Paul was a Roman Citizen by his Herodian ancestry, thus a wealthy quasi-Jew. I thought Paul was mostly ignored, but the relationship between he and James' Jerusalem "church" is documented by both sides, although likely played down. I expect the riot at the Temple concerning Paul was where that tenuous alliance came to an end--that and when he had James killed.
Paul wasn't a Roman Citizen. Paul never mentions that. He says he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews. He was of the Tribe of Benjamin. He never mentions being Roman, even when it would have suited him. The only place it is mentioned that Paul is a Roman citizen is in the Book of Acts. However, Acts often contradicts Paul, and most scholars agree that one can't trust the book of Acts, when it comes to Paul, unless Paul also mentions the idea. The reason being that Acts often tries to smooth out issues, and often is contradictory.
So we can be fairly certain that Paul was not a Roman citizen. This is supported by Paul not taking benefit of any of the privileges that Roman citizens were given. Paul is said to have been whipped a few times, something that a Roman citizen never would have had to endure. The manner in which he runs into issues with the authorities, isn't what one expects if he was a Roman citizen.
There also is no evidence that he had any Herodian ancestry. Paul doesn't mention that, nor does Acts. There just isn't any evidence of that. Him being wealthy or a quasi-Jew also isn't supported. The fact that he goes through schooling, and training in the Pharisaic manner suggests that he wasn't a quasi-Jew. And there is no mention of him being wealthy.
There is no evidence that the relationship that Paul had with James and the Jerusalem sect ever came to an end either. Part of the deal that Paul had with James and the Jerusalem sect was that Paul would take up a collection for the poor in Jerusalem. Paul continues this throughout his career. The fact that he continues the collection suggests that his relationship with James and the Jerusalem sect never ended. More so, there is no evidence that Paul had James killed. We can read Josephus, and there is nothing that could be related to Paul in regards to the death of James. Paul is never mentioned anywhere in conjunction with the death of James.
Here we disagree, the statues and pictures are cultural, but they are of a Roman pagan Goddess of that culture.
That's art though. Old ideas are recycled and depicted in a different manner. It says nothing about the religious ideas concerning those figures.
You have been inconsistent and false on a number of times in this dialogue. Jesus Christ is not the King of Heave, God the Father is the King of Heaven. Your parallel of the Queen of Israel fails miserably. There is no parallel here except in ancient Ugarit/Canaanite polytheism where there was a Canaanite female Goddess idols found among the Hebrew pastoral tribal villages.
I haven't been inconsistent. Jesus Christ is called the King of Heaven. Jesus, among many Christians, is seen to be God. God and Jesus are deemed to be one. Thus, if God is the King of Heaven, Jesus would also take that title.
My parallel to the Queen of Israel doesn't fail. We know that the mother of the king of Israel was called the Queen of Israel. They were the Queen mother. The Queen mother was in no way a goddess. Neither is Mary seen as a goddess. She does have the title, Queen of Heaven, but she is no where suggested to be a goddess. She earns that title simple because she is the mother of Jesus, who is said to be King of Heaven. The king of kings. She is simply the queen mother.
Disagree, Paul was a Hellenized Jew based on his philosophy not his birth place. I see nothing in his letters that he was devoted to Phariaic teachings.
Paul states very clearly that he was a Pharisee.
The fact that Jews were no longer represented among the Church Fathers is not as simple as portray. Originally the apostles and early followers were predominately Jewish
It really is that simple. Yes, the original follower were primarily Jewish. But there was a schism in the movement. And after the Jewish Wars, the movement was nearly completely separated from Judaism. We have really good evidence for this, and we see the effects of that, through the polemic that comes out of that period.
Rabbinical Judaism was never close to Christianity. It was the Apostles and early Jewish believers that were close and remained in Christianity until Christianity became a Roman Hellenized religion and by choice and force they were removed.
I never said that Rabbinical Judaism was close to Christianity. I said that Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism were the only two forms of Judaism that survived the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. The wedge that formed between the two movements was further splintered when Christians in general decided not to support the Jews in the second Jewish war. After this, we see a lot of polemic that rises between the two sects.
Christianity, as a whole, really only remained under Judaism for less than a century before it broke off. This was before any of the Church Fathers.
This is a bit hypothetical, and it was the Christian Jews not the Jews that are the issue.
This really isn't hypothetical. We have fairly good documentation of this, and it really is the view that is supported by scholars in the field.
This is very hypotheical because of a lack of records, but bsed on his letters and travels he was not ignored. He had a lot of difficulties, of course that was obvious.
Not really hypothetical at all. We know that even in the first century, the views of Paul were already being changed by later writers who wrote in his name. The views were being changed because they didn't agree with the later movement. After the first century, his importance really wanes, and this may be partially because people like Marcion, a heretic, took him up as an authority. In the literature we do have, Paul's views are either minimized, or completely ignored.
Paul took Paul firmly out of his Jewish roots.
Not at all. Paul constantly mentions his Jewish roots and is proud of them. There is no evidence he ever saw himself as anything but a Jew.
Disagree. Paul was not only a Jew, but a Hellenized Jew. There is not documentation to confirm anything else.
A Hellenized Jew would still be a Jew. So you're being contradictory by stating that Paul took himself out of his Jewish roots, while also calling him a Jew. I'm not quite sure where you're going here.
Sarcasm noted, both were Hellenized Jews.
You keep side stepping a matter of fact of the history of Rome that the religions of Rome morph and synchronize the religions of the cultures they conquer, and the facts of history demonstrate that Rome did the same with Christianity, and Christianity became a Roman religion. and lost its Jewish roots.
There was no sarcasm. You're argument failed because you quoted something about Philo that had nothing to do with Paul. Them being Hellenized Jews means nothing, and in no way is evidence they would have the same education.
I'm not sidestepping anything here. Rome didn't morph and synchronize all religions of who they conquered. The Jews are a great example of this. And the Christians were never conquered. They formed inside of the Roman Empire. More so, we know for certain that Christianity wasn't seen as a Roman religion for hundreds of years. It faced sporadic persecution, it was seen as outsiders, and were openly mocked. Your argument doesn't work.
