Comparison of Christianity and Judaism

[sojourner]

There is a big difference between the parables, which directly come from Jesus' mouth, and philosophical\theological affirmations made by apostles like Paul.

The parables may have come indirectly from Jesus, through oral tradition, until finally being written down in the form we have them by people who did not know Jesus.

Paul was a fallible person. He said right things and wrong things.

Yet, he began writing about 10 years after Jesus (and preaching about 18 months after Jesus). The gospels weren't written until about 40 years and longer after Jesus. Who is more likely to be "authentic?" The one who began after 18 months, or the ones who began after 40 years?

 

[outhouse]

Sure we do -- they're just not part of the canon.

I will argue, we do not.

We do not have anty Galilean Aramaic transliterations.

We have Koine with a few spread out transliterations as would be expected from a collection of Galilean parables.

We do not have any gospels that show Aramaic primacy, as one would expect had any information came from the real Galileans.


Take into account the gospels all portray the Galilean apostles as cowards who ratted on their buddy, and denied him, and who fled with their tales between their legs after the crucifixion.

It is also scholars general opinion the 12 are fiction, and that we probably had 3-4 real Galilean apostles, his inner circle.

Everything we have are attributed to, but cannot be susbstantiated to any Galilean.

 

[sojourner]

Not really.

Do you think all of John the Baptists parables and teachings were lost?

Or were they all included in the gospels?


We do not kno wthe apostles preached anyting. Jesus Jewish movement died with Jesus.

His death was martyred and Hellenist found importance in this martyrdom, and the mythoogy grew in the Diaspora. It did not grow in Israel.

The gospels are only a reflection of the movement 40 years and later after his martyrdom. It does not reflect the Galilean movement.

Some of the parables have the possibility to go back to Galilee under Aramiac Judaism typical to Galilee. Words that originated with Jesus are impossible to know.

If he only had a 1-3 year ministry beofre his death, he was only repeating the local Judaism taught to him by John.

We have Johns teachings more so then jesus

Sorry. There wasn't a 40-year gap. There were churches established less than one year after Jesus. And they were founded by the apostles -- those "sent out" to do that very thing. Why do you think Paul talks about "continuing in the apostles' teaching?"

 

[Estro Felino]

The parables may have come indirectly from Jesus, through oral tradition, until finally being written down in the form we have them by people who did not know Jesus.

Yet, he began writing about 10 years after Jesus (and preaching about 18 months after Jesus). The gospels weren't written until about 40 years and longer after Jesus. Who is more likely to be "authentic?" The one who began after 18 months, or the ones who began after 40 years?

are you saying that you believe that Paul's writings are more authentic than the Gospels?

well.....all Protestants think that. That wouldn't surprise me at all
because Paul says comfortable beliefs. Gospels says uncomfortable truths

 

[outhouse]

Yet, he began writing about 10 years after Jesus (and preaching about 18 months after Jesus). The gospels weren't written until about 40 years and longer after Jesus. Who is more likely to be "authentic?" The one who began after 18 months, or the ones who began after 40 years?

That is a great point.

But there is one little hitch. The gospels were compilatins of written and oral history.

How far back some of these pieces go back is unknown. We know it is still Hellenistic in nature, and collections of scriptures collected were close to some of Pauls epistles.

Paul deals with spirituality, and Pauls theology in Pauls communities, and houses through the Diaspora. It gives us a picture of the early Hellenistic movements and what they believed.

The gospels were more a rhetoric based history of sorts, but still more of a reflection of the later movement when teh divorce from Judaism was well under way.

 

[metis]

Sorry. There wasn't a 40-year gap. There were churches established less than one year after Jesus. And they were founded by the apostles -- those "sent out" to do that very thing. Why do you think Paul talks about "continuing in the apostles' teaching?"

They actually first met in each other's homes as cited in the Didache, but since "church" means "an assembly", the building used is quite unimportant.

 

[outhouse]

are you saying that you believe that Paul's writings are more authentic than the Gospels?

Why wouldnt they be?

 

[outhouse]

They actually first met in each other's homes as cited in the Didache, but since "church" means "an assembly", the building used is quite unimportant.

Pater Familias is a more correct definition. Dont you think?

 

[metis]

are you saying that you believe that Paul's writings are more authentic than the Gospels?

well.....all Protestants think that. That wouldn't surprise me at all
because Paul says comfortable beliefs. Gospels says uncomfortable truths

All history tends to be at least somewhat subjective, and this is especially true in religious traditions. My approach is to read what is written and see what's possibly useful and then move on from there. IOW, a literalist I am not. Or another way to say it "whatever happened, happened".

 

[sojourner]

I will argue, we do not.

We do not have anty Galilean Aramaic transliterations.

We have Koine with a few spread out transliterations as would be expected from a collection of Galilean parables.

We do not have any gospels that show Aramaic primacy, as one would expect had any information came from the real Galileans.


Take into account the gospels all portray the Galilean apostles as cowards who ratted on their buddy, and denied him, and who fled with their tales between their legs after the crucifixion.

It is also scholars general opinion the 12 are fiction, and that we probably had 3-4 real Galilean apostles, his inner circle.

Everything we have are attributed to, but cannot be susbstantiated to any Galilean.

You're confusing the legendary "Twelve" with the apostles. We call the legendary "Twelve" apostles, but there were others. Polycarp, for example, is an apostolic father, linked to John. Polycarp wrote an epistle to the Philippians.

 

[outhouse]

Sorry. There wasn't a 40-year gap.

There factually is a 40 year gap after Jesus death, and these books being compiled. Over 40 actually, I was being generous.

Its how we want to define that gap that is the question.

There were churches established less than one year after Jesus.

The only thing we know about is Pater Familias, that is all.

And they were founded by the apostles --

They factually were not. in my opinion.

The movement failed in Judaism.

The movement flew off the shelves in the Diaspora in gantile communities, spread by Proselytes who found importance in jesus death and the mythology generated, as the people went home back to the dioaspora after that crucifixion Passover .


There is no Galilean conection to Aramaic Judaism at all.


those "sent out" to do that very thing. Why do you think Paul talks about "continuing in the apostles' teaching?"

 

[Estro Felino]

Why wouldnt they be?

because Paul's writings have been considered fruit of a disturbed mind. Possibly a bipolar mind.
besides, he says very anti-Christian things, like "women don't have the right to speak in assemblies"

 

[sojourner]

are you saying that you believe that Paul's writings are more authentic than the Gospels?

No, I'm saying that Paul's writings are far closer in time frame to Jesus than the gospels.

Paul says comfortable beliefs. Gospels says uncomfortable truths

A rather infantile assessment.

 

[outhouse]

You're confusing the legendary "Twelve" with the apostles. We call the legendary "Twelve" apostles, but there were others. Polycarp, for example, is an apostolic father, linked to John. Polycarp wrote an epistle to the Philippians.

That only means people rhetorically used the title apostle to generate a following.

Polycarp had no connection to any real apostle.

Yes there were other self proclaimed apostles, but not one Galilean.

The 12 and 70 are mythical.

 

[sojourner]

How far back some of these pieces go back is unknown.

We can get some of Jesus' quotations pinned down to less than 7 years after Jesus.

We know it is still Hellenistic in nature,

The Q material is actually highly Galilean in nature.

 

[outhouse]

because Paul's writings have been considered fruit of a disturbed mind. Possibly a bipolar mind.
besides, he says very anti-Christian things, like "women don't have the right to speak in assemblies"

You dont have a clue what your talking about here.


Becauase Paul was loved and hated after his epistles generated popularity after his death, Does not mean he has been considered of anything

And he was not teaching anti christian things, he helped furtherthe movement at his point in time.

Your ignorantly talking about later dogma, and how Pauls teachings contradict with it.

 

[sojourner]

That only means people rhetorically used the title apostle to generate a following.

Polycarp had no connection to any real apostle.

Yes there were other self proclaimed apostles, but not one Galilean.

The 12 and 70 are mythical.

Why do they have to be Galilean to be authentic???
Fact is, there were apostles who had authority and they wrote stuff. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Estro Felino]

A rather infantile assessment.

and I am proud of it.

: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. "
Matthew, 18, 1-4

 

[outhouse]

We can get some of Jesus' quotations pinned down to less than 7 years after Jesus.

No we cannot.

We can possibly pin down Galilean material, but ill need sources for anything else.

The Q material is actually highly Galilean in nature.

I dont really disagree.

Galilean is as good as it gets, but even then, were getting a glimpse of Galilean writings. We do not have transliterations as one would expect.

Its my opinion, that everything we have is simple what Hellenist could collect, which were Koine versions of typical Galilean parables.


We have nothing at all that we attribute with certainty to Jesus over John or visa versa, or even separate them from typical Galilean parables.

My view builds historcity for jesus because it shows Hellenist trying to locate all they could find out about this martyred man.

 

[Estro Felino]

Your ignorantly talking about later dogma, and how Pauls teachings contradict with it.

seriously. do you think that the statement "women don't have the right to speak in assemblies" is symptom of a mind filled with love?