“God gave Gentiles a means of worshipping him in the Noahide code, not in the teachings of Christianity. Jesus was a Jew. He probably would not recognize Christianity.” –Jewish scholars and rabbis
59 thoughts on “Some Jewish Scholars Believe Paul Invented Christianity”
Rabbi Skobac: Paul was allegedly a disciple of the great Pharisee and teacher, Gamaliel. In the Book of Acts, Gamaliel allegedly tells the Jews to leave the Christians alone. So why would Paul go against his teacher and persecute the Christians? Secondly, why would the high priest, a Sadducee, hire a Pharisee (Paul) to hunt down Christians? The Sadducees and the Pharisees hated each other! Third, why would the high priest order the arrest and persecution of Christians? What violation of the Law had the Jewish Christians committed? Answer: None! No explanation is ever given for why Jews would be persecuting Jewish followers of Jesus (Christians)!
Why is Paul repeatedly warning his followers, in his churches, to beware of other Christians teaching “another gospel”? Is it these other Christians who are teaching a gospel contrary to that of Jesus or is it PAUL teaching “heresy”?? Paul is constantly on the defensive. He repeatedly defends himself against the accusation of being a liar. Was he??
When you read the Jewish Bible do you ever hear Isaiah or Jeremiah repeatedly declaring, “I’m not lying! I’m not a liar!” No. Of course not. Paul protesteth too much!
“In Paul’s teachings, you don’t find the religion of Jesus, but a religion about Jesus: Paul’s views about the significance of Jesus’ death and alleged resurrection, but nothing about Jesus’ teachings themselves.”
re: “Gamaliel allegedly tells the Jews to leave the Christians alone. So why would Paul go against his teacher and persecute the Christians?”
I guess you didn’t read how Gamaliel’s protest turned out. It was ignored.
re: “Secondly, why would the high priest, a Sadducee, hire a Pharisee (Paul) to hunt down Christians?”
First, do you have even the slightest idea of what that persecution of the church was about? It might have been typical “Synagogue disciplinary actions” – ie, Jewish punishments for breaking Jewish laws, which could have occurred for, say, someone teaching that dietary laws were no longer necessary. The fact is, we don’t know the “specifics”, legally-speaking, as to what the persecution was about.
Second, why wouldn’t a Sadducee “hire” a Pharisee? If there were perceived infractions of the Laws of Moses that needed to be corrected, then, there wouldn’t (by any “necessity”) be any reason a Pharisee wouldn’t share the same view as the Sadducee.
re: “why would the high priest order the arrest and persecution of Christians? What violation of the Law had the Jewish Christians committed? Answer: None!”
Wrong. Heck, you even say “No explanation is ever given for why Jews would be persecuting Jewish followers of Jesus (Christians)!”. And, that’s correct – the fact is, we do not know the “specifics” of why the high priest would order the arrest and persecution, but even the Good Rabbi in the video says, in no uncertain terms, that the whole of Christianity “simply is not true”. So, in Jewish congregations, some Christian leader could easily have been accused of being misleading the people. You even see the idea of “misleading” mentioned as a “bad thing” in Luke, where he writes “We found this man misleading our nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar…” (Nope, doesn’t matter if this quote in Luke is “historically correct”. What matters is that it shows that there were to be penalties for misleading the people, or deceiving them). To the Jewish leadership, Jesus was NOT Messiah, and to claim him as Messiah was to mislead the people. Furthermore, IF there were other things – like, not keeping “kosher” going on – and that was being taught by Christians, that too could be a reason for a “persecution”.
re: “Why is Paul repeatedly warning his followers, in his churches, to beware of other Christians teaching “another gospel”? ”
There were “other gospels” being preached – and we even see Paul speaking out against one of the “contrary” gospels in 1 Corith, where he asks “How can some of you say there is no resurrection”? By the 50’s, Gnosticism had probably already begun to “infiltrate” the church. So yeh, there were “other gospels”.
re: Paul saying “I’m not a liar” or “I’m not lying”. There are NO instances in which Paul says “I am not a liar”. There are three instances (below) in which Paul says “I am not lying”. The first two have nothing whatsoever to do with trying to “convince” the reader of anything “remarkable”: one, it’s that Paul has sorrow and grief in his heart, and the other is that Paul says he’ll boast of what pertains to his weakness.
Only the third statement is one in which Paul appears to be trying to make sure that the reader is convinced that he is telling the truth about something “factual”.
— I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.
–If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.
–But I did not see any other of the apostles except [a]James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, [b]I assure you before God that I am not lying.)
You really REALLY overplay your hand on that one, Gary. WAY overdone. You need to do a bit more “word study”, I’d say.
I just finished James Tabor’s book Jesus and Paul and he put Paul’s message as a mystical one that did away with the Torah and was at odds with the Jewish and Jerusalem Church and the other apostles. Paul’s version won out by after the sack of Palistine by the Romans, and the swamping of the faith by gentile converts. Was he even considered an apostle by the others? Outside of a verse in acts, they may have just tolerated his preaching to gentiles in far off lands, with only himself thinking he was an apostle.
I suspect that the leaders of the Jerusalem church were the “Judaizers” against whom Paul ranted and raved. They were the “proponents of another gospel” whose accusations of distorting Jesus’ teachings prompted Paul to repeatedly state: “I’m not lying! I promise!”
I suspect Paul was not only a liar but also a nut job!
Yes, in one chapter where Tabor talks about Paul’s ramblings on beliver’s mystical union with Jesus and becoming gods themselves, I was out for a walk listening to the audio book version, and thinking yeesh, what a nut.
I believe both Paul and the current U.S. leader believe what they said, regardless of whether or not they needed to say it to convince their listeners.
Hi epicurus, just wanted to toss-in a few cents on this thread here about Paul the Founder of Christianity/Christology…
Tabor and my mentioned Dr. Robert Eisenman (below?) pretty much believe or close to it that Saul/Paul was actually educated in the Jerusalem school of Bet Shammai, not what the New Testament wrongly records as Bet Hillel. From my series on Saul the Apostate, if I may Gary:
As I briefly mentioned to Infidel753 in my comments of Part I, there were practices by Bronze Age Jewish Mystics (later Kabbalah) using two techniques: Merkavah (moderate, safe) and Heikhalat (intensive, more dangerous). During Second Temple Judaism, particularly the Pharisaic sects and their sub-sects, Merkavah mysticism was mainstream because of the high-risks of extreme ecstasy or depressive paranoia of Heikhalat followed by being generally labeled a heretic and/or possessed by demons by colleagues and the public. There was a lot less control over Heikhalat types of visions or revelations, naturally too in the cases of “fall down” epileptic seizures. One of the “visions” or non-bodily states Heikhalat mystics would try to achieve and experience by chanting, reciting divine names, and with magical hymns was ‘ascending to a system of heavens or paradise (ecstasy) and antechambers surrounding the divine.’ This is in all likelihood what Saul/Paul refers to in verses 2 and 4 above [2 Corinthians 12:1-4] “caught up to the third heaven” and “caught up into Paradise” inside his dramatic and unconventional visions/seizures. It’s perfectly reasonable to say that Saul, having suffered his epilepsy for much of his life, most likely including in Tarsus and Jerusalem during his educational youth, would have felt much more “accepted” in Heikhalat Jewish mysticism and of the school of Bet Shammai, as opposed to Bet Hillel or the moderates and Merkavah mystics.
It deserves noting too that Merkavah mysticism along with Hillelite ideology aligns almost perfectly with Hellenism and Neoplatonism. This gives good reason for later 3rd – 4th-century Hellenistic Patristic authorities supervising the composition of the New Testament canon to retrograde (change) or retrofit Saul’s education to Hillel, Gamaliel, and Pharisaic references in Acts, 2 Timothy and Philippians — more recognizable by Hellenistic Gentiles (perhaps rural, average Jews too) — rather than to his less auspicious, more volatile background, seizures, and short-temper of Shammai-Heikhalat teaching, behaviors and praxis inferred in Galatians and Philippians. With the latter, people in Cilicia, Syro-Palestine, Judah, and Galilee would’ve literally spat upon Saul as a perceived demonic, shameful spectacle; something Saul alludes to often in his letters.
Can provide a direct link to this quote and series if interested. 🙂
Much of my research into the series was in James Tabor, more so Robert Eisenman, and then a few other Jewish scholars of the Late Second Temple Period, i.e. Yeshua bar Yosef’s (Jesus’) time-period.
Gary, you touch on exactly what Dr. Robert Eisenman also compellingly proports and theorizes about Saul of Tarsus—that Paul/Saul is the Spouter of Lies from the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls—because when secular scholars (and several Jewish Tannaic scholars too) consider ALL contextual evidence and literature of the Late Second Temple Period, Saul/Paul fits quite well into the one named “Spouter/Spewer of Lies” while also comparing those critiques from the DSS to his Epistles in the canonical New Testament and other letters possibly attributed to Paul as well.
Minute 33:01 “Is it possible that the people who wrote the Gospels, 40-70 years after Jesus was killed, were influenced by the teachings of Paul, who wrote in the 50’s? That is the big open question!”
In the Tabor book I just finished he thinks the writer of Mark was influenced by Paul. Tabor thinks people should read the NT starting with Paul’s authentic letters ( not the later forged or disputed ones), and then read the Gospels, giving a more chronological feel to the NT.
Ahh, again, if I may Gary… epicurus, this is the chronological order of the final 4th-century CE version of the canonical New Testament, also found in my series Saul the Apostate, a side-by-side comparison:
There are a number of reasons why the Greco-Roman (not Jewish, none of them despite their “Christ” was indeed very Jewish!) Church Fathers and Patristic Authorities rearranged everything—for sociopolitical propaganda favoring Hellenistic ideals versus annoying, rebellious, Second Temple Judaism/Messianism’s ideals… which was oppositional to Rome’s rule and heavy hand.
Minute 42: “This is critical: For the next 30 years after Jesus death, the Jesus movement was lead by Jesus’ brother, James. They continued to worship in the Temple, to offer animal sacrifices, and to follow the Torah. These Jews were no different than the Jews at large except that they believed that Jesus, even though he was dead, was the Messiah who would return to establish the New Kingdom.”
Minute 42: “James the brother of Jesus is quoted in the Book of Acts as saying that the followers of Jesus were ZEALOUS in the keeping of the Torah. James does not say that Jesus told them to stop keeping the Torah!”
Minute 43: The Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem were called ‘Nazoreans’ or ‘Ebionites’ in the second century. We know they had a very low regard for Paul. They considered Paul an apostate.”
Minute 45: “If you wanted to know what Jesus taught and believed, you would go to his students (disciples) and family (James), not to some guy who had never met Jesus , who claimed to have had a mystical experience of Jesus.”
Minute 48: “So what was Paul’s big dispute with the Jerusalem church? Well, some members of the Jesus movement who were associated with the Jerusalem church were telling Gentiles that they had to convert to Judaism (keep kosher, males to be circumcised) if they wanted to be part of the Jesus movement. Paul (correctly, according to the Torah) countered that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, keep kosher, or adhere to the Torah but only keep the Noahide code. James, Jesus’ brother, eventually settles the issue: Gentile members of the Jesus movement were only required to keep the seven Noahide laws.
Paul saw a problem, however. There was now two standards in the Jesus movement. Paul may have been concerned that the Gentiles would not feel equal with the Jewish members. He may have worried this would impede the success of his mission as the apostle to the Gentiles. Therefore, Paul began to preach that even Jews did not need to be circumcised, keep kosher, or follow the Torah.”
re: The Rabbi (in the video) says “Paul (correctly, according to the Torah) countered that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, keep kosher, or adhere to the Torah but only keep the Noahide code. James, Jesus’ brother, eventually settles the issue: Gentile members of the Jesus movement were only required to keep the seven Noahide laws.”
This is a good call on his part. He is indeed correct.
The Rabbi says “James the brother of Jesus is quoted in the Book of Acts as saying that the followers of Jesus were ZEALOUS in the keeping of the Torah. James does not say that Jesus told them to stop keeping the Torah!”
This is what James said to Paul: “thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them… and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.”
I don’t see that James is agreeing with what some were saying about Paul. In fact, he’s telling Paul how to deal with the current situation in which people have heard that Paul is teaching Jews to “forsake Moses” (etc). And… Paul complies.
It’s entirely true that Paul did have a big dispute with some in the Jerusalem church about whether Gentiles needed to become Jews first, in order to be part of the Jesus movement.
But, that issue – among the leadership – had already been settled (as the Rabbi himself points out).
It’s quite true that the ‘Nazoreans’ or ‘Ebionites’ had low regard for Paul. They are representative of exactly the bunch from the Jerusalem church that felt that Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism first, before being a part of the Jesus movement.
But, that doesn’t mean anything. I mean, this is all just a “doctrinal” dispute. Even the Rabbi points out that the conclusion that Gentiles didn’t need to be circumcised was correct.
But – as a joke I read (on chabad, I think) says: “you can put two Rabbis in a room and come out with three opinions”.
The Rabbi seems to attempt to solve this by saying that Paul was concerned about “two standards”, and that he began to teach that Jews did not need to keep Torah (etc).
But, Fredricksen says “But why would Paul still live as a Jew if he worked with and for Gentiles? Jews in general did not hold non-Jews responsible for upholding Jewish custom. And Jewish apocalyptic traditions actually looked forward to Gentiles entering the kingdom of God as Gentiles. Paul’s “Law-free” mission was thus, from both of these perspectives, a traditionally Jewish message. The point is this: a Law-free Gentile mission gives us no reason in itself to assume that Paul himself was also Law-free. His teaching Gentiles that they did not have to live according to the Law tells us nothing about his own level of observance. And, as we have seen, the Gentile mission was not exactly Law-free either.”
And she also says “… in his own generation—which Paul was convinced was history’s last generation—the Jesus movement was yet one more variety of late Second Temple Judaism.”
(Paula Fredriksen is the Aurelio Professor of Scripture emerita at Boston University, and Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.)
It appears the Good Rabbi is depending on a rather outmoded view of Paul and his Judaism.
I agree with you. James does not say, “Paul you are guilty of telling Jews to not observe Torah Law.” However, James does test Paul by ordering him to present a sacrifice in the Temple. According to the author of Acts, Paul complied.
Why would Paul present sacrifices in the Temple if he believed that the Law was no longer valid, as he repeatedly claims in his epistles?
Who knows.
My guess is that Paul did it “to be all things to all people”, which is another way of saying, “I’ll do it just to keep out of trouble with Jesus’ brother, James.” Paul never renounced his teaching that no one needed to follow the Torah (not even Jews) and James’ statement strongly indicates that James believed that Jews should follow Torah Law.
I think the good rabbi has hit the proverbial nail on the head: Paul was an apostate who changed his stripes when the need suited him. I think Paul was a liar. I think he lied to James, denying that he was telling Jews not to follow the Law.
Gary, I think you nailed it right here in your excellent reply to PolycrapScribbler…
My guess is that Paul did it “to be all things to all people”, which is another way of saying, “I’ll do it just to keep out of trouble with Jesus’ brother, James.” Paul never renounced his teaching that no one needed to follow the Torah (not even Jews) and James’ statement strongly indicates that James believed that Jews should follow Torah Law.
And the Jerusalem Council, that James the Brother led, was following well-known, well-established Judaic Rabbinical traditions and doctrines at that time, i.e. during the Late Rabbinical Zugot and all of the Tannaim Eras. If one thoroughly understands the various Late Second Temple Period Sects of Judaism (with Messianic fervor mixed in as well), their differences and similarities—which absolutely included Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus) and his blood-brother James, then your reply Gary is SPOT ON Sir.
Saul of Tarsus was unequivocally an Overseas Hellenized (Neoplatonism & Stoicism taught) fake Jew and wannabe Pharisee (with Herodian blood of all things! 😲 ) repulsive to Jews in and around Jerusalem, and with “crazy” (demonic?) mystic practices and beliefs counter-intuitive to well-known, well-established Homeland Judaism/Messianism in 1st-century Syro-Palestine!
If you would please PcS, would you provide YOUR Jewish scholarship, expertise, and where you attained all of it… particularly that which deals with Late Second Temple Judaism/Messianism. We are very curious about your authority to state: “assumption assumption assumption.”
Thanks
P.S. The more reputable Jewish scholarship in this specific time-period you provide will carry lots of weight FOR or against your contentions here to Rabbi Michael Skobac. Then we can take you serious rather than being entertained with laughter. Thanks again. 🙂
hey, YOU don’t have any scholarship at all in Judaism.
“My guess is that Paul did it “to be all things to all people”.. OK, a GUESS.
“Paul never renounced his teaching that no one needed to follow the Torah (not even Jews)”. According to Fredricksen, Paul never taught that Jews didn’t need to follow Torah. (and for my two cents, I’ve never found anywhere in which Paul taught Jews that).
“I think the good rabbi has hit the proverbial nail on the head: Paul was an apostate who changed his stripes when the need suited him. I think Paul was a liar. I think he lied to James, denying that he was telling Jews not to follow the Law.”
hey, YOU don’t have any scholarship at all in Judaism.
😄 Hah! And how do YOU know this? I’m curious.
Nothing but opinion and assumption.
We can all read and listen to what Rabbi Skobac said, along with what Gary surmised and concluded from him PcS. No need to copy/paste. However, if you would spend sufficient time and effort studying and listening/reading—with the highest equity possible—what ALL Jewish Late STJ scholars are saying individually and as a whole about the REAL Yeshua bar Yosef, then you’d certainly retract your erroneous claim/personal opinion in your final sentence… assuming of course you are able to be fair and rational. 🙂
If you haven’t heard of these four gentlemen of renown Late STJ expertise, then I suggest you start with these:
• Steven P. Weitzman — of Harvard University and University of California, Berkeley. Has 8-10 published books & innumerable scholarly journal-articles.
• the late David Flusser — of the University in Prague
and Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He was an acclaimed expert in Early Christianity and Judaism of the Second Temple Period.
• Bruce E. Zuckerman — of Yale University and University Southern California and a specialist in Northwest Semitic languages and Biblical studies.
• Lawrence H. Schiffman — of Brandeis University with PhD’s specializing in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Judaism in Late Antiquity, the history of Jewish law, and Talmudic literature.
Now of course these are just four out of MANY exceptional Jewish scholars of Late STJ and the Roman Empire so I strongly suggest you find 4-6 more in addition to these in order to start and continue your much needed accurate and thorough knowledge of what Rabbi Skobac is speaking about as well as what Gary and I are speaking about. THEN at that point you might have something interesting and relevant to contribute to this discussion and the authentic history of Yeshua bar Yosef and his Torah-loving beliefs, reforms, and teachings to his 1st-century Movement… rather than Spouting off useless personal, unfounded opinions. 🙂
Time 52: “For Jewish followers of Jesus, who had been told by Jesus that you must keep the Torah, Paul’s teaching that the Torah was no longer needed, for ANYONE, including Jews, was scandalous! We can see this in Acts 21 when James confronts Paul about his teachings.”
Time 53: “Paul is so anti-circumcision, probably because he saw this as a hindrance to Gentile conversion, that he says in Galatians that he hopes that those in the movement who do undergo circumcision, that the knife will slip and castrate them.”
Just a bit of fun speculation (for me) but regarding the Peter in Rome theory, since we know so little of what he actually did, If one goes on the idea that the apostles never considered Paul an apostle but just tolerated him and allowed him to go off to the gentiles, and that Peter and Paul butted heads (we only have Paul’s side of the story that he gave Peter heck in the Antioch eating incident – but Peter might have given it right back to Paul), maybe Peter eventually came up to Rome to counter Paul’s influence in the city – even though Paul was in prison but still writing letters. Maybe the Church in Rome was being influenced by Paul’s letters and that’s how Peter ended up in Rome.
Although I think a better explanation is that Peter never was in Rome, it was just a story cooked up later when the Church in Rome was trying to influence others and needed some way to legitimate their church as being an authority over churches, as they had to compete against the other main church centers like Alexandria and Antioch.
Time 54: “All the evidence indicates that the original disciples of Jesus simply saw him as the messiah. They did not worship him or pray to him. They did not see him as God.” Paul seems to have viewed Jesus, at least, as some kind of pre-existent divine being, maybe an angel, subordinate to God. It is not really clear how Paul saw Jesus. He may have viewed Jesus as God. What is more important is how Paul’s readers understood Paul’s view of Jesus. By the end of the first century, almost all of Paul’s followers worshipped Jesus as God. From a Jewish perspective, this is idolatry.”
Time 55: “How are we justified in the eyes of God? John the baptizer and Jesus (who was possibly his student) taught that we are made righteous by living a righteous life and repenting whenever we sin. This is consistent with the Torah, with Jewish teaching. The author of the Epistle of James, who may have been the brother of Jesus, teaches the same: We are justified by righteous good works. For Paul, faith in Jesus replaces the Torah. Paul repeatedly goes against what Jesus taught, what James in his epistle taught, and what the Torah teaches: that justification is by faith alone.”
Time 1:02: “The evidence indicates that Paul was either the inventor of Christianity or the transformer/distorter of Christianity. His teachings were not consistent with those of Jesus. And just to make sure my own religious bias did not play a role in my conclusions, I consulted Islamic scholars. Islamic scholars come to the same conclusion regarding Paul!”
And Gary, this blog-post of yours and all these comments show undeniably that IF a modern “Christ-follower” wants to REALLY in truly KNOW intimately the failed Jewish Rabbi-Reformer Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus)… they MUST dive head deep into Late Second Temple Judaism and Messianism to really factually and honestly know him, his followers—like his brother James, et al—toss out or at LEAST suspend temporarily any and all Greco-Roman (Hellenized) versions of another wild caricature demi-god/or god called (in Koine Greek) Christ. Because no one will know who Yeshua bar Yosef truly was in the modern canonical “Christological” New Testament. That is highly amputated, distorted, modified, and laced by or polluted with Hellenism—the very culture 1st-century Homeland Jews despised.
taboo, give it up. You didn’t even know where the concept of a pre-existent Messiah came from. You don’t know squat about 2nd Temple-era Judaism, except what you cut-and-paste from Carrier.
😄 This will not warrant a reply. Now you are becoming childish and boring. See my previous reply to you for something more mature and relevant to this blog-topic and discussion.
Time 1:03: “The first Christian heretic (Paul) launches a movement that will ultimately persecute the decimated remnants of the (Jewish) Jerusalem church. The Jerusalem church died out in approximately 200-250 CE. The persecution by Paul’s followers was the final blow to this group after the death of their leader James in 62 CE, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE in which many of them were killed, and their flight to Trans-Jordan. Paul, a heretic, in essence, becomes the “decider” of who is and who is not a heretic. His followers persecute the Jewish followers of Jesus who continued to teach the original teachings of Jesus: keeping Torah Law.”
That’s putting it VERY mildly. In all actuality that has started already. Some would say—myself included—that it began soon after the fantastic discovery of the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls, a large Jewish library of manuscripts giving extensive contextual detail and background to (the now) more unreliable Hellenized 4th-century canonical New Testament that essentially gets the “real” Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus) wrong by completely alienating/removing him from his Late Second Temple Judaism/Messianism and puts him (and his Torah-loving Jewish followers/disciples) into a totally FOREIGN, unfamiliar context suited a lot more for Rome, Gentiles, and eventually Rome’s Church (the Vatican).
Then as you correctly quoted Gary, with my emphasis…
”
The first Christian heretic (Paul) launches a movement that will ultimately persecute the decimated remnants of the (Jewish) Jerusalem church. The Jerusalem church died out in approximately 200-250 CE. The persecution by Paul’s followers was the final blow to this group after the death of their leader James in 62 CE, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE in which many of them were killed, and their flight to Trans-Jordan. Paul, a heretic, in essence, becomes the “decider” of who is and who is not a heretic. His followers persecute the Jewish followers of Jesus who continued to teach the original teachings of Jesus: keeping Torah Law.
So if the reassessment of Christianity/Christology has started due to the world-wide web (with or without reputable, accredited, exhaustive scholarship), the very foundations, roots, seeds, and more so the entire SOIL the religion stumbled, bumbled, and crawled out of recklessly… are all in serious peril. Personally, I believe that if any rational, and TRULY equitable person honestly and fairly examines ALL of the entire mega-warehouse of verified, authenticated Roman and Jewish history, ESPECIALLY Yeshua’s (Jesus’) own heritage, beliefs, and reforms he wanted enacted, then they will see that original and modern Christianity is utterly bogus and merely a Greco-Roman Apotheosis that purposely hijacked a small Jewish sect and turned it into an UNrecognizable myth/legend/religion (to Yeshua) that the Romans wanted—something they were known to do all the time with conquered kingdoms and cultures. Period. Stop. Story over.
I would be curious what Rabbi Skobac would say to this question: Do you find it implausible that a Jewish rabbi (Paul) would abandon the observance of Torah Law and abandon Judaism?
Christians frequently make the claim that it is absolutely implausible that Paul would have converted to the movement (Christianity) he was persecuting—unless he had experienced something really dramatic, such as an appearance of the resurrected Jesus. “Why would he abandon his respected position as a rabbi to wander the world as an outcast, supporting himself as a tentmaker, enduring terrible persecution?”
My short answer is: He was nuts.
But a less snarky answer would be this: If we did a survey of all Jewish rabbis in history, how many of them left Judaism for bizarre reasons? I will bet that we would find many more than just Paul. I know of two instances where a Jewish rabbi converted to Islam. So I don’t see Paul’s conversion to Christianity sans seeing a walking, talking resurrected corpse as “implausible” at all. I will bet that Rabbi Skobac would agree.
And I would most definitely agree with your projected Skobac answer Gary. Why?
Because if one honest, equitable (Secular?) impartial inquisitor into Yeshua bar Yosef’s complete background—ACCORDING TO ALL Jewish Tannaim Era rabbinical literature, the DSS, all non-canonical Gospels regarding Yeshua, all non-canonical Epistles about Yeshua, i.e. everything that is NOT strictly Earliest or Later Greco-Roman Patristic “Archbishops” or “Bishops”, all of whom were NOT Homeland born/taught Jews who had no clue how to interpret Mishnaic Hebrew or Syro-Aramaic—and impartially examined Yeshua’s exhaustive Jewish context of the period, geographical location within the mighty Roman Empire, and everything his own people were suffering, wanting to restore, and wanted to stop the vile corruption of their religion: Torah-laws, practices, and proper teachings… by Hellenism, ESPECIALLY fake Jews, Herodian Jews, and Spouter/Spewer of Lies such as Saul of Tarsus, then those Secular impartial, reasonable and rational inquisitors would conclude quite easily…
Paul/Saul was indeed nuts and every bizarre theological teaching he spewed was total cow, elephant, and T-Rex dung and based loosely on random psychiatric delusions from a TPL epileptic disorder he suffered most all of his life. End of story. No crazy, insane, Greco-Roman Walking Zombie demi-god floating up into heaven after execution. 😉 😛
The bible is so full of rubbish – and the New Testament even more so – that one cannot caim with absolute certainty there is adequate evidence to support it.
There is enough ”lack of evidence” to cast doubt on the historical veracity of most of the major palyers in the New Testament, and this includes Jesus of Nazareth, James, and Saul of Tarsus.
It reads like historical fiction, and any argument from the perspective that it has historical veracity merely lends credence to the (supernatural) and unfounded views of people such as Polyscarp, who, it is worth reminding, has little or no ”faith” in the gospels!
The bible is so full of rubbish – and the New Testament even more so –
Couldn’t agree MORE Ark. And I’d be a bit more specific about the “bibles.” I believe the one you are referring to are our copies of the common 4th-century CE Canonical Old and New Testaments compiled by… ooops, Greco-Roman “confirmation bias” between c. 200 — 350 CE… to use PolycrapScribble’s words. 😉
If I were being specific then I would say every version of the text.
As the claimed ‘Inspired (innerant)Word of God’ (sic) one would not expect to find errors across almost every discipline.
And one would certainly not expect to find interpolation /fraud in a collection of writings attributed to the ‘hand’ of an omniscient deity.
Polycarp’s apparent refusal to offer details of how/on what basis he became a Christian shows a lack of integrity and further reduces his credibility.
In fact, ignoring him completely might very well be the best option.
I believe it is the wiser option Ark. He doesn’t offer any constructive dialogue or engage in explicit evidence and sources supporting a POV or authenticated historical find. 🙄 I thought simply asking him (politely) if he’d provide “Jewish scholarship, expertise, and where you attained all of it” or at least his sources. But he got all huffy-puffy in a little tantrum. Geeezzz, which only undermined his own comments here.
Also, isn’t PolycrapScribbler the same as the original, former ftbond(?) here and several other aliases he’s dreamed up here? Does my memory serve me correctly? 🤔
re: “I thought simply asking him (politely) if he’d provide “Jewish scholarship, expertise, and where you attained all of it” or at least his sources.”
I had ALREADY provided my source regarding Paul’s stance regarding Jews vs Gentiles – the topic in discussion.
I made no other comments about “Judaism” that needed support.
Oh geeezzz holy h. christmas and neurotic raindeer & elfs! 🙄🤦🏽♂️
“Paul’s stance regarding Jews vs Gentiles” really has only ONE primary source… his Epistles found in the 4th-century CE canonical New Testament, and subsequent non-canonical letters attributed to him. THIS is common knowledge PcS. You missed the boat/point.
What are YOUR Jewish sources (of acclaimed modern scholars) specialized in STJ&M and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and late Zugot, all of the Tannaim, and early Amoraim rabbinical Eras… the eras prior to, during, and shortly after Yeshua’s lifetime and Saul’s/Paul’s lifetime!? Name them please. Be specific please. Voluntarily divulge all your expertise or at least your sources… please.
Then please reread this for full comprehension and understanding of the polite simple question. Thank you PcS.
Correct. In fact one of ft’s lessor known, and rarely mentioned aliases is Miriam Ben Dover, a second cousin and booty call who Saul of Tarsus used from time to time. She was reputed to have helped our Saul in the area of oral transmissions. For some reason ftPolyscrap considers there is definitely a soulmate style of connection.
Who knew, right?
…your correct evaluation of him and assistance to my memory—or rather my long ago blatant disregard for “ftbond’s” non-Xian knowledge or expertise (so typical of 99.9% of all Xian Apologists today no matter their personal denomination) of necessary required Jewish, Roman, and STJM, complimented by the DSS, and overall exemplary knowledge of these areas/disciplines… i.e. the ENTIRE EXHAUSTIVE library/warehouse of critical context surrounding a 1st-century Rabbi-Reformer named Yeshua bar Yosef… that PolycrapScribbler has nothing at all to contribute except the overused 2,000 yr old antiquated tactics and apologia of Greco-Roman theology based upon completely UNreliable texts. Worse still, not even ALL of the relevant texts/manuscripts regarding Yeshua!
Paul/Saul is truly insignificant (useless?) when it comes to really knowing who Yeshua bar Yosef was, his family and cultural heritage, and all within the oppressive, heavy handed Roman Empire who HATED dissenters and civic-disrupters to Roman glory. And for threatening foreign Kings (Messiahs?)? They stood no chance whatsoever. This is but a glimpse, the tip of the colossal iceberg of historical, authenticated context that most all Christians refuse to even glance at or consider! They’d rather bury their heads in the sands with their ostrich asses up in the air! 😛 Lol
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Rabbi Skobac: Paul was allegedly a disciple of the great Pharisee and teacher, Gamaliel. In the Book of Acts, Gamaliel allegedly tells the Jews to leave the Christians alone. So why would Paul go against his teacher and persecute the Christians? Secondly, why would the high priest, a Sadducee, hire a Pharisee (Paul) to hunt down Christians? The Sadducees and the Pharisees hated each other! Third, why would the high priest order the arrest and persecution of Christians? What violation of the Law had the Jewish Christians committed? Answer: None! No explanation is ever given for why Jews would be persecuting Jewish followers of Jesus (Christians)!
LikeLike
Why is Paul repeatedly warning his followers, in his churches, to beware of other Christians teaching “another gospel”? Is it these other Christians who are teaching a gospel contrary to that of Jesus or is it PAUL teaching “heresy”?? Paul is constantly on the defensive. He repeatedly defends himself against the accusation of being a liar. Was he??
When you read the Jewish Bible do you ever hear Isaiah or Jeremiah repeatedly declaring, “I’m not lying! I’m not a liar!” No. Of course not. Paul protesteth too much!
LikeLike
“In Paul’s teachings, you don’t find the religion of Jesus, but a religion about Jesus: Paul’s views about the significance of Jesus’ death and alleged resurrection, but nothing about Jesus’ teachings themselves.”
Very true.
LikeLike
re: “Gamaliel allegedly tells the Jews to leave the Christians alone. So why would Paul go against his teacher and persecute the Christians?”
I guess you didn’t read how Gamaliel’s protest turned out. It was ignored.
re: “Secondly, why would the high priest, a Sadducee, hire a Pharisee (Paul) to hunt down Christians?”
First, do you have even the slightest idea of what that persecution of the church was about? It might have been typical “Synagogue disciplinary actions” – ie, Jewish punishments for breaking Jewish laws, which could have occurred for, say, someone teaching that dietary laws were no longer necessary. The fact is, we don’t know the “specifics”, legally-speaking, as to what the persecution was about.
Second, why wouldn’t a Sadducee “hire” a Pharisee? If there were perceived infractions of the Laws of Moses that needed to be corrected, then, there wouldn’t (by any “necessity”) be any reason a Pharisee wouldn’t share the same view as the Sadducee.
re: “why would the high priest order the arrest and persecution of Christians? What violation of the Law had the Jewish Christians committed? Answer: None!”
Wrong. Heck, you even say “No explanation is ever given for why Jews would be persecuting Jewish followers of Jesus (Christians)!”. And, that’s correct – the fact is, we do not know the “specifics” of why the high priest would order the arrest and persecution, but even the Good Rabbi in the video says, in no uncertain terms, that the whole of Christianity “simply is not true”. So, in Jewish congregations, some Christian leader could easily have been accused of being misleading the people. You even see the idea of “misleading” mentioned as a “bad thing” in Luke, where he writes “We found this man misleading our nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar…” (Nope, doesn’t matter if this quote in Luke is “historically correct”. What matters is that it shows that there were to be penalties for misleading the people, or deceiving them). To the Jewish leadership, Jesus was NOT Messiah, and to claim him as Messiah was to mislead the people. Furthermore, IF there were other things – like, not keeping “kosher” going on – and that was being taught by Christians, that too could be a reason for a “persecution”.
re: “Why is Paul repeatedly warning his followers, in his churches, to beware of other Christians teaching “another gospel”? ”
There were “other gospels” being preached – and we even see Paul speaking out against one of the “contrary” gospels in 1 Corith, where he asks “How can some of you say there is no resurrection”? By the 50’s, Gnosticism had probably already begun to “infiltrate” the church. So yeh, there were “other gospels”.
re: Paul saying “I’m not a liar” or “I’m not lying”. There are NO instances in which Paul says “I am not a liar”. There are three instances (below) in which Paul says “I am not lying”. The first two have nothing whatsoever to do with trying to “convince” the reader of anything “remarkable”: one, it’s that Paul has sorrow and grief in his heart, and the other is that Paul says he’ll boast of what pertains to his weakness.
Only the third statement is one in which Paul appears to be trying to make sure that the reader is convinced that he is telling the truth about something “factual”.
— I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.
–If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.
–But I did not see any other of the apostles except [a]James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, [b]I assure you before God that I am not lying.)
You really REALLY overplay your hand on that one, Gary. WAY overdone. You need to do a bit more “word study”, I’d say.
What the Rabbi says in the video is interesting.
Your post itself? Most of it is just garbage.
LikeLike
All my comments are quotes or paraphrases of Rabbi Skobac, dipshit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
😆 And who does PolycrapScribbler quote? lol 😉
Guess that means his scribble is even more “garbage,” huh?
LikeLike
I just finished James Tabor’s book Jesus and Paul and he put Paul’s message as a mystical one that did away with the Torah and was at odds with the Jewish and Jerusalem Church and the other apostles. Paul’s version won out by after the sack of Palistine by the Romans, and the swamping of the faith by gentile converts. Was he even considered an apostle by the others? Outside of a verse in acts, they may have just tolerated his preaching to gentiles in far off lands, with only himself thinking he was an apostle.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I suspect that the leaders of the Jerusalem church were the “Judaizers” against whom Paul ranted and raved. They were the “proponents of another gospel” whose accusations of distorting Jesus’ teachings prompted Paul to repeatedly state: “I’m not lying! I promise!”
I suspect Paul was not only a liar but also a nut job!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, in one chapter where Tabor talks about Paul’s ramblings on beliver’s mystical union with Jesus and becoming gods themselves, I was out for a walk listening to the audio book version, and thinking yeesh, what a nut.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But this is the method Paul needed to use to convince the Gentiles that “his god” was different than the Jewish one.
At times, Paul reminds me of the current U.S. leader in that he said what he needed to say in order to convince his listeners …
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe both Paul and the current U.S. leader believe what they said, regardless of whether or not they needed to say it to convince their listeners.
LikeLike
It just dawned on me after my first reply that you were probably being sarcastic (I hope).
LikeLike
Hi epicurus, just wanted to toss-in a few cents on this thread here about Paul the Founder of Christianity/Christology…
Tabor and my mentioned Dr. Robert Eisenman (below?) pretty much believe or close to it that Saul/Paul was actually educated in the Jerusalem school of Bet Shammai, not what the New Testament wrongly records as Bet Hillel. From my series on Saul the Apostate, if I may Gary:
Can provide a direct link to this quote and series if interested. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks, yes, I’d be interested in the series and link.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here you go Sir:
https://professortaboo.com/2018/09/11/saul-the-apostate-part-i/
Much of my research into the series was in James Tabor, more so Robert Eisenman, and then a few other Jewish scholars of the Late Second Temple Period, i.e. Yeshua bar Yosef’s (Jesus’) time-period.
Enjoy. 🙂
LikeLike
Gary, you touch on exactly what Dr. Robert Eisenman also compellingly proports and theorizes about Saul of Tarsus—that Paul/Saul is the Spouter of Lies from the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls—because when secular scholars (and several Jewish Tannaic scholars too) consider ALL contextual evidence and literature of the Late Second Temple Period, Saul/Paul fits quite well into the one named “Spouter/Spewer of Lies” while also comparing those critiques from the DSS to his Epistles in the canonical New Testament and other letters possibly attributed to Paul as well.
LikeLike
Minute 33:01 “Is it possible that the people who wrote the Gospels, 40-70 years after Jesus was killed, were influenced by the teachings of Paul, who wrote in the 50’s? That is the big open question!”
LikeLike
In the Tabor book I just finished he thinks the writer of Mark was influenced by Paul. Tabor thinks people should read the NT starting with Paul’s authentic letters ( not the later forged or disputed ones), and then read the Gospels, giving a more chronological feel to the NT.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ahh, again, if I may Gary… epicurus, this is the chronological order of the final 4th-century CE version of the canonical New Testament, also found in my series Saul the Apostate, a side-by-side comparison:
There are a number of reasons why the Greco-Roman (not Jewish, none of them despite their “Christ” was indeed very Jewish!) Church Fathers and Patristic Authorities rearranged everything—for sociopolitical propaganda favoring Hellenistic ideals versus annoying, rebellious, Second Temple Judaism/Messianism’s ideals… which was oppositional to Rome’s rule and heavy hand.
LikeLike
Minute 39:15: “If there is one thing that Jesus repeatedly told the Jews it was this: Keep the Torah!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Minute 42: “This is critical: For the next 30 years after Jesus death, the Jesus movement was lead by Jesus’ brother, James. They continued to worship in the Temple, to offer animal sacrifices, and to follow the Torah. These Jews were no different than the Jews at large except that they believed that Jesus, even though he was dead, was the Messiah who would return to establish the New Kingdom.”
LikeLike
Minute 42: “James the brother of Jesus is quoted in the Book of Acts as saying that the followers of Jesus were ZEALOUS in the keeping of the Torah. James does not say that Jesus told them to stop keeping the Torah!”
LikeLike
Minute 43: The Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem were called ‘Nazoreans’ or ‘Ebionites’ in the second century. We know they had a very low regard for Paul. They considered Paul an apostate.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Minute 45: “If you wanted to know what Jesus taught and believed, you would go to his students (disciples) and family (James), not to some guy who had never met Jesus , who claimed to have had a mystical experience of Jesus.”
LikeLike
Minute 45:29: “We now see who Paul’s opponents were: people associated with the Jerusalem church! They were disturbed by what Paul was teaching.”
LikeLike
Minute 48: “So what was Paul’s big dispute with the Jerusalem church? Well, some members of the Jesus movement who were associated with the Jerusalem church were telling Gentiles that they had to convert to Judaism (keep kosher, males to be circumcised) if they wanted to be part of the Jesus movement. Paul (correctly, according to the Torah) countered that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, keep kosher, or adhere to the Torah but only keep the Noahide code. James, Jesus’ brother, eventually settles the issue: Gentile members of the Jesus movement were only required to keep the seven Noahide laws.
Paul saw a problem, however. There was now two standards in the Jesus movement. Paul may have been concerned that the Gentiles would not feel equal with the Jewish members. He may have worried this would impede the success of his mission as the apostle to the Gentiles. Therefore, Paul began to preach that even Jews did not need to be circumcised, keep kosher, or follow the Torah.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
re: The Rabbi (in the video) says “Paul (correctly, according to the Torah) countered that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, keep kosher, or adhere to the Torah but only keep the Noahide code. James, Jesus’ brother, eventually settles the issue: Gentile members of the Jesus movement were only required to keep the seven Noahide laws.”
This is a good call on his part. He is indeed correct.
The Rabbi says “James the brother of Jesus is quoted in the Book of Acts as saying that the followers of Jesus were ZEALOUS in the keeping of the Torah. James does not say that Jesus told them to stop keeping the Torah!”
This is what James said to Paul: “thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them… and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.”
I don’t see that James is agreeing with what some were saying about Paul. In fact, he’s telling Paul how to deal with the current situation in which people have heard that Paul is teaching Jews to “forsake Moses” (etc). And… Paul complies.
It’s entirely true that Paul did have a big dispute with some in the Jerusalem church about whether Gentiles needed to become Jews first, in order to be part of the Jesus movement.
But, that issue – among the leadership – had already been settled (as the Rabbi himself points out).
It’s quite true that the ‘Nazoreans’ or ‘Ebionites’ had low regard for Paul. They are representative of exactly the bunch from the Jerusalem church that felt that Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism first, before being a part of the Jesus movement.
But, that doesn’t mean anything. I mean, this is all just a “doctrinal” dispute. Even the Rabbi points out that the conclusion that Gentiles didn’t need to be circumcised was correct.
But – as a joke I read (on chabad, I think) says: “you can put two Rabbis in a room and come out with three opinions”.
The Rabbi seems to attempt to solve this by saying that Paul was concerned about “two standards”, and that he began to teach that Jews did not need to keep Torah (etc).
But, Fredricksen says “But why would Paul still live as a Jew if he worked with and for Gentiles? Jews in general did not hold non-Jews responsible for upholding Jewish custom. And Jewish apocalyptic traditions actually looked forward to Gentiles entering the kingdom of God as Gentiles. Paul’s “Law-free” mission was thus, from both of these perspectives, a traditionally Jewish message. The point is this: a Law-free Gentile mission gives us no reason in itself to assume that Paul himself was also Law-free. His teaching Gentiles that they did not have to live according to the Law tells us nothing about his own level of observance. And, as we have seen, the Gentile mission was not exactly Law-free either.”
And she also says “… in his own generation—which Paul was convinced was history’s last generation—the Jesus movement was yet one more variety of late Second Temple Judaism.”
(Paula Fredriksen is the Aurelio Professor of Scripture emerita at Boston University, and Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.)
It appears the Good Rabbi is depending on a rather outmoded view of Paul and his Judaism.
LikeLike
I agree with you. James does not say, “Paul you are guilty of telling Jews to not observe Torah Law.” However, James does test Paul by ordering him to present a sacrifice in the Temple. According to the author of Acts, Paul complied.
Why would Paul present sacrifices in the Temple if he believed that the Law was no longer valid, as he repeatedly claims in his epistles?
Who knows.
My guess is that Paul did it “to be all things to all people”, which is another way of saying, “I’ll do it just to keep out of trouble with Jesus’ brother, James.” Paul never renounced his teaching that no one needed to follow the Torah (not even Jews) and James’ statement strongly indicates that James believed that Jews should follow Torah Law.
I think the good rabbi has hit the proverbial nail on the head: Paul was an apostate who changed his stripes when the need suited him. I think Paul was a liar. I think he lied to James, denying that he was telling Jews not to follow the Law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary, I think you nailed it right here in your excellent reply to PolycrapScribbler…
And the Jerusalem Council, that James the Brother led, was following well-known, well-established Judaic Rabbinical traditions and doctrines at that time, i.e. during the Late Rabbinical Zugot and all of the Tannaim Eras. If one thoroughly understands the various Late Second Temple Period Sects of Judaism (with Messianic fervor mixed in as well), their differences and similarities—which absolutely included Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus) and his blood-brother James, then your reply Gary is SPOT ON Sir.
Saul of Tarsus was unequivocally an Overseas Hellenized (Neoplatonism & Stoicism taught) fake Jew and wannabe Pharisee (with Herodian blood of all things! 😲 ) repulsive to Jews in and around Jerusalem, and with “crazy” (demonic?) mystic practices and beliefs counter-intuitive to well-known, well-established Homeland Judaism/Messianism in 1st-century Syro-Palestine!
LikeLike
assumption assumption assumption…
LikeLike
If you would please PcS, would you provide YOUR Jewish scholarship, expertise, and where you attained all of it… particularly that which deals with Late Second Temple Judaism/Messianism. We are very curious about your authority to state: “assumption assumption assumption.”
Thanks
P.S. The more reputable Jewish scholarship in this specific time-period you provide will carry lots of weight FOR or against your contentions here to Rabbi Michael Skobac. Then we can take you serious rather than being entertained with laughter. Thanks again. 🙂
LikeLike
hey, YOU don’t have any scholarship at all in Judaism.
“My guess is that Paul did it “to be all things to all people”.. OK, a GUESS.
“Paul never renounced his teaching that no one needed to follow the Torah (not even Jews)”. According to Fredricksen, Paul never taught that Jews didn’t need to follow Torah. (and for my two cents, I’ve never found anywhere in which Paul taught Jews that).
“I think the good rabbi has hit the proverbial nail on the head: Paul was an apostate who changed his stripes when the need suited him. I think Paul was a liar. I think he lied to James, denying that he was telling Jews not to follow the Law.”
Nothing but opinion and assumption.
LikeLike
😄 Hah! And how do YOU know this? I’m curious.
We can all read and listen to what Rabbi Skobac said, along with what Gary surmised and concluded from him PcS. No need to copy/paste. However, if you would spend sufficient time and effort studying and listening/reading—with the highest equity possible—what ALL Jewish Late STJ scholars are saying individually and as a whole about the REAL Yeshua bar Yosef, then you’d certainly retract your erroneous claim/personal opinion in your final sentence… assuming of course you are able to be fair and rational. 🙂
If you haven’t heard of these four gentlemen of renown Late STJ expertise, then I suggest you start with these:
• Steven P. Weitzman — of Harvard University and University of California, Berkeley. Has 8-10 published books & innumerable scholarly journal-articles.
• the late David Flusser — of the University in Prague
and Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He was an acclaimed expert in Early Christianity and Judaism of the Second Temple Period.
• Bruce E. Zuckerman — of Yale University and University Southern California and a specialist in Northwest Semitic languages and Biblical studies.
• Lawrence H. Schiffman — of Brandeis University with PhD’s specializing in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Judaism in Late Antiquity, the history of Jewish law, and Talmudic literature.
Now of course these are just four out of MANY exceptional Jewish scholars of Late STJ and the Roman Empire so I strongly suggest you find 4-6 more in addition to these in order to start and continue your much needed accurate and thorough knowledge of what Rabbi Skobac is speaking about as well as what Gary and I are speaking about. THEN at that point you might have something interesting and relevant to contribute to this discussion and the authentic history of Yeshua bar Yosef and his Torah-loving beliefs, reforms, and teachings to his 1st-century Movement… rather than Spouting off useless personal, unfounded opinions. 🙂
Best regards to you PcS.
LikeLike
Time 52: “For Jewish followers of Jesus, who had been told by Jesus that you must keep the Torah, Paul’s teaching that the Torah was no longer needed, for ANYONE, including Jews, was scandalous! We can see this in Acts 21 when James confronts Paul about his teachings.”
LikeLike
Time 53: “Paul is so anti-circumcision, probably because he saw this as a hindrance to Gentile conversion, that he says in Galatians that he hopes that those in the movement who do undergo circumcision, that the knife will slip and castrate them.”
LikeLike
Just a bit of fun speculation (for me) but regarding the Peter in Rome theory, since we know so little of what he actually did, If one goes on the idea that the apostles never considered Paul an apostle but just tolerated him and allowed him to go off to the gentiles, and that Peter and Paul butted heads (we only have Paul’s side of the story that he gave Peter heck in the Antioch eating incident – but Peter might have given it right back to Paul), maybe Peter eventually came up to Rome to counter Paul’s influence in the city – even though Paul was in prison but still writing letters. Maybe the Church in Rome was being influenced by Paul’s letters and that’s how Peter ended up in Rome.
Although I think a better explanation is that Peter never was in Rome, it was just a story cooked up later when the Church in Rome was trying to influence others and needed some way to legitimate their church as being an authority over churches, as they had to compete against the other main church centers like Alexandria and Antioch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Time 54: “All the evidence indicates that the original disciples of Jesus simply saw him as the messiah. They did not worship him or pray to him. They did not see him as God.” Paul seems to have viewed Jesus, at least, as some kind of pre-existent divine being, maybe an angel, subordinate to God. It is not really clear how Paul saw Jesus. He may have viewed Jesus as God. What is more important is how Paul’s readers understood Paul’s view of Jesus. By the end of the first century, almost all of Paul’s followers worshipped Jesus as God. From a Jewish perspective, this is idolatry.”
LikeLike
Time 55: “How are we justified in the eyes of God? John the baptizer and Jesus (who was possibly his student) taught that we are made righteous by living a righteous life and repenting whenever we sin. This is consistent with the Torah, with Jewish teaching. The author of the Epistle of James, who may have been the brother of Jesus, teaches the same: We are justified by righteous good works. For Paul, faith in Jesus replaces the Torah. Paul repeatedly goes against what Jesus taught, what James in his epistle taught, and what the Torah teaches: that justification is by faith alone.”
LikeLike
Time 1:02: “The evidence indicates that Paul was either the inventor of Christianity or the transformer/distorter of Christianity. His teachings were not consistent with those of Jesus. And just to make sure my own religious bias did not play a role in my conclusions, I consulted Islamic scholars. Islamic scholars come to the same conclusion regarding Paul!”
LikeLike
And Gary, this blog-post of yours and all these comments show undeniably that IF a modern “Christ-follower” wants to REALLY in truly KNOW intimately the failed Jewish Rabbi-Reformer Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus)… they MUST dive head deep into Late Second Temple Judaism and Messianism to really factually and honestly know him, his followers—like his brother James, et al—toss out or at LEAST suspend temporarily any and all Greco-Roman (Hellenized) versions of another wild caricature demi-god/or god called (in Koine Greek) Christ. Because no one will know who Yeshua bar Yosef truly was in the modern canonical “Christological” New Testament. That is highly amputated, distorted, modified, and laced by or polluted with Hellenism—the very culture 1st-century Homeland Jews despised.
LikeLike
Very true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
taboo, give it up. You didn’t even know where the concept of a pre-existent Messiah came from. You don’t know squat about 2nd Temple-era Judaism, except what you cut-and-paste from Carrier.
LikeLike
😄 This will not warrant a reply. Now you are becoming childish and boring. See my previous reply to you for something more mature and relevant to this blog-topic and discussion.
Best regards to you PcS. lol
LikeLike
Time 1:03: “The first Christian heretic (Paul) launches a movement that will ultimately persecute the decimated remnants of the (Jewish) Jerusalem church. The Jerusalem church died out in approximately 200-250 CE. The persecution by Paul’s followers was the final blow to this group after the death of their leader James in 62 CE, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE in which many of them were killed, and their flight to Trans-Jordan. Paul, a heretic, in essence, becomes the “decider” of who is and who is not a heretic. His followers persecute the Jewish followers of Jesus who continued to teach the original teachings of Jesus: keeping Torah Law.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
BINGO! (drop the mic!)
LikeLike
Conclusion: “With the explosion of available information on the Internet, we may be on the verge of a reassessment of Christianity and its origins.”
LikeLike
That’s putting it VERY mildly. In all actuality that has started already. Some would say—myself included—that it began soon after the fantastic discovery of the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls, a large Jewish library of manuscripts giving extensive contextual detail and background to (the now) more unreliable Hellenized 4th-century canonical New Testament that essentially gets the “real” Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus) wrong by completely alienating/removing him from his Late Second Temple Judaism/Messianism and puts him (and his Torah-loving Jewish followers/disciples) into a totally FOREIGN, unfamiliar context suited a lot more for Rome, Gentiles, and eventually Rome’s Church (the Vatican).
Then as you correctly quoted Gary, with my emphasis…
”
So if the reassessment of Christianity/Christology has started due to the world-wide web (with or without reputable, accredited, exhaustive scholarship), the very foundations, roots, seeds, and more so the entire SOIL the religion stumbled, bumbled, and crawled out of recklessly… are all in serious peril. Personally, I believe that if any rational, and TRULY equitable person honestly and fairly examines ALL of the entire mega-warehouse of verified, authenticated Roman and Jewish history, ESPECIALLY Yeshua’s (Jesus’) own heritage, beliefs, and reforms he wanted enacted, then they will see that original and modern Christianity is utterly bogus and merely a Greco-Roman Apotheosis that purposely hijacked a small Jewish sect and turned it into an UNrecognizable myth/legend/religion (to Yeshua) that the Romans wanted—something they were known to do all the time with conquered kingdoms and cultures. Period. Stop. Story over.
LikeLike
I would be curious what Rabbi Skobac would say to this question: Do you find it implausible that a Jewish rabbi (Paul) would abandon the observance of Torah Law and abandon Judaism?
Christians frequently make the claim that it is absolutely implausible that Paul would have converted to the movement (Christianity) he was persecuting—unless he had experienced something really dramatic, such as an appearance of the resurrected Jesus. “Why would he abandon his respected position as a rabbi to wander the world as an outcast, supporting himself as a tentmaker, enduring terrible persecution?”
My short answer is: He was nuts.
But a less snarky answer would be this: If we did a survey of all Jewish rabbis in history, how many of them left Judaism for bizarre reasons? I will bet that we would find many more than just Paul. I know of two instances where a Jewish rabbi converted to Islam. So I don’t see Paul’s conversion to Christianity sans seeing a walking, talking resurrected corpse as “implausible” at all. I will bet that Rabbi Skobac would agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And I would most definitely agree with your projected Skobac answer Gary. Why?
Because if one honest, equitable (Secular?) impartial inquisitor into Yeshua bar Yosef’s complete background—ACCORDING TO ALL Jewish Tannaim Era rabbinical literature, the DSS, all non-canonical Gospels regarding Yeshua, all non-canonical Epistles about Yeshua, i.e. everything that is NOT strictly Earliest or Later Greco-Roman Patristic “Archbishops” or “Bishops”, all of whom were NOT Homeland born/taught Jews who had no clue how to interpret Mishnaic Hebrew or Syro-Aramaic—and impartially examined Yeshua’s exhaustive Jewish context of the period, geographical location within the mighty Roman Empire, and everything his own people were suffering, wanting to restore, and wanted to stop the vile corruption of their religion: Torah-laws, practices, and proper teachings… by Hellenism, ESPECIALLY fake Jews, Herodian Jews, and Spouter/Spewer of Lies such as Saul of Tarsus, then those Secular impartial, reasonable and rational inquisitors would conclude quite easily…
Paul/Saul was indeed nuts and every bizarre theological teaching he spewed was total cow, elephant, and T-Rex dung and based loosely on random psychiatric delusions from a TPL epileptic disorder he suffered most all of his life. End of story. No crazy, insane, Greco-Roman Walking Zombie demi-god floating up into heaven after execution. 😉 😛
LikeLike
I have never EVER seen a more obvious or more grand expression of “confirmation bias” in my life…
this thread is totally hilarious….
LikeLike
Then move along PcS and quit annoying yourself. 😉
LikeLike
My 2 cents.
The bible is so full of rubbish – and the New Testament even more so – that one cannot caim with absolute certainty there is adequate evidence to support it.
There is enough ”lack of evidence” to cast doubt on the historical veracity of most of the major palyers in the New Testament, and this includes Jesus of Nazareth, James, and Saul of Tarsus.
It reads like historical fiction, and any argument from the perspective that it has historical veracity merely lends credence to the (supernatural) and unfounded views of people such as Polyscarp, who, it is worth reminding, has little or no ”faith” in the gospels!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Couldn’t agree MORE Ark. And I’d be a bit more specific about the “bibles.” I believe the one you are referring to are our copies of the common 4th-century CE Canonical Old and New Testaments compiled by… ooops, Greco-Roman “confirmation bias” between c. 200 — 350 CE… to use PolycrapScribble’s words. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I were being specific then I would say every version of the text.
As the claimed ‘Inspired (innerant)Word of God’ (sic) one would not expect to find errors across almost every discipline.
And one would certainly not expect to find interpolation /fraud in a collection of writings attributed to the ‘hand’ of an omniscient deity.
Polycarp’s apparent refusal to offer details of how/on what basis he became a Christian shows a lack of integrity and further reduces his credibility.
In fact, ignoring him completely might very well be the best option.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe it is the wiser option Ark. He doesn’t offer any constructive dialogue or engage in explicit evidence and sources supporting a POV or authenticated historical find. 🙄 I thought simply asking him (politely) if he’d provide “Jewish scholarship, expertise, and where you attained all of it” or at least his sources. But he got all huffy-puffy in a little tantrum. Geeezzz, which only undermined his own comments here.
Also, isn’t PolycrapScribbler the same as the original, former ftbond(?) here and several other aliases he’s dreamed up here? Does my memory serve me correctly? 🤔
LikeLiked by 1 person
re: “I thought simply asking him (politely) if he’d provide “Jewish scholarship, expertise, and where you attained all of it” or at least his sources.”
I had ALREADY provided my source regarding Paul’s stance regarding Jews vs Gentiles – the topic in discussion.
I made no other comments about “Judaism” that needed support.
LikeLike
Oh geeezzz holy h. christmas and neurotic raindeer & elfs! 🙄🤦🏽♂️
“Paul’s stance regarding Jews vs Gentiles” really has only ONE primary source… his Epistles found in the 4th-century CE canonical New Testament, and subsequent non-canonical letters attributed to him. THIS is common knowledge PcS. You missed the boat/point.
What are YOUR Jewish sources (of acclaimed modern scholars) specialized in STJ&M and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and late Zugot, all of the Tannaim, and early Amoraim rabbinical Eras… the eras prior to, during, and shortly after Yeshua’s lifetime and Saul’s/Paul’s lifetime!? Name them please. Be specific please. Voluntarily divulge all your expertise or at least your sources… please.
Then please reread this for full comprehension and understanding of the polite simple question. Thank you PcS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correct. In fact one of ft’s lessor known, and rarely mentioned aliases is Miriam Ben Dover, a second cousin and booty call who Saul of Tarsus used from time to time. She was reputed to have helped our Saul in the area of oral transmissions. For some reason ftPolyscrap considers there is definitely a soulmate style of connection.
Who knew, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hahahaha! 😄 Well, actually…
…your correct evaluation of him and assistance to my memory—or rather my long ago blatant disregard for “ftbond’s” non-Xian knowledge or expertise (so typical of 99.9% of all Xian Apologists today no matter their personal denomination) of necessary required Jewish, Roman, and STJM, complimented by the DSS, and overall exemplary knowledge of these areas/disciplines… i.e. the ENTIRE EXHAUSTIVE library/warehouse of critical context surrounding a 1st-century Rabbi-Reformer named Yeshua bar Yosef… that PolycrapScribbler has nothing at all to contribute except the overused 2,000 yr old antiquated tactics and apologia of Greco-Roman theology based upon completely UNreliable texts. Worse still, not even ALL of the relevant texts/manuscripts regarding Yeshua!
Paul/Saul is truly insignificant (useless?) when it comes to really knowing who Yeshua bar Yosef was, his family and cultural heritage, and all within the oppressive, heavy handed Roman Empire who HATED dissenters and civic-disrupters to Roman glory. And for threatening foreign Kings (Messiahs?)? They stood no chance whatsoever. This is but a glimpse, the tip of the colossal iceberg of historical, authenticated context that most all Christians refuse to even glance at or consider! They’d rather bury their heads in the sands with their ostrich asses up in the air! 😛 Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person