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

[outhouse]

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.

[outhouse]

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.

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

[outhouse]

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???

[iskander]

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???

This is how Judaism describes the Messianic era. see attached file
What kind of entity could do these ' miracles' ?

[outhouse]

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.

[outhouse]

This is how Judaism describes the Messianic era. see attached file
What kind of entity could do these ' miracles' ?

What a bunch of horse crap. When Jesus was born his uncles probably killed in Sepphoris on enslaved for those who were not crucified/murdered.

Jews were on the brink of war his whole life.

Harris lines found on even rich children show mal nutrition, disease and death everywhere. It was a terrible time to live.


You posted apologetic rhetoric, not anthropology

[iskander]

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
The Prohibition of Joining the Assembly of the Lord (God)
http://thetorah.com/the-prohibition-of- ... -the-lord/

[outhouse]

Deuteronomy 23
2 He that is crushed or maimed in his privy parts shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD
The Prohibition of Joining the Assembly of the Lord (God)
http://thetorah.com/the-prohibition-of- ... -the-lord/

Non sequitur

[robert j]

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)

[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.

There is nothing to suggest from reading that James and Cephas were anything other than (probably messianic) Jews. There is no suggestion from their behavior that they knew anything about Jesus. They have no knowledge of Jesus eating and drinking with "publicans" such as Levi/Matthew. Cephas, who christian hermeneutics wants you to read as Peter (as Gal 2:7b-8 with its anti-Pauline gospel to the circumcised underlines), can be brow-beaten by James over table fellowship. There is conflict that arises from reading gospel ideas back into Paul's writing, especially here in Galatians. What we glimpse regarding the pillars does not gel with the gospel religion embodied in the teaching of Jesus.

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.)