Does Apostle Paul Contradict Jesus?

[Punchinello]

I ask this because my Fundie friend as well as some articles I found online said that there are no contradictions. From things I have read, it sure looks like there are contradictions.

I pointed out to my friend what Jesus said to the Lawyer who asked Him what does he need to do to be saved. Jesus said basically to Love God and treat others the way you want to be treated. "Do this and you shall live.". Paul, I believe, basically says that to be saved, you need to accept Jesus as your savior. Believe that and you'll get a golden ticket to heaven. My friend tried to harmonize what Jesus said by saying nobody can do what Jesus said to the Lawyer to do. We can't even come close. We're not going to give up all of our worldly posessions. I told him he was editorializing. He said he wasn't.

Here is Jesus telling the Lawyer what he needs to do to be saved and that's not a good enough answer?. Here is the Son of God telling the Lawyer exactly what he needs to do but some people say that's not good enough. Why would the Son of God give the Lawyer a half azzed answer or an incomplete answer?

This is my second post and I hope it doesn't cause an argument like my first post.

[Goat]

Yes, the person who wrote Acts puts those words into Paul's mouth. However, remember, Acts was not written by Paul, and was probably written 30 or 40 years after Paul died.

...that doesn't really support your claim that there's very good reasons to doubt Paul was a Jew, nor answer my questions.

For the record though, it seems likely Acts was written by a companion of Paul and while it was almost certainly written after 76CE (Josephus' Jewish Wars; Paul supposedly died c64CE), I'm not aware of any compelling evidence showing it was any later than 90CE or so. That doesn't mean it's very reliable information about Paul of course (and nor did I say it was), and since you're currently disputing the truth of things Paul did write, I'm not actually sure what your point is here?

Am I distorting what Paul said, or did you? I would say you are.

As for Acts.. well, The writer of Acts seems to have used Josephus' as a source for Luke/Acts, and that would put the writing of acts AFTER 95 c.e...

Disputing. The word I used was disputing. This means
1. To argue about; debate.
2. To question the truth or validity of; doubt:

"...since you're currently [questioning the truth or validity of] things Paul did write, I'm not actually sure what your point is" in replying to my post with little more than a statement that Paul didn't write Acts. You have emphasised that Acts was written by someone other than the person whose claims you are questioning - therefore it provides external confirmation of Paul's claim to be a Jew. Is that what you're saying?

In a previous discussion we were involved in Bernard Muller provided some rather convincing arguments that the author of Luke/Acts was familiar with Josephus' Jewish War (c 75-78CE), but not necessarily his Antiquities of the Jews (c 95CE). That's just my opinion of course, since his arguments changed my previous views on the matter.

However without wanting to appear impolite, I notice that while this tangent about a mote of info on Paul continues, you still haven't answered either of my initial questions regarding your claim that we have "very good reasons" to doubt Paul's Jewishness.

Here is a post from another thread (can't find the original)..

The LXX, or Septuagint, was not highly regarded by the Jews of Jesus's day. Many, if not most, rabbis and sages of that time and later regarded it as an abomination. The only proper language for reading and studying Torah was, and is today, thought to be the Hebrew in which it was originally written. The only Jews who ever used it extensively were the Jews of the Greek Diaspora whose culture produced it.
--------------
One of the points which makes Paul's purported Jewishness suspect, is, as it happens, the fact that all of his quotations from the OT come from the LXX and not from the Hebrew Bible. It is hard not to conclude that Paul was unable to read Hebrew. This in itself does not indicate that Paul could not have been Jewish, but it is a problem if one wishes to show that Paul's Judaism was typical or normative of the Jews of his day.

A far greater problem is Paul's general attitude toward the Law; he clearly regards it as a burden and a trial, whereas the attitude of Jews throughout the ages has been to see it as a delight, a lamp to one's feet, sweet as honey, and so on. Pick a Psalm. Paul's attitude is nothing if not atypical.

It's clear that Paul was much more a product of the overwhelmingly Greek-dominated culture of Tarsus, a backwater of the Jewish world that was much more oriented toward Athens than toward Jerusalem, than of the Jewish culture he claims. It is even suspect that Paul claims to know he is of the tribe of Benjamin; even in Jesus's day, few Jews other than Levites still knew their tribal affiliation, though there were (and still are) exceptions. This would be particularly unlikely in Tarsus, which, as noted, was far from being a center of Jewish culture.

Paul claims to have been a student of the great rabbi Gamaliel, but his writings and thought show no evidence of this influence whatever.

As for the virgin birth; if this was such an important and central doctrine of Christianity, it seems odd that Paul was apparently unaware of it, or alternatively, did not regard it as worth talking about. He mentions it nowhere.



(2) Paul of Tarsus clearly knew relatively little about Jewish teachings. He may not even have been Jewish.

Paul apparently could not read Hebrew. All his OT translations are from the LXX (the Septuagint, a Greek translation). This would be extremely unusual for a supposedly learned Jew of the time; the LXX was considered suspect by Hebrew-speaking Jews, and many rabbis of the time considered it an abomination..

Paul claims to know that he is of the tribe of Benjamin; while that is possible, it is very unlikely indeed. Even by the time of Jesus, most Jews had long since lost or forgotten their tribal affiliations. Then and now--though there are exceptions--virtually the only Jews who know from what tribe they are descended are Levites, or of the subgroup of Levi called the Cohens, the priestly tribe descended from Aaron, Moses's older brother (both Moses and Aaron were Levites).

Knowing one's tribal affiliation would be even more peculiar for a Jew from Tarsus, because that was not a Jewish city nor a center of Jewish culture; it was emphatically Greek. Finding a Jew in that backwater of the Jewish world who knew his tribe would be like finding a hillbilly in the Ozarks who could trace his ancestry back to 12th-century England.

Most importantly of all, Paul's attitude toward the Law--that it is a burden and a torment--was and is practically unheard of among Jews. Pick a Psalm: the Law is invariably regarded as a a joy, a light, a precious gift, the greatest of all God's blessings. It is difficult to express how peculiar Paul's attitude here is. It's analogous to a Christian regarding the Gospel as the "Bad News."

However great a figure Paul may be among Christians, he was no authority on Judaism.

[JehovahsWitness]

There are some very good reasons to not accept Paul's claim that he was actually Jewish. For one thing, he didn't know or understand a lot of the Jewish traditions..

Could you provide some evidence for this claim.

Thank you
JW

.. and his attitude to the law was very atypical. .. as well as what his understanding of the law was.

This seems a rather weak argument to support the claim that Paul wasn't actually born (and raised) in the Jewish tradition, especially since he himself explains he converted to Christianity a theological change which would logically entail a reassement of the fundamentals of the Jewish faith and writings [see Acts 26].

Furthermore, the first century Christians, and Jesus himself [presuming he existed as a historical figure] were also Jewish and yet ALSO held very "atypical" attitudes of the law. The gospels are full of accounts of Jesus disputing and debating with the Jewish religious leaders about the meaning and application of the law [see Math 19: 3-9; Mat 15: 1-3]. The Christians were indeed viewed as a "Jewish sect" implying that they held as a whole "atypical" views of the Jewish law and traditions. This in itself does not prove that first century Jewish Christians were in fact ... Swedish, only that their understanding of the law was "atypical" or different from the accepted line of thinking at the time.- Act 24:5

[catalyst]

There are some very good reasons to not accept Paul's claim that he was actually Jewish. For one thing, he didn't know or understand a lot of the Jewish traditions..

Could you provide some evidence for this claim.

Thank you
JW

.. and his attitude to the law was very atypical. .. as well as what his understanding of the law was.

This seems a rather weak argument to support the claim that Paul wasn't actually born (and raised) in the Jewish tradition, especially since he himself explains he converted to Christianity a theological change which would logically entail a reassement of the fundamentals of the Jewish faith and writings.

Furthermore, the first century Christians, and Jesus himself [presuming he existed as a historical figure] were also Jewish and yet ALSO held very "atypical" attitudes of the law. The gospels are full of accounts of Jesus disputing and debating with the Jewish religious leaders about the meaning and application of the law; The Christians were indeed viewed as a "Jewish sect" implying that they held as a whole "atypical" views of the Jewish law and traditions. This in itself does not prove that first century Jewish Christians were in fact ... Swedish, only that their understanding of the law was "atypical" or different from the accepted line of thinking at the time.

JW,

The Paul character in the bible was not a Jew by birth.

The writing of Epiphanius in the 4th century states that early Christians (the Ebonites) state that he wasn't. From their understanding of his writings they declare that Paul was raised in a pagan household. He went up to Jerusalem and when he had spent some time there, was seized with passion to marry the daughter of the high priest; and this was the reason he became a proselyte (Jew) and went through the Jewish ritual of circumcision. But when the lady rejected him, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the Sabbath and the Jewish Law� (Pamarion 30.16.6).

Paul (or ONE of the writers of "Paul" at least) seemed to be a very sexually hung-up dude. The above probably lead to his apparent disdain of women and also of circumcision.

Also, the Pauline "stuff" has VERY LITTLE to do with the OT God and in fact it is more than apparent when you have a good read of what "Paul" had to offer, he had little to no knowledge of the Torah, past the first 5 books. As such, a Jew, he wasn't.

Paul's "christianity" is very much his own work and frankly has little to do with OT God or his alleged son incarnate.... "Bible Jesus. If anything his ideas seemed to stem from pagan thought, rather than that of "Christ".



Cat...

BTW... that was just my take given what I have read. I personally believe Marcion wrote MOST of the works attributed to the very bi-polar Paul character.

[JehovahsWitness]

The writing of Epiphanius in the 4th century states that early Christians (the Ebonites) state that he wasn't.

Why would writings from the fourth century, at least the very least 200 years after the events in question, be deemed “the best relevant evidence.�? Especially over earlier [claimed] eyewitness testimony that would arguably have had access to reliable first source*?


Thanks
JW

*The Muritorian fragment [170 CE] (as well as Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and later Origen ....) catalogues the book of Acts and the majority of Paul letters.

[JehovahsWitness]

Next, there is the claim of being of the 'tribe of Benjamen'. Now, even at that time, the vast majority of Jews did not know their tribe, particu7arulay from outlying areas such as Tarsus.

#QUESTION Could Paul have legitimately been able to make claims as to his Jewish heritage?

The Jews kept extensive genealogies available in public records, to establish a person's heritage, inheritance, legitimacy and rights. This was a very strong part of their culture. Josephus refered to the genealogy of his family {qutoe} " found in the public records" (Flavius Josephus, Life of Josephus p.1).

The destruction of the Jewish temple in 70CE did not mean that all records where destroyed only the official birth records kept in the temple. In discussing Priestly marriage, Josephus testifies that Jews kept extensive private records outside the temple of non-levitical heritage, and that further a field from Jerusalem than the 20km of Tarsus.

"... he is to make a scrutiny, and take his wife's genealogy* from the ancient tables, and procure many witnesses to it. And this is our practice not only in Judea, but wheresoever any body of men of our nation do live; [...] I mean at Egypt and at Babylon, or in any other place of the rest of the habitable earth, whithersoever our priests are scattered; for they send to Jerusalem the ancient names of their parents in writing, as well as those of their remoter ancestors, and signify who are the witnesses also. " - Against Apion, Book I, Sec. 7

*Priests were not obliged to marry from their own tribe, only a woman that was a fellow Isrealite.

According to The Clinton Commentary (Zondervan Illustrated bible) Vol 1 p. 9-10

"Other sources indicate that extensive genealogical records were extant during the first century, with some of the more important political and priestly family records kept in the temple. The official extra-biblical genealogicies were lost with the destruction of Jerusalem and temple in A.D. 70 yet private genealogies were retained elsewhere"

CONCLUSION So, even Placing the book of Acts mid-second (rather than first) century*, the evidence indicates that local records and family and oral tradition most likely have still existed and that many Jews would probably have been able to produce documented evidence of their family tribe. Thus Paul's claim to at least know his tribe is not out of line with known facts.

*in line with the existence of mid to late second century catalogues such as The Muritorian fragment [170 CE] (as well as those of Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and later Origen ....) which include the book of Acts and the majority of Paul letters.






RELATED POSTS

Was Paul a Jewish imposter?
viewtopic.php?p=1109378#p1109378

Why didn't the Apostle Paul write like a Pharisee?
viewtopic.php?p=1109231#p1109231

Could Paul have legitimately been able to make claims as to his Jewish heritage?
viewtopic.php?p=420232#p420232

For further details please go to other posts related to ...

PAUL, THE MOSIAC LAW and ...THE WRITING OF THE APOSTLE PAUL

[Mithrae]

Am I distorting what Paul said, or did you? I would say you are.

As for Acts.. well, The writer of Acts seems to have used Josephus' as a source for Luke/Acts, and that would put the writing of acts AFTER 95 c.e...

Disputing. The word I used was disputing. This means
1. To argue about; debate.
2. To question the truth or validity of; doubt:

"...since you're currently [questioning the truth or validity of] things Paul did write, I'm not actually sure what your point is" in replying to my post with little more than a statement that Paul didn't write Acts. You have emphasised that Acts was written by someone other than the person whose claims you are questioning - therefore it provides external confirmation of Paul's claim to be a Jew. Is that what you're saying?

In a previous discussion we were involved in Bernard Muller provided some rather convincing arguments that the author of Luke/Acts was familiar with Josephus' Jewish War (c 75-78CE), but not necessarily his Antiquities of the Jews (c 95CE). That's just my opinion of course, since his arguments changed my previous views on the matter.

However without wanting to appear impolite, I notice that while this tangent about a mote of info on Paul continues, you still haven't answered either of my initial questions regarding your claim that we have "very good reasons" to doubt Paul's Jewishness.

Here is a post from another thread (can't find the original)..

The LXX, or Septuagint, was not highly regarded by the Jews of Jesus's day. Many, if not most, rabbis and sages of that time and later regarded it as an abomination. The only proper language for reading and studying Torah was, and is today, thought to be the Hebrew in which it was originally written. The only Jews who ever used it extensively were the Jews of the Greek Diaspora whose culture produced it.
--------------
One of the points which makes Paul's purported Jewishness suspect, is, as it happens, the fact that all of his quotations from the OT come from the LXX and not from the Hebrew Bible. It is hard not to conclude that Paul was unable to read Hebrew. This in itself does not indicate that Paul could not have been Jewish, but it is a problem if one wishes to show that Paul's Judaism was typical or normative of the Jews of his day.

. . . . .

(2) Paul of Tarsus clearly knew relatively little about Jewish teachings. He may not even have been Jewish.

Paul apparently could not read Hebrew. All his OT translations are from the LXX (the Septuagint, a Greek translation). This would be extremely unusual for a supposedly learned Jew of the time; the LXX was considered suspect by Hebrew-speaking Jews, and many rabbis of the time considered it an abomination..

Paul was a Jew from the diaspora, writing in Greek to Greek-speaking audiences. No doubt you're correct that many folk in Judea had little regard for the Septuagint, but Paul very obviously was not a Jewish traditionalist. This argument seems very much akin to arguing that Luther could not have been a Catholic monk because he published a bible which was not in Latin. Almost a perfect analogy in fact, as far as I can tell from a minute's thought.

Do you believe this would be a sound argument that Luther had not been a Catholic monk? Or do you believe the comparison is unfair? Or do you agree that it's likewise a very weak suggestion regarding Paul?

A far greater problem is Paul's general attitude toward the Law; he clearly regards it as a burden and a trial, whereas the attitude of Jews throughout the ages has been to see it as a delight, a lamp to one's feet, sweet as honey, and so on. Pick a Psalm. Paul's attitude is nothing if not atypical.

. . . . .

Most importantly of all, Paul's attitude toward the Law--that it is a burden and a torment--was and is practically unheard of among Jews. Pick a Psalm: the Law is invariably regarded as a a joy, a light, a precious gift, the greatest of all God's blessings. It is difficult to express how peculiar Paul's attitude here is. It's analogous to a Christian regarding the Gospel as the "Bad News."

As you point out, the comparison with Christian propaganda is worth noting. It's hard to imagine that pious Jews of later centuries would include amongst their sacred Psalms ditties about how handy it might be if they could wear blended cotton/wool clothing or maybe not destroy their favourite clay vessels just because Grandma had a heart attack while using them. No, the Law always was a wonderful, joyous thing! Do you really believe for a second that there wasn't the occasional Jew wandering past Gentile homes who didn't wonder whether pork tasted as delicious as it smells?

Frankly it seems more than a little stereotypical and prejudiced to build an argument on the presumption of such homogeneity in ancient folk of Jewish descent. But on the basis of your presumption that real Jews through the ages would not change in their devotion to Moses' commands, seems we can safely conclude that you are not Jewish.

It's clear that Paul was much more a product of the overwhelmingly Greek-dominated culture of Tarsus, a backwater of the Jewish world that was much more oriented toward Athens than toward Jerusalem, than of the Jewish culture he claims. It is even suspect that Paul claims to know he is of the tribe of Benjamin; even in Jesus's day, few Jews other than Levites still knew their tribal affiliation, though there were (and still are) exceptions. This would be particularly unlikely in Tarsus, which, as noted, was far from being a center of Jewish culture.

. . . . .

Paul claims to know that he is of the tribe of Benjamin; while that is possible, it is very unlikely indeed. Even by the time of Jesus, most Jews had long since lost or forgotten their tribal affiliations. Then and now--though there are exceptions--virtually the only Jews who know from what tribe they are descended are Levites, or of the subgroup of Levi called the Cohens, the priestly tribe descended from Aaron, Moses's older brother (both Moses and Aaron were Levites).

Knowing one's tribal affiliation would be even more peculiar for a Jew from Tarsus, because that was not a Jewish city nor a center of Jewish culture; it was emphatically Greek. Finding a Jew in that backwater of the Jewish world who knew his tribe would be like finding a hillbilly in the Ozarks who could trace his ancestry back to 12th-century England.

As you say, there are surely exceptions - and your analogy is a little lacking unless you suggest that Americans have as much interest in their ancestry as 1st century Jews did. I think JehovahsWitness has covered this point quite well, including referenced information. As far as I can tell, even at its best this isn't even an argument; you're simply impressed that Paul was one of those who did have a shrewd idea which Jewish group he descended from.

Paul claims to have been a student of the great rabbi Gamaliel, but his writings and thought show no evidence of this influence whatever.

As for the virgin birth; if this was such an important and central doctrine of Christianity, it seems odd that Paul was apparently unaware of it, or alternatively, did not regard it as worth talking about. He mentions it nowhere.

While I understand that this is an old post of yours, it does seem strange that in that past you considered Acts to be a good source of information for an argument against Paul's Jewishness. However, as I've pointed out, the central emphasis which Paul derived from the Law was indeed the same as that which Gamaliel's grandfather Hillel is noted for.

Your comment on the virgin birth I will assume was context-specific, since it has nothing to do with whether or not Paul was a Jew.

On balance, the gist of your arguments here seem to be that it's strange Paul diverted from more mainstream views of the Law and utilised the Septuagint. In essence, you're pointing out that Paul was a diaspora Jew whose views changed into something more in line with the Jesus movement's teachings. Not a very strong argument that he wasn't a Jew, in my opinion.

----

The writing of Epiphanius in the 4th century states that early Christians (the Ebonites) state that he wasn't. From their understanding of his writings they declare that Paul was raised in a pagan household. He went up to Jerusalem and when he had spent some time there, was seized with passion to marry the daughter of the high priest; and this was the reason he became a proselyte (Jew) and went through the Jewish ritual of circumcision. But when the lady rejected him, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the Sabbath and the Jewish Law� (Pamarion 30.16.6).

JW has mentioned the small issue of how late this source is. But I'd say a more important problem is that I'm pretty sure the daughter of the High Priest couldn't even marry a Jew from any non-Levitical tribe, let alone a Gentile proselyte. This would have been blatantly obvious to this Gentile 'Paul' character long before he got the snip. Are you actually saying that you question the truth of Paul's claims on the basis of this story?

[Goat]

Am I distorting what Paul said, or did you? I would say you are.

As for Acts.. well, The writer of Acts seems to have used Josephus' as a source for Luke/Acts, and that would put the writing of acts AFTER 95 c.e...

Disputing. The word I used was disputing. This means
1. To argue about; debate.
2. To question the truth or validity of; doubt:

"...since you're currently [questioning the truth or validity of] things Paul did write, I'm not actually sure what your point is" in replying to my post with little more than a statement that Paul didn't write Acts. You have emphasised that Acts was written by someone other than the person whose claims you are questioning - therefore it provides external confirmation of Paul's claim to be a Jew. Is that what you're saying?

In a previous discussion we were involved in Bernard Muller provided some rather convincing arguments that the author of Luke/Acts was familiar with Josephus' Jewish War (c 75-78CE), but not necessarily his Antiquities of the Jews (c 95CE). That's just my opinion of course, since his arguments changed my previous views on the matter.

However without wanting to appear impolite, I notice that while this tangent about a mote of info on Paul continues, you still haven't answered either of my initial questions regarding your claim that we have "very good reasons" to doubt Paul's Jewishness.

Here is a post from another thread (can't find the original)..

The LXX, or Septuagint, was not highly regarded by the Jews of Jesus's day. Many, if not most, rabbis and sages of that time and later regarded it as an abomination. The only proper language for reading and studying Torah was, and is today, thought to be the Hebrew in which it was originally written. The only Jews who ever used it extensively were the Jews of the Greek Diaspora whose culture produced it.
--------------
One of the points which makes Paul's purported Jewishness suspect, is, as it happens, the fact that all of his quotations from the OT come from the LXX and not from the Hebrew Bible. It is hard not to conclude that Paul was unable to read Hebrew. This in itself does not indicate that Paul could not have been Jewish, but it is a problem if one wishes to show that Paul's Judaism was typical or normative of the Jews of his day.

. . . . .

(2) Paul of Tarsus clearly knew relatively little about Jewish teachings. He may not even have been Jewish.

Paul apparently could not read Hebrew. All his OT translations are from the LXX (the Septuagint, a Greek translation). This would be extremely unusual for a supposedly learned Jew of the time; the LXX was considered suspect by Hebrew-speaking Jews, and many rabbis of the time considered it an abomination..

Paul was a Jew from the diaspora, writing in Greek to Greek-speaking audiences. No doubt you're correct that many folk in Judea had little regard for the Septuagint, but Paul very obviously was not a Jewish traditionalist. This argument seems very much akin to arguing that Luther could not have been a Catholic monk because he published a bible which was not in Latin. Almost a perfect analogy in fact, as far as I can tell from a minute's thought.

Do you believe this would be a sound argument that Luther had not been a Catholic monk? Or do you believe the comparison is unfair? Or do you agree that it's likewise a very weak suggestion regarding Paul?

A far greater problem is Paul's general attitude toward the Law; he clearly regards it as a burden and a trial, whereas the attitude of Jews throughout the ages has been to see it as a delight, a lamp to one's feet, sweet as honey, and so on. Pick a Psalm. Paul's attitude is nothing if not atypical.

. . . . .

Most importantly of all, Paul's attitude toward the Law--that it is a burden and a torment--was and is practically unheard of among Jews. Pick a Psalm: the Law is invariably regarded as a a joy, a light, a precious gift, the greatest of all God's blessings. It is difficult to express how peculiar Paul's attitude here is. It's analogous to a Christian regarding the Gospel as the "Bad News."

As you point out, the comparison with Christian propaganda is worth noting. It's hard to imagine that pious Jews of later centuries would include amongst their sacred Psalms ditties about how handy it might be if they could wear blended cotton/wool clothing or maybe not destroy their favourite clay vessels just because Grandma had a heart attack while using them. No, the Law always was a wonderful, joyous thing! Do you really believe for a second that there wasn't the occasional Jew wandering past Gentile homes who didn't wonder whether pork tasted as delicious as it smells?

Frankly it seems more than a little stereotypical and prejudiced to build an argument on the presumption of such homogeneity in ancient folk of Jewish descent. But on the basis of your presumption that real Jews through the ages would not change in their devotion to Moses' commands, seems we can safely conclude that you are not Jewish.

It's clear that Paul was much more a product of the overwhelmingly Greek-dominated culture of Tarsus, a backwater of the Jewish world that was much more oriented toward Athens than toward Jerusalem, than of the Jewish culture he claims. It is even suspect that Paul claims to know he is of the tribe of Benjamin; even in Jesus's day, few Jews other than Levites still knew their tribal affiliation, though there were (and still are) exceptions. This would be particularly unlikely in Tarsus, which, as noted, was far from being a center of Jewish culture.

. . . . .

Paul claims to know that he is of the tribe of Benjamin; while that is possible, it is very unlikely indeed. Even by the time of Jesus, most Jews had long since lost or forgotten their tribal affiliations. Then and now--though there are exceptions--virtually the only Jews who know from what tribe they are descended are Levites, or of the subgroup of Levi called the Cohens, the priestly tribe descended from Aaron, Moses's older brother (both Moses and Aaron were Levites).

Knowing one's tribal affiliation would be even more peculiar for a Jew from Tarsus, because that was not a Jewish city nor a center of Jewish culture; it was emphatically Greek. Finding a Jew in that backwater of the Jewish world who knew his tribe would be like finding a hillbilly in the Ozarks who could trace his ancestry back to 12th-century England.

As you say, there are surely exceptions - and your analogy is a little lacking unless you suggest that Americans have as much interest in their ancestry as 1st century Jews did. I think JehovahsWitness has covered this point quite well, including referenced information. As far as I can tell, even at its best this isn't even an argument; you're simply impressed that Paul was one of those who did have a shrewd idea which Jewish group he descended from.

Paul claims to have been a student of the great rabbi Gamaliel, but his writings and thought show no evidence of this influence whatever.

As for the virgin birth; if this was such an important and central doctrine of Christianity, it seems odd that Paul was apparently unaware of it, or alternatively, did not regard it as worth talking about. He mentions it nowhere.

While I understand that this is an old post of yours, it does seem strange that in that past you considered Acts to be a good source of information for an argument against Paul's Jewishness. However, as I've pointed out, the central emphasis which Paul derived from the Law was indeed the same as that which Gamaliel's grandfather Hillel is noted for.

Your comment on the virgin birth I will assume was context-specific, since it has nothing to do with whether or not Paul was a Jew.

On balance, the gist of your arguments here seem to be that it's strange Paul diverted from more mainstream views of the Law and utilised the Septuagint. In essence, you're pointing out that Paul was a diaspora Jew whose views changed into something more in line with the Jesus movement's teachings. Not a very strong argument that he wasn't a Jew, in my opinion.

----

The writing of Epiphanius in the 4th century states that early Christians (the Ebonites) state that he wasn't. From their understanding of his writings they declare that Paul was raised in a pagan household. He went up to Jerusalem and when he had spent some time there, was seized with passion to marry the daughter of the high priest; and this was the reason he became a proselyte (Jew) and went through the Jewish ritual of circumcision. But when the lady rejected him, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the Sabbath and the Jewish Law� (Pamarion 30.16.6).

JW has mentioned the small issue of how late this source is. But I'd say a more important problem is that I'm pretty sure the daughter of the High Priest couldn't even marry a Jew from any non-Levitical tribe, let alone a Gentile proselyte. This would have been blatantly obvious to this Gentile 'Paul' character long before he got the snip. Are you actually saying that you question the truth of Paul's claims on the basis of this story?

Boy oh boy, do you distort the argument,I am pointing out that Acts can not be a good source about what Paul said or did or was, since it is likely to have been written in the early second century (saying it was form Josephus' Jewish wars doesn't answer some of the points for Antiquities).

And, no, I am not using that story at all.. putting words in my mouth? Did I MENTION that story?

Let's look what Paul said about he preached to the Jewish people

9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

To me, that is saying he was NOT as a Jew. He would not have to 'become as a Jew' if he already was a Jew. That, coupled with his lack of understanding of the Jewish religion, his atypical attitude towards the law, and the inclusion of many non-Jewish elements into his theology make a very good chance he was not a Jew, and he most definitely was not educated in the Jewish religion.

[ThatGirlAgain]

That, coupled with his lack of understanding of the Jewish religion, his atypical attitude towards the law, and the inclusion of many non-Jewish elements into his theology make a very good chance he was not a Jew, and he most definitely was not educated in the Jewish religion.

Can you give instances of Paul’s lack of understanding of the Jewish religion? Can you cite passages that support that idea?

Keep in mind that only half of the Pauline Epistles are widely agreed to have been written by Paul. (Ref)

These are:

First Thessalonians
Philippians
Philemon
First Corinthians
Galatians
Second Corinthians
Romans

Also Acts, which refers extensively to Paul, nonetheless contradicts the Epistles on many points and cannot be considered a reliable indicator of what Paul thought.


Paul was arguing that the Jesus movement was universal in nature, probably referring to the many “all nations� mentions in the prophecies of Isaiah. He argued that gentiles need not become Jewish to follow Jesus and that the Law did not apply to them. He further argued that possessing the Law did not justify the Jews. In fact, knowledge of the Law led to explicit sin because the rules were made explicit by the Law. Atypical attitude? Sure. But does this sound like a non-Jew talking? More likely it sounds like a Jew who has converted to a new universal religion just as Paul said he has. Paul did not stay a traditional Jew, but that does not mean he never was one.

Here is a good discussion of Paul and the Law.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/Pauline/Law.htm#L322A1


One ‘non-Jewish element’ I presume is the Eucharist Formula.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

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

The Last Supper was a Passover Seder. The bread was matzoh. (The Christian Eucharist is still unleavened bread.) Earlier in Corinthians Paul had said:

1 Corinthians 5:6-8

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

The Passover lamb is eaten in the Seder in remembrance of the deliverance of the Jews. To Paul Jesus is the Passover lamb. But because eating human flesh is forbidden, the matzoh is eaten instead “in remembrance of me�.

The Four Cups of wine are taken at the Passover meal. The one Jesus refers to is presumably the birkat hamazon, the grace after meals, which is also said after eating any kind of bread.

The scriptural source for the requirement to say birkat hamazon is Deuteronomy 8:10 "When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land which He gave you".
(From above link)

This requirement is given before the Israelites enter the promised land and is part of the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus associates a new covenant with the drinking of the wine. And that new covenant is to lead into a new promised land, the messianic age that began with the resurrection of Jesus. (As Paul has it anyway. Later writers hedge that bet in various ways.)

Rather than being non-Jewish, the Eucharist Formula is a clever way of building a new religion on a thoroughly Jewish foundation.

[Goat]

That, coupled with his lack of understanding of the Jewish religion, his atypical attitude towards the law, and the inclusion of many non-Jewish elements into his theology make a very good chance he was not a Jew, and he most definitely was not educated in the Jewish religion.

Can you give instances of Paul’s lack of understanding of the Jewish religion? Can you cite passages that support that idea?

Keep in mind that only half of the Pauline Epistles are widely agreed to have been written by Paul. (Ref)

These are:

First Thessalonians
Philippians
Philemon
First Corinthians
Galatians
Second Corinthians
Romans

Also Acts, which refers extensively to Paul, nonetheless contradicts the Epistles on many points and cannot be considered a reliable indicator of what Paul thought.


Paul was arguing that the Jesus movement was universal in nature, probably referring to the many “all nations� mentions in the prophecies of Isaiah. He argued that gentiles need not become Jewish to follow Jesus and that the Law did not apply to them. He further argued that possessing the Law did not justify the Jews. In fact, knowledge of the Law led to explicit sin because the rules were made explicit by the Law. Atypical attitude? Sure. But does this sound like a non-Jew talking? More likely it sounds like a Jew who has converted to a new universal religion just as Paul said he has. Paul did not stay a traditional Jew, but that does not mean he never was one.

Here is a good discussion of Paul and the Law.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/Pauline/Law.htm#L322A1


One ‘non-Jewish element’ I presume is the Eucharist Formula.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

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

The Last Supper was a Passover Seder. The bread was matzoh. (The Christian Eucharist is still unleavened bread.) Earlier in Corinthians Paul had said:

1 Corinthians 5:6-8

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

The Passover lamb is eaten in the Seder in remembrance of the deliverance of the Jews. To Paul Jesus is the Passover lamb. But because eating human flesh is forbidden, the matzoh is eaten instead “in remembrance of me�.

The Four Cups of wine are taken at the Passover meal. The one Jesus refers to is presumably the birkat hamazon, the grace after meals, which is also said after eating any kind of bread.

The scriptural source for the requirement to say birkat hamazon is Deuteronomy 8:10 "When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land which He gave you".
(From above link)

This requirement is given before the Israelites enter the promised land and is part of the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus associates a new covenant with the drinking of the wine. And that new covenant is to lead into a new promised land, the messianic age that began with the resurrection of Jesus. (As Paul has it anyway. Later writers hedge that bet in various ways.)

Rather than being non-Jewish, the Eucharist Formula is a clever way of building a new religion on a thoroughly Jewish foundation.

In specific, it was the attitude that the law was a burden, and the law is 'of the flesh' Roman 7:6, Gal 5:1 Gal 3 11-12 and gal 3:23-24 show attitudes that are dynamically opposite of someone who grew up in a religious household.

[ThatGirlAgain]

That, coupled with his lack of understanding of the Jewish religion, his atypical attitude towards the law, and the inclusion of many non-Jewish elements into his theology make a very good chance he was not a Jew, and he most definitely was not educated in the Jewish religion.

Can you give instances of Paul’s lack of understanding of the Jewish religion? Can you cite passages that support that idea?

Keep in mind that only half of the Pauline Epistles are widely agreed to have been written by Paul. (Ref)

These are:

First Thessalonians
Philippians
Philemon
First Corinthians
Galatians
Second Corinthians
Romans

Also Acts, which refers extensively to Paul, nonetheless contradicts the Epistles on many points and cannot be considered a reliable indicator of what Paul thought.


Paul was arguing that the Jesus movement was universal in nature, probably referring to the many “all nations� mentions in the prophecies of Isaiah. He argued that gentiles need not become Jewish to follow Jesus and that the Law did not apply to them. He further argued that possessing the Law did not justify the Jews. In fact, knowledge of the Law led to explicit sin because the rules were made explicit by the Law. Atypical attitude? Sure. But does this sound like a non-Jew talking? More likely it sounds like a Jew who has converted to a new universal religion just as Paul said he has. Paul did not stay a traditional Jew, but that does not mean he never was one.

Here is a good discussion of Paul and the Law.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/Pauline/Law.htm#L322A1


One ‘non-Jewish element’ I presume is the Eucharist Formula.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

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

The Last Supper was a Passover Seder. The bread was matzoh. (The Christian Eucharist is still unleavened bread.) Earlier in Corinthians Paul had said:

1 Corinthians 5:6-8

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

The Passover lamb is eaten in the Seder in remembrance of the deliverance of the Jews. To Paul Jesus is the Passover lamb. But because eating human flesh is forbidden, the matzoh is eaten instead “in remembrance of me�.

The Four Cups of wine are taken at the Passover meal. The one Jesus refers to is presumably the birkat hamazon, the grace after meals, which is also said after eating any kind of bread.

The scriptural source for the requirement to say birkat hamazon is Deuteronomy 8:10 "When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land which He gave you".
(From above link)

This requirement is given before the Israelites enter the promised land and is part of the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus associates a new covenant with the drinking of the wine. And that new covenant is to lead into a new promised land, the messianic age that began with the resurrection of Jesus. (As Paul has it anyway. Later writers hedge that bet in various ways.)

Rather than being non-Jewish, the Eucharist Formula is a clever way of building a new religion on a thoroughly Jewish foundation.

In specific, it was the attitude that the law was a burden, and the law is 'of the flesh' Roman 7:6, Gal 5:1 Gal 3 11-12 and gal 3:23-24 show attitudes that are dynamically opposite of someone who grew up in a religious household.

There are plenty of people right here on this site who have "attitudes dynamically opposite of someone who grew up in a religious household", yet nonetheless they did exactly that. Paul tells us a number of times that his life and attitudes had changed. He was no longer the traditional Jew. He had found something new that went beyond where he had been before. Sounds believable to me.