Duvduv

What evidence do you have that there was a person named "Paul"??
This is all sheer speculation since you must be uncritically accepting the Church's official doctrines about the emergence of Christianity.

aa5874

If there is one thing that is not similar in virtually all Christian writings of antiquity it is the so-called revelations of Paul.

Christian writers of antiquity used the Jesus story and the Books of the Prophets to develop the Christian cult--NOT the Pauline revelations.

Pauline Revelations are NOT common at all in or out the Canon.

1. There are no KNOWN Christian writers of antiquity who had the revelations of Paul.

2. There are NO KNOWN Christian writers of antiquity who claimed they were Blinded by a Bright Light and Heard the voice of Jesus.

3. There are NO KNOWN Christian writers of antiquity who claimed to be a witness of the Resurrected Jesus.

4. The so-called Pauline revelations were NOT used at all by the authors of ENTIRE Canon.

5. The Revelations of John do NOT include anything or acknowledge the Revelations of Paul.

6. The so-called Revelations of Paul are contrary to the earliest Gospels and contrary to the Books of the Prophets.

7. The Pauline revelations do NOT reflect the teachings of the Jesus cult or Christians in the 2nd century or even later based on the writings attributed to Aristides, Justin Martyr, Municius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Origen, Hippolytus and Arnobius.

8. Based on the Canon itself-- gMark was USED to develop the Jesus cult. gMark's story and chronology was the FOUNDATION of the Jesus cult--Not Pauline revelations.

9. The Pauline revelations were invented in a VACUUM and do NOT belong in the Canon.

10. Most Christian writings of antiquity that claimed Paul did exist as a 1st century evangelist and that he had revelations are themselves manipulated or fabrications.

andrewcriddle

Although the ultimate origins of Kabbalah remain obscure, the central text of Kabbalism the Zohar was written almost single handed by Moses de Leon in the late 13th century.

(The quote from wikipedia is talking about the origins of Jewish mysticism in general rather than the Kabbalah in particular.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

According to Eusebius in the Church History there was a long list of ethnically Jewish leaders of the church at Jerusalem up to the time of the Bar Kochba revolt. After the revolt Jews were excluded from Jerusalem and the church at Jerusalem became Gentile.

Eusebius' sources here are obscure but the account seems plausible.

Andrew Criddle

(See Eusebius Church History book 4 chapter 5)

Grog

And that would be a good point if the question was about "the central texts," but indeed, the question is about "ultimate origins."

And, yes, the quote applies to multiple forms of Jewish mysticism, including Kabbalah, which only goes to broadening the net.

aa5874

Eusebius claimed he had found no chronology for the Bishops of Jerusalem in writings.

Church History 4.5 Again, we are left without corroboration for Jewish Bishops of the Jesus cult.

The supposed very first Bishop the Apostle James, the brother of the Lord, is UNKNOWN in the Gospels. There is NO Apostle James listed as the Lord's brother in the Gospels.

Jerome in "De Viris Illustribus" also admitted that there was NO apostle called James who was an actual brother of Jesus.

In any event, the supposed Bishops of Jerusalem have no known writings or any known time of bishopric. Before Eusebius, we have nothing about the 13 Bishops of Jerusalem.

James The Least

I specifically asked for post-70 Jewish Bishops. I am quite aware the "church tradition"/mythology posits that the pre-70 Bishops were supposedly the original followers of Jesus, and therefore were "Hebrews" (note: Eusebius, like other church fathers, makes a distinction between "Hebrews" and "Jews" -- according to them the early Christians were Hebrews, not Joudaoi).

According to Eusebius, there were fifteen "bishops of the circumcision" prior to the Jewish War. Fifteen! Assuming a date in the 30s for the first Bishop, James, that averages out to a new Bishop every two years or so for what was a lifetime appointment. Why such a high turnover? "Tradition says they were all short-lived."

In reality, this is all blatant post-70 mythology. There was no Jerusalem church before 70. There were no "bishops of the circumcision," before or after 70.

Here is Chapter 5 in its entirety:


Chapter 5. The Bishops of Jerusalem from the Age of our Saviour to the Period under Consideration

1. The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived.

2. But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.

3. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.

4. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.

5. In the twelfth year of the reign of Adrian, Xystus, having completed the tenth year of his episcopate, was succeeded by Telesphorus, the seventh in succession from the apostles. In the meantime, after the lapse of a year and some months, Eumenes, the sixth in order, succeeded to the leadership of the Alexandrian church, his predecessor having held office eleven years.

andrewcriddle

Hi James

You do realise that Eusebius is listing here Jewish bishops till the war under Hadrian in the early 130's ?

Eusebius is not talking here about the first Jewish war c 70 CE but the second war 60 years later.

Andrew Criddle

outhouse

Going out on a limb her, but that tradition probably started with what Paul wrote.

My opinion is James and Peter in Jerusalem were probably just a sect of proselytes that held onto Jewish laws more tightly then Paul. I see the real disciples running back to Galilee.

aa5874

There is no such thing as an average for Bishops. Eusebius presented an uncorroborated list of Bishops of Jerusalem without any time period for 13 of them.

The first supposed Bishop is a fiction character--not known in the Gospels.

There is no Jewish writings that corroborated a single Bishop of Jerusalem as claimed by Eusebius.