Bernard's website: my answer to comments

[outhouse]

Here is something maybe you can answer.

Who is a possible candidate as being the first gentile? Cornelius


Who is said to have done this and baptized him? Peter


Reality here is that it is not just a singe tradition reported 60-90 years after jesus supposed death in acts, and I highly doubt he was the first, and I highly doubt Peter as doing anything.

But we have similarities in Paul with Samaritans, and the Ethiopian Eunuch, which is all consistent with Lukes advocating a universal faith. There is no reason to think this does not go back to its infancy

Remember here is a tradition tied to Philip

[TedM]

The account of Cornelius and Peter from Acts aside, it seems like it would have been unnecessary for Paul to have gone to Jerusalem to get their blessing, and it would have been inaccurate for Paul to refer to his 'gospel' of salvation through faith and faith alone as a revelation from God and 'no man' if Peter had already understood the 'gospel' as being essentially the same one Paul was preaching. There would have been no need for a meeting with that same Peter, and with John, and James. How do you account for that entire visit and description by Paul?

In any case, your other comments that seem to suggest various similarities are way to vague to conclude that Paul himself didn't originate the salvation through faith in Jesus for Gentiles concept. The question I would have is how were the teachings of Peter/Cephas and Apollos before him in Corinth different? One avenue that might help is the person who converted Cornelius and/or who preached in Corinth was not the Cephas/Peter who was the pillar in Jerusalem.

I appreciate your responses but likely won't be able to take this much further due to time constraints.

[outhouse]

I appreciate your responses but likely won't be able to take this much further due to time constraints.

I don't place much historicity in Paul going to the Jerusalem church to meet real apostles. One I doubt Aramaic Galilean apostles ever existed after crucifixion.

I see it as a literary creation building his authority as having met at the same level as original apostles. Paul had an inferiority complex about being a real apostle.

Him meeting a sect in Jerusalem who held on to laws of cultural Judaism more so then typical Diaspora Hellenistic Judaism, seems normal to me due to the geographic location. That I did think happened or had the possibility.

You have to remember, Paul would have been a very bad dude to the real Galilean apostles, and would have amounted to their blood enemy. But a sect of pious Hellenistic Christians makes more sense.

[TedM]

I don't think their being Galilean apostles or Jewish 'Christians' affects my point regarding Paul as innovator if not the originator of his brand of gospel. What would affect it is if he made up the story. I don't think he did, especially when Acts has a similar account. It may well be that thinkers like Apollo had similar ideas first, but the fact that Paul is the one whose writings remain and who Acts writes at length about for me works as evidence for the enormity of his influence. I see little reason to doubt him.

[outhouse]

How do you account for that entire visit and description by Paul?

.

Rhetorical prose as noted above.

But heres the problem with this view below of

it seems like it would have been unnecessary for Paul to have gone to Jerusalem to get their blessing,

This would only work if we thought Christianity had a center that originated out of Jerusalem as a point of authority. Thing is we know it did not.

The movement started out in massive diversity spread over the Empire, there wee many starting points and none tied to Jerusalem.

Our best hypothesis is that Jewish Proselytes turned Christian returned home each year from Passover and that from the start all of the communities were actively proselytizing to gentiles.


By 70ce Marks gospel was teaching Christianity to Romans who had no knowledge of Judaism and explains the laws to these people. These were not Pauls people nor Pauls communities.



Paul had much less of an impact on Christianity while alive then people imagine. Paul had a huge impact overall but that was due to how his text because popular after his death. While alive this text was not well known or even followed by the vast majority.

[outhouse]

What would affect it is if he made up the story. I don't think he did, especially when Acts has a similar account. .

Both wrote in rhetorical prose.

This means the text was written to pursued people to their cause while building their own authority.

Look at how Pauls pseudepigrapha was out in his name. Look at how gospels authors we al attributed to founding figures none of these people ever met or knew. Same for Pauls methodology were just getting our first hand view of throwing famous names around that were in circulation in these traditions held valuable to all.

Both authors communities writing these text were only writing from traditions they were not part of. That's one of the reasons why we have contradiction between the two.

[MrMacSon]

it seems like it would have been unnecessary for Paul to have gone to Jerusalem to get their blessing,

This would only work if we thought Christianity had a center that originated out of Jerusalem as a point of authority. Thing is we know it did not.

True.

The movement started out in massive diversity spread over the Empire, there were many starting points and none tied to Jerusalem.

Not so True. "started out in massive diversity spread over the Empire" is a massive overstatement.

Our best hypothesis is that Jewish Proselytes turned Christian returned home each year from Passover and that from the start all of the communities were actively proselytizing to gentiles.

"all of the communities were actively proselytizing to gentiles" is also massive overstatement.


This is more bare assertion (assertion without a shred of evidence) -

By 70ce Marks gospel was teaching Christianity to Romans who had no knowledge of Judaism and explains the laws to these people.

You're as bare as a man sitting on a throne in an outhouse with no walls.

[MrMacSon]

Paul joined a movement in the Diaspora, not in Israel.

True. He wrote to communities in AsiaMinor and Greece - it's likely he was based in Asia Minor -

• maybe Antioch in Pisidia-
  
  • http://www.allaboutturkey.com/yalvac.htm
    
    Antioch_of_Pisidia

We are talking about Diaspora Hellenistic Judaism, and Pauls communities flat state there were other teachers and [other] gospel[s], meaning good word and evidencing traditions of a long this nature.

Pauls communities teachings in themselves are dealing with different sects with different adherence to Mosaic laws.

We also know from this tome Proselytes to Judaism in some cases simply had to swear off pagan deities and were accepted into worship the one god concept.

Yes, Paul was as likely or more likely interacting with gentiles following Egyptian 'mystery' religions as he was interacting with Jewish communities.

Diversity is key here. Judaism was very diverse, and so was the movement divorcing cultural Israelite Judaism.

Judaism had been diversifying from 200 BC/BCE. It probably increasingly diversified after the Jewish-Roman Wars

[outhouse]

This is more bare assertion (assertion without a shred of evidence) -
.

You cannot refute it.

That's why you made no attempt

[outhouse]

Yes, Paul was as likely or more likely interacting with gentiles following Egyptian 'mystery' religions as he was interacting with Jewish communities.

Paul was practicing and preaching a typical Hellenistic Judaism with an alleged martyred man at its center, there was no mystery about it. Its one of he most well documented movements there ever was.

An Egyptian tie is unsubstantiated

Judaism had been diversifying from 200 BC/BCE. It probably increasingly diversified after the Jewish-Roman Wars

Yes and yes again.


But Judaism pre Pharisaic, had always been multi cultural and an evolving theology that at times had different levels of accepting Proselytes.

The key thing here is that during the first century with the rebuilt temple, Judaism was exploding in the Diaspora. The temple had to have a court of gentiles the Passover migrations were so large. Judaism was being worshipped with extreme diversity.

Yes the fall of he temple not only accelerated the divorce, but those who divorced cultural Judaism ended up being absorbed by all of Christianity by our best guess. By 200CE it was gone.