stephan huller

It's even more politically incorrect to think that the rabbinic tradition might not have been made up of people who had any racial connection to the Patriarchs. Why would Antoninus have banned Jewish proselytism (= circumcision) if it wasn't a wide spread 'problem' in the age? I think the reason the Rabbinates couldn't figure out what to do if Passover fell on a Sabbath is because many were new at the whole 'being Jewish' thing.

aa5874

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters paint a picture that cannot be found in the writings of any non-apologetic writers of antiquity.

The NT Canon deals fundamentally with the period between c 6 BCE-62 CE , from the time of King Herod to the time of Nero with the supposed preaching and activities of Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul.


In the Canon it is claimed or implied Peter, the disciples and Saul/Paul preached Christ Crucified since the time of King Aretas. See 2 Cor.11.32 and Acts 9.

Where is the corroborative history for the NT stories of Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul between c 6BCE-62 CE??

1. Up to c 50 CE Philo wrote about Pilate and Tiberius--Not Paul, the disciples and Jesus.

2. Up to c 100 CE Josephus wrote Pilate, Tiberius, Herod, John the Baptist and expectation of a prophesied Messianic ruler in Jewish Scripture at about c 66 CE--Not Paul, the disciples, and Jesus of Nazareth.

3. Up to c 75 CE Pliny the elder wrote about the Essenes--Not Paul. the disciples, and Jesus of Nazareth.

4. Up to 110 CE, Pliny the younger wrote about Christians but Not Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul.

5. Up to 115 CE Tacitus wrote about the expectation of a Messianic ruler in Jewish writings at c 66-CE--Not Paul, the disciples, and Jesus of Nazareth.

6. Up to 115 CE Suetonius wrote about the expectation of a Jewish Messianic ruler c 66 CE--Not Paul, the disciples and Jesus of Nazareth.


There is a massive black hole for Jesus, the disciples and Paul before c 70 CE.

In the Canon, Paul a Jew was supposedly in the presence of Felix and Festus procurators of Judea in the time of Nero preaching Christ Crucified and Resurrected. See Acts 16-28.

There is NO corroboration at all by Jewish and Roman writers for the Jesus cult of Christians who worshiped a man called Jesus of Nazareth as a God who abolished the Laws of the Jews for Atonement of Sins by his crucifixion and resurrection.

There is nothing at all to support the argument for 1st century Jesus cult of Christians and early Pauline letters.

It is extremely to deduce the history of the Jesus cult.

The Anonymous stories of Jesus were fabricated in the 2nd century or later but were BELIEVED to have been composed before c 62 CE.

We see that Justin Martyr Believed that the Memoirs of the Apostles were composed long before c 70 CE by the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth.

Once it was believed that the Memoirs were composed BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE then it would appear that the words of Jesus were fulfilled prophecy.

No NT manuscripts or stories of the Jesus cult have been found and dated to any time before c 70 CE which is compatible with all non-apologetic writers of antiquity who wrote about events in the time of Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero or 6 BCE-68 CE.

The Big Black Hole for Jesus, the disciples and Paul extend far earlier than 70 CE.

jakejonesiv

huller, you really do not like the Rabbis. Most of your positions do not make sense until we understand that you see yourself as the last of the Frankist Jews.

The black hole of Judaism is in your mind. There was no black hole in Judaism between the destruction of the Second Temple (ca. 70 CE) and the the first major work of Rabbinic Judaism, the Mishnah.

When we look at the other great messianic pretender, Simon Bar Kotchba, we find evidence that is missing for Jesus. We find artifacts including coins, and even some of his original writings have survived.
http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/bk07.html

jakejonesiv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vogTVCL-qhc

stephan huller

Most of early Judaism and Christianity will not make sense until we familiarize ourselves what what is the essence of the Israeli covenant is - not even Marcionitism. For even if we imagine that Marcion was a reaction against 'Judaism' (whatever that means or is meant by that) we have to know how to define that term in the contemporary historical context. I don't think you have done that or have the capacity for that.

stephan huller

Well let's walk through it. At its most basic, the question comes down to - why don't the Jews sacrifice any longer? How easy do you imagine this to have been in historical terms? Again, you have to understand not only how the Israelites were commanded to sacrifice but why they do (in the case of the Samaritans) and did (in the case of Jews) it, in order to make an appropriate answer. There's no need to Google the answer quickly. These are questions which have such depth and profundity, they are things which are beyond the reach of most people because - as I noted - the Rabbanites severed themselves from the answers.

Frankism has nothing to do with these matters. They are things that belong(ed) to the Samaritans, Sadducees and even the Karaites and Falashas. Once you begin to focus on these questions, you will see how silly your emotional outbursts really are.

stephan huller

This is a joke, right?

But where do we find the cause of the revolt? Have you ever read the surviving material associated with the revolt? Please tell me (a) the theological POV of the revolutionaries and (b) their motivation for rebelling against the state and (c) how does any of this tie in with the gospel story of Jesus crucified in 30 CE? The knee jerk reaction is to say it was the ban on the (alleged) Hadrianic ban against circumcision. Why then do the Samartians view Hadrian so favorably? Where is the evidence that Hadrian actually prevented Jews from circumcising according to the traditions of their ancestors? The black hole exists whether you want to admit or not. And if a Hadrianic ban on circumcision really was the cause of the revolt WTF does any of this have to do with the gospel and Christianity?

spin

Jeeez, I wish you kiddies'd stop being such liddle azzles. Jakus is responsible for this: huller. I mean really, you pair of playground scrappers should be put on detention.

Did Hadrian turn Gerizzim into a Roman colony? I don't remember that. Hadrian was a pretty good guy after all.

(I'm not following this thread, just noticing the tone of this segment of the discussion.)

stephan huller

You see traditional scholarship DOES NOT accept that Marcionitism was the earliest form of Christianity. As a result it is unnecessary to investigate what Marcion 'thought' about contemporary Judaism. As Roger Pearse has on his website - 'Marcion was a Jew-hater.' But is Marcionitism really aligned against 'Judaism' or Phariseeism? Why even mention 'the Pharisees' if Christianity was founded in the second century as you seem to suggest?

Remember I am never one to argue for the POV that I am right about everything or something. I am open to any suggestion and have changed my mind on things many, many times.

I am attracted to the second century hypothesis because it simplifies the argument for Marcionite primacy. But as I already noted, I don't know what to do with the new understanding of Marcion or someone else with pen in hand writing out the gospel narrative in that era. What the hell is their POV supposed to be? Were the revolutionaries associated with Bar Kochba 'Pharisees'? Why then do Jewish sources say that they did not wear tzizit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzitzit? Again that is the Samaritan interpretation of Numbers 15:38 and Deuteronomy 22:12. There are other strange practices associated with the revolutionaries which make it clear they were not 'Pharisees.' Again how to align the gospel with a second century origin?

stephan huller

According to Abu'l Fath, too, Hadrian was active both in the High Priesthood of Aqbon (Aqbun) and in the High Priesthood of Levi (see other posts). According to Abu'l Fath Hadrian, after conferring many favours on the Samaritans, who had helped him capture Jerusalem, slaughtered a number of them when they destroyed a temple which he had built for himself on the mountain next to Mount Gerizim, and called a halt to this slaughter only after a Samaritan succeeded in persuading him that the Jews, not the Samaritans, were responsible for the destruction of the temple. (cf. Crown the Samaritans p. 51)