aa5874

No, Jesus was not a real Jew. Jesus was a backdated story about the offspring of the Holy Ghost based on a mis-interpreted/mis-transliteration passage found in Isaiah 7.14.

The author could have written that an angel told Mary not to circumcise Jesus which would be consistent with being influenced by the Pauline gospel of uncircumcision.

The gender of Jesus cannot even be ascertained.

In a fiction story, the author can make stuff up.

If Paul had already started many churches, had preached all over the Roman Empire, even Jerusalem and had written letters to all his churches about his revelations from Jesus and had a inseparable companion named "Luke" who supposedly wrote a Jesus story, then it MUST be expected that the later fabricated stories would show some Pauline influence.

There is absolutely no Pauline influence not even from the author of Luke who was supposed to know Paul.

Of course there are problems with your theory.

The author Luke supposedly knows Paul.

Paul preached all over the Roman Empire, including Judea.

Paul started many churches all over the Empire.

Paul wrote about the revelation of Jesus, the gospel of uncircumcision.

Yet when the companion of Paul, Luke, fabricated his story of Jesus, the very Luke shows no Pauline influence at all.

Instead, the gospel of Luke shows Markean or Matthean influences quite consistent with the view that gMark and gMatthew preceeded gLuke.

Pauline priority is illogical and contradicts general expectations as established by the gospel stories.

It is completely unrealistic for the Roman Empire to have been flooded with Pauline theology, and churches based on that theology, decades before the gospels, yet for his inseparable partner Luke to have depended upon on authors who themselves seemed totally unaware of Paul.

The gospel priority is logical, even within the gospels itself.

Clivedurdle

The not one jot stuff is classic Maccabean zealotary that conflicts with the other Jewish views of the time in the sermon of the mount which feels neo pythagorean gnostic essene luvvy dovey stuff and the eating corn on the sabbath stuff which is actually spirit of the law Pharasee stuff.

So the gospels actually look like mish mashes of conflicting viewpoints pushed together - some form of peace treaty document between factions?

And the earlier comments about Paul showing different traditions is also of note.

Is the entire new testament pre existing works edited together? Revelation is possiblty originally Jewish for example. Acts and Luke as new bits?

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/rjohn.html

aa5874

You claim of ridicule of Paul does not make sense whatsoever.

The author of Matthew made no reference to any character called Paul or called any specific character "little" or the "least".

It is virtually impossible to say with any certainity that the author Matthew is referring to Paul.

Below are examples of direct unequivocal ridicule, and where authors appear to be influenced by one or the other.


Mt 16:23 - Mr 8:33 - Lu 4:8 -

Amaleq13

Marcion relied on Paul (and Luke) to support his beliefs.

Justin Martyr opposed Marcion's beliefs.

Therefore, the assertion above is simply false.

The influence is simply not direct but that is probably too nuanced a notion for those who prefer a simplistic view.

Clivedurdle

Factually incorrect - the Jewish civil war was won by the Maccabees who were complaining about the many Jews taking up Greek ways and dumping barbaric practices like circumcision. We do not know if they were able to impose 100% circumcision. This was by the 50's if Paul can be dated to then a three hundred year old argument.

In fact I would argue that we do not know how many Jews were actually circumcised in the majority of Jews who have for hundreds of years before Jesus is alleged to have lived across the med and ane.

In fact the alleged disapora may not have happened as the Palestinian Jewish population has for a long time been a minority population - yes there were refugees but they moved into much larger pre existing Jewish communities.

Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...on_comparisons

aa5874

But there is an interesting passage in Josephus where persons were forced to be circumcised by Jews.

The Life of Flavius Josephus 23.3. Some of the words of Josephus seem to answer this question by Paul.

Romans 3:1 -

Petergdi

This has nothing to do with Paulism. In any case the word for "least" in the passage bears no resemblance to "Paul" which it would have to do to make an actual pun.

What is actually happening in the passage is this:

1) The Pharisees (some at least) claim that the gospel that Jesus preached did away with the law.
This is true even of the gospel as preached by the Ebionites. We know this from the Pharisees themselves - c.f. the story of Gamaliel II and the gospel.

2) Jesus teaches that it is the Pharisees who make the law void by their traditions. In the next part of the discourse Jesus explains what "every jot and tittle" and the "least of these commandments" means - that being angry with your brother or calling him a term of abuse is a serious violation of God's law, and he then goes on to be similarly strict about adultery, divorce and the making of oaths..

Even if you do not personally believe that Jesus made this speech, the only sensible way of interpreting the intended meaning is to read it as if it were a speech from Jesus. Reading the text as if the reader was intended to believe that the text was written long after the event and about matters not explicitly mentioned is wrongheaded.

Peter.

Loomis

Sure it does. Matthew’s ‘Jesus’ said that whoever teaches others to break the commandments (whoever teaches others to break the Law) will be called least.

Paul fits that description because his name meant least and because he taught others that they were released from the Law.

Please adjust your counterarguments.

Solo

The word (ὁ ἐλάχιστος = the least (worthy)) is the same Paul uses in 1 Cor 15:9 to describe himself in relation to other apostles. A number of exegets consider the passage of 1 Cor 15:3-11 to have been interpolated as it appears to derogate to Paul. Outside of this passage, in the genuine Paulines, he never compares himself unfavourably with anyone.

Jiri