Tenorikuma wrote:
MrMacSon, in my view, Christianity didn't really adopt a "messianic" veneer until the Gospels were written.
the Synoptic gospels?
Yes.
MrMacSon wrote:Is there evidence there were Christians in Palestine at the time of the War/s?
The anachronism of "Christian" aside, I'm not sure. it depends on what the "churches of Judaea" Paul mentions were. I don't think there was a church of any significance in Jerusalem. If there were "Christians" in first-century Palestine, they should have left us some kind of physical evidence. Letters, religious texts, inscriptions, whatever.
Whoever the "churches of Judaea" were, Paul was unknown to them by his own admission, and he didn't get his Gospel from them.
eedipus wrote:
The possibility of a large exodus of Jews from Palestine would have galvanized the Jewish intellectual elite to produce an answer that evolved through the centuries to what we have today.
.
No.
Not even close. Your lost. It started before 70 CE which is undisputed by anyone credible. There is a consensus on this.
Due to the Hellenization of Israel and the influx of pilgrims who wanted monotheism but did not want the pesky laws and never followed them to begin with, who lived in the Diaspora. Is the undisputed origin of Christianity. These Diaspora jews and Proselytes are the ones who found value in the martyrdom of the crucified Galilean. And all the NT books tell you so.
Tenorikuma wrote:I don't think there was a church of any significance in Jerusalem. If there were "Christians" in first-century Palestine, they should have left us some kind of physical evidence. Letters, religious texts, inscriptions, whatever.
.
Exactly my thinking.
The Pauline authors and NT authors rhetorically used apostle names of original followers to build authority in their version. This was meant to help promote their version of the movement.
And Yes if these was the brother of Jesus in a Hellenistic capitol, a scribe would not be far off. We should have had Aramaic transliterations from the pieces we would have been left with after they would have been translated to Koine really early.
neilgodfrey wrote:
That it's pre-70 I base on the evidence that Paul demonstrates no knowledge of the events of the War of 68-70. He speaks of Jews as redeemable as anyone else. That doesn't prove the texts we work with are pre-70 but it's a reasonable starting point.
Could Paul be writing elsewhere: somewhere distant with little knowledge of events in Jerusalem in 68-70 AD/CE??
"Could" be but way too little evidence to support this speculation to make it viable. That's not to say later persons added much to his writings. In fact there's no evidence I can think of at all to support such speculation. Simpler explanation for contents of his letters (as Ben Smith outlined) is that he was pre 70.
Can I change my reply? You asked if Paul could have been writing in the second century and I do not believe so, for many reasons. That part I hold to. But I do not discount the possibility that much of the Pauline literature was composed in the second century. Presumably the first drafts approximated what Paul himself taught, if that did happen, or at least they approximated what he taught as reshaped by the needs of whoever wrote the letters.
But that's not a question I've looked into for quite some time now. But Paul himself certainly was pre-70.
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
I propose the term Jesus in Paul is an interpolation, and conversely Christ in gospels is also an interpolation.
I think this is a proposal worth considering, investigating, & discussing.
Clive wrote:
Some texts - Hebrews(?), may have been written with both as joining texts - not just Acts.
That does seem to be the case.
I would look very carefully at all occurrences of Jesus and Christ, by themselves and together, Christ Jesus, Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord etc.
Were any not names but a series of titles, God's anointed saviour? Might some be insertions for theological reasons? What might the originals have read as?
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
And why do you continually miss out the rest of my post - where I explain my point, and by doing that quote mine? The bit about priest kings? Do we not have a process happening of an evolution of a priest king?
By looking at the detail here we can work out the clade diagram. Shamans?
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
