Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Brainache]

Until I read this I thought Hebrew and Jewish would have been used interchangeably in this context. Apparently not. Would you provide some more information about this? I know there is the Samaritan group which practiced a religion related to Judaism. Were they Hebrews but not Jews?

I just looked up Hebrews in Wikipedia and my head is spinning. The term seems to not mean exactly Jew except in a bunch of languages other than English where it means exactly Jew. The term seems to have various meanings throughout history, but I suppose the part of all this that supports you idea is that often the term was used in a way that was not synonymous with Jew.

I'm not exactly an expert on all this, but the main gist I get from reading Eisenman is that Paul was very clever with words. He knew all the rhetorical tricks in the book and used them cleverly. When it comes to describing himself he never actually uses the word "Jew" (or the greek equivalent), but he uses these convoluted phrases whereby his audience can infer that he is Jewish without him actually saying it. I think of him as a shifty Lawyer type who deceives people by very carefully not lying.

He has no qualms about calling Peter a Jew and calling the Jewish people "cursed" by the Laws of Moses, but he says he is free to act as either a Gentile or a Jew whenever it suits his purposes.

He also repeatedly states that he isn't a liar, which makes me think that someone must have been accusing him of lying. Then when you read what the DSS have to say about the "Spouter Of Lies who preached against the Law in the midst of the congregation", Paul would seem to be a prime candidate.

Then we also see how Acts has him associating with Simeon Niger and Menachem (Menaen) at Antioch and see how those people were aligned with Herod during the revolt against Rome, a picture of a herodian "Controlled Opposition" doesn't look too far fetched, at least to me.

 

[proudfootz]

Your statement is highly fallacious. Jews are circumcised on the EIGHTH DAY but Arabs are circumcised AFTER the 13th YEAR according to Josephus.



Antiquities of the Jews 1.12

Paul was a JEW in the Pauline Corpus--NOT an Arab.

Philippians 3:5 KJV

Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee.

Please, no more crackpot proposals.

Paul in Acts claimed he was a Jew. The Paul in the list you plucked from Acts was a Jewish man.

1. Acts 21:39 KJV But Paul said , I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus

2. Acts 22.1 3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus...

3. Acts 26:4 KJV----My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews.

Apparently members of the tribe of Benjamin aren't Jews.

This is in conflict with how Jews view things:

" After that time [the death of King Solomon], the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin. "

http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

There is no evidence the Romans or anyone else in that time period practiced a 'controlled opposition' tactic. Atwill and Eisenman are fringe characters whose ideas neither make rational sense nor are supported by the evidence we have.

 

[dejudge]

Apparently members of the tribe of Benjamin aren't Jews.

This is in conflict with how Jews view things:

" After that time [the death of King Solomon], the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin. "

http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

It is most amazing that the very first sentence from the link states that people called Jews are Hebrews.

http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm[/

The original name for the people we now call Jews was Hebrews.

The Pauline writer claimed he was Hebrew of Hebrews, a Jew of Jews.

In Antiquities of the Jews 1 it is claimed that JEWS were called Hebrews.

Sala was the son of Arphaxad; and his son was Heber, from whom they originally called the Jews Hebrews.

Anyone who is familiar with the writings attributed to Josephus would easily recognize that Jews are called Hebrews over a hundred times.

Anyone familiar with Antiquities of the Jews would also recognize that Jews are circumcised on the eight day.

Anyone familiar with writings attributed to Josephus would see that Pharisees were one on the major sect of Jews

It must be noted that King Saul was of the Tribe of Benjamin.

The abundance of details show that the Pauline writer was claiming to be a Jews--NOT an Herodian and Not an Arab.

Paul in Acts, was a JEW

Saul/Paul in the NT was a JEW--Not an Herodian.

Braianache is claiming that Paul in Acts was an Herodian when NO such claim is in the entire NT.

Brainache admitted he took the name Paul from a list of names in Acts 13.

The author of Acts stated Paul said he was a Jew.

 

[eight bits]

It is clear that Paul presents himself to his reader as Jewish. It is neither unusual nor impermissible for a cultural Jew to criticize observant Jews while retaining pride in the shared heritage.

On the "tribe of Benjamin" question, there is no way that a First Century Jew could know, one way or the other, whether he was actually of that tribe, so Paul's remark must be figurative. As to the meaning of the figure, chiefly, I think the reference is "blessing of Jacob," Genesis 49: 27, which parallels Philippians 3:6, the verse immediately after Paul's identification with the tribe and observant Judaism:

“Benjamin is a ravenous wolf; mornings he devours the prey, and evenings he distributes the spoils.”

"In zeal I persecuted the church, in righteousness based on the law I was blameless."

I also suspect it may be of some relevance that King Saul (whose namesake our Apostle to the Gentiles was) was of the tribe of Benjamin, 1 Samuel 9: 1-2, 21. Saul's struggles against David, with David winning after Saul died, have easy parallels to Paul's own struggles against David's supposed-descendant's church, ending in Paul's spiritual death.

As to Acts 13: 1-3, the text says that Paul, Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, and Mansen were teachers and prophets at Antioch, and that the other three blessed the first two when they left town. Even if that remark were found in a historical source, which Acts isn't much of one, it doesn't actually assert any personal relationship among the men. Paul is not known for getting along or cooperating with other "teachers and prophets."

 

[Brainache]

It is most amazing that the very first sentence from the link states that people called Jews are Hebrews.

http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm[/



The Pauline writer claimed he was Hebrew of Hebrews, a Jew of Jews.

In Antiquities of the Jews 1 it is claimed that JEWS were called Hebrews.





Anyone who is familiar with the writings attributed to Josephus would easily recognize that Jews are called Hebrews over a hundred times.

Anyone familiar with Antiquities of the Jews would also recognize that Jews are circumcised on the eight day.

Anyone familiar with writings attributed to Josephus would see that Pharisees were one on the major sect of Jews

It must be noted that King Saul was of the Tribe of Benjamin.

The abundance of details show that the Pauline writer was claiming to be a Jews--NOT an Herodian and Not an Arab.

Paul in Acts, was a JEW

Saul/Paul in the NT was a JEW--Not an Herodian.

Braianache is claiming that Paul in Acts was an Herodian when NO such claim is in the entire NT.

Brainache admitted he took the name Paul from a list of names in Acts 13.

The author of Acts stated Paul said he was a Jew.

We aren't talking about the time of Solomon and David, we are talking about Second Temple Judaism. During the period of the Second Temple the "Tribe of Benjamin" was not a Jewish designation. It was a label applied to outsiders from nearby "Arab" nations who were considered related, but not "Jewish" as such.

If he was claiming to be Jewish in his epistles, he would have called himself Jewish.

Acts was written later by others who put those words in Paul's speech, but never in any of the authentic Pauline letters does he state simply that he was Jewish. He uses all manner of lawyerly rhetoric to allow his audience to infer he was Jewish, but never actually says so.

The Arab nations were considered descendents of Abraham too, which also makes them Israelites and Hebrews, but not Jewish.

I will take Eisenman's opinion on this matter as carrying a bit more weight than a couple of anonymous internet posters. Sorry, but your posts here have done nothing to enhance your credibility on this subject.

 

[dejudge]

We aren't talking about the time of Solomon and David, we are talking about Second Temple Judaism. During the period of the Second Temple the "Tribe of Benjamin" was not a Jewish designation. It was a label applied to outsiders from nearby "Arab" nations who were considered related, but not "Jewish" as such.

Please, no more crackpot proposals.

You admitted you took a List of names from Acts.

Your list contains the name Paul.

Paul is LISTED as a Jewish man in Acts.

1. Acts 21:39 KJV But Paul said , I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus


2. Acts 22. 3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus...
3. Acts 26:4 KJV----My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews.

 

[Brainache]

Please, no more crackpot proposals.

You admitted you took a List of names from Acts.

Your list contains the name Paul.

Paul is LISTED as a Jewish man in Acts.

1. Acts 21:39 KJV But Paul said , I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus


2. Acts 22. 3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus...
3. Acts 26:4 KJV----My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews.

He also performs miracles and wonders in Acts, but I don't believe that. I accept that the Author of Acts had some reason for associating those names (Simeon Niger and Manaen) with Paul and Luke (Lucius) at Antioch and for claiming that it was there that they were first called "Christians".

The point being that whoever wrote Acts tells us that Paul (for whatever reason) was associated with those people.

It isn't about belief, it is just another point of information to consider.

 

[dejudge]

Please, no more crackpot proposals.

You admitted you took a List of names from Acts.

Your list contains the name Paul.

Paul is LISTED as a Jewish man in Acts.

1. Acts 21:39 KJV But Paul said , I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus


2. Acts 22. 3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus...

3. Acts 26:4 KJV----My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews.

He also performs miracles and wonders in Acts, but I don't believe that. I accept that the Author of Acts had some reason for associating those names (Simeon Niger and Manaen) with Paul and Luke (Lucius) at Antioch and for claiming that it was there that they were first called "Christians".

The point being that whoever wrote Acts tells us that Paul (for whatever reason) was associated with those people.

It isn't about belief, it is just another point of information to consider.

Your response does not change anything. You admittedly took a list of names from Acts which contains the name Paul.

Paul was a Jew in Acts--Not an Herodian.

It is completely a failure of logic to assume one must believe a story in order to show what is written in it.

You cannot invent your own story of Paul because you do NOT believe Acts.

Why do you believe Paul in Acts was a figure of history?

Remember, Acts is considered mystical apologetic nonsense.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

During the period of the Second Temple the "Tribe of Benjamin" was not a Jewish designation. It was a label applied to outsiders from nearby "Arab" nations who were considered related, but not "Jewish" as such.

Of course, you have some attested instances of this label application that we can discuss. I can't find them in your post, though.

While we're waiting, we might recall that Paul refers to his contemporary observant Jews as being descendants (or indeed, brothers and sisters) of Ishmael, at Galatians 4: 21-31. So, if there was some convention for referring to Arabs via another Jewish scriptural refernce, then it is predictable that a great writer might use that convention to refer to Jews, just as Paul does here with Ishmael, the bluntest possible Arab reference.

If he was claiming to be Jewish in his epistles, he would have called himself Jewish.

Help me out here; I can't seem to put my finger on your qualification to rewrite Paul's business letters to fit your specifications for good writing.

Also a bit of old business from an earlier post today,

I think of him as a shifty Lawyer type who deceives people by very carefully not lying.

Lawyer? Shifty preachers are not so much harder to find than shifty lawyers. That's why there's no surprise that the DSS refers to one, and why Paul being one does so little to narrow the field.

And finally,

I will take Eisenman's opinion on this matter as carrying a bit more weight than a couple of anonymous internet posters. Sorry, but your posts here have done nothing to enhance your credibility on this subject.

I have taken the other poster to task often enough that it is only fair that I acknowledge that (s)he is correct in this matter. If what (s)he has posted about other questions is relevant, then what you have posted about this matter is relevant, too. With all respect, I recall that you have argued this matter based upon a non-existent Bible story in which Benjamin steals Joseph's cup and is enslaved. Perhaps it's best all around to let bygones go by.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache


Of course, you have some attested instances of this label application that we can discuss. I can't find them in your post, though.

While we're waiting, we might recall that Paul refers to his contemporary observant Jews as being descendants (or indeed, brothers and sisters) of Ishmael, at Galatians 4: 21-31. So, if there was some convention for referring to Arabs via another Jewish scriptural refernce, then it is predictable that a great writer might use that convention to refer to Jews, just as Paul does here with Ishmael, the bluntest possible Arab reference.


Help me out here; I can't seem to put my finger on your qualification to rewrite Paul's business letters to fit your specifications for good writing.

I'm just reading what Paul says in his epistles. Nowhere that I know of in the authentic Pauline corpus does he use the word "Jew" to describe himself. He uses arcane convoluted phrases that don't exactly mean the same thing as "Jew", but could be mistaken for meaning that by someone not paying close attention to the specific words. I'm sure you are familiar with that style of writing...

Also a bit of old business from an earlier post today,


Lawyer? Shifty preachers are not so much harder to find than shifty lawyers. That's why there's no surprise that the DSS refers to one, and why Paul being one does so little to narrow the field.

OK. You'll be able to point me to other examples of people "Preaching against the Law in the midst of the congregation" of "The Poor" if such men were common at the time. Preaching against the founders of a community from within that community as described in the Damascus Document...

And finally,


I have taken the other poster to task often enough that it is only fair that I acknowledge that (s)he is correct in this matter. If what (s)he has posted about other questions is relevant, then what you have posted about this matter is relevant, too. With all respect, I recall that you have argued this matter based upon a non-existent Bible story in which Benjamin steals Joseph's cup and is enslaved. Perhaps it's best all around to let bygones go by.

Well there is this from Judges:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+20&version=CEB

Then all the Israelites from Dan to Beer-sheba, as well as from the area of Gilead, marched out, and the group assembled as one body in the Lord’s presence at Mizpah. 2 The commanders of the people and of all the tribes of Israel took their place in the assembly of God’s people, four hundred thousand foot soldiers armed with swords. 3 And the Benjaminites got word that the Israelites had marched up to Mizpah.

The Israelites inquired, “Tell us how this evil act happened.”

4 So the Levite, the husband of the murdered woman, answered, “My secondary wife and I came to Gibeah of Benjamin to spend the night, 5 and the leading citizens of Gibeah tried to attack me. They surrounded me in the house at night and were determined to kill me. They abused my secondary wife until she died. 6 I took her, chopped her up, and sent her pieces into every part of Israel’s territory, because they had committed a disgraceful act in Israel. 7 All you Israelites, say what you think should be done here and now!”
...

The Israelite tribes sent men throughout the whole tribe of Benjamin with this message: “What about this evil act that happened among you? 13 Now hand over those perverse men in Gibeah so that we can execute them and remove the evil from Israel.” But the Benjaminites refused to comply with the demand of their own relatives the Israelites. 14 Instead, the Benjaminites from all the cities came together at Gibeah to march out for battle against the Israelites. 15 On that day, the Benjaminites called up from their cities twenty-six thousand men armed with swords, not counting those living in Gibeah.[c] 16 Out of this entire army, seven hundred specially chosen men were left-handed, and every one of them could sling a stone at a hair and not miss. 17 Not counting Benjamin, the Israelites called up four hundred thousand men armed with swords, and every one of them was a trained warrior.

Benjamin was not one of Israel's favourite tribes... No Jew claiming a pure heritage during the Second Temple would want to claim membership of that tribe, especially not one well versed in the OT as Paul apparently was. His audience were not so well versed in Hebrew lore...

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

I'm just reading what Paul says in his epistles. Nowhere that I know of in the authentic Pauline corpus does he use the word "Jew" to describe himself. He uses arcane convoluted phrases that don't exactly mean the same thing as "Jew", but could be mistaken for meaning that by someone not paying close attention to the specific words. I'm sure you are familiar with that style of writing...

And yet, there is no doubt (and I believe you might even agree) that Paul intends his reader to recall, not conclude, that he is Jewish. Who is his reader? All the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and ministers. I estimate that they already have a firm opinion about whether Paul is Jewish. If he isn't, then what he writes is deceptive without being opinion changing. If he is, all you can say against his prose is that you would have said it differently. OK.

We have in America a popular song, written by George M. Cohan for a Broadway show, revived for an iconic motion picture, whose chorus is:

I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy,
A Yankee Doodle, do or die;
A real live nephew of my Uncle Sam,
Born on the Fourth of July.
I've got a Yankee Doodle sweetheart,
She's my Yankee Doodle joy.
Yankee Doodle came to London, just to ride the ponies;
I am the Yankee Doodle Boy.

By your lights, then, the audience should doubt the intended nationality of the character, since Cohan has scrupulously avoided the subject of whether the character is American, and besides, if he meant that, Cohan would have said it just as you would. Uh huh.

You'll be able to point me to other examples of people "Preaching against the Law in the midst of the congregation" of "The Poor" if such men were common at the time. Preaching against the founders of a community from within that community as described in the Damascus Document...

I don't think you are entitled to that from an objection to your conjecture. I moved the conversation back to preachers from a sally against lawyers. No burden of proof attaches.

In any case, you now need to show that one Jew thinking that another Jew was mistaken about the Law was rare in late Second Temple Judaism.

Well there is this from Judges: ...

Could you circle the verses where Benjamin steals Joseph's cup and is enslaved? Or was the point of the passage that even back in Judges' setting, Benjaminites were already Arabs? If so, then could you circle those verses, please?

Benjamin was not one of Israel's favourite tribes...

And that, even if it were so, does not change the tribe's legendary descent from Jacob (Israel), which is to say, from legendary Isaac rather than from his legendary half-brother, Ishmael.

No Jew claiming a pure heritage during the Second Temple would want to claim membership of that tribe,...

As has been repeatedly noted, however, Paul doesn't "claim membership of that tribe." It is not possible for anyone at that time to have known about such membership; the tribe had long since ceased to exist as a unit. Paul's usage must be and therefore is figurative, and probably serves to set up his verse 3:6, which parallels Jacob (Israel)'s blessing of Benjamin, as already explained.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache


And yet, there is no doubt (and I believe you might even agree) that Paul intends his reader to recall, not conclude, that he is Jewish. Who is his reader? All the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and ministers. I estimate that they already have a firm opinion about whether Paul is Jewish. If he isn't, then what he writes is deceptive without being opinion changing. If he is, all you can say against his prose is that you would have said it differently. OK.

We have in America a popular song, written by George M. Cohan for a Broadway show, revived for an iconic motion picture, whose chorus is:


By your lights, then, the audience should doubt the intended nationality of the character, since Cohan has scrupulously avoided the subject of whether the character is American, and besides, if he meant that, Cohan would have said it just as you would. Uh huh.

I was unaware that Cohan was starting a church using his "Yankee Credentials" as an authority on the "American Way"...

I don't think you are entitled to that from an objection to your conjecture. I moved the conversation back to preachers from a sally against lawyers. No burden of proof attaches.

In any case, you now need to show that one Jew thinking that another Jew was mistaken about the Law was rare in late Second Temple Judaism.

Probably not, but we are looking for an example of someone removing the whole of The Law, not just quibbling over fine points of interpretation. And doing so from within the congregation of The Poor, not from outside of it.

Could you circle the verses where Benjamin steals Joseph's cup and is enslaved? Or was the point of the passage that even back in Judges' setting, Benjaminites were already Arabs? If so, then could you circle those verses, please?

They were excluded from the Tribes Of Israel who honoured God.

And that, even if it were so, does not change the tribe's legendary descent from Jacob (Israel), which is to say, from legendary Isaac rather than from his legendary half-brother, Ishmael.


As has been repeatedly noted, however, Paul doesn't "claim membership of that tribe." It is not possible for anyone at that time to have known about such membership; the tribe had long since ceased to exist as a unit. Paul's usage must be and therefore is figurative, and probably serves to set up his verse 3:6, which parallels Jacob (Israel)'s blessing of Benjamin, as already explained.

Or we could look at an authentic Second Temple text which hasn't been redacted and copied by Gentile Scribes for generations; The War Scroll:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/guerradioses/guerradioses02a.htm

(1) For the In[structor, the Rule of] the War. The first attack of the Sons of Light shall be undertaken against the forces of the Sons of Darkness, the army of Belial: the troops of Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, the [Amalekites],
(2) Philistia, and the troops of the Kittim of Asshur. Supporting them are those who have violated the covenant. The sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, those exiled to the wilderness, shall fight against them
(3) with [...] against all their troops, when the exiles of the Sons of Light return from the Wilderness of the Peoples to camp in the Wilderness of Jerusalem. Then after the battle they shall go up from that place
(4) a[nd tile king of; the Kittim [shall enter] into Egypt. In his time he shall go forth with great wrath to do battle against the kings of the north, and in his anger he shall set out to destroy and eliminate the strength of
(5) I[srael. Then the]re shall be a time of salvation for the People of God, and a time of dominion for all the men of His forces, and eternal annihilation for all the forces of Belial. There shall be g[reat] panic [among]
(6) the sons of Japheth, Assyria shall fall with no one to come to his aid, and the supremacy of the Kittim shall cease that wickedness be overcome without a remnant. There shall be no survivors of
(7) [all the Sons of] Darkness.
(8) Then [the Sons of Rig]hteousness shall shine to all ends of the world continuing to shine forth until end of the appointed seasons of darkness. Then at the time appointed by God, His great excellence shall shine for all the times of
(9) e[ternity;] for peace and blessing, glory and joy, and long life for all Sons of Light. On the day when the Kittim fall there shall be a battle and horrible carnage before the God of
(10) Israel, for it is a day appointed by Him from ancient times as a battle of annihilation for the Sons of Darkness. On that day the congregation of the gods and the congregation of men shall engage one another, resulting in great carnage.
(11) The Sons of Light and the forces of Darkness shall fight together to show the strength of God with the roar of a great multitude and the shout of gods and men; a day of disaster. It is a time
(12) of distress fo[r al]l the people who are redeemed by God. In all their afflictions none exists that is like it, hastening to its completion as an eternal redemption. On the day of their battle against the Kittim,
(13) they shall g[o forth for] carnage in battle. In three lots the Sons of Light shall stand firm so as to strike a blow at wickedness, and in three the army of Belial shall strengthen themselves so as to force the retreat of the forces
(14) [of Light. And when the] banners of the infantry cause their hearts to melt, then the strength of God will strengthen the he[arts of the Sons of Light.] In the seventh lot : the great hand of God shall overcome
(15) [Belial and al]l the angels of his dominion, and all the men of [his forces shall be destroyed forever].
The annihilation of the Sons of Darkness and service to God during the war years.
(16) [,...] the holy ones shall shine forth in support of [...] the truth for the annihilation of the Sons of Darkness. Then [...]
(17) [...] a great [r]oar [...] they took hold of the implement[s of war.]
(18) [...]
(19) [... chiefs of the tribes ... and the priests,
(20) [the Levites, the chiefs of the tribes, the fathers of the congregation ... the priests and thus for the Levites and the courses of the heads of]

It would appear that the Sons Of Benjamin are exiles in the wilderness who are not included in the ranks of The Sons of Levi, or The Sons Of Judah. If they broke the Covenant they were enemies of "The Sons Of Light".

It is all a bit confusing really.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

I was unaware that Cohan was starting a church using his "Yankee Credentials" as an authority on the "American Way"...

The Philippian church had, in fact, already been established. What we have in hand is a business letter written afterwards by an elite prose stylist. Paul is not, in fact, using his Jewish heritage to enhance his authority about points of Jewish doctrine. Paul does claim such authority elsewhere, at which point he discusses his scholarship. Here, he discusses his family background and adult personal enthusiasm. What matters here is his former and now abandoned commitment to observance, not his undiminished continuing erudition.

Probably not, but we are looking for an example of someone removing the whole of The Law, not just quibbling over fine points of interpretation. And doing so from within the congregation of The Poor, not from outside of it.

Jeremiah was already written. I believe on another occasion you have alluded to possible disputes between Jews who thought Jeremiah's reference to a New Covenant meant a renewed dedication to the Sinal covenenant, as opposed to Jews who thought New meant not-Old.

It is not in evidence how much Paul pursued discussions about his beliefs with other Jews, or with literate Jews at all, unless we take Acts as evidence. There is no evidence that Paul had any remarkable beliefs until well into the First Century, and we don't know how long after he first had any thoughts about a New Covenant that he came to any relatively radical position.

Besides, as to "within the congregation," didn't you just tell me that Paul wasn't Jewish?

They were excluded from the Tribes Of Israel who honoured God.

I asked for where Benjamin stole Joseph's cup. There is no such text. In the alternative, I asked for a text where the tribe was Arab. There is no such text.

What's in your text is that once upon a time, the Benjaminites participated in a civil war, before the Israelites had a king. Some time later, they did have a king. The first king was a Benjaminite. His name was Saul. Funny job for an Arab, eh?

Or we could look at an authentic Second Temple text which hasn't been redacted and copied by Gentile Scribes for generations; The War Scroll:

Your text shows the phrase being used figuratively. The "sons of Levi, ...Judah, ... Benjamin, ... those exiled" are the whole Jewish people. Oh wait, you would have said "the Jews," so it means something else.

In any case, your text lists the sons of Benjamin as being among those resisting others who have violated the covenant. Funny job for an Arab, eh?

It would appear that the Sons Of Benjamin are exiles in the wilderness

No. Benjamin, Judah and some of Levi were the inhabitants of the southern kingdom which survived up until the Babylonian conquest. The northern kingdom (everybody else among the Israelites) had been defeated earlier and its people utterly dispersed. Your list has four items, not three and an appositive.

It is all a bit confusing really.

That's not much of an argument for your exegesis

 

[Brainache]

Brainache


The Philippian church had, in fact, already been established. What we have in hand is a business letter written afterwards by an elite prose stylist. Paul is not, in fact, using his Jewish heritage to enhance his authority about points of Jewish doctrine. Paul does claim such authority elsewhere, at which point he discusses his scholarship. Here, he discusses his family background and adult personal enthusiasm. What matters here is his former and now abandoned commitment to observance, not his undiminished continuing erudition.

I'm speaking more generally about Paul's epistles. You are apparently only focusing on one letter to the Philippians. I think we are talking past each other here.

Jeremiah was already written. I believe on another occasion you have alluded to possible disputes between Jews who thought Jeremiah's reference to a New Covenant meant a renewed dedication to the Sinal covenenant, as opposed to Jews who thought New meant not-Old.

I don't believe I did. I quoted from the Damascus Document concerning the new covenant in The Land Of Damascus. I should probably know more about Jeremiah than I do, but I'm not sure why you think it's relevant here.
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

It is not in evidence how much Paul pursued discussions about his beliefs with other Jews, or with literate Jews at all, unless we take Acts as evidence. There is no evidence that Paul had any remarkable beliefs until well into the First Century, and we don't know how long after he first had any thoughts about a New Covenant that he came to any relatively radical position.

Besides, as to "within the congregation," didn't you just tell me that Paul wasn't Jewish?

Within the "Congregation Of the Poor" as described in the DSS was a congregation which included "Joiners" (Nilvim) from amongst the surrounding peoples, including the exiles of the desert like the Benjaminites.

I asked for where Benjamin stole Joseph's cup.

That was the accusation in the OT text that I posted at that time I don't recall where that was at the moment. I'll accept your interpretation that Benny wasn't guilty as charged by his brothers.

There is no such text. In the alternative, I asked for a text where the tribe was Arab. There is no such text.

They were not extant in Judea at the time. They were exiles in the desert, not sons of Israel or Judah according to the War Scroll.

What's in your text is that once upon a time, the Benjaminites participated in a civil war, before the Israelites had a king. Some time later, they did have a king. The first king was a Benjaminite. His name was Saul. Funny job for an Arab, eh?

I think you'll find that the Benjaminites fell from grace since Saul's time.

Maybe you should read it again. That scroll is written as a prophecy of a war to come in the last days when the righteous among various non-Jewish peoples (Benjaminites included) will join with the "Sons Of Light" to fight the armies of "Belial" the Sons of Darkness (including The Kittim (Romans)) To take place at "The End Of Days", you know: Armageddon.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/guerradioses/guerradioses02a.htm

Your text shows the phrase being used figuratively. The "sons of Levi, ...Judah, ... Benjamin, ... those exiled" are the whole Jewish people. Oh wait, you would have said "the Jews," so it means something else.

It doesn't say that at all. It says that the righteous among them will join the "sons of light". Not all of the sons of Benjamin, nor the sons of Judah nor Israel, just the righteous ones who kept the New Covenant.

In any case, your text lists the sons of Benjamin as being among those resisting others who have violated the covenant. Funny job for an Arab, eh?

They were allowed to join so long as they kept the new covenant. So were the "Simple of Ephraim and Manasseh" ie Samaritans and Edessans.

No. Benjamin, Judah and some of Levi were the inhabitants of the southern kingdom which survived up until the Babylonian conquest. The northern kingdom (everybody else among the Israelites) had been defeated earlier and its people utterly dispersed. Your list has four items, not three and an appositive.

I would argue that "Benjaminites" were more likely from the southern nation of Edom or Idumea as Josephus would call it. They formed a big part of the revolt those Idumeans. Edom was also the land where the Benjaminites are said to have gone in the OT after their rebellion as described in Judges. Also the place that Herod and his family came from.

That's not much of an argument for your exegesis

I prefer honest confusion over unjustified certainty. YMMV.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

I'm speaking more generally about Paul's epistles. You are apparently only focusing on one letter to the Philippians. I think we are talking past each other here.

Once upon a time, your claim was that Paul did not describe himself as Jewish. I say that he did so here, and you say he denied being Jewish - here in that same verse. That's why we're discussing this letter. That said, all six of Paul's surviving epistles to churhces are to churches that already existed. The situation in Philippians is typical.

I don't believe I did.

Then I withdraw the comment about your having said it here at the forum. Somebody else did.

I should probably know more about Jeremiah than I do, but I'm not sure why you think it's relevant here.

It is relevant because you characterize Paul's preaching as "against the Law," when in fact, Paul relies on Jeremiah's theory of a New Covenant. As with many other things in the Jewish scriptures, Jewish opinion differed about the prophet's meaning.

Within the "Congregation Of the Poor" as described in the DSS was a congregation which included "Joiners" (Nilvim) from amongst the surrounding peoples, including the exiles of the desert like the Benjaminites.

The Benjaminites are distinguished from, not identified as, the exiles of the wasteland in the very passage which you have recently posted.

That was the accusation in the OT text that I posted at that time I don't recall where that was at the moment.

No, the story is that Joseph set up his full brother as an object lesson to their half-brothers. At no time is there any doubt in the reader's mind about Benjamin's innocence. Genesis 44-45.

I'll accept your interpretation that Benny wasn't guilty as charged by his brothers.

Are you really that completely unfamiliar with the story?

I think you'll find that the Benjaminites fell from grace since Saul's time.

Benjamin allied with Judah, actually, and remained loyal when the kingdom split up shortly after Solomon's death. But why are we discussing this? Paul isn't claiming to be Benjaminite in any literal sense, because there was no such thing in his day (ever?). It is a figure of speech. Your claim was the figure meant "Arab," it doesn't. Now your claim seems to be it meant "unpopular Jew." OK, even if it meant "unpopular Jew," then it still wouldn't mean "not a Jew."

I think I've mentioned that it doesn't mean unpopular Jew, either.

Maybe you should read it again.

You are quite the ironist, after treating us to your fractured rendering of one of the best-known tales in world literature. No matter.

The sentence in question lists by name the tribes that made it to the Babylonian conquest (Benjamin included) and refers to the other tribes that didn't make it collectively as the exiles. In other words, all the descendants of Jacob (Israel) are to reunite for the great struggle. Righteous Gentiles are no doubt welcome, too. So what? A descendant of Jacob-Israel isn't a Gentile.

I would argue that "Benjaminites"...

...with somebody else. You and I are discussing the tradiitonal and literary Jewish view of Benjaminites. There is no question of origin. Their legendary territory is in Judea, and indeed the Temple, in some tellings, sat partially on their fancied holdings. Whether there actually ever was such a thing as a Benjaminite isn't our problem, yours and mine, since we are discussing a literary reference, not an archeology report.

I prefer honest confusion over unjustified certainty. YMMV

Glad to hear it, but there is no danger that your arguments will inspire certainty of any kind.

 

[jobberone]

I've not seen a lot of material that states Saul of Tarsus was not Jewish. A very learned man wrote that he was a Hebrew born of Hebrews and a Pharisee. Saul, his Hebrew name, was also called Paul which is the Greek and Latin form of Saul.

So I don't know how people come to the conclusion he was not Jewish and in fact a man who surpassed his peers in Judaism.

Also most confirm Paul wrote seven of the epistles with varying degrees of dispute among the rest. Hebrews was almost certainly not written by Paul.

 

[Brainache]

I've not seen a lot of material that states Saul of Tarsus was not Jewish. A very learned man wrote that he was a Hebrew born of Hebrews and a Pharisee. Saul, his Hebrew name, was also called Paul which is the Greek and Latin form of Saul.

So I don't know how people come to the conclusion he was not Jewish and in fact a man who surpassed his peers in Judaism.

Also most confirm Paul wrote seven of the epistles with varying degrees of dispute among the rest. Hebrews was almost certainly not written by Paul.

I know it isn't a popular idea and that the "evidence" such as it is, is ambiguous, but I believe a good case can be made for Paul being part of the Herodian ruling family (or at least being one of their cronies).

I don't really want to go through all of Eight Bits' post above and quibble back and forth any more, because frankly I'm not that interested in trying to convince anybody.

I started a thread a while ago about all of this stuff:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096 which is mostly a summary of Robert Eisenman's ideas on the subject. Some people think it is "Crackpot", but I think he may be on to something in the way he links the DSS to early Christianity.

If you want to read more about it, you can try his blog:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/

Or one of his books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Brother_of_Jesus_(book)

 

[davefoc]

I know it isn't a popular idea and that the "evidence" such as it is, is ambiguous, but I believe a good case can be made for Paul being part of the Herodian ruling family (or at least being one of their cronies).

I don't really want to go through all of Eight Bits' post above and quibble back and forth any more, because frankly I'm not that interested in trying to convince anybody.

I started a thread a while ago about all of this stuff:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096 which is mostly a summary of Robert Eisenman's ideas on the subject. Some people think it is "Crackpot", but I think he may be on to something in the way he links the DSS to early Christianity.

If you want to read more about it, you can try his blog:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/

Or one of his books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Brother_of_Jesus_(book)

Thanks for this, let me ask one more question that may be answered by your links. Why is it important to Eisenman's theory that Paul not be a Jew Couldn't he have been a Herodian or aligned in some way with the family of Herod and been a Jew. I thought Herod was Jewish, albeit perhaps of a different sect than many Jews.

 

[Brainache]

Thanks for this, let me ask one more question that may be answered by your links. Why is it important to Eisenman's theory that Paul not be a Jew Couldn't he have been a Herodian or aligned in some way with the family of Herod and been a Jew. I thought Herod was Jewish, albeit perhaps of a different sect than many Jews.

The Herodians were recent converts to Judaism, ethnically they were "Edomite" (Idumaeans) which in the context of 1st century Messianism didn't really count as being truly Jewish. They weren't acting in accord with the "Law" according to the Zealots. They (Herodians) married their Nieces and only paid lip-service to the Torah.

Whether Paul was one or not, Herodians were not popular with the scribes at Qumran IMO.

 

[dejudge]

I know it isn't a popular idea and that the "evidence" such as it is, is ambiguous, but I believe a good case can be made for Paul being part of the Herodian ruling family (or at least being one of their cronies).

Once you admit the "evidence" is ambiguous then your fringe idea is basically unsustainable and of little value.

It is a failure of logic to BELIEVE you have a good case using admitted ambiguous.

You used a list of names found in Acts including Paul where it is clear that Paul LISTED in Acts of the Apostles was described as a Jew multiple times.

Your idea that Paul was not a Jew is debunked by your own source.