Because our best witnesses to history of this period says he hunted them down.Michael BG wrote: And what evidence do you have for this and is it reliable?
.
Its not disputed with any credibility.
So then we ask YOU who would Paul be hunting them down? Who is paying for this and why? Now were getting into the first century context of the movement and politics.
So the evidence is the political context, do you understand this period in depth, or just a vague outline?
In the topic “The Simontic problem Marks Negative Casting of Peter” (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=262&start=40) page 5 onwards I debate with Bernard Muller and provide some evidence that Mark expected his readers to understand that the disciples saw the resurrected Jesus.
Cephas as I understand the word is Aramaic for Peter and so from Paul’s letters it seems he is known by an Aramaic nickname.
None of this can be used with any plausibility tied to the Galilean movement.
So what.The gospels do portray the disciples as leaving Jesus to his fate, but they also portray them as seeing the resurrected Jesus and in at least two of them as having a major role after this.
They were rhetorically creating divinity to equal the Emperors divinity as "son of god" MOTIVE we don't ignore the communities motives when they wrote these text.
Yes but Pauls community who co wrote his epistles also had MOTIVES. That were clearly expressed. And we know it was customary to create pseudepigraphal text. This was a known common rhetorical procedure.Paul clearly has Cephas and James having influence within some of the Christian groups outside Palestine.
Also we don’t know how much dispute there was between Sadducees and Pharisees and between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians or between Hellenised Jews and more traditional Jews
False.
We have a buttload of information here. The Sadducees were hated, not up for debate. And we have the temple falling for political reasons only.
YOUR ignoring the fact these were oppressed people.
Your last point is an assumption based on the cleansing of the Temple being historical,
False again.
I believe there was trouble in the temple, but how what where and why are guesses and I do not claim "cleansing" that is an apologetic title I have no faith in.
Who cares?Our main source is Acts where Luke is not interesting in recording disputes but in showing how united the early church was.
The early followers were not united in any way. The movement was wide and diverse, and there was no center of origin.
I don’t accept that Nazareth existed during Jesus’ lifetime.
That is a personal problem based on lack of study.
It would literally be ignorant to think a city like Sepphoris would not spring up agrarian satellite villages, due to a labor force and agrarian needs required to feed the city of 10,000-20,000 ish.
Were there was a water supply, you would have had peasants and workers that were within a 2 hour walk from the city. It would be about impossible that no one used this GOOD water supply.
There is a reason why people have settled there off and on for thousands of years. With the rebuilding of Sepphoris its a certainty.
Capernaum doesn’t seem to have revolted in 66 CE and so might be seen as Hellenistic.
False.
It was a small village made out of crude fieldstone, and thought by most NOT to be Hellenistic as there is no evidence.
Some debate its poverty status, but either way it does no have anything in common with our Hellenistic cities.
False.Capernaum doesn’t seem to have revolted in 66 CE .
There is a lack of evidence for this, that does not place ANY certainty that they did not revolt. It was a small village and so we expect there to be no evidence of such either way.
Do you have any evidence about land ownership in Galilee and Judea in the first century CE?
Are you seriously going to deny Antipas ruling Galilee?
You should read some of Johnathon Reeds work and how he defines Tekton based on archeology.
If you don't call another culture perverting after changing another culture religious belief by plagiarized their traditions, well its a personal problem.I am not sure the term “perverted” should be used, modified or changed would be better
Because they mowed them over, murdered them and took over their cultures driving them out of their homeland after destroying their civilization.Mesopotamian and Iranian culture modified and changed the religion of the Jews
Do you sanitize all history that way?In fact the whole history of the religion of the Jews until about 300 CE is about reformation and it didn’t stop there which is why there are different varieties today.
These people were displaces peasants in origin, who were beat down and destroyed every time they looked like a threat to the powers that be. Their history is that of pee3ling their selves off the bottom of war boots and rebuilding from fractured pieces.