Spiker, you asked rhetorically, “And what do you think the earliest Christians were if not Jews?” I do not think the answer is so easy. I still cannot buy, as Bart claims, that even Jews believed that whoever ascends to Heaven becomes or is made divine themselves. I know he has researched this much more than I have (I haven’t at all). But in all my studies in Judaism the last forty years, I’ve never come across anything that would lead me to believe that was possible.
Forgive me for not having followed the theme of these posts too carefully. Is this what is in question here about whether early Christians got “it” from the Romans?
In my view, those whom most people call “the earliest Christians” were not Christians. If Jewish followers of Jesus believed “merely” that Jesus was the messiah (intentional lower-case “m”) and that, even though crucified, he would return to rid the Jews of their enemies, re-establish the nation Israel and help God usher in the Kingdom, then there would be no reason to call them “Christian.” For me, the question is whether Paul speaks truthfully when he says he received the Gospel form no man or that he received it from those who came before him. Bart argues that his admission that he received it from others is probably true because of the criterion of dissimilarity. But Paul goes back and forth so much about connecting himself and disconnecting himself from the authority of the Jerusalem Council that it may well be a mistake to apply the criterion at this one point and accepting the conclusion as Bart does. If Paul’s conversion was early and he converted mostly gentiles, then the earliest Christians may well have been these gentiles, not Jews. In between these two positions (non-Christian Jewish Apostles and non-Jewish Christians) is the complication that many Jews were Hellenized to some extent. Paul, I think, perhaps more than any of them-especially if Acts is right that he came from Tarsus. But I doubt the Twelve, having come from rural Galilee were very Hellenized. I very much doubt, that is to say, that they would have believed Jesus was God or made a god or part of God or that his suffering, death, and resurrection were intended to provide salvation to those who believed in him. For Jews, God alone was the Savior, not a or the messiah. That there might be salvific power in believing in a killed and resurrected messiah would be easier for a Hellenized Jew to believe and much easier for a gentile.
SBrudney091941 said
Spiker, you asked rhetorically, “And what do you think the earliest Christians were if not Jews?”
Brud thanks for the response!
The question in consideration there was whether Christians plagiarized Roman religious practices. It seems to be the height of popular wisdom these days to talk about such things in mythicist terms. My complaint is not about where the evidence might lead, but the manner in which people get there. AND yes, you’re right the answer is not so easy because one first needs to define what one means by early or earliest Christians. Do the gospel authors count among the earilest or only the disciples?
I still cannot buy, as Bart claims, that even Jews believed that whoever ascends to Heaven becomes or is made divine themselves. I know he has researched this much more than I have (I haven’t at all). But in all my studies in Judaism the last forty years, I’ve never come across anything that would lead me to believe that was possible.
I agree, but I don’t think Ehrman ever made this claim. That may be an implication of his views, but I’m inclined to think it’s a misreading.
Forgive me for not having followed the theme of these posts too carefully. Is this what is in question here about whether early Christians got “it” from the Romans?
Yes, the OP claimed that Early Christians plagiarized “son of God” status from the Romans and declared there was no doubt about it. The reasoning here was way off in my view. When you recite another persons conclusions, it’s rather risky to make definitive claims like”there is no doubt” . That the appellation is found extensively in Jewish culture (as represented by the OT) didn’t seem to impress him despite the misgiving of William of Ockham.
In my view, those whom most people call “the earliest Christians” were not Christians. If Jewish followers of Jesus believed “merely” that Jesus was the messiah (intentional lower-case “m”) and that, even though crucified, he would return to rid the Jews of their enemies, re-establish the nation Israel and help God usher in the Kingdom, then there would be no reason to call them “Christian.”
You had me there for a second, but I think that is right. (not too sure about the “even though crucified” distinction) Remember; though that There was no Christianity as we know it. Resurrection (belief in it anyway, as Paul pointed out, was the oxygen in Christian lungs. Once one believes in the resurrection, all those other things fall into a specific place. My suspicion is this may have started with Elvis like sightings, but caught fire with misconstruing Isaiah’s Suffering Servant. I’m not real sure all the sightings were real (there’s a stretch, huh?), per se but I think a misconstrual of Isaiah factored heavily into a EUREKA! moment.
For me, the question is whether Paul speaks truthfully when he says he received the Gospel form no man or that he received it from those who came before him. Bart argues that his admission that he received it from others is probably true because of the criterion of dissimilarity. But Paul goes back and forth so much about connecting himself and disconnecting himself from the authority of the Jerusalem Council that it may well be a mistake to apply the criterion at this one point and accepting the conclusion as Bart does.
Do you mean to say Paul’s belief that he did NOT receive it from others?
If Paul’s conversion was early and he converted mostly gentiles, then the earliest Christians may well have been these gentiles, not Jews. In between these two positions (non-Christian Jewish Apostles and non-Jewish Christians) is the complication that many Jews were Hellenized to some extent.
Yea, but were talking about what we can say based on what information we have. I think it’s safe to say that some of the disciples were among the earliest Christians (less in terms of a label than what the term might signify) No telling who was “brought into the fold” during Paul’s 3 years in Arabia. Further, I don’t know if w can nail down a time where we can say Paul started with the whole Gentile thing. Also, for the purposes of the debate with the OP, it matters little if the Jews were Hellenized or not since the question is whether the concept of Son of God was something Jews would have ascribed to another person and whether that term carried with it the connotation in question.
Paul, I think, perhaps more than any of them-especially if Acts is right that he came from Tarsus. But I doubt the Twelve, having come from rural Galilee were very Hellenized. I very much doubt, that is to say, that they would have believed Jesus was God or made a god or part of God or that his suffering, death, and resurrection were intended to provide salvation to those who believed in him. For Jews, God alone was the Savior, not a or the messiah. That there might be salvific power in believing in a killed and resurrected messiah would be easier for a Hellenized Jew to believe and much easier for a gentile.
I think Paul did come from Tarsus (Why make that up?) but it seems he was educated in Jerusalem. I think the whole Jesus is God
question has to be weighed in the framework of hypostasis. A very Jewish conception and Ehrman asks in what sense would they mean God in a statement like Jesus is God? Is he God in the sense of Moses speaking to Pharoh? Is he God in the sense that “The Angel of the Lord” is often called God in the bible, etc?
Thanks, spiker, for your thoughtful reply. You posed the question whether the gospel authors count among the earliest or only the disciples. That’s somewhat relative. You and I both know, I guess, people who argue that the Gospels are early and certainly early enough for the Apostles to have composed them. To me, they are late enough to be suspect. I like to use the JFK assassination as an analogy. There were witnesses and empirical evidence from the outset and people still have disagreed vehemently ever since. Imagine if the first written work on it had not been composed until forty years later!
Anyway, I come from a Jewish background and have been flabbergasted since I was a kid over how Christianity could have come out of Judaism. Of course, much older now, I understand the arguments but it even harder to understand. James Tabor wrote a book, Paul and Jesus, in which he makes all sorts of moves that imply that the earliest Christians weren’t Christians but then insists on calling them “the earliest Christians.” So were “some of the disciples were among the earliest Christians”? Well “Christian” is not just a label but has a meaning. Since it has so many different meanings, it gets complicated. But it seems to me that, at the very least, it would have to include belief in the salvific power of Jesus’ suffering, blood, death, and resurrection. Again, I find it very hard to believe that relatively unHellenized, Galilean Jews would have believed such things about whatever messiah might have come along. One the one hand, we have the evidence of Acts, for what it’s worth, and Paul’s anomalous claim who received the Gospel from others. On the other hand, we have some information about Galilean and other less Hellenized Jews and about more Hellenized Jews. If Paul’s claim that he did not received the Gospel from others is the true claim and if Acts is only reading late first century ideas back into the lives and experiences of the earliest followers of Jesus after he died, then it might have been Paul who wittingly or unwittingly came up with an amalgam of Hellenistic influences and his Jewishness thus inventing Christianity.
Bart does make the claim that not only pagans but Jews believed that that people who have ascended to Heaven have become divine. I think he says he cites evidence for this in his How Jesus Became God which I admittedly haven’t yet read.
More about Paul: yes, that is my hard-to-prove belief or tendency toward the belief that Paul did not get the Gospel teaching from others. He says he didn’t (and then says he did). I don’t think he had been persecuting Christians. He had been persecuting followers of Jesus whom it would be a mistake to call “Christians” simply in virtue of their following him. He never says exactly why. Because he was sent by one of the parties to persecute them because the leaders were afraid of an uprising? I don’t think so; I think the followers were too few in number. Simply because they were fools to hold on to their belief that he was still alive and still the messiah? We don’t know. But Christians have always liked projecting their tendency toward martyrdom back into that time and have assumed it was because they were Christians that he was persecuting them.
SBrudney091941 said
Thanks, spiker, for your thoughtful reply. You posed the question whether the gospel authors count among the earliest or only the disciples. That’s somewhat relative. You and I both know, I guess, people who argue that the Gospels are early and certainly early enough for the Apostles to have composed them.
The problem with the early gospels analysis is it is always based on well Jesus said X and therefore; yet whether Jesus said X or Y is something that scholars have a hard time demonstrating. Did Jesus talk about the destruction of the temple or was that put in his mouth later by gospel authors; however, again the distinction early christian while relative is about the use of the term son of god
I find it very hard to believe that relatively unHellenized, Galilean Jews would have believed such things about whatever messiah might have come along.
They wouldn’t. Not without let’s say the straw breaking the camels back. The death of their master was enough to shake them and the purported resurrection might be just enough to shift their world view. I think Bart has a valid point about knowing how many of the disciples shared in the new religion. Certainly a difference over their very understanding of Jewishness could turn some or even many away. We only hear about Peter, James and John (Did I forget anyone?) And even they seem to pale against Paul.
One the one hand, we have the evidence of Acts, for what it’s worth, and Paul’s anomalous claim who received the Gospel from others. On the other hand, we have some information about Galilean and other less Hellenized Jews and about more Hellenized Jews. If Paul’s claim that he did not received the Gospel from others is the true claim and if Acts is only reading late first century ideas back into the lives and experiences of the earliest followers of Jesus after he died, then it might have been Paul who wittingly or unwittingly came up with an amalgam of Hellenistic influences and his Jewishness thus inventing Christianity.
Too many ifs Brud, but I believe Paul was educated under the influence of Gamaliel
Bart does make the claim that not only pagans but Jews believed that that people who have ascended to Heaven have become divine. I think he says he cites evidence for this in his How Jesus Became God which I admittedly haven’t yet read.
Yes, but it is that people could be made divine, I don’t know if you could make the other claim that people who have ascended to Heaven have become divine.
More about Paul: yes, that is my hard-to-prove belief or tendency toward the belief that Paul did not get the Gospel teaching from others. He says he didn’t (and then says he did). I don’t think he had been persecuting Christians. He had been persecuting followers of Jesus whom it would be a mistake to call “Christians” simply in virtue of their following him. He never says exactly why. Because he was sent by one of the parties to persecute them because the leaders were afraid of an uprising? I don’t think so; I think the followers were too few in number.
Not sure if you left a word out or something but I’m not clear on what ” the distinction early christian while relative is about the use of the term son of god” means.
The only difference in “their very understanding of Jewishness” that their messiah’s crucifixion and resurrection would have necessitated would have been the new and different view that a messiah’s mission could be ended or interrupted by his real or apparent death and that, with his resurrection, they could hope he would return. A very weird view to most Jews but not blasphemous or essentially Christian.
My “if’s” were not meant to be abstractly hypothetical but to introduce premises which I believe are likely true. Not sure what you meant by your remark about Gamaliel. For me, Paul’s claims about what a great student he was are suspect. In the beginning, it was only because they seemed too grandiose. Later, I read Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. In it he demonstrates how Paul’s use of the forms of Pharisaic argumentation are faulty are that only the very very best students (who would never make such mistakes) would ever be so privileged as to study under Gamaliel.
Well, I guess it could have been the case that some were “offended” that “Jesus who had been crucified (and therefore cursed by God) was the Messiah,” but I don’t know how certain we are that being crucified was viewed by most Jews as a curse nor how “offended” they would have been by the idea rather than thinking that anyone who would have continued believing he was the messiah was just mad.
All this is so hard to argue seriously about since, even when we have the best of evidence, there is more we do not know than what we know. I doubt we’ll ever understand what took place. But my propensity is to begin with what we know about Jews of the various first century Judaisms and what would probably been beyond the pale of what they would have believed. Then take Paul’s teachings and some of the Gospel writers beliefs about Jesus as Christ and be suspicious not just of their truth, as a non-believer might be, but be hesitant, when appropriate, to consider them Jewish.
SBrudney091941 said
Not sure if you left a word out or something but I’m not clear on what ” the distinction early christian while relative is about the use of the term son of god” means.
That is, defining early Christians is certainly relative, but in this case it relates to how the term son of god was used: Was it something ealry christians plagiarized from Roman religion or is it something derived from their own culture and religion.
I asked Prof Ehrman about this. Here is my question and his reply
I think I am missing something here. Do you think early Christians took the idea from the Romans?
Did early Christians apply the Roman idea of the son of god to Jesus?
reply
Bart March 22, 2016
It wasn’t merely a Roman idea. It was an idea widely held in the Roman empire.
The only difference in “their very understanding of Jewishness” that their messiah’s crucifixion and resurrection would have necessitated would have been the new and different view that a messiah’s mission could be ended or interrupted by his real or apparent death and that, with his resurrection, they could hope he would return. A very weird view to most Jews but not blasphemous or essentially Christian.
You’ve got me on that one. My ignorance of Judaism is showing.
However, I will say that in so far as Deuteronomy 21:22,23 influenced Jewish sensibilities, I would imagine it would be insulting to them. Think about if someone described King David as cursed by God. Would Jews not find that insulting?
For me, Paul’s claims about what a great student he was are suspect. In the beginning, it was only because they seemed too grandiose. Later, I read Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. In it he demonstrates how Paul’s use of the forms of Pharisaic argumentation are faulty are that only the very very best students (who would never make such mistakes) would ever be so privileged as to study under Gamaliel.
Yea, I know the book exists and considered reading it, but there were things in the description that made me suspicious. I’m not going by paul’s claims. Rather I am going by accepted tradition. Either way, I think I agree about your suspicions of Paul’s claims;
but the claim that he persecuted Christians doesn’t strike me as one of those. Further, I can’t believe that Paul would claim something that was bound to bring into question the very credibility he was trying to establish with this new community. I think Paul claims that because it is well known
Suppose someone started contributing to this blog and said they used to stalk members. Are you going to trust this person or be suspicious.
All this is so hard to argue seriously about since, even when we have the best of evidence, there is more we do not know than what we know. I doubt we’ll ever understand what took place. But my propensity is to begin with what we know about Jews of the various first century Judaisms and what would probably been beyond the pale of what they would have believed. Then take Paul’s teachings and some of the Gospel writers beliefs about Jesus as Christ and be suspicious not just of their truth, as a non-believer might be, but be hesitant, when appropriate, to consider them Jewish.
Agreed, and all of this is based on probability. But I think we can reasonably conclude that Jesus and his Disciples were Jewish. There’s an interesting argument that Jesus prohibited his disciples from preaching to the gentiles. But further down the road, 30 or more years after the crucifixion, the Gospel authors seem to be Greek or at least steeped in Greek culture (see Dennis Mac Donald)
moose said
I think time has come to reveal the source of the Passion story – and at the same time the source of Christianity.Look first at Nathan’s prophecy:
2 Samuel 7: But that night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying:
** you do not have permission to see this link **]; your throne will be established forever.’”
I would once more draw attention to the main topic: The Passion story, and the Midrashic view (the Christian view at least) on the prophecy of Nathan, and the rejection of Adonijah as the new Jewish king. The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief corner stone. Nathan is an essential character in this drama because the messiah prophecy was given by the Lord to him, and because Nathan was one(together with Zadok the priest) who later anointed Solomon to be king.
Nathan’s Messiah prophecy begins like this(2 Samuel 7): But that night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying:(…)When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood,and I will establish his kingdom(…)and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever(…)But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you.
Well, the Lord took the kingdom away from Solomon, as he took it away from Saul. Something wrong had to have happened.
What’s important to note here is that the Lord spoke with Nathan at night.
In the Gospel of John, we find the story of Nicodemus(John 3): Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”(…)“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man(…)Whoever believes in Jesus is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
But after the death of Jesus, Nicodemus at last anoints Jesus – Nicodemus was born again.
Nathan was a member of David’s royal court and one of his closest advisors. John 7:50 is an example of the righteous Natan – the advisor.
spiker said
SBrudney091941 said
Not sure if you left a word out or something but I’m not clear on what ” the distinction early christian while relative is about the use of the term son of god” means.That is, defining early Christians is certainly relative, but in this case it relates to how the term son of god was used: Was it something ealry christians plagiarized from Roman religion or is it something derived from their own culture and religion.
I asked Prof Ehrman about this. Here is my question and his reply
I think I am missing something here. Do you think early Christians took the idea from the Romans?
Did early Christians apply the Roman idea of the son of god to Jesus?reply
Bart March 22, 2016
It wasn’t merely a Roman idea. It was an idea widely held in the Roman empire.The only difference in “their very understanding of Jewishness” that their messiah’s crucifixion and resurrection would have necessitated would have been the new and different view that a messiah’s mission could be ended or interrupted by his real or apparent death and that, with his resurrection, they could hope he would return. A very weird view to most Jews but not blasphemous or essentially Christian.
You’ve got me on that one. My ignorance of Judaism is showing.
However, I will say that in so far as Deuteronomy 21:22,23 influenced Jewish sensibilities, I would imagine it would be insulting to them. Think about if someone described King David as cursed by God. Would Jews not find that insulting?For me, Paul’s claims about what a great student he was are suspect. In the beginning, it was only because they seemed too grandiose. Later, I read Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. In it he demonstrates how Paul’s use of the forms of Pharisaic argumentation are faulty are that only the very very best students (who would never make such mistakes) would ever be so privileged as to study under Gamaliel.
Yea, I know the book exists and considered reading it, but there were things in the description that made me suspicious. I’m not going by paul’s claims. Rather I am going by accepted tradition. Either way, I think I agree about your suspicions of Paul’s claims;
but the claim that he persecuted Christians doesn’t strike me as one of those. Further, I can’t believe that Paul would claim something that was bound to bring into question the very credibility he was trying to establish with this new community. I think Paul claims that because it is well known
Suppose someone started contributing to this blog and said they used to stalk members. Are you going to trust this person or be suspicious.
All this is so hard to argue seriously about since, even when we have the best of evidence, there is more we do not know than what we know. I doubt we’ll ever understand what took place. But my propensity is to begin with what we know about Jews of the various first century Judaisms and what would probably been beyond the pale of what they would have believed. Then take Paul’s teachings and some of the Gospel writers beliefs about Jesus as Christ and be suspicious not just of their truth, as a non-believer might be, but be hesitant, when appropriate, to consider them Jewish.
Agreed, and all of this is based on probability. But I think we can reasonably conclude that Jesus and his Disciples were Jewish. There’s an interesting argument that Jesus prohibited his disciples from preaching to the gentiles. But further down the road, 30 or more years after the crucifixion, the Gospel authors seem to be Greek or at least steeped in Greek culture (see Dennis Mac Donald)
I thought I replied last time without having to quote the whole post from last time but now I can’t see how to do that. Can you tell me? Anyway, all I wanted to respond to were your words, “Suppose someone started contributing to this blog and said they used to stalk members. Are you going to trust this person or be suspicious.” I understand your example. On the other hand, if someone said they used to be an fundamentalist Christian but now were found or enlightened or even if they said they used to persecute atheists but now realized how mistaken they were, they would, I think, be welcomed into the blog. BTW, how do you quote just parts of someone else’s post in shadow boxes? I am 70 and not very techie at all !
SBrudney091941 said
I thought I replied last time without having to quote the whole post from last time but now I can’t see how to do that. Can you tell me? Anyway, all I wanted to respond to were your words, “Suppose someone started contributing to this blog and said they used to stalk members. Are you going to trust this person or be suspicious.” I understand your example. On the other hand, if someone said they used to be an fundamentalist Christian but now were found or enlightened or even if they said they used to persecute atheists but now realized how mistaken they were, they would, I think, be welcomed into the blog. BTW, how do you quote just parts of someone else’s post in shadow boxes? I am 70 and not very techie at all !
At the top of the post you want to respond to you’ll see the quote button That will highlight the entire post in gray (there may be a better method. LOTS OF EDITNG I select what I want to quote and move the rest away from it then highlight and hit quote. Alternatively you can simply take what you want to quote and put it in a specific color font.
Sure, but Paul was not commenting on a blog. He was trying to get other Christians to trust him. The problem with saying you used to per Galations 1:13
“You know what I was like when I followed the Jewish religion–how I violently persecuted God’s church. I did my best to destroy it.”
The question is do you trust someone with this background and 2.) He believes his audience knows of his reputation. In other words it’s not likely Paul is making something up here, but acknowledging his reputation. I suspect many Christians (whether knowing about
his reputation would be reluctant to trust him since he might just be up to something. The test of embarrassment is what we are working with. The idea is that if you’re making stuff up, your not going to invent something that will make it hard for you to convince people. Notice Paul isn’t just saying he used to bust people chops, make fun of them, etc he said he violently persecuted the church and tried to destroy it and acknowledging people know about it. So while we might doubt Luke’s account of Paul’s conversion, I don’t think we can honestly doubt this detail. You might appreciate the point if I said that I used to violently persecuted Jews and did my best to destroy them. Now you might tolerate that on a blog where there is a substantial buffer, but Paul was trying to get the Christian community to trust him on a personal level. So would a Jewish community be reluctant to trust say a reformed skin head?
Similarly would it be wise for someone trying to get a Jewish community to trust them, to make up the fact that he used to go around violently attacking them?
None of this means Paul was right about anything. Personally I doubt I would have gotten along with him if I met him, but the way he is described, the claims of openly confronting Peter, for example suggest a personality consistent with the sort of behavior he is acknowledging.
spiker said
Paul: “…. I violently persecuted God’s church. I did my best to destroy it.”
….Paul was trying to get the Christian community to trust him on a personal level. So would a Jewish community be reluctant to trust say a reformed skin head?
Similarly would it be wise for someone trying to get a Jewish community to trust them, to make up the fact that he used to go around violently attacking them?
A rabbi once pointed out a feature of Paul’s personality–that he was a true believer no matter what the belief was! He was a zealous persecutor and then he became a zealous Christian. So, no, I wouldn’t trust him if I was familiar with his personality. I don’t know Greek so I don’t know just what word is translated “destroy,” but I doubt it meant physically, violently destroy a group of people. I just don’t think anyone of Pharisaic leaning would do that. I’d like to destroy Donald Trump’s campaign but I wouldn’t use force (although I’ve fantasized it). Paul didn’t say he did his best to destroy the followers but to destroy the church.
It seems to me that everyone makes the leap to saying that it was the Christian church or Christians he persecuted. Of course, there was no word “Christian” at that time. But did they believe things that would make them readily identifiable to us moderns as Christians? For less than scholarly reasons, I must admit, and more out of bias, I just can’t (yet?) accept that there were Christians before Paul. If he was persecuting a group of believers and they were followers of Jesus as messiah even though he had been crucified, and believed he was resurrected and would return, they’d be seen as (crazy) Jews who might cause trouble for Jews generally. But I can’t believe they believed and passed to Paul his Christology, believing that the suffering, blood, death, and resurrection of Jesus–or rather belief in them and in him–had the power to save souls. I just don’t see how a bunch of rural Galilean people who worked with their hands (tektons) could have grown such a belief.
SBrudney091941 said
spiker said
Paul: “…. I violently persecuted God’s church. I did my best to destroy it.”….Paul was trying to get the Christian community to trust him on a personal level. So would a Jewish community be reluctant to trust say a reformed skin head?
Similarly would it be wise for someone trying to get a Jewish community to trust them, to make up the fact that he used to go around violently attacking them?
A rabbi once pointed out a feature of Paul’s personality–that he was a true believer no matter what the belief was! He was a zealous persecutor and then he became a zealous Christian. So, no, I wouldn’t trust him if I was familiar with his personality
Agreed. I suspect he was a fanatic
. I don’t know Greek so I don’t know just what word is translated “destroy,” but I doubt it meant physically, violently destroy a group of people. I just don’t think anyone of Pharisaic leaning would do that. I’d like to destroy Donald Trump’s campaign but I wouldn’t use force (although I’ve fantasized it). Paul didn’t say he did his best to destroy the followers but to destroy the church.
Right so that last line makes the preceding irrelevant and I doubt the greek for destroy meant prank or something
But you missed the key part of the statement “You know what I was like when I followed the Jewish religion..”
So if you were in the group Paul is addressing, it would be safe to assume you knew something about his activities plus saying you would like to is not what Paul was saying. He was saying, you know how I was, you know what I did. or as Paul put it “how I violently persecuted God’s church” If you look at the varying translations here, none of them convey a different meaning
** you do not have permission to see this link **. Further, you concede that paul’s confession, if you will is at odds with his goal of being accepted. This is why I think his confession is true.
It seems to me that everyone makes the leap to saying that it was the Christian church or Christians he persecuted. Of course, there was no word “Christian” at that time. But did they believe things that would make them readily identifiable to us moderns as Christians?
Well, you’re being a bit nit picky. For one Paul doesn’t say he persecuted Christians, he states that he persecuted “God’s church”
But I think the assumption is correct, Paul persecuted Christians. Like I said wrap your head around the idea that proto christians
were not only saying something crazy, but something potentially offensive and that this may have been the driver of his actions.
For less than scholarly reasons, I must admit, and more out of bias, I just can’t (yet?) accept that there were Christians before Paul. If he was persecuting a group of believers and they were followers of Jesus as messiah even though he had been crucified, and believed he was resurrected and would return, they’d be seen as (crazy) Jews who might cause trouble for Jews generally. But I can’t believe they believed and passed to Paul his Christology, believing that the suffering, blood, death, and resurrection of Jesus–or rather belief in them and in him–had the power to save souls. I just don’t see how a bunch of rural Galilean people who worked with their hands (tektons) could have grown such a belief.
Yea you’re conflating ideas about modern Christianity with first century Apocalypticism. Also I don’t think anyone believed and passed to Paul his Christology. For one Ehrman Argues that the original christology was probably an exaltation Christology. This Is not something Paul seems to have believed in. Also you’ll note that Paul acknowledges that his idea of a crucified messiah is a stumbling block for Jews ( see 1 Corinthians 1:23) By the Way, it has been suggested that Paul kept his abandonment (if he did in fact abandon it) of Judaism a secret.
I think the souls argument is relatively new. A resurrected body doesn’t need a soul.
Now the question of a Jewish Christology really rests on two things. The utter shattering of the apostles belief in his Messiahship(hood?) by the crucifixion and the belief that he rose from the dead. Consider, you are Peter after the crucifixion, you now know Jesus was NOT the messiah, your beliefs are in disarray, but then you (for whatever, reason) come to believe he came back from the dead, certainly that could lead to something like a suffering servant Christology). My guess is Jewish perception of Israel as the suffering servant is what Jews may have found persuasive in proto Christianity. Also recall we aren’t really talking about a large number of Jewish conversions. Here again Ehrman argues that this was a development and that much of it depends on what was meant by God (recall Moses is referred to as God, for example when preparing to speak with Pharaoh, etc It is interesting; however, that the disciples, for whatever reason are almost insignificant in the Bible.
Spiker, you wrote, “Like I said wrap your head around the idea that proto christians were not only saying something crazy, but something potentially offensive and that this may have been the driver of his actions.”
I do wrap my head around that this group was saying crazy and, I guess, potentially offensive (believing in a cursed messiah?) and/or dangerous things and that these drove Paul’s actions. But still haven’t wrapped my head around the notion that they were proto-Christians. You say, “Now the question of a Jewish Christology really rests on two things. The utter shattering of the apostles belief in his Messiahship(hood?) by the crucifixion and the belief that he rose from the dead.” But neither of these things in themselves are essentially elements of Christian belief. They need more.
What I have been trying to distinguish here is the belief, on the one hand, by some Jews (knowing that Jesus had been crucified and believing he rose from death) that Jesus was still the messiah and the belief, on the other hand, that Jesus was the literal Son of God or even God himself and, more importantly, that his suffering, blood, death, and resurrection were for the redemption from the wages of people’s sins if they would believe it and believe in Jesus as Savior. If some found some reason for all this in Isaiah 53 and believed that “he was wounded for our transgressions” (Is 53:5), it is most probable that they would have meant Israel’s, not humankind’s, transgressions. Odds are, at that point, if they then believed he would return, they would have believed he’d return to finish the job that most early first century Jews expected the messiah would carry out: drive out the enemies of Israel, re-establish the nation Israel, and help usher in the Kingdom of God. There is, in such a belief, nothing about him being divine or God himself and nothing about his suffering, blood, death, and resurrection being for the sins of humankind through belief in which all people could escape the wages of their sins. In short, such a stance is completely within the pale of first century Judaisms (except the idea that the messiah would die and be resurrected–new and weird but not part of a Christian worldview at that point). If no one had eve come along and added divinity and salvific power to Jesus’ death and resurrection, then their beliefs would not even have been proto-Christian in any sense. But Paul, I believe, began calling him by the Greek word Kristos/Christ with meanings that went too far beyond what the Aramaic word for “messiah” meant that did do beyond the pale of first century Judaisms. He took the idea of Jesus as having been sacrificed for the sins of Israel (if that’s what the Apostles believed) and that he was still, nevertheless, the messiah to his being a sacrifice for the sins of the world, for each individual, Jew and gentile alike, that they might live eternally. (I haven’t re-read Paul’s letters in much too long but I think that’s what he wrote.)
My guess, then, is that those who preceded Paul held some beliefs that provided some foundation for Christian beliefs but were not themselves Christian. On that foundation a building could have been built that was still recognizably Jewish or one that incorporated elements that contrasted too deeply with beliefs of first century Judaisms for the vast majority of Jews to accept.
spiker said
Brud:
Lawyer Skeptic posted an interesting reference that you might be interested to read: Don’t Hesitate, Worship! (Matt 28:17)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Interesting article, but not the one I recommended.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Lawyerskeptic said
Interesting article, but not the one I recommended.** you do not have permission to see this link **
Actually, you suggested Googling the author and “some doubted” which led me to the article in question. However, the one you cite is very interesting in the sense that I have often argued that the Emmaus story identification is an afterthought at best: This is to say, the men met the stranger, walked, talked and ate with him, but only thought about who he really was after hearing stories of people seeing a resurrected Jesus. This piece helps by by adding context.
Interestingly enough, Geza Vermes, in his book, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, argues that the resurrection body would be recognizable. If my memory is at all reliable, his example is King Saul seeking to consult with a dead prophet finds a Necromancer To to raise him. I, personally, can’t help but think the idea that the resurrection body differed from one instance to the next is more about papering over cases of mistaken identity. What other use would there be for insisting the person in question did not recognize him right away and what value does such a delay have?
spiker said I, personally, can’t help but think the idea that the resurrection body differed from one instance to the next is more about papering over cases of mistaken identity. What other use would there be for insisting the person in question did not recognize him right away and what value does such a delay have?
I agree completely. In fact, I might take this idea further than you. When you look at the wildly disparate post-resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke and John, it seems to me that some degree of doubt or mistaken identity is one of the only things they have in common. There must be some reason for this. As a matter of pure speculation, it seems possible that some live person might have impersonated Jesus. If you Google “imposter theory resurrection”, you’ll find numerous apologists belittling “the imposter theory”, but I do not know of any skeptic or critical scholar who has actually promoted the idea.
Prof. Ehrman and many other scholars suggest that hallucinations might have inspired the idea that Jesus appeared after his death. I have never liked the hallucination theory. Mistaken identity and hallucination are both pure speculation, and I think that mistaken identity is the better speculation. Do you know of any respected scholar who has suggested such a thing?
Lawyerskep When you look at the wildly disparate post-resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke and John, it seems to me that some degree of doubt or mistaken identity is one of the only things they have in common. There must be some reason for this.
Yes. Doubt, mistaken identity and the belief in an untouchable body recurs repeatedly in the Resurrection narratives. Why is that? It all can be explained through 1. Corinthians 15.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
This is nothing more than an chronological expansion of whom the Lord appeared to after he came down on Mount Sinai, on the third day in Exodus 19. I’ll show this point by point.
1. He appeared to Cephas. In Exodus 19, the Lord reveals himself on the third day to Moses – Cephas/Peter. Exodus 19:16 On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. 17 Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. 18 Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire(…)20 The Lord descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain. So Moses went up 21 and the Lord said to him, “Go down and warn the people so they do not force their way through to see the Lord and many of them perish. Whoever touches the mountain is to be put to death. “Whoever touches the mountain is to be put to death” – “Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father.”
2. and then to the Twelve. This has always been a problematic verse, because it could imply that Peter was not numbered among the twelve, and it could imply that Judas also was present. But the real meaning is that the twelve is just a representation of the elders of Israel. Because the next time the Lord appears after that is in Exodus 24, when the Lord reveals himself to seventy of the elders of Israel. Who were the seventy? From Exodus 1: The descendants of Jacob(In Egypt) numbered seventy. The descendants of Jacob could (for the first Christians) be numbered as the seventy elders, or the twelve tribes of Israel. In fact, in the story of Jesus and the Miraculous Catch of Fish, the number of disciples are now seven. But these seven disciples refer to the same incident
3. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Now, This is an interesting verse! This comes from Deuteronomy 5:23-26: ‘When you heard the voice out of the darkness, while the mountain was ablaze with fire, all the leaders of your tribes and your elders came to me. 24 And you said, “The Lord our God has shown us his glory and his majesty, and we have heard his voice from the fire. Today we have seen that a person can live even if God speaks with them. 25 But now, why should we die? This great fire will consume us, and we will die if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any longer. 26 For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived?’
How many were the leaders of the tribes? The leaders of the tribes were something Jethro had recommended Moses. They should be leaders for thousand, one hundred, fifty and ten. We must remember that they used Roman numerals, where 1000=M, 100=C, 50=L and 10=X. So, the Roman numeral MCLX, equivalent to 1160, is read as thousand, one hundred, fifty and ten – 1000+100+50+10. In this way, The leaders of the tribes could be leaders for as many as 1160. This is of course the highest estimate. Notice that there were 600,000 Israelites who left Egypt. We can therefore easily calculate how many leaders of the tribes there must have been. 600.000/1160 = 517 !
There must have been more than 517 leaders of the tribes. And some had fallen asleep because they had seen the Lord!
4. Then he appeared to James. James is just another name for Israel. Finally the Lord appeared to all the Israelites, which is the same as Jacob. Leviticus 9: On the eighth day Moses summoned Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel(…)Moses and Aaron then went into the tent of meeting. When they came out, they blessed the people; and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people. 24 Fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar. And when all the people saw it, they shouted for joy and fell facedown. The Lord consumed the burnt offering on the altar. Could a spirit do such a thing?
After that the Lord wandered 40 years with Israel, but many doubted. Compare this with Jesus who walked 40 days after his resurrection.
Lawyerskeptic said I agree completely. In fact, I might take this idea further than you. When you look at the wildly disparate post-resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke and John, it seems to me that some degree of doubt or mistaken identity is one of the only things they have in common. There must be some reason for this. As a matter of pure speculation, it seems possible that some live person might have impersonated Jesus. If you Google “imposter theory resurrection”, you’ll find numerous apologists belittling “the imposter theory”, but I do not know of any skeptic or critical scholar who has actually promoted the idea.
Hopefully, Moose’s sermon was enough for you. If not let me know and I might be able to copy and paste some more verses. As to the topic at hand, we have a much better case study. While no one claims he was resurrected, sightings of Elvis after his death are abundant. Not only do we have accounts of people who knew his inner circle, but we can consult with those who saw him after his death! Further, Doctor Donald Hinton, who claims to have treated Elvis for the past 5 years, has promised us an orderly account. It seems that previous accounts got things right, BUT the details were not quite in order. In short, we have first hand accounts and testimony from people who know those people; so we are dealing with very solid evidence.
Per our modern Luke,
“There are people who wouldn’t accept it no matter what I would say or do unless he were here eye-to-eye, and then they would want a blood test or DNA test,” Hinton said.
Oh ye of little Faith!
Before David died, when he was old of age, he blessed salomo as the new king.
1. Kings 1,48: “Also thus said the king(David), ‘Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel, who has given one to sit on my throne this day, my eyes even seeing it.’”
David had happily testified, with his own eyes, that Solomon was anointed a new king. Reading this, Simon in the Temple from Luke easily pops up in our minds. Because this incident with David and Solomon explains the rather strange story of Simon in the Temple.
Luke 2,25 “Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:
29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismiss your servant in peace.
30 For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31 which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.”
33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35 so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”
This Simon in the Temple did not give his blessing to Solomon, but rather to Christ. And who was this Christ? Well, many indications in the Bible suggests that Christ was Adonijah – as I have previously pointed out in this thread “The Passion Story”. And this in turn suggests that Simon in the Temple is supposed to imagine the old man David.
In 1 Chronicle 29 we find David giving a more elaborated blessing of both Solomon and the Lord – given (more or less) as a template for the Lord’s Prayer!
1. Chron 29,10: Therefore David blessed Yahweh before all the assembly; and David said, “You are blessed, Yahweh, the God of Israel our father, forever and ever.
11 Yours, Yahweh, is the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory, and the majesty! For all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, Yahweh, and you are exalted as head above all.
12 Both riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all; and in your hand is power and might; and it is in your hand to make great, and to give strength to all.
13 Now therefore, our God, we thank you, and praise your glorious name.
(…)
19 and give to Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep your commandments, your testimonies, and your statutes, and to do all these things, and to build the palace, for which I have made provision.”
moose said
Before David died, when he was old of age, he blessed salomo as the new king.1. Kings 1,48: “Also thus said the king(David), ‘Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel, who has given one to sit on my throne this day, my eyes even seeing it.’”
David had happily testified, with his own eyes, that Solomon was anointed a new king. Reading this, Simon in the Temple from Luke easily pops up in our minds. Because this incident with David and Solomon explains the rather strange story of Simon in the Temple.
Luke 2,25 “Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:
29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismiss your servant in peace.
30 For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31 which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.”
33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35 so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”This Simon in the Temple did not give his blessing to Solomon, but rather to Christ. And who was this Christ? Well, many indications in the Bible suggests that Christ was Adonijah – as I have previously pointed out in this thread “The Passion Story”. And this in turn suggests that Simon in the Temple is supposed to imagine the old man David.
In 1 Chronicle 29 we find David giving a more elaborated blessing of both Solomon and the Lord – given (more or less) as a template for the Lord’s Prayer!
1. Chron 29,10: Therefore David blessed Yahweh before all the assembly; and David said, “You are blessed, Yahweh, the God of Israel our father, forever and ever.
11 Yours, Yahweh, is the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory, and the majesty! For all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, Yahweh, and you are exalted as head above all.
12 Both riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all; and in your hand is power and might; and it is in your hand to make great, and to give strength to all.
13 Now therefore, our God, we thank you, and praise your glorious name.
(…)
19 and give to Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep your commandments, your testimonies, and your statutes, and to do all these things, and to build the palace, for which I have made provision.”
What is your point?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)