The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians

[outhouse]

I'm curious to know how one would know this. I mean, a Jewish male would memorize the Torah from an early age and attend worship for his entire life. Assuming he were pious, this is hard to beat.

And Hellenistic Proselytes had worshipped Judaism for generations doing the same exact thing, yet not converting fully. Many would not cut their winky yet remained very educated. This went on for hundreds of years before the temple fell.

I agree it would be difficult to tell the difference between a proselyte (or just a curious Gentile) other than possibly their name [like someone who gave to the community and is honored with an inscription] -- assuming that a Hellenized Jew didn't take a Greek or Latin name OR a Gentile take on a Jewish name. Dear God it gets frustrating when they do that.

Agreed

Judaism being so multi cultural and so diverse during this period, to me the term Jew needs to really be addressed more by cultural significance. Hence the new term that you will see being used by others soon enough Aramaic Judaism.


Think about it. Was Jesus Galilean Aramaic Judaism the same as Pauls Hellenistic Judaism?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Think about it. Was Jesus Galilean Aramaic Judaism the same as Pauls Hellenistic Judaism?

Yes, we've agreed on this already. There's also some striking similarities -- like the focus on bringing Gentiles into the fold by relaxing dietary laws, the Sabbath, and circumcision.

 

[outhouse]

There's also some striking similarities -- like the focus on bringing Gentiles into the fold by relaxing dietary laws, the Sabbath, and circumcision.

I do not believe that originated from Aramaic Judaism.

Zealots or Galileans may have had a very negative view on Hellenistic Judaism due to Antipas severe oppression. We know Zealots did.


I don't even thing the gospels redactors who collected these pieces had a clue if the teachings were Jesus or that of John the Baptist.

Bottom dollar, I would bet they are one in the same.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't even thing the gospels redactors who collected these pieces had a clue if the teachings were Jesus or that of John the Baptist.

Bottom dollar, I would bet they are one in the same.

That's ******* awesome.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You know, with all this stuff, I thank God every day that I was not born a Gospel scholar.

God bless Paul.

 

[outhouse]

You know, with all this stuff, I thank God every day that I was not born a Gospel scholar.

God bless Paul.

What is funny is our conclusions are almost identical.

Were just looking at it and describing different perspectives, looking from the outside in.

 

[outhouse]

That's ******* awesome.

I thought about that one night.

How can we distinguish between the two teachers?


Jesus could have said it after being Johns student, memorizing Johns teachings.

There is no way to know to what extent Johns teachings are attributed to Jesus due to Johns earlier death.

Could be 100% could be 10%, how would we know ?

 

[Shad]

Biblical Minimalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After 100 years of oganized search and recovery one school of thought has rejected hundred's of years of the Biblical narrative because they came up short.

Wise? I don't think so. Educated though! Pat, pat.

Both min/max views are on the fringe. It is not all one or the other. In some time frames the Bible provides very accurate data especially for settlement mapping.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I thought about that one night.

How can we distinguish between the two teachers?


Jesus could have said it after being Johns student, memorizing Johns teachings.

There is no way to know to what extent Johns teachings are attributed to Jesus due to Johns earlier death.

Could be 100% could be 10%, how would we know ?

I think that if it were true, there would be some kind of residual footprint -- perhaps not so obvious as one Gospel attributes a teaching to Jesus and another the same teaching to John. Or perhaps a healing story -- something to indicate that an earlier tradition attributes it to Jesus and a later to John, showing an evolution in thinking.

What with all of the 'chaos' in earliest Christian writing, copying, and transmission, there would be some copies that preserved the earlier tradition and some the later, so there should be some textual variants.

I mean, we're talking about the redactors, who had the tendency to change the text to match their interpretation. Otherwise we wouldn't know that there were redactors.

In any case, it would be a fun thing to pursue. I bet a nickel that some folks have already argued it.

 

[outhouse]

I think that if it were true, there would be some kind of residual footprint --.

Maybe.

Im not sure yet. They downplay John already as his teacher and reduce Jesus as just being baptized.

My point is, how much of Jesus teachings did he learn from John?

I don't think we know with any certainty one way or the other.

What with all of the 'chaos' in earliest Christian writing, copying, and transmission, there would be some copies that preserved the earlier tradition and some the later, so there should be some textual variants.

Yet we don't have anything previous to Paul and the gospels in any form from any teachers. Without Jesus, we may not even know about Johns existence.



Everything stated about John in Josephus was similar to what Jesus did.


Per Crossan "John had a monopoly, but Jesus had a franchise." And I think Jesus learned from Johns mistakes.


Just following logic, John was Jesus teacher, yet we don't know how deep the influence was. Knowing how crappy Nazareth would have been I don't think he could have learned much there.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Maybe.

Im not sure yet. They downplay John already as his teacher and reduce Jesus as just being baptized.

My point is, how much of Jesus teachings did he learn from John?

I don't think we know with any certainty one way or the other.




Yet we don't have anything previous to Paul and the gospels in any form from any teachers. Without Jesus, we may not even know about Johns existence.



Everything stated about John in Josephus was similar to what Jesus did.


Per Crossan "John had a monopoly, but Jesus had a franchise." And I think Jesus learned from Johns mistakes.


Just following logic, John was Jesus teacher, yet we don't know how deep the influence was. Knowing how crappy Nazareth would have been I don't think he could have learned much there.

Yes, without Jesus, John would have been completely insignificant.

This stuff is fun to think about.

 

[outhouse]

This stuff is fun to think about.

Like you, I have a passion for this history. Yep fun stuff.



Sure beat swinging bats at low hanging fruit here. This forum could use more intellectual conversations right or wrong on my part, you do get me thinking.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You are embarrassing yourself.

You seem to ignore scripture but put yourself above others. I have seen no help nor discussion from you yet.

 

[Robert.Evans]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HacXlrw01zE

So your point is to ridicule? iS that it? We should say things to help and lift up, not put down.

 

[Robert.Evans]

They were later compiled together and the definition evolved to what you state, yes.

There are places in the bible that separate the two and show distinct different characters.


Thanks for playing, now please open a book.

But the problem you don't understand more than that... but then you are blind so I would expect it. The annoying part is that scirpture being spiritual discerned, you ignore and thing you can do it through education... when the very book you read tells you you won't.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I gave him something to play with for a little while.

you are arrogant and a bully. You side with an atheist as well.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, without Jesus, John would have been completely insignificant.

This stuff is fun to think about.

Assuming you accept Josephus' account of John, how would that make John the Baptist completely insignificant? Assuming my assumption is wrong, what textual critical basis might one proffer to demonstrate this?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well this thread is a waste of time. There are 'two' many arrogant people on it, who seem to think they know something, but will not discuss anything with anyone. It seems to be about looking down on someone. I am not surprised at the one, as he is atheist. But the other! That is why I do not call myself Christian... i have met too many.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

but then you are blind so I would expect it.

None so blind as those that will not see. "the dwarves are for the dwarves!".

The annoying part is that scirpture being spiritual discerned, you ignore and thing you can do it through education

You aren't capable of reading the "scripture" you refer to. You depend upon human translators (actually, many such persons). Then you interpret human translations according to your belief system. How is this less annoying than actually being familiar with the texts you can't even read yet make claims about?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Well this thread is a waste of time..

Yes, the thread title is 'The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians' and we've certainly shown that not to be the case..

In fairness, there WERE anti-Paul elements in the early churches, but they were only a minority, so the thread title is wrong because it implies ALL early Christians were anti-Paul and is therefore yet another consp-theory that we've sunk..