Did Paul Corrupt Christianity?

[Kenny]

the word "faith" in Greek explains its nature, it means "to persuade". God persuades person that Spiritual is real - a gift that some dismiss and some see it and react upon to grow as 1 Cor 13 says.

I can agree with that.

Faith is also the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

 

[socharlie]

Although you are right in that he issues to the ruling party...


And assuming that the record is correct his mission was(emphasis mine):

Matthew 5:17
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come—it isn’t to cancel the laws of Moses and the warnings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them and to make them all come true.

Matthew 9:13
Then he added, “Now go away and learn the meaning of this verse of Scripture, ‘It isn’t your sacrifices and your gifts I want—I want you to be merciful.’ For I have come to urge sinners, not the self-righteous, back to God.”

Luke 19:10
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

John 9:39
Then Jesus told him, “I have come into the world to give sight to those who are spiritually blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind.”

John 12:47
If anyone hears me and doesn’t obey me, I am not his judge—for I have come to save the world and not to judge it.

He also came to do the will of the Father.

in what way Jesus "fulfill the Law"?

 

[sealchan]

Paul received his information through direct visions.

So Paul would be more direct knowledge for you and I than the Gospels themselves? That is, assuming we don't have our own direct experience.

I think that any Christianity is a Christianity that someone sculpted besides Jesus. The early disciples and authors all were concerned with Christ but to my knowledge no one has adequately captured Christ's teachings.

Even in my partial look at Matthew we have the Beatitudes (5:1-12) which teach a psychological attitude that appears to be sufficient for obtaining the reward of Heaven but no one seems to teach this as a primary Christian teaching. Its all about what Jesus did and what your belief will get you. Well, what about what Jesus said your attitude should be?

I believe that each and every one of us SHOULD pay the most attention to our own personal experience. If we cultivate a relationship with Jesus which can be had through reading the New Testament and meditatively opening your mind and heart to His presence then you can subjectively have your own understanding. With that understanding you can then reflect on the understanding of others such as the Gospel authors and Paul and Peter or whomever and see how they differ from one's own conviction and even how they differ from each other no matter the gloss that other interpreters would like to coat these author's words with.

We each, in the context of our own God-given lives, have a piece of understanding. Others pieces may seem corrupt to us but we may not be able to properly judge that. Better to watch for the fruit rather than critique a person's words.

But even better I think that if we study the Gospels and Paul and others for their varying (and often conflicting) views of Jesus and his teachings then we will understand the limits of human understanding more keenly and be more forgiving when we see other's motes knowing, as well, what Jesus taught.

Paul was certainly an extremist...one of those people who had to go all in or not at all. First he murdered the blaspheming Christians, then he became one. He had extreme views about sex and expected that procreation would not be a practical necessity. Marriage was for those who felt they couldn't abstain long enough. He was a man of intense emotion which probably did much to inspire and form the early churches even as he probably also was also a bit hard to take at times. He was a Roman educated man who could spin philosophical circles around most of his audience. He made his life to backup his words but I think that he always struggled with himself in that. I suspect that he hid his own temptation toward arrogance in a practiced humility.

Each Christian is a corrupted practitioner of Jesus' teachings. That is why we need a direct relationship with him. But we must also fellowship with the believers and authors of Jesus' life and teachings so that we can help maintain a focus on who he was and what he wanted us to know.

 

[Phantasman]

He assured all that he intended to change nothing, apart from the 106 sacrificial laws which he was actually obstructing through baptisms.
'Mercy and not sacrifice'.


Diet and cicumcision redactions were nothing to do with Yeshua, and all the laws of Moses including the poor-laws were to be upheld..... it's what he was campaigning about.


Being a Deist, historical Jesus is everything to me.
John didn't actually know Jesus personally, and he mixed up the various accounts so badly on his time line tghat this is one of the clues to that.
Of course, if 'Spiritual Jesus' is all that matters, then the real Jesus shouldn't be a problem for you.


Ah, yes............... John.


Philip............ do yiou think Philip was a witness?


Well, Luke was a Levite Doctor...... more physical than spiritual.
Of course, Luke was not a witness.


Paul...... the amazing thing about Paul is that, apart from communion and execution-resurrection, he never was able to write any anecdote about anything to do with Jesus (Yeshua) his life, incidents during his campaign, or anything else.
And Yeshua BarYosef never ever heard or knew the name Jesus or the title Christos.

It's fine if you want a spiritual mystical Jesus, but I do focus on Yeshua the real person.

I provided written testimony. I don't see much from you but opinion.

While John was an eye witness, the book of John was not written by him. John 21:24

Luke was a pupil of Paul.

The physical Jesus didn't overcome death, so he is not important to me. The soul saving Holy Spirit that made him Christ, the (a) son of God is everything to me.

John 1:
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

When Jesus died, he gave to the flesh, that of the flesh, and to God, that of the spirit.

It's the whole Gospel message, IMO.

 

[Phantasman]

ve

So Paul would be more direct knowledge for you and I than the Gospels themselves? That is, assuming we don't have our own direct experience.

I think that any Christianity is a Christianity that someone sculpted besides Jesus. The early disciples and authors all were concerned with Christ but to my knowledge no one has adequately captured Christ's teachings.

Even in my partial look at Matthew we have the Beatitudes (5:1-12) which teach a psychological attitude that appears to be sufficient for obtaining the reward of Heaven but no one seems to teach this as a primary Christian teaching. Its all about what Jesus did and what your belief will get you. Well, what about what Jesus said your attitude should be?

I believe that each and every one of us SHOULD pay the most attention to our own personal experience. If we cultivate a relationship with Jesus which can be had through reading the New Testament and meditatively opening your mind and heart to His presence then you can subjectively have your own understanding. With that understanding you can then reflect on the understanding of others such as the Gospel authors and Paul and Peter or whomever and see how they differ from one's own conviction and even how they differ from each other no matter the gloss that other interpreters would like to coat these author's words with.

We each, in the context of our own God-given lives, have a piece of understanding. Others pieces may seem corrupt to us but we may not be able to properly judge that. Better to watch for the fruit rather than critique a person's words.

But even better I think that if we study the Gospels and Paul and others for their varying (and often conflicting) views of Jesus and his teachings then we will understand the limits of human understanding more keenly and be more forgiving when we see other's motes knowing, as well, what Jesus taught.

Paul was certainly an extremist...one of those people who had to go all in or not at all. First he murdered the blaspheming Christians, then he became one. He had extreme views about sex and expected that procreation would not be a practical necessity. Marriage was for those who felt they couldn't abstain long enough. He was a man of intense emotion which probably did much to inspire and form the early churches even as he probably also was also a bit hard to take at times. He was a Roman educated man who could spin philosophical circles around most of his audience. He made his life to backup his words but I think that he always struggled with himself in that. I suspect that he hid his own temptation toward arrogance in a practiced humility.

Each Christian is a corrupted practitioner of Jesus' teachings. That is why we need a direct relationship with him. But we must also fellowship with the believers and authors of Jesus' life and teachings so that we can help maintain a focus on who he was and what he wanted us to know.

Your point is valid. Without the understanding that spiritual gnosis reveals, the Gospel and it's surrounding books (Bible) conflict. You cannot clearly see the two masters. Matthew 6:24

Todays church is of the Bible, not the Gospel (as Pauls churches were), and serve two masters from it's beginning.

 

[socharlie]

in what way Jesus "fulfill the Law"?

So Paul would be more direct knowledge for you and I than the Gospels themselves? That is, assuming we don't have our own direct experience.

I think that any Christianity is a Christianity that someone sculpted besides Jesus. The early disciples and authors all were concerned with Christ but to my knowledge no one has adequately captured Christ's teachings.

Even in my partial look at Matthew we have the Beatitudes (5:1-12) which teach a psychological attitude that appears to be sufficient for obtaining the reward of Heaven but no one seems to teach this as a primary Christian teaching. Its all about what Jesus did and what your belief will get you. Well, what about what Jesus said your attitude should be?

I believe that each and every one of us SHOULD pay the most attention to our own personal experience. If we cultivate a relationship with Jesus which can be had through reading the New Testament and meditatively opening your mind and heart to His presence then you can subjectively have your own understanding. With that understanding you can then reflect on the understanding of others such as the Gospel authors and Paul and Peter or whomever and see how they differ from one's own conviction and even how they differ from each other no matter the gloss that other interpreters would like to coat these author's words with.

We each, in the context of our own God-given lives, have a piece of understanding. Others pieces may seem corrupt to us but we may not be able to properly judge that. Better to watch for the fruit rather than critique a person's words.

But even better I think that if we study the Gospels and Paul and others for their varying (and often conflicting) views of Jesus and his teachings then we will understand the limits of human understanding more keenly and be more forgiving when we see other's motes knowing, as well, what Jesus taught.

Paul was certainly an extremist...one of those people who had to go all in or not at all. First he murdered the blaspheming Christians, then he became one. He had extreme views about sex and expected that procreation would not be a practical necessity. Marriage was for those who felt they couldn't abstain long enough. He was a man of intense emotion which probably did much to inspire and form the early churches even as he probably also was also a bit hard to take at times. He was a Roman educated man who could spin philosophical circles around most of his audience. He made his life to backup his words but I think that he always struggled with himself in that. I suspect that he hid his own temptation toward arrogance in a practiced humility.

Each Christian is a corrupted practitioner of Jesus' teachings. That is why we need a direct relationship with him. But we must also fellowship with the believers and authors of Jesus' life and teachings so that we can help maintain a focus on who he was and what he wanted us to know.

NT really does not convey information that Paul received through his visions and passed along onto his audience, just mentioned that there was information.
NT can exist in form of Gospels only, imo (e.g. , as Swedenborgians use it).
Sex is related to meditation technics in NT, Paul is very adamant about maturity (initiation) process and meditation is a key element as he noted in Heb 5.

 

[Phantasman]

NT really does not convey information that Paul received through his visions and passed along onto his audience, just mentioned that there was information.
NT can exist in form of Gospels only, imo (e.g. , as Swedenborgians use it).
Sex is related to meditation technics in NT, Paul is very adamant about maturity (initiation) process and meditation is a key element as he noted in Heb 5.

No one knows who wrote Hebrews. It was added to canon (by the priests) because it is (the only NT book) a book that glorifies priests. Since the book advocates the priest, it was likely written by a sympathizer of emerging Catholicism.

Pauls view of sex (intercourse) was that it is a fleshly desire, and not based on (spiritual) love. If you think about it, he is correct. We are not to see that which elates the flesh, as that which elates the spirit. Sex is not love, and love is not sex. And it is through patriarchy, that man emphasizes the act.

Though the Nicene Creed addresses prohibits sexual acts among priests, it shows their ignorance of carnal desires and spiritual truth. The thorn in the side of Paul, that he could not gain control of, is understood by the Father through his grace.

2 Corinthians:
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Our carnal desires shows our weakness of the flesh, and even Jesus said the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. It is understanding that we see the perfection of the Father, we seek the perfection, yet understand that we are imperfect. The words "perfect heart" only appears in the OT. No flesh is perfect (Romans 3:23)

 

[oldbadger]

Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι Ebionaioi, derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning "the poor" or "poor ones"), and fulfills prophecy in Zechariah 11:11, etc.

The Ebionites were against Pauline Christianity.

In my opinion.

OK....... an Aramaic (Western) base, then.
Excellent! That was what I hoped for because I was looking for a working-class term, and the Levite 'layers' were the hellenised ones. (What do you think?)

The Poor Ones. I know I'm clutching straws here, but since I believe that Yeshua was really campaigning for the implementation of Moses' poor-laws (and all the rest apart from sacrificial laws) that his true followers would call themselves 'The Poor Ones' is most interesting.

I must open your link and copy the lot.

I wonder if there might have been an Eastern Aramaic accent of/for ebionim?

Thankyou.

 

[oldbadger]

Although you are right in that he issues to the ruling party...

And assuming that the record is correct his mission was(emphasis mine):

Matthew 5:17
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come—it isn’t to cancel the laws of Moses and the warnings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them and to make them all come true.

Matthew 9:13
Then he added, “Now go away and learn the meaning of this verse of Scripture, ‘It isn’t your sacrifices and your gifts I want—I want you to be merciful.’ For I have come to urge sinners, not the self-righteous, back to God.”

Luke 19:10
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

John 9:39
Then Jesus told him, “I have come into the world to give sight to those who are spiritually blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind.”

John 12:47
If anyone hears me and doesn’t obey me, I am not his judge—for I have come to save the world and not to judge it.

He also came to do the will of the Father.

Ken, I 'click' on those verses without difficulty, although I'm using another .............
Matthew {9:13} But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

....which is what both he and the Baptist were doing down on the Jordan, thereby diverting funds away from the Vipers and Temple Corruptions.

........ and his call for all the Mosaic laws to be re-instated because a corrupt, hypocritical, hellenised, bunch of quisling priests (the whole lot, I expect together with all the Levite privileged classes) had forsaken them, including the Mosaic Poor-Laws.

That's where I get the original campaign from. And 'yes' of course Jesus (Yeshua) was doing it all for his Father, and all the other Children of Israel, the children of their God. ??

 

[wizanda]

the Levite 'layers' were the hellenised ones. (What do you think?)

To me the Lawyers in Luke's references are to the Levites.

Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
Luke 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luke 11:45 Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.
Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Luke 14:3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?

The Levites were the priestly class who carried out the sacrificial system found in Leviticus.

that his true followers would call themselves 'The Poor Laws' is most interesting.

As saying Zechariah 11:11 which was fulfilled by Yeshua when 30 pieces of silver were paid for his head, says "then the poor of the flock understood it was the word of the Lord."

In my opinion.

 

[oldbadger]

I provided written testimony. I don't see much from you but opinion.

Yes......... studying with so little evidence, and working only with the balance of probabilities and possibilities, that's all I've got.

Would it be rude to suggest that I don't see much from you but Faith?

I do value G-Mark together with many pericopes from the other gospels, but that's all I've got.

 

[socharlie]

I can agree with that.

Faith is also the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?

No one knows who wrote Hebrews. It was added to canon (by the priests) because it is (the only NT book) a book that glorifies priests. Since the book advocates the priest, it was likely written by a sympathizer of emerging Catholicism.

Pauls view of sex (intercourse) was that it is a fleshly desire, and not based on (spiritual) love. If you think about it, he is correct. We are not to see that which elates the flesh, as that which elates the spirit. Sex is not love, and love is not sex. And it is through patriarchy, that man emphasizes the act.

Though the Nicene Creed addresses prohibits sexual acts among priests, it shows their ignorance of carnal desires and spiritual truth. The thorn in the side of Paul, that he could not gain control of, is understood by the Father through his grace.

2 Corinthians:
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Our carnal desires shows our weakness of the flesh, and even Jesus said the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. It is understanding that we see the perfection of the Father, we seek the perfection, yet understand that we are imperfect. The words "perfect heart" only appears in the OT. No flesh is perfect (Romans 3:23)

I think Hebrews was written if not by Paul but by someone from the same school.
it is a highly Gnostic letter. I like where it spoken about death as illusion
(might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives), about clear separation of soul and spirit (psychic and pneumatic), necessity to exercise senses (spiritual) to become mature (initiated), Judaism rituals uselessness for purifying consciousness, e.t.c.
Sex issue I see the same as Buddhism and Hinduism - abstaining enhances efficiency of meditation process just as Jesus recommended fasting and abstaining of sex in Matthew.
Paul sais that psychics (coded as women) should not teach men (pneumatics) due to not understanding spiritual matters, Nicene Creed was pure political event.

 

[oldbadger]

To me the Lawyers in Luke's references are to the Levites.

The Levites were the priestly class who carried out the sacrificial system found in Leviticus.

Yes, but there were 'layers' in the Levite heirarchy.
Not all Levites were priests.
Many were scribes.
Others were Temple Guards.
I have read that minor officials in Philip's and Antipas's provinces would have been junior Levites. (such as publicans and more senior tax officers)
And so the rift between the upper class (Levites) and the peasant classes was vast.

 

[BilliardsBall]

did paul corrupt the original christianity as some believe?


He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”

Jefferson was spiritually blind, and also said no Bible miracles were possible in Bible times, despite God's intervention.

Paul didn't corrupt Christianity, because Christianity comes from Judaism and Paul interpreted EVERYTHING in the NT in the light of Judaism and the OT. To push Paul aside is to be anti-Semitic by way of introducing replacement theology.

 

[Fool]

Jefferson was spiritually blind, and also said no Bible miracles were possible in Bible times, despite God's intervention.

Paul didn't corrupt Christianity, because Christianity comes from Judaism and Paul interpreted EVERYTHING in the NT in the light of Judaism and the OT. To push Paul aside is to be anti-Semitic by way of introducing replacement theology.

the word miracle could be somewhat like rapture. at one time it meant to be carried off in ecstasy, or happiness.

in one language the word miracle comes from the idea of to smile and laugh. something that brings happiness.

love seems to be capable of creating such an experience.

 

[Kenny]

Ken, I 'click' on those verses without difficulty, although I'm using another .............
Matthew {9:13} But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

....which is what both he and the Baptist were doing down on the Jordan, thereby diverting funds away from the Vipers and Temple Corruptions.

........ and his call for all the Mosaic laws to be re-instated because a corrupt, hypocritical, hellenised, bunch of quisling priests (the whole lot, I expect together with all the Levite privileged classes) had forsaken them, including the Mosaic Poor-Laws.

That's where I get the original campaign from. And 'yes' of course Jesus (Yeshua) was doing it all for his Father, and all the other Children of Israel, the children of their God. ??

Gotcha... it was a matter of communicating a little differently.

Thanks

 

[Ingledsva]

the whole idea of Christianity is right in Matthew 5:20 and the next verse which is change of consciousness from the Low in the Book (Tanakh) to the Low in the Heart which becomes essence of person.

Christianity is a new religion after Jesus' death. Jesus taught Tanakh. And as I said - "He complains about the letter of the law, rather then them understanding. And about a corrupt priesthood."

He wanted more understanding, rather than strict route, in following the law.

But he obviously wasn't out to overthrow it and start a new religion, as he claimed to be the awaited Jewish Messiah spoken of in Tanakh.

Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.


Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

*

 

[socharlie]

Christianity is a new religion after Jesus' death. Jesus taught Tanakh. And as I said - "He complains about the letter of the law, rather then them understanding. And about a corrupt priesthood."

He wanted more understanding, rather than strict route, in following the law.

But he obviously wasn't out to overthrow it and start a new religion, as he claimed to be the awaited Jewish Messiah spoken of in Tanakh.

Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.


Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

*

no, not to overthrow because there are many people who did not understand consciousness of Law of Moses consciousness yet but there are people who can understand consciousness Jesus spoke about. we still are in the middle of that process of fulfillment of the Law. We may be for a long time because conversion happens individually. Consciousness of Pharisees was revolutionary 3500 years ago but engine of collective consciousness pushed humanity forward, and it was necessary for Christ to appear in Jesus to pass new consciousness onto humanity.

 

[Ingledsva]

I think he went there in the last week, demonstrated, picketed and debated.
And 'Yes' he supported all of the laws lof Moses...... the lot, including the poor laws.... especially the poor-laws.
Absolutely.
Yep.
I'm interested in the story of the virgin birth.
Stories about her cousin (aunty?) being married to a Levite could just pop her into the lower Levite orders. Celcius's story about her being a Temple virgin (possibly in Sepphoris?) and being partner or rape-victim to Patronus could tie in with the Sepphoris revolt and Roman siege?
After the siege she somehow got clear (that Roman again?) and legged it Southwards with....... Joseph.

Yeah. yeah........ wild guesses, but......... ?

The Qur'an says she lived at the Temple. We know they did have Temple maidens.

To take it further, - was she a Sacred Prostitute, which we are told kept being brought back to the Temple?

*

 

[oldbadger]

The Qur'an says she lived at the Temple. We know they did have Temple maidens.

To take it further, - was she a Sacred Prostitute, which we are told kept being brought back to the Temple?

*

Oh....... Temple maidens............... wow!
And I never heard of Sacred Prostitutes before.
OK................ that's all new knowledge for me.
Thanks.

Either way, Temple virgin in an hellenised city like Sepphoris, or Temple Maiden in Jeusalem, I like Celcius mentions, because somehow a Galilean Peasant Handworker had to get to meet with such an exclusive figure, and the only way I can fit it is that she was a runner from Sepphoris or Patronus. Or both.

But, either way, both possibilities elevate Mary from the Galilean peasantry into the Levite classes, which fits because of her cousin or aunt married to Zacharius (I must remind myself which....)

Could Yeshua have been the son of a Roman?