Page 10 of 23

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:53 am
by robert j
Responding to someone not specified in his post, outhouse wrote ---
outhouse wrote: But where YOU really fail is not understanding the written text. Take Paul, Paul tells you he goes to synagogues and he gest his ass kicked ....
Where did Paul write that?

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:59 am
by outhouse
robert j wrote:Responding to someone not specified in his post, outhouse wrote ---
outhouse wrote: But where YOU really fail is not understanding the written text. Take Paul, Paul tells you he goes to synagogues and he gest his ass kicked ....
Where did Paul write that?
Jews were expelled from Rome because of disturbances around AD 49 by the edict of Claudius.[20] Fitzmyer claims that both Jews and Jewish Christians were expelled as a result of their infighting
Acts is the main source and regardless of historicity, it reflects the division of Hellenistic Jews and Christians

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:02 am
by outhouse
One has to remember, what Hellenist called a Jew and what Israelites called a Jew, were 4 different things.

In the Diaspora, one could simply swear off pagan deity's and be considered a Jew. So the term Jew here is being thrown around loosely.

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:03 am
by outhouse
Keck thinks Gentile Christians may have developed a dislike of or looked down on Jews (see also Antisemitism and Responsibility for the death of Jesus), because they theologically rationalized that Jews were no longer God's people.[23

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:15 am
by outhouse
http://bookstore.xlibris.com/Products/S ... ament.aspx


The New Testament was not written solely to condemn the Jews. But, in the process of developing the several story lines that evolved into the four respective canonical Gospels, the early church adopted a decidedly anti-Judaic stance. Consequently, in its final form, instances of anti-Judaic sentiment are found in much of the New Testament, the Gospels in particular. This animosity has to do as much with politics as with theological doctrine, relations with the Roman imperial authorities as with displacing Jews and Judaism. If pre-Gospel traditions already included anti-Judaic elements, they were now systematically exploited. There was a growing need to explain why Israel, God’s chosen people, had rejected Jesus and the message of his disciples. How could this be reconciled with God’s will? In presenting Jesus as the Messiah and Christianity as superseding Judaism, Paul and the authors of the Gospels and Acts, in particular, indict the Jewish people for the death of Jesus and spread antipathy of Jews and Judaism as part of a program to achieve Christian ascendancy. The historicized core myths that provide the basis for the New Testament missionary program were shaped and reshaped to show that the church possessed full authenticity and validity contra Jews and Judaism.

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:18 am
by robert j
outhouse wrote:
robert j wrote:Responding to someone not specified in his post, outhouse wrote ---
outhouse wrote: But where YOU really fail is not understanding the written text. Take Paul, Paul tells you he goes to synagogues and he gest his ass kicked ....
Where did Paul write that?
Jews were expelled from Rome because of disturbances around AD 49 by the edict of Claudius.[20] Fitzmyer claims that both Jews and Jewish Christians were expelled as a result of their infighting
Acts is the main source and regardless of historicity, it reflects the division of Hellenistic Jews and Christians
Yes, Acts is the main source, and even in this very thread you yourself acknowledged its fictional nature. Besides, you referenced written texts (above) and claimed that "Paul tells you". Of course Paul didn't write Acts.
outhouse wrote: Acts is fiction.
You've provided some pretty fancy dancing to shirt the issue --- are you unwilling or unable to acknowledged that your assertion that "Paul tells you he goes to synagogues and he gest his ass kicked" is not supportable.

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:26 am
by outhouse
robert j wrote:
You've provided some pretty fancy dancing to shirt the issue --- are you not willing or able to acknowledged that your assertion that "Paul tells you he goes to synagogues and he gest his ass kicked" is not supportable.

True, but not really skirting the issue.

But, I'm not alone. And I do show a division by Pauline communities.
In presenting Jesus as the Messiah and Christianity as superseding Judaism, Paul and the authors of the Gospels and Acts, in particular, indict the Jewish people for the death of Jesus and spread antipathy of Jews and Judaism as part of a program to achieve Christian ascendancy.

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:28 am
by outhouse
robert j wrote: Yes, Acts is the main source, and even in this very thread you yourself acknowledged its fictional nature.

.
Not fictional, just contradicts Pauline textual traditions.

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

I think I can find Pauline text hat would justify my statement, BUT if it makes you happy I should have stated "Pauline traditions said so" instead of "Paul tells us" just to avoid conflict.

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:39 am
by robert j
outhouse wrote:Paul tells you he goes to synagogues and he gest his ass kicked
outhouse wrote:I think I can find Pauline text hat would justify my statement
I would like to see that. I'm always interested in learning of something in Paul's (seven) letters that I wasn't previously aware of.

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:44 pm
by Michael BG
outhouse wrote:
Christians met to worship and pray with Jews until the end of the first century
Then when we get to synagogue, I already explained it to you that it was not like a temple or church, they were simply community centers, SO YOU DID NOT get a bunch of people in a building worshipping together.
You have not explained anything. You have asserted that synagogues were not places where Jews met to read the Torah and perhaps other Jewish writings and to pray.

Josephus tells us about Sardis where Jews gathered to pray in a place set aside for this purpose (Ant. 14.10.24).

Both Josephus (Life 56) and Philo (Flacc. 122) state that outside of Jerusalem there were regular places where Jews met for worship.

Matthew has Jews praying in synagogues (6:5). Luke thinks that Jews read their scriptures in synagogues (4:16 and Acts 13:15).

Please note I am not just asserting things but I am providing references for what I am saying.
outhouse wrote: But where YOU really fail is not understanding the written text. Take Paul, Paul tells you he goes to synagogues and he gest his ass kicked and stoned almost to death because of it.
Please can you let me know where Paul states he teaches in synagogues? I did a quick word search and I could NOT find the words synagogue or synagogues in the letters of Paul. Maybe this is another example of your poor methodology and you are thinking of Acts (or maybe you are thinking of 2 Cor. 11:24, but if you had looked it up you would have discovered no mention of synagogues).
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote: You have NOT provided a case that Peter, James and John were not Christians in some sense.
The onus is on you.

They were Aramaic Galilean Jews who were known to be pious. Factually the only people describing them were Hellenist in the Diaspora.
The onus is not on me. You should know that they are depicted in the New Testament as Christians that is all the evidence I need. Why don’t you attempt to present a stronger case than Bernard Muller does!
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote:You have provided no evidence that Christianity was only present among Diaspora Jews.
Lie

ALL of the text we possess is factual evidence only shows Koine speaking Hellenist in the Diaspora wrote about him.

I have evidence, you just don't like it
You have provided no evidence. You have asserted that because we don’t have any texts written in Aramaic this proves that no texts were written by Jewish Christians. Some people believe that part of Q were written in Aramaic and this can be deducted from the Greek texts we have. Also we have some Jewish book only in Greek such as Tobit, Sirach, and 2 Maccabees.
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote:You can NOT provide evidence that the term son of God was not applied to Israel, to Jewish kings in the past or even to each Jew.
I can provide evidence the Emperor in the Diaspora was called "son of god" and much of the biblical text parallels the Emperors divinity, as Hellenist in the Diaspora were proselytizing to Roman citizens who were forced to worship a corrupt Emperor as "son of god"
Again you haven’t provided it. But please do not because that evidence is not what is needed. For your theory to be correct you would need to take every use of son of God in the New Testament and make a case that its usage is not based on Jewish usage!

I am wondering if you have ever managed to present a coherent argument backed up with quotations which include what or who you are quoting, plus internet links. I have a vague memory that someone posted that someone here never posted coherent arguments. Perhaps they were talking about you.