FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-15-2013, 04:17 PM   #181
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
There is no way of knowing if there was "a widely-held belief that Messiah would come and overturn the Roman rule." There were no Gallup Polls done in those days. Life under Roman rule seemed to be pretty good, according to Josephus.
The very writings of Josephus contradict you. The War of the Jews against the Romans was based on the Belief that a Jewish Messianic ruler would come to deliver the Jews from Roman rule.

[u]Wars of the Jews 6.5.4
Quote:
... But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."

The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.
Tacitus and Suetonius also corroborate Josephus. See Suetonius Life of Vespasian and Tacitus Histories 5.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-15-2013, 04:22 PM   #182
Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Babble Belt
Posts: 20,748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Your story is completely based on imaginative fiction. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jews were members of the Jesus cult at any time between the 1st and 4th century.
Nonsense. The New Testament is a very Jewish text. There are numerous phrases in the Greek which make sense only in a Hebraic Jewish context. For example, the passage which states "that which is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven, and that which is loosed on Earth is loosed in Heaven" only makes sense if you consider the Hebrew words asur and mootar, which mean (respectively) Bound/Halakhically forbidden and Loosed/Halakhically permitted.

Any serious scholar of first-century Judaism will tell you that the NT is a Jewish text. This includes Orthodox Jews who reject the message of the NT as well as secular scholars who have no dog in the fight.
Davka is offline  
Old 06-15-2013, 04:31 PM   #183
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post

Yes, Eusebius and Jerome cite a text they call "The Gospel According to the Hebrews," which modern scholars refer to as "The Gospel of the Nazareans."
They both state that it was written "in Hebrew letters," but then Jerome also says it was written in Syriac with Hebrew letters (whatever that means). Origen refers to it as well but makes no note that it was written in Hebrew.

So, yes, this could be a Jewish gospel. Or, it could be a Syriac gospel. Or it could be a Judean God-Fearer gospel. It's striking that none of the church fathers placed any importance on the priority of this Hebrew gospel; quite the contrary. They considered it a derivative, later text written by heretics.
Your posts are filled with fundamental errors.

Eusebius contradicts you. It is claimed that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language FIRST.

Eusebius Church History 3.24. 6.
Quote:
For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-15-2013, 04:54 PM   #184
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Your story is completely based on imaginative fiction. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jews were members of the Jesus cult at any time between the 1st and 4th century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davka View Post
Nonsense. The New Testament is a very Jewish text. There are numerous phrases in the Greek which make sense only in a Hebraic Jewish context. For example, the passage which states "that which is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven, and that which is loosed on Earth is loosed in Heaven" only makes sense if you consider the Hebrew words asur and mootar, which mean (respectively) Bound/Halakhically forbidden and Loosed/Halakhically permitted.

Any serious scholar of first-century Judaism will tell you that the NT is a Jewish text. This includes Orthodox Jews who reject the message of the NT as well as secular scholars who have no dog in the fight.
Again, you have no evidence whatsoever that any Jew was a member of the Jesus cult. No non-apologetic writer wrote about Jesus of Nazareth and his supposed disciples including the so-called apostle Paul.

There are no Jewish writers of antiquity who claimed to be members of a Jesus cult or was in contact with any one named Jesus of Nazareth or worshiped a man as a God who abolished Jewish Law since c 30 CE.

The Jesus story that he was the Son of God, born of a Ghost and was God the Creator is NOT from the Jews and is confirmed in the very story that the Sanhedrin found Jesus gulity of death for BLASPHEMY and the people demanded that he be Crucified.

Virtually all the literature recovered about Jesus from the 2nd century -4th century was found in Egypt or was bought in Egypt.

There is virtually no trace of Jesus of Nazareth in Judea. No Jewish writer mentioned Nazareth or that Jesus did did anything in Nazareth.

The Dead Sea Scrolls show ZERO trace of Jesus of Nazareth and his so-called disciples.

The early Jesus story was fabricated by Non-Jews using the Septuagint or some similar source AFTER c 70 CE.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-15-2013, 05:06 PM   #185
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davka View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskander View Post

Evidence for a Jewish religious man who preached repentance to bring forward the intervention of the messiah exists.
Not really. The Talmudic references you cite were written at least a century (more likely three centuries) after the Diaspora, and refer to the claims made by Christianity, not to any firsthand knowledge of a Jewish messianic figure.
It is good evidence for the existence of an early Jewish Christian sect.


Professor Sciffman evaluation of the changes made in the Amidah circa 80 AD

Lawrence H. Schiffman, Who was a Jew?, Ktav Publishing House Inc.,Hoboken , New Jersey,1985 ISBN 0881250546 In pages 51 to 67 he discusses Judaism with early Christianity. In pages 60-61 he writes:


Quote:
It is possible to trace the development of this benediction. The original threat to Judaism was from Jewish Christianity and so a reference against the minim ( a general term here referring to Jewish Christians) was introduced into a previously existing benediction.

Also:

Quote:
Many rabbinic texts speak of the minim and clearly designate believers in Jesus

And

Quote:
The specific effect of the benediction was to insure that those who were minims would not serve as precentors in the synagogue. After all, no one would be willing to pray for his own destruction.

Such a benediction in its original form can have been directed only against Jews who despite their heretical beliefs were likely to be found in the synagogue. Gentile Christians would not have been in the synagogue nor would they have been called to serve as precentors.

When the separation of the Jewish Christians from the synagogue was accomplished, the prayer was retained as a general malediction and prayer for the destruction of the enemies of Israel. Therefore the nosrim was also added
Iskander is offline  
Old 06-15-2013, 07:12 PM   #186
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Why did Apollos, who was preaching the religion of John and thus speaking, as christians believed, about Jesus truly, need to be taken aside and corrected?
We don't know what Apollos preached. You are making assumptions that may not be true. The passage, as we talked about the other day, may have been referring to his emphasis on water (John's) baptism, not knowing of the 'baptism of the Holy Spirt'. Anyway, an early Jewish cult of Christianity, with a hub in Judea, doesn't require that every Jew in the Roman empire, esp one from Alexandria, knows everything that the cult knew.
He was preaching John's baptism, not that of Jesus, just as those in Jerusalem were selling torah practice, unaware that Jesus had fulfilled the torah. For christians the coming messiah is Jesus, so, given the indications of Apollos's connection to John, ie knowing John's baptism, he would have taught as we see in the mouth of John in the gospels, and thus was talking accurately about Jesus from a christian perspective. He just needed an upgrade from Priscilla and Aquila.
We don't know what he was preaching, from the text. We can only assume. You are assuming more than what is said, and your assumption is the most common one. But it may be wrong. As I pointed out before, the next chapter speaks of BELIEVERS -- ie those who believed Jesus rose from the dead -- who knew of John's baptism but not that of Jesus -- ie the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Apollos may have been the same.



Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.
Surely these were the earliest Jewish Christians, no?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh.

Where are the Jesus believers talked about? Yup, that's right: nowhere. You only get Jesus when Paul is talking to the Galatians.
I highly doubt that Paul would refer to believers 'in Christ', who had the same 'faith' as them without nary an indication that they didn't believe in Jesus and his resurrection. The idea is absurd. Paul's enemies make a HUGE deal about Gentiles not observing Jewish laws and Paul addresses that. Do you think those same enemies would simply be silent about Paul teaching a resurrected Messiah named Jesus if they didn't ALSO believe in one? Of course not!

One support for the claim that Paul was the first to preach about someone named "Jesus" that is made commonly here in this forum is his statement earlier in the chapter that he got his gospel 'from no man'. But, to derive that claim from his statement is an enormous stretch. Paul says he stayed with Cephas for 15 days, one of the 3 pillars in Jerusalem. And, in 1 Cor he again mentions Cephas as having been a fellow-worker in Christ among the Corinthians. Of course Cephas had heard of Jesus.

What was Paul's gospel? Very simple: Salvation to ALL men through faith in the resurrection of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah.

Gal 3:28
Quote:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The unique part is the 'ALL' part. No man told him that Gentiles can be saved. This in no way should be interpreted to mean that Paul was the first to talk about Jesus!

Paul even says that the gospel revealed to him pertained to the Gentiles:
Quote:
reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles
If Jesus hadn't been previously preached before Paul, why does Paul make the above statement and not stress salvation to Jews too? Why does Paul stress the Gentiles? Makes no sense. The part of Paul's 'gospel' that was unique to Paul was about Gentile involvement, and NOT about whether there was a Jewish Messiah named Jesus who had lived, died, and resurrected.

Paul gives us NO reason to conclude anything other than this: The message of salvation to Jews through a resurrected Jewish Messiah was the SAME gospel Cephas believed, James believed, John believed, and all of the believers he persecuted in Judea who had the 'same faith' believed. This in my view is what the text most clearly supports.

If you believe Galatians is legit, then prior to Paul there were Jewish Christians throughout Judea who believed Jesus was their Messiah who had died and been resurrected, and their leaders resided in Jerusalem.
TedM is offline  
Old 06-15-2013, 08:05 PM   #187
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davka View Post

Any serious scholar of first-century Judaism will tell you that the NT is a Jewish text. This includes Orthodox Jews who reject the message of the NT as well as secular scholars who have no dog in the fight.
Where are you getting this information? Scholars who think that -- at the very least -- gMark, gLuke, Acts, gJohn, 1 & 2 Peter, and the Pastorals are somehow "Jewish texts" are in a very distinct minority.
James The Least is offline  
Old 06-15-2013, 08:19 PM   #188
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

The attempt to place Paul as the first to start the Jesus cult is hopelessly flawed. There is an abundance of evidence from antiquity which tend to establish the Pauline writings are extremely late.

1. If Jesus Christ did exist then it would be more likely that he Jesus started the cult.

2. If Jesus Christ was non-historical and was just a fiction character then the Pauline Corpus is NOT credible.

3. If People had visions of Jesus--the Pauline writer claimed he was LAST after OVER 500 people.

4. If the Jesus cult was PERSECUTED by Paul then the Jesus cult STARTED WITHOUT Paul.

5. By the time Paul wrote to Romans their Faith was already known throughout the WHOLE WORLD.

6. No Pauline letter have been recovered and dated to any time before c 70 CE.

7. The Pauline Corpus contains letters that were deduced to have been composed after c 70 CE.

8. There is NO corroboration for Pauline letters before at least c 59-63 CE in the Canon itself.

9. Apolgetic source claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation.

10. Apologetic sources knew of the story of Jesus but did not acknowledge PAUL.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-15-2013, 09:55 PM   #189
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davka View Post
Nonsense. The New Testament is a very Jewish text. There are numerous phrases in the Greek which make sense only in a Hebraic Jewish context. For example, the passage which states "that which is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven, and that which is loosed on Earth is loosed in Heaven" only makes sense if you consider the Hebrew words asur and mootar, which mean (respectively) Bound/Halakhically forbidden and Loosed/Halakhically permitted.

Any serious scholar of first-century Judaism will tell you that the NT is a Jewish text. This includes Orthodox Jews who reject the message of the NT as well as secular scholars who have no dog in the fight.
How can something be forbidden if there are no churches in the New Jerusaslem, where all is lawful and censorship is by nature only = total freedom from slavery and sin while singing in prison even.

Knowledge/truth is bound or tied into the whole while mere opinion is loosed when truth is seen. This is how and why the scraps were bigger that the 2 fishes used to feed the 5000 etc., which also is not a physical meal.
Chili is offline  
Old 06-15-2013, 11:17 PM   #190
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Why did Apollos, who was preaching the religion of John and thus speaking, as christians believed, about Jesus truly, need to be taken aside and corrected?
We don't know what Apollos preached. You are making assumptions that may not be true. The passage, as we talked about the other day, may have been referring to his emphasis on water (John's) baptism, not knowing of the 'baptism of the Holy Spirt'. Anyway, an early Jewish cult of Christianity, with a hub in Judea, doesn't require that every Jew in the Roman empire, esp one from Alexandria, knows everything that the cult knew.
He was preaching John's baptism, not that of Jesus, just as those in Jerusalem were selling torah practice, unaware that Jesus had fulfilled the torah. For christians the coming messiah is Jesus, so, given the indications of Apollos's connection to John, ie knowing John's baptism, he would have taught as we see in the mouth of John in the gospels, and thus was talking accurately about Jesus from a christian perspective. He just needed an upgrade from Priscilla and Aquila.
We don't know what he was preaching, from the text. We can only assume. You are assuming more than what is said, and your assumption is the most common one. But it may be wrong. As I pointed out before, the next chapter speaks of BELIEVERS -- ie those who believed Jesus rose from the dead -- who knew of John's baptism but not that of Jesus -- ie the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Apollos may have been the same.



Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.
Surely these were the earliest Jewish Christians, no?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh.

Where are the Jesus believers talked about? Yup, that's right: nowhere. You only get Jesus when Paul is talking to the Galatians.
I highly doubt that Paul would refer to believers 'in Christ', who had the same 'faith' as them without nary an indication that they didn't believe in Jesus and his resurrection. The idea is absurd. Paul's enemies make a HUGE deal about Gentiles not observing Jewish laws and Paul addresses that. Do you think those same enemies would simply be silent about Paul teaching a resurrected Messiah named Jesus if they didn't ALSO believe in one? Of course not!

One support for the claim that Paul was the first to preach about someone named "Jesus" that is made commonly here in this forum is his statement earlier in the chapter that he got his gospel 'from no man'.
I'm amazed that this Pauline statement has got so many in the mythicist camp befuddled. This statement, as you have indicated below, does not, in view of other Pauline statements, indicate that 'Paul' was not indebted to those in the faith that preceded him. What 'Paul' got 'from no man' was his own take on that faith that preceded him. i.e. he has a vision, was inspired, to take that faith in a new direction - to the gentiles. That was his gospel, his outreach program. Intellectual developments for that faith that preceded 'Paul'. 'Paul' was, strictly speaking, more a great heretic than a one man show.

In one sense, 'Paul' can be credited with christian origins i.e. with the gentile outreach, but to cut off the source of 'Paul's developing theological, or philosophical, thinking (as some mythicists seem to want to do) is to cut 'Paul' off from the faith he once persecuted; the faith that preceded him.

Whether one runs with the idea that the faith that preceded 'Paul' was based upon a historical Jesus figure (whatever gospel variant) or whether 'Paul' himself was part of the NT story of early christian origins - the fundamental premise is the same - 'Paul' is a late arrival on the scene. It is irrelevant how one dates the NT manuscripts. It is the story the manuscripts contain that is primary. As to that story - one either views it as an account of a real flesh and blood Jesus figure (of whatever gospel variant) - or one views the NT story as a story of early christian origins.

The first option is a closed book - it does not, it cannot, take one close to early christian origins. Yes, it's a plausible option, a simple option. But it's an option that fails to satisfy inquiring minds.....too many questions are left unanswered.

The second option presents possibilities for advancing the search, for advancing understanding, for early christian origins.

Quote:


But, to derive that claim from his statement is an enormous stretch. Paul says he stayed with Cephas for 15 days, one of the 3 pillars in Jerusalem. And, in 1 Cor he again mentions Cephas as having been a fellow-worker in Christ among the Corinthians. Of course Cephas had heard of Jesus.

What was Paul's gospel? Very simple: Salvation to ALL men through faith in the resurrection of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah.

Gal 3:28
Quote:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The unique part is the 'ALL' part. No man told him that Gentiles can be saved. This in no way should be interpreted to mean that Paul was the first to talk about Jesus!

Paul even says that the gospel revealed to him pertained to the Gentiles:
Quote:
reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles
If Jesus hadn't been previously preached before Paul, why does Paul make the above statement and not stress salvation to Jews too? Why does Paul stress the Gentiles? Makes no sense. The part of Paul's 'gospel' that was unique to Paul was about Gentile involvement, and NOT about whether there was a Jewish Messiah named Jesus who had lived, died, and resurrected.

Paul gives us NO reason to conclude anything other than this: The message of salvation to Jews through a resurrected Jewish Messiah was the SAME gospel Cephas believed, James believed, John believed, and all of the believers he persecuted in Judea who had the 'same faith' believed. This in my view is what the text most clearly supports.

If you believe Galatians is legit, then prior to Paul there were Jewish Christians throughout Judea who believed Jesus was their Messiah who had died and been resurrected, and their leaders resided in Jerusalem.
Methinks some mythicists have created their very own stumbling block: 'Paul' getting his gospel 'from no man' cannot be interpreted to mean that 'Paul' was a one man show and was not indebted to the faith, and to those who were in that faith, who preceded him. Yes, 'Paul' was a persecutor of that faith; 'Paul' was a 'heretic' from that faith; 'Paul' had his own take on how that faith was to be developed. But 'Paul' was not the originator of the faith that he choose to develop and take on its evolutionary, intellectual, journey.

That's the NT story - whether read literally or whether read allegorically, mythologically, philosophically or as prophetic, salvation, history. What cannot be done with this NT story is to read it back to front. That's the way to creating nonsense - and allowing the JC historicists a field day for heaping scorn upon the ahistoricist/mythicist position.
maryhelena is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:20 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.