming miracle worker mumbo-jumbo Messiah from Peter and Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

]Do you agree that the Christ message in the epistles was a new spin on the Jewish scriptures? It was a variation of the messiah theme, but using a manifestation of God himself, something like the older figure of Wisdom, maybe with a dash of Logos. And the end of all things was clearly on these writers' minds.

We know the starting point: apocalyptic Jewish literature. We know the end point: the Christian church. Isn't the discussion about connecting these dots?

You MUST show that the message in the epistles was actually known to the Jewish community, but you can't.

Which writer external of the epistles or apologetics mention that there was a new interpretation of Jewish scripture 30 years before the fall of the Temple and that this new interpretation declared that circumcision and Temple rituals were really not necessary, or was to be abandoned, to the extent that the God of the Jews sent his ONLY begotten Son to put an END to these practices?

There is just no writer that is known to have written about such an interpretation of Jewish Scripture and up to 135 CE, the Josephus type of messianic ideas and actors were still active in the Jewish community with the arrival of a Messiah called SIMON.

bacht · 09-23-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You MUST show that the message in the epistles was actually known to the Jewish community, but you can't.

Which writer external of the epistles or apologetics mention that there was a new interpretation of Jewish scripture 30 years before the fall of the Temple and that this new interpretation declared that circumcision and Temple rituals were really not necessary, or was to be abandoned, to the extent that the God of the Jews sent his ONLY begotten Son to put an END to these practices?

There is just no writer that is known to have written about such an interpretation of Jewish Scripture and up to 135 CE, the Josephus type of messianic ideas and actors were still active in the Jewish community with the arrival of a Messiah called SIMON.

I'm open to arguments about the period between 70 and 135, it's murky to me. I believe that Christians scattered from Jerusalem (?), but I don't know what these people were doing: were they huddled in private house-churches? were they poring over scripture, writing or re-writing the foundation NT documents? was there any evangelizing activity, particularly among gentiles?

Or did the Christ message come from outside Palestine, maybe Syria? Were there any Christians in Judea before the revolt? I'm guessing yes, but as you say there doesn't seem to be any way to prove it. It's been hinted that there are anachronisms in the epistles that move the dating back before 70, but I can't judge that.

aa5874 · 09-23-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You MUST show that the message in the epistles was actually known to the Jewish community, but you can't.

Which writer external of the epistles or apologetics mention that there was a new interpretation of Jewish scripture 30 years before the fall of the Temple and that this new interpretation declared that circumcision and Temple rituals were really not necessary, or was to be abandoned, to the extent that the God of the Jews sent his ONLY begotten Son to put an END to these practices?

There is just no writer that is known to have written about such an interpretation of Jewish Scripture and up to 135 CE, the Josephus type of messianic ideas and actors were still active in the Jewish community with the arrival of a Messiah called SIMON.

I'm open to arguments about the period between 70 and 135, it's murky to me. I believe that Christians scattered from Jerusalem (?), but I don't know what these people were doing: were they huddled in private house-churches? were they poring over scripture, writing or re-writing the foundation NT documents? was there any evangelizing activity, particularly among gentiles?

Or did the Christ message come from outside Palestine, maybe Syria? Were there any Christians in Judea before the revolt? I'm guessing yes, but as you say there doesn't seem to be any way to prove it. It's been hinted that there are anachronisms in the epistles that move the dating back before 70, but I can't judge that.

Now, would it surprise that the concensus among scholars about Paul was based on GUESSING?

If you can guess "yes", without answering a single question, then I guess it is perfectly reasonable for someone to say "no" to Paul due to your failure to provide any answers.

bacht · 09-24-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If you can guess "yes", without answering a single question, then I guess it is perfectly reasonable for someone to say "no" to Paul due to your failure to provide any answers.

I'm not and never have been an academic scholar, I don't think I've claimed anything like that.

I assume that scholars are forced to "guess" about Paul because there is almost no evidence to work with. You would agree that the subject matter is special; this is not some obscure department of an incidental topic.

If we were discussing, say, Bach's use of sequences in fugues before 1720, it wouldn't have much resonance for the non-specialist would it? The subject matter of Biblical studies affects anyone interested in Western culture at least indirectly.

Why is your guess about dating Paul any better than that of published academics?

dog-on · 09-24-2008, 02:52 PM

I view Ignatius and Clement as later forgeries. Using Justin as a marker, I would place the writings of Paul firmly in the Marcionite camp, at least, until the time of Ireneaus, (when Luke/Acts put our pal Paul in his place, within the Orthodox pantheon).

As far as dating Paul, I believe that the best one can say, is that the epistles were written prior to about 130 or 140ad (before Marcion presented his Apostolicon to the Roman church).

As to the actual author, considering that Galatians could have been written by Marcion, himself, maybe Marcion actually wrote the others, as well.

aa5874 · 09-24-2008, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Why is your guess about dating Paul any better than that of published academics?

The question is why don't published scholar tell everyone that they are just guessing? Why don't they tell everyone that they really have no idea at all who the authors called Paul were and when they wrote?

penguinfan · 09-24-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by penguinfan

It is my belief that Paul's ministry to the Gentiles was his own invention.

What are your thoughts?

Dear penguinfan,

My thoughts would be to ask you this question. Do you mean to imply that there was an historical person called umm Paul who did this invention? Or might it be a possibility that some other author, writing profusely in the name of Paul, invented the Pauline letters and other embarrassing forgeries at some later century?

Best wishes,

Pete

I believe that Paul created the Christianity that is known to us today. Before Paul, I believe that the early Jesus movement were simply reformers of the Law. Jesus taught within the Law, but encouraged forgiveness.

Paul, on the other hand, did away with the Law. His belief in abrogating the Law were in conflict with the quotes of Jesus that we have and the belief of Jesus' followers and the people around him. Additionally, it is my belief that Paul took Jesus' message to the Gentiles in an attempt to preserve the teachings of Jesus, since the Jews around that time had increasingly rejected Jesus as Messiah.

There are other concepts that I believe Paul added into Christianity, such as Jesus being God - Jesus himself said that no one is good except God. We also see in the Gospels as they progress, the view of Jesus being understood as the Son of God. Recent scholars, such as Bart Ehrmann, posit that the addition of critical passages into the Gospel texts, such as in Mark 15(?) made a huge impact how the other Synoptic Gospels and John would treat Jesus as.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-24-2008, 02:52 PM	#48
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	I view Ignatius and Clement as later forgeries. Using Justin as a marker, I would place the writings of Paul firmly in the Marcionite camp, at least, until the time of Ireneaus, (when Luke/Acts put our pal Paul in his place, within the Orthodox pantheon). As far as dating Paul, I believe that the best one can say, is that the epistles were written prior to about 130 or 140ad (before Marcion presented his Apostolicon to the Roman church). As to the actual author, considering that Galatians could have been written by Marcion, himself, maybe Marcion actually wrote the others, as well.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.