Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 08-20-2007, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

If the churches were Jewish, would Saul have been persecuting his own Jewish brethren, and if so why?

I've asked essentially that same question before and, IIRC, nobody has a firm grasp on what aspect of the preaching of the "church of God" would have obtained persecution from their fellow Jews.

On the basis of Acts one can argue that Paul and others were persecuting radical Hellenistic Jewish Christians like Stephen who were seen as hostile to the Temple cultus.

Andrew Criddle

dog-on · 08-21-2007, 12:46 AM

It's a re-write...

Paul, the apostle of the heretics, reviled by the early proto-orthodox, rehabilitated while trying to erase a competing sect from history:

Paul didn't represent the Jews, he represented the Marcionite Church. Prior to the rewrite, Proto-Orthodox mommas told terrible stories about this horrible little man to their children before putting them to bed for the night.

At some point, one of the early fathers realized that the best way to deal with this "heretical" sect was not to malign it's prophet, but to embrace him.

Problem solved...

spin · 08-21-2007, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

It's a re-write...

Paul, the apostle of the heretics, reviled by the early proto-orthodox, rehabilitated while trying to erase a competing sect from history:

Paul didn't represent the Jews, he represented the Marcionite Church. Prior to the rewrite, Proto-Orthodox mommas told terrible stories about this horrible little man to their children before putting them to bed for the night.

At some point, one of the early fathers realized that the best way to deal with this "heretical" sect was not to malign it's prophet, but to embrace him.

Problem solved...

All you need is something -- you know, "evidence" -- to justify this, otherwise it just seems to be another conjecture. (We get a lot of them here.)

spin

Amaleq13 · 08-21-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

On the basis of Acts one can argue that Paul and others were persecuting radical Hellenistic Jewish Christians like Stephen who were seen as hostile to the Temple cultus.

Andrew Criddle

But Acts tells us that the charges against Stephen were false (6:13) so what did he really do to anger the others to the point of murder?

Benni72 · 08-21-2007, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

How did the Pharisees select[elect] their priests? Did they anoint with oil, did they baptise? And were Gentile converts allowed to become Jewish priests?

AFAIK the official Jewish priesthood was transmitted only within Aaron's family. That's why probably "the order of Melchizedek" was introduced for Jesus.

Vivisector · 08-21-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

But Acts tells us that the charges against Stephen were false (6:13) so what did he really do to anger the others to the point of murder?

Great question. I don't see Acts being very helpful, though. At most, all I think is reasonable to infer from the Stephen story is that (a) he was a Greek-speaking Christian leader who (b) ended up getting killed. The rest looks a lot like Lukan embellishment, implying that Luke may have no more known the true reasons for Stephen's death than he did for Jesus's death.

Cheers,

V.

stuart shepherd · 08-21-2007, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

On the basis of Acts one can argue that Paul and others were persecuting radical Hellenistic Jewish Christians like Stephen who were seen as hostile to the Temple cultus.

Andrew Criddle

But Acts tells us that the charges against Stephen were false (6:13) so what did he really do to anger the others to the point of murder?

Look.....
Acts 7:53-54 (King James Version)
53Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

54When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

If you go back and read in Exodus, you see that when Israel received the Law, they heard the voice of God himself.
When the Jews heard Stephen say that the Law came from angels, thereby denigrating the Law, which they knew came from God, they were very angry.

stuart shepherd

andrewcriddle · 08-21-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

On the basis of Acts one can argue that Paul and others were persecuting radical Hellenistic Jewish Christians like Stephen who were seen as hostile to the Temple cultus.

Andrew Criddle

But Acts tells us that the charges against Stephen were false (6:13) so what did he really do to anger the others to the point of murder?

In Stephen's speech in chapter 7 he says with respect to the Temple

Quote:

Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says: 'The heavens are my throne, the earth is my footstool. What kind of house can you build for me? says the Lord, or what is to be my resting place?
Did not my hand make all these things?'

Which seems to imply that even if Stephen had not predicted the destruction of the Temple he (according to Luke) thought it unnecessary.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13 · 08-21-2007, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Which seems to imply that even if Stephen had not predicted the destruction of the Temple he (according to Luke) thought it unnecessary.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks for the clarification.

Gamera · 08-22-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I don't think that the laying of the garments at his feet was for safekeeping. This particular practice appears to indicate some obeisance to Saul as far as the killing is concerned. The explanation is apparently lost in history, but it obviously meant something to the author of Acts, enough to mention it, and it's doubtful he would have mentioned it, if Saul was just a coat checker.

I would suggest that the practice meant that Saul is behind the killing, and instigated it, hence it was "laid at his feet," in symbolic recognition that he bears the blame, not his henchmen.

Acts 8:1 states that Saul was "in agreement with", or "pleased with" (en suneudokwn) the stoning of Stephen. This phrasing excludes the possibility that Paul was the instigator, as far as Acts is concerned.

Jiri

Sorry, I don't see how en suneudokwn by any stretch of any meaning it might have, excludes Paul having instigated the execution. You can instigate an execution and be pleased with it, and be in agreement with it.

The laying down of garments suggests some connection well beyond Paul being a pleased coat checker, nodding his head in agreement. I'm not sure what it involves, but there's some backstory we are not given that suggests instigation on some level.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-21-2007, 12:46 AM	#2
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	It's a re-write... Paul, the apostle of the heretics, reviled by the early proto-orthodox, rehabilitated while trying to erase a competing sect from history: Paul didn't represent the Jews, he represented the Marcionite Church. Prior to the rewrite, Proto-Orthodox mommas told terrible stories about this horrible little man to their children before putting them to bed for the night. At some point, one of the early fathers realized that the best way to deal with this "heretical" sect was not to malign it's prophet, but to embrace him. Problem solved...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.