Who taught Christianity to Paul?

[outhouse]

That is not the definition of a proselyte.

.

I dont think you understand how wide and iverse Judaism was before the temple fell.


All a Gentile had to do is some geographic locations was to swear off his pagan deities, and he was now a Jew.

there were two types of proselytes

This is as laughable as saying there was only one kind of Judaism. Get real here brother.


Upit also missing another a complete well known sect of Proselytes. We dont have a complete picture here either. The odds of there being many different versions are almost a certainty.

it really said nothing. It was unsupported, it used terms incorrectly, and really is an outdated mode of thinking.

Utter nonsense


Im sorry but I will trust a encyclopedia over your opinion.

Even bible verses talking about the division of Hellenistic Judaism and traditional Judaism.

Your also forgetting the scholars that state the Jews of Sepphoris were afraid of the local traditional Jews

 

[outhouse]

Here

The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism: Peder Borgen, Soren Giversen: 9781565632615: Amazon.com: Books

The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism

A substantial portion of the New Testament was either written in the Jewish Diaspora or addressed to members of the Diaspora. This means that Hellenistic Judaism outside of Palestine was to a great extent the matrix from which New Testament thought developed, so that New Testament teachings and presuppositions about the relationship of the followers of Jesus to the "Old Covenant" must be understood in terms of Hellenistic Jewish understandings of that covenant. These papers, which were presented at a conference held at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, in 1992, investigate different aspects of the relationship of formative Christianity to its Hellenistic Jewish matrix.

 

[Boyd]

I dont think you understand how wide and iverse Judaism was before the temple fell.

I definitely do. Second Temple Judaism was one of my focuses in graduate school. Which doesn't necessarily mean much, as that was a few decades ago, and a lot of new information has come to light. But I do try to keep up.

All a Gentile had to do is some geographic locations was to swear off his pagan deities, and he was now a Jew.

Not really. Yes, there was some leeway on the subject. Whether one had to be circumcised is a debate that was held. But it was generally accepted that even then, one had to be circumcised (it did pose dangers, which is the main reason it was debated). But it wasn't as simple as rejecting ones pagan deities.

This is why we see the idea of fearers of G-d begin to crop out. It was a nice middle ground. Sometimes the only difference between a fearer of G-d, and a Jew was the topic of circumcision. But there was still a distinction.

And while Judaism was quite diverse, there were a few things that appeared to lay at its foundation. One was circumcision. Probably more importantly though as following the Law. What that fully entailed was debated and discussed, but it still is.

This is as laughable as saying there was only one kind of Judaism. Get real here brother.

Upit also missing another a complete well known sect of Proselytes. We dont have a complete picture here either. The odds of there being many different versions are almost a certainty.

It is generally agreed that there were two sorts of proselytes; however, that is something more covered by Rabbinic Judaism. When proselytes are talked about either in the Greek translation of Hebrew scripture (where the term originates), or during the Second Temple period, it referred to an individual who converted to Judaism.

Now, who actually composed each type of proselyte would be diverse, as there were many forms of Judaism, and many ways to be a "gate proselyte." But neither really matter in this discussion as the distinction between the two is not really in regards to the first century. It is a later idea.

Utter nonsense

Im sorry but I will trust a encyclopedia over your opinion.

But your "encyclopedia" did not provide any actual references. Really, it amounts to the opinion of the author. If there were sources that were referenced, then that would be a different situation. However, that was not the case. And I showed why, when you initially posted the link, why the terminology was incorrect.

Even bible verses talking about the division of Hellenistic Judaism and traditional Judaism.

What Bible verses do you have in mind? I know those in Acts have been discussed, but as I show cased there, it really amounted to nothing more that polemic.

Your also forgetting the scholars that state the Jews of Sepphoris were afraid of the local traditional Jews

What scholars? I know during the revolt, Sepphoris was attacked. However, it was also attacked from within as well. As in, Jews of Sepphoris also attacked Sepphoris.

Nor does that have anything to do with Hellenistic Jews, which is a terminology that is no longer used in academic circles. The idea really began dying in the 60's.

 

[outhouse]

Here one more time, this is not based on fantasy.

Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hellenistic Judaism also existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, where there was conflict between Hellenizers and traditionalists (sometimes called Judaizers).

 

[Boyd]

Here

The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism: Peder Borgen, Soren Giversen: 9781565632615: Amazon.com: Books

The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism

A substantial portion of the New Testament was either written in the Jewish Diaspora or addressed to members of the Diaspora. This means that Hellenistic Judaism outside of Palestine was to a great extent the matrix from which New Testament thought developed, so that New Testament teachings and presuppositions about the relationship of the followers of Jesus to the "Old Covenant" must be understood in terms of Hellenistic Jewish understandings of that covenant. These papers, which were presented at a conference held at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, in 1992, investigate different aspects of the relationship of formative Christianity to its Hellenistic Jewish matrix.

Have you read this book?

The first major problem is that a substantial portion of the NT was not written for Jewish members. The works of Paul, Luke, psuedo-Paul, Acts, etc. (which compromise a large portion of the NT) were written for Gentiles. All of Paul's works were written for Gentiles. And Paul tells us very little of his own personal theology, or his Jewish ideology, so it would not help this work.

Second, there is quite a bit of anti-semitic polemic in this work. It clearly is biased, or at least some of the authors are.

Third, it is 20 years old. The topic of Judaism has greatly expanded even in that little time.

Fourth, having worked with James Charlesworth, a contributor of this work, I know that he does not actually use the differentiation of Hellenistic Judaism. While he uses the idea of Hellenism, it is in reference to the works, and simply means they appear in Greek (or he follows the consensus by stating all of Judaism was Hellenistic Judaism, as in, influenced by Hellenism).

 

[outhouse]

You also forget this

God-fearer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the New Testament[edit]

Godfearers is used of those who attached themselves in varying degrees to Judaism without becoming total converts, and are referred to in the Christian New Testament's Book of Acts,[8] which describes the Apostolic Age of the 1st century



Key word

varying degrees to Judaism

 

[Boyd]

Here one more time, this is not based on fantasy.

Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hellenistic Judaism also existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, where there was conflict between Hellenizers and traditionalists (sometimes called Judaizers).

It may not be based on fantasy, but it isn't based on actual sources. That's the problem. As it stands, it is mere opinion. And it is also based on a flawed understanding of terms.

A Judaizer was not a traditional Jew. It is primarily a Christian term, and referred to individuals, who believed in Jesus, but thought that followers should follow Judaism, or convert to Judaism first. They were not traditional Jews at all.

Second, the link to Hellenizers, in the paragraph you quoted, goes to an entry on Hellenism, suggesting that there are no actual Hellenizers.

The article simply is not worth much.

You also forget this

God-fearer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the New Testament[edit]

Godfearers is used of those who attached themselves in varying degrees to Judaism without becoming total converts, and are referred to in the Christian New Testament's Book of Acts,[8] which describes the Apostolic Age of the 1st century



Key word

varying degrees to Judaism

I didn't forget that, and in fact mentioned it. They didn't become Jews, but followed Judaism to varying degrees. They were not Jews though.

 

[outhouse]

The first major problem is that a substantial portion of the NT was not written for Jewish members. .

You misread, it does not state that in the paragraph I provided.

You need to understand Hengels work is still debated, and it does not describe the divisions within Judaism.

You will have a hard to proving Zealots accepted Hellenistic Judaism.

 

[Ingledsva]

Hi Ingledsva, I was giving you a chance to answer your own question. Did not you ask where Moses wrote of Yeshua? It's in the Foundation of the Torah, and if you don't know about that Ordinance, it may behoove you to learn something about it. KB

LOL! The kind of non-answer we have come to expect from people whom don't know what they are talking about.


And you still haven't answered the question.


Where does Tanakh talk of Iesous?




*

 

[outhouse]

So Boyd.

Do you think the traditional jews, those raised and born in Israel. Accepted those Hellenist who moved into the area and semi adopted the Jewish religion and worked hand in hand with their oppressors ?


My point. You had Jews and their oppressors who were Hellenist. Just because the enemy of Jews [Romans] semi adopted the Jewish religion, did not mean they were welcomed with open arms.

 

[Boyd]

So Boyd.

Do you think the traditional jews, those raised and born in Israel. Accepted those Hellenist who moved into the area and semi adopted the Jewish religion and worked hand in hand with their oppressors ?

Seeing that "traditional Jews" were also Hellenists by definition, and that some of them also worked with the oppressor, I would say that the answer can not be a simple yes or no. Nor do I think all foriegn Jews were guilty of working hand in hand with the oppressor, or only semi-adopting Judaism. I think the spread was much more diverse.

My point. You had Jews and their oppressors who were Hellenist. Just because the enemy of Jews [Romans] semi adopted the Jewish religion, did not mean they were welcomed with open arms.

It wasn't as simple as that. There were Jewish communities all over the area, who more or less practiced how Jews in Palestine practiced. More so, all Jews were Hellenists. Everyone was influenced by Hellenism.

The picture that you are creating is not one that is historical. It may have been the view decades ago, but it no longer is.

You misread, it does not state that in the paragraph I provided.

You need to understand Hengels work is still debated, and it does not describe the divisions within Judaism.

You will have a hard to proving Zealots accepted Hellenistic Judaism.

The paragraph you posted stated that the NT was written by Jews in the Diaspora or members of the Diaspora. The Diaspora is a reference to Jews, as in, the paragraph is staing that the NT was written to Jews in the Diaspora. That simply is false.

And while Hengels work is still debated (everything is still debated), the basic idea that all of Judaism was Hellenistic Judaism is an idea that is almost universally accepted today. I see no reason to argue such an idea as it seems quite clear when we see such a widespread of Hellenism.

And no, I don't think it would be difficult to show that Zealots were also Hellenistic to a point. After all, even the Hasmonean dynasty, the ones who expelled the Greeks, still were Hellenistic. While they were not "Zealots," the certainly fit into the same ideology.

 

[Ken Brown]

LOL! The kind of non-answer we have come to expect from people whom don't know what they are talking about.

And you still haven't answered the question.

Where does Tanakh talk of Iesous?*

Hi Ingledsva, I sure do appreciate you raising this question. Traditional christianity has no knowledge of where Moses wrote of Yeshua's suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection. It is not in any of their commentaries, neither is it written about in any denomination's literature (at least to the best of my knowledge). You see, this information is only seen and understood by those to whom Elohim desires to see and understand it. Your mind has to be "opened" to "see," yet even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again.

Here is what you need to know. There are "terms" or "words" that have alternate meanings. Take the word "burn." What happens when someone is burned? Isn't it a painful experience, something that you would not want to suffer through? In the Torah, we are told that the animals whose blood was brought into the Holy Place, are "burned" outside the camp (Lev 16:27). The NT makes reference to this act:

Heb 13:11-12

11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12 Wherefore Yeshua also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate.

Now Ingledsva, you may think that the writer of Hebrews is taking liberties to apply the "burning" of the animals to what happened with Yeshua's "suffering," but this is just the beginning of a whole long line of coincidences.

You know I told you about The Foundation of the Torah, and within this Ordinance, the suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection of Yeshua is VEILED/HIDDEN. This Ordinance is viewed by Judaism as the "constitution" or "foundation" of the Torah, for on/in it, is the whole Torah's foundation, sort of like with the US Constitution being the foundation for all of our laws.

This Ordinance is required to cleanse from the defilement of death and to separate a sinner from their sin. The ingredient used to separate a sinner from their sin and to cleanse them from the defilement of death, was the Ashes of the Red Heifer, which had been "burned" outside the camp, and those Ashes were gathered by a "clean" man, and deposited in a clean place outside the camp. Here is where you need to take a leap of faith Ingledsva. Yeshua is THE Red Heifer, and He suffered/was burned outside the city gate, and what was left of that suffering/burning, was His dead body. His dead body was gathered/collected by Joseph of Arimathea (a good and clean man), and it was placed into a tomb that was hewn out of solid rock (a vessel), where no one had ever lain (it qualifies as a "clean" vessel/place). Now, Numbers 19:15 states that any "open" vessel (without a lid on it) is unclean. What happened to the tomb? Was a lid placed over it? Then, Numbers 19:17 requires that LIVING WATER be added to the Ashes in the Vessel. Are your eyes starting to "open?" Living Water is Eternal Life, and Eternal Life had to be added to Yeshua's dead body in the tomb/vessel. And there is much more that I could relate to you here, but I have ran out of time. Think about these things, and truly chew on the cud to see whether or not these things are true. KB

 

[outhouse]

You see, this information is only seen and understood by those to whom Elohim desires to see and understand it.

:biglaugh:


So if one chooses to pervert text and uss'e heaping handfuls of imagination any thing one dreams about can come true.


This is flat ridiculous on many different levels of ridiculous

 

[outhouse]

Seeing that "traditional Jews" were also Hellenists by definition, and that some of them also worked with the oppressor, I would say that the answer can not be a simple yes or no.

Was or was not Judaism multi cultural?


Were there not factual divisions in Judaism. "Sects"

Does the bible not mention divisions of more Hellenistic sects from more traditional sects?

Were Galilean Jews, Zealots who did not use Greek, less Hellenized then those in Jerusalem and Sepphoris who spoke Greek?


Did most Jews hate the Saducees?


Did Galileans hate them more?

 

[Ashlandsal]

I Believe that Paul's WRITINGS were inspired by The Creators SPIRIT.

The Spirit of the Lord jESUS Christ. HIMSELF>..

But Paul Did not Know jESUS Personally ... But THE SPIRIT

And it was Spiritual Revelations of jESUS... Which were the Main Contents of Paul's Writings. _ Concerning jESUS.

Do you Think that jESUS Really Spoke. ( THROUGH PAULS Inspired Writings ?

I Do....

I believe that Christians Should not be Interested in The Ideas of Peter or Paul ........... OR EVEN the Faith and the Opinions and Thoughts of Peter and Paul.

But in the Spirit, Which Inspired them. I Do not think that Peter and Paul's IDEAS are of any Value to Christians. Their OWN Ideas and Personal Opinions were Mostly - All ERROR.

The Holy spirit, Corrected them,,.... AND Even after they Were Followers of jESUS. They Still Continued to Make ERRORS in their OWN ideology and Personal opinions.

jESUS Even Ended up Calling Peter as .. SATAN.... At the Very End. Remember.


I jUST don't understand why ( For eXample ) = Catholics or anyone, will seek to Communicate with the DEAD - Peter or Paul or any MEN or WOMEN ?

This is no where Found in the bible. and When it was Done it Was the Death Penalty. REMEMBER ..

King Saul Made GRAVE Error and Sinned by Communicating to a Holy Prophet. ( * SAMUEL )

I Urge people to remember. As Christians.. Is it TRUE ?
/ ...................
We don't Care about the Ideas of Peter and Paul and other MEN> But the Holy Spirit of jESUS that Influenced them.

The Holy Spirit, Paul will lead you Astray. Peter will Cause you to Sin, REjECT and deny God.

I don't Know why these other Religious Branches follow and Pray to Men ? :sad4:

Ps . if you are a catholic I Love You Deeply. But Don't Understand Your theology .

Take Care, Bye .

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I Believe that Paul's WRITINGS were inspired by The Creators SPIRIT.

The Spirit of the Lord jESUS Christ. HIMSELF>..

But Paul Did not Know jESUS Personally ... But THE SPIRIT

And it was Spiritual Revelations of jESUS... Which were the Main Contents of Paul's Writings. _ Concerning jESUS.

Do you Think that jESUS Really Spoke. ( THROUGH PAULS Inspired Writings ?

I Do....

I believe that Christians Should not be Interested in The Ideas of Peter or Paul ........... OR EVEN the Faith and the Opinions and Thoughts of Peter and Paul.

But in the Spirit, Which Inspired them. I Do not think that Peter and Paul's IDEAS are of any Value to Christians. Their OWN Ideas and Personal Opinions were Mostly - All ERROR.

The Holy spirit, Corrected them,,.... AND Even after they Were Followers of jESUS. They Still Continued to Make ERRORS in their OWN ideology and Personal opinions.

jESUS Even Ended up Calling Peter as .. SATAN.... At the Very End. Remember.


I jUST don't understand why ( For eXample ) = Catholics or anyone, will seek to Communicate with the DEAD - Peter or Paul or any MEN or WOMEN ?

This is no where Found in the bible. and When it was Done it Was the Death Penalty. REMEMBER ..

King Saul Made GRAVE Error and Sinned by Communicating to a Holy Prophet. ( * SAMUEL )

I Urge people to remember. As Christians.. Is it TRUE ?
/ ...................
We don't Care about the Ideas of Peter and Paul and other MEN> But the Holy Spirit of jESUS that Influenced them.

The Holy Spirit, Paul will lead you Astray. Peter will Cause you to Sin, REjECT and deny God.

I don't Know why these other Religious Branches follow and Pray to Men ? :sad4:

Ps . if you are a catholic I Love You Deeply. But Don't Understand Your theology .

Take Care, Bye .

Jesus called Peter satan because peter was opposing what was supposed to happen to him. Because that is what Satan means.

 

[Ingledsva]

LOL! The kind of non-answer we have come to expect from people whom don't know what they are talking about.

And you still haven't answered the question.

Where does Tanakh talk of Iesous?

Hi Ingledsva, I sure do appreciate you raising this question. Traditional christianity has no knowledge of where Moses wrote of Yeshua's suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection. It is not in any of their commentaries, neither is it written about in any denomination's literature (at least to the best of my knowledge). You see, this information is only seen and understood by those to whom Elohim desires to see and understand it. Your mind has to be "opened" to "see," yet even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again.

Here is what you need to know. There are "terms" or "words" that have alternate meanings. Take the word "burn." What happens when someone is burned? Isn't it a painful experience, something that you would not want to suffer through? In the Torah, we are told that the animals whose blood was brought into the Holy Place, are "burned" outside the camp (Lev 16:27). The NT makes reference to this act:

Heb 13:11-12

11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12 Wherefore Yeshua also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate.

Now Ingledsva, you may think that the writer of Hebrews is taking liberties to apply the "burning" of the animals to what happened with Yeshua's "suffering," but this is just the beginning of a whole long line of coincidences.

You know I told you about The Foundation of the Torah, and within this Ordinance, the suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection of Yeshua is VEILED/HIDDEN. This Ordinance is viewed by Judaism as the "constitution" or "foundation" of the Torah, for on/in it, is the whole Torah's foundation, sort of like with the US Constitution being the foundation for all of our laws.

This Ordinance is required to cleanse from the defilement of death and to separate a sinner from their sin. The ingredient used to separate a sinner from their sin and to cleanse them from the defilement of death, was the Ashes of the Red Heifer, which had been "burned" outside the camp, and those Ashes were gathered by a "clean" man, and deposited in a clean place outside the camp. Here is where you need to take a leap of faith Ingledsva. Yeshua is THE Red Heifer, and He suffered/was burned outside the city gate, and what was left of that suffering/burning, was His dead body. His dead body was gathered/collected by Joseph of Arimathea (a good and clean man), and it was placed into a tomb that was hewn out of solid rock (a vessel), where no one had ever lain (it qualifies as a "clean" vessel/place). Now, Numbers 19:15 states that any "open" vessel (without a lid on it) is unclean. What happened to the tomb? Was a lid placed over it? Then, Numbers 19:17 requires that LIVING WATER be added to the Ashes in the Vessel. Are your eyes starting to "open?" Living Water is Eternal Life, and Eternal Life had to be added to Yeshua's dead body in the tomb/vessel. And there is much more that I could relate to you here, but I have ran out of time. Think about these things, and truly chew on the cud to see whether or not these things are true. KB

Just as I thought, you don't know the answers.




*

 

[Ingledsva]

I Believe that Paul's WRITINGS were inspired by The Creators SPIRIT.

The Spirit of the Lord jESUS Christ. HIMSELF

But Paul Did not Know jESUS Personally ... But THE SPIRIT

And it was Spiritual Revelations of jESUS... Which were the Main Contents of Paul's Writings. _ Concerning jESUS.

Do you Think that jESUS Really Spoke. ( THROUGH PAULS Inspired Writings ?
I Do....

I believe that Christians Should not be Interested in The Ideas of Peter or Paul ........... OR EVEN the Faith and the Opinions and Thoughts of Peter and Paul.

But in the Spirit, Which Inspired them. I Do not think that Peter and Paul's IDEAS are of any Value to Christians. Their OWN Ideas and Personal Opinions were Mostly - All ERROR.

The Holy spirit, Corrected them,,.... AND Even after they Were Followers of jESUS. They Still Continued to Make ERRORS in their OWN ideology and Personal opinions.

jESUS Even Ended up Calling Peter as .. At the Very End. Remember.

I jUST don't understand why ( For eXample ) = Catholics or anyone, will seek to Communicate with the DEAD - Peter or Paul or any MEN or WOMEN?

This is no where Found in the bible. and When it was Done it Was the Death Penalty. REMEMBER ..

King Saul Made GRAVE Error and Sinned by Communicating to a Holy Prophet. ( * SAMUEL )

I Urge people to remember. As Christians .. Is it TRUE?
...................
We don't Care about the Ideas of Peter and Paul and other MEN - But the Holy Spirit of jESUS that Influenced them.

The Holy Spirit, Paul will lead you Astray. Peter will Cause you to Sin, REjECT and deny God.

I don't Know why these other Religious Branches follow and Pray to Men ? :sad4:

Ps . if you are a catholic I Love You Deeply. But Don't Understand Your theology .

Take Care, Bye .

1. And a lot of people note he tracked down Christians, didn't know Jesus, and probably made up his "vision," to get in and subvert the Jesus movement.


2. As to Catholics - a lot of what they do can be traced back to Hebrew practices. For instance we KNOW the ancient Hebrew asked dead ancestors, or dead prophets, etc, to intercede for them, or help them in some way.

The Catholic church gets flack for their gold and jewels - however - Tanakh says to give the Temple and priests Gold and precious metals, and fine cloth. The Hebrew Temple priests were clothed in the finest material and wore a neck plate of precious stones. The temple items were covered in gold and other metals, etc.



*

 

[Ken Brown]

Just as I thought, you don't know the answers.
*

Hi Ingledsva, those, your words, may be very tasty for you some day. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

:biglaugh:
So if one chooses to pervert text and uss'e heaping handfuls of imagination any thing one dreams about can come true.

This is flat ridiculous on many different levels of ridiculous

Hi outhouse, and your words may become a tasty meal for you also, someday. Now, why is it that ALL commentators and professors fail to "see" and "understand" how the writer of Romans 5 viewed Adam as a "type" or "figure" of Him who was to come? How is it that an old carpenter "sees" and "understands" something that you and they do not? And the text which the translators have perverted, is Romans 5:15. Come on outhouse, bring in your so called experts, or remain silent. KB