Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Davros of Skaro

Did Jesus Exist Debate: Carrier VS MacDonald

503 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Davros of Skaro
19 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

THE EIGHT BEATITUDES OF JESUS

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Gospel of Matthew 5:3-10

"Scholars poring over the Dead Sea Scrolls have been rewarded with a discovery that they feel will shed light on some of the best-loved teachings of Jesus.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit" and other of the so-called "beatitudes" found in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount have parallels in a fragment of the text of the scrolls.

The fragment, among those found in the Qumran caves on the northwest shores of the Dead Sea, contains sayings in some ways very similar to the beatitudes of Jesus _ yet also very different, according to a study of the text released Monday. The new scroll shows how Jesus relied on the Old Testament tradition while interpreting that tradition in his own way"

 

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1992/10/24/new-scroll-links-jesus-teachings-to-old-testament/

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
3 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

"Scholars poring over the Dead Sea Scrolls have been rewarded with a discovery that they feel will shed light on some of the best-loved teachings of Jesus.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit" and other of the so-called "beatitudes" found in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount have parallels in a fragment of the text of the scrolls.

The fragment, among those found in the Qumran caves on the northwest shores of the Dead Sea, contains sayings in some ways very similar to the beatitudes of Jesus _ yet also very different, according to a study of the text released Monday. The new scroll shows how Jesus relied on the Old Testament tradition while interpreting that tradition in his own way"

 

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1992/10/24/new-scroll-links-jesus-teachings-to-old-testament/

That is absolutely true. No religion rises, fully formed, from nothing. It took Christianity several centuries to evolve. Roman Catholicism is a synthesis of Christian thought and Roman polytheist ritual and worship. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
10 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

And as I already noted, this comment of yours buttresses mine.

Your existence is sufficient to prove your family was real, that's how biology tells us you came into existence. 

You have no idea what was 'probable', sorry.

The problem of course being that you then can't differentiate between the evidences not existing because they were lost and the alternative explanation that the evidences don't exist because they, and the subject, never existed.

So what if they were alive when Christ was alive, that has nothing to do with whether they were ever in a position to see Jesus let alone encounter someone who had.  Curious how little we have, if anything, that indicates Christ was alive that was written during the period that Christ was alive.

I thought this was obvious enough for me not to need to mention it, but I should have spelled this out more.  It's not exactly about 'truthfulness' per se, it's about differentiating between what a person is claimed/thought to be versus, in this case, what that concept is actually based on.  I think it's mostly pretty meaningless to say someone existed without making further claims as to the qualities and attributes of that someone that make them that someone.  I've used this example before, but the definition of Bigfoot is a tall bipedal hairy ape-like/humanoid creature who lives in forests and is very elusive and purportedly stinky.  It is possible that all sightings of what people think is a Bigfoot are actually mistaken sightings of black bears.  If that is the case, it is not correct to say, 'Bigfoot exists', instead the correct statement is 'Bigfoot doesn't exist, the sightings of him were actually bears that were misperceived'.  Santa Claus is partly based on St Nicholas but is not at all the same entity as St Nicholas. St Nick's main attributes are that he distributed wealth to the poor (including according to legend I think gifts to children) and was a Christian bishop; Santa's is that he distributes gifts to 'nice' children and has a sled pulled by flying reindeer on Xmas, and has been pretty much cleansed of any Christian attachment.

To me to say merely, 'there was a real person from which our concept of Jesus emerged', doesn't say that much.  If Jesus was a mute farmer who never said or wrote a word in his life but was crucified unjustly and this injustice motivated early 'Christians' to write the Jesus tales we now have in honor of him, or if Mary Magdalene actually was the person who said everything Jesus said but because she was a woman the gospels instead used the male Jesus as a stand-in, etc, then it would be highly debatable whether to say 'Jesus existed historically' is accurate. The accurate way to put it is that Jesus never existed but was based on a historical person, much like Santa. There are a certain number of attributes that make a person that person and allow us to differentiate between them and others, whether it's Jesus, Santa, Sasquatch or you, and if the historical being doesn't have enough of those attributes then they can't be said to be that being.

The issue was about my grandfathers role in WW1 Today 100 years later there are  still many evidences for this involvement BUT, suppose the y were lost.

My own narratives about his life are based on my seeing those evidences and meeting people who served with him.  In 2000 years time my words will tell the story of his involvement should all else be lost 

If you were to disbelieve my words then, because there was no evidence from  the actual time  of my grandfather's involvement, and i wrote 100 years after the war and thus could not be relied on, then   you would be in error 

Same for those who came after Christ and wrote about him.  It is what we have today Nothing written by or about him during the time he lived, but an increasing amount written about him 20, 30, 50, 100 years after his death

Given the scenario I presented  indeed i(  and anyone ) can be certain of probability based on sociology and history   etc.

Ie people who live soon after an event have access to evidences /witnesses  from  the time There are writings about such evidences which we can no longer find and which may not exist   Christianity was well  established,   with numerous churches and a growing debate about theology,  by 50 AD  (20 years after Christ's death)  That means many of the members of those churches would have been alive when Christ was.

They  could have known him and probably (almost certainly ) some of them  knew people who knew him The apostles and disciples were out and about preaching and teaching his words and getting killed for it  I suspect one reason for the many variants of early Christianity was that each apostle had a slightly different perspective and incorporated this into his stories  about Christ 

To me the historical existence of Christ as a liberal Jewish teacher is indisputable.

That's also the position of most historians, including atheist ones  

 

The rest i reserve judgement on 

I suspect tha t some circumstances grew his small following into a  jewish  form for about 10 years  Eg maybe some one stole his body maybe he didn't die,  or maybe these rumours just began with his crucifixion Maybe some people thought they saw him alive after he had died 

That would be enough to ensure that his teachings did not die out and to motivate his followers to spread them  even though he had been nothing more than a wise man    

  In this period a number of variations on his teaching evolved, including a gnostic one Then Paul presented a revised theology which was more attractive to non jews.  For another 30 years or so, both Jewish and Pauline  Christianity co-existed, along with a couple of other forms, and a gnostic version.

The attractiveness of the Pauline  theology appealed to many and the small group grew quickly, so that by the 70s it was recognised by the Romans as a separate religion, for taxation purposes  

Once a part of the roman empire, it's power and authority grew exponentially. It crushed alternative variants, and became very orthodox, hierarchical, and patriarchal  

Unlike you, I believe it is essential to divide what is historical from  what is mythical One can be established  using historical evidences The other is a matter of belief 

Eg  The existence of Buddha is one thing.

Believing or accepting his words is another matter 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro
11 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

That is absolutely true. No religion rises, fully formed, from nothing. It took Christianity several centuries to evolve. Roman Catholicism is a synthesis of Christian thought and Roman polytheist ritual and worship. 

Don't forget that Hellenism. That scrumptious Hellenism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
20 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Don't forget that Hellenism. That scrumptious Hellenism.

By the time of Christ, Romans had co-opted Greek culture and made it their own. They traced their own origins back to the Trojan war and their gods were made equivalent to Greek gods, which many really were, derived through centuries of acculturation and their common Indo-European roots.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro
3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

By the time of Christ, Romans had co-opted Greek culture and made it their own. They traced their own origins back to the Trojan war and their gods were made equivalent to Greek gods, which many really were, derived through centuries of acculturation and their common Indo-European roots.  

^ Give this scholar a dollar.

medusa-1-jesus-o-this-proves-medusa-chec

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

^ Give this scholar a dollar.

medusa-1-jesus-o-this-proves-medusa-chec

Dude, you've had way too much dopamine. You're cut off and I've called you a cab.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
16 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Dude, you've had way too much dopamine. You're cut off and I've called you a cab.

Ha ha ha ha ha hysterically funny.:D

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
8 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Blessed are the poor in spirit" and other of the so-called "beatitudes" found in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount have parallels in a fragment of the text of the scrolls.

In an astonishing archeological breakthrough, the 3x5 cards which Jesus used to prepare his sermon on the beatitudes have been discovered in the Vatican Library. They read:

[1] The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; He has sent me to bring good news to the afflicted, to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, release to the prisoners

[2] To comfort all who mourn

[3] The poor will inherit the earth

[4] My soul thirsts for God, the living God. When can I enter and see the face of God? My tears have been my bread day and night, as they ask me every day, “Where is your God?

[5] Can one refuse mercy to a sinner like oneself, yet seek pardon for one’s own sins?

[6] Who may go up the mountain of the LORD? Who can stand in his holy place?  The clean of hand and pure of heart

[7] Does anyone nourish anger against another and expect healing from the LORD?

[8] Your kin who hate you and cast you out because of my name say, “May the LORD show his glory, that we may see your joy”; but they shall be put to shame.

Although noted historian (by Australian standards) Tim O'Neill has hailed the discovery as the smoking gun that finally proves that Jesus was no myth, Richard Carrier (who has a PhD in ancient history from Columbia) notes a curious resemblance to sayings found in the canonical and deuterocanical Jewish scriptures.

That is: [1] Isaiah 61:1, [2] Isaiah 61:2b, [3] Psalms 37:11a, [4] Psalms 42:2-3, [5] Sirach 28:4, [6] Psalms 24:3-4a, [7] Sirach 28:3 and [8] Isaiah 66:5b-d.

Thus it appears that the debate will continue, even though there isn't the slightest reason to doubt that Jesus was a real man who actually lived.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
19 minutes ago, eight bits said:

In an astonishing archeological breakthrough, the 3x5 cards which Jesus used to prepare his sermon on the beatitudes have been discovered in the Vatican Library. They read:

[1] The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; He has sent me to bring good news to the afflicted, to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, release to the prisoners

[2] To comfort all who mourn

[3] The poor will inherit the earth

[4] My soul thirsts for God, the living God. When can I enter and see the face of God? My tears have been my bread day and night, as they ask me every day, “Where is your God?

[5] Can one refuse mercy to a sinner like oneself, yet seek pardon for one’s own sins?

[6] Who may go up the mountain of the LORD? Who can stand in his holy place?  The clean of hand and pure of heart

[7] Does anyone nourish anger against another and expect healing from the LORD?

[8] Your kin who hate you and cast you out because of my name say, “May the LORD show his glory, that we may see your joy”; but they shall be put to shame.

Although noted historian (by Australian standards) Tim O'Neill has hailed the discovery as the smoking gun that finally proves that Jesus was no myth, Richard Carrier (who has a PhD in ancient history from Columbia) notes a curious resemblance to sayings found in the canonical and deuterocanical Jewish scriptures.

That is: [1] Isaiah 61:1, [2] Isaiah 61:2b, [3] Psalms 37:11a, [4] Psalms 42:2-3, [5] Sirach 28:4, [6] Psalms 24:3-4a, [7] Sirach 28:3 and [8] Isaiah 66:5b-d.

Thus it appears that the debate will continue, even though there isn't the slightest reason to doubt that Jesus was a real man who actually lived.

Jesus quoted the Jewish scriptures, was literate and knowledgeable, grew up only four miles from a major city, Sepphoris, capital of Galilee. He proclaimed he had not come to destroy the scriptures, but to fulfill them. It would seem to me given he'd use them as source material. Even up to the deaths of Peter, James and Paul, The Jesus movement was still Jewish, albeit accepting Gentile converts in the Aegean basin. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
32 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

The Jesus movement was still Jewish, albeit accepting Gentile converts in the Aegean basin. 

Jewish, yes, but Judaic in name only. 

Fact is, anything else outside of the temple is blasphemous... 

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
11 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Jewish, yes, but Judaic in name only. 

Fact is, anything else outside of the temple is blasphemous... 

~

The fact is, the Jewish Diaspora heavily outnumbered the Jews in the Levant, just as it does today. There were Jewish communities and synagogues in every Roman city throughout the Empire. It is this fact and Rome's incredible roads and nautical transportation infrastructure that facilitated the rapid spread of the Jesus movement. Of course, Paul relied on Rome's postal system, as well. It was Jewish in every sense at that point in time. It was after the Revolt when Jerusalem and it's great temple, the center of Jewish religious life through the empire was destroyed, that Christian and orthodox began reassessing their positions in the world and the great schism began. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
18 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Jesus quoted the Jewish scriptures, was literate and knowledgeable,

Everyone who wrote something that was included in the New Testament was literate, of course, and most of them quoted the Jewish scriptures or at least alluded to them. Whether in addition to these authors there was also an earlier historical Jesus who did likewise is the question before us.

That people who wrote sermons based on Jewish scriptures put their teachings in the mouth of a historically-depicted Jesus isn't great evidence that there ever was such a person in real life.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It was after the Revolt when Jerusalem and it's great temple, the center of Jewish religious life through the empire was destroyed, that Christian and orthodox began reassessing their positions in the world and the great schism began.

If I remembered correctly, in the early days, the Jewish community offered sanctuary and protected this curious sect of Judaism. It wasn't until after Constantine formally recognized Christianity as a religion in its own entirety that the schism began. 

That's also when the Jews were persecuted and purged just as the "christians" were.

Or something along those lines, guess it depends on who is telling who what and who was trying to write what was said by who heard what or when. 

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
5 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Everyone who wrote something that was included in the New Testament was literate, of course, and most of them quoted the Jewish scriptures or at least alluded to them. Whether in addition to these authors there was also an earlier historical Jesus who did likewise is the question before us.

That people who wrote sermons based on Jewish scriptures put their teachings in the mouth of a historically-depicted Jesus isn't great evidence that there ever was such a person in real life.

 

Perhaps, perhaps not. I, of course, write from the position there probably was. Educated people of the times such as Paul, took for granted there was--assuming Paul existed. Because of the Revolt and it's suppression there's a dearth of evidence. One is reduced to the status of a field archaeologist, scraping through layers of history looking for bits and pieces. Everything we have is second hand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
33 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Or something along those lines, guess it depends on who is telling who what and who was trying to write what was said by who heard what or when. 

Yes.

If there is a consistent theme, it is that the Christian movement(s) didn't reliably "fit in" with their surroundings until Constantine's grandkids decreed that the surroundings would hencforth fit in with the Christian movement(s).

When Xity was a Jewish movement, there was tension with other Jews (Paul was a persecutor, and after he turned, was persecuted himself, or so he says). When Xity tuined Gentile (mmm, schism? that is, wiithin the church? Hard to say, might be complicated), there was tension with other Gentiles. Oh, and when Xity was all there was in some places, marvelous to say, there was tension among the various brands of Xity.

Irony abounds. Blessed are the peacemakers.

ETA @Hammerclaw

Quote

Perhaps, perhaps not. I, of course, write from the position there probably was.

Me, too, but without much confidence, and that because the evidence isn't great.

Quote

Paul, took for granted there was--assuming Paul existed.

If so, then he did a crackerjack job of keeping that for-granted-taking to himself.

Quote

Because of the Revolt and it's suppression there's a dearth of evidence.

Unfortunately, stories about why there isn't evidence aren't evidence. The movement appears to have survived the Revolt and its suppression, why would its cache of evidence have been lost, without anybody commenting on what was lost? (The City of Boston kept track of what it lost reagrding my ancestor, despite having no reason to be interested in him on any continuing basis.)

Quote

Everything we have is second hand.

So, too, Herodias. She seems to have managed to make her existence confidently established.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
8 minutes ago, third_eye said:

If I remembered correctly, in the early days, the Jewish community offered sanctuary and protected this curious sect of Judaism. It wasn't until after Constantine formally recognized Christianity as a religion in its own entirety that the schism began. 

That's also when the Jews were persecuted and purged just as the "christians" were.

Or something along those lines, guess it depends on who is telling who what and who was trying to write what was said by who heard what or when. 

~

People in these communities were the sect, not all of them, of course. Most of them were well-to-do--it's a myth they  were all poor. Paul's contacts were all well-heeled. At that point in time, they were Jews, living in their homes in Jewish communities, practicing a curious new form of Judaism. Christianity is a product of the Roman world in which they all resided 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
7 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Yes.

If there is a consistent theme, it is that the Christian movement(s) didn't reliably "fit in" with their surroundings until Constantine's grandkids decreed that the surroundings would hencforth fit in with the Christian movement(s).

When Xity was a Jewish movement, there was tension with other Jews (Paul was a persecutor, and after he turned, was persecuted himself, or so he says). When Xity tuined Gentile (mmm, schism? that is, wiithin the church? Hard to say, might be complicated), there was tension with other Gentiles. Oh, and when Xity was all there was in some places, marvelous to say, there was tension among the various brands of Xity.

Irony abounds. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Schism between Jewish orthodox and Jewish Christian leading to both going their separate ways. Multiple Jewish revolts made maintaining any connection problematic. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
13 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Yes.

If there is a consistent theme, it is that the Christian movement(s) didn't reliably "fit in" with their surroundings until Constantine's grandkids decreed that the surroundings would hencforth fit in with the Christian movement(s).

When Xity was a Jewish movement, there was tension with other Jews (Paul was a persecutor, and after he turned, was persecuted himself, or so he says). When Xity tuined Gentile (mmm, schism? that is, wiithin the church? Hard to say, might be complicated), there was tension with other Gentiles. Oh, and when Xity was all there was in some places, marvelous to say, there was tension among the various brands of Xity.

Irony abounds. Blessed are the peacemakers.

ETA @Hammerclaw

Me, too, but without much confidence, and that because the evidence isn't great.

If so, then he did a crackerjack job of keeping that assumption to himself.

Unfortunately, stories about why there isn't evidence aren't evidence. The movement appears to have survived the Revolt and its suppression, why would its cache of evidence have been lost, without anybody commenting on what was lost? (The City of Boston kept track of what it lost reagrding my ancestor, despite having no reason to be interested in him on any continuing basis.)

So, too, Herodias. She seems to have managed to make her existence confidently established.

The city of Boston wasn't razed to the ground as was Jerusalem and virtually every city in open revolt in Judaea. At that time, Jesus was no great historical figure--he was a nobody, just like all the other nobodies who have come and departed this veil of tears. If any contemporaneous documentation of any form existed, it's gone, perishing with James and the Church of Jerusalem,  or consumed in the fires of revolt.  All we have is Josephus, whose references are subject to debate as being inserted centuries later. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
29 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Schism between Jewish orthodox and Jewish Christian leading to both going their separate ways. Multiple Jewish revolts made maintaining any connection problematic. 

or spiders in a bottle. There is no evidence that there ever were all that many Jewish Christians, plenty of evidence that Gentiles were relatively receptive to the idea of bacon cheeseburgers and the quiet enjoyment of one's own foreskin. Plus, there's some evidence that Gentile Christian children were recruited to follow in their parents' adherence.

The Jewish line of Xity could simply and peacefully have died out while the Gentile line grew and prospered. The destruction of the Temple was as much an opportunity for the survivors as a calamity. With no possibility of being a Second Temple Jew anynore, every devotee of the God of that Temple was then free to make their own new way.

ETA: The bottom  line is that there is no direct evidence for a real-life Jesus. There could be any number of reasons for that. One possible reason is that there never was a real-life Jesus in the first place. It follows that some doubt about his existence is facially justified.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
6 minutes ago, eight bits said:

or spiders in a bottle. There is no evidence that there ever were all that many Jewish Christians, plenty of evidence that Gentiles were relatively receptive to the idea of bacon cheeseburgers and the quiet enjoyment of one's own foreskin. Plus, there's some evidence that Gentile Christian children were recruited to follow in their parents' adherence.

The Jewish line of Xity could simply and peacefully have died out while the Gentile line grew and prospered. The destruction of the Temple was as much an opportunity for the survivors as a calamity. With no possibility of being a Second Temple Jew anynore, every devotee of the God of that Temple was then free to make their own new way.

If you can't make an intelligent response, don't bother making one. If you wish to understand Christianity, you can't do it by lifting it out of it's historical context. I've researched the facts, as such exist, for this particular era of Christianity and stand by what I've posted.  Here, enlighten yourself.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Irony abounds. Blessed are the peacemakers

As I've mentioned often times, it is a lost art... 

~

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Most of them were well-to-do--it's a myth they  were all poor.

Humble beginnings, yeah, that's how Paul and his entourage travelled. Spreading the word, from mansion to estates. 

Then the deluge of "converts" and reborn were mostly slaves and the poor. That's when the economic squeeze on mighty Rome made a turn for the bloody. 

Islam and Mohammed's career path kinda followed the similar schematic. 

~

 

Edited by third_eye
Elaborate
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
5 hours ago, eight bits said:

Everyone who wrote something that was included in the New Testament was literate, of course, and most of them quoted the Jewish scriptures or at least alluded to them. Whether in addition to these authors there was also an earlier historical Jesus who did likewise is the question before us.

That people who wrote sermons based on Jewish scriptures put their teachings in the mouth of a historically-depicted Jesus isn't great evidence that there ever was such a person in real life.

 

Indeed, we all stand on the shoulders of those that walk before and amongst us. 
Wasn’t Paul who contributed to the NT Jewish also?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
47 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Wasn’t Paul who contributed to the NT Jewish also?

Yes, he was proud of his Jewish heritage and frequently displayed his command of Jewish scripture.

His most famous statements on point are probably Philippians 3:5-6, describing himself:

Quote

circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the assembly; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless.

and Galatians 1:14

Quote

 I advanced in the Jews’ religion beyond many of my own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

 

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
32 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Yes, he was proud of his Jewish heritage and frequently displayed his command of Jewish scripture.

His most famous statements on point are probably Philippians 3:5-6, describing himself:

and Galatians 1:14

 

How did the gospels make their way into the NT? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.