James The Least

Interesting. If the Bible says that there was a Jew named Paul, why, there's no reason to question that. Because it's a "naturalistic" claim, as opposed to a supernatural claim, such as "Paul" being visited by the ghost of Jesus.

By default, any "naturalistic" claim in the Bible must therefore be assumed to be real. The writers would have no reason to lie about "naturalistic" things, just supernatural ones. So, for example, when the Bible tells us that a Jew named Paul wrote Timothy and Titus, we should just accept that prima facie, because there's nothing extraordinary about that claim. Why would anyone make that up?

aa5874

:strawman: :strawman:

SLD

Most likely the original Christian jews would not identify themselves as anything but jews who happen to be followers of a first century charismatic - as if they were followers of John the Baptist. They would not have recognized Jesus as starting a new religion. Their understanding of him was not as a god man, but a messiah who merely came to restore the Davidian line of kings and overthrow the romans in Palestine. They most definitely were not followers of Paul. Paul is the real source of Christianity as a separate religion apart from Judaism. Whether he was really ever Jewish is debatable. But he was clearly not a zealot.

SLD

outhouse

If I may.

I'm responding because I like a lot of what you posted


True, they were one of many diverse sects squarely in traditional Judaism.




True enough, he did not start a new religion.



I don't think his original followers even viewed him as a messiah, definitely not as a "son of god"

Messiah and Davidian heritage, to me is definitely the Hellenistic authors building divinity.

What would the odds be of a hand worker doing odd jobs in a garbage pit like Nazareth having Davidian heritage? When we know the authors had a habit of paralleling the Emperors divinity as well as the OT foundation they held so dear as Hellenistic Proselytes.


One man, a peasant, was never going to overthrow Romans, if you want to claim a political move from such a man, you could claim his suicide was viewed as the ultimate sacrifice, that generated legends, but a failure for the cause.



Agreed again.


Not the case.

Paul tells us he was not the only teacher and that the "good news" was already established in areas of the Diaspora. He set up "Pater familias" and had issues with several as noted in his epistles.

After his Jesus death and his martyrdom at Passover, the people who found his legends and mythology were the Hellenist, not traditional Jews. They traveled home with these legends to all parts of the Diaspora, that is the real way the message spread so quickly in my opinion.

Paul is on the scene almost decades after this mythology starts when he hunts down leaders in the Diaspora. Its obvious he didn't start it, he only flowed with it.


Agreed, his Judaism has always been up for debate.

Thing that makes it tough is Judaism was so diverse, someone like Paul fits right in due to how bad Hellenism perverted it.




I personally agree.

aa5874

Your claim is a fallacy. A Pauline writer claimed he Persecuted the Faith he NOW preached.

A Pauline writer claimed OVER 500 persons was seen of Jesus before him and that he was last to be seen of the resurrected one.

In effect, the Pauline writers could NOT have started the Faith.

Galatians 1:23 NAS -----but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy."

The Pauline character is a literary invention and was unknown up to at least c 180 CE.

SLD

So what if he did make the claim? How does that make it a fallacy? Why does that claim show paul is fictitious?Why? Are you really arguing an entire premise on one quote out of Corinthians? A quote many scholars think is a later interpolation? Do you have something more on this?well, you've made that claim before, but you've never asked some basic questions then, who did write the epistles? How did they come about? How did Christianity come about according to your thesis? And how does that explain the actual layout of the various texts that we do have? Was it something invented in the fourth century by Constantine? What?

SLD

SLD

Messiah and Davidian heritage would have been very Jewish concept, not Hellenistic. A first century jew would not have interpreted calling oneself a messiah or even a son of god as a claim of divinity, but merely as the one they hoped would reestablish the jewish kingdom. I think that's all his original followers would have viewed him as.No! One peasant was indeed going to overthrow the Romans. And many believed it. Hyamm Maccoby makes this very point. The messiah wannabes thought that if they could show god how truly dedicated they were god would be on their side and wipe the romans out. Of course there is no god and they found that out the hard way: my god, my god why hast thou foresaken me?




how long after Jesus's crucifixion was Stephen's stoning? I always thought it was only a year or so, not decades. Paul's only sojourn from Jerusalem as a persecutor was to Damascus, hardly a long way. That the movement would have spread to that point and still be a non diasporic one would hardly be surprising. We all know what happened on that trip.

But you are correct that Paul did state that there were already established communities of believers. But what did they actually believe about Jesus? Did they even believe in his resurrection? I'm skeptical that the very idea of Jesus's resurrection formed part of the core belief of those early christians. I suppose there's no way to know for sure.

Well, you've given me some interesting points to ponder. :wave:

SLD

outhouse

But who wrote about these in the NT? Hellenist, not Jews.




While alive the Jesus character was unknown. He would have been a typical Galilean teacher healer. In Galilee he was no different then anyone else.

He only found fame in his martyrdom after death.




Hyamm has a obscure view. There are many views in regards to his real nature.


Do you really think, they thought god would come down and help this peasant out?

Do you really think they were waiting for a divine hand?


Gentiles and proselytes did most of the writing here for the Romans, Not Jews.

And I know Romans were not afraid of a deity getting involved


A Hellenistic retelling of the story, nothing more.





I don't think Paul wrote for some 15 ish years afterwards by our best guesses.


We don't even know how long Paul hunted down Hellenistic sect leaders.





No we don't.


Its not what Paul tells us himself, Paul states he had a feeling from within, and that is when he changed coats.


Paul learned from oral traditions on the road hunting them down.


he only knew what everyone else did. He may have had artistic freedom in his epistles, but they were never ment to be gospels.

He started nothing nor created anything, he was caught in the flow and ran with it

Toto

I'm not sure what this means - you assume that "Hellenists" wrote the NT, which is reasonable since it was written in Greek - but where did the concept come from? Not Hellenism.



Yes - this is typical human behavior in war. People convince themselves that the gods will be on their side because their cause is virtuous, and throw themselves into disastrous situations.

outhouse

Do you think anyone believed one man, a Galilean peasant, would overthrow the Roman army?



Or do you think it was written in later to build divinity?