to outhouse,
Bernard Muller wrote:
So you think the church of Jerusalem (as evidenced through Paul's epistles) was founded by Diaspora Jews AFTER other churches were established among the Diaspora?
No, nor did I claim it did.
There is no evidence it is the first or primary assembly.
If it was not AFTER, then if was BEFORE. You are contradicting yourself here.
No one is stating there were no followers in Israel. Hellenist flourished there.
So, if you think so, why don't you accept proto-Christianity starting in Jerusalem, certainly a part of Israel, among Hellenist Jews?
Paul was not hunting leaders of the movement in Israel, he hunted then down in the Diaspora where the movement started everywhere after Hellenist went home with new mythology and theology after every Passover.
How do you know that Paul did not hunt Hellenist leaders and their "Greek" followers of the movement in Jerusalem?
Acts 8:1-3
"And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
[2] And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
[3] As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison."
Bernard, Jesus was unknown to Hellenist before his crucifixion. And only you stated Hellenistic Jews, I would state Hellenist led by Proselytes.
How do you know that? Don't you think there were no Hellenist Jews in Jerusalem during or just prior that Passover period when Jesus was crucified?
BEFORE his crucifixion, he was an Aramaic Galilean teacher who took over Johns movement. His mythology and parables back filled with what Hellenist could find which for the most part amounted to Johns teachings Jesus learned from him. I would say typical Galilean apocalyptic Aramaic Judaism were all attributed to Jesus by these Hellenist.
I do not think he was a teacher: how an uneducated rustic be considered a teacher. And no parables: they were all fabricated for later early Christians:
http://historical-jesus.info/30.html,
http://historical-jesus.info/31.html,
http://historical-jesus.info/35.html,
http://historical-jesus.info/36.html
for parables:
http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html
What made Jesus interesting is not him as a teacher, but the (believed by some) future king of the kingdom of God.
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html
This is the crux of your mistake. There was no orthodoxy, that is not how Judaism in the first century existed. It was as wide and varied as early Christianity.
You would be better off saying orthodox to some of the Zealots, or orthodox to the Some of the Pharisees, or those in between, or even orthodox to the Essenes.
I should have said traditional Judaism, as the one of the Sadducees.
But you said yourself the Aramaic Jews of Palestine would not believed in a dead Messiah, but obviously other Jews did believe a Messiah could survive bodily death. Yes there were many brands of Judaism, some rejecting any kind of resurrection, others who believed the spirit of a dead person would keep living (Pharisees & Essenes according to Josephus). I do not see why you are making a fuss about it.
More clues indicate the movement spread faster and sooner in the Diaspora DUE TO the lack of any Aramaic primacy.
Yes, there are more clues the movement spread faster and sooner in the Diaspora DUE TO the lack of any Aramaic primacy. I agree but that was after the "Greek" dispersion, before there was any Aramaic primacy (the earliest Church of Jerusalem was mostly "Greek"). Then after the dispersion, the Church of Jerusalem came under "Aramaic" control, but the leaders (Peter, James, etc.) were not Christians (
http://historical-jesus.info/108.html), so their influence on the development of Christian beliefs was very limited. So there was never any Christian Aramaic primacy.
Every book we have comes from the movements widespread origins all over the Diaspora.
Paul and his community have our earliest writing and it did not come from Israel. Nor the gospels.
Had traditions existed in Israel we would have MUCH more Aramaic primacy, instead of a 99% lack of it with almost no transliterations at all.
Yes about books, but I explained that through the lack of "Aramaic" primacy. However James' epistle, not written by James, is mostly about James' sayings, in my view. Despite a little bit of Christianization, it describes very well the beliefs of the "Aramaic" church of Jerusalem:
http://historical-jesus.info/38.html.
Cordially, Bernard