Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tristan Scott · 06-12-2013, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

This is open to all views with regard to history and the Bible and Jesus, with the one assumption that it Jews were among the early believers:

I'm curious what the main 1 or 2 reasons is that Christianity took hold among early JEWS.

What did the Jews respond to, and why?

OK, if we assume that the Jesus figure of the Gospels actually lived and preached around Galilee in the 30s? What the Jews responded to and why?
There was the fulfillment of prophecy.
In Malachi 3 of the Tanakh, which would have been from one of the most recent Jewish prophets, there was a prohecy involving a messenger, Elija, who would be a presage to an apocalyptic event involving the Lord. This particular prophecy is considered fulfilled by John the Baptist in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew 11, Mark 1, and Luke 1).

outhouse · 06-12-2013, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

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

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, 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.

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

While it may have been poor example, has the end result changed?

Does anyone think he did not mainly deal with Hellenistic Judaism and their Proselytes and Gentiles?

Paul was not really peasant class like many of the real Jews/Hebrews and exactly the opposite of that of the inner circle or real apostles. Supposedly Paul was educated owned a leather buisiness, probably spoke Hebrew or Aramaic with a accent, and a murderer of leaders of the movement.

What we dont see is Paul admitting to operating in Jerusalem around real Jews, [understanding there were real Jews in the Diaspora] but this would also tend to fall under Hellensitic Judaism in general would it not?

outhouse · 06-12-2013, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

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

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

I do, but I thought it worked fine for the context.

I understand rich "real" Jews would have opened their arms to Hellenism. Would socioeconimic divisions be more appropriate?

It would have provided their families with the best education and best possibility for a future.

I understand the term Hellenism is misused as a general blanket, and each case deserves its own explanation.

spin · 06-12-2013, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Does anyone think he did not mainly deal with Hellenistic Judaism and their Proselytes and Gentiles?

Given what remains of his writings, this would seem reasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Paul was not really peasant class like many of the real Jews/Hebrews and exactly the opposite of that of the inner circle or real apostles. Supposedly Paul was educated owned a leather buisiness, probably spoke Hebrew or Aramaic with a accent, and a murderer of leaders of the movement.

Most of this is conjecture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

What we dont see is Paul admitting to operating in Jerusalem around real Jews, [understanding there were real Jews in the Diaspora] but this would also tend to fall under Hellensitic Judaism in general would it not?

Real Jews?? Seriously, real Jews? Being Jewish in the ancient context was a surprisingly simple notion: submission to torah praxis. Except for a few problems, such as temple duties, this could be done anywhere, by people who held conflicting theological notions that could involve Platonic influence, messianism, gnosticism, eastern wisdom speculation, as well as more conservative positions.

outhouse · 06-12-2013, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Real Jews?? Seriously, real Jews? Being Jewish in the ancient context was a surprisingly simple notion: submission to torah praxis. Except for a few problems, such as temple duties, this could be done anywhere, by people who held conflicting theological notions that could involve Platonic influence, messianism, gnosticism, eastern wisdom speculation, as well as more conservative positions.

In context im dealing with the socioeconomic division between born and raised Jews of Israel, and those of Hellenistic Judaism. While both can fall under the label "Jew" to the poor peasants in Galilee who are known for the zeal to the law, Zealots, I dont think they viewed Hellensitic Proselytes or many memebers of Hellensitic Judaism as "real" Jews.

I understand the wide diversity and multi cultural nature of judaism at this time with many sects with many different beliefs.

But it is my opinion there was a division with those that didnt take Judaism seriously nor want to become full members, such as God-Fearers and Gate Proselytes who were pretty much Pauls targets.

I personally have a hard time even calling Paul or Josephus a Jew, even though by definition they fit.

Tommy · 06-12-2013, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

This is open to all views with regard to history and the Bible and Jesus, with the one assumption that it Jews were among the early believers:

I'm curious what the main 1 or 2 reasons is that Christianity took hold among early JEWS.

What did the Jews respond to, and why?

Possibly they initially responded to thee likely charisma of Peter and then, some decades later, to the marvellous earthiness of the synoptic gospels.

aa5874 · 06-12-2013, 07:11 PM

In order to form a proper opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is absolutely mandatory that the evidence from antiquity be first examined.

There is no other way to form an opinion of the start of the Jesus--Evidence First.

I formed my opnion by examining Non-Apologetic writings like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonus.

These four ancient writers remarkably covered the ENTIRE 1st century and wrote about events and the history of the Jews.

There is no mention whatsoever in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius of a Jesus cult of Christians where Jews worshiped a known man as a God, the Logos and God Creator who was claimed to have been raised from the dead and was the Son of God born of a Ghost.

I cannot form an opinion that the Jews worshiped a Jewish man as a God when no corroborative evidence from antiquity exist in the history of the Jews.

Next, examine the so-called Canonised Gospels.

In order to form an opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is imperative that the Gospel be first examined.

The earliest version of the Jesus story in gMark is extremely significant because it can be easily seen that there was NO Jesus cult at all when Jesus was supposedly alive.

1. In gMark, the very supposed Jesus Christ claimed he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted. See Mark 4

2. In gMark, the very supposed Jesus Christ instructed his own disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ. See Mark 8

3. When Jesus was arrested his disciples either Betrayed, Abandoned or Denied him. See Mark 14.

4. When Jesus was put on trial before the Sanhedrin he was considered a Blasphemer and the Jews asked that Jesus be crucified before Pilate. See Mark 15

I will form an opinion on gMark, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

In the earliest version of the Jesus story there was NO Jesus cult of Christians up to the day Jesus was supposedly crucified and this appears to be in harmony with Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suestonius.

There was no Jewish person called Jesus the Messianic ruler who was worshiped as a God in the time of Pilate and No Jesus cult of Christians.

If Jesus did exist he would have been known merely as blasphemer whose so-called disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied and NOT as one who started a cult.

So, when gMark was composed there was NO Jesus cult of Christians.

The Jesus cult of Christians most likely started AFTER the story was composed.

It was people who believed the story who called themselves Christians.

The story in the early version of gMark is that the Jews killed or asked that Jesus be killed.

Those who believed the story were called Christians.

Now, examine "the Death of the Peregrine" composed in the late 2nd century.

Lucian's "Death of Peregrine"

Quote:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.

I will form an opinion based on gMark, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Aristides and Lucian of Samosata.

Jesus cult started when people BELIEVED a story that the Jews killed or caused the Son of God to be crucified sometime after c 115 CE.

J-D · 06-12-2013, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In order to form a proper opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is absolutely mandatory that the evidence from antiquity be first examined.

There is no other way to form an opinion of the start of the Jesus--Evidence First.

I formed my opnion by examining Non-Apologetic writings like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonus.

These four ancient writers remarkably covered the ENTIRE 1st century and wrote about events and the history of the Jews.

There is no mention whatsoever in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius of a Jesus cult of Christians where Jews worshiped a known man as a God, the Logos and God Creator who was claimed to have been raised from the dead and was the Son of God born of a Ghost.

I cannot form an opinion that the Jews worshiped a Jewish man as a God when no corroborative evidence from antiquity exist in the history of the Jews.

Next, examine the so-called Canonised Gospels.

In order to form an opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is imperative that the Gospel be first examined.

The earliest version of the Jesus story in gMark is extremely significant because it can be easily seen that there was NO Jesus cult at all when Jesus was supposedly alive.

1. In gMark, the very supposed Jesus Christ claimed he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted. See Mark 4

2. In gMark, the very supposed Jesus Christ instructed his own disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ. See Mark 8

3. When Jesus was arrested his disciples either Betrayed, Abandoned or Denied him. See Mark 14.

4. When Jesus was put on trial before the Sanhedrin he was considered a Blasphemer and the Jews asked that Jesus be crucified before Pilate. See Mark 15

I will form an opinion on gMark, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

In the earliest version of the Jesus story there was NO Jesus cult of Christians up to the day Jesus was supposedly crucified and this appears to be in harmony with Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suestonius.

There was no Jewish person called Jesus the Messianic ruler who was worshiped as a God in the time of Pilate and No Jesus cult of Christians.

If Jesus did exist he would have been known merely as blasphemer whose so-called disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied and NOT as one who started a cult.

So, when gMark was composed there was NO Jesus cult of Christians.

The Jesus cult of Christians most likely started AFTER the story was composed.

It was people who believed the story who called themselves Christians.

The story in the early version of gMark is that the Jews killed or asked that Jesus be killed.

Those who believed the story were called Christians.

Now, examine "the Death of the Peregrine" composed in the late 2nd century.

Lucian's "Death of Peregrine"

Quote:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.

I will form an opinion based on gMark, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Aristides and Lucian of Samosata.

Jesus cult started when people BELIEVED a story that the Jews killed or caused the Son of God to be crucified sometime after c 115 CE.

So what started the story?

Vorkosigan · 06-12-2013, 07:52 PM

Obviously, it started as a vision of a Savior figure, growing out of the context of earlier Jewish beliefs about two powers in heaven, god, and an intermediary figure. I suspect that it started in the Diaspora among the God-fearers and not among Jews proper, though perhaps that is only where it found a hearing, and of course, among the Gentiles. As Earl argues, the early prophets were those who had been vouchsafed a vision of Jesus, a bit of a problem if you wanted to sustain an orthodoxy. When the Church began developiing its current Leninist structure in the 2-3rd centuries, it eliminated the whole idea of direct contact with Jesus as a legitimizing experience.

J-D · 06-12-2013, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Obviously, it started as a vision of a Savior figure, growing out of the context of earlier Jewish beliefs about two powers in heaven, god, and an intermediary figure. I suspect that it started in the Diaspora among the God-fearers and not among Jews proper, though perhaps that is only where it found a hearing, and of course, among the Gentiles. As Earl argues, the early prophets were those who had been vouchsafed a vision of Jesus, a bit of a problem if you wanted to sustain an orthodoxy. When the Church began developiing its current Leninist structure in the 2-3rd centuries, it eliminated the whole idea of direct contact with Jesus as a legitimizing experience.

If a vision started the story, what started the vision?

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

06-12-2013, 07:52 PM	#29
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Obviously, it started as a vision of a Savior figure, growing out of the context of earlier Jewish beliefs about two powers in heaven, god, and an intermediary figure. I suspect that it started in the Diaspora among the God-fearers and not among Jews proper, though perhaps that is only where it found a hearing, and of course, among the Gentiles. As Earl argues, the early prophets were those who had been vouchsafed a vision of Jesus, a bit of a problem if you wanted to sustain an orthodoxy. When the Church began developiing its current Leninist structure in the 2-3rd centuries, it eliminated the whole idea of direct contact with Jesus as a legitimizing experience.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.