Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Fair enough.

Changes nothing that the current academic status is that Paul did terrible things to Christians. Very terrible.

Marvin Meyer stated the Pauline evidence alone means admitting this was to address the rhetoric against Paul, and that Pauls own admission downplays his actual role.

Again police action was brutal during this period, no ones hands were slapped

Fancy dancing and skirting the issue again. I have not denied that Paul claimed to have pursued (persecuted if you wish) early believers in Jesus Christ before his revelation.

Of course you are welcome to your opinions, but you have yet to provide significant evidence from Paul's letters that this pursuing was violent.

robert j wrote: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.

robert j wrote: I have not denied that Paul claimed to have pursued (persecuted if you wish) early believers in Jesus Christ before his revelation.

I think you took that quote out of context.

Context we cannot prove the Pharisees hired Paul as he claimed.

robert j wrote:

robert j wrote: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.

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.

There is factually no dispute that early Christians were persecuted by Jews and Romans, only how much.

So context is there for said persecutions as a high probability. I already told you this is determined based on plausibility. And in this case it is a certainty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

Christian missionaries as well as converts to Christianity have been the targets of persecution ever since the emergence of Christianity, sometimes to the point of being martyred for their faith.

outhouse wrote:

robert j wrote: I have not denied that Paul claimed to have pursued (persecuted if you wish) early believers in Jesus Christ before his revelation.

I think you took that quote out of context.

Context we cannot prove the Pharisees hired Paul as he claimed.

I have no idea what quote or context you are referring to here --- and don't really care. If it's the "I have not denied" part, I wasn't imply that you had accused me of such, only that I have accepted Paul's claim of persecuting all along.

Where did Paul claim that he was hired by Pharisees? (other than claims by the author of the "traditions" in Acts that is)

But we are just going in circles here with your bobbing and weaving, but not providing evidence from Paul's letters that his early pursuing of believers was violent.

robert j wrote: Where did Paul claim that he was hired by Pharisees?.

Pay attention please. OP made that claim and I asked him where the evidence was and stated there is no such evidence. He does not know.

I believe it was the Sadducees but have no evidence, only personal opinion.

where the term "violently" has been inserted. "Violently" does not occur in the Greek text

I don't think any persecutions have ever been listed that were not violent.

DO YOU have any examples of literary persecutions???

outhouse wrote:

robert j wrote: Where did Paul claim that he was hired by Pharisees?.

Pay attention please.

The problem is not my attention but your sloppy writing --- (emphasis mine)

outhouse wrote:Context we cannot prove the Pharisees hired Paul as he claimed.

outhouse wrote:

Michael BG wrote:Can you make a case that Peter and John were not followers of Jesus during his lifetime.

I make a case they were part of Jesus inner circle, and it is my opinion they fled back to Galilee during Jesus arrest, starting the traditions of the real followers turning him in, and denying him 3 times. In my view the inner circle were illiterate peasants who first followed John, then after his murdered hooked up with Jesus.

I do not see Aramaic Galileans taking their Jewish message to large Hellenistic Galilean cities, which also means they probably avoided all Hellenist together, as Hellenist were not only perverting their religion, they were their very oppressors. The people who wrote the bible were enemies of Aramaic Galileans. IMHO

This is where I stray from the majority of the academic field.

It is possible Jesus’ inner circle fled to Galilee. You are free to have any view. We have evidence that Peter preached in both Antioch and Corinth. (The evidence for Corinth I think has been questioned, but the evidence is strong that the Corinthian Christian community knew personal details about Peter [1 Cor. 9:5].) The Galatians are aware of Peter, John and James in Jerusalem not Galilee.

outhouse wrote:

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.

I have already questioned the translation of Gal 1:13. It might be possible to go further and see “ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν, καὶ” as an interpolation.

outhouse wrote: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.

Please see my comments above. “Cephas” is Aramaic therefore Paul must be referring to an Aramaic Jew!

outhouse wrote: 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?

If we assume that Paul did discourage people from believing “something” about Jesus there is no need for these people to be Gentiles. In fact it makes more sense that he is trying to get Jews not to believe “something” about Jesus.

Paul does not say he was paid to “chase” Christians. He could have been doing it because he believed that his belief system was true while one including believing “something” about Jesus was not. Even today some Christians will talk to people to try to get them to believe what they believe.

outhouse wrote: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.

Paul does not tell us about who he is “chasing” and we can’t trust Acts.

outhouse wrote: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.

One thing we cannot know is how long the time gap was between Jesus’ crucifixion and the arrival of Peter, John and James in Jerusalem. An interesting question is why was Jesus crucified but Peter, John and James managed to be based in Jerusalem when Paul was converted and while he was raising money from Greater Greece for them.

outhouse wrote: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.

Firstly you need to remember that within Judaism there was already the idea of heavenly beings. I am not sure I agree with the idea that in the first century Jews still saw Yahweh as one god and El as another.

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.

outhouse wrote:

robert j wrote: (referring to some translations of Gal 1:13) where the term "violently" has been inserted. "Violently" does not occur in the Greek text

I don't think any persecutions have ever been listed that were not violent.

DO YOU have any examples of literary persecutions???

Yes, Galatians 1:13 describes Paul's pursuing as extreme, and he claims that he was "endeavoring to destroy", but that does not necessarily imply violence for certainly one can endeavor to destroy ideas, doctrines, and beliefs with rhetoric. That could include impassioned arguments or casting aspersions --- but physical violence is not specified.

Your comment and question here focus on the "persecution". The Greek word Paul uses here is ἐδίωκον/διώκω (I was pursuing or persecuting/I pursue or I persecute). The term itself as used by Paul does not necessarily imply violence. For examples ---




So the word itself can be used to pursue love, or to pursue a faith and try to destroy it. But the concept of violence is not inherent.

Without the "traditions" in Acts in mind, there is no real justification for inserting the word "violently" into the translation of Galatians 1:13.