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

[davidbrainerd]

I don't think you understand the impact the temple had on monotheism for gentiles in the Diaspora.

There were two temples too, one in Jerusalem, one in Egypt. That one gets forgotten about because the NT ignored it and people make the mistake of trying to read Josephus Antiquities from the beginning and read the part that's the same as the OT and get bored and give up early rather than start with the end of the BabylonIan captivity in Josephus and read forward which if they did they'd encounter the fact that due to rival high priests and other internal politics and wars one high priest during the period between the return from Babylon and the NT goes to Egypt and makes a second temple there.

[Michael BG]

In the first century CE there was one form of Judaism centred on the Temple and another centred on the local synagogue

Factual error.

There were so many different Judaism's and many different cultures using monotheistic traditions all differently.

Maybe you could explain the Sadducees practice and beliefs from Essenes. Or the fact Pharisees were a divided group between Hellenism and Zealot like beliefs. Explain what a Zealot is.

Did you not read the sentence after the one you quoted?

While I accept that Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes existed, they were a minority of the Jewish population.

There is a difference between practice and belief. I accept that Pharisees and Sadducees had different beliefs, but I don’t accept they had different practices. Please provide evidence that there were separate Sadducee and separate Pharisee synagogues. It does appear that Essenes lived separated from the majority of Jews in their own communities.

I do accept that Christianity spread in non-Jewish societies and those based on Pauline teaching would be divided from Judaism.

it was not based on Pauline teachings.

Paul joined a Hellenistic movement already in progress going fill steam ahead when he converted. Without Paul nothing changes at all, he was not an important figure early on and he was part of a community of like minded people. Paul became popular in time long after his death.

As usual you have provided no evidence.
However I think evidence does exist in both Acts and Paul’s letters that Paul was one amongst 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.

but I am not aware of any scholar who believes in an historical Jesus who doesn’t think there were Jewish Christians

Context is key here. You are twisting my words out of context Michael.

I didn’t; more likley is that I only misunderstand your earlier posting.

No pious Aramaic Galilean Jews ever became Christians, it would have been blasphemous. And there is NO evidence at all, its why we don't even have many Aramaic transliterations from a country that mainly spoke Aramaic. Christianity did not evolve in Israel.

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”.

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.

You fail to see the difference between cultures here, and what an oppressed Israelite Jews was, and what a Hellenist in the Diaspora was the found importance in Judaism.

Two different cultures here. One was a real Israelite Jew, the other called himself Jewish but was really a proselyte unless you want to get loose with the definition of what Jew actually is.

I don’t accept that Jewish Christians were not Jewish by descend. I don’t accept that Hellenist Jews were all proselytes. As usual you provide no evidence for your opinion.

Remember, context is who is using the term Jew. You do know Hellenist gentiles were called Jews for simply swearing off pagan deities and accepting monotheism to the Jewish god.

While I might accept this if you provided the evidence, this does not mean that all people identified by Greeks as Jewish were such people. It is very likely that they would be Jewish by descent. You need to remember that Jews were living outside of Palestine for hundreds of years. I am sure you are aware of the Kitos War 115-17 when Jews across the Middle East revolted against the Roman Empire. You might even be aware that Philo numbers the Jewish population at 8 million.

However your opinion is not supported by scholars.

It is actually. And ive shown you examples. And I am working on getting this more standardized. If I did a doctorate it would be on this topic.

Do you have a first degree in an art or social science subject?
And if so from where?

You have not quoted any scholars in this thread to support your opinion.

Question for you. How descriptive is the term Jew when dealing with multicultural people practicing diverse versions of Judaism?

A Jew is someone who practices Judaism. It is an interesting question how far we can call Samaritans Jewish because they had a different Temple and a different version of the Torah.

[outhouse]

A Jew is someone who practices Judaism. .

Non sequitur.

That says nothing and could mean anything. Its the same as saying Abrahamic monotheism 1rst century

[outhouse]

As usual you have provided no evidence.

.

Common knowledge that paul tells you himself in his epistles

[outhouse]

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.

[outhouse]

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

[outhouse]

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.

[outhouse]

That one gets forgotten.

because it does not matter

how many people came to it during Passover?

[outhouse]

It does appear that Essenes lived separated from the majority of Jews in their own communities.

.

WHY?

because they practiced differently

[outhouse]

[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.

There is a reason why we do not.

You seem to fail to see the socioeconomic divide between the Hellenist who oppressed Aramaic Israelites peasants.

Hellenistic Jews and Proselytes are the only people to promote the perversion and divorce of Judaism.

The failure of YOUR argument is asking yourself why People divorcing and perverting Judaism would seek out the people they blame for the death of their god.