Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

outhouse wrote:

Michael BG wrote:We have evidence that Peter preached in both Antioch and Corinth

Please provide it. The textual evidence is named to Peter but it is not certain or even accepted he was the author.

It was common to attribute text to famous names that had no connection to the text, that is how the authors were trained to write.

SO no you do not have any evidence a Galilean Peter preached there.

I thought I had already provided it. I don’t understand why you might think I am referring to anything attributed to Peter. Perhaps you have just posted one of your standard unthinking replies.

Michael BG wrote:We know from Galatians (2:11-13) that there is something called the “circumcision party”, who are Jewish Christians like Peter, James and Barnabas. Paul is fighting a requirement to live like Jews at Antioch. This means that members of the “circumcision party” lived as Jews along-side Jews who were not Christians. It is clear from Galatians that they (the Galatian Christians) were living according to the Law as Jews. In 1 Corinthians (8:7ff) there are still some Christians at Corinth who will not eat food offered to idols.

See also 1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5.

Just to be clear. We know that Cephas was an Aramaic circumcised Jewish Christian. We have in Mark (3:15) the tradition that Simon was called “Rock” i.e. Cephas in Aramaic; we have the tradition that both Simon and Andrew were Galilean fishermen (1:16ff); and we have the tradition that the house of Simon and Andrew was in Capernaum (Mk 1:21, 29). This also states that Peter was married (mother-in-law 1:30) which agrees with 1 Cor. 9:5.

I would be interested in your case for how you argue that Peter and Cephas are not the same person. But perhaps this is just another of your beliefs.

outhouse wrote:Christians were persecuted from the beginning historically speaking. Its not up for debate. It is the rule not an exception.

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.

This is the consensus view, but we should not be constrained by the consensus. Have we not discussed the lack of evidence and Candida Moss before?

Christians identified themselves as innocent victims; they associated their sufferings with those of Jesus and aligned the source of those sufferings with the forces that killed Jesus. From the very beginning, victimhood was hardwired into the Christian psyche.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -myth.html

outhouse wrote:

Michael BG wrote: 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.

I never stated that was during jesus time, your being dishonest

I never stated you had stated or thought that in the first century Jews still saw Yahweh as one god and El as another. It was an aside. Perhaps I should have put it into brackets to make it clearer.

iskander wrote:

iskander wrote:Galatians 1:13
13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Galatians+1

13, 14. " My early education is a proof that I did not receive the gospel from man. I was brought up in a rigid school of ritualism, directly opposed to the liberty of the gospel. I was from age and temper a staunch adherent of the principles of that school. Acting upon them, I relentlessly persecuted the Christian brotherhood. No human agency, therefore, could have brought about the change. It required a direct interposition from God."
J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D.

Oremus uses the word " violently" to convey the true meaning of the Greek text in an English translation.

Lightfoot explains the same true meaning of the Greek text without using the word " violently" to keep one like you happy.

Gal 1:13.

ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν,

I-chased the Assembly of God and harassed it.

This could be just verbal, but thousands of years of Christian history has falsely interpreted it as involving physical violence.

outhouse wrote: Paul tells us he persecuted the followers violently, and I posted evidence you refuse to address even in a small part. YOU hold the minority view and I hold the academic view even Erhman stands behind.

Paul tells us explicitly he persecuted, and every other example from this time period shows violence in such. These were not freaken liberal scumbags. These were barbaric people.

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.

You may think you have posted evidence but if you actually go back and look at what you posted you will see you did NOT.

I have posted some places in Paul’s letters (Gal. 1:23, Phil 3:6) where you could engage in a debate rather than you just asserting your position, again and again and again and again ….

I look upon you posting again your two reference from Galatians without engaging with what I posted regarding your misreading of them as a clear sign of your failure to want to engage in a debate.

Here again is the argument against your reading:

Michael BG wrote:I think both references are to Paul being harassed by the “circumcision party”. 4:29 those born under the flesh are those who follow the law and those born according to the spirit are those Christians who do not live under the law. In 5.13 Paul talks of those who are unsettling the Galatian Christians and these are the Christians who are telling them they should live according to the law, the same people who are harassing him in 5:11. The same “circumcision party” of Antioch – James, Peter and Barnabas.

The same party even if not the same people.

outhouse wrote:Here are examples

The New Testament states that Paul was himself imprisoned on several occasions by Roman authorities, stoned by Pharisees and left for dead on one occasion, and was eventually taken as a prisoner to Rome. Peter and other early Christians were also imprisoned, beaten and harassed

Are you quoting someone?

Are you really unaware that you should provide New Testament references to go along with these claims?

I can only recall one letter where Paul talks as if he is a prisoner of the Romans but I can’t remember which one.

outhouse wrote:And if we look at acts it gets more explicit.

And you cannot say Acts is solely dependent on Pauline text.

The Acts Seminar do regarding nearly everything in Acts about Paul. For most of the rest they state are the creation of the author of Acts.

outhouse wrote:Jewish violence on early Christians is not up for debate, it took place.

Almost everything is debatable regarding Jesus and early Christianity, just some things are less debatable than others because of the weight of the evidence. Regarding Jewish violence against early Christians there is not any clear evidence or you would have been able to present it.

outhouse wrote:Its my personal opinion he has blood on his hands and was a murderer.

I have no problem with you thinking this. However I do have a big problem with you presenting it as backed up by the weight of evidence without you being able to produce any convincing evidence.

outhouse wrote:Statements like Surely you have heard of how bad I screwed over these people, is strong evidence combined with all the violence said to have taken place.

Paul didn’t say he “screwed over” anybody.

outhouse wrote:YOU do not get throw Acts away completely as being devoid of evidence.

If you quoted evidence from Acts I would engage with it and present a case that it does not reflect history.

outhouse wrote:Stephens stoning may have taken place, and if so Paul holding coats instead of throwing stones was the rhetorical prose to soften up rhetoric against Paul in his time and after. He probably took part in killing Stephen.

Again you don’t provide the reference!!!!!!!!

Please use the link below for my view of why the martyrdom of Stephen is likely a fiction
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1922&hilit=Martyrdom+of+Stephen

Acts 7:58

Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.

Does not say Paul was holding their coats. It seems strange that the witnesses lay down their garments at the feet of Saul and it was not those throwing the stones (does this mean the witnesses ended up nude? ). The Acts Seminar think that the author of Acts created the story that Paul was called Saul. I think their evidence is the lack of using this clearly Jewish name in passages where Paul is emphasising his Jewishness (e.g. Phil 3:5-6 that I have quoted earlier).

The interpretation of Galatians 1 : 13-14

It could be only verbal violence. There must have been a valid reason for any possible misunderstanding. Perhaps Judaism considered heretics to be no better than Amaleks and to remember them as idol worshippers.


Mitzvos Aseh That Apply Today

76. Zechiras Amaleik - To remember verbally what Amaleik did

77. Michiyas Amaleik - To destroy Amaleik

77 Mitzvos Aseh That Apply Today

http://revach.net/tefila/article.php?id=3728

iskander wrote:It could be only verbal violence.

BS

He does not lead off with For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism


He is dealing with negative polemic against him trying to soften public criticism against him. Generally speaking preaching alone will not generate that much negative public criticism Murdering people will.

The author/community of Acts using Stephen is trying to soften Pauls negative image as a murderer and having been at a stoning. Oh he only held his coats! This is regardless of the historicity of Stephens martyrdom. This text is dealing with the polemic.

You all can ignore that the text was reactionary in many places but I will use reason and logic here.


Reason and logic is that Hellenist perverting Judaism were persecuted. And these barbaric people did not hold hands and play god damned patty fk cakes.

Michael BG wrote: Please use the link below for my view of why the martyrdom of Stephen is likely a fiction
.

It is not known academically speaking.

There is no consensus it is fiction, and it probably has a historical kernel. Its my opinion its dealing with anti Pauline polemic.


You really drop the ball in this area of research by trying to take everything out of its natural context here.

KISS and you will go further. Was there a need to hunt down early sect members? factually there was a huge need to stop the followers from wanting to become a martyr like Jesus. If one of these followers said the righty things at Passover a war could start and money would stop getting to Rome from the temple and Caiaphas and Pilates lives were on the line to keep that money flowing by keeping peace.

First John murdered by the Herodian police force
Second Jesus is viewed as John resurrected by biblical sources quoting Herodian sources.
Third Jesus murdered and said to have been sent to a Herodian court prior

And now the message is still alive in the Diaspora and there is a track record of martyrs.

Passover was a powder keg and Caiaphas and Pilate knew it. They had everything to gain by hunting these people down.

outhouse wrote:

iskander wrote:It could be only verbal violence.

BS

He does not lead off with For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism


He is dealing with negative polemic against him trying to soften public criticism against him. Generally speaking preaching alone will not generate that much negative public criticism Murdering people will.

The author/community of Acts using Stephen is trying to soften Pauls negative image as a murderer and having been at a stoning. Oh he only held his coats! This is regardless of the historicity of Stephens martyrdom. This text is dealing with the polemic.

You all can ignore that the text was reactionary in many places but I will use reason and logic here.


Reason and logic is that Hellenist perverting Judaism were persecuted. And these barbaric people did not hold hands and play god damned patty fk cakes.

the 'clever, educated sceptics' know the NT is nothing more than a myth and a forgery. What could an ordinary man say in their temple as a visitor ?


Jesus was executed because Judaism found him guilty of heresy. Paul was once one of those temple-slaves brought up in one of the most intolerant religions.

With relationship to misguided violent zealots, there is a shocking Midrash recorded in Sefer Otzar HaMidrashim (Vol. 2 page 557) which explains why the Rabbanim of Temple times were terrified of the original followers of the false messiah Yeshu HaNotzri (yimah shmo).

The original Christians, the Midrash says, were a violent group of political agitators. Far from being a pacifistic saint, the historical Yeshu was a political terrorist and a man of wanton violence

Pinhas,
A Guide For Zealots,
Misguided and Otherwise
http://koshertorah.com/PDF/pinhas.pdf



eppur si muove

iskander wrote:
Jesus was executed because Judaism found him guilty of heresy.

I cannot "buy" that. With half a million people there and very diverse beliefs in Judaism given free reign by Romans. I see a teacher lost is a sea of people where authorities would never hear of said person.

BUT causing any trouble in the temple at all, would get you crucified.

Not only that, something at Passover ended up starting martyrdom around the jesus myth/theology. Teaching alone does not get Hellenist all warm and fuzzy inside.

The academic side of things states the trouble he cause resulted in his crucifixion, more so then teaching.

iskander wrote:the Midrash

Is worthless here

iskander wrote:
the 'clever, educated sceptics' know the NT is nothing more than a myth and a forgery

Agreed but.

Historical aspects grew mythical and theological accretions in a specific time period as if just a few years prior while witnesses were still alive could refute them. Of course not a single one ever did.

outhouse wrote:

iskander wrote:the Midrash

Is worthless here

As Liddell Hart once wrote , it is the other side of the hill "The Other Side of the Hill"

I am not selling anything

OK, Fine

outhouse wrote: He does not lead off with For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism

He is dealing with negative polemic against him trying to soften public criticism against him. Generally speaking preaching alone will not generate that much negative public criticism Murdering people will.

As usual you have not given the reference. I assume you are referring to Gal. 1:13a

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism,

RSV
I don’t see anything negative about this.
You have heard about my former life in Judaism, it consisted of …
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.

Even if Paul had written Gal. 1:13b it does not state Paul killed anyone. Nowhere in Paul’s 7 “authentic” letters does Paul state he killed anyone. It is implied in Acts 22:4 which the Acts Seminar translate as:

I persecuted this movement (the Way) promoting the death penalty and delivering shacked prisoners – women no less than men – into custody

(p 270)

outhouse wrote: The author/community of Acts using Stephen is trying to soften Pauls negative image as a murderer and having been at a stoning. Oh he only held his coats! This is regardless of the historicity of Stephens martyrdom. This text is dealing with the polemic.

You all can ignore that the text was reactionary in many places but I will use reason and logic here.

Reason and logic is that Hellenist perverting Judaism were persecuted. And these barbaric people did not hold hands and play god damned patty fk cakes.

The only places where it is implied that Paul was involved in the killing of Christians is Acts 22:4 and 9:1

But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest

RSV
Therefore it makes no sense for the author of Acts to create the idea that Paul was involved in bringing Christians to Jewish courts and demanded the death penalty and then create a story to soften this idea, which seems to be your position.

Again you imply that Jews killed Christians. I have no problem with you holding this belief but you should not post your belief as if it is a fact of history. This is especially true as you continue to NOT be able to present a coherent case why your belief might be probable. (I don’t understand why you have not learnt to do this yet considering you have been on this website for over 3 years and you seem to have been active on the previous website.)

outhouse wrote:

Michael BG wrote: Please use the link below for my view of why the martyrdom of Stephen is likely a fiction

There is no consensus it is fiction, and it probably has a historical kernel. Its my opinion its dealing with anti Pauline polemic.

Why do you keep posting this? Earlier you posted that you didn’t accept the “current academic and scholarly consensus” which accepts that “Jewish Christians did exist”. Therefore both of us accept that the consensus is not an argument which can convince either of us.

outhouse wrote: Was there a need to hunt down early sect members? factually there was a huge need to stop the followers from wanting to become a martyr like Jesus. If one of these followers said the righty things at Passover a war could start and money would stop getting to Rome from the temple and Caiaphas and Pilates lives were on the line to keep that money flowing by keeping peace.

First John murdered by the Herodian police force
Second Jesus is viewed as John resurrected by biblical sources quoting Herodian sources.
Third Jesus murdered and said to have been sent to a Herodian court prior

And now the message is still alive in the Diaspora and there is a track record of martyrs.

Passover was a powder keg and Caiaphas and Pilate knew it. They had everything to gain by hunting these people down.

I don’t accept the consensus that John the Baptist was killed before Jesus was crucified. I think that this was created by Christians to make Jesus more important than John the Baptist.

I don’t accept as historical the idea anyone believed Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected during the lifetime of Jesus.

I don’t accept that Jesus went before a Herodian court. I think this was created by Luke.

I have already pointed out that Peter and James were not hunted down, we know from Paul’s letters that they lived in Jerusalem and Paul often refers in his letters to those fellow believers who live in Jerusalem.