All of this is irrelevant to the subject of Paul. Neither the Odes of Solomon, nor the Naassenes, were pre-70 ad. The Naassenes did not hate YHWH, but conflated him with Sabazios and Attis, whom they made an Adamic figure.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 10:37 pm The community of the Odes of Solomon was a pre-70 Jewish community in the Diaspora that was anti-Jewish (and persecuted by the Jews) and adored the god of the Jews, according to prof Stevan L. Davies. Also the Naassenes were pre-70 Jews from the Diaspora but they hated the god of the Jews.
What in God's holy name are you talking about? You're merely compounding disparate assumptions upon one another.no, this reference to OT (in association to Jesus) would be indicative of a Jewish APOLOGY to accept an otherwise dramatic "reality" of gentile origin: that "the Jews" killed the Son of God is a gentile and anti-Jewish theme.Throughout the Old Testament, Jews constantly knock each other. So why--how?--this be indicative of a gentile origin?
I think this is what happens when you rely too much on the conflicting words of others, instead of using your own scepticism.
That Jews are made responsible for the death of Jesus in the Gospels is totally in keeping with the Old Testament pattern of a prophet being persecuted by the very people he has come to save.
How is he an apologist, when he, 1) has nothing to apologize for, and 2) is completely okay with ben Stada being killed?The Talmudist is an apologist insofar he explains that Jesus ben Stada was not the true Christ. If the same Talmudist had heard of a Jesus crucified by the Romans, then he would have described him in more positive terms.