but Germanicus being loyal to his adopt-father ; Tiberius princeps Pharisee = loyal to the Noble, the Lords faction. its what the word means. nonetheless, good points exept for that one missing.
This is a very good conversation. For me on the topic of Paul the best with one of Pamela Eisenbaum. Even for sceptics or even enemies of Paul this is eye opening. Crossan is spot on and gives a new dimension on the real Paul.
There are only 12. To be an apostle one has to be a witness of the resurrected Jesus the Christ before his ascension. Also one had to be baptized by John the baptizer.
Paul is completing Germanicus mission. He has to go to ceasar to remove the blame he was besmeared with. Volundar (full-ender, finisher) the Smith = Ophiuchus not afraid of handling the fiery snake or the fire in his workshop (Festus) = He-phaistos. Like Pheaton rode the sun-charriot and was struck with lightning. Ophiuchus under Cygnus the white Swan or the Phoenix (fire-bird).
Saul / Paul of Tarsus the father of the laodicean 7th church age. Just look at the laodicean seventh church age and see where the teaching of Saul/ Paul of Tarsus leads.
Mister or Doctor Crossman is too much of an apologist for the religion. I appreciate the insight into the geographic issues of the region. I have visited Petra in southern Jordan which is a Nabatean site where Aramaic was spoken, or perhaps still is. It is curious that the man from Nazareth and or Bethlehem would have that as his first language, but perhaps that was common.
2 месяца назад+1
Wasn't Paul secretly working for the Flavian Dynasty? Weren't all of the original Roman Catholic Saints' members of the Flavian Dynasty? Weren't all of the original symbols used by the earliest Christians identical to those of the Flavian Dynasty? And wasn't the earliest iconographic image of Jesus The Christ in a catacomb, under the city of Rome, which was owned by a Flavian Princess? Weren't all of the original Jesus cult texts produced under the oversight of the Flavian Dynasty? Didn't the Flavian Dynasty posses the only remaining copy of the Tanakh other than the Septuagint? Weren't the canonical texts all back dated like the historical fiction of Gone With The Wind? There was no separation of Church and State in the Roman Empire. And Christianity is clearly a Greco-Roman hybrid form of Judaism created by the Flavian Dynasty as an attempt to adapt, pacify, and integrate the rebellious and defiant Jews into the rest of the Greco-Roman Empire. Then finally Neo-Flavian Constantine chose the Flavian family religion to be the official religion of the entire Roman Empire. In order to consolidate power in his fractured Empire.. And then Eusebius edited and rewrote the history of the previous 3OO years. It isn't history it is all simply Greco-Roman mythopoetic literature. Today it is known as Historical Fiction.💙
Wasn’t the Old Covenant broken? Deuteronomy 31:16 Hosea 8:1 Jeremiah 11:10 1 Kings 19:10 Wasn’t a New Covenant that wiped away Israel’s sins prophesied? Jeremiah 31:31-34 Ezekiel 16:59-63 Does God still accept Israel’s sacrifices for atonement? Malachi 2:8-14 Amos 5:21-22 Jeremiah 6:20 Hosea 9:4 Isaiah 1:11-17
It's hard to believe that Paul did not understand he was bringing in division. It can be seen that Paul was systematically cutting the head Ecclesia at Hierusalem off the Ecclesia. Paul never brought the church at Corinth under the authority of James the brother of Jesus the Christ. Jesus the Christ the Son of the living rebukes and names Paul Jezebel in the second chapter of Revelations. Paul recorded himself teaching servants of Jesus the Christ to eat things sacrifice or offered unto idols by slight of hand. This is found in the 8th chapter of first Corinthians.
@samkidder-yd2qo Revelation was written circa 90 AD. Paul died circa 65 AD. Peter writes Paul was beloved and his writings are scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Luke writes Paul was a chosen instrument (Acts 9:15-16).
If reported material about Paul is true, then Paul corrupted Christianity like no others did. Christianity moved from Repent and do the commandments to get eternal life to God died for your sin because he loved the world!!!
There's no way to know whether Paul was a Pharisee and there is reason to be suspicious given the obvious rhetorical leverage in he had to gain by claiming to have been one. It's a common trope for activists seeking to win over opponents to their side to claim that they too where once opponents of the movement that they now stand for before they saw the light. It's certainly not impossible for Paul to have been a pharisee, but I'm skeptical giving Paul's ruthless opportunism and is there a non-pharasaic way of thinking, education, language theology etc
There are Jewish sources that say the Pharisees could be if different philosophies. For example, Hillel would be considered a Pharisee, the rabbinical movement doesn’t come about until after the destruction of the Second Temple and the hereditary priesthood.
@@willempasterkamp862 Wrong, Hillel is a famous Jewish rabbi who died in 10 CE. Jesus could have listened to him. His comment of the Golden Rule is well known: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow; that is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary; go and study!” (b. Shabb. 31a).
@@michaeltelson9798 Hillel = Paul, Germanicus. Gamaliel = Simon of Gamla, Peter. Sjammai = James the lesser (Silas). Paul = James the Just ( Santiago ) . Another name for Paul = Klopas (the ''famous'' ). Hillel = the camillus that came to Jesus asking 'lord, what should I do ?' .
@@willempasterkamp862 Gamaliel is actually the grandson of Hillel the Elder, who I mention above. Your information doesn’t match up with the knowledge of other scholars. There was a previous speaker on this channel that said that Paul probably didn’t go to Jerusalem so he couldn’t have been taught by Gamaliel about Jewish law. Paul left Damascus not chased by Jews but probably by the Arab inhabitants as there was fighting going on and Herod Antipas was involved. Acts is a late second century fabrication that conflicts with the authentic Epistles of Paul in many facts. Read up on the pseudepigrapha Epistles as well.
Brilliant scholar in every single way, but non-violent resistance just doesn't seem to be the main point in the New Testament and early Christianity. I think it's a great message that I can get behind, but seeing Jesus and Paul as Gandhi-like figures feels a bit anachronistic. But he's certainly the expert, and I am just a RUclips commenter lol, so what do I know?! Great content Jacob!
Paul = the Egyptian rebel = Drusus germanicus, the called heir. Peter = Pontius Pilatus = Lucius Anneus Seneca, the axis mundi. Festus and Albinus on the Huqoq elephant mosaic.
Non-violent resistance was one of the main points in Jesus' (but not Paul's) teachings, but that has been, unfortunately, ignored in some subsequent generations.
With all due respect to Dr. Crossan, the idea that he was an anti-violence visionary flies in the face of the fact that Paul's writings inspired generations of anti-semites, and 20 centuries of anti-semitism.
@@TheDanEdwards Most of those non-Pauline elements were not a condemnation of Judaism, per se, but of specific groups of Jews (e.g., the Pharisees, or those Jews who were persecuting Christians, in the Johannine writings. There are anti-Jewish writings in other NT books, but in John, historical research has suggested that they were targeted specifically toward those Jews who were antagonizing & opposing Christians. "Hebrews" also says some negative things about Judaism, but I find the overall tone of "Hebrews" is - at least - evangelically sympathetic to his Jewish readers. So I don't find "Hebrews" as offensive as Paul's writings. Overall, Paul's writings are by far the most offensive in the NT, and I think he was considered so offensive that he was attacked and eventually imprisoned for causing dissension amongst the Jews. BTW, the critiques of the Pharisees were, I believe, specifically directed toward the Shammaite Pharisees, who were dominant when Jesus was doing his teachings. There are many similarities between Jesus' teachings and those of Rabbi Hillel, and Gamaliel was grandson of Hillel, so the Hillel Pharisees were sympathetic to Christian teachings. Unfortunately, when the gospels were written, no one took the opportunity to mention that only the dominant group of Pharisees were being criticized.
When people write about the evil fascist Germans of the 1930s it is not their fault that people almost 100 years later misunderstand and continue to hate the current Germans who have nothing to do with the Germans of the 1930s.
@@TheDanEdwardsI disagree, b/c Paul's anti-Jewish rhetoric comes closer to being outright anti-semitism than the critiques of Judaism in the rest of the NT. Paul was considered so inflammatory that he was repeatedly arrested, imprisoned, and beaten by Jewish groups who found his teachings absolutely outrageous. Historical analyses indicate that the critiques of "the Jews" in the Johannine writings were directed at the Jews who were persecuting the Johannine community at that time - - but not necessarily against Judaism as a faith tradition. Importantly, the critiques of the Pharisees in the gospels were directed against Shammaist Pharisees. Shammai opposed Hillel. Hillel's teachings clearly inspired Jesus, and so Jesus didn't oppose the Hillel group of Pharisees (a group that the Shammaists opposed violently). Gamaliel was a Hillelite Pharisee who was very sympathetic to the Christians of his era. Many, and perhaps most of the non-Pauline critiques of Jews were targeted toward specific Jews or groups of Jews - - not against Judaism as a whole.
@@TheDanEdwards I have a different view: While it's true that there are criticisms of Jews and Judaism in several other NT texts, what sets Paul (e.g., in Galatians and Corinthians) apart from the rest is the virulence and almost tangible hatred that he expresses toward his opponents, some of whom were not only Jewish, but Jewish Christians (e.g., the "Super-Apostles," by whom I believe he meant those such as Peter and John). Rabbi Tovia-Singer has singled out Paul, in particular, and has made the point eloquently that Paul expressed many harshly anti-semitic sentiments. The critiques of Jews and Judaism that I've noted in the gospels and non-Pauline epistles aren't nearly as objectionable or filled with the kind of rage that we see in Paul's anti-Jewish screeds, if they are read in historical context. Moreover, of all the so-called "apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot, none of them has been reported to have received anything like the wrathful treatment that was directed against Paul. There are many critiques of the Pharisees, but we know that there were only some Pharisees (the Shammaites) who opposed Jesus. These were the dominant Pharisees when Jesus was an adult. They tended to be very strict and harsh, and they persecuted the gentler and more humanitarian Hillelite Pharisees. BTW, the Hillelites were the dominant group of Pharisees when Jesus was a child/youth, and I view Jesus as having been, in part, a devout Hillelite Jew. There are strong Hillelite influences on Jesus' teachings, and we know that the Hillelites (e.g., Rabbi Gemaliel) were sympathetic to the Christians. So the critiques of the Pharisees had nothing to do with them being Jewish and everything to do with the fact that they were Shammaites (thankfully, most Jews rejected the teachings of Shammai after the Roman Wars, which the antagonistic and rigid Shammaites no doubt played a role in instigating). Similarly, historical research has indicated that the critiques of "the Jews" in the Johannine writings were not toward all Jews, or Judaism as a whole (and certainly not toward the Jewish Christians of the day). Instead, in those writings, the Jews they opposed were a specific group of Jews and Synagogues that ostracized them and may, at times, have persecuted or shunned them. Thus, both in the gospels and in the Johannine epistles, the "anti-Jewish" views were specifically directed against certain sub-groups (e.g., Shammaites, the Jewish opponents of John's community) within Judaism, and were not as broadly anti-semitic as what we see in Paul's writings. Matthew and James were largely pro-Jewish in orientation (although Matthew contains a few specific critiques of certain Jews). Some of the epistles did not express strong pro- or anti-Jewish sentiments. Luke was a harmonizer, and both Luke & Acts seem to have been written in an attempt to reconcile the Pauline Christians with the Jersalem-based Christians. That pretty much leaves "Hebrews," which was written in a sympathetic, albeit evangelistic tone, in an attempt to persuade his Jewish audience to switch over to Christianity. I find the reasoning in "Hebrews" to be inconsistent and logically flawed in some respects (e.g., the whole discourse on Melchizedek). Moreover, I find the author of "Hebrews" a little smug and superior-sounding, and verging at times toward being condescending/disrespectful. However, even "Hebrews" does not express the kinds of broadly vituperative or vicious attacks toward Judaism that we see somewhat abundantly in Paul's writings. Finally, of all the NT authors, Paul is the only one whom I would characterize as having a "tortured soul." Sadly, he brought much of his torments upon himself.
Please keep these climate hokum superstitions out of these otherwise reasonable discussions The global psychopaths will NOT make the weather gooder if we pay even more taxes, LOL
➡📚Purchase the book! [amzn.to/4c4y860]
Woolf = ananias, woolfy = jesus ben ananus
Now this is a must watch video for me. Crossan is one of the best scholars. No non sense. He raises excellent points.
but Germanicus being loyal to his adopt-father ; Tiberius princeps
Pharisee = loyal to the Noble, the Lords faction. its what the word means.
nonetheless, good points exept for that one missing.
@@willempasterkamp862 I like Crossan's other ideas, especially about teh resurrection. I have not watched this one yet.
I love listening to Dom Crossan!
This is a very good conversation.
For me on the topic of Paul the best with one of Pamela Eisenbaum.
Even for sceptics or even enemies of Paul this is eye opening.
Crossan is spot on and gives a new dimension on the real Paul.
Paul did never convert to Christianity because it didn't existed in Paul's days.
Luc is telling his story, not Paul's.
Good interview. Good information. Thank u.
BRILLIANT thank you both so much
There are only 12. To be an apostle one has to be a witness of the resurrected Jesus the Christ before his ascension. Also one had to be baptized by John the baptizer.
"There are only 12."
YES! Paul's appeal to Caesar makes no sense logically nor legally. You appeal when you are not aquitted.
Paul is completing Germanicus mission. He has to go to ceasar to remove the blame he was besmeared with. Volundar (full-ender, finisher) the Smith = Ophiuchus not afraid of handling the fiery snake or the fire in his workshop (Festus) = He-phaistos. Like Pheaton rode the sun-charriot and was struck with lightning.
Ophiuchus under Cygnus the white Swan or the Phoenix (fire-bird).
Saul / Paul of Tarsus the father of the laodicean 7th church age. Just look at the laodicean seventh church age and see where the teaching of Saul/ Paul of Tarsus leads.
Was this live? I would have loved to superchat with him.
Mister or Doctor Crossman is too much of an apologist for the religion. I appreciate the insight into the geographic issues of the region. I have visited Petra in southern Jordan which is a Nabatean site where Aramaic was spoken, or perhaps still is. It is curious that the man from Nazareth and or Bethlehem would have that as his first language, but perhaps that was common.
Wasn't Paul secretly working for the Flavian Dynasty? Weren't all of the original Roman Catholic Saints' members of the Flavian Dynasty? Weren't all of the original symbols used by the earliest Christians identical to those of the Flavian Dynasty? And wasn't the earliest iconographic image of Jesus The Christ in a catacomb, under the city of Rome, which was owned by a Flavian Princess? Weren't all of the original Jesus cult texts produced under the oversight of the Flavian Dynasty? Didn't the Flavian Dynasty posses the only remaining copy of the Tanakh other than the Septuagint? Weren't the canonical texts all back dated like the historical fiction of Gone With The Wind? There was no separation of Church and State in the Roman Empire. And Christianity is clearly a Greco-Roman hybrid form of Judaism created by the Flavian Dynasty as an attempt to adapt, pacify, and integrate the rebellious and defiant Jews into the rest of the Greco-Roman Empire. Then finally Neo-Flavian Constantine chose the Flavian family religion to be the official religion of the entire Roman Empire. In order to consolidate power in his fractured Empire.. And then Eusebius edited and rewrote the history of the previous 3OO years. It isn't history it is all simply Greco-Roman mythopoetic literature. Today it is known as Historical Fiction.💙
Wasn’t the Old Covenant broken?
Deuteronomy 31:16
Hosea 8:1
Jeremiah 11:10
1 Kings 19:10
Wasn’t a New Covenant that wiped away Israel’s sins prophesied?
Jeremiah 31:31-34
Ezekiel 16:59-63
Does God still accept Israel’s sacrifices for atonement?
Malachi 2:8-14
Amos 5:21-22
Jeremiah 6:20
Hosea 9:4
Isaiah 1:11-17
If you do the slightest bit of research, you'll find the theory of Roman provenance to be wholly bunk and with more holes than a fishing net.
@@crimson90 Well, as they like to say down South... "A hit dog will holler."💙
Heard and then read some about that. Could be ?
As a matter of fact, no to all of the above.
It's hard to believe that Paul did not understand he was bringing in division. It can be seen that Paul was systematically cutting the head Ecclesia at Hierusalem off the Ecclesia. Paul never brought the church at Corinth under the authority of James the brother of Jesus the Christ. Jesus the Christ the Son of the living rebukes and names Paul Jezebel in the second chapter of Revelations. Paul recorded himself teaching servants of Jesus the Christ to eat things sacrifice or offered unto idols by slight of hand. This is found in the 8th chapter of first Corinthians.
@samkidder-yd2qo
Revelation was written circa 90 AD. Paul died circa 65 AD.
Peter writes Paul was beloved and his writings are scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).
Luke writes Paul was a chosen instrument (Acts 9:15-16).
@@johnmann8659 Simon the Rock a listener and hearer did not write that second epistle.
@@SamKidder-yd2qo Then who wrote 2 Peter 3? And I cited more than just 2 Peter 3.
Peter Paul Rubens was Dutch painter,ono of top painters.
Wood Paulvonia decade ago was used as fake investment For People hungry to be Rich ASAP.
olleke bolleke, Reubens-olleke,
olleke bolleke POUF !
Also invite James tabor on book Paul and Jesus .
neuh
Was already done. Look it up.
Then also look at Pamela Eisenbaum. Great
If reported material about Paul is true, then Paul corrupted Christianity like no others did. Christianity moved from Repent and do the commandments to get eternal life to God died for your sin because he loved the world!!!
Paul didn't corrupt Christianity; Christianity was never pure to begin with😴
It was pure It was like hijackings a plane
@@munbruk the other way around ; the christian mob took over Pauls bus.
@@MrBadway_636Christianity is the purest religion you will ever find on the face of the earth
@@johnmario3795 Yes before corruption lol
There's no way to know whether Paul was a Pharisee and there is reason to be suspicious given the obvious rhetorical leverage in he had to gain by claiming to have been one.
It's a common trope for activists seeking to win over opponents to their side to claim that they too where once opponents of the movement that they now stand for before they saw the light.
It's certainly not impossible for Paul to have been a pharisee, but I'm skeptical giving Paul's ruthless opportunism and is there a non-pharasaic way of thinking, education, language theology etc
There are Jewish sources that say the Pharisees could be if different philosophies. For example, Hillel would be considered a Pharisee, the rabbinical movement doesn’t come about until after the destruction of the Second Temple and the hereditary priesthood.
@@michaeltelson9798 Hillel = Helios = Paul = Heli = Mathan .
Nathan-na-el = Zacherias barachai .
@@willempasterkamp862 Wrong, Hillel is a famous Jewish rabbi who died in 10 CE. Jesus could have listened to him. His comment of the Golden Rule is well known: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow; that is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary; go and study!” (b. Shabb. 31a).
@@michaeltelson9798 Hillel = Paul, Germanicus. Gamaliel = Simon of Gamla, Peter. Sjammai = James the lesser (Silas). Paul = James the Just ( Santiago ) . Another name for Paul = Klopas (the ''famous'' ).
Hillel = the camillus that came to Jesus asking 'lord, what should I do ?' .
@@willempasterkamp862 Gamaliel is actually the grandson of Hillel the Elder, who I mention above. Your information doesn’t match up with the knowledge of other scholars.
There was a previous speaker on this channel that said that Paul probably didn’t go to Jerusalem so he couldn’t have been taught by Gamaliel about Jewish law. Paul left Damascus not chased by Jews but probably by the Arab inhabitants as there was fighting going on and Herod Antipas was involved. Acts is a late second century fabrication that conflicts with the authentic Epistles of Paul in many facts. Read up on the pseudepigrapha Epistles as well.
Brilliant scholar in every single way, but non-violent resistance just doesn't seem to be the main point in the New Testament and early Christianity. I think it's a great message that I can get behind, but seeing Jesus and Paul as Gandhi-like figures feels a bit anachronistic. But he's certainly the expert, and I am just a RUclips commenter lol, so what do I know?! Great content Jacob!
Paul = the Egyptian rebel = Drusus germanicus, the called heir.
Peter = Pontius Pilatus = Lucius Anneus Seneca, the axis mundi.
Festus and Albinus on the Huqoq elephant mosaic.
Non-violent resistance was one of the main points in Jesus' (but not Paul's) teachings, but that has been, unfortunately, ignored in some subsequent generations.
Big Bad Woolf = Peter, not Paul
How so?
With all due respect to Dr. Crossan, the idea that he was an anti-violence visionary flies in the face of the fact that Paul's writings inspired generations of anti-semites, and 20 centuries of anti-semitism.
The anti-Jewish elements in the NT are mostly not of Paul's origin.
@@TheDanEdwards Most of those non-Pauline elements were not a condemnation of Judaism, per se, but of specific groups of Jews (e.g., the Pharisees, or those Jews who were persecuting Christians, in the Johannine writings.
There are anti-Jewish writings in other NT books, but in John, historical research has suggested that they were targeted specifically toward those Jews who were antagonizing & opposing Christians.
"Hebrews" also says some negative things about Judaism, but I find the overall tone of "Hebrews" is - at least - evangelically sympathetic to his Jewish readers. So I don't find "Hebrews" as offensive as Paul's writings.
Overall, Paul's writings are by far the most offensive in the NT, and I think he was considered so offensive that he was attacked and eventually imprisoned for causing dissension amongst the Jews.
BTW, the critiques of the Pharisees were, I believe, specifically directed toward the Shammaite Pharisees, who were dominant when Jesus was doing his teachings. There are many similarities between Jesus' teachings and those of Rabbi Hillel, and Gamaliel was grandson of Hillel, so the Hillel Pharisees were sympathetic to Christian teachings.
Unfortunately, when the gospels were written, no one took the opportunity to mention that only the dominant group of Pharisees were being criticized.
When people write about the evil fascist Germans of the 1930s it is not their fault that people almost 100 years later misunderstand and continue to hate the current Germans who have nothing to do with the Germans of the 1930s.
@@TheDanEdwardsI disagree, b/c Paul's anti-Jewish rhetoric comes closer to being outright anti-semitism than the critiques of Judaism in the rest of the NT.
Paul was considered so inflammatory that he was repeatedly arrested, imprisoned, and beaten by Jewish groups who found his teachings absolutely outrageous.
Historical analyses indicate that the critiques of "the Jews" in the Johannine writings were directed at the Jews who were persecuting the Johannine community at that time - - but not necessarily against Judaism as a faith tradition.
Importantly, the critiques of the Pharisees in the gospels were directed against Shammaist Pharisees. Shammai opposed Hillel. Hillel's teachings clearly inspired Jesus, and so Jesus didn't oppose the Hillel group of Pharisees (a group that the Shammaists opposed violently). Gamaliel was a Hillelite Pharisee who was very sympathetic to the Christians of his era.
Many, and perhaps most of the non-Pauline critiques of Jews were targeted toward specific Jews or groups of Jews - - not against Judaism as a whole.
@@TheDanEdwards I have a different view: While it's true that there are criticisms of Jews and Judaism in several other NT texts, what sets Paul (e.g., in Galatians and Corinthians) apart from the rest is the virulence and almost tangible hatred that he expresses toward his opponents, some of whom were not only Jewish, but Jewish Christians (e.g., the "Super-Apostles," by whom I believe he meant those such as Peter and John).
Rabbi Tovia-Singer has singled out Paul, in particular, and has made the point eloquently that Paul expressed many harshly anti-semitic sentiments.
The critiques of Jews and Judaism that I've noted in the gospels and non-Pauline epistles aren't nearly as objectionable or filled with the kind of rage that we see in Paul's anti-Jewish screeds, if they are read in historical context.
Moreover, of all the so-called "apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot, none of them has been reported to have received anything like the wrathful treatment that was directed against Paul.
There are many critiques of the Pharisees, but we know that there were only some Pharisees (the Shammaites) who opposed Jesus. These were the dominant Pharisees when Jesus was an adult. They tended to be very strict and harsh, and they persecuted the gentler and more humanitarian Hillelite Pharisees. BTW, the Hillelites were the dominant group of Pharisees when Jesus was a child/youth, and I view Jesus as having been, in part, a devout Hillelite Jew.
There are strong Hillelite influences on Jesus' teachings, and we know that the Hillelites (e.g., Rabbi Gemaliel) were sympathetic to the Christians. So the critiques of the Pharisees had nothing to do with them being Jewish and everything to do with the fact that they were Shammaites (thankfully, most Jews rejected the teachings of Shammai after the Roman Wars, which the antagonistic and rigid Shammaites no doubt played a role in instigating).
Similarly, historical research has indicated that the critiques of "the Jews" in the Johannine writings were not toward all Jews, or Judaism as a whole (and certainly not toward the Jewish Christians of the day). Instead, in those writings, the Jews they opposed were a specific group of Jews and Synagogues that ostracized them and may, at times, have persecuted or shunned them.
Thus, both in the gospels and in the Johannine epistles, the "anti-Jewish" views were specifically directed against certain sub-groups (e.g., Shammaites, the Jewish opponents of John's community) within Judaism, and were not as broadly anti-semitic as what we see in Paul's writings.
Matthew and James were largely pro-Jewish in orientation (although Matthew contains a few specific critiques of certain Jews).
Some of the epistles did not express strong pro- or anti-Jewish sentiments.
Luke was a harmonizer, and both Luke & Acts seem to have been written in an attempt to reconcile the Pauline Christians with the Jersalem-based Christians.
That pretty much leaves "Hebrews," which was written in a sympathetic, albeit evangelistic tone, in an attempt to persuade his Jewish audience to switch over to Christianity. I find the reasoning in "Hebrews" to be inconsistent and logically flawed in some respects (e.g., the whole discourse on Melchizedek). Moreover, I find the author of "Hebrews" a little smug and superior-sounding, and verging at times toward being condescending/disrespectful.
However, even "Hebrews" does not express the kinds of broadly vituperative or vicious attacks toward Judaism that we see somewhat abundantly in Paul's writings.
Finally, of all the NT authors, Paul is the only one whom I would characterize as having a "tortured soul." Sadly, he brought much of his torments upon himself.
Cossan is a brilliant scholar but I think he is making shit up
duh, Cossan should explain Huqoq elephant mosaic for himself.
Please keep these climate hokum superstitions out of these otherwise reasonable discussions
The global psychopaths will NOT make the weather gooder if we pay even more taxes, LOL
You seem like a rather poorly educated person.
I think Ken Ham has a museum that's perfect for you.