stephan huller

And this is why the question raised by Jay is so fascinating. We have a collection of letters addressed - on the surface at least - to a city, i.e. 'to the Alexandrians' - but where 'to the Alexandrians' or 'to the Romans' doesn't mean ALL the Alexandrians or ALL the Romans but a select ethnos. It is therefore a fascinating question as to how it is possible that this addressable ethnos of Alexandrian-not-Alexandrians and Roman-not-Romans could be discerned. The only way this could be true is if the the Alexandrian-not-Alexandrians were Jews. The Jews traditionally occupied a halfway point to citizenship in many cities. Just by calling them Alexandrians and Romans in an unqualified manner like this had political significance. Almost - you are no longer Jews but citizens of the kingdom of God albeit living in Alexandria, Rome etc. This can only fit the age AFTER the destruction of the temple which is - for all intents and purpose unknown to us.

stephan huller

Has anyone actually looked at the letters of Apollonius? They are nothing at all like the Pauline epistles:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/aot/...1.htm#page_408

aa5874

So, the creation story with God in Genesis of the Bible must be true or based on a true story??

So, Joseph Smith's Bible was based on real Golden plates as revealed by the angel Moroni???

It is just NOT logical at all that a religion cannot be started by falsehoods right from the start.

Please tell me of a religion that started with the true knowledge of a God?

It may be that all stories about Gods were false right out the gate.

Now, tell us how did the story of ZEUS start? And the story of the Gods of the Egyptians?

Don't forget the God of the Jews!!!!

Chili

You are totally wrong here and unless a religion/mythology has a beginning it cannot have an end, and that alone is proof that it is based on a lie if it does not have a Genesis as it will not ever have generated somebody who has come full circle in his own life.

Every mythology with a Genesis will have true knowledge of God. . . and obviously Joseph Smith designed a toy religion that will be destructive in the end. . . and so is Islam but not Hinduism and Buddhism, for example.

You ask a Muslim what their Genesis is and they will say "huh' as they do not have one.

And who cares about the God of the Jews except the Jews? And great he is for them as they are modelled after HIm and so then to come full circle is to know yourself. What else is religion all about, do you think? To fight wars?

Hint, and if Islam was true it would be called the "Newest testament" but would first ask the Jews what they think of that idea.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

This is interesting. Thanks.

So Paul and Barnabas are arguing against circumcision in Antioch and some Christians from Jerusalem came and said that circumcision was still mandatory. It is kind of amazing that Jesus never pronounced on the subject. Paul and Barnabas go back to Jerusalem and there's a debate on the issue. This debate over where Christians stand on the issue of circumcision of gentile is taking place allegedly some fifteen to twenty years after the death of Jesus the Christ. After consulting the Hebrew Scriptures (What good was Jesus if he couldn't even tell them this?), they decide that they are unanimously against circumcision

So this time they send two other apostles besides Paul and Barnabas and give them a letter expressing the opinion of "the whole assembly" and Judas and Silas, two prophets, are also there to back up the authority of the letter and to back up Paul and Barnabas.

While this sounds plausible, it is hard to know if this really happened or if this is just being written to show how the Jerusalem Church supported Paul and was unanimously against forced circumcision.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

steve_bnk

There is a reason why the JC character may not have given much detail.

If you look at the Jesus in the stories he is a conservative Jewish rabai preaching to Jews invoking Jewish scripture and prophets. He was a Jew who 'kept kosher' so to speak, he did not invent a new religion or reject Judaism. The Christian interpretation is that JC fulfilled the old covenanet and kicked off a new one inclusive of all people. Hence the Jewish restictions were no longer required.

The Christianity that developed though Rome post Nicea is more aptly called Paulism.

aa5874

Whether or not the story is true, the author made statements that show how letters could be distributed in antiquity without any established mail delivery system.

It must be noted that the author of Acts did NOT at all claim Paul wrote any letters himself and did NOT claim that he read any letters written by Paul.

The author of Acts did NOT KNOW of any Pauline letters or the Pauline Revealed teachings of the Resurrected Jesus.

Remarkably in Acts, Paul's Gospel was virtually identical to that of Peter.

andrewcriddle

I have two separate points.

1/ Deissmann in Light from the Ancient East (or via: amazon.co.uk)[*] suggests, from analogy with preserved examples of ancient letters, that Paul's original documents would have had a brief actual address on the outside of the sealed letter but this has not been preserved. He gives an example To be taken to the earthen- ware pottery market ; to be delivered to Nausias or to Thrasycles or to his son.

2/ The practice of Christians in a city meeting in separate house churches, and not all together, presumably became more prevalent as the Christian population grew. Writing c 50 CE it would probably be possible for all the Christians in a city to crowd together into a large room to hear Paul's letter. (Except in giant cities like Rome or Alexandria.)

Andrew Criddle

[*] mod note: available on archive.org

stephan huller

Most people haven't a clue about why Jews and Samaritans naturally congregated together in antiquity and up to the modern age (there were large Samaritan communities in Alexandria, Damascus, Corinth etc). You have to think about the implications of the Sabbath. The religious need to know the limit of how far they can walk on the Sabbath. This is why all the Jews and Samaritans outside of Palestine tended to congregate together. As such it was natural for letters to be addressed to these communities as the inhabitants were gathered around large 'meeting houses.' This is certainly how it was in Alexandria. I don't see how it is possible that the apostle could have addressed 'the Romans' = a sectarian community within the population of the city of Rome and not have this connected to the Jewish or Samaritan or some pre-existent sectarian community within that city.

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/2...n-Shabbat.html

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Good points.

I would say that this letter was unique. In a sense it played two rolls. It was the expression of an edict or unanimous decision made by the Jerusalem assembly and it was a calling card, or a letter of introduction introducing the prophets Judas and Silas and the apostles Paul and Barnabus. It was addressed to "the Gentile brethren throughout Antioch, Syria and Cilicia." Presumably, they could show it to any convert they met.

I'm sure that people carried letters like this throughout the Roman empire. It functioned to inform strangers who they were and their business. It functioned to give people authority as emissaries of an official body.

While similar to Paul's Church Letters in some ways, these types of passport/identification letters are radically dissimilar in important ways.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin