Do you only read the odd sentence?outhouse wrote:Common knowledge that paul tells you himself in his epistlesMichael BG wrote:As usual you have provided no evidence.
After that sentence I wrote
(with a word deleted)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.
You wroteouthouse wrote:I did not say that.Michael BG wrote: I don’t accept that Hellenist Jews were all proselytes
I explained why they were called Jews. The main difference is that they were no oppressed Israelite Jews.
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.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.
(Did you read my carefully worded definition of Jewish Christians and note what was missing and how vague it is?)outhouse wrote: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.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”.
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
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?
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.outhouse wrote:Evidence you keep asking for, is the Koine ONLY text we possess.Michael BG wrote:[I don’t accept that Jewish Christians were not Jewish by descend.
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.
As I think I have pointed out before arguing from silence is always problematic.
Thank you for the information.outhouse wrote:In the works.Michael BG wrote:Do you have a first degree in an art or social science subject?.
I currently lecture the ethnogenesis of Israelite cultures and the evolution of monotheism in a philosophy class.
Whose works do you get your students to read?
Do you cover Moses and King David’s time periods?
It seems likely that the Essenes had some different practices, but the Pharisees and Sadducees didn’t separate themselves from the majority of Jews.outhouse wrote:WHY? because they practiced differentlyMichael BG wrote: It does appear that Essenes lived separated from the majority of Jews in their own communities.
Please provide evidence that there were separate Sadducee and separate Pharisee synagogues?