Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Michael BG wrote: Paul was not hunted down by Jews. Peter, Apollos and Barnabas were not hunted down by Jews.
.

All Christians were hunted down by Jews in the beginning.

Paul hunted down Christians.

Peter has no historicity as teaching to Hellenist and Gentiles or being a Christian for that matter. A Hellenist named Peter may have existed but not the real Peter.

Michael BG wrote: I think Apollos was a Jew too.
.

A Hellenistic Jew from Alexandria

Michael BG wrote:
Today I was reading “Comparing Paul and Luke on Paul’s conversion” by Thomas E Phillips in Acts and Christian Beginnings where he states that Gal 1:13 should be translated as “how aggressively I harassed” rather than “violently persecuted” (p 115). It could be translated as “I pursued the assembly and harassed it”.
.

A minority opinion at best,

We have debated this in full in the past here, and the site before this.

As it stands that he did violently persecute them.

Me personally it comes down to who hired Paul? who would need to hire Paul? why would Paul pursue this sect but not other sects if they were as you called mostly Jewish?

BUT most of all, if this started from Jesus real followers, would he not go to the Aramaic founders in Israel? Peter, John, Thomas ect ect he only hunted Hellenist.

I see the temple afraid of rebels starting a war at Passover and trying to aggressively stop Hellenist from being like Jesus a man they found importance in from the time right after crucifixion.

First synagogues in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East

The word synagogue itself comes from Jewish Koiné Greek, a language spoken by Hellenized Jews across Southeastern Europe (Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Greece), North Africa and the Middle East after the 3rd century BCE. Many synagogues were built by the Hellenistai or adherents of Hellenistic Judaism in the Greek Isles, Cilicia, Northwestern and Eastern Syria and Northern Israel as early as the first century BCE- notably in Delos, Antioch, Alexandretta, Galilee and Dura-Europos: because of the mosaics and frescos representing heroic figures and Biblical characters (viewed as potentially conductive of "image worship" by later generations of Jewish scholars and rabbis), many of these early synagogues were at first mistaken for heathen Greek temples or Antiochian Greek Orthodox churches.

Regardless of historicity, how do YOU think Jesus was turned into a god?

Only those with little loyalty to Yahweh, or a culture who recently adopted him would have great reason to change gods definition. People who recently found value in monotheism to the one god concept.

One of two things happened.

#1 Hellenist new to monotheism turned Jesus into a god due to his martyrdom right after crucifixion, this led to a rapid spread through the Diaspora as the temple generated large numbers of Proselytes who accepted the perversion of Judaism central theology surrounding the one all powerful god. The rapid spread only in the Diaspora and no spread in Israel at all is explained by Hellenist returning yearly to Passover and sharing information with other Communities who found value in divorcing cultural Judaism. There was never a center of Christianity from one geographic location and growth equal in many different Diaspora communities who produced the only text we have.

#2 12 Aramaic Galileans peasants oppressed in Galilee by Hellenist who followed Jesus teachings because while alive he was a messiah and took the Jesus movement to their enemies after Jesus crucifixion and spread their Galilean version of Judaism through the Diaspora. These 12 Galileans were not plagiarized from the 12 mythical tribes of Israel. The 12 followers made Jesus a god because they had visions of a resurrection or empty tomb. Of which NO textual evidence can be tied directly or in any way to any of these 12 eyewitness who turned Christian and found to be in divine status by early followers.

outhouse wrote:

Michael BG wrote:
Today I was reading “Comparing Paul and Luke on Paul’s conversion” by Thomas E Phillips in Acts and Christian Beginnings where he states that Gal 1:13 should be translated as “how aggressively I harassed” rather than “violently persecuted” (p 115). It could be translated as “I pursued the assembly and harassed it”.
.

As it stands that he did violently persecute them.

Me personally it comes down to who hired Paul? who would need to hire Paul? why would Paul pursue this sect ...

outhouse wrote: (to Tod Stites regarding Paul)

You have no evidence the Pharisees hired him to head hunt Christian sects in the Diaspora or went with him. I wish we had more to go on.

No primitive speech gospel is behind his conversion and you can leave Damascus out of it as Acts is fiction.

Here you say "Acts is Fiction" and you deny the historical veracity of the first parts of chapter 9 of Acts.

Later in this thread regarding your assertion that "Paul tells you he goes to synagogues and he get his ass kicked", you admit that Acts is your source for this and that your assertion is not otherwise supportable. But you go on to say about Acts,

outhouse wrote:Not fictional, just contradicts Pauline textual traditions.

Despite Acts prose and contradictions, it is not void of historical evidence for the first century movement.

... it makes you happy I should have stated "Pauline traditions said so" instead of "Paul tells us" just to avoid conflict.

That brings us to your assertion in the first box of my reply here, that Paul violently persecuted early Christians and that someone hired him to do so.

If you are willing to admit that the "traditions" in Acts or other later matreial is your source for this belief, then I have no problem with that.

But if you claim that Paul's letters provide significant support, then you need to provide better evidence than a few apologetic translations of Galatians 1:13 where the term "violently" has been inserted. "Violently" does not occur in the Greek text and, IMO, is likely added here by a few translators under the influence of the "traditions" in Acts. And Paul's use of ἐπόρθουν (in the imperfect, "I was endeavoring to destroy") does not necessarily imply violence for certainly one can endeavor to destroy ideas, doctrines, and beliefs with rhetoric.

If you insist on clinging to such a questionable translation, perhaps you can provide a cogent argument based on the text. Can you provide an analysis of how, in all the other parts of his (seven) letters, Paul uses the terms καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν (exceedingly or according to exceeding measure) and ἐδίωκον/διώκω (I was pursuing or persecuting/to pursue or to persecute)?

robert j wrote: If you are willing to admit that the "traditions" in Acts or other later matreial is your source for this belief, then I have no problem with that.

Historicity is based on plausibility you know this.

It is also not solely based on textual evidence alone.

The context in said point in time plays a larger role knowing the social anthropology and political climate often supersedes textual evidence that uses Aristotelean prose using fiction and myth to sell a product.

I don't usually use sources later then Acts, for my areas of interest.

Pauls community tells us about his persecutions against the early followers, correct??

who hired Paul? who would need to hire Paul?

robert j wrote: Here you say "Acts is Fiction" and you deny the historical veracity of the first parts of chapter 9 of Acts.

I think there is confusion and someone used the quote function wrong.

It looks like someone elses quote.

Damascus road is fiction by Acts however, and Paul tells us he had a change from within. A change of heart if you will.

Again one more time, despite many fictitious events in Acts, it is not devoid of evidence for historicity here.

robert j wrote: "I was endeavoring to destroy") does not necessarily imply violence for certainly one can endeavor to destroy ideas, doctrines, and beliefs with rhetoric.

Really that takes it out of context

It is hinged on more then the words you stated. I agree with your translation and possible interpolation based on a total package using Acts.

I also know these were not the only text in circulation.

I also know that when you wanted police action outside of outright military action. You paid for it and hired someone to serve justice. Justice in this period was usually death in terrible manners.

Galatians

In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul indicates several times that the Jews have persecuted Christians, beginning with his admission of his own persecution of the Christians prior to his conversion (Gal 4:29) and ending with his suggestion that he is presently being persecuted because he no longer preaches circumcision (Gal 5:11). This may be one of the stronger proofs of such persecution, as Mark's admission of guilt would be foolish and nonsensical if there were not actually a widespread persecution of Christians by Jews. Few people seeking converts to their cause, would do so by falsely admitting to a crime.


Philippians 3:6New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

outhouse wrote:

robert j wrote: Here you say "Acts is Fiction" and you deny the historical veracity of the first parts of chapter 9 of Acts.

I think there is confusion and someone used the quote function wrong.

It looks like someone elses quote.

Damascus road is fiction by Acts however, and Paul tells us he had a change from within. A change of heart if you will.

Oh? Here's your entire post fom the bottom of page 2 of this thread ---

outhouse wrote:

Tod Stites wrote:raided by Paul and his Pharisee friends prior to his conversion

.

First

You have no evidence the Pharisees hired him to head hunt Christian sects in the Diaspora or went with him. I wish we had more to go on.

Second

No primitive speech gospel is behind his conversion and you can leave Damascus out of it as Acts is fiction.

Paul tells us himself he had a feeling from within as his reason for change, and he does not tell us it was due to some quick read of text nor does he say a celestial anomaly of jesus was responsible. You should know the scholar who taught his, do you even still recognize it as bad as you went off his track?