penguinfan

Right now I'm reading a book on primitive Christianity by a German scholar whose name and book both slip my mind.

The author makes the point that Paul's persecution of early Christians was based on, in part, their rejection of the Law. This is certainly true that Stephen was executed for these reasons, but does Paul ever write in his letters the reason why he was actually chasing after the followers of Jesus?

To me, it seems the author is trying too hard to find connections with the Hellenistic Jewish Christians who may have given up following the Law, at least in parts, and Palestinian Jewish Christians, where Paul himself was primarily active - and, therefore, his persecution of Palestinian Christians, in the mind of the author, was based on their so-so adherence to the law.

spamandham

Firstly, ignore Acts and look at just what Paul himself said:

Galatians 1:13-14
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

This sounds to me like his contentions had to do with failure to abide by Jewish traditions (aka, the law). I believe this is the only place in the "authentic" Pauline epistles where he discusses his motives at all, and in my mind, it smells like someone redacted Paul to support Acts.

show_no_mercy

And then of course, Paul later berates his Galatians for following "another good news" that preaches circumcision. It seems contradictory. He does the same thing in 2 Corinthians. He warns that if they follow another Jesus (when was there more than one Jesus in Christianity?) or another good news, or another spirit, they're condemned.

aa5874

Acts of the Apostles cannot be ignored. Acts of the Apostles is part of the canon and regarded as authentic by the Church.

Without Acts of the Apostles, we would not have found that Paul was converted because of a bolt of lightning or some kind of bright light.

The Pauline writers gave little information about themselves and it was the author of Acts who gave a chronological report of Saul/Paul activities and traveled with him all over the Roman Empire.

Acts of the Apostles cannot be ignored. The Pauline writers are not inerrant, their writings cannot be just accepted as true. Supposed authenticity has no bearing on actual veracity.

Now, Stephen was stoned to death after he made a blasphemous statement, " Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.[/b]

Now, based on the writings of Josephus or even Philo, it was not likely that there were Jews who worshiped a Jew as a God, and far more implausible, that Jews would worship as a God another Jew who was executed after he was deemed guilty of blasphemy and ask him to forgive their sins and abandon the Laws of Moses, including circumcision, while the Temple was still standing.

Paul's persecution appears to be non-historical, and it has even been suggested that the Sanhedrin had no authority to allow Saul/Paul to bound people in Damascus and bring them to Jerusalem.

penguinfan

While I agree that most of Acts should be ignored, I don't have a hard time believing that Hellenistic Jews would have been less stringent in their observance of the law than Palestinian Jews. So, if there really was an early Jewish Christian named Stephen who really was executed for speaking against the temple and not following the laws of Moses, that is neither here nor there in my mind. I think it would have been very likely that some Jewish Christians outside of Palestine in Egypt or Asia minor would have been the equivalent of today's reform Jews.

However, the author (perhaps just from my reading) seems to almost link the acts of some (Hellenistic?) Jews who were lax in their observance of the Law with the Palestinian Jews who would have been observant in Jewish Law. While the author never explicitly says this nor does he mention the following example to support his belief (or rather, my reading of his book), one could also mention Peter's table fellowship with Gentiles in the letter to Galatians as well. Additionally (and I know you said to avoid acts, but I think there are some kernels of truth there) Peter also lodges with Simon the tanner at the end of Acts 9.

BTW, the book is called History of Primitive Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Hans Conzelmann.

aa5874

But when the supposed Jesus was alive did he not follow the Laws of Moses including circumcision? Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day, and his supposed mother offered sacrifice for Jesus with turtle doves and pigeons. Jesus himself went to the feast of the Passover at least three times after he was baptised and at least once when he was about 12 years old.

There is no indication that Stephen was not emulating Jesus where Jesus claimed that he did not come to abolish the Law. Stephen was stoned to death for making a blasphemous statement similar to Jesus.

Now, you cannot ignore Acts of the Apostles if you want to discuss Stephen.

GakuseiDon

Paul says in Gal 1:23: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

What was Paul now preaching? We see a hint here:

1 Cor 1:23: "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles"

Paul's "Gospel of God" can be found in Rom 1:-5:

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God–which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures–concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for His name’s sake.

So if Paul was preaching the faith that he was trying to destroy, then -- to me at least -- their faith had to have been something along the lines of a crucified and resurrected Messiah. (Paul has a personal revelation that sends him out as the apostle to the Gentiles -- I'm not sure whether that would have been part of the faith of the followers in Christ that Paul had persecuted).

Jedi Mind Trick

This is interesting to me. If the early church was Law based, as is/was claimed by Jewish Christianity, eg Ebionites of the past and some groups today, then why did Paul persecute?
Jesus supported the Law. It had to be Jesus' claims to being Yahweh in the flesh, which the Ebionites denied, they thought he was just a man. That is why Caiaphas tore his clothes, Jesus claimed to be God. That is what offended Paul.

I wonder how this fits with the "Jesus is a Myth" speculations. Would Paul have cared about stamping out a mystery religion with a Jewish solar deity? Maybe, but the mystery religions were everywhere. What was so threatening about Christianity?

spin

But then, Gak, you're not sure about what the people who Paul had persecuted had heard about Paul's beliefs. It is sufficient if they were messianists that Paul was now preaching messianism. If they were also Johannine messianists (like Apollos) and Paul was now preaching something that could be construed that way, the criterion of preaching the faith which once he destroyed is met. In short, Gak, you are in no position to divine just what faith exactly they were referring to. Isn't it only your desire for what that faith be that leads you to your arbitrary conclusion here?


spin

storytime

What was so threatening about Christianity? Equal rights with Jewish inheritance - the promised land.