dog-on

Anything is possible here... though, personally, I lean more towards the author of Acts using the old grifter due to the number of dupes already dropping coppers into the collection plates...

Amaleq13

The same sort of significance Paul attributes to it, I assume. (ie salvation, "first fruits" of the general resurrection).

That is an excellent question and I'm not just saying that because I've asked it here, myself, in the past.

The short answer is "Nobody really knows" but, given that Paul focuses on the cross as a "stumbling block" for Jews, it seems reasonable to conclude that a crucified messiah was not a popular notion.

Rich Oliver

It may have been Law lax Helenistic Jews.

Vivisector

I really wonder about that - in fact, I thought about asking specifically about the salvation-based aspects. I suppose I've always thought/assumed/concluded that anything Paul knew about "Christianity" prior to his conversion was more-or-less consistent with what the "pillars" et al. believed. I've additionally always assumed the "pillars" to have held much more traditionally Jewish beliefs than Paul's writings indicate that he held. Apart from potential troubles with specifics and assumptions, I think I'm on solid ground

Well, I know you've spent a lot of time on Paul, which is why I was specifically interested in your reaction. Do you think it was the cross alone? And what kind of threat did they pose to Paul that caused him to actively persecute them as opposed to simply dismissing them as kooks?

And I'm assuming that your answer might be again (and correctly) that nobody knows with certainty, and I'm not asking to sharpshoot your reaction - just curious.

Cheers,

V.

Amaleq13

I agree.

That eventually Paul went to the "pillars" for approval suggests he both taught something similar and something different. If it was completely different, their approval would have been irrelevant and, I would think, not forthcoming. That he follows the description of this meeting with the brief reference to a dispute with Peter serves to highlight what was unique about what Paul taught.

Yes, I think it might have been the idea that the Messiah could be executed in such a horribly humiliating and socially unacceptable way. There is a really good book (Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (or via: amazon.co.uk)) that explains what crucifixion meant to people at the time. Once you have a good idea how it was considered and the place shame played in society, their disgust with the notion becomes more understandable, I think. It is difficult, at least for me, to imagine something analogous for our time.

I vaguely recall, however, someone here (Andrew Criddle, Ben Smith?) suggesting a different reason for persecution but I can't remember who or what and I haven't been able to find it with a search.

I would assume they were obtaining some success in gaining believers from their fellow Jews.

Clivedurdle

Isn't the two gospels idea a clue?

Was there not a tension between the heavies who thought the law should be carried out exactly and the laissez faire lot described in the gospels who ate with tax gathers, healed on the sabbath, ate corns of wheat, did not see circumcision and eating food given to gods as important?

So are we looking at a conflict between helenised and "kosher" judaism? The helenised lot introducing true god ideas like crucifixion et al would be reacted against.

No need for a Jesus - in fact a character to "flesh out" this debate looks a more reasonable option than a human in some way starting this debate.

Amaleq13

Andrew has come to my rescue and provided the following:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...63#post4719563

Further explanation follows this post.

gurugeorge

I think it was the whole "revaluation of values" of the Messiah package that the Jerusalem community had developed that must have been a "stumbling block" to Jews.

I mean, here the Jews were merrily marching along expecting someone to come along in the future who'd pull their fat out of the fire, win great victories (David redivivus) and generally put the Jews on top of things - then along comes this sect that totally overturns the Messiah idea:

Not one to come, but one who has been.

Not a military victor but a spiritual victor.

Not a king covered in glory, but someone who died in the most shameful way possible at the time, worse than a dog.

This package as a whole is a "stumbling block" to the Jews because they expected the totally opposite set of values for their Messiah figure. But so did the "Archons" - hence, the Messiah "slipped under their radar" and won his spiritual victory for the Jews - it's a done deal. Paul's particular revelation merely extends this spiritual victory to be one for all human beings - it's a done deal, we're all saved.

Now, as I said in my previous post, this could be compatible with either an HJ or an MJ point of view, but for this one, simple fact: nowhere in the Corinthians passage is it actually said or even implied that this Messiah was someone who had been personally known as a human being by any of the Jerusalem crowd. This absolutely crucial link just isn't there, and to my mind this is probably the biggest support for the idea that Christianity didn't start with a person, but with (as I believe) a revision of the Messiah idea itself, gotten through visionary experience and poring over Scripture.

Even the term "appeared to Cephas", etc., etc. in the Corinthians passage is (apparently) compatible with either a visionary experience or simply "getting an idea", grokking an idea. I think it's most likely both, a bit of both - a bit of "astral vision" and a bit of "aha!" from Scripture-exegesis. (And probably some influence from the "dying/rising god" idea too, though some of the more overt parallel symbolism from the Mysteries comes later, as Christianity gets more ecletic.)

Let me just expand on this a bit. "X is Y" sentences can be understood either in an ontological sense or a definitional sense.

So "The Messiah is ....." can be understood either as a description of a living Messiah person, or as a definition of the term "Messiah". I think the "Joshua Messiah" was originally meant (by the Jerusalem community) as a redefinition of the concept of the Messiah in this way, and that the community thought they found evidence that he'd actually lived and done his stuff (albeit in obscurity) in Scripture.

JoeWallack

JW:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Thessalonians_4

14 "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;

17 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words."

Subject:
The future of those who died waiting for Jesus.

Key Descriptions:
1) "Lord himself shall descend from heaven"

2) "with a shout, with the voice of the archangel"

3) "with the trump of God"

4) "the dead in Christ shall rise first;"

5) "then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds,"

6) "meet the Lord in the air"

7) "and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_13

24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

25 and the stars shall be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken.

26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

27 And then shall he send forth the angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven."

Subject:
Fleeing Judea to Save yourself.

Paul's Key Descriptions referred to by "Mark"?:

1) "Lord himself shall descend from heaven" Yes

2) "with a shout, with the voice of the archangel" Neutral

3) "with the trump of God" No

4) "the dead in Christ shall rise first;" No (not explicit)

5) "then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds," Yes

6) "meet the Lord in the air" Neutral (not explicit)

7) "and so shall we ever be with the Lord." No (may be implied)


http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_24

30 "and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."


JW:
Difference between "Mark" and "Matthew" compared to Paul:

1) "Matthew" adds "the sign of the Son of man in heaven".

2) "Matthew" adds "and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn"

3) "Matthew" agrees with "great sound of a trumpet".

As is normally the case "Matthew" used "Mark" as his primary source and than Edited. Here "Matthew" has chosen to add. I think the reason for the difference is because "Mark's" meaning here is evidence of the Failure of the original Jesus movement. "Mark" looks to me to be written early 2nd century:

1) Papias never heard of it and Eusebius couldn't find anything else supporting an earlier dating.

2) No Church Father before Justin shows detail knowledge of something like "Mark".

3) "Mark" is familiar with Josephus.

4) "Mark" knows Jerusalem was destroyed c.70.

5) Extant fragments are later.

If "Mark" was written 2nd century than for "Mark's" Jesus to clearly state that the son of man would come from Heaven within the generation of those living c.30 would be communication by the author of Failure of the Jesus movement as opposed to the common belief that this was intended to represent the future success of the Jesus movement since obviously no one alive c30 would still be alive 2nd century. This Failure would be consistent with the rest of "Mark". Jesus' followers never accepted his Passion plan and therefore never told anyone, as Jesus instructed them, that Jesus would resurrect, and never passed on his Ch. 13 instructions to leave Jerusalem. Not coincidently, this also appears to be the real history. The original Jesus movement stayed in Jerusalem and was destroyed there in c.70.

"Matthew" has added to the offending verses because he sees them as a prophecy of future success.

I'll start a Thread in the future considering the evidence that "Mark" intended to write a Story showing the original Jesus movement as a Failure. Aren't you glad you asked me now.

I myself prophecy though that we will SOON meet at SBL, which if correct would give me one more correct prophecy than JtB had in his entire career, whom Jesus referred to as the greatest prophet of all time. Once we've met I would feel obligated to treat you as a friend. Why not get the bad blood out of The Way now. And along those lines I must exorcise the Faithful demons within you that prevent the Author's meaning from being objectively Revealed to you.



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
This than looks to be the best evidence of HJ from Paul:

Romans 1:3
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Romans_1

3 "concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,"

Romans 9:5
9:5 "whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

1 Corinthians 2:8
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_2

2:8 "which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory:"

1 Corinthians 11:23-25
11:23 "For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;

11:24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.

11:25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me."

Galatians 1:19
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Galatians_1
1:19 "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord`s brother."

Galatians 3:16
3:16 "Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

Galatians 4:4
4:4 "but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,"

1_Thessalonians 2:14-15
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Thessalonians_2
2:14 "For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews;
2:15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and pleased not God, and are contrary to all men;"

JW:
In order to consider the value of this evidence we need to determine Paul's likely Sources in General and specifically for each reference.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page