spin

Have you seen any historical evidence that those he persecuted were christian?

We know how the church interprets the issues because the church has specific reasons for such interpretations, but why I'm interested in is what the documents actually say. We are too often prevented from understanding texts because our traditions dictate to us the texts mean.


spin

aa5874

The word "christian" is not found one single time in the letters of the writer called Paul, though he mentioned the word "Christ" hundreds of time.

He used words like "in Christ" or "of Christ".
Romans 16:7 - Romans 16:16 -
1 Corinthians 1.12 Galatians 1.21-22 The word "christian" is not found in the letters with the name Paul.

Solo

Joe, there is no such evidence in Galatians. The 3:1 could (and to my mind, does) assert that the Jesus idolized by the Jerusalem church and asserted as "innocent" in law, was in fact accursed because of the law under which he was crucified. Paul believed in the legal correctness of the crucifixion (Rom 8:4, 'dikaioma tou nomou') but held that no one is justified before God by the law (3:11), The 'other' Jesus (of the 'weak flesh') being then the first example ! Faith is the only way ! Faith is what justfied him in the eye of God, and by faith he fulfilled his mission.

So to Paul, the Jerusalem following was aberrant in the basic message of the gospel. It is not that they denied that Jesus was crucified, Paul charged they were running away (as the disciples did in Mark later) from the crucifixion.

Jiri

spin

Where does Paul indicate that the Jerusalem group had any beliefs about Jesus?

The use of "church" here to translate ekklhsia seems anachronistic. Surely it's safer to use the more neutral "assembly". One first has to establish that the people in the assembly were Jesus believers before you can call the group a church. I think the translations are in the error of anachronism.


spin

aa5874

Again, in order to keep the letter writer called Paul in the 1st century before any Jesus stories, whole chapters in the letters may have to be removed or considered interpolations. Many words will have to be re-interpreted or re-translated.

But, there is no need for such conspiracies if the letters are placed as is, in a different time zone.

Just try placing the letters of the writer called Paul after Justin Martyr and you will see they fit very nicely.

It has already been deduced that the time zone given for the Synoptics by the church writers is incorrect by decades, there is no practical reason to consider that the letters from the writer called Paul are in their correct time zone.

Just move the all the letters by decades as was done to the Synoptics and see what happens.

dog-on

We end up with the original Marcionite writings having been heavily adjusted by a later group.

Amaleq13

Fighting and dying for a cause isn't a sacrifice for that cause?

This is a fabricated distinction which has no merit.

aa5874

And, that may have actually been the case. The winners may have adjusted the writings of the losers.

But, in any event, there would now be a chronology that does not involve having to mutilate the letters of the writer called Paul.

To leave the letters of the writer called Paul in the first century and then claim that he was essentially an heretic that is, he only preached of a spritual Christ, this would make the writer's heretical doctrine to be widespread over the Empire, yet his heretical writings would have gone unnoticed.

There are no spurious letters or writings with the name Paul or any reference to the writer called Paul as propagating a spritual Christ by other writers.

If the writings of Origen is considered, it would be noticed that Jerome did refer to him as heretical. And Rufinus did claim to have altered some of Origen's writing and even Origen himself,according to Rufinus did claim, in a letter, that his own writings were being manipulated.

There are no internal reports or writings where the writer Paul was ever considered an heretic by the Church, or had heretical writings which would have been widespread if the writer wrote these heretical writings to churches all over the empire.

It would appear to me that the writings of the letter writer may have been from the Church.

Solo

If you mean "conceptualized beliefs about risen Jesus", I would say "nowhere". But if you mean beliefs that connect the Son revealed to Paul to whatever they actually did believe about Jesus (martyr of the last days ? intercessor ? high priest who sits with God ?) I would say 3:1 would be a great "indicator". Obviously, if Paul references in Galatians the Jerusalem group (which I believe had its "Jesus" wing around the "pillars"); then they are the bewitchers of his flock, and preaching some other Jesus to it.

I have no problem with your using "assembly" instead of "church", spin.

Jiri

Elijah

Not as we are understanding the word sacrifice here. Having a child could be considered a sacrifice or a soldier dying in a war could be considered a sacrifice but that is not the kind of self-sacrifice we are talking about here.

Generalizing a concept so you can't distinguish why one person's sacrifice like Jesus' had such an impact in the world over others who have died won't get you anywhere in understanding what is going on here.