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

[angellous_evangellous]

:slap: That depends on who you speak of. And i am guessing that you have got it wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0BnadYbLIU

 

[outhouse]

I can agree with that, though El is also Yhvh... for they are one. It is the Name.

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.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks for playing, now please open a book.

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

 

[outhouse]

where is the wise man,

Lets not forget our professor here who has influenced me over the years from a time I was as ignorant as you.


As well as Legion, who also teaches.

Who happens to be responsible for the content of encyclopedias on the historical Jesus, as well as having a famous author for an uncle I believe, and well on his way to many great things.


Why you spit on education and knowledge is beyond me. Oh wait it isn't fanaticism often grips people so tight the light or reality is blocked for a life's sentence.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Understood.

We have oral traditions that go back very early. I doubt these were his real disciples who more then likely fled to Galilee after his death. All the gospels sort of portray them as cowards. But early none the less. We may have Hellenist eyewitnesses who do have a place in the gospels, I do not deny this possibility. My break has in context to do with that of Aramaic Judaism and the inner circle, and what actually happened.

So what we see is Hellenist in the Diaspora who have collected these pieces and used them for possibly decades before compilation.



It is just my opinion, but the Galilean movement died the day he did. After his death he was martyred and mythology developed and people returning home all over the Diaspora took these legends and some early mythology with them.

We see Paul a Hellenist hunting in the diaspora and not a peep about Galilee, which leads me to believe Paul only hunted Hellenist.

Hellenistic Judaism had long wanted to divorce Judaism, and this was the perfect movement that absorbed it.




How can there be any doubt? These were all Koine books. Mark writing to a Roman audience perverting Judaism, Luke and Matthew copies of Hellenist traditions perverting Judaism. John so late but very Hellenistic.

So we have Matthews book that as I see it by the time of completion of his compilation, was a sect of Hellenist who held more traditional values in Judaism then other Hellenist who may have had numbers of gentiles.


Part of the issue here is just defining Jewish, or Judaism. Hellenistic Jews were Jews. Even people who swore of pagan deities were considered Jews. It really depended on who was calling who a Jew. Im sure the Hellenist were much more liberal with their definition, as to say Galilean Aramaic Judaism. Also night and day different to Judaism practiced in Sepphoris.

I see the gospels as products of the Diaspora.

If say we had more transliterations showing Aramaic primacy, I might be more liberal myself.




Exactly.

And all coming out of the Diaspora. Its where the mythology was generated in my opinion.

Everyone thinks Paul wrote these alone, we know it was a community effort.

We also know there were other teachers and scripture as Paul tells us this. He sets up a few pater familias and his community has debates with their communities which he visits with the movement full swing all around him. He did not spread the movement through the Diaspora, he joined the movement in the diaspora.



I don't think so either but I don't rule common sources out.

I think the martyrdom spread the message and mythology with half a million people at Passover with the movement growing each year as people brought more to the oral traditions traded at Passover.

I think the 12 disciples is myth, I think he had his inner circle of Aramaic peasant fishermen who fled after his death.

I still do not believe the Jerusalem house contained the Aramaic fishermen. I think it was a Hellenistic house with people rhetorically using the word disciple and lord brother who held on to Judaism much more tighter being in Jerusalem then Hellenist in the Diaspora like Paul was.

Paul used a lot of rhetoric and we don't even know if he could have communicated with Aramaic Jews, or visa versa.


That's how I stand on it all, it could change tomorrow

OK - I wouldn't say that the NT is written by Hellenized folks just because it's in Greek. Hellenization doesn't just include language but also culture. I would think that if the NT were written by thoroughly Hellenized folks, there would be patterns, allusions, and quotations of Hellenistic culture -- most notably Greek philosophy and poetry.

Now there are three quotations from Euripides (if memory serves) and all of them are attributed to Paul. There are many little bits of Hellenistic culture in the Gospels, but they are tempered by earliest Christian theology (importantly IMHO, not the other way around).

There's another point that came to mind for me after reading this. It's generally understood that most of the people in the ancient world were poor, and the NT one of the very few writings that the poor produced. Yet writing was the privilege of the wealthy... that said, how Hellenized could we possibly expect the poor to be? How much did the average poor Jew in Galilee, Jerusalem, or Antioch really embrace Greek culture? That may be your point.

 

[outhouse]

OK - I wouldn't say that the NT is written by Hellenized folks just because it's in Greek.

Agreed.

But from our best study, these books all came out of Hellenistic cultures, who found importance in Judaism.

How much did the average poor Jew in Galilee, Jerusalem, or Antioch really embrace Greek culture? That may be your point.

Different unknown levels based on geographic location.

You had wealthy Israelite born and raise Jews who embraced it as it gave their families better opportunities for education and a decent future. "A very very small fraction of the population as you noted"

You also had strong socioeconomic divisions based on geographic locations.


It is safe to say people in the Diaspora like Paul had little choice but to embrace Hellenism.

Antioch - Hellenized

Jerusalem - Ran by and embraced Hellenism for the most part with dissent in a mixture of the peasant population. Yet under the Roman thumb Hellenistic Judaism remained for the most part unchallenged by locals. Not like the hated Sadducees who also embraced Hellenism. Wide range of diversity who played nicer together then other parts of Israel.


Galilean-- Also wide range of diversity. The division between Aramaic Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism was sharp and explosive to the point of being responsible for the temple falling. Which on a side note was a battle of Israelite oppressed Judaism VS the corruption of Hellenism in Jerusalem.


One thing to note, Hellenism in Israel coincides with money. The socioeconomic divide steep.

In the Diaspora -Hellenism - not so much, that's why wee see some aspects of typical Hellenized poverty.

None of the biblical authors communities faced anything similar to Galilean poverty or they would have been fighting mad like Galileans.


On a side note Melqart on the temple coins would have ticked of any pious Jew having a pagan deity on official temple coins in gods own house.

There's another point that came to mind for me after reading this. It's generally understood that most of the people in the ancient world were poor, and the NT one of the very few writings that the poor produced. Yet writing was the privilege of the wealthy... that said, how Hellenized could we possibly expect the poor to be?

Not as bad as Galilee. Not as bad as oppressed Aramaic Jews, or born and raised oppressed Israelite Jews.


I think much of this again, comes down to defining the term Judaism, which a large book not cover everything.

 

[outhouse]

I would think that if the NT were written by thoroughly Hellenized folks, there would be patterns, allusions, and quotations of Hellenistic culture -- most notably Greek philosophy and poetry.

.

Except for one problem.

Their foundation was Judaism, Hellenistic Judaism, who did not want to be burdened with the label Jew anymore. With the temple falling they really wanted to distance their selves yet still holding on to the foundation of Judaism.

The one god was becoming important, much better to worship the one god through the son, then a corrupt Emperor.


Now we do see what your talking about. We see the gospels competing with the Emperors divinity in many places who was first the "son of god".

Hellenization doesn't just include language but also culture

Exactly my point.

These Hellenistic cultures did not want to be identified with Israelite cultures, viewed as rebels, and difficult, stubborn, and trouble makers, yet following the same religious foundations, LESS all the cultural trappings of Judaism.

 

[savagewind]

Can you make a tie between minimalism and what I posted?

Why would you even ask as you are already very sure of the idiot I am?

 

[outhouse]

Why would you even ask as you are already very sure of the idiot I am?

there is a difference between idiocy, and ignorance.

 

[sojourner]

Luke (a doctor) begins his gospel by saying it was he himself who was penning it-
"I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1)
But Matt Mark and John simply get stuck into their accounts without such an introduction, but so what, everybody knew it was them who wrote them..

the author never uses his name in Luke 1. And no, everybody didn't know it was them who wrote them. the texts weren't widely circulated at first.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Their foundation was Judaism, Hellenistic Judaism, who did not want to be burdened with the label Jew anymore.

Then why does it keep popping up? Paul, our star Hellenistic Jew, calls himself a Jew several times. What about Josephus and Philo?

 

[sojourner]

You gotta be jivin us boy..
Who do you think Moses led out of Egypt, the Munchkins?
Below- Moses in action killing an Egyptian slave-driver (Exodus 2:11), triggering the great escape-

"Eat this Jack!"

There is nothing in the archaeological record to show that there was ever a large influx of Canaanites into Egypt, nor that there was ever an invasion of a different culture into Canaan. The stories of Israel in Egypt and the taking of the Holy Land are mythic and not fact.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is nothing in the archaeological record to show that there was ever a large influx of Canaanites into Egypt, nor that there was ever an invasion of a different culture into Canaan. The stories of Israel in Egypt and the taking of the Holy Land are mythic and not fact.

But the picture is right there.

 

[sojourner]

But the picture is right there.

Yeah, but it's a really BAD picture...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeah, but it's a really BAD picture...

Well what can you expect for something that sat in a jar for 4,000 years?

 

[outhouse]

Then why does it keep popping up? Paul, our star Hellenistic Jew, calls himself a Jew several times. What about Josephus and Philo?

Who is calling who a jew is what is important. some gentiles were labeled Jew for simply forswearing of pagan deities. Probably in Hellenistic circles.

Hellenist even Proselytes refer to themselves as Jews, yet I bet Aramaic Jews refer to them as perversion in Judaism.

Because they did not label themselves as Hellenistic Jews means little.

By the time the gospels were written, much of the movement consisted of gentiles in the Diaspora = Hellenist.


And remember, Hellenistic Proselytes were every bit as educated as Jews in their own religion. look at how Paul's Judaism is still questioned, yet he was very knowledgeable. There is nothing to this day that does not separate his Judaism from that of a Proselyte.

Hence our exchange, the term Jew was defined differently in different places by different cultures correct?

I find it easier to describe people culturally, then religiously due to the vagueness and diversity of the term Jew.


Its why I now identify Jesus as a Aramaic Jew

 

[outhouse]

Yeah, but it's a really BAD picture...

Jewish violence! arrest him!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Who is calling who a jew is what is important. some gentiles were labeled Jew for simply forswearing of pagan deities. Probably in Hellenistic circles.

Hellenist even Proselytes refer to themselves as Jews, yet I bet Aramaic Jews refer to them as perversion in Judaism.

Because they did not label themselves as Hellenistic Jews means little.

By the time the gospels were written, much of the movement consisted of gentiles in the Diaspora = Hellenist.


And remember, Hellenistic Proselytes were every bit as educated as Jews in their own religion. look at how Paul's Judaism is still questioned, yet he was very knowledgeable. There is nothing to this day that does not separate his Judaism from that of a Proselyte.

Hence our exchange, the term Jew was defined differently in different places by different cultures correct?

I find it easier to describe people culturally, then religiously due to the vagueness and diversity of the term Jew.


Its why I now identify Jesus as a Aramaic Jew

I'm not sure you responded to my question. You said that Hellenized Jews wanted to drop the label, and I asked why do three very important Hellenized Jews (Philo, Josephus, and Paul) identify themselves as Jews?

Now we can agree I think that the term "Hellenized" in this case is a label that we use, but we can agree that these three characters were Hellenized to some degree and identified themselves with the label "Jew" [not Hellenized Jew, although that's possible] - whatever that meant to them.

We can agree I think that we're using these terms loosely enough to at least have a conversation - I mean, it's not like we're writing in an academic journal and need to come up with nuanced definitions of 'Jew' and 'Hellenized.'

Now you're right, Paul's Judaism was questioned, and he countered by saying that he was more Jewish than anyone. He embraced his Jewishness -- but he also defined it for himself.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And remember, Hellenistic Proselytes were every bit as educated as Jews in their own religion.

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.

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.

 

[outhouse]

. He embraced his Jewishness -- but he also defined it for himself.

And im under the belief it was partially rhetorical.

I asked why do three very important Hellenized Jews (Philo, Josephus, and Paul) identify themselves as Jews?

Excellent question. Sorry got carried away

Used rhetorically in a religious sense to build their character as being authoritative enough to be a leader of a version of Judaism that had not finished the divorce from Judaism.

Josephus is getting closer to the division then the others being born last. identified as Jewish due to heritage on his fathers side he could not control. Not really a Hellenist who found importance in The movement either.


Also time is in play, and we are in context to gospels. The division was forced in gospels with the fall of the temple. Before that the Jewish label was not as negative in the movement.


My whole take is simply put. The movement failed in Judaism as he was a failed messiah with his death. Part of the reasons why we do not see a vast volume of Hebrew transliterations.

The movement flourished in Hellenism through the Empire and it spread quickly for a few good reasons. There were divisions in Judaism between Hellenism and traditional pious Judaism. Hellenist did not follow pious traditions as closely leaving room for belief in Jesus. The corrupt Emperor forcing worship, or a different "son of god" based on a possible real monotheistic god. Not just a man claiming to be god. Perceived as, Corruption VS a man who was willing to sacrifice himself for the people.

That and people at talking at Passover, enabled the movement to spread quickly and wide spread.