Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Michael BG »

outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote:As usual you have provided no evidence.
Common knowledge that paul tells you himself in his epistles
Do you only read the odd sentence?

After that sentence I wrote
However I think evidence does exist in both Acts and Paul’s letters that Paul was one among a group of Apostles who taught to Gentiles. The point I was making (perhaps badly, and if so I apologise) was that if these Christians did not adhere to the such things as the food rules (as taught by Paul [and most likely by others]) they would be somewhat divided from Jewish people.
(with a word deleted)
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote: I don’t accept that Hellenist Jews were all proselytes
I did not say that.

I explained why they were called Jews. The main difference is that they were no oppressed Israelite Jews.
You wrote
Jewish Christians is a term called to Hellenist in the Diaspora who first resembled Jews to Romans who paid them no attention. The Proselytes were well trained in Judaism.

Jewish Christians were not oppressed Jews from Israel who converted to Judaism. That is another culture altogether.
I think it is natural to understand these to mean that you were saying all Hellenist Jews were proselytes. Perhaps you should try to be more careful with how you word things and think about how your bold assertions will be understood or misunderstood.
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote: It is also possible that it is correct because this seems a natural understanding of the above post, which I countered with James, John and Peter.
Plus you don’t appear to accept my definition of “Jewish Christian” Perhaps I should define what I mean by it – “a practicing Jew who believed that Jesus was resurrected in some way and this was meaningful in some way”.
W don't know if his real apostles ever said a word, it was common for authors to claim authority, the houses in Jerusalem could have used those names to build their authority or had members using these common names.

Jerusalem was a Hellenistic city during the first century, and peasant Aramaic Galilean were the enemy, and since we have no Aramaic text in any way, we know these people found no value in the mythology surrounding their close friend who was crucified.

resurrected? no they would not have believed it, knowing crucifixion was just like John getting beheaded, this was the second time these people went through the murder of their leader.

Resurrected was just a small part of the new mythology, son of god was a Roman term, and Romans were the enemy, they would have rejected that and the messiah, as messiahs do not get crucified
(Did you read my carefully worded definition of Jewish Christians and note what was missing and how vague it is?)
Son of God is a term used in the Old Testament for Israel and for a king of Israel. I think it could have been used for a Messiah. You should try to understand that it didn’t mean the same to Jews as it did to Gentiles.

You use the letters of Paul as evidence and then want to deny that Paul tells of meeting fellow “Christians” James, John and Peter!

Do you have any evidence that Pharisees didn’t believe in the resurrection?
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote:[I don’t accept that Jewish Christians were not Jewish by descend.
Evidence you keep asking for, is the Koine ONLY text we possess.

had Israelites wrote any part of the NT we would have not only an Israelite origin of the text, but we would also have Aramaic text.
While I accept that Aramaic usage was widespread across the Seleucid Empire I don’t know if Greek was the language preferred for writing things down in. Also after the fall of Jerusalem and the decline in the number of Jewish Christians the centres of Christianity could have been in the more Greek cities. It should be remembered that Jews were using the Septuagint and Philo wrote in Greek and some of the Apocrypha was written in Greek. The lack of Aramaic texts does not mean that there were no Aramaic speaking Christians.

As I think I have pointed out before arguing from silence is always problematic.
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Do you have a first degree in an art or social science subject?.
In the works.

I currently lecture the ethnogenesis of Israelite cultures and the evolution of monotheism in a philosophy class.
Thank you for the information.
Whose works do you get your students to read?
Do you cover Moses and King David’s time periods?
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote: It does appear that Essenes lived separated from the majority of Jews in their own communities.
WHY? because they practiced differently
It seems likely that the Essenes had some different practices, but the Pharisees and Sadducees didn’t separate themselves from the majority of Jews.
Please provide evidence that there were separate Sadducee and separate Pharisee synagogues?
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote:I think it is natural to understand these to mean that you were saying all Hellenist Jews were proselytes.
No

I'm saying we don't have a clue how Jewish any aspect of Christianity was because Jews looked at jesus as a failed messiah with his death. All of Christianity as written was divorcing Judaism from the very start. Only in the first few decades were Hellenist in the Diaspora still trying to hold on to the more strict laws as Pauline text shows.

Details are important here and context even more important.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote: the Pharisees and Sadducees didn’t separate themselves from the majority of Jews.
What or who were the majority of Jews?

The Sadducees separated themselves dramatically from other sects.

The Pharisees were a divided group between Zealot like practice and Hellenistic ones.

You do understand we are talking about multiple cultures here???

Have you ever read the Jewish encyclopedia on Proselytes??? it takes a whole page of fine print to half describe.

A whole book does not do justice to first century Judaism, and setting up context and backing up why one has an opinion takes most of it. Read a different author and get different conclusions.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote: Whose works do you get your students to read?
Israel Finkelstein and William Dever, Avraham Faust is to bias but you can still cherry pick tidbits.

Do you cover Moses and King David’s time periods?
I tell them Moses was a fictional character tied to the theological pseudohistory of the founding myth of Israel.

David was also mythical as far as the biblical text was concerned, but probably did exist as a rebel leader.

I don't focus on the compete history as give a brief and vague explanation of the evolution of monotheism following Karen Armstrongs work in part. History is discussed when I ask questions.

I lecture a few times a year, and the professor likes pushing the atheistic agenda. His interest is in showing how the gods were defined and compiled and redefined.

Sounds flashier then it really is I'm just a guest in class, more or less.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Michael BG »

outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote: Whose works do you get your students to read?
Israel Finkelstein and William Dever, Avraham Faust is to bias but you can still cherry pick tidbits.
Do you cover Moses and King David’s time periods?
I tell them Moses was a fictional character tied to the theological pseudohistory of the founding myth of Israel.

David was also mythical as far as the biblical text was concerned, but probably did exist as a rebel leader.

I don't focus on the compete history as give a brief and vague explanation of the evolution of monotheism following Karen Armstrongs work in part. History is discussed when I ask questions.

I lecture a few times a year, and the professor likes pushing the atheistic agenda. His interest is in showing how the gods were defined and compiled and redefined.

Sounds flashier then it really is I'm just a guest in class, more or less.
I understand better why you like the argument from silence.
It can be suggested that Moses and Joshua are not historical characters because there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus or the conquest of Canaan.
It can be suggested that David is not a historical character because there is no archaeological evidence for a large Jewish kingdom as pictured in the Bible.
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I think it is natural to understand these to mean that you were saying all Hellenist Jews were proselytes.
No

I'm saying we don't have a clue how Jewish any aspect of Christianity was because Jews looked at jesus as a failed messiah with his death. All of Christianity as written was divorcing Judaism from the very start. Only in the first few decades were Hellenist in the Diaspora still trying to hold on to the more strict laws as Pauline text shows.

Details are important here and context even more important.
If we don’t have a clue, then you should not assert as true your opinion that “Jews looked at jesus as a failed messiah with his death”. This makes an assumption that there was one view regarding the Messiah and that Jesus and his followers were not talking about the coming eschatological event and placing Jesus’ resurrection within that context where he fit into the wide views on the eschatological event held by Jews.

Even Paul sees the resurrected Jesus within a Jewish context of the coming eschatological event (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:12-20 [35-53], 1 Thess. 4:14-17).

It seems that you might accept that some Jews did become Christians.
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote: the Pharisees and Sadducees didn’t separate themselves from the majority of Jews.
What or who were the majority of Jews?

The Sadducees separated themselves dramatically from other sects.

The Pharisees were a divided group between Zealot like practice and Hellenistic ones.
As usual you assert and provide no evidence.
The Pharisees were a group who wanted to reform Judaism and were later successful once the Sadducees' influence declined following the destruction of the Temple and people not being able to carry out the Temple ritual and sacrifices. The majority of Jews were neither Pharisees (having gained admittance) nor Sadducees (members of the priestly class). It is likely that the majority were heavily influenced by the Pharisees (who believed in the resurrection, an eschatological event, angels and demons), from Kaufmann Kohler in the Jewish Encyclopaedia it appears that the Sadducees regained their power. There were also the Boethusians who provided High Priests (23 BCE – 6 CE, 41-44 CE, 63-64 CE).
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote: I understand better why you like the argument from silence.
It can be suggested that Moses and Joshua are not historical characters because there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus or the conquest of Canaan.

.

Both are arguments from archeological evidence not silence.

The exodus factually never happened as written, we know Israelites were displaced Canaanites after the bronze age collapse, and there is no Egyptian influence or connection of any kind.

We have only Canaanite connections and lots of it. proto Israelites used Canaanite language and alphabet, their pottery, their camp/house foundations, their deities and theology.

There factually no mass migration rather over a few hundred years we see the highlands slowly growing.

It can be suggested that David is not a historical character because there is no archaeological evidence for a large Jewish kingdom as pictured in the Bible.
Comprehension.

David probably is historical, just not as written
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote: If we don’t have a clue, then you should not assert as true your opinion that “Jews looked at jesus as a failed messiah with his death”.

.
Wrong.

Evidence states the theology that developed was from people who divorced Judaism

No text exist from any pious Israelite Jews anywhere. Because real Jews did not find any value in the Hellenistic version divorcing Judaism.

Jesus factually was not the OT messiah by definition, the only way you could make Jesus a messiah was by perverting the text as the Romans did who wrote the NT.

Romans wrote the NT not Jews.

They just happened to be Romans who found value in monotheism and embraced the perverted Judaism that let them keep their junk in tact, and not be identified as a Jew.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote:As usual you assert and provide no evidence.
Don't take this the wrong way, but if you studied this deeper you would understand it is common knowledge.

I said this once already and you did not either read it or comprehend it. One can write a book about Judaism in the first century and not get it all, and another author could have a night and day different version.

But if you read enough of these you get an idea where the center of the road actually is.

Let set up an example, do you call Mormons as Christians???? No you don't because their beliefs are night and day different but based on Abrahamic traditions. Same goes with Judaism during this period. There was nothing close to orthodoxy WHICH means Michael there is no standard definition of Judaism for first century Jews.

My evidence is the factual diversity.

"SOME" Pharisees and Sadducees were using Roman muscle to extort tithes from oppressed Israelite Jews. Not all Pharisees were on board and opposed their Hellenistic Pharisee brothers and mirrored Zealot philosophy. The Pharisees were a divided group.

You seem to not grasp Judaism was divided on a socioeconomic scale between Rich Hellenistic Jews perverting Judaism and working hand in hand with Romans to oppress the peasants.

And the Aramaic peasant Jews who were oppressed.

Herod is an example. He played Jew and wanted to be called King of Jews, but was not a Jew. He was a Hellenist working with Romans oppressing Jews.

Another example is Sepphoris a Hellenistic center of Power verses Nazareth, and Aramaic shithole with a few hundred people that amounted to a work camp. An Aramaic satellite village for Sepphoris a Koine city of wealth.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Michael BG »

outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote: I understand better why you like the argument from silence.
It can be suggested that Moses and Joshua are not historical characters because there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus or the conquest of Canaan.
Both are arguments from archeological evidence not silence.
I call it silence you might call it lack of evidence! :D
outhouse wrote:The exodus factually never happened as written, we know Israelites were displaced Canaanites after the bronze age collapse, and there is no Egyptian influence or connection of any kind.

We have only Canaanite connections and lots of it. proto Israelites used Canaanite language and alphabet, their pottery, their camp/house foundations, their deities and theology.
We don’t “know that Israelites were displaced Canaanites”, while we might may well agree that what evidence we have makes this the most likely conclusion to reach.
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote: If we don’t have a clue, then you should not assert as true your opinion that “Jews looked at jesus as a failed messiah with his death”.
Evidence states the theology that developed was from people who divorced Judaism

No text exist from any pious Israelite Jews anywhere…

Jesus factually was not the OT messiah by definition, the only way you could make Jesus a messiah was by perverting the text as the Romans did who wrote the NT.
The evidence we have points to Gentiles becoming followers of Jesus. The lack of any Jewish Christians texts can be explained. You just don’t accept the explanation which would be find if you didn’t present your view as the truth and any other view as “Wrong”.

You didn’t seem to recognise that there is evidence that James, John and Peter were Jewish Christians as I defined the term.

I see a development from Jewish ideas into Jesus the Son of God. The Son of Man was a Jewish idea, an eschatological event was a Jewish idea, a general resurrection was a Jewish idea, there were many ideas regarding what the Messiah would be like, the term son of God is used in the Old Testament. Therefore I can accept that a Jewish person could expect the eschatological event soon accompanied by the general resurrection of the “saved” and see Jesus as the first of the general resurrection and as evidence that the general resurrection will be soon. Therefore now Jesus is resurrected he is in heaven and can take on the role of the Son of Man and the heavenly Messiah.

Do you deny that within the idea of a Messiah was the idea that the Messiah would rule after the eschatological event?
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote:As usual you assert and provide no evidence.
Don't take this the wrong way, but if you studied this deeper you would understand it is common knowledge.

I said this once already and you did not either read it or comprehend it.
You are asserting it is common knowledge. I don’t understand that if the majority of scholars agree with you why you can’t quote from these scholars referring to the pages of their books.
outhouse wrote:Let set up an example, do you call Mormons as Christians???? No you don't because their beliefs are night and day different but based on Abrahamic traditions.
I would classify Mormons as Christians. Mormons self-identify as being Christian and that is good enough for me and it should be good enough for you. Unitarianism self-identifies as being Christian. I have attended their church services but some of them don’t believe that Jesus was resurrected!
outhouse wrote:There was nothing close to orthodoxy WHICH means Michael there is no standard definition of Judaism for first century Jews.
I don’t have a problem with the idea that there was no orthodoxy. A major part of Judaism is practiced in the home. In the first century CE it was also practiced in the synagogue and the Temple.
outhouse wrote:"SOME" Pharisees and Sadducees were using Roman muscle to extort tithes from oppressed Israelite Jews. Not all Pharisees were on board and opposed their Hellenistic Pharisee brothers and mirrored Zealot philosophy. The Pharisees were a divided group.

You seem to not grasp Judaism was divided on a socioeconomic scale between Rich Hellenistic Jews perverting Judaism and working hand in hand with Romans to oppress the peasants.

And the Aramaic peasant Jews who were oppressed.

Herod is an example. He played Jew and wanted to be called King of Jews, but was not a Jew. He was a Hellenist working with Romans oppressing Jews.
I don’t accept that poor Jews were any more economically oppressed than poor Syrians or poor Greeks or poor Gauls.

Herod Antipas was brought up as a Jew as was Herod the Great. Herod Antipas I suppose could be classified as a Samaritan as his mother Malthace was a Samaritan. Herod the Great’s father Antipater the Idumaean was a Jew whose family had been converted in the second century BCE. I understand that some Jews did not recognise these Herod’s as Jewish.

For years the Jewish kingdom had been an ally of Rome and after the arrival of Pompey in 63 BCE Roman influence increased. It should be remembered that the Romans liked client states. Hellenist influence within Palestine had a long history particularly under the Seleucid Empire (whose calendar they used!). The Maccabean Revolt was a reaction against this Hellenization as I suppose was the forced conversion of the Idumeans c 110 BCE.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote:I don’t accept that poor Jews were any more economically oppressed than poor Syrians or poor Greeks or poor Gauls.

.
So Romans citizens were oppressed and treated as badly as Israelite Jews. ???????????

Hellenist in the opulence of Sepphoris with straight cut stone walls and indoor pools and frescos, live the same as Aramaic Jews in Nazareth with fieldstone rocks stacked up packed with feces no windows and straw covered floors???

We don’t “know that Israelites were displaced Canaanites”,
The best consider it as strong a certainty as fact. And they are correct.

Proto Israelites used Canaanite language and alphabet, their pottery, their camp/house foundations, their deities and theology. What other culture would use all this Canaanite heritage???????????????????????

The lack of any Jewish Christians texts can be explained.
Exactly, but you wont have it. No text exist because factually Jesus did not fit the picture of the Jewish messiah.

quote mined from some BS site, but correct.

1.Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2.Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3.Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4.Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

You didn’t seem to recognise that there is evidence that James, John and Peter were Jewish Christians as I defined the term.
Weak evidence. I possess the strong evidence.

There is more evidence that Christian authors factually used famous names to sell their perverted Judaism. The same exact way later authors claimed Pauline epistles were written by Paul. Yet we know most were not Pauls text. It was common to use famous names in text to sell your agenda, it factually is the way the authors were trained.

But here we have no text in these names. Had any one of these people existed they would have written heretical text denouncing this perversion of their religion.

And if they were part of the movement as claimed, we would expect an Israelite origin of Christianity and text to support it. But we have nothing at all. WE DONT EVEN HAVE transliterations as if ANY Aramaic jew was even semi close to any part of the movement.
Post Reply