Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 07-14-2013, 02:04 PM

:strawman:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writers were NOT Jews.

The Pauline writings are blasphemy in the Jewish religion.

There were no known Jews and Pharisees in the Jesus cult for hundreds of years.

In fact, the Pauline writings are products of anti-Jewish propaganda.

There is no corroboration, even in the very NT Canon, that the Pauline writers were of the tribe of Benjamin, and were Pharisees .

Even in the very Canon, Acts of the Apostles, the source for Saul/Paul is acknowledged as a product of fiction.

Up to the mid to late 2nd century Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho" and Celsus in "True Discourse" wrote nothing of a Jew called Paul who should have evangelized the Roman Empire.

If a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee was actually the first to preach Jesus Crucified and resurrected then we would expect Justin Martyr to acknowledge Paul and that Celsus would vilify him.

Both said nothing of the supposed Hebrew of Hebrews and Pharisee called Paul.

The Pauline writers were Not Jews in the 1st century.

DCHindley · 07-14-2013, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

Theologian N.T. Wright argues that Paul was more than merely zealous for the law, but was in fact a political Zealot who was willing to use violence against all who opposed a fundamentalist view of Judaism. Witness the stoning of St. Stephen.

Wright, IMHO, overstates the contrast between Jews "zealous" for the Law versus Christians who set one free from it. Wright simply assumes that Christian "adoptionism" is correct, and the Jews are just foolishly protesting the fact that God has transferred the mantle of his blessings from the Jewish people to the Christians.

On the other hand, those who see the issue behind Paul and his problems with other Jews as a difference of opinion over what defines a person as an Israelite, are closer to the truth.

If you are a natural born Jew (Judean, whatever) or a full proselyte, you are naturally proud to be a part of the people of God, collective Israel, and fully look forward to the fulfillment of God's promises to realize a fruitful holy land for Abraham's children (them). They are or have been unified under the covenant of circumcision, and take on the yoke of the Law gladly.

Along comes Paul who instead says that it is not the covenant of circumcision or the observance of the law that justifies individuals before God, but in the simple faith that Abraham expressed that in spite of the odds against it God will fulfill that promise. To Paul, faith in the fulfillment of God's promises is what justified Abraham before God, not the fact that he later accepted the covenant of circumcision, as he was justified by belief some time before he had himself and his household circumcised.

In Paul's mind, faithful Gentiles who wanted to participate in these promises were spiritual children of Abraham, and thus included in the scope of "Israel." My opinion is that Paul was a retainer or son of a freedman of a household of a Herodian prince (there were scores of these households, resident all around Syria, Asia Minor and Mesopotamia) and had compassion on the non-Jewish members of the household (mainly slaves and artisan or merchant retainers) who were sympathetic to the expectations of their masters.

This idea did not go over well with most "traditional" minded Jews. This resistance may have been due to any combination of things, such as outrage over the "novelty" of the idea, or resentment that these folks are being given a "free pass," or a fear that all the hard won privileges earned for Jews by Herod and his family will somehow be cheapened by this innovation, and thus endangering their continuation by the Roman authorities.

Paul may well have experienced conflict about this, suggesting that Paul did not invent the idea that faithful gentiles were eligible to participate in the blessed age. At first, it seems he was so proud of his very legitimate Jewish heritage (whether through heritage or by reason of conversion of himself or one of his forefathers) that he found the concept of faithful gentiles being part of the people of Israel repulsive, but later had a turn of mind.

DCH

Quote:

I find such an argument extremely specious. Paul often does identify himself as extremely Jewish, but of course it's only after the fact and often it seems when he is addressing Jewish audiences. But Paul's origins are hardly Jewish. He does not come from a traditional Jewish family. He is from Tarsus, not Judea. He is a Roman Citizen. He comes from a family of tentmakers, people whose biggest customers would've been the Roman Army. At some point he ends up in Jerusalem. Apparently he was to study under Gamaliel, a famous Jewish scholar from the first century.

steve_bnk · 07-14-2013, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It's interesting that you mentioned Romans, since that epistle can be seen as a composite of a pre-existing Jewish friendly letter with a smattering of references to Jesus to be part of the new canon instead of starting from scratch and reinventing the wheel.

In any case, I find the discussions about Paul rather amusing since people who assume his existence in the first place do so only because they uncritically accept the claims of the Church spokesmen, since there is NO EVIDENCE for the existence of this person named Paul at all; NO EVIDENCE that any of these epistles were written to the named communities; NO EVIDENCE that any of these alleged recipients ever received the epistles; and NO EVIDENCE that "Christian" communities of any size existed in those identified towns. NONE BEYOND CHURCH DOCTRINE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The author of the Jesus story in gMark merely used the Septuagint--Psalms 22.1
Psalm 22:1 KJV

The Pauline writers did the very same thing. They were NOT Jewish--- they merely manipulated the Greek version of Hebrew Scripture.

In the Epistle to the Romans alone there are about 60 references to the Septuagint from about 17 books including Genesis, Exodus, Proverbs, Psalms and Isaiah.

Well, if we dismiss all biblical characters based on lack of proof of existence we would not have much to talk about on the subject.

But you have a point. Other than the resurrection theology, I see nothing in the NT that is not reflected elsewhere in OT biblical writings.

According to the Oxford commentary discussion on authorship it was common to put the name of a figure at the top of a written piece or letter.

James The Least · 07-14-2013, 05:17 PM

Anonymous Christian Gentiles wrote lots of fake letters ostensibly by authentically "Jewish" authors. Peter, James, John, and Jude. The letters of "Paul" are equally fake.
The evil, death-dealing Jew who hunted down poor defenseless Christians but then converted himself when he saw the light was yet another Christian myth and lie. An effective one, since people are still falling for it 2,000 years later.

Duvduv · 07-14-2013, 05:33 PM

There is plenty here to talk about without covering everything else. There is plenty to discuss in terms of the invention of the religion and the texts by the new empire, including an analysis of the texts themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It's interesting that you mentioned Romans, since that epistle can be seen as a composite of a pre-existing Jewish friendly letter with a smattering of references to Jesus to be part of the new canon instead of starting from scratch and reinventing the wheel.

In any case, I find the discussions about Paul rather amusing since people who assume his existence in the first place do so only because they uncritically accept the claims of the Church spokesmen, since there is NO EVIDENCE for the existence of this person named Paul at all; NO EVIDENCE that any of these epistles were written to the named communities; NO EVIDENCE that any of these alleged recipients ever received the epistles; and NO EVIDENCE that "Christian" communities of any size existed in those identified towns. NONE BEYOND CHURCH DOCTRINE.

Well, if we dismiss all biblical characters based on lack of proof of existence we would not have much to talk about on the subject.

But you have a point. Other than the resurrection theology, I see nothing in the NT that is not reflected elsewhere in OT biblical writings.

According to the Oxford commentary discussion on authorship it was common to put the name of a figure at the top of a written piece or letter.

steve_bnk · 07-14-2013, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

There is plenty here to talk about without covering everything else. There is plenty to discuss in terms of the invention of the religion and the texts by the new empire, including an analysis of the texts themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Well, if we dismiss all biblical characters based on lack of proof of existence we would not have much to talk about on the subject.

But you have a point. Other than the resurrection theology, I see nothing in the NT that is not reflected elsewhere in OT biblical writings.

According to the Oxford commentary discussion on authorship it was common to put the name of a figure at the top of a written piece or letter.

Do you consider Christianity invented and its root Judaism not invented?

TedM · 07-14-2013, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

...So how could Paul be both a zealot and a persecutor of early Chrisitians? It makes no sense.

According to this website http://nearemmaus.com/2013/04/26/paul-the-zealot/

Quote:

The Zealots were Pharisees who advocated violent resistance against anyone who would claim to be a Ruler or Lord who was not Israel’s God

If that is correct, and he didn't think Jesus was Lord, then it seems to make very good sense to call Paul a zealot.

Quote:

So was Paul a real Zealot? Was he even Jewish to begin with?

SLD

The link above also points to 2 places in which 'Paul' defines who he was PRIOR TO his conversion, emphasizing in both places his 'zeal'. The Greek, according to blueletter Bible for Galations 1:14 literally means 'one burning with zeal, a zealot'. More from the above link:

Quote:

Interestingly, when the apostle Paul refers to his ‘former life in Judaism’ (Gal. 1:13-14), he professes to have been extremely zealous (ζηλωτὴς) for the traditions of his ancestors. In Phil. 3:5-6 he describes himself in terms of the Law as a Pharisee and in terms of zeal (ζῆλος) as a persecutor of the Church. In other words, his zeal manifested itself in action, in his case the action of persecuting those who claimed that the Messiah had already come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

I would assume there were different flavors of zealots, and it makes sense to me that prior to his conversion to Christianity, and since he had Roman influences, Paul found it a lot easier to focus on persecuting Christians than advocating overtaking Rome.

Duvduv · 07-14-2013, 06:11 PM

The Christian scriptures and doctrines mostly base themselves on Jewish teachings, sources and scriptures. It always pays to closely analyze whether the authors of these Christian teachings were who they claimed to be, and whether the teachings emerged when the "daughter religion" claimed they were.

In the final analysis one always ultimately relies on faith. Faith in the Jewish narrative, or faith in the Christian narrative since neither can be empirically proven. Modern scholars also rely on faith, usually faith in the general claims of the Church with the regard to the emergence of Christianity in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

There is plenty here to talk about without covering everything else. There is plenty to discuss in terms of the invention of the religion and the texts by the new empire, including an analysis of the texts themselves.

Do you consider Christianity invented and its root Judaism not invented?

steve_bnk · 07-14-2013, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The Christian scriptures and doctrines mostly base themselves on Jewish teachings, sources and scriptures. It always pays to closely analyze whether the authors of these Christian teachings were who they claimed to be, and whether the teachings emerged when the "daughter religion" claimed they were.

In the final analysis one always ultimately relies on faith. Faith in the Jewish narrative, or faith in the Christian narrative since neither can be empirically proven. Modern scholars also rely on faith, usually faith in the general claims of the Church with the regard to the emergence of Christianity in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Do you consider Christianity invented and its root Judaism not invented?

Thank you for that. I have no particular issue with any personal faith, it makes responding to you easier for me with a clear unambiguous statement regarding faith.

I agree the secular hypotheses are no more provable than the religious. However I do not agree there is any faith analogous to religion involved.

Theists on the science forum periodically try to make a false equivalence between religious faith and an inferred faith held by secular science.

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-14-2013, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

He was Jewish (or at least a Jewish proselyte). I mean, who else would care about this stuff?

Samaritans?

Robert Price thinks that Paul was Simon Magus (allegedly a Samaritan).

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

07-14-2013, 05:17 PM	#14
James The Least Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: USA Posts: 393	Anonymous Christian Gentiles wrote lots of fake letters ostensibly by authentically "Jewish" authors. Peter, James, John, and Jude. The letters of "Paul" are equally fake. The evil, death-dealing Jew who hunted down poor defenseless Christians but then converted himself when he saw the light was yet another Christian myth and lie. An effective one, since people are still falling for it 2,000 years later.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.