Was Paul Jewish?

[paarsurrey]

An opinion in the Sanhedrin may not even be communicated to his students.
I don't know if we know for sure if Paul was a student at a time when he might hear such a teaching or comment from Gamaliel.



The ones in the Sanhedrin who were saying different things to Gamaliel.
The ones who killed and persecuted Christians.
Or do you think there was no Jewish persecution of Christians? And of course by Christians I mean fellow Jews who believed Jesus to be the Messiah.
Jews had no say over any Gentiles who might have turned to Jesus.

Since Jesus never named his followers as " Christians ", and never invented a new Religion so,I understand, it would be appropriate to say that the Jews of the time persecuted Jesus and his followers . Right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you think that shows that the authors were not known by the early Church?

Since the authors of the Gospels are anonymous, so nobody can legitimately claim of knowing them. Right?

Regards

 

[Brian2]

And that is?

Who Wrote the Gospels, and How Do We Know for… | Zondervan Academic

The above site seems to be a fair assessment of the evidence and to some the evidence may not seem strong but to me it is strong even if not conclusive.
It is interesting that accidental evidence in the gospels imo is stronger than someone just saying that they are a certain disciple in a version. This is the sort of thing that the authors of the gnostic gospel accounts etc do and other evidence shows that those named were not the authors.
It is also interesting that it is only through ignoring tradition and internal evidence and assuming that prophecies are not true that the dating of the synoptics are put after 70AD. (without this they are put before 70AD)
This late (after 70AD) dating is what leads to historians to say that the authors are not the ones of tradition or seen in the internal evidence. This is the same logic used with the date of writing of OT prophecies.

 

[Brian2]

It might not, but varying moral standards are noticeable in one's character.
Perhaps this is where Paul's varying views came from.

At that time? Highly doubtful. First mention of Christians (not even of Jesus!) is Tacitus, many decades later. We're dealing with a tiny sect that may have not even had a name for themselves at the time. Barely a minyan or two.

Many, many inconsistencies between the NT and other sources. But that is off-topic on this thread. You are welcome to search other posts I have written about Christianity to get a better view of why I think so.

Josephus wrote of Christ and martyrdom of James the Just before Tacitus as far as I am aware.
The Christian numbers were enough for Nero in about 64AD to blame and persecute.
Do you use the same standard with the Hebrew scriptures and the supposed inconsistencies between the scriptures and other sources? Are the other sources always right?

 

[Brian2]

So when it says Paul took the purification, you "read" it as a fee. No worries.

No, I read that he paid the fee for the others as suggested and that he was purified also, but did that mean he also took the vow? maybe it did, maybe not.
What do you think it says if he did take the vow? Does it mean that he obeyed all the customs of the Jews or that he was not wanting to put a stumbling block in the path of the gospel or to trip anyone up, such as Jewish Christians who were devoted to the Law of Moses?

 

[Brian2]

Heavenly Adam for example.

I don't think I know about a heavenly Adam.

 

[Brian2]

Since the authors of the Gospels are anonymous, so nobody can legitimately claim of knowing them. Right?

Regards

That could be said of us today, that we do not know 100% who wrote the gospels.
It cannot be said for those who lived at the time however, the may have known and passed that on to others.

 

[ppp]

That could be said of us today, that we do not know 100% who wrote the gospels.
It cannot be said for those who lived at the time however, the may have known and passed that on to others.

In the same way that Homer may have known that Athena roamed the battlefield outside the city of Troy.

 

[firedragon]

No, I read that he paid the fee for the others as suggested and that he was purified also, but did that mean he also took the vow? maybe it did, maybe not.
What do you think it says if he did take the vow? Does it mean that he obeyed all the customs of the Jews or that he was not wanting to put a stumbling block in the path of the gospel or to trip anyone up, such as Jewish Christians who were devoted to the Law of Moses?

What does it mean when Acts 18 says he took a vow, and cut his hair?

 

[Brian2]

Since Jesus never named his followers as " Christians ", and never invented a new Religion so,I understand, it would be appropriate to say that the Jews of the time persecuted Jesus and his followers . Right?

Regards

That sounds right and that is what Jesus said to Saul on the road to Damascus. "Saul why do you persecute me?"

 

[Brian2]

In the same way that Homer may have known that Athena roamed the battlefield outside the city of Troy.

That is maybe 400 years between Homer and Troy.
There is both internal evidence for the authors of the gospels and those who comment on the authors are much closer in time to the authors, if not contemporary and had the network of the church through which authorship could be passed on.

 

[Brian2]

What does it mean when Acts 18 says he took a vow, and cut his hair?

It was a vow that Paul took. Other than that I don't know. It was a number of years between that and when Paul went to the temple with those who had taken the Nazarite vow.

 

[ppp]

That is maybe 400 years between Homer and Troy.
There is both internal evidence for the authors of the gospels and those who comment on the authors are much closer in time to the authors, if not contemporary and had the network of the church through which authorship could be passed on.

[Shrug] and a few thousand years between the events of the OT and when they were written down. If time is your gauge, then your point is lost. And there were a few hours between when the Angel Moroni told Joseph Smith all that Mormon stuff and he wrote it down. So, again, by your time estimate, the Mormons must be far more accurate than you. And then you have the problem that the authors of the gospels are not the apostles. You have no idea who they were. No, you have none. None.
None.

 

[Harel13]

It is also interesting that it is only through ignoring tradition and internal evidence and assuming that prophecies are not true that the dating of the synoptics are put after 70AD. (without this they are put before 70AD)
This late (after 70AD) dating is what leads to historians to say that the authors are not the ones of tradition or seen in the internal evidence. This is the same logic used with the date of writing of OT prophecies.

It may surprise you, but Bin-Nun, the historian mentioned in the OP, thinks at least most of the NT was written before the destruction of the Temple. And yet he does ignore your traditions and doubts that the authors of the gospels are those the books were named after.
Odd, right?

Josephus wrote of Christ and martyrdom of James the Just before Tacitus as far as I am aware.

No, I don't think so. It doesn't make sense. He's the long-awaited messiah but all he gets is a couple of sentences from Josephus? Herod got chapters upon chapters. Say the Roman censored him. He could have mentioned him without usage of the term messiah. Nope, doesn't make sense. James - maybe, though still questionable.

 

[Brian2]

[Shrug] and a few thousand years between the events of the OT and when they were written down. If time is your gauge, then your point is lost. And there were a few hours between when the Angel Moroni told Joseph Smith all that Mormon stuff and he wrote it down. So, again, by your time estimate, the Mormons must be far more accurate than you. And then you have the problem that the authors of the gospels are not the apostles. You have no idea who they were. No, you have none. None.
None.

I disagree that there were a few thousand years between all the events in the OT and when they were written down. And exception might be the creation and flood and very early events.
But yes going by the time point only Mormonism has more chance of being true. I did not use that gauge only however. The gauge I used shows that the authors of the gospels could possibly be the ones we are given.
Any reckoning of the authors relies on the date of authorship.
Historians who say that date is after 70AD rely on the sceptic assumption that prophecy is not true.
The whole thing is circular reasoning based on that sceptical assumption.
Isn't it crazy that historians, trying to be scientific and use the naturalistic methodology can make errors like that and get a tick of approval from other historians.
Not only that, but also they kick out the evidence for early writing of the gospels for the sake of that assumption.
Most people would only hear the conclusion that the gospels were written after 70AD and by some random anonymous who knew nothing about what he made up and wrote down.

 

[firedragon]

It was a vow that Paul took. Other than that I don't know. It was a number of years between that and when Paul went to the temple with those who had taken the Nazarite vow.

Why did he have to take the vow and cut his hair? Thats not paying a fee.

 

[Brian2]

It may surprise you, but Bin-Nun, the historian mentioned in the OP, thinks at least most of the NT was written before the destruction of the Temple. And yet he does ignore your traditions and doubts that the authors of the gospels are those the books were named after.
Odd, right?

If someone wants to take the position that the New Testament is not true there are quite a number of options that have been invented to choose from as an alternative explanation. Saying that the gospels were written after 70AD by people who knew nothing is just one option and since is purports to be real history (as the historians who say the Pentateuch was made up in the time of Exile etc are supposed to be) this tends to collect people who want to investigate the Bible to see if there is anything in it, and give them a false impression by the "scholars".

No, I don't think so. It doesn't make sense. He's the long-awaited messiah but all he gets is a couple of sentences from Josephus? Herod got chapters upon chapters. Say the Roman censored him. He could have mentioned him without usage of the term messiah. Nope, doesn't make sense. James - maybe, though still questionable.

Jesus didn't get much from the Jewish community as a whole. Just enough to show Jesus was a real person who performed miracles.
Are you saying that the Josephus quote on James the Just might be fraudulent? Maybe you are right.

 

[Brian2]

Why did he have to take the vow and cut his hair? Thats not paying a fee.

It does not say why and does not say anything about it being connected to the Acts 21 story which happened years later.

 

[firedragon]

It does not say why and does not say anything about it being connected to the Acts 21 story which happened years later.

Okay.

What is this vow he took and for what? Specifically in 18? If its not connected to 21 as scholars say (21:24), what is the reason? And specifically which verse are you referring to? Was he asked to do a vow twice? For what reason?

Thanks.

 

[Brian2]

Okay.

What is this vow he took and for what? Specifically in 18? If its not connected to 21 as scholars say (21:24), what is the reason? And specifically which verse are you referring to? Was he asked to do a vow twice? For what reason?

Thanks.

As I see it Paul took a vow in Acts 18 and we don't know why and he was asked to pay the fees for the vow takers in chapter 21.
Is there something wrong with him taking the vow in ch 18 and does it have to be connected with ch 21?