Baidarka

I think that these are important questions to answer if we are to figure out anything about the origin of Christianity.
1- What was the position taken by the Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem during the 67 CE revolt?
2- What was the position taken by the Jewish followers of Jesus in Rome during the 67 CE revolt?
3- How widespread was Jewish belief in King Jesus before the failure of the revolt?
4- When, why, and by whom were the NT genealogies first written?
5- What is Stephen talking about when he accuses Jews of persecuting and killing prophets (Acts 7:51 to 7:53)?

Baidarka

OK I’ll try to answer my own questions.

1- What was the position taken by the Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem during the 67 CE revolt?

I think that the Jewish followers of Jesus were a part of the revolution and that they fought and died in battle against Rome. I think that they may have been advocates of a belief that victory was possible.

2- What was the position taken by the Jewish followers of Jesus in Rome during the 67 CE revolt?
I think that they were probably rioting in the streets of Rome.

3- How widespread was Jewish belief in King Jesus before the failure of the revolt?

I think that belief in King Yeshua may have been wide spread till it was crushed by the failure of the revolt.

4- When, why, and by whom were the NT genealogies first written?

The genealogies must have first been written for a Jewish audience, only a Jewish audience would have cared if he was from the root of King David.

5- What is Stephen talking about when he accuses Jews of persecuting and killing prophets (Acts 7:51 to 7:53)

I think that this is a later addition, written for a Greek and Roman audience that was hostile to Jews. I don’t know what Prophets he is accusing the Jews of killing unless he was referring to Sigmund Freud’s theory that the Jews killed Moses.

Dean Anderson

I take it from your questions that you are a Historicist.

To me as a Mythicist, your questions don't make that much sense...

I think that there were no Jewish followers of Jesus during the 67 CE revolt. The religion that would become Christianity was born in the aftermath of the revolt.

As above - I do not think there were Jewish followers of Jesus at that time.

Not widespread - in fact not existing at all.

They were written by the authors of the gospels who were (probably independently) expanding on "Mark"'s attempt to move Paul's sacrificial god-man from the mythic realm into a historical context and marry it with the collection of 'sayings of wisdom' by putting the sayings in Jesus' mouth.

It seems to be an attempt by the author of Acts to explain why the Jews weren't all Christianised by pointing out their hostility to earlier Jewish prophets - implying that it was this same innate hostility that prevented them from 'seeing the light' and becoming Christians.

Amlodhi

Not trying to ignore you here, Baidarka. Just that your questions cover a good bit of ground and it would take more time than I've had to give them the discussion they deserve.

Nevertheless, just in the way of general comment, your speculation on this fairly well parallels my own. Regardless of the opinions of Paul and the later gospel writers, the original followers of Jesus were dyed-in-the-wool Jews.

I happen to think that a good general rule of thumb is that people will do what people have done, and that "the more things change, the more they stay the same". Using the history of the Jews as a guideline then, we observe that, in every case, the situation was virtually identical; i.e. every time that Judah was oppressed and/or occupied by a foreign power, prophets would arise predicting the advent of a messiah who would ultimately vanquish their enemies and elevate Judah to the exalted status of being God's central priesthood to the whole world.

The premise, I think, around which Jesus and his followers united was simply that which had been played out many times before. Specifically, that they expected an imminent messianic intervention to bring about the eschatological events the Jewish people had always longed for. Although I do think that Jesus and his followers more likely advocated a type of passive resistance (while awaiting the ultimate messianic coup de gras) as opposed to outright insurrection.

Whether or not Jesus or any of his followers thought that Jesus, himself, was that messiah is open to debate. I suspect, though, that they thought he was and that he would ultimately (and miraculously) bring about the events that had long been prophesied (in accordance with the Jewish, not the later Christian, interpretation).

After the crucifixion, then, I think an innovative idea took shape. That idea was that (based in part on Jewish exegesis of scripture) perhaps Jesus (though already chosen), could only complete his messianic role by shedding his mortality and receiving final authority from God himself on high. At this point then, I think the followers of Jesus expected that he would soon return with this power to vanquish the Romans and set up Judah as God's governing nation on earth.

There are scriptural citations and variant readings in older manuscripts that support the idea that the original followers of Jesus considered him to be an ordinary mortal who was subsequently "elected" by God to fulfull the messianic role. These citations and older variant readings also support the position that the original followers of Jesus did not interpret his crucifixion as a vicarious sacrifice for sins. So I think that Jesus' followers were only continuing the messianic expectations that the Jew's had always had, with the exception that Jesus' startling crucifixion prompted the new and innovative idea that he must shed his mortality and be ordained from on high so he could return in his full capacity as messianic deliverer of Judah.

Though contrary to the rationalization of these first Jewish followers, it was only a short step from here for Paul (with further exegesis) to extrapolate the concept of Jesus crucifixion into being a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of mankind in general. And thus, Christianity was born.

So, I think (though likely only passive), the Jesus group was likely considered to be advocates of resistance to Roman occcupation and rule. Though the original followers of Jesus were zealous for the Mosaic law & customs, they expected an imminent messianic intervention to vanquish Rome. This mindset would have made them very suspect and unpopular with the (Rome supported) Jewish leadership of the time.

Paul preached his extrapolated version of Jesus as vicarious sacrifice for all and, after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and no return of Jesus, Paul's new religion became (with minor exceptions) the only game in town.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

capnkirk

Amlodhi,

This particular statement caught my eye because I have started another thread on this forum concerning the dating of Paul's epistles. Since the consensus dating of Paul's death is 66-67 CE, your claim that Paul preached after 70 CE begs the question of how you have determined this. Please respond on this thread. I would be most interested in hearing your support for your alternatative dating.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

The Evil One

No one knows.

No one knows.

No one knows.

No one knows.

No one knows. Well, we can at least try to guess at this one based on textual interpretation.

Amlodhi

Hi capnkirk,

Actually, I made no such claim. My statement was:

Note that the emphasized phrase is bracketed by commas. Perhaps it would have been more clear had I wrote: Paul preached . . . and then (i.e. later) , after the destruction of Jerusalem . . . , Paul's new religion became . . .

I certainly did not intend to suggest that Paul was preaching post-70 A.D.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

capnkirk

You are quite correct; my sincerest apologies.

Amlodhi

No worries mate.

Amlodhi

judge

Excellent summary Amlodhi. :notworthy

Now consider Christ "returning" or "coming on clouds" in the same way that Yaweh rode on a cloud to Egypt in Isaiah 19:1-2

Or Yaweh coming in Ezekiel 5:7-9 "Yahweh shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning; and the Lord Yahweh will blow the trumpet, and will go with whirlwinds of the south."

There are many more similar examples or Yaweh "coming" in the HB, but on these occaisions no actually saw Yaweh "riding a cloud" or "blowing a trumpet".

Here is another example.
Jehovah came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them (Deut 33:2; cf. Neh 9:13-15; Hab 3:3-16) .

In the same way Jesus "returned" around 70 a.d. and he "blasted a trumpet", "came on clouds of glory", with "ten thousand holy ones".
But we have to read these things through the eyes of the HB.

Thoughts?