Agrippa killed James the brother of John with the sword

[outhouse]

Why not Diaspora Jews also (as likely for gMatthew)?


Cordially, Bernard

While here were Jews in the Diaspora. These were not oppressed Israelite Jews.

The authors of Matthew were Proselytes and gentiles who were definitely divorcing cultural Judaism copying the text written for Romans "Mark"


You need to remember there is a reason why this whole movement did not originate from Israel. It originated in the Diaspora with no one center of origin.

Had this been a sect of Israelite Jews that slowly evolved into Diaspora Hellenistic Judaism, by the text alone we should see a center in Israel and at least writing from Israel itself by people who actually found the founding fathers valuable and or important.

What we see is Israelite Jews refusing all of the Jesus theology WHOLE. And Hellenistic Proselyte Judaism and Gentiles who found value in the new theology expanding it.


LAST when we get down to fist century Judaism most people forget the impact the temple had on Diaspora Hellenistic Proselyte Judaism which was massive. And we also see gentiles being called Jews in Hellenistic circles simply for swearing off other deities [proselytes jewish encyclopedia] without all the cultural trappings like circumcision which is another reason why Proselyte numbers increased.

Jewish monotheism was evolving into the roman culture full speed ahead. With all the political turmoil these people did not want to be identified as a Jew.

[outhouse]

Why every year at Passover in Jerusalem? Where did you get that?

Cordially, Bernard

Everyone made the pilgrimage to the temple, this was the a tourist destination yearly at Passover built by a Hellenist for Hellenist to enjoy monotheism. Embracing and robbing the Jewish culture for what was valuable.

While there were some loose rules for Jews to attend yearly and to pay their taxes there, it was much then a place of worship.

It was the governments house, it was the treasury as well, besides the one gods actual dwelling place.

In its time, this was the rock show to attend to, and it drew hundreds of thousands each year. All the attendants were not Jews.

[outhouse]

Not quite true: Peter went to Antioch



Cordially, Bernard

I personally do not think this is historically an original Galilean Aramaic fishermen, who hated his Hellenistic oppressors who made his life miserable in Galilee.

A Hellenistic later Peter or literary fiction, may or may not have made that trip.

[outhouse]

Can you answer your own question? I do not even see what you meant.

Cordially, Bernard

OK we are talking about

or would they say no the Aramaic Jew apostles ran and never looked back?

We have traditions in the NT of the Galileans basically running like cowards after arrest, Peter 3 times the denier, Judas turns him in. Thomas the doubter. His followers are portrayed negatively to some extent, and the reason is damage control, basically they are saying yes we heard this to, but here is our version to soften up these so called rumors. [to a point using rhetorical prose]

So lest look at reality here. NORMALLY You travel in a small group so you do not look like a political threat, but at Passover you could have a larger group not take notice. You go to the temple with a chip on your shoulder and try to start a riot/insurrection and end up on a cross.

What do your followers do? They run like hell so as not to meet the same fate, so we have TROUBLE in the NT text. On one hand they are portrayed as cowards and betrayers, yet the NT makes excuses for this. ON the other hand they also portray these as the founders of the movement who carry this movement forward into the future.

I personally see these names being used as authority building by dropping names not historical in any way. Exactly like we have Pauls name attributed to all that pseudepigrapha he had no part in at all.


It was common usage in rhetorical prose to use "authority building names" regardless of historicity to the point of using fictitious events to convey theological importance when building authority, using said names.

[outhouse]

Remember, this same prose was used to build all of the OT characters who never existed. Noah, Moses, Abraham never existed and their names due to written and oral traditions, were used to build authority in Jewish theology.

David and Solomon did not exist as written, none of the Jewish patriarchs ever lived as written.


Mythological prose was used in theology as a means to delivery theology to the people, and the NT was no different. Its difference is that it was grounded in recent events and recorded the same generation so the core of the mythology was not AS pseudohistorical in nature

[outhouse]

Do you really think Jesus followers would call jesus the "son of god" ???????????

A term in that EXACT time period reserved for the Emperor himself? the EXACT parallels we see the Hellenistic NT authors all using to steal Proselytes from the Emperor?

[outhouse]

About James, a simple explanation:
In Galatians 1:19, Paul identified the James he met then (38 AD). Why? because at this time, the other James (the brother of John), an important member of the church of Jerusalem, was still alive (and the focus of the persecution by Agrippa I four years later: Acts 12:1-2).
The next time Paul named a James (Gal 2:9), as one of the pillars of the aforementioned church, is during the "council of Jerusalem" (52 AD). No need for identification of that James, because James, brother of John, had been executed earlier, in 42 AD, by Agrippa I.
"James" refers to the one previously identified at Gal 1:19.
(All dating explained in my website)

I do not see anything theological in Acts 12:1-2, where James' execution is briefly mentioned.

Cordially, Bernard

Look at this way.


You think these authors never knew or met Jesus, I believe you to follow this tradition most non apologetic scholars hold true. Correct?

Then what makes you think they ever had contact with a person in the movement of lesser importance, common Galilean peasants?


Had a single real follower of jesus ever been important in ANY aspect of the early church, you would have Aramaic transliterations, and or VERY IMORTANT Aramaic text from a first hand witness. Where there is none what so ever.

[outhouse]

These real followers were viewed as rebels who could have never set up shop in Jerusalem.

You don't start trouble in the temple then set up camp in town and start competing against it. Never happened.


They ran back to Galilee never to be heard from again, its why you have no Aramaic text.

[Bernard Muller]

to outhouse,

Good question, but easily explainable.
It would be blasphemous to any pious Israelite "real Jew" to use the term "son of god" which was 100% a Roman term, and 100% not Jewish.

Actually, I made a point in http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html that even Paul was reluctant to accept "son of God" for Jesus. He probably had to because of the popularity of the preaching of the author of 'Hebrews' who extrapolated "son of God" from, most likely, the writings of Philo of Alexandria.
So "son of God" did not come from "pious Israelite "real Jew"".

But that does not answer my questions:
Why only Diaspora gentiles and Proselytes?
Why not Diaspora Jews also (as likely for gMatthew)?
Why not Gentiles outside the Diaspora also (as likely for gLuke)?
Why every year at Passover in Jerusalem? Where did you get that?

100% not Jewish

God says Solomon is his son (1Chronicle 17:13, 22:7 & 10 and 28:6).
God says David is his son (Psalm 2:7).
And God has many other sons: "sons of God" (plural) is used at least five times in the OT (Genesis 6:2,4 and Job 1:6, 2:1 & 38:7).

The NT rhetoric about Nazareth not viewing him as divine possibly speaks to that. There were probably Galilean Jews at Passover stating he was a man and not divine and they knew him personally, and the authors needed rhetoric to explain this to followers who may have heard things like this.

I agree except about "Galilean Jews at Passover".
Why couldn't it be Peter in places like Antioch & Corinth? I do not think Peter or other Jesus' eyewitnesses told Jesus was not divine, but nothing they were saying about him included anything to make him look divine.
Even Paul (and the author of 'Hebrews') never wrote Jesus seemed to be divine when on earth.

Cordially, Bernard

[Michael BG]

About James, a simple explanation:
In Galatians 1:19, Paul identified the James he met then (38 AD). Why? because at this time, the other James (the brother of John), an important member of the church of Jerusalem, was still alive (and the focus of the persecution by Agrippa I four years later: Acts 12:1-2).
The next time Paul named a James (Gal 2:9), as one of the pillars of the aforementioned church, is during the "council of Jerusalem" (52 AD). No need for identification of that James, because James, brother of John, had been executed earlier, in 42 AD, by Agrippa I.
"James" refers to the one previously identified at Gal 1:19.
(All dating explained in my website)

I do not see anything theological in Acts 12:1-2, where James' execution is briefly mentioned.

Cordially, Bernard

You present a convincing case for using Galatians to back up Acts 12:1-2 but not everyone agrees that “the bother of the Lord” was part of the original text and if Acts 12:1-2 could be made out as unhistorical then there would be no need for Paul to have written it!

Remember, this same prose was used to build all of the OT characters who never existed. Noah, Moses, Abraham never existed and their names due to written and oral traditions, were used to build authority in Jewish theology.

David and Solomon did not exist as written, none of the Jewish patriarchs ever lived as written.

Mythological prose was used in theology as a means to delivery theology to the people, and the NT was no different. Its difference is that it was grounded in recent events and recorded the same generation so the core of the mythology was not AS pseudohistorical in nature

It is quite easy to set out a case that Noah, Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon are mythical figures especially as the texts do not go back to their times. However it is generally accepted that lots of the NT was written within 70 years of the death of Jesus.

Had a single real follower of jesus ever been important in ANY aspect of the early church, you would have Aramaic transliterations, and or VERY IMORTANT Aramaic text from a first hand witness. Where there is none what so ever.

Maurice Casey and others make a strong case that some parts of the NT are transliteration or mis-literations from Aramaic.