Can we believe St. Paul? (atheism, baptize, Pilate, contradictions)

[travric]

What bothers me most is
his contradiction of some of the things Jesus Himself taught!
I think he should have 'conferred' more with 'The Apostles 0f The Lamb'!

Perhaps but I think Paul was a very strong, egotistical individual. Without a doubt he was avery storong psychologically in his mission. This no doubt overwhelmed Peter and the other Apostles. He actually believed everything he was doing came from a 'revelation' from Christ. I guess in those early days there was no time for being diplomatic when it came to 'missions'. A mission he thought for himself that was a special one..to preach among the non-Jews.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

Pretty much agree on your analysis Arq. Woodrow introduces the aspects I had also looked into and IIRC somewhere in these studies, the Paul was thought to be Jerome.

I also agree that this Paul fella was not that up to speed on Judaic laws and traditions hence his claim to be both a Pharisee and Roman citizen did not gel. Some comments on your comments.

This aspect of not following the law and suggesting the law was the reason for sin b/c if you were unaware of the law, by inference you could not break the law.

If he actually had read up on the law, one would assume whoever it was, read about laws that had obviously been abandoned like the stoning for petty sins. Some dietary laws could well have been moot and not deemed necessary. We have already heard our Jewish members here do not follow the entire law and is inferred that if you keep as much as you can you in fact keep the entire 613. When this deviation took place is questionable as in the gospels we have the story of the adulteress which goes against the premise Jesus claims to stand for the law and then does not allow the law to be enacted by passing a guilt trip on them. Scholars suggest that this story was a later addition. It probably never actually happened but sets a contradiction of both the ministry of Jesus and the alleged laws of Moses.

Simply put, Jesus, being god incarnate would have been fully aware of the intent of the law if it was his dictum as claimed OR it was never his law and in a way illustrates the law was indeed man made.

Occam's razor demands that if this is the conclusion, one must either accept the laws were man made (they were) and thus irrelevant. In that event, Paul's dismissal of the law seems pretty rational. But is it?

It seems that the main issue revolves around circumcision. Circumcision was anyway a covenant with Abraham and not Moses but it appears the practice continued as the religion of the Jews morphed.

Oddly enough, this aspect of circumcision which has really no medical benefit is still practised widely in the US to this day by xians. There are oodles of threads dealing with the relevance in modern society.

That alone suggest to me the law Paul was referring to and even the observant Jews simply revolved around issues not really associated with the actual laws. Either that or the Laws of Moses are an addendum to the Abrahamic covenant.

As we read on, it does appear the Abrahamic promise does in fact make a cameo appearance to suggest a fulfilled prophesy/promise to Abraham that his "Seed" shall be as the sands of the sea, one assumes a beach.

I see you did not pick up on Timothy. He was apparently circumcised by Paul to appear to be acceptable for the Jews. I will deal with that in a separate post.

As you alluded to, he does make it up as he goes along, lying for Jesus is what we heathen term this and is still in practice to this very day.

I am not sure if Galatians is actually attributed to Paul. From what I remember it was not or his authorship was questionable.

Like I said elsewhere, the way the narrative is compiled, it actually paves the way for Paul to take over from the apostles and take it to the gentiles despite incorrect claims he makes as being the chosen one. The Bay of pigs story is actually the first interaction with Gentiles by Jesus and is followed up by another visit later. If anything, the dude having demons cast out was the first non Jew witness. Jews by virtue of their dietary laws, would not farm with pigs. Back in the Tentmaker days I quizzed the forum and no one had even noticed this despite many hints. Simply goes to prove my earlier assertions that Paulinists know very little of the gospels as Jesus gets very little attention in the churches.

Blind acceptance of Paul being righteous b/c he sells what was a feel good easy religion, appeals to the ignorant and lazy. His narrative does appear to read easier and does appear to contain pearls of wisdom. He also does not appear to be as judgemental as Jesus toward the religious.

He was like the modern day Benny Hinn who has claimed on TV to be God's anointed. He also issued veiled threats that god would punish his detractors, he really is the modern version of the fictitious Paul.

I welcome all views on Paul, whether he was Jerome, Marcion or someone else. Or as he claimed to be a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin and also a Roman Citizen (as he claims, by birth). I note the suggestion that anyone who became a Roman Citizen could not remain a Jew. I am not sure whether this is the case, but I am of the view that the main reason for his feelings of sinfulness is that he was living very much as a Graeco - Roman would, while still regarding himself as a Jew.

Now, this is all academic to me, rather as is the discussion about whether Jesus was an observing Jew, a reforming Jew or a radical Jew. So long as it is agreed that neither Jesus or Paul are as Christianity would wish us to see them, I am cool with all the various takes.

And yet I believe that one does not invent a story in which one appears to arguing away an underlying story which doesn't exist. Just as I believe that the Gospels are trying to cover - up a real Jesus who was not the Christian Son -of -God figure that the Evangelicals wanted, I believe that there is a real Paul who was covered up by both himself and his Acts - biographer, who I am pretty sure also wrote Luke's gospel.

I say biographer because after a transition of Peter and the others from a bunch of rather dim Jewish fishermen into a lot of charismatic Christians, Luke gets on with the main subject of the story - how Paul took the message to the gentiles.

Luke seems to forget that his Disciples are miraculously transformed into Spirit - filled Christians as he mentions their ongoing adherence to Jewish law and custom.

At this point perhaps I can post my Part 2 on Paul with apologies for repeated material and the digression into James. As before, feel free to browse or skip, but I hope to show that Paul's story actually fits into history pretty well, though of course one can adapt an invented story to history.

[TRANSPONDER]

Pt 2 (a).

Timeline.

I have shortened my material by fitting the arguments - about Paul's conversion, the red cross parcels for the Elect, the council of Jerusalem etc. in their chronological context, For example, Acts on James' letter is chronologically important.

AD 6. Judea was made a province of the Roman Empire. Quirinius, the governor of Syria ordered a population census for taxation purposes. This led to armed revolt under Judah of Gamla (the isolated mountaintop city northeast of the Sea of Galilee) supported by the Galilean Pharisee priest Zadok. This was the forming, or reforming, of the zealot movement.
Acts 5.37) "Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered." That was not the end of them, since they became resurgent in the Jewish war of 66 AD
High Priest Ananus ben Seth 6-15 appointed by Quirinus
High Priest Ishmael ben Fabus (Phabi) 15-16 app. by Valerius Gratus
High Priest Eleazar ben Ananus 16-17
High Priest Simon ben Camithus 17-18 app. by Valerius Gratus
High Priest Joseph Caiaphas 18-36 Son-in-law of the high priest Ananas or Annas, (presumably Ananus ben Seth 6-15 AD app. by Valerius Gratus
Prefect Pontius Pilate 26–36 C.E.

Paul's conversion

There have been claims that Paul cannot have been a Jew. Despite his ghastly mangling of scripture, I don't see that as proving that he didn't know his scriptures properly, but that he was willing to fiddle them to prove his case. Thus I am willing to accept that he was a Pharisee Jew of the tribe of Benjamin and was also a Roman citizen of Asia minor, and by birth.

Galatians 1.14 "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.13. you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it."

Paul doesn't say why. The implication is that it was offensive to him because of his Jewish beliefs, and perhaps it was, though I have already argued that Jesus railing against the Pharisees - the main social leaders of the Judea people - is not true and nor is his undermining of the Sabbath, Kosher food laws and the like. The quarrel was between the Sanhedrin as the appointed intermediaries of Rome's procurators and anyone seen as stirring up unrest

Acts 9. 1 "Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

Now, I have to restate my reservations about Luke's reliability. I can only say that I note that what he showed Saul as doing was acting as one of the accredited henchmen of the Roman appointed Jewish administration. I also see (in that absence of anything Paul himself has to say about it) the conversion as some vision in his own head, whether or not coinciding with an attack of blindness, miraculously cured. Paul does not support this miraculous event himself. So my suspicion is that it was more mundane a 'conversion' than Luke represents.

Galatians 1. "But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being."Paul says: Galatians 1. 11.. "the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

That may be so, but that doesn't mean the gospel he was taught wasn't from men.

1 Corinthians 15 .1 "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

I cannot imagine this is all Paul's own invention. At the least the burial of Jesus (following his execution, without a doubt) and the doctrine that he died as an atonement for sin and rose again -even if it was a spiritual resurrection - as Paul appears to reveal 1 Cor 15.45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.-and appeared to the apostles," Even if it was also in the spirit. This was what someone other than his own imagination told him.

Therefore he did indeed receive his original teaching about death, resurrection and sacrifice atonement of Jesus from others. What then did he not receive from a man and was taught to him by revelation from Spirit Jesus (since Paul never spoke to Jesus in the flesh)? It was Paul's own gospel, doctrine or theory which he then preaches and explains and which is entirely his own view and which was shared by none of the other apostles.

II Corinthians hints at how this happened. "12:2 I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I don't know, or whether out of the body, I don't know; God knows), such a one caught up into the third heaven. 12:3I know such a man (whether in the body, or outside of the body, I don't know; God knows), 12:4how he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."

He went to Asia minor and Greece preaching his gospel. The gospel was that the Jewish Law could not save. Only Faith in Jesus could save. Accepting that one had to become circumcised in order to become part of the promise of Abraham only made one open to the sin of failing to observe the law. It imposed uneccessy requirements which Jews had to observe (not that Paul observed them, it seems) and the gentiles were better off without.
This brought Paul into conflict with observing Jews and he was called to Jerusalem to discuss the matter. The account in Acts is not believable. The Pauline account of the requirements made seems rather vague and loose. The suspicion is that Paul simply ignore James' ruling and carried on as before.

It seems that some doubted that he was even entitled to regard himself as an apostle. Cor.9:1 ".. I am an apostle, am I not? - ....2 If I am not (considered to be) an apostle to other-people, but indeed I am to you for you are the seal of my apostleship in (the) Lord"
(Even this doctored translation (Christian Bible Links I Corinthians Chapter 9 Bible Study ) is o.k for me. I do not often need to argue mistranslations in order to make my case)

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. 17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. 19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

He was evidently in Damascus as he says. "I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus." But he left there in a hurry, because of the approach of the Nabatean army.

The political background to this is the friction between Herod Antipater (nicknamed Antipas), Tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea from 4 BC – AD 39. and Aretas IV of Nabatea (ancient Edom, capital Petra). King Aretas reigned from 9 B.C. to 40AD. His full title, as depicted on numerous inscriptions, was "Aretas, King of the Nabataens, Friend of his People. Apparently Aretas paid tribute to Rome out of the taxes that he collected at Petra from the profitable spice trade and the Romans thought of them a client kingdom. Aretas took a different view.

30 - 35 AD (or CE, if you prefer).Arrest of John the Baptist in Peraea, and Jesus' crucifixion in Jerusalem. Aretas' daughter Phasaelis had married Herod Antipas, but relations between Herod and Aretas IV Philopatris were already strained over border disputes, the border being at Peraea.where Antipas had built the tower of Machaeras. That was where John the Baptist was imprisoned after his arrest in Peraea. While Josephus notes that the Baptist had ben railing at Antipas for the business with Herodias, we have to bear in mind that Herod would be very suspicious of John assembling a large band of disaffected Jews in the border area next to Nabatea. There is a useful map here
Map of the Decapolis and its Cities (Bible History Online)

The unmarked area N. E of lake Galilee is Ituria and Trachonitis, the Tetrarchy of Philip, brother of Antipas. Their relations were none too good either, as Herod had married Philips' wife Herodias, mother of Salome. Bethsaida was in Philip's Tetrarchy, not in Galilee, and thus that 'Lonely place' might have looked a safer place than Antipas' Galilee to assemble 500 men, provide a token feast and announce a messianic mission, just as Peraea might have looked safer than Galilee or Judea to the baptist.

36 AD Vitellius sends Pilate to Rome to answer complaints about his rough methods by Jews and Samaritans. Marcellus appointed procurator (36-37).

Marcellus (Prefect of Judea 36-37). A friend of Vitellius who appointed him after sending Pilate to Rome to render account. Marcellus was not really a procurator of Judea, but only a subordinate official of Vitellius. Indeed, this is the only instance where Josephus, in designating the office of Marcellus, uses the expression ?p?µe??t?? = "overseer." No official act of Marcellus is reported. (source, Jewish Encyclopaedia)

Marullus , (AD 37-41).appointed procurator of Judea

AD 36, When Herod divorced Aretas' daughter, Pasaelis, in order to to take his brother's Philip's wife, Phaesalis fled to her father. Aretas IV invaded Judea, and captured territories along the West Bank of the Jordan River, including the areas around Qumran.
The historian and former Jewish war general Josephus connects this battle, which occurred during the winter of AD 36/37, with the beheading of John the Baptist, which occurred about the same time. About the same time' must be anytime from from 30 AD to 36 since the Baptist must surely have been beheaded before Jesus fed the 5,000, if one believes the gospels, even if one doesn't suppose (as I do) that the beheading of John was the catalyst for Jesus' feeding of the 5,000 and his own stab at a Messianic mission.

Historian Josephus Writes About King Aretas
"About this time Aretas, the king of Petra, and Herod the Tetrarch had a quarrel on account of the following. Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas and had lived with her a great while; but once when he was on his way to Rome he lodged with his half-brother, also named Herod but who had a different mother, the high priest Simon's daughter. There he fell in love with Herodias, this latter Herod's wife, who was the daughter of their brother Aristobulus and the sister of Agrippa the Great. Aretas also had a quarrel with Herod about their boundaries in the area of Gabalis. So they raised armies on both sides and prepared for war, sending their generals to fight instead of themselves. - Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.1

AD 37 Herod Antipas then appealed to Tiberius, Emperor of Rome, who sided with Antipas and ordered the governor of Syria, Vitellius, to take action against Aretas. But, Tiberius died in Misenum on March 16, AD 37, at the age of 77. The new emperor Gaius (nicknamed Caligula) sided with Aretas. taking advantage of the situation, took possession of Damascus.
When the next Roman emperor, Gaius or Caligula, made several changes in the Empire, King Aretas received Damascus from Caligula in the imperial settlement of the affairs of Syria.

In 39 AD Antipas was accused by his nephew Agrippa I of conspiracy against the emperor Caligula, who sent him into exile in Gaul, accompanied there by Herodias. Herod Antipas was banished by Caligula to Lyons, and his kingdom was given to Agrippa, his nephew

The Aretas’ administration in Damascus may have begun very soon after Tiberius' death in March CE 37 based upon archeological evidence in the form of a Damascus coin, with the image of King Aretas and the date 101. If that date points to the Pompian era, it equals C.E. 37. Damascus had been a city of the Roman province, Syria; and we have Damascene coins of Augustus and Tiberius, and afterward of Nero, etc., but we have none of Caligula. This implies that Emperor Gaius simply accepted Aretas' occupation of Damascus and his coins were never issued there.
Thus we can take it that it was AD 36 or early AD 37 when Aretas occupied Damascus and that was when Paul had to sneak out of Damascus in a basket through a window in the wall to escape King Aretas.

2 Corinthians 11:31"The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he who is blessed forevermore, knows that I don't lie. 11:32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes desiring to arrest me. 11:33Through a window I was let down in a basket by the wall, and escaped his hands."
Paul may not lie, exactly, but it impossible to believe that either Aretas or his general or governor had the slightest interest in Paul. He was taking advantage of the death of Tiberius to grab parts of Syria. However, we have a useful date for this event. 37 AD.

Luke in Acts repeats this but conceals, not to say lies about the reason for Paul fleeing and he brazenly blames it on 'The Jews'

Acts 9.22 "But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. 23And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: 24But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. 25Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. 26And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple."

Paul explains that he left Damascus and went to Judea or at least near enough to meet Simon - Peter/Cephas and James (the less or James the Just, brother of Jesus).

Galatians 1 21 "Then after three years,(AD 39) I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”

But Paul wasn't preaching to Jews, he was preaching to his own fellow citizens in Asia Minor. Gentiles.I don't doubt that Saul, now calling himself Paul, was taking the 'gospel' to the gentiles. Paul had started out by opposing Jesus' followers, became converted to their beliefs during the time when he was in Damascus, and the Arabia and then Damascus again. After escaping the Nabatean occupation, he made contact with the apostles at Antioch and (at some time) Jesus' followers in Jerusalem, though exactly when is not certain since that is connected with the council of Jerusalem and that is after Paul had been collecting alms for the saints. in connection with the famine. The dating of which is important. Acts 21 New International Version (NIV) However, before we look at that, we need to consider Paul's 'gospel'.

Paul's theological theory

Paul's argument is that in fact the law is an extra burden since it an addition to what we'd call the god given moral code. It is just more rules that one could be in danger of breaking.

Adam fell (original sin) Abraham's righteousness was before and therefore without the law. That is irrelevant since, once the Law was given by God to His people, it became incumbent and mandatory

Rom 1.20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Quite apart from our knowing better now - ID (this is a watchmaker argument) Paul assumes only one god, taking it for granted that all the others represented by idols, are false.

1.25 "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator."
.
Paul suggests that the sin came from worshipping the wrong gods, but also ascribes it (as believers do) to Adam's fall.

5.12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

That is, Adam was the precursor of Jesus or rather Jesus was the new Adam who would remove the sin and death that Adam brought.

5.19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one [Jesus] shall many be made righteous."

Rom 11.25.."blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

Paul's argument is that Israel's hardness of heart (not believing in Jesus) is until the gentiles have 'come in' (been converted) and the OT quote is to underline that.

Isaih 59. 20 "And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. 21As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Paul presents this as something that God will do in the future (after all the gentiles have 'come in' though there is no hint of that condition in Isaiah) rather than something that 'is' (as in Isaiah). Even if one takes this as prophecy rather than Isaiah railing at the times, how does this support Paul's idea of the Jews having to wait for Gentile conversion before this 'covenant'? That is Paul's own theory, supported nowhere in the Bible other than with his out - of - context cherry picked quotes from Hosea and Psalms.(we shall consider those later)

Paul then says that Jew and gentile will be judged on their own terms.

2.13 "not those who hear the law are just before God, but those who are doers of the law shall be justified." Doing the law, Paul then argues, is a sort of innate natural inclination to righteousness - found in Gentile and jew alike and is the REAL Law, not the Code of Moses.

2.14. "when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another 16In the day when God shall judge."

This waffle means that the Jews have the Law and if they keep it they shall be justified at judgement but those who did not shall not be. But Gentiles who do not have the law nevertheless have a God - given moral conscience which tells them right from wrong. Those who obey that instinctive law will be justified, those who do not, will not. In effect, both will be judged on their behaviour,

Paul then argues that the Jew who does wrong effectively breaks the law and loses his 'circumcision'. Logically then, someone who keeps the innate law gains circumcision.

2. 26 "So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?"

The answer actually is no, because God gave the Law to be observed as part of his covenant with the Jews and only with the Jews. A just gentile is not part of this covenant while an unjust Jew is still part of the covenant. Paul tries to get around this.

Rom 4. 3 "What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” ....13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith."

Note that Paul has changed his position. It is faith in God - not doing good - that is 'righteousness. Thus logically, anyone having faith in God - the Jewish God - is righteous and those who do not (gentiles) are not righteous. Works is nothing to do with it as Paul will later argue. He further argues that it is faith in Jesus as resurrected messiah that is the faith that impart righteousness, and not observing the innate moral code and indeed not even believing in God as Jews do. It is believing in Jesus that is the ONLY way of being 'righteous'. And even that can slip away if one slips into sin, as we shall see later on.

Paul argues that if God decides to break his covenant with the Jews and bestow the promise of Abraham on gentiles who are we to argue? Is it unjust of Hm?

Rom 9. 4 "....the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.....it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. ....30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

Paul is Lying here or at least misrepresenting scripture. This refutes his claim to honesty. in II Corinthians:
4.2 "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."

Craftiness and fiddling the word of God is what Paul does repeatedly

Isa 28:16 "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. It looks like he has interpreted the sense thus:Isa 28:7 the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink..they err in vision, they stumble [in] judgment. 28:8 For all tables are full of vomit [and] filthiness, [so that there is] no place [clean]. 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?... 28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little: ...yet they would not hear. 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken".

following Paul, this is the stone laid in Zion which these people stumble over. The rules and regulations. but Isaiah goes on to say that the stone is a sure foundation. The idea is that none of them are worthy. No -one really observes the Law. This is the basis of the idea that God, disgusted with the Jews' failing to observe His Laws (Paul again changes his stance as Law observance is not the charge but observing the law but not being righteous and that is the charge made again and again in the gospels.)

Rom 3. 21 "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

Rom 5.8 while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."

This must imply that believing in God and not believing in Jesus is not righteousness. Thus Abraham was not righteous because he did not believe in Jesus. If Paul were to say that Abraham is excused because he did not know, then all Jews who died before Jesus was executed are also excused, since they did not know and therefore indeed any gentile who behaves well is also righteous and justified if he did not know about Jesus. One might ask like as the Inuit asked the missionary 'Why did you tell us?'

Because Paul by telling gentiles about Jesus is imposing a burden on them and great as any that he says the Law imposes. If he left them ignorant of Jesus then Faith in Jesus would not be a requirement for salvation. As (he argues) those who did not know the law and moreover those who do not accept the law even when told of it, are free of it. But if (as he would argue, Faith in Jesus, one given to the world is a requirement for righteousness in addition to just doing good (let alone just believing in God), then the same can be said of the Law. Once given as the first covenant with God it must be observed to be part of that covenant, just as Paul is arguing that Faith in Jesus, once given, becomes a requirement above and beyond doing good and believing in God, in order to be part of the New Covenant. Paul abrogates one law, using very doubtful logic and actually replaces it with another.

Rom.10 4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them..6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, ...? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved"

So we get to where Paul wants to arrive, Paul is released from the sin of his failure to observe the law and gentiles are made part of the Promise of Abraham, not because they are descendants of Isaac

Rom 9.7 "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.)

but because they believe in Jesus' resurrection. Faith in Jesus replaces the law, not only for Gentile worshippers but also it would seem for Jews, though Paul's original argument that Jews do have to observe the Laws seem to have been forgotten. .

But, it is argued, it is a much easier law (the 'easy yoke'). That is doubtful. At least with the Law, if one transgresses one can make restoration. if one doubts the resurrection, what can one do about that? Moreover if a christian sins he can lose the benefit of faith in Jesus. Effectively Christianity becomes non - Christianity just as surely as sinning of the circumcised makes them spiritually uncircumcised.

Rom 6.15 "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. and 6.11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." (note that righteousness through faith in God had now the need to believe in god through Jesus)

Paul does not see this as his reasoning is poor. Though he does see that there is backsliding and argues that one can lose all that faith has supposedly gained.

The problem is that, I am sure, he did not reason from first principles of Jewish theology but began with a conclusion - Gentiles could be equal with Jews in salvation through Faith in the risen Messiah. Because the requirement for circumcision and Mosaic law observance were a difficulty for them, that had to be made irrelevant and unnecessary. Paul thus concocted a number of ingenious but doubtful arguments to justify that conclusion.

Thus, his visions and conversions and revelations were all part and parcel of this need to make his fellow Romans of the empire equal partners in salvation when the judgement came and Faith in Jesus was the way to do it.

But there seems to be more to it that just that since, while Paul says that Jews must observe the Law. does he do so? I rather suspect that he doesn't. I use a modern translation, as understanding exactly what he says is important.

Rom 7 13 "Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."

Paul is supposing that faith in Jesus has somehow saved him from doing wrong - going against the moral compass. I strongly suspect that he is not observing he Law himself as (as we shall see further on) he attacked Peter - not for living like a gentile but, under the advice of the 'party of the circumcision' withdrew from dining with gentiles. He is being hypocritical and contradicting himself. If he - a Jew - does not observe the law, then he is not going to be justified by faith in Jesus, but he clearly found relief in getting over his failure to observe the Law by replacing it with the new Faith in Jesus. That contradicts his statement that a Jew has to observe the law - whether they believe in Jesus or not. Or does he actually say that Faith in Jesus releases Jews from the need to observe the Law?

Paul is a bit evasive about this but there are indications that he did break the Law when he was around Gentiles and at least put on an exhibition of Law observance when around Jews. That would certainly explain his whole desire to decriminalize himself from his sins of not observing the Law very faithfully by simply replacing it with Faith in Jesus as 'righteousness' as i have to repeat, on very flimsy grounds.

8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

It's necessary to have the whole of this since it says clearly that Jesus' sacrifice does what the Law could not - note that it was not that failure to observe the Law was unrighteousness but the observing the law was not righteousness . Only faith was righteouness.

Paul's argument is that being Jewish and observing Jewish Law gives them no advantage in God's view.

Rom. 3. 9 "What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”13 “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” 14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17 and the way of peace they do not know.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

Paul's argument is that no-one is righteous. But why would that mean that the God - given Mosaic Law has thus become unable to save or was never intended to save, even if Paul is justified in saying that no - one keeps it or bad behaviour nullifies it? He justifies that view with God apparently saying so in scripture. But Paul compiles that passage of his by cherry - picking items from a lot of sources:

"There is no one righteous, not even one;" the nearest is Isa 41:26
"Who hath declared from the beginning, that we may know? and beforetime, that we may say, [He is] righteous? yea, [there is] none that sheweth, yea, [there is]
none that declareth, yea, [there is] none that heareth your words."

Rom.3 11 "there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God."
Psa 14:2 "The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God. 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are
[all] together become filthyNiphal, corrupted, sour, like milk) [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one."

But these people (see Psalm 14 and 53 [the same] are the gentiles who 'eat up' the Jews. This does not relate to backsliding Jews.

Rom.312 "All have turned away, ...."
Dan 9.11 "All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you. they have together become worthless (greek achreioo make useless, render unserviceable a) of character) there is no one who does good, not even one." 13 "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit."

Paul quotes Daniel but not the bit about transgressing the law. It does not suit his thesis that transgressing the law should be the sin rather than turning away from just being a good person rendering the Law invalid.

Psa 5:9 "For [there is] no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part [is] very wickedness; their throat [is] an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue." But here the Psalmist is speaking of the enemies of David.
Psa 78:36 "Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues."
Well read the passage and see that Paul is relating the backsliding of the ancient Jews to those of his day.

14 "The poison of vipers is on their lips."

Deu 32:33 "Their wine [is] the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps."
This relates to Jeshurun (Jeshurun, in the Hebrew Bible, is the name of an 'End of Days' prophet, and is a poetic name for Israel.) turning away and worshipping idols. bearing in mind the icon-laden character of Jesus - worship, this looks like a warning against it.

"Their mouths are full of cursing (greek ara a prayer, a supplication2) an imprecation, curse, malediction) and bitterness (pikria -1) bitter gall a) extreme wickedness
b) a bitter root, and so producing a bitter fruit) metaph. bitterness, bitter hatred. [Paul tweaks this meaning a bit]" see Psa 10:7
His mouth is full of cursing ('alah - oath/curse) and deceit (mirmah - deceit, treachery) and fraud: under his tongue [is] mischief and vanity."

Ro15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;"
Proverbs 1:16 "For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood." (talking of sinners)

Ro 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17 and the way of peace they do not know."
Isa 59:7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts [are] thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction [are] in their paths. The way of peace they know not; and [there is] no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace."

(It is remarkable that Paul did not quote 592/3 which would suit his book very well)
"There is no fear of God before their eyes"
Psa 36:1 [[To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David the servant of the LORD.] "The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, [that there is] no fear of God before his eyes."

Psa 14:1 [[To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David.] "The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God.14:3 They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one. 14:4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people [as] they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD. 14:5 There were they in great fear: for God [is] in the generation of the righteous. 14:6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD [is] his refuge. 14:7 Oh that the salvation of Israel [were come] out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, [and] Israel shall be glad."

compare Psa 53:1 [[To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, [A Psalm] of David.] "The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: [there is] none that doeth good. 53:2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were [any] that did understand, that did seek God. 53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one. 53:4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people [as] they eat bread: they have not called upon God. 53:5 There were they in great fear, [where] no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth [against] thee: thou hast put [them] to shame, because God hath despised them. 53:6 Oh that the salvation of Israel [were come] out of Zion! When God bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, [and] Israel shall be glad."


There is nothing here to support Paul's contention that the law was not intended to save or ceased to be able to save whether or not anyone observed it. Paul is surely being over - literal is suggesting that the imperfection of man had nullified the Law or that the Law was only given so that men would sin by breaking it (as he argues later). by increasing sin so that Jesus by His sacrifice would accomplish something even greater.

That this irrational and somewhat appalling idea is posited by more or less (mostly less) relevant snippits from a variety of OT sources hardly justified Paul's speculative theory

Whether Paul is reasonably collating a lot of quotes relating to a lot of sinning going on, there was never any indication that this had nullified God's covenant with his people much less abrogated the law and its power to save at the 'last Days'. Paul has only his argument that righteousnessis what counts, not Law observance. Perhaps he has a point, but that does not alter the fact that God later gave his Laws to be observed and they should be observed. Nowhere is Paul's contention that Jewish sinning has made it obsolete supported by scripture.

Paul assumes that his collection of cherry - picked quotes proves that nothing (including adopting Judaism) can save us, only Jesus who intercedes with God for those who 'believe' in him.

Rom.8. 35"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter".

Psalm 44.20" If we had forgotten the name of our God or spread out our hands to a foreign god, 21 would not God have discovered it, since he knows the secrets of the heart?
22 Yet for your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."

Paul is doubtfully finding prophecy of his (claimed) persecution of those who preach Christ in the Davidic hymn to God who seemed to allow David's enemies to prevail, despite their faithfulness.. At best it is a poetic underlining of what Paul takes the situation to be.

Rom. 9.25 "As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved."

Hosea 2:23 "And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to [them which were] not my people, Thou [art] my people; and they shall say, [Thou art] my God. This is about the Hebrew people who had adopted fporeign forms of worship hosea 2.16 you will call Me [l]Ishi And will no longer call Me Baali. 17 “For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth,"

God is talking about His people returning rather than a foreign people becoming His. Paul has seriously distorted scripture to support his thesis.

Rom 9.27 "Isaiah also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:"

Isa 10:22 "For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, [yet] a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness." (although Isaiah is referring to Assyria as God's tool of punishment, it can easily seem to refer to a latter day punishment, as Paul clearly sees it)

Rom 9.25 "and her beloved, which was not beloved"

This is not found. I have seen no reference to any text corresponding. I did notice that some commentators noted that Paul had twisted the meaning somewhat in order to make his point. The fact is that the stuff about whoredoms, flagons of 'new wine' and the like could be seen as a warning against following Gentile ideas and 'new' teachings.

Romans:9.33 "See I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall".

Isa 28:16 "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. 17Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet:"

28.13 "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

Paul has gone further than just collect doubtfully relevant quotes: he has twisted the meaning of this passage. Instead of supporting Paul's argument than sinning has made the Law unable to save, and the Law was only there to increase the sin, the Law is a sure foundation and is the rule and benchmark for righteous behaviour.

Rom 10.19 "First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you."
Paul's line is that God has lost patience with Israel and has turned to the gentiles as a way of shaming the Jews into believing the new teachings. We can see here the embryo of Christian theology. Paul was indeed the first Christian in the sense that we understand it now, never mind whether the the Greek for 'Messianist' was applied to Jewish followers of Jesus.

Deu 32:21 "They have moved me to jealousy with [that which is] not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with [those which are] not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation."

Isa 65:1 "I am sought of [them that] asked not [for me]; I am found of [them that] sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation [that] was not called by my name. Isa 65:2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way [that was] not good, after their own thoughts;"

And what sort of people were those? Isa 65:3 "A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; 65:4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable [things is in] their vessels;65:5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou."

Who do those sound like? Gentiles or observing Jews? The Rock in Zion is the Law, and though priests and prophets may fiddle with the details, the rock - the law - is a sure foundation, and God does not make cause with foreign gentiles, though He may sometimes use them to punish Israel (or so the prophets explain their frequent defeats).

Isa 8:14 "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."

This rock is the law? No, because: "For the LORD spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying, Isa 8:12 Say ye not, A confederacy", The sense is: Stick with the lord, don't associate with others for strength.

Rom 11:8 "(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day."

Isa 29:10 "For Jehovah hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes, the prophets; and your heads, the seers, hath he covered."

'Unto this day' is a gloss of Paul, to bring the prophecy up to his own time. That shows that he is not just using scripture as an illustration of his argument but is using it all as prophecy supporting his interpretation of what is the situation in the world at the time. This is why it is necessary to look at all the quotes and see how how they are doubtfully applicable or even twisted in meaning. Scripture does not in any way support Paul's ideas.

[TRANSPONDER]

Pt 2(b)

It only remains to consider whether this thesis is shared by the other followers of Jesus. The 'mainstream' of Christian thought supposes that Jesus taught that all the Jewish rites and observances were of no use and only faith in Jesus will save and the apostles thought the same. Thus Paul was merely teaching what he received from the apostles about what Jesus taught, and if he argues at length and with doubtful reasoning, that could be what he was taught.

Quite apart from Paul swearing that he received his 'gospel' from no man but direct from Jesus, I shall show that Paul and Acts show strong (though concealed) indications that the apostles did NOT hold Paul's views. I have already argued strongly enough that the Law - abrogating teachings of Jesus in the gospels cannot be other than spurious.

note also 1 cor. 9.19 "Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law--though I myself am not under the law--to win over those under the law.21 To those outside the law I became like one outside the law--though I am not outside God's law but within the law of Christ--to win over those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some."

Thus Paul strongly suggests that he sometimes, when with gentiles, does not observe the law. With Jews he puts on a show of Law observance in order to persuade them that he's a good enough observing Jew.

Paul then suggests that his ministry to the Gentiles is to goad the Jews into following them into belief in Jesus. He truly wants the gentiles - his fellow citizens - to be part of the promise and his fellows the Jews to be the same. He issues a few ground rules as to how they can co -exist. Setting aside the question of whether faith in Jesus replaced the need to observe the Law for Jews, Paul supposes and expects that faith will automatically make one behave righteously. He is wrong as he will find out.

Corinthians 6.9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?"

Though it is tempting to review each epistle in turn, this is to show how Paul formulated and argued his case and of course to show that his argument is very questionable. We do find here that he is trying to find quick -fix answers to knotty problems about marriage with unbelievers and food offered to idols.So we can now have a look at what was going on in Judea and when.

Timeline AD 36/7 on
High Priest Jonathan ben Ananus 36-37 appointed by Vitellius
Procurator Marcellus 36–37 C.E.
Procurator Marullus 37–41 C.E.
High PriestTheophilus ben Ananus 37-41 appointed by Vitellius
About A. D. 40, Caius Caligula issued a peremptory decree ordering the erection and worship of his statute in the Temple of God. He also appointed to the government of Syria, bidding him carry out that decree even at the cost of a war against the rebellious Jews. Whereupon the Jews in tens of thousands protested to the governor that they were willing to be slaughtered rather than to be condemned to witness that idolatrous profanation of their holy Temple. Soon afterwards, Petronius asked Caligula to revoke his order, and Agrippa I, who than lived at Rome, prevailed upon the Emperor not to enforce his decree. It seems, however, that Caligula soon repented of the concession, and that but for his untimely death (A. D. 41) he would have had his statue set up in Jerusalem (E. Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, I Div. II, 95-105; tr.) (Catholic encyclopaedia)
Gaius (Caligula) Assassinated Jan AD 41 Claudius become emperor

Claudius Caesar (41-54 A.D.) was the fifth Roman emperor, and ascended to the throne in the year 41 A.D
Claudius appointed his friend and supporter Herod Agrippa I to rule Judea from 41 to 44 rather than a procurator.
High Priest Simon Cantatheras ben Boethus 41-43 (Sadducee) appt by Herod Agrippa 1
High Priest Matthias ben Ananus 43
High Priest Elioneus ben Simon Cantatheras 43-44 (Sadducee) Appt Herod Agrippa
High Priest Jonathan ben Ananus 44 (restored)
asi, however, said she was a Nazirite for fourteen years only.
Agrippa and the Judean famine
Claudius appointed his friend and supporter Herod Agrippa I to rule Judea from 41 to 44 rather than a procurator.
The Talmud took a rather positive view of his reign: The Mishnah explained how the Jews of the Second Temple era interpreted the requirement of Deuteronomy 31:10–13 that the king read the Torah to the people. At the conclusion of the first day of Sukkot immediately after the conclusion of the seventh year in the cycle, they erected a wooden dais in the Temple court, upon which the king sat. The synagogue attendant took a Torah scroll and handed it to the synagogue president, who handed it to the High Priest's deputy, who handed it to the High Priest, who handed it to the king. The king stood and received it, and then read sitting. King Agrippa stood and received it and read standing, and the sages praised him for doing so. When Agrippa reached the commandment of Deuteronomy 17:15 that “you may not put a foreigner over you” as king, his eyes ran with tears, but they said to him, “Don’t fear, Agrippa, you are our brother, you are our brother!” The king would read from Deuteronomy 1:1 up through the shema (Deuteronomy 6:4–9), and then Deuteronomy 11:13–21, the portion regarding tithes (Deuteronomy 14:22–29), the portion of the king (Deuteronomy 17:14–20), and the blessings and curses (Deuteronomy 27–28). The king would recite the same blessings as the High Priest, except that the king would substitute a blessing for the festivals instead of one for the forgiveness of sin. (Mishnah Sotah 7:8; Babylonian Talmud Sotah 41a.)

Herod Agrippa I supposedly had James, the son of Zebedee, killed and Simon Peter (Cephas) imprisoned.

Wiki explains the identification of 'Herod' in Acts with Herod Agrippa
"King Herod," mentioned in the Bible's Acts of the Apostles,[9] is identified by historians as the same person as King Agrippa I. The identification is based in part on the description of his death, which is very similar to Agrippa's death in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews 19.8.2, although Josephus does not include the claim that "an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms." Further evidence is the identification of the ruler in Acts 12:1 as "Herod the king," since Agrippa I is the only Herod who would have had authority in Jerusalem at that time. (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 19.5.1)

44 AD Death of Herod Agrippa. Cuspius Fadus appointed procurator 44–46 C.E.. It was under his rule that Theudas made his abortive messianic attempt.

Josephus "It came to pass, while Cuspius Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the Jordan river; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it. Many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. After falling upon them unexpectedly, they slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. (Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98)"

In Acts of the Apostles, Gamaliel, a member of the Sanhedrin, defends the apostles by referring to Theudas:
"Men of Israel, be cautious in deciding what to do with these men. Some time ago, Theudas came forward, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. But he was killed and his whole following was broken up and disappeared. After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census; he induced some people to revolt under his leadership, but he too perished and his whole following was scattered."
Clearly Luke's history is wrong. He places Theudas before Judas the Galilean when in fact he came afterwards (1).

During the reign of Claudius, several different famines are known to have occurred.
The first was in Rome and the second in Judea - the only Famine that is relevant to Paul and Acts. The third famine during the time of Claudius occurred in Greece in about A.D. 50. The fourth famine took place in 52 A.D. and was once again,in the city of Rome.

The second famine known to have occurred in the fourth year of his office (45 A.D.), and was particularly centered in Judea. It is this famine to which Luke makes reference in Acts 11:This Judaean famine is important as Paul was enjoined to 'remember the poor' (Ebionites - effectively the Nazorene party in Jerusalem) and collected relief to send to the 'saints' in Jerusalem.
27 "During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) 29 The disciples, as each one was able, decided to provide help for the brothers and sisters living in Judea. 30 This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul."

II Corinthians 8. 4 "The Macedonians ". begged us insistently for the favor of taking part in the service to the holy ones," As though Paul was umming and erring about collecting their contributions! However this usefully dates II Corinthians to after the 45 AD famine in Judea and that places Corinthians and Romans earlier, as we'd expect, since Romans is his thesis with illustrative examples from the scriptures and Corinthians 1 is exhorting, advising and so is ", while also rattling the tin for the saints.

II Cor..Chapter 9.1 "For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you: 2 For I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many."

The prediction is easy to claim after the event (by someone who completely misplaced Theudas' revolt) and is actually a bit over - generalized. There were four famines, the first and last centered in Rome, the third in Greece and the second in Judea. This is the one that is mentioned in Acts and which suggests that Paul (in the early days, when he was still called Saul) was involved in collecting famine relief for Judea. Helena of Adiabene, (2)a royal convert to Judaism who occupied an extensive palace on Ophel or the site of David's Jerusalem. also collected famine relief.

Thus we can see the famine giving Paul the opportunity to show how deserving his Gentile converts were in collecting famine relief. Paul remarks that, during his missions to Asia minor he had been shipwrecked three times. This surely predates his supposed shipwreck on Malta after his arrest and appeal to Caesar. Paul's sea voyages described in Acts (13.5. 13.15, 14.26, 16.11, 17.14 (to Athens), 18.18, 20.13 and 21.3) describe no shipwrecks.

15 "After this, we started on our way up to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea accompanied us and brought us to the home of Mnason, where we were to stay. He was a man from Cyprus and one of the early disciples. 17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul:

“You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

This is interesting since this letter is what Luke says was sent out in a letter from James after the council of Jerusalem (c AD 50) but this is earlier and, as it relates to the Judaean famine of AD 45, again Luke's history is suspect.

26 "The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them."

One thing that we note is that Luke has James telling Paul to pay for a Jewish ritual so as to to prove that Paul at least was living under the Law. Therefore "there is no truth in these reports about you" that Paul is trying to "teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs".

This passage further says clearly that James himself, leader or at least spokesman and decision - maker for the 'elders' was an upholder of the Law and thus was himself of 'the circumcision'. Since an understanding of the importance pharisees had in Jewish popular life and how Law observance was important to them, it is hard to see the 'circumcision group' as not representing the general view of the Jesus party.

Again and again we see attempts to show Jesus' followers as not being Jews in the sense of following the Jewish ritual laws or having much regard to them, an not standing up. It follows that they did not regard all foods as Clean, nor that it was lawful to do 'good' on the Sabbath, nor regard circumcision as irrelevant and thus as I argued in me previous posts, Jesus never, ever, advocated these ideas. They were entirely Paul's idea based on his guilty feelings about his own lax observance and his desire to make his gentile fellow - citizens equally valid for salvation through Jesus.

Paul does not (as I have mentioned) say 'Jesus said so' or 'The the apostles say so' He does say that he knows 'in the Lord Jesus' that anything is clean (Romans 14.14). We shall see that Paul attacks Peter for drawing away from eating with Gentiles. That strongly suggests that Paul does so habitually.

Timeline
Jonathan High Priest 52-56 AD
52 Felix Procurator 52 -AD60 Herod Agrippa II continues as ruler of various parts of Iturea and Trachonitis, Galilee and Perea
53 Claudius poisoned. Nero becomes emperor of Rome.
55 Procurator Felix kills ''The Egyptian' (Alexandrian Jewish Messiah)
I noted that commentators dated Romans and Corinthians I and 2 to 52 AD. I am certain that they rather date to Paul's first missionary efforts beginning with him explaining his 'Gospel' and then writing to and exhorting his first groups of gentile converts. He collects famine relief amongst them and this is certainly around 45 AD

Ishmael ben Fabus 56-62 (restored? High Priest)

Paul and James and the Council of Jerusalem

Before we go any further, we ought to consider the men Paul was about to become involved with. If the gospels are to be believed, they spent weeks with Jesus listening to his arguments with the Pharisees about Sabbath observance and Kosher food laws not being important

Mark 7.17 "After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)"

And yet according to Luke, Peter still wasn't convinced even when God sends a miracle.

Acts 10.9 "On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: 10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven."

Why would Peter have doubted when Jesus must have cleared up any such doubts long before? This silly, silly story must be regarded as a contradiction with Mark and Matthew 15.10 "And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man" and indeed Luke, himself though he waters the passage down a bit. Luke 11. 39 "Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you."

This is just to emphasize my previous argument that the gospels place into Jesus' mouth Christian views on the Jewish law which he did not hold and clearly his disciples did not hold them either. Moreover, Paul himself in arguing that Kosher law observance was not important appeals neither to Jesus nor to the apostles as authority. Instead he argues the point with an odd logic all his own.

Romans 14 "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.14.14. The central point re. kosher food....All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble."

One might approve the 'live and let live' attitude. But there's a problem. I can understand that Paul might well take the view that if anyone took the clean food laws seriously, those who did not should not 'offend them'. But the question is, did Peter and indeed James, have such a pragmatic view? The passage in Acts suggests that Peter and surely all the other disciples and James, too, who succeeded his brother Jesus as leader of the disciples were, unlike Paul, far from convinced In the Lord Jesus or anyone else that anything was clean if anyone thought it clean. We shall see that this matter of observance of the Jewish Law is raised time after time.

Galatians 2. 1 Then after fourteen years, around AD 50 (the council of Jerusalem is reckoned around AD 50/1) I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Now let's compare this with the account in Acts 14/15 26 "From Attalia they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been committed to the grace of God for the work they had now completed. 27 On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. 28 And they stayed there a long time with the disciples."

Acts 15.1 "Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, (Amos 9 - referring to the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity)
Amos 9:11 n that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old :

17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’— 18 things known from long ago."

Hard to find but may be traced to malachi1.11 "my name shall be great among the Gentiles; ...: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
references to Jeremiah and Isaiah 25.41. 12.15 12.16 related to Israel's wicked neighbours.

Isaiah 25. "And if they learn well the ways of my people and swear by my name, saying, ‘As surely as the LORD lives’—even as they once taught my people to swear by Baal—then they will be established among my people." may relate to a buffet for All peoples It is a pretty cavalier fudging of Holy Write presented in verse so as to make it look more like a verbatim OT quote and that strikes me as more the trademark of Luke than of James the just.

Acts 15. 19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord."

So Paul says "I went up again to Jerusalem, in response to a revelation" Acts says " "Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. 5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” 6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them."

But Luke makes it clear that the dispute about Mosaic law observance was the reason why they were there, though he makes it seem that some warm handshakes and listening to Paul saying what a wonderful missionary job he was doing was the only reason for him being there, and it was just a few Law - observing pharisees forced the question. That isn't true. Paul was there to get a ruling specifically on that question.

Paul. (Galatians) "and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders —whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism.." So Paul does not refer to any general meeting with a few Pharisees standing up and saying that salvation is only for the circumcised and keepers of the Mosaic law. That of course would be the generality of the Nazorenes, Ebionites, or the meek/the Poor', the Jesus party, saints or elect or whatever term one prefers. They were the followers of Jesus' apostles under the leadership of James (Jesus' brother, not the son of Zebedee) and Simon Peter/Cephas), The matter of Law observance was to be discussed. not just interjected by a few trouble- makers. In fact, I am inclined to think that Paul was summoned by James, brother of Jesus, to explain why he was teaching the gentiles that they could have equal share in the Promise of Abraham without observing the Law or being circumcised and that the elders at Antioch had sent him along to answer

"and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders — whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism.." we can assume these were "James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars," Paul here belittles or dismisses the fact that these people had followed Jesus and heard his words and were chosen by him as disciples or were his relatives. We shall see many examples of his belittling their authority and precedence as apostles and even sneering at them. To Paul, in between displays of humility, his hubris - the same that occasioned his absurd claim that Aretas was out to get him, supposes that his own revelation in his own head counted for more that anything the apostles might say and that the fact that they had known Jesus was as nothing besides his mental revelations.

However, Luke (writing Acts) has Peter stand up to defend Paul's stance. "Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

I do not believe this speech any more than I believe the Sabbath - abolitionist speeches put into the mouth of Jesus. Just as the Pharisees should have ripped apart the argument from shewbread or doing good on the Sabbath, they should respond to "why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?" by saying:

"Who says that the Law is a yoke we have been unable to bear? The Law is a privilege and delight to us." This, so I gather, is the stance of Jews today. Why would it not be the stance of Jews at the time?
"Who says that were 'testing God' by saying tha His commandments should be observed? Are you not rather insulting god by saying that His grace is available also to Gentiles who cannot even Honour him by following his Law?" But, as in the gospels, there is no such response. This utterly Pauline doctrine and argument, which would never stand up for a moment in any court of observing Jews is sufficient to give Luke the result he wants.

I do not believe for a minute that Peter, said any such thing. Paul pretty much underlines that by his attack on Peter. Gal.2.11 "When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray."

Paul's slant taken into consideration, Peter had been somewhat lax in dealing with gentiles. Following the council he began to cease his habit of eating with gentiles. Paul puts this down to intimidation by the 'circumcision' group. But it doesn't sound like the actions of the bold mouthpiece of Pauline doctrine we see in Acts, not does Paul sound particularly thankful to Peter for winning the debate for him.

Gal. 2.14 "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

Acts is totally silent on this wrangle, unless it is used, completely reversed, as the basis of Peter's council speech. But it must have occurred since Paul is at such pains to present the squabble being entirely one - sided. Since the speech is unbelievable, I cannot believe the council went the way Luke describes it nor was it the chummy private deal that Paul describes.

The rest is merely Paul rehearsing his doctrine of Salvation through Faith and not by the Law and the chop logic from Romans about sin and, of course, the argument based on the disciples' belief that Jesus had accomplished something - reconciliation with God by his death - that Faith in that idea is what saved, not Law observance. That is a conclusion reached by some very dodgy reasoning which we examined earlier.

The aftermath is that Paul argues that nothing was added and Luke (in Acts) posts a letter purported to represent the decision of James. His comments are warmly endorsing Paul and his efforts and the letter is surprisingly imprecise about where in relation to the promise of salvation, the gentiles stand if they do not accept circumcision and the mosaic law.

James the Just

Let's consider this James, Wiki first.
James became the leader of the Christian movement in Jerusalem in the decades after Jesus' death, but information about his life is scarce and ambiguous. Apart from a handful of references in the Gospels, the main sources for his life are the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles of Saint Paul, the historian Josephus, and St. Jerome,

Jerome De Viris Illustribus, quotes Hegesippus' account of James from the fifth book of his lost Commentaries:

"After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees. by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people. Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias,4 which signifies in Greek Defence of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him."

It is surely untrue that James "He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies" no matter what he was wearing. That was for the High priest and we can see from the chronology above that no -one called Jacob/James was (officially) High priest.

Hegesippus.1 goes on with an account of the martyrdom of James.

They came, therefore, in a body to James, and said: "We entreat thee, restrain the people: for they are gone astray in their opinions about Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade all who have come hither for the day of the passover, concerning Jesus. For we all listen to thy persuasion; since we, as well as all the people, bear thee testimony that thou art just, and showest partiality to none. Do thou, therefore, persuade the people not to entertain erroneous opinions concerning Jesus: for all the people, and we also, listen to thy persuasion. Take thy stand, then, upon the summit5 of the temple, that from that elevated spot thou mayest be clearly seen, and thy words may be plainly audible to all the people. For, in order to attend the passover, all the tribes have congregated hither, and some of the Gentiles also."

The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: "O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified." And he answered with a loud voice: "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven."

And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, "Hosanna to the son of David," then again the said Pharisees and scribes said to one another, "We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him." And they cried aloud, and said: "Oh! oh! the just man himself is in error." Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: "Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings." So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another: "Let us stone James the Just." And they began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: "I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom testimony is borne by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying: "Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us." But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man.

And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive."

Now even this apart from the odd public announcement from a tower, throwing him down and stoning him (as I mentioned in my earlier section, it didn't seem to be as casual a pastime as in the Life of Brian) there is nothing here that would not suit a Jewish james believing that his brother really had been the messiah and in no way necessarily endorses Pauline Christianity.

However, let's compare that with Josephus' debated account. let's hear what a Jew has to say. Antiquities of the Jews


Chapter 9 - CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN;

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he (Ananus, the High Priest) assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus,(Joshua) the son of Damneus, high priest."

About all that coincides is a stoning of James and 'some others'. There is no proclaiming of Jesus from a tower, though there is an accusation about breaking the law, though how is not stated.
Note that representations were made to king Agrippa II rather on the breach of Law by Ananus than the stoning of James 'The Just' and the complaint to Albinus is that a sanhedrin was convened without his consent rather than an injustice was done. (There is some further chat about Agrippa being given responsibility by Claudius for the newly finished temple. This threw me as Claudius had died some time before. This must mean that Claudius gave Agrippa II the responsibility after the death of Agrippa 1 but by this time Claudius had died and Nero was now emperor). Then Hegesippus says that Vespasian invaded Judea shortly after. That's fair enough if you call around five years 'shortly after'.

Where Hegesippus and thus Jerome got his details from in addition to a stoning I can't say, but even if it is a reliable source (and some say that this passage doesn't relate to James at all and the 'brother of Jesus who was called the Christ' is a Christian gloss) I have no problem with an observing Jewish James with a conviction about his brother Jesus having been the messiah.

Whereas I see a good case for the Flavian testament being spurious, I'm still agnostic about this one but, like the Tacitus mention, I have no problem with it.

Timeline
Procurator Tiberius Julius Alexander 46–48 C.E. Apostate Alexandrine Jew. He crucifies Jacob and Simon the sons of Judah of Gamala. Josephus does not relate the death of Judah (Judas) Judas, although he does report that Judas' sons Jacob (James) and Simeon (Simon) were executed by procurator Tiberius Julius Alexander in about 46 (others say 48) AD.
Another son, Menahem, seized the fortress Masada at the beginning of the Jewish revolt (AD 66) in the first true military action of that war.AD
Josephus ben Camydus High priests 44-46
46 Tiberius Alexander procurator
Ananias ben Nebedeus High priests 46-52
Felix (procurator 52-60). He was appointed by the emperor at the desire of the high priest Jonathan
58 , Paul, arrested, imprisoned in caesarea. Felix crushes Jewish (Jewish/Syrian quarrel) revolt in caesarea
59 Felix quarrels with High priest Jonathan, who is killed
c AD 60-62 - Porcius Festus succeeds Felix as procurator of Judea Festus died while in office. Until the arrival ofthe new procurator, the high priest Ananus, son of Annas, exercised a certain power.
60/61 In Britain, Boudicca, queen of the Iceni, revolts against Roman rule
Joseph Cabi ben Simon High Priest 62-63
Albinus (62-64). Notorious for his extortions.
Ananus ben Ananus High Priest 63 During the absence of Festus, Ananius the High priest executes 'James'
Joshua ben Damneus High Priest 63
Joshua ben Gamaliel High Priest 63-64-his wife Martha belonged to the Sadducee family of Boethus
Gessius Florus (64-66). A harsh and venial Roman procurator of Judea from 64 until 66, under whom a revolt of the Jews took place

So Paul's Gospel as discussed above was this:

Since failure to be righteous nullifies the Law and the circumcision, then the Law and circumcision bring no benefits - they are only a burden.
indeed God inly introduced the Law to increase sin so that Jeus's sacrifice would be of even greater benefit.
By obedience even to death, Jesus removed sin - only if one believes in Jesus' messiahship and resurrection.
since the Law and circumcision cannot save and Pal believes (in the Lord Jesus but not, I am convinced because of what Jesus ever said during his life) that all foods are clean, and only Faith in Jesus can save then gentiles can be saved to if they believe and it is imposing an unnecessary burden on them to insist that they must observe the Law and be circumcised in order to share in the salvation

Paul believed that Jesus was raised, but in the spirit. Rom.8.34 Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

1 Cor 10. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Cor 11. 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

This would appear on the face of it to support the Gospel account of the last supper, but Paul says, he received it from the Lord Jesus. In other words Jesus came into his head and gave him this information. If so, it has no validity outside of Paul's personal asurance.

On the other hand, since it is a rare reference to the Jesus in the flesh and what he did and said, Paul could have got it from the Disciples in which case, it is an important event for them. But just how was he betrayed? When was it? The gospels are inconclusive about when Judas did the Act. Does this refer to the act of Jesus being taken at Gethsemane? But then what does 'betrayal' actually mean?

Greek .Paradidomi. 1) to give into the hands (of another) 2) to give over into (one's) power or use

a) to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage b) to deliver up one to custody, to be judged, condemned, punished, scourged, tormented, put to death

c) to deliver up treacherously 1) by betrayal to cause one to be taken 2) to deliver one to be taught, moulded


Now I know I said I don't go translation - shopping, but the fact is that 'betray' can mean 'handed over to the power of another' or 'delivered up to be judged' as well as treachery. Since in the gospels the Judas story is full of holes and the prominence of making the Jews to blame for everything rather than the Romans, I say it cannot be dismissed as without foundation to suggest that Paul simply means the night Jesus was taken into custody and put on trial by Pilate the next morning. it does not necessarily provide a Pauline endorsement of the representation of Judas in the gospels.

(2) Helena of Adiabene sent to Alexandria for corn (grain) and to Cyprus for dried figs for distribution among the sufferers from the famine. She was queen of Adiabene and wife of Monobaz I. With her husband she was the mother of Izates II and Monobaz II. She died about 56 CE. Her name and the fact that she was her husband's sister [1] indicate a Hellenistic origin. Helena became a convert to Judaism about the year 30 CE. The Jerusalem palace of Queen Helena is believed to have been discovered by archaeologist Doron Ben-Ami during excavations in the City of David in 2007.[12] The palace was a monumental building located in the City of David just to the south of the Temple Mount and was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. The ruins contained datable coins, stone vessels and pottery as well as remnants of ancient frescoes. The basement level contained a Mikveh.[ritual bath]. The strictness with which she observed the Jewish law is thus instanced in the Talmud: "Her son [Izates] having gone to war, Helena made a vow that if he should return safe, she would become a Nazirite for the space of seven years. She fulfilled her vow, and at the end of seven years went to Judah. The Hillelites told her that she must observe her vow anew, and she therefore lived as a Nazirite for seven more years. At the end of the second seven years she became impure, and she had to repeat her Naziriteship, thus being a Nazarite for twenty-one years. Judah ha-N

[TRANSPONDER]

Part 2 (c)

To review a little, Paul developed the Gentile - friendly gospel which he nevertheless claimed to have got direct from Jesus. (36 AD) We can place Romans as his thesis after that date and Corinthians 1 and 2 between that and Paul's delivery of famine relief to the 'Poor' of Jerusalem during or after the famine of AD 45. Paul then refers to the Council of Jerusalem (c 50/51 AD) and his subsequent wrangle with Peter about withdrawing from his position of hobnobbing with the Gentile converts too much. Galatians where he shows that he is not having it all his own way with his converts.

Gal 1.6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

What 'different' gospel can this be? Whatever it is is must surely be some kind of Law- observing Gospel because the only one that wasn't was Paul's. The only question is whether this was also shared with the apostles (which if the Gospel representation of the teachings of Jesus are taken as reliable ought to be the case) or not. The pointers about about the contradictions and indications of Law - observance by James suggest that the Jerusalem church did observe the law and Paul's opponents came from them and with full authority from James and the elders despite what Luke has to tell us.

Acts 15 "24 We (says James' letter after the council of Jerusalem) have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said." Which was, to remove all doubt. "1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” And you can bet the rest of the Law was to be observed, too.

And Paul says so, too. Galatians 11. "11 And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. 12 For, until some people came from James, 12 he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised." Whether before or after the council, the reservations and undermining of Paul's 'gospel' came from James and surely he represented the general view of the Jesus party. Paul was out on a limb. He presents his thesis again

Gal 2.15 "We, who are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles, 16 (yet) who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." This is Paul desperately lying. Pretty much all Jews other than Paul did NOT believe that the Law did not justify and that only Faith in Jesus could justify. When representatives of the apostles who has all known Jesus and heard him speak said that Paul was not telling the truth, the Law, when it was given by God became mandatory and nobody, including Paul could argue it away just to make it easy for the gentiles.


Paul is cunning, I'll give you that he belittles the authority of the apostles Gal 2. 6 "But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me)" and appeals to his own authority as the one who converted them Gal 3. 2 "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" and tries to frighten them off by depicting the Law as a terrible burden He claimed that he was as good as the 'Super apostles' and became quite hostile to anyone threatening to undermine his doctrine.

2. Corinthians 11.4 "For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. 5Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles".
and moreover nullified faith in Jesus. Gal 5. 2 "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." This is certainly shifting the goal posts since quite apart from Paul being lax about Law observance, he surely does not suggest that circumcision and obligation to observe the law somehow debars them from being saved through Faith in Jesus, because of course Paul himself is a circumcised Jew. His arguments are starting to look suspect.

Now, I know that some of Paul's epistles are considered spurious. Those I have referred to I accept as genuine and refer to as evidence. The others I find only rehearse what has gone before. Philippians sets out Paul's Jewish descent Phillippians 3. 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless." Which doesn't agree with the heavy hint in Romans and Corinthians that he was a sinner under the law and was only too thankful to decriminalize himself by using Faith in Jesus to make it obsolete, as is the philosophy we find in the Gospels.

We find the philosophy of the spirit of God (the shekinah) incarnate in a man Philippines 2. Philippians 2. 5 "In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death - even death on a cross!"
But submitting to these atoning trials rather than being driven to it, seems more in line with John's God incarnate, master of his own fate than with Mark's 'meat puppet' and forsaken crucifixion victim. And the repeating of Paul's theistic. exhortations and good advice in his subsequent letters add little to the discussion. I trust the argument is now made.


Referring back to the discussion (in the long - ago original post) on the gospels, I argued that Matthew and Luke elaborated this 'proto - Matthew' or Ur -synoptic gospel with their own often contradictory additions intended to prove Jesus' messiahship by lacing his life with bits of OT scripture presented as prophecy fulfillment, notably the one about being born in Bethlehem, which Jesus wasn't and even Jesus predicting (after the event) the Jewish war and destruction of the temple., and of course supplying contradictory accounts of a badly needed actual appearance of a risen Jesus still with the marks of crucifixion on. These, together with the similar 'Passion' gospels of John. Peter, Nicodemus and Bartholemew were just some of the gospels circulating as the Gentile - friendly Paulinist Christianity grew and attracted converts in all levels of roman society - after all many slaves learned how to make money and earned their freedom and citizenship,too. Despite persecutions, mainly under Domitian since it was not a continual priority to stamp out Christianity, When Constantine made his bid for power, he was minded to enfranchise Christianity, not only because his mother was a Christian but because it was better to jin with them than fight them. Though his own liking was for Sun - worship he made Christianity the official religion since Christianity could not compromise. He engineered a political solution to the doctrinal rift between Roman Christianity and the more Egyptian dualist theology. After Constantine's death the Bishops of Rome began on a programme of coercing the emperors into more and more measures to suppress paganism. The rest is history.


Let us in the name of reason, give up this silly pretence that the Gospels are a reliable record of Jesus' sayings, teachings and deeds, much less those of eyewitness.
The old excuses will not do - written from a different point of view, not a biography or history, witnesses don't always agree, the Big Picture. Those are all pretexts for avoiding the conclusions that the genuine Big picture view of the Gospels tells us - they were written bu Pauline Christians to put Pauline theology into Jesus mouth, prove he was the risen Messiah and to do down the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians and for that matter, John's followers, any who have not accepted the new faith.

I suggest the way the evidence points is that Jesus was real person - a Galilean
He and his disciples went to be baptized by John and John's baptism was a messianic movement.
Antipas, concerned that this might play into the and of Aretas as well as annoyed by John's denunciations, arrested John
Jesus then took over the messianic mantle of John. The assembly of 5,000 men at Bethsaida was for the purpose of announcing his messianic intentions.
At Tabernacles, he gathered his followers in Peraea and they made their way to Jerusalem.
They enter the temple in the form of a tabernacles procession and take the place over.
Eventually they leave and Jesus is arrested, Pilate crucifies him
That seems to be the failure of the messianic bid, but the disciples - perhaps Peter as the first get the idea that Jesus has gone in the spirit to heaven and will come again soon to finish his work.
Under the leadership of James, the closest relative to Jesus, the Nazorenes wait for this event despite attacks by the Roman administration - Procurator and High priest.
Paul is at first opposed to the Nazorenes but at some point, is converted.

Paul, however. sees that the idea of the new covenant forged through Jesus' death can include even his fellow citizens of the Roman empire - if they believe in Jesus as the risen Messiah.
This brings Paul into conflict with those of the 'circumcision'. This, I strongly suggest is generally all of the Nazorenes since they are all observing Pharisee Jews as the majority of Jews were.

Under the lax rule of Nero, the extortions of subordinates provokes two major revolts - Boadicea's in Britain and the Jewish revolt in Judea and Galilee. Both are eventually put down
But the Pauline take on Jewish Nazorene messianism attracts many adherents amongst the Roman population, mainly the slaves who found little comfort in Roman religion.
After the Jewish war, the story of Jesus was circulated in a form expounding Paul's ideas about Jesus' messiahship. arguments against the Jewish law put into Jesus' mouth but going even further with rejection of the Jewish observances, verbal attacks on Pharisee Jews and blaming the Jews for Jesus death, Jesus is seen as being aware of his own necessary death at which time the spirit left the body it had occupied. But the story also had the element of the empty tomb.

My conclusion, therefore is that the internal evidence of the Gospels shows that Jesus was a Galilean, not born in Bethlehem. Doubtfully of the Davidic line, though Paul says so, there is so much effort in establishing his Davidic credentials by miraculous means and through the conflicting genealogies. Baptized and therefore recruited - together with his disciples - by John, who never recognized him as messiah, let alone divine at the time. Jesus already had his main followers and if they saw him as their leader, it was not John who suggested they follow him and Jesus never 'called' them at Capernaum, at least not after the baptism.
Though he took on the messianic mission after the arrest of John, he never announced himself in the Nazareth synagogue as the assassination idea is incredible and ther probably wasn't any sizeable 'Nazareth' anyway and Jesus' 'own city' was Capernaum - as Matthew says (9.1). The debates with the Pharisees are no more credible than they are sound. There were no such debates or hostility and as a nazorene, Jesus and his followers were in the ambit of the Pharisee movement, the popular movement at the time. He never advocated sabbath - breaking or eating unclean food. If he offended anyone, it was the Romans and their Sanhedrin quizling administration, especially by his disruption of the temple trade.and threat of civil disturbance. That was why Pilate executed Jesus. There was no need for the Sanhedrin to coerce him.
The resurrection claims are not credible. If Jesus was thought to have risen, it was in the spirit. His body lay where it had been placed. Paul and perhaps the apostles, too, came to explained the apparent failure of the messianic mission by seeing Jesus' death as atonement for Adam's disobedience. He indeed sat (in the spirit) at the right hand of God and would return in another suitable body to complete his work. That is what the apostles and the Ebionite community (the meek) were waiting to happen, while many of them were still alive. That much is found n Paul's own words and in the gospels.

Paul, as a Rroman citizen, was originally opposed to the Nazorenes/Ebionites - not because they opposed Judaism, but because they opposed Rome. How could God redeem Israel when it was ruled by heathens?
He became converted or persuaded, at least, but had a 'revelation' that the 'promise of Abraham' extended to all who were faithful, Jew or gentile. This led inevitably to replacing Torah observance as Faith to belief in Jesus' redeeming blood as Faith, leading to friction with the rest of the Nazorenes - those who followed the Jewish law those 'of the circumcision'. The evidence for how he argued this and the antagonism that led to is to be found in his letter and in Acts (written by Luke) The conclusion will deal with that.

While it is not certain that Paul was actually telling Jews to give up the law, (though he clearly believed that it wouldn't jeopardize their chance of salvation if they did, provided they believed in Jesus) it is likely that he didn't himself observe the law and there are indication that he criticized Peter (Cephas) for being cautious about breaking the law.
It is without doubt that he told his Gentile converts that they didn't need to observe the Mosaic Law and indeed he strongly argues against those 'of the circumcision' who argued that they should.

It is also pretty well established (and I shall rehearse this evidence) that James, the elect/saints/Nazorenes also observed the law and were all of the circumcision and undoubtedly within the Pharisee ambit.

Thus we can take it that they all observed the Sabbath, kosher laws and the other Mosaic observances and therefore, Jesus did not tell them otherwise. Thus Jesus and his followers were all observing Jews and not hostile to the Jewish law as Paul was.

Thus Paul was the first Jew to argue that the law was not necessary for believers in God and Jesus. And, since he was tolerant of Jewish converts who still observed the Laws on clean food and looking at the long, involved and suspect argument, it is clear that (even if he believed that the Jesus in his head - since he never spoke to Jesus in the flesh) he laboriously worked out the theory of Law obsolescence by himself.

This underlines his disinterest in Jesus in the flesh who of course did not argue against the Jewish law and his disregard for the apostles who had known Jesus in the flesh and who also did not argue against the Jewish Law.

It hardly needs to be said that my conclusion that the Gospels, and Acts, with their faulty reasoning, history, contradictions and text - fiddling are not the work of Jewish followers of Jesus, but the work of Pauline Christians, putting Paul's views into the mouths of Jesus and his disciples - views which they never ever endorsed.

[Eusebius]

Well, I thought I would never reply here again. I guess I'm a sucker for abuse. If anyone could be justified by law there would have been no need for a savior to come to save them from their sins. Paul, who was a Jew, knew law better than most. He said if you broke one law, you're guilty of breaking all the laws. Paul never lied about what he taught in the Scriptures. Israel was being set aside and so grace went to the nations. That is the reason there is a difference between Peter James and John and Paul. According to Colossians 2, they are for the circumcision yet Paul for the Uncircumcision, the nations. They agreed to this.

Getting back to Jesus and his father Joseph, the Bible says that Joseph was his father as to the law. this gave Jesus all the first born rights that he inherited from His earthly father. This also gives him the right to be in the genealogy of Joseph by law.

I sure hope I don't regret coming back here and posting.

[LargeKingCat]

Well, Arequipa, you certainly have some very interesting comparisons, and insights.
I do want to bring up a few points lest I be accused of failure to attempt to hijack a thread bashing Paul.
First off, remember that all the known gospels were written after Paul's writings. So what parts of the gospels are Pauline and what are of Jesus? Outside of the gospel of Thomas, we really have no viable scholarly proof of what Jesus really said or taught. We do know that in the early times of Christianity, there were multiple schools of thought as to what Jesus taught, meant, what the message he brought was etc. Ultimately by purely political reasons, one Roman brand won out over all others...that which is called "Orthodox" For lack of a better word.

We do know that Paul was not what we would consider an "enlightened" thinker. So far as we can tell, he spent no time searching for truth or meaning in life. He never overcame his own ego. Proof of this is in his style of writing. Paul seems more concerned with coercing others into his point of view rather than guiding them. This is a testament to Paul's ego, and wee know from everything from Buddha to modern psychotherapy that ego must be overcome in order to achieve any level of self actualization.

If Paul came back from the dead and visited a church today, he would probably be ecstatic that his writings are referred to as "the word of god" as they are in so many circles. This does not surprise me, as this seemed to be what Paul wanted.

Remember too that all medical clues point to Paul as a sufferer of focal seizures as well as Bipolar disorder. Neither of which was treatable or understood at the time. In the superstitious times of ancient Rome, the hallucinations from focal seizures would be misinterpreted as visions from another world, or in this case, from Jesus, as Paul had at the time a psychological obsession with persecuting Christian followers. No wonder that his hallucination would take the shape of a voice of god......But that is all it was, a hallucination. Something Common with focal seizures and in no need of phantasmagorical explanations.
Afterwards, we see Paul's ego trying to take control and force his views onto everyone else. We see periods of mania altered with periods of depression which is to be expected in someone of bipolar disorder.
But we must not fault Paul completely, for he had no way of knowing any different. He did not have the medications or the medical knowledge at his disposal we have today. He had only the common superstitious explanations of the time to explain the world around him,

Instead, let us fault the people today who use the teachings of Paul and others to suppress and violate the human rights of others, who use Paul's religion in a most unhealthy way and try to imitate the life of the bronze age which has no bearing or place in the 21st century. I would not blame Paul for his illness or ignorance, but I question those who follow him now who should be able to know better.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thanks, Kingkat.

I could be dead wrong, but it strikes me that the same method applied to gospels and Paul/Acts does the same thing - uncover a cover - up of a real story painted over to look like divine truth rather than a delusionary fraud.

In Paul's case, I am suggesting that his reasons for conversion were political, shall we say. The idea to make Romans into Jews through messianic faith - but without the circumcision - thing. His personal divine inspirations were merely to confirm what he wanted to have confirmed. The analysis of Romans shows how he is trying to prove his argument by reason backed up with some quotemined scripture.

The gospels are - as you say, Pauline Christian and the conclusion comes from trying to get to the bottom of what they all agree on as what Jesus really said and did, since it was clear from the first comparison done thirty years ago that some of it simply couldn't be true. The Nativities and the resurrection were glaringly unworkable.

While the synoptics had a basic story that seemed reliable, when compared with John, huge chunks of the Galilee material seemed tacitly denied by him and huge chunks of John (those long sermons for example) seemed tacitly denied by the synoptics.

Wholesale rewriting and fiddling by all them was evident, but of what? There is a basic story of a crucified messiah - claimant and that is all. The rest is Pauline commentary. It eventually became clear to me that this overlaying was anti Jew and pro -gentile, retrospectively prophetic and tending towards a divinized Jesus, on a progressive level from Mark's human driven about by the Spirit to the near god incarnate of John.

It is puzzling that the figure of Jesus is not found in history and I doubted right from the beginning that Christianity could have deleted all mention of a failed messianic attempt. Could it be that it was a pure delusion based on a Roman liking for the Jewish god but not for their rites? The familiar crucifixion method would be ready to hand as part of an invented story.

But I wasn't happy with that. Apart from why Romans would have a crucifixion rather than a stoning and keep Pilate out of it altogether, the story seems - rather like Paul, to be explaining away the crucifixion as a stumbling - block.

It is like there is a story that they are stuck with but has to be glossed over and PR'd up - like Jesus going to be baptized by John fiddled around to have John swearing that Jesus, not he was the messiah and Jesus was the one to come, and Jesus was greater in every way. It was so overdone that I suspected that John was originally the messiah -claimant and Jesus went to join him as a supporter and only after John was arrested did Jesus take on the job. The gospels pretty much say so, under the overpainting of descending doves and approving voices from Heaven.

I wondered about the Flavian testament as many did, but it seems that this is now understood as a later Christian interpolation. I thought the 'James' reference was a small but telling proof that a Jesus did exist and only recently does it seem that it may be a different James altogether and the 'brother of Jesus' a Christian gloss.

I have however come to think that maybe the Tacitus reference to a leader crucified by Pilate may be genuine. If so there is room in a passage of Josephus about some other un -named trouble -makers that might cover Jesus, and I am bothered by that reference in Luke (13.1) about Pilate chopping up Galileans in the temple.

History doesn't mention that but Luke must have got it from somewhere. I still wonder whether a papyrus might not one day turn up with mention of a Temple -take over by a bunch of messianic insurrectionists and required a pitched battle by Pilate's auxiliaries to get them out. And, if Jesus wasn't taken then but slipped out secretly (John 8.59) then he was grabbed at Gethsemane by soldiers indeed armed as if Jesus was leading an insurrection, as the gospels fall over themselves to pooh -pooh (Mark 14.48 and others) and that insurrectionist, Jesus bar Abba (son of God) was nailed up together with at least two of his followers. And that is my Pet Theory. The rest is demonstrable from the internal evidence.

But then there is a problem. The story seems to be about a bunch of persecuted but not arrested and crucified disciples. However, we only really have two 'super -apostles' - the relative James and Peter, who is a very ambivalent figure, at one time closest to Jesus and second to him in authority and also the one who denied and deserted him. But I had better leave it there.

[Woodrow LI]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Thanks, Kingkat.

I could be dead wrong, but it strikes me that the same method applied to gospels and Paul/Acts does the same thing - uncover a cover - up of a real story painted over to look like divine truth rather than a delusionary fraud.

In Paul's case, I am suggesting that his reasons for conversion were political, shall we say. The idea to make Romans into Jews through messianic faith - but without the circumcision - thing. His personal divine inspirations were merely to confirm what he wanted to have confirmed. The analysis of Romans shows how he is trying to prove his argument by reason backed up with some quotemined scripture.

The gospels are - as you say, Pauline Christian and the conclusion comes from trying to get to the bottom of what they all agree on as what Jesus really said and did, since it was clear from the first comparison done thirty years ago that some of it simply couldn't be true. The Nativities and the resurrection were glaringly unworkable.

While the synoptics had a basic story that seemed reliable, when compared with John, huge chunks of the Galilee material seemed tacitly denied by him and huge chunks of John (those long sermons for example) seemed tacitly denied by the synoptics.

Wholesale rewriting and fiddling by all them was evident, but of what? There is a basic story of a crucified messiah - claimant and that is all. The rest is Pauline commentary. It eventually became clear to me that this overlaying was anti Jew and pro -gentile, retrospectively prophetic and tending towards a divinized Jesus, on a progressive level from Mark's human driven about by the Spirit to the near god incarnate of John.

It is puzzling that the figure of Jesus is not found in history and I doubted right from the beginning that Christianity could have deleted all mention of a failed messianic attempt. Could it be that it was a pure delusion based on a Roman liking for the Jewish god but not for their rites? The familiar crucifixion method would be ready to hand as part of an invented story.

But I wasn't happy with that. Apart from why Romans would have a crucifixion rather than a stoning and keep Pilate out of it altogether, the story seems - rather like Paul, to be explaining away the crucifixion as a stumbling - block.

It is like there is a story that they are stuck with but has to be glossed over and PR'd up - like Jesus going to be baptized by John fiddled around to have John swearing that Jesus, not he was the messiah and Jesus was the one to come, and Jesus was greater in every way. It was so overdone that I suspected that John was originally the messiah -claimant and Jesus went to join him as a supporter and only after John was arrested did Jesus take on the job. The gospels pretty much say so, under the overpainting of descending doves and approving voices from Heaven.

I wondered about the Flavian testament as many did, but it seems that this is now understood as a later Christian interpolation. I thought the 'James' reference was a small but telling proof that a Jesus did exist and only recently does it seem that it may be a different James altogether and the 'brother of Jesus' a Christian gloss.

I have however come to think that maybe the Tacitus reference to a leader crucified by Pilate may be genuine. If so there is room in a passage of Josephus about some other un -named trouble -makers that might cover Jesus, and I am bothered by that reference in Luke (13.1) about Pilate chopping up Galileans in the temple.

History doesn't mention that but Luke must have got it from somewhere. I still wonder whether a papyrus might not one day turn up with mention of a Temple -take over by a bunch of messianic insurrectionists and required a pitched battle by Pilate's auxiliaries to get them out. And, if Jesus wasn't taken then but slipped out secretly (John 8.59) then he was grabbed at Gethsemane by soldiers indeed armed as if Jesus was leading an insurrection, as the gospels fall over themselves to pooh -pooh (Mark 14.48 and others) and that insurrectionist, Jesus bar Abba (son of God) was nailed up together with at least two of his followers. And that is my Pet Theory. The rest is demonstrable from the internal evidence.

But then there is a problem. The story seems to be about a bunch of persecuted but not arrested and crucified disciples. However, we only really have two 'super -apostles' - the relative James and Peter, who is a very ambivalent figure, at one time closest to Jesus and second to him in authority and also the one who denied and deserted him. But I had better leave it there.

Interesting.

It is like there is a story that they are stuck with but has to be glossed over and PR'd up - like Jesus going to be baptized by John fiddled around to have John swearing that Jesus, not he was the messiah and Jesus was the one to come, and Jesus was greater in every way. It was so overdone that I suspected that John was originally the messiah -claimant and Jesus went to join him as a supporter and only after John was arrested did Jesus take on the job. The gospels pretty much say so, under the overpainting of descending doves and approving voices from Heaven.

While most people will agree that John was a Sabeean (Baptizer) it seems few are aware that The Sabeeans were a religion separate from Judaism. They did come from Judaism but had left Judaism and become a unique Abrahamic religion in their own right.. Sabeeans are also called Sabians and Mandaeans. but there is evidence the Mandaeans are a separate religion.

Yes the Sabeeans did believe John was the Messiah and they did worship him I believe they have their own version of a resurrection. naturally it was one the earliest "Heretical" sects to be chased out by the forming Christians. A few did settle in Iraq. But the events in Iraq over the past 20 years has probably fully exterminated them.

Sadly we know very little about them, except for their practice of Dunking each other in the Jordan river several times a day. We do know from the Bible that John was called a sabeean. With the Sabeeans a person had to be baptized at least once every day, preferably in the Jordan River.. To add to the Confusion there were 2 different religions both called Sabeeans.

But here are some interesting thoughts about them:

The name 'Christians of St. John' was given to the Mandaeans by medieval travelers based on a claim by their priests that John the Baptist was a member of their sect(the Nasoreans), but Jesus to them is a false Messiah. Mandaean tradition, supported by internal evidence and scholarly research, claims the west as the original home of the sect, although the language of their texts is an eastern dialect of Aramaic. References in the Mandaean literature to a flight from Judaea and persecution there point to a connection with early jewish Gnosticism It seems doubtful whether the nucleus of their teachings influenced Christianity, though their writings contain many striking parallels to the Gospel of John, because Mandaeans seem to have some connection with an early group which greatly reverenced John the Baptist. It is hazardous to use them to illuminate early Christian texts. Therefore it is relevant that the Fourth Evangelist seems to go out of its way to stress the superiority of the Incarnate Lord to the one who was merely a forerunner.Libraries consisting of scrolls and codices in Mandaic characters are composed chiefly of fragments of pre-Muslim compositions, collected directly after the Muslim conquest in 7th. cent AD.

SOURCE

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by LargeKingCat

Well, Arequipa, you certainly have some very interesting comparisons, and insights.
I do want to bring up a few points lest I be accused of failure to attempt to hijack a thread bashing Paul.
First off, remember that all the known gospels were written after Paul's writings. So what parts of the gospels are Pauline and what are of Jesus? Outside of the gospel of Thomas, we really have no viable scholarly proof of what Jesus really said or taught. We do know that in the early times of Christianity, there were multiple schools of thought as to what Jesus taught, meant, what the message he brought was etc. Ultimately by purely political reasons, one Roman brand won out over all others...that which is called "Orthodox" For lack of a better word.

We do know that Paul was not what we would consider an "enlightened" thinker. So far as we can tell, he spent no time searching for truth or meaning in life. He never overcame his own ego. Proof of this is in his style of writing. Paul seems more concerned with coercing others into his point of view rather than guiding them. This is a testament to Paul's ego, and wee know from everything from Buddha to modern psychotherapy that ego must be overcome in order to achieve any level of self actualization.

If Paul came back from the dead and visited a church today, he would probably be ecstatic that his writings are referred to as "the word of god" as they are in so many circles. This does not surprise me, as this seemed to be what Paul wanted.

Remember too that all medical clues point to Paul as a sufferer of focal seizures as well as Bipolar disorder. Neither of which was treatable or understood at the time. In the superstitious times of ancient Rome, the hallucinations from focal seizures would be misinterpreted as visions from another world, or in this case, from Jesus, as Paul had at the time a psychological obsession with persecuting Christian followers. No wonder that his hallucination would take the shape of a voice of god......But that is all it was, a hallucination. Something Common with focal seizures and in no need of phantasmagorical explanations.
Afterwards, we see Paul's ego trying to take control and force his views onto everyone else. We see periods of mania altered with periods of depression which is to be expected in someone of bipolar disorder.
But we must not fault Paul completely, for he had no way of knowing any different. He did not have the medications or the medical knowledge at his disposal we have today. He had only the common superstitious explanations of the time to explain the world around him,

Instead, let us fault the people today who use the teachings of Paul and others to suppress and violate the human rights of others, who use Paul's religion in a most unhealthy way and try to imitate the life of the bronze age which has no bearing or place in the 21st century. I would not blame Paul for his illness or ignorance, but I question those who follow him now who should be able to know better.

The reason I question Paul is the reference in the OT regarding a wolf from the tribe of Benjamin and Paul claiming to be of that tribe....