Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 05-14-2012, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But Toto, this doesn't explain anything that I was discussing. For all I know or care he could have called himself Paul and Wilbur. All I am trying to point out is that in several epistles where the author briefly mentions persecuting the Christians somewhere (known only in those epistles as the Church of God, whatever that really means), he makes no mention of his name as Saul. Or for that matter what he thought about the the Christians and exactly WHY they were being persecuted in the first place by the Sanhedrin headed in those days by Rabban Gamliel, the teacher of Saul in Acts.

If anyoneh had checked the Talmud and anything to do with that period, nothing connecting R. Gamliel to anything like this is even mentioned. Of course we don't even know WHERE "Paul" was persecuting Christians in the epistle stories or even WHY except by a weak inference that it had something to do with the Pharisees who he was loyal to, though there is no mention of the priesthood. By inference one would say that it was occurring in Jerusalem, but the lack of information suggests Pharisee rabbinic centers elsewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Saul is not a Roman name. It is thoroughly Jewish and probably refers back to King Saul.

Paul did not change his name, according to Acts. His name was always Saul, but he was also known as Paul.

The Roman equivalent would be Silvanus. The Aramaic would he Silas

I would think the Saducees before the Sanhedrin.

Gamliel was just the oposite, he never would have persecuted christians, more like coming to their defense.

outhouse · 05-14-2012, 03:33 PM

Saducees had the most to loose

they ran the temple/bank

christians were taking money away from the temple with free heath care and they preached to stay out of places of worship with the coming of the kingdom of god, places like that were not needed.

christians had the possibility to effect the bank's revenue

aa5874 · 05-14-2012, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...back then names were seen as having meaning, something about the inner working of a person....

What a LOAD of BS. You need to get familiar with sources of antiquity. Back then, people were given names after birth so the meaning of the any person's name would NOT be expected to reflect any actual personal characteristics.

Jesus the Son of Ananus was considered a Mad Man.

Jesus the Son of Sapphias was the Leader of a band of Robbers.

Jesus the Son of Damneus was High Priest.

The meaning of the name Jesus is IRRELEVANT.

Toto · 05-14-2012, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But Toto, this doesn't explain anything that I was discussing.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear that was not in response to your point.

Quote:

For all I know or care he could have called himself Paul and Wilbur. All I am trying to point out is that in several epistles where the author briefly mentions persecuting the Christians somewhere (known only in those epistles as the Church of God, whatever that really means), he makes no mention of his name as Saul.

The fictional character in Acts was known as Saul. We have no indication that the author of the letters from Paul was ever known as Saul, although he did have a companion whose name was the equivalent of Saul. But that's all you can say about that.

Quote:

Or for that matter what he thought about the the Christians and exactly WHY they were being persecuted in the first place by the Sanhedrin headed in those days by Rabban Gamliel, the teacher of Saul in Acts....

The Saul of Acts knew Gamaliel. The Paul of the letters, probably not, unless he slept through his lessons and flunked out (which was basically Hyam Maccoby's theory.)

Duvduv · 05-14-2012, 04:46 PM

Fair enough, Toto. So the question how do we account for these differences and what do they mean in a historical context? Including why exactly anyone was persecuting the "Christians" according to the author(s) as the prelude to the grand conversion of Saul/Paul?

And with all that persecuting going on, how is it that the only example of a real persecution of "the churches" is poor Stephen, who sounds like the author of the first part of his speech was asserting a normal Jewish perspective and the author of the second part was lashing out at the "Jews"?

Later on Paul seems to be forgetting about the massive persecutions especially when wanting to send money to the "saints" in Jerusalem who one would assume by now were all hauled off to the guillotine.

rlogan · 05-14-2012, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Yes, that was what I was pointing out with the Thomas Brodie quotes. "Paul" may have been conceived as a prophet a la Daniel or Jeremiah, a literary device used to address some current problem. His "life," like Jesus's, is found in the OT, and he consistently takes the OT out of context to make his points, just like Jesus and the gospel writers do.

Exactly.

Quote:

This could also be why "Paul" is so unconcerned with the life of Jesus and his earthly ministry. The role of the prophet was to solve current crises in the church, so they could refer to a revered but conveniently deceased "apostle" who said the things Jesus could not have known, not to tell you about the life of Jesus.

Yes, and they may not even have been "crises" so much as the author of Paul's letters just introducing his theology in this manner, knowing that utilizing the Hebrew Bible solves one problem but introduces another. The problem it solves is having a cover to smuggle a new theology, but then pull the bait-and-switch: we only need Jewish scripture for just that much and no more. So the problem of actually having to follow the Hebrew Bible is solved by declaring a new covenant.

Quote:

This would put the Pauline epistles after the gospels, which I think is a distinct possibility.

Either way, both of them are after 112 CE, where Pliny finds no literature whatsoever backing the new secret society of Christians. They are just meeting in homes and acting as Pliny describes.

Toto · 05-14-2012, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Fair enough, Toto. So the question how do we account for these differences and what do they mean in a historical context? Including why exactly anyone was persecuting the "Christians" according to the author(s) as the prelude to the grand conversion of Saul/Paul?

I'm not sure what differences you want to account for. I suspect that references to persecution of Christians in the first or second centuries reflect much later persecutions.

Quote:

And with all that persecuting going on, how is it that the only example of a real persecution of "the churches" is poor Stephen, who sounds like the author of the first part of his speech was asserting a normal Jewish perspective and the author of the second part was lashing out at the "Jews"?

Have you read Joseph Tyson's Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk)? It's the only thing I have read that makes any sense of this issue. The proto-orthodox Christians in the second century were anti-Jewish because of their theological differences with the Jews, but simultaneously adopted Jewish themes to distinguish themselves from the Marcionites.

James The Least · 05-14-2012, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Fair enough, Toto. So the question how do we account for these differences and what do they mean in a historical context? Including why exactly anyone was persecuting the "Christians" according to the author(s) as the prelude to the grand conversion of Saul/Paul?

I'm not sure what differences you want to account for. I suspect that references to persecution of Christians in the first or second centuries reflect much later persecutions.

Quote:

And with all that persecuting going on, how is it that the only example of a real persecution of "the churches" is poor Stephen, who sounds like the author of the first part of his speech was asserting a normal Jewish perspective and the author of the second part was lashing out at the "Jews"?

Have you read Joseph Tyson's Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk)? It's the only thing I have read that makes any sense of this issue. The proto-orthodox Christians in the second century were anti-Jewish because of their theological differences with the Jews, but simultaneously adopted Jewish themes to distinguish themselves from the Marcionites.

I've read some of that book, and it's a great one, but I disagree that the proto-orthodox church adopted Jewish ideas to distinguish themselves from Marcion. They had already adopted these themes, and their problem with Marcion was that he jettisoned these themes.

Grog · 05-14-2012, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

again

when one wants to be a real apostle, he would not go around giving details how he hunted down the sect he now represents

This is a stange argument to make in light of ths:

Gal 1:13 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. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

Notice how in this passage Paul does not appear to be shy about his personal history? Wouldn't you have to admit this directly contradicts your supposition?

Also, notice how Paul deliberately disassociates himself from the apostles who went before him? Doesn't this further undermine your musing that Paul was trying to fit into the club?

Grog · 05-14-2012, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Saducees had the most to loose

they ran the temple/bank

christians were taking money away from the temple with free heath care and they preached to stay out of places of worship with the coming of the kingdom of god, places like that were not needed.

christians had the possibility to effect the bank's revenue

I am glad to see you accept free health care as a Christian value!

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

05-14-2012, 03:33 PM	#92
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Saducees had the most to loose they ran the temple/bank christians were taking money away from the temple with free heath care and they preached to stay out of places of worship with the coming of the kingdom of god, places like that were not needed. christians had the possibility to effect the bank's revenue

05-14-2012, 04:46 PM	#95
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Fair enough, Toto. So the question how do we account for these differences and what do they mean in a historical context? Including why exactly anyone was persecuting the "Christians" according to the author(s) as the prelude to the grand conversion of Saul/Paul? And with all that persecuting going on, how is it that the only example of a real persecution of "the churches" is poor Stephen, who sounds like the author of the first part of his speech was asserting a normal Jewish perspective and the author of the second part was lashing out at the "Jews"? Later on Paul seems to be forgetting about the massive persecutions especially when wanting to send money to the "saints" in Jerusalem who one would assume by now were all hauled off to the guillotine.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.