Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Brand development (was A word from St. Paul)
Comment below jst...@panix.com Bob, have you ever read Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity? If not, I think you'd find it utterly fascinating. Maccoby's view of Paul (and of Jesus) isn't mainstream by any means and has come in for some sharp criticism, but (as a nonscholar) I find it extremely convincing, especially with regard to Paul's psychology. Among other problems with Paul's account of himself, Maccoby makes a strong case that Paul was not born a Jew but was a pagan convert to Judaism, who aspired to become a Pharisee but couldn't make the grade. That has such explanatory value for Paul's post-Damascus views of Judaism and the development of his theology, it seems to me. Judy, thanks for this. I'm looking forward to reading this book. My favourite generalist on this topic is Karen Armstrong. I also have a lot of time for the Byzantium series by John Julius Norwich IMO, Christianity cannot be looked at rationally without looking closely at Paul and Constantine.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Brand development (was A word from St. Paul)
Thanks for this. I think we may be evenly split on whether Paul was a Jew. I still hope Bill will contribute although I'm concerned he just thinks I should switch to decaf. From: John jr_...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 5:33:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Brand development (was A word from St. Paul) St. Paul was a Jew with a Roman citizenship. He was a Pharasee, one of the main Hebrew sects, during the time of Christ's life in Palestine. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote: On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: ** According to the teaching I received in Catholic Church, Catholic School and preparation for my Confirmation: *1. Is it true Jesus lived and died as a practicing Jew?* Indeed. And was buried as a Jew. *2. Is it true the 12 apostles also lived and died as practicing Jews?* Yes. As long as you don't consider Paul an apostle. *3. Is it true Paul was not a Jew?* Yes. *3. Is it true Paul came up with the Greek title Christ in his quest to baptize Greeks and other non-Jews in the Roman Empire?* Well, it wasn't something Jesus came up with. But Paul was a shifty one, and I wouldn't put it past him. It's in line with his character. *4. Is it true, as a practicing Jew, Jesus never thought of himself as a Christ?* He came to fulfill the Law, fulfill prophesy. But he didn't come as or consider himself the Messiah. The apostles and generations of Christians afterwards thought it necessary to declare Christ the Messiah. How could the Jews have missed the Messiah during His travels on earth? He never proclaimed himself the Messiah. *5. Is it true the 12 apostles, appointed by Jesus, never called Jesus the Christ? * Yes. * * *6. Is it more accurate to call its Paul's church than Peter's- since the only thing left related to Peter is the garbage dump, where Peter was crucified, given by Constantine to the early Christians where St. Peters Basilica was build?* Yes and no. The One Holy Universal Catholic Apostolic Church has to base its authority on something. It bases itself on Peter, the rock, upon which Jesus established His church. *7. Is it true that Peter and the other apostles, appointed by Jesus, were not at all* *convinced that Jesus would have agreed with Paul's quest to baptize gentiles, and specifically disagreed* *with Paul's decision to forgo circumcision (a required Jewish practice) which gentiles* *would never have agreed to and if Paul had not dropped it as a requirement, could have stopped his ministry and the* *globalization of the teaching of Jesus right in its tracks?* Back to the question of Jesus as a Jew. *8. Would you agree that the real antecedent for the film The passion of the Christ is Alien or * *Texas Chain Saw Massacre rather than The Last Temptation of Christ?* Thought the idea of the movie was f*cked up. Didn't even want to read the story line. Have no knowledge of the movie except to know that they're a prolonged flogging and it was in Aramaic. *9. Would you agree there has never been anything like crucifixion in the Jewish culture and this was completely a Roman form of terror?* Agreed. Jews did flog, but not the Romans, The Romans tore the flesh away with shards of glass, pieces of lead, pieces of bone till just bone remained in many places. The Roman scourging was a torture which usually resulted in eventual death from bleeding out or infection. There's someone on the Web who's recreated the Roman scourge. *10. Is it true (this is a 312-337 question so you can consider it a statement) it's easy to draw a direct line from Constantine-a rabid anti-semite, who established Christianity as the official church of the Roman Empire (and arguably Europe), to the Holocaust? * Yes and no. The Jews were regarded as Jesus killers throughout history. But the depiction of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice was regrettably accurate. The Holocaust resulted from the King of Poland not getting enough revenue from his kingdom, so he hired Jews as overseers who had the say of life or death over what amounted to their fiefdoms. The Jews excelled at slaving money out of those peasants, serfs, and became quite wealthy. Like Shylock, they were more than cold hearted and cruel. What we see in anti-Nazi films made during WWII could just as easily be a depiction of Jews during the period my great, great, great, great parents were slaves to the Jews in Poland. It wasn't just that the Jews were considered Christ killers. That didn't really enter into the picture. The situations the Jews were thrust into brought out the very worst
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brand development (was A word from St. Paul)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: St. Paul was a Jew with a Roman citizenship. He was a Pharasee, one of the main Hebrew sects, during the time of Christ's life in Palestine. We know that's what *he* said he was. There are reasons to be skeptical of his account, though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brand development (was A word from St. Paul)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Comment below jstein@... Bob, have you ever read Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity? If not, I think you'd find it utterly fascinating. Maccoby's view of Paul (and of Jesus) isn't mainstream by any means and has come in for some sharp criticism, but (as a nonscholar) I find it extremely convincing, especially with regard to Paul's psychology. Among other problems with Paul's account of himself, Maccoby makes a strong case that Paul was not born a Jew but was a pagan convert to Judaism, who aspired to become a Pharisee but couldn't make the grade. That has such explanatory value for Paul's post-Damascus views of Judaism and the development of his theology, it seems to me. Judy, thanks for this. I'm looking forward to reading this book. You can get a used copy on Amazon for 25 cents: http://www.amazon.com/Mythmaker-Paul-Invention-Christianity/dp/0062505858/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8qid=1310909413sr=1-1 http://tinyurl.com/43ebg5k Do check out the reader reviews (including the comments on several); many of them are quite thoughtful and well- informed, especially those that give the book fewer than five stars. It's probably a good idea to bear the various critical caveats in mind, because (at least for me) Maccoby's portrait of Paul is so compelling I have the tendency to take it as gospel (you should excuse the expression) rather than (in many cases) informed speculation. Much of his thinking, for example, involves the assumption that there was continuity between the Pharisee teaching of Jesus's time and that of the later Rabbis, but there's no hard evidence that this was the case. If the Rabbis' teaching (the Talmud, etc.) did *not* reflect the earlier Pharisee teaching, then a lot of Maccoby's points become pretty shaky. Two long excerpts from the book: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby3.htm My favourite generalist on this topic is Karen Armstrong. Armstrong is a pistol. I need to read more of her work. I also have a lot of time for the Byzantium series by John Julius Norwich. IMO, Christianity cannot be looked at rationally without looking closely at Paul and Constantine. What little knowledge I have is focused on pre-Jewish Revolt Christianity; I know zilch about Constantine. Boy, I hope Bill shows up for a discussion with you so I can do some filling-in. I'm not really ready to tackle Norwich.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Brand development (was A word from St. Paul)
Judy, thanks again. Also hoping Bill makes an appearance. For shear zaniness and terror you can't beat the Byzantines! From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 7:31:47 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Brand development (was A word from St. Paul) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Comment below jstein@... Bob, have you ever read Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity? If not, I think you'd find it utterly fascinating. Maccoby's view of Paul (and of Jesus) isn't mainstream by any means and has come in for some sharp criticism, but (as a nonscholar) I find it extremely convincing, especially with regard to Paul's psychology. Among other problems with Paul's account of himself, Maccoby makes a strong case that Paul was not born a Jew but was a pagan convert to Judaism, who aspired to become a Pharisee but couldn't make the grade. That has such explanatory value for Paul's post-Damascus views of Judaism and the development of his theology, it seems to me. Judy, thanks for this. I'm looking forward to reading this book. You can get a used copy on Amazon for 25 cents: http://www.amazon.com/Mythmaker-Paul-Invention-Christianity/dp/0062505858/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8qid=1310909413sr=1-1 http://tinyurl.com/43ebg5k Do check out the reader reviews (including the comments on several); many of them are quite thoughtful and well- informed, especially those that give the book fewer than five stars. It's probably a good idea to bear the various critical caveats in mind, because (at least for me) Maccoby's portrait of Paul is so compelling I have the tendency to take it as gospel (you should excuse the expression) rather than (in many cases) informed speculation. Much of his thinking, for example, involves the assumption that there was continuity between the Pharisee teaching of Jesus's time and that of the later Rabbis, but there's no hard evidence that this was the case. If the Rabbis' teaching (the Talmud, etc.) did *not* reflect the earlier Pharisee teaching, then a lot of Maccoby's points become pretty shaky. Two long excerpts from the book: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby3.htm My favourite generalist on this topic is Karen Armstrong. Armstrong is a pistol. I need to read more of her work. I also have a lot of time for the Byzantium series by John Julius Norwich. IMO, Christianity cannot be looked at rationally without looking closely at Paul and Constantine. What little knowledge I have is focused on pre-Jewish Revolt Christianity; I know zilch about Constantine. Boy, I hope Bill shows up for a discussion with you so I can do some filling-in. I'm not really ready to tackle Norwich.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brand development (was A word from St. Paul)
So Paul was an apostate Jew. No wonder he had to invent a new religion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: St. Paul was a Jew with a Roman citizenship. He was a Pharasee, one of the main Hebrew sects, during the time of Christ's life in Palestine. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote: On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Bob Price bobpriced@ wrote: ** According to the teaching I received in Catholic Church, Catholic School and preparation for my Confirmation: *1. Is it true Jesus lived and died as a practicing Jew?* Indeed. And was buried as a Jew. *2. Is it true the 12 apostles also lived and died as practicing Jews?* Yes. As long as you don't consider Paul an apostle. *3. Is it true Paul was not a Jew?* Yes. *3. Is it true Paul came up with the Greek title Christ in his quest to baptize Greeks and other non-Jews in the Roman Empire?* Well, it wasn't something Jesus came up with. But Paul was a shifty one, and I wouldn't put it past him. It's in line with his character. *4. Is it true, as a practicing Jew, Jesus never thought of himself as a Christ?* He came to fulfill the Law, fulfill prophesy. But he didn't come as or consider himself the Messiah. The apostles and generations of Christians afterwards thought it necessary to declare Christ the Messiah. How could the Jews have missed the Messiah during His travels on earth? He never proclaimed himself the Messiah. *5. Is it true the 12 apostles, appointed by Jesus, never called Jesus the Christ? * Yes. * * *6. Is it more accurate to call its Paul's church than Peter's- since the only thing left related to Peter is the garbage dump, where Peter was crucified, given by Constantine to the early Christians where St. Peters Basilica was build?* Yes and no. The One Holy Universal Catholic Apostolic Church has to base its authority on something. It bases itself on Peter, the rock, upon which Jesus established His church. *7. Is it true that Peter and the other apostles, appointed by Jesus, were not at all* *convinced that Jesus would have agreed with Paul's quest to baptize gentiles, and specifically disagreed* *with Paul's decision to forgo circumcision (a required Jewish practice) which gentiles* *would never have agreed to and if Paul had not dropped it as a requirement, could have stopped his ministry and the* *globalization of the teaching of Jesus right in its tracks?* Back to the question of Jesus as a Jew. *8. Would you agree that the real antecedent for the film The passion of the Christ is Alien or * *Texas Chain Saw Massacre rather than The Last Temptation of Christ?* Thought the idea of the movie was f*cked up. Didn't even want to read the story line. Have no knowledge of the movie except to know that they're a prolonged flogging and it was in Aramaic. *9. Would you agree there has never been anything like crucifixion in the Jewish culture and this was completely a Roman form of terror?* Agreed. Jews did flog, but not the Romans, The Romans tore the flesh away with shards of glass, pieces of lead, pieces of bone till just bone remained in many places. The Roman scourging was a torture which usually resulted in eventual death from bleeding out or infection. There's someone on the Web who's recreated the Roman scourge. *10. Is it true (this is a 312-337 question so you can consider it a statement) it's easy to draw a direct line from Constantine-a rabid anti-semite, who established Christianity as the official church of the Roman Empire (and arguably Europe), to the Holocaust? * Yes and no. The Jews were regarded as Jesus killers throughout history. But the depiction of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice was regrettably accurate. The Holocaust resulted from the King of Poland not getting enough revenue from his kingdom, so he hired Jews as overseers who had the say of life or death over what amounted to their fiefdoms. The Jews excelled at slaving money out of those peasants, serfs, and became quite wealthy. Like Shylock, they were more than cold hearted and cruel. What we see in anti-Nazi films made during WWII could just as easily be a depiction of Jews during the period my great, great, great, great parents were slaves to the Jews in Poland. It wasn't just that the Jews were considered Christ killers. That didn't really enter into the picture. The situations the Jews were thrust into brought out the very worst in them, just like the very worst was drawn out of the Nazis. Hence the KrystalNacht, hence the Holocaust, hence Poles, Hungarians and others turning on the Jews /before/ the Germans ever arrived
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brand development (was A word from St. Paul)
They don't call themselves Orthodox for nothin'. There was only one church until late in the 10th century although the Latin church had already drifted into a legalist mind frame with autocratic top-down rule. They seemed to think they were still the Roman emperors like their pagan predecessors. . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Judy, thanks again. Also hoping Bill makes an appearance. For shear zaniness and terror you can't beat the Byzantines! From: authfriend jstein@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 7:31:47 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Brand development (was A word from St. Paul) Â --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@ wrote: Comment below jstein@ Bob, have you ever read Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity? If not, I think you'd find it utterly fascinating. Maccoby's view of Paul (and of Jesus) isn't mainstream by any means and has come in for some sharp criticism, but (as a nonscholar) I find it extremely convincing, especially with regard to Paul's psychology. Among other problems with Paul's account of himself, Maccoby makes a strong case that Paul was not born a Jew but was a pagan convert to Judaism, who aspired to become a Pharisee but couldn't make the grade. That has such explanatory value for Paul's post-Damascus views of Judaism and the development of his theology, it seems to me. Judy, thanks for this. I'm looking forward to reading this book. You can get a used copy on Amazon for 25 cents: http://www.amazon.com/Mythmaker-Paul-Invention-Christianity/dp/006250585\ 8/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8qid=1310909413sr=1-1 http://tinyurl.com/43ebg5k Do check out the reader reviews (including the comments on several); many of them are quite thoughtful and well- informed, especially those that give the book fewer than five stars. It's probably a good idea to bear the various critical caveats in mind, because (at least for me) Maccoby's portrait of Paul is so compelling I have the tendency to take it as gospel (you should excuse the expression) rather than (in many cases) informed speculation. Much of his thinking, for example, involves the assumption that there was continuity between the Pharisee teaching of Jesus's time and that of the later Rabbis, but there's no hard evidence that this was the case. If the Rabbis' teaching (the Talmud, etc.) did *not* reflect the earlier Pharisee teaching, then a lot of Maccoby's points become pretty shaky. Two long excerpts from the book: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby3.htm My favourite generalist on this topic is Karen Armstrong. Armstrong is a pistol. I need to read more of her work. I also have a lot of time for the Byzantium series by John Julius Norwich. IMO, Christianity cannot be looked at rationally without looking closely at Paul and Constantine. What little knowledge I have is focused on pre-Jewish Revolt Christianity; I know zilch about Constantine. Boy, I hope Bill shows up for a discussion with you so I can do some filling-in. I'm not really ready to tackle Norwich.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brand development (was A word from St. Paul)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote: On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: snip 7. Is it true that Peter and the other apostles, appointed by Jesus, were not at all convinced that Jesus would have agreed with Paul's quest to baptize gentiles, and specifically disagreed with Paul's decision to forgo circumcision (a required Jewish practice) which gentiles would never have agreed to and if Paul had not dropped it as a requirement, could have stopped his ministry and the globalization of the teaching of Jesus right in its tracks? Back to the question of Jesus as a Jew. With regard to whether he'd have agreed, right. But I think Bob is asking about how the apostles felt once Jesus was no longer around to give his opinion. Peter is recorded in Acts 15:7-10 as speaking out against circumcision, so if Acts is accurate, he either agreed with Paul or came around to Paul's point of view (perhaps under pressure). But there was a HUGE and complicated controversy. Wikipedia has a good outline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity http://tinyurl.com/37k9oel Bob, have you ever read Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity? If not, I think you'd find it utterly fascinating. Maccoby's view of Paul (and of Jesus) isn't mainstream by any means and has come in for some sharp criticism, but (as a nonscholar) I find it extremely convincing, especially with regard to Paul's psychology. Among other problems with Paul's account of himself, Maccoby makes a strong case that Paul was not born a Jew but was a pagan convert to Judaism, who aspired to become a Pharisee but couldn't make the grade. That has such explanatory value for Paul's post-Damascus views of Judaism and the development of his theology, it seems to me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brand development (was A word from St. Paul)
St. Paul was a Jew with a Roman citizenship. He was a Pharasee, one of the main Hebrew sects, during the time of Christ's life in Palestine. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote: On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: ** According to the teaching I received in Catholic Church, Catholic School and preparation for my Confirmation: *1. Is it true Jesus lived and died as a practicing Jew?* Indeed. And was buried as a Jew. *2. Is it true the 12 apostles also lived and died as practicing Jews?* Yes. As long as you don't consider Paul an apostle. *3. Is it true Paul was not a Jew?* Yes. *3. Is it true Paul came up with the Greek title Christ in his quest to baptize Greeks and other non-Jews in the Roman Empire?* Well, it wasn't something Jesus came up with. But Paul was a shifty one, and I wouldn't put it past him. It's in line with his character. *4. Is it true, as a practicing Jew, Jesus never thought of himself as a Christ?* He came to fulfill the Law, fulfill prophesy. But he didn't come as or consider himself the Messiah. The apostles and generations of Christians afterwards thought it necessary to declare Christ the Messiah. How could the Jews have missed the Messiah during His travels on earth? He never proclaimed himself the Messiah. *5. Is it true the 12 apostles, appointed by Jesus, never called Jesus the Christ? * Yes. * * *6. Is it more accurate to call its Paul's church than Peter's- since the only thing left related to Peter is the garbage dump, where Peter was crucified, given by Constantine to the early Christians where St. Peters Basilica was build?* Yes and no. The One Holy Universal Catholic Apostolic Church has to base its authority on something. It bases itself on Peter, the rock, upon which Jesus established His church. *7. Is it true that Peter and the other apostles, appointed by Jesus, were not at all* *convinced that Jesus would have agreed with Paul's quest to baptize gentiles, and specifically disagreed* *with Paul's decision to forgo circumcision (a required Jewish practice) which gentiles* *would never have agreed to and if Paul had not dropped it as a requirement, could have stopped his ministry and the* *globalization of the teaching of Jesus right in its tracks?* Back to the question of Jesus as a Jew. *8. Would you agree that the real antecedent for the film The passion of the Christ is Alien or * *Texas Chain Saw Massacre rather than The Last Temptation of Christ?* Thought the idea of the movie was f*cked up. Didn't even want to read the story line. Have no knowledge of the movie except to know that they're a prolonged flogging and it was in Aramaic. *9. Would you agree there has never been anything like crucifixion in the Jewish culture and this was completely a Roman form of terror?* Agreed. Jews did flog, but not the Romans, The Romans tore the flesh away with shards of glass, pieces of lead, pieces of bone till just bone remained in many places. The Roman scourging was a torture which usually resulted in eventual death from bleeding out or infection. There's someone on the Web who's recreated the Roman scourge. *10. Is it true (this is a 312-337 question so you can consider it a statement) it's easy to draw a direct line from Constantine-a rabid anti-semite, who established Christianity as the official church of the Roman Empire (and arguably Europe), to the Holocaust? * Yes and no. The Jews were regarded as Jesus killers throughout history. But the depiction of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice was regrettably accurate. The Holocaust resulted from the King of Poland not getting enough revenue from his kingdom, so he hired Jews as overseers who had the say of life or death over what amounted to their fiefdoms. The Jews excelled at slaving money out of those peasants, serfs, and became quite wealthy. Like Shylock, they were more than cold hearted and cruel. What we see in anti-Nazi films made during WWII could just as easily be a depiction of Jews during the period my great, great, great, great parents were slaves to the Jews in Poland. It wasn't just that the Jews were considered Christ killers. That didn't really enter into the picture. The situations the Jews were thrust into brought out the very worst in them, just like the very worst was drawn out of the Nazis. Hence the KrystalNacht, hence the Holocaust, hence Poles, Hungarians and others turning on the Jews /before/ the Germans ever arrived in their country. Where I grew up, Jews were not ever considered Christ killers. They were remembered instead as being the Slavic slave drivers/owners. ** * * *I'm too lazy to
