Toto

Where does Paul say that many Jews converted? Does Paul say that the hub of "Christianity" was in Jerusalem? I don't think so - just that there was a Jerusalem Church of some sort that he had some major disagreements with.

What exactly does Acts say? Acts 2 talks about tongues of fire and charismatic preaching, after which some (but not all Jews) were converted by Peter - but after that we don't hear about Jews being converted.

So we don't actually have firm evidence of Jews becoming "Christians." And the only evidence we have is that conversion works more or less as it does now - people are swept up in the emotion of a preacher's message, think they see miracles, or think they want to join in a movement that might be going someplace.

outhouse

Judaism is a tough thing to define. At no time in history was Judaism as diverse and multi cultural.


We know the only movement that succeeded was within Hellenism, and Hellenistic Judaism.


And Paul flat tells us he was the apostle to the Gentiles.

TedM

Sorry, Acts is the source for this. But Paul references many of the same people referenced in Acts, who were Jewish, in his letters. So, I see that as corroborative evidence. In addition, Paul's struggles with those who claimed Gentiles had to be circumcised, in Galatians, was with Jewish Christian believers. Non-believers wouldn't have cared one lick.


Paul references the need to send missions to Jerusalem for the poor (which I think is widely understood by scholars to refer to the poor believers), and his repeated trips to Jerusalem, and since he references the pillars in Jerusalem, it IMO is corroborative evidence that Acts was accurate in portraying Jerusalem as the central location for the earliest Christians.



Ok.

outhouse

Remember paul claims himself a Jew, yet his Judaism has always been in question.

What Paul viewed as a Jew, and what Israelite Hebrews viewed as a Jew could be two different things.


Paul could very well call Proselytes Jews as they had worshipped Judaism for centuries.

TedM

But why? What were Jews responding to? If it was a resurrection claim for a Messiah, why would a Jewish person believe that?

MrMacSon

As stated ... times were-a-changing -

outhouse

Because jesus failed Jewish tradition of a messiah with his death.

outhouse

Some people hammer me for saying there was a sharp division between real Jews, and Hellensitic Judaism and their Proselytes.

But ill take it.


I see no reason to think real Jews accepted the perversion of their religion under Hellenism.

And I do understand Hellenism permeated the Jewish culture to sme extent everywhere. Doesnt mean there wasnt a division.

The fact the Saducees were hates so much, explains much.

spin

One of the things historians have to do is maintain a dialog with their sources. They know they cannot rely on the sources so there is a running evaluation of them.

J.C. O'Neill long ago analysed the epistle structure of ancient Greek letters and concluded that nearly all of Paul's letters were longer than one would expect from such letters. He even wrote a paper called "Paul Wrote Some of All, But Not All of Any" (The Pauline Canon (or via: amazon.co.uk), ed. Stanley E. Porter, Brill 2004, 169-188), a title which says something important. Paul did not write all of any of the letters attributed to him, though O'Neill is sure that he wrote some of all. The article which followed O'Neill's was by William O. Walker and it was called "Interpolations in the Pauline Letters", which mentions very many passages that one or more scholars have seen as interpolations.

When we look at the claim made in Gal 2:8, that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, we find a claim made nowhere else in his writings, a claim which implies two different gospels, one for the circumcised and one for the gentiles. That is an idea that would have been abhorrent to someone who claimed that his gospel was the only gospel, his gospel.

The passage in Gal 2:7b-8 has long been seen as problematic by some writers for a number of reasons, one of which is the contradictory nature of Paul admitting to more than one gospel. When we come across claims of Paul flatly telling anyone "he was the apostle to the Gentiles", we should be aware that it is probably not Paul speaking.

spin

You don't see the lack of objectivity in your analysis I gather.