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

[Michael BG]

Earlier you posted that you didn’t accept the “current academic and scholarly consensus” which accepts that “Jewish Christians did exist”.

I don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Its my opinion Jewish Christians needs to be addressed and to vague as stated. Hellenist in the diaspora were considered Jewish in Hellenistic circles for swearing off pagan deities.

My actual context is that NO Israelite oppressed Jews turned into Christians. And it makes sense because we see from the beginning the religion only appealing to gentiles. And he have hostility early from Jews dire4cted at Christians

Scholars used to separate and divide Hellenistic Jews for Israelite Jews before Martin Hengels work. Today we know his lens was needed in its day, but today his work needs to be clarified as errors have been found.

The following sentence was the important one;

Therefore both of us accept that the consensus is not an argument which can convince either of us.

Both of us should not use the consensus argument to try to convince the other.

I do understand that you believe:

that NO Israelite oppressed Jews turned into Christians

I don’t accept the consensus that John the Baptist was killed before Jesus was crucified.

Your opinion will never be substantiated. Nor explained in way that makes any sense at all.

A logical case can been made out that John the Baptist was killed in about 35 CE and that Jesus was crucified between 26 and 36 CE. I recognise that the consensus view is based on Mark’s account.

I have already pointed out that Peter and James were not hunted down,

Because mythical characters in the Diaspora cannot be hunted down

They fled back to Galilee and were never Christians because they were real Jews

I have no problem with you believing this. It follows from your belief that you will not consider the evidence I have provided that according to Paul both James and Peter lived in Jerusalem. It is also odd that you accept Acts as having historical data only when it supports your beliefs.

In your opinion Michael BG and iskander

Why was the Galilean Jesus deified, why did Hellenist only make him a god, what action could he do to make people think he was divine???

I have already answer this question, did you not read both paragraphs?

Firstly you need to remember that within Judaism there was already the idea of heavenly beings. …

It seems quite reasonable for some of Jesus’ followers who believed that Jesus was in heaven with God to look within Judaism for titles for him. I think Son of Man would have been applied first, maybe followed by anointed and then son of God. I think it is possible that Jesus saw himself in the wisdom tradition and therefore his followers once they believed he is in heaven with God could start to see him as the preexistent Wisdom. After 70 CE it would be easy for Gentile Christians to see Jesus as a god.

Jesus’ ministry was primarily a message to the Jewish people in preparation for a Messianic Kingdom. But it was Paul who targeted a larger Greco-Roman (outside) community after being forced out of synagogue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-or ... 45254.html

Oh exactly what I have been saying.

Robert Orlando concludes with:

History has claimed Jesus “the Christ” as the figurehead, but without Paul the Apostle, the founder, who improvised his message — free of the Jewish religion — and broke the resistance of his original followers there would be no church and perhaps not even a Jesus.

He accepts that there were Jewish Christians and that the disciples became Christians. If you use him to support one of your claims do you have to accept all his beliefs?
Therefore using him as an authority is not convincing.

I do not accept much of what Orlando writes, but I do understand that without Paul and others like him there would have been no Christianity without accepting the Torah.

As I have already stated Gal. 1:13b could be an interpolation. “The Assembly if God” is not a term that could really be used for Christianity during the lifetime of Paul. It is a 2nd century term.

Paul would have used this expression in his previous religious life.
Deuteronomy 23
2 He that is crushed or maimed in his privy parts shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD

Non sequitur

I think iskander’s example here is relevant, and provides a strong argument that the phrase “assembly of God” is a term that Paul could very reasonably have used. And I think the use in Deuteronomy is strong evidence against the claim that the phrase better fits the “2nd century” --- and hence is not evidence that portions of Galatians 1:13 are interpolations.

ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ ------- assembly of God (Galatians 1:13)
ἐκκλησίαν Κυρίου ------- assembly of the Lord (Yahweh) (Deuteronomy 23:2,3,4 LXX)

As I have already stated Gal. 1:13b could be an interpolation. “The Assembly of God” is not a term that could really be used for Christianity during the lifetime of Paul. It is a 2nd century term.

You are aware of christian hermeneutic overlays on biblical texts that tend to constrain readings of texts. I would say that reading "church of God"/"assembly of God" as being used for christianity is one such unjustified overlay. You've seen that the notion of an assembly of the Lord can be found in the Hebrew bible. Such a term could be used for assemblies of Jews in the Hellenistic world and provide a background to Paul's usage. The group behind some of the DSS have rules about their assembly in CD and 1QS.

I am sorry if anyone misunderstand me when I wrote:

As I have already stated Gal. 1:13b could be an interpolation. “The Assembly of God” is not a term that could really be used for Christianity during the lifetime of Paul. It is a 2nd century term.

I thought I was clear that Paul would NOT have used the term for Christians. I do accept that the term could be applied to Israel (i.e. the community of Jews).

Gal 1:13 outlines that when Paul was a conservative religionist he harassed the "assembly of God", a term we now cannot completely fathom, but could in his now enlightened view refer to associations of fellow messianic Jews—as far as Paul can be categorized as messianic (when his messiah seems rather unmessianic). Those assemblies would after all not have been conservative. There is little reason to assume that Paul as the first recorded writer of the Jesus cult was referring to anything other than what he received from his cultural heritage when he talks of assemblies.

(Then again, the use in Gal 1:13 in the singular "assembly of God" is problematic. It could be taken as having that "overarching" feel about it.)

I cannot see Paul using the term “the Assembly of God” to apply to a subgroup of Jews or to apply to Christians when he was an “orthodox” practicing Jew. He accepts Jewish Christians. He also seems to accept that non-Christian Jews will be “saved” - Rom. 11:26

so all Israel will be saved

RSV
Therefore these non-Christian Jews are still part of “the Assembly of God”.

[spin]

As I have already stated Gal. 1:13b could be an interpolation. “The Assembly of God” is not a term that could really be used for Christianity during the lifetime of Paul. It is a 2nd century term.

You are aware of christian hermeneutic overlays on biblical texts that tend to constrain readings of texts. I would say that reading "church of God"/"assembly of God" as being used for christianity is one such unjustified overlay. You've seen that the notion of an assembly of the Lord can be found in the Hebrew bible. Such a term could be used for assemblies of Jews in the Hellenistic world and provide a background to Paul's usage. The group behind some of the DSS have rules about their assembly in CD and 1QS.

I am sorry if anyone misunderstand me when I wrote:

As I have already stated Gal. 1:13b could be an interpolation. “The Assembly of God” is not a term that could really be used for Christianity during the lifetime of Paul. It is a 2nd century term.

I thought I was clear that Paul would NOT have used the term for Christians. I do accept that the term could be applied to Israel (i.e. the community of Jews).

I was clarifying the verse and stating my doubt that the verse was an interpolation.

Gal 1:13 outlines that when Paul was a conservative religionist he harassed the "assembly of God", a term we now cannot completely fathom, but could in his now enlightened view refer to associations of fellow messianic Jews—as far as Paul can be categorized as messianic (when his messiah seems rather unmessianic). Those assemblies would after all not have been conservative. There is little reason to assume that Paul as the first recorded writer of the Jesus cult was referring to anything other than what he received from his cultural heritage when he talks of assemblies.

(Then again, the use in Gal 1:13 in the singular "assembly of God" is problematic. It could be taken as having that "overarching" feel about it.)

I cannot see Paul using the term “the Assembly of God” to apply to a subgroup of Jews or to apply to Christians when he was an “orthodox” practicing Jew.

He is no longer orthodox at time of writing.

He accepts Jewish Christians.

Does he really give the distinction any significance?

He also seems to accept that non-Christian Jews will be “saved” - Rom. 11:26

so all Israel will be saved

RSV
Therefore these non-Christian Jews are still part of “the Assembly of God”.

That is not established from Gal 1:13. Paul is looking back to the past when he talks of harassing the assembly of God. What constituted that assembly back then he does not explain. One can only glean from his conservative position that what he is now referring to back then was not conservative in nature—otherwise he would not have given it a hard time. His viewpoint has shifted, so what he thought back then is no longer applicable and his descriptive tendencies will also have changed with the shift.

In fact talking of Christian Jews (or christian anything) would not have had sense when he was acting against this assembly of God. There were no christians. If the Jesus cult had an existence before Paul, no written trace remains. There are no pre-Pauline Jesus cult texts.

[outhouse]

I have already answer this question, did you not read both paragraphs?

.

It wasn't really a hypothesis at all, or an explanation.

It does not explain why we have the text we do.

What made Jesus stand out from thousands of other teachers????????????

What event took place that he would become martyred?

After 70 CE it would be easy for Gentile Christians to see Jesus as a god.

Sorry but it was more of a gentile religion before 70CE.

Paul is battling with Hellenistic sects that held mosaic law tighter, in the early 50's about how this was a gentile movement.

[outhouse]

I cannot see Paul using the term “the Assembly of God” to apply to a subgroup of Jews or to apply to Christians when he was an “orthodox” practicing Jew.

Sorry that does not fly.

His Judaism is still debated today. Nothing is accepted as him being orthodox.

His Judaism mirrors Proselyte Judaism in the Diaspora to a T. He had no problem perverting it at the blink of an eye.

[outhouse]

There were no christians. If the Jesus cult had an existence before Paul, no written trace remains. There are no pre-Pauline Jesus cult texts.
.

By Pauline textual evidence alone, we know he joined a movement in full swing. Pauline texts state there were other traditions in existence. Correct?

We are talking about a 17 ish year window before Pauline text started so a lack of surviving written traditions the norm not the exception. I say Mark was a compilation at 70CE due to the temple falling and his traditions could go back to the beginning. Like the Passion narrative.

The fact that we see arguments about gentile admission in the early 50's TO ME means acceptance by even semi Jewish communities was non existent.

The divorce from Judaism was from the beginning IMHO, it seems the only people who were accepting mirrored Proselytes who had no problem throwing law out the window.


For me it starts with Herods temple and its popularity in spreading large numbers of RECENT Proselytes all over the Diaspora who found value in monotheism. We also had a time of nutty corrupt Emperors who demanded worship as "son of god". This laid the wood pile, for the martyrdom of a Jesus to act as tinder on these recent Proselyte communities.

[robert j]

He [Paul] also seems to accept that non-Christian Jews will be “saved” - Rom. 11:26

so all Israel will be saved

Romans presents a later, more matured version of Paul's doctrines compared to Paul's letter to the Galatians, but that aside ---

You’ve plucked-out a short phrase that falls far short of adequately representing Paul’s doctrine as presented in this portion of Romans.

Here’s a wider view --- I just used an off-the-shelf translation here (Berean Study Bible) to save time (emphasis mine) ----

Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they are zealous for God, but not on the basis of knowledge. Because they were ignorant of God’s righteousness and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the end of the Law, in order to bring righteousness to everyone who believes. … if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. … Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. … How then can they call on the One they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? … But not all of them welcomed the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” Consequently, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. … I ask then, did God reject His people? Certainly not! I am an Israelite myself … did they stumble so as to lose their share? Absolutely not! However, because of their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous. … I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, in the hope that I may provoke my own people to jealousy and save some of them. … You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” That is correct: They were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith. … And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut from a wild olive tree, and contrary to nature were grafted into one that is cultivated, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! … A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written … (Romans 10:1 – 11:26)

[Michael BG]

He accepts Jewish Christians.

Does he really give the distinction any significance?

Not of itself (as he would see himself as one) but he recognises that the “circumcision party” as “Christians” but they want Gentile Christians to follow the law and he opposes this.

In fact talking of Christian Jews (or christian anything) would not have had sense when he was acting against this assembly of God. There were no christians. If the Jesus cult had an existence before Paul, no written trace remains. There are no pre-Pauline Jesus cult texts.

I don’t think it is useful to talk of followers of Jesus who believed that Jesus had been resurrected as being separate from “Christians” generally. When I was at university I wrote an essay on the definition of Christian and I haven’t changed it since – it should be defined as broadly as possible and therefore I use the term “Christian” to mean anyone who believed that Jesus had been resurrected.

I am sorry if anyone misunderstand me when I wrote:

Sorry for the mistake – misunderstood me.

I have already answer this question, did you not read both paragraphs?

It wasn't really a hypothesis at all, or an explanation.

It does not explain why we have the text we do.

It is a hypothesis you just don’t like it. That is why instead of taking it apart clause by clause you are just asking new questions.

After 70 CE it would be easy for Gentile Christians to see Jesus as a god.

Sorry but it was more of a gentile religion before 70CE.

Paul is battling with Hellenistic sects that held mosaic law tighter, in the early 50's about how this was a gentile movement.

I think you have misunderstood me. The reference to 70 CE is when the Jerusalem Jewish Christian group ceased to exist and the authority for its views declined. This meant that gentile influence could dominate as the alternative position was very much weaken. It is clear that Paul’s view did end up dominating but I don’t think the evidence is there that this was true during Paul’s lifetime. Following 70 CE these Gentile Christians could interpret the term outside of Judaism and in a more Hellenist environment. You are probably correct that in this Hellenist environment the term son of god as applied to Jesus was influenced by how it was applied in this environment to the Roman Emperor.

There were no christians. If the Jesus cult had an existence before Paul, no written trace remains. There are no pre-Pauline Jesus cult texts.

By Pauline textual evidence alone, we know he joined a movement in full swing. Pauline texts state there were other traditions in existence. Correct?

We are talking about a 17 ish year window before Pauline text started so a lack of surviving written traditions the norm not the exception. I say Mark was a compilation at 70CE due to the temple falling and his traditions could go back to the beginning. Like the Passion narrative.

I am glad that here we can agree.

The fact that we see arguments about gentile admission in the early 50's TO ME means acceptance by even semi Jewish communities was non existent.

The divorce from Judaism was from the beginning IMHO, it seems the only people who were accepting mirrored Proselytes who had no problem throwing law out the window.

I think your belief here is not backed up by the evidence. From Galatians we know that Paul lost the argument with the circumcision party in Antioch and split from Barnabas. We also know that members of this circumcision party were in Galatia because Paul is telling the Galatians that they should not live under the law. In Corinth there are Christians who say they are followers of Peter and there are Christians who think it is wrong to eat food offered to idols (1 Cor. 8).

He also seems to accept that non-Christian Jews will be “saved” - Rom. 11:26

so all Israel will be saved

RSV
Therefore these non-Christian Jews are still part of “the Assembly of God”.

That is not established from Gal 1:13. Paul is looking back to the past when he talks of harassing the assembly of God. What constituted that assembly back then he does not explain. One can only glean from his conservative position that what he is now referring to back then was not conservative in nature—otherwise he would not have given it a hard time. His viewpoint has shifted, so what he thought back then is no longer applicable and his descriptive tendencies will also have changed with the shift.

I don’t think you have made out a plausible case that Paul excludes non-Christian Jews from the term used for Jews in the Old Testament - “the Assembly of God”.

We are also arguing from different positions. I am arguing that because it is unlikely that Paul would call Christians “the assembly of God” and so exclude Jews it is unlikely he would have used the term to mean Christians. You are arguing that Paul could have used “the assembly of God” because we have no idea what he meant by the term. I am taking the meaning from the way the term has normally been interpreted.

He [Paul] also seems to accept that non-Christian Jews will be “saved” - Rom. 11:26

so all Israel will be saved

You’ve plucked-out a short phrase that falls far short of adequately representing Paul’s doctrine as presented in this portion of Romans.

Here’s a wider view --- I just used an off-the-shelf translation here (Berean Study Bible) to save time (emphasis mine) ----

I ask then, did God reject His people? Certainly not! I am an Israelite myself … did they stumble so as to lose their share? Absolutely not! … A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written "The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."
… For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. (Romans 10:1-11:29)

Paul might waffle with his gardening metaphor, but in the end Israel is saved. God promised Israel will be saved and nothing is going to change this.

[spin]

He accepts Jewish Christians.

Does he really give the distinction any significance?

Not of itself (as he would see himself as one) but he recognises that the “circumcision party” as “Christians” but they want Gentile Christians to follow the law and he opposes this.

There is no sign that those who follow the law were Jesus cultists.

In fact talking of Christian Jews (or christian anything) would not have had sense when he was acting against this assembly of God. There were no christians. If the Jesus cult had an existence before Paul, no written trace remains. There are no pre-Pauline Jesus cult texts.

I don’t think it is useful to talk of followers of Jesus who believed that Jesus had been resurrected as being separate from “Christians” generally. When I was at university I wrote an essay on the definition of Christian and I haven’t changed it since – it should be defined as broadly as possible and therefore I use the term “Christian” to mean anyone who believed that Jesus had been resurrected.

We disagree. I'll continue to refer to christianity as the religious movement that has an established corpus of texts and some notion of itself as a single entity. That is post-Pauline and probably past mid-2nd century.

He also seems to accept that non-Christian Jews will be “saved” - Rom. 11:26

so all Israel will be saved

RSV
Therefore these non-Christian Jews are still part of “the Assembly of God”.

That is not established from Gal 1:13. Paul is looking back to the past when he talks of harassing the assembly of God. What constituted that assembly back then he does not explain. One can only glean from his conservative position that what he is now referring to back then was not conservative in nature—otherwise he would not have given it a hard time. His viewpoint has shifted, so what he thought back then is no longer applicable and his descriptive tendencies will also have changed with the shift.

I don’t think you have made out a plausible case that Paul excludes non-Christian Jews from the term used for Jews in the Old Testament - “the Assembly of God”.

I don't see how this comment concerns what you are responding to. I was attempting to remove some of the common obfuscation of Gal 1:13, ie one cannot assume that the term "assembly of God" refers to anything other than the body of believers of the Hebrew god. His perspective changes.

We are also arguing from different positions. I am arguing that because it is unlikely that Paul would call Christians “the assembly of God” and so exclude Jews it is unlikely he would have used the term to mean Christians. You are arguing that Paul could have used “the assembly of God” because we have no idea what he meant by the term. I am taking the meaning from the way the term has normally been interpreted.

I don't think you have grasped my view on the matter. I don't think that your retrojecting christians into "assembly of God" is meaningful and I see no reason to think the Jerusalemites were christians. They evince no sign of being Jesus cultists, knowing nothing of Jesus's views of eating, and Paul doesn't indicate any discussion about Jesus with them.

The scenario I am working from is that Paul, when still a conservative Jew, harassed non-conservative Jews, who I presume to be messianists. In hindsight when now a messianist himself he looks back at his actions from a more inclusive perspective.

[robert j]

From Galatians we know that Paul lost the argument with the circumcision party in Antioch and split from Barnabas. We also know that members of this circumcision party were in Galatia because Paul is telling the Galatians that they should not live under the law.

This may be your opinion, but we do not know from Galatians that any members of the “circumcision party” that Paul placed in Antioch were in any way associated with the ones troubling Paul’s congregation in Galatia --- beyond an issue related to circumcision and the law. Your argument --- your “because” --- does not establish your claim at all. The letter to the Galatians does not provide adequate information to establish who the opposition was.

Those encouraging circumcision for Paul’s Galatians could very well have been local Jewish friends and neighbors. Diaspora Jewish friends of Paul's converts that may have been amused, but had no big objection to Paul’s salvific spirit --- a heavenly son of the Jewish God found in the Jewish scriptures by means of creative readings. But such Jews would very likely object to claims that Paul’s Gentiles could be sons of Abraham and could be full participants with the God of Israel without the benefit of circumcision.

You’ve plucked-out a short phrase that falls far short of adequately representing Paul’s doctrine as presented in this portion of Romans.

Here’s a wider view --- I just used an off-the-shelf translation here (Berean Study Bible) to save time (emphasis mine) ----

I ask then, did God reject His people? Certainly not! I am an Israelite myself … did they stumble so as to lose their share? Absolutely not! … A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written "The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."
… For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. (Romans 10:1-11:29)

Paul might waffle with his gardening metaphor, but in the end Israel is saved. God promised Israel will be saved and nothing is going to change this.

We’ll have to disagree on this. I’m not interested in debating the point with you any further, except to say that I think Romans is clear that Paul hopes that he can save some of the Jews, but no individual Jew will be saved if they persist in their unbelief. In the future, from the perspective in Romans, the salvation may or may not include all of Israel. But Paul has high hopes, because "until the full number of Gentiles might come in (aorist, active, subjunctive in the Greek), and in this way all Isreal will be saved, as it is written" (Romans 11:25-26). It's conditional.

... Jesus is Lord … Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Romans 10:9-13)

I magnify my ministry, in the hope that I may provoke my own people to jealousy and save some of them. … (Romans 11:13-14)

You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” That is correct: They were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith. … And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in … (Romans 11:19-23)

Of course selecting pertinent portions is fine, but you added-to and expanded upon my response, and represented it as what I cited (i.e.,the citations from Romans).

[outhouse]

The scenario I am working from is that Paul, when still a conservative Jew, harassed non-conservative Jews, who I presume to be messianists.

.

We are not sure Paul was ever a conservative Jew, his Judaism still debated.

I think Paul had viewed his target as a sect of Jesus worshippers.

But if it was juts harass as you claim, why not harass some real perverters of Judaism like the Sadducees?

The jesus cults when Paul started this, seem to be not well known and not really enough to notice or be worth harassing.

But this cult would be a threat to the temple would it not?