1 - Right Aikido, John never wrote a word of the NT. Read Acts 4:13. When Peter and John were preaching the gospel of Jesus in Jerusalem the assembly took them as two unlearned and ignorant men. What's the difference between "unlearned/ignorant men" from illiterate ones? So, unlearned, ignorant or illiterate men do not write books.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am not sure what you are referring to? Is it Paul? Paul was obviously out-voted and was attacked by the Jerusalem church and by some of the communities he wrote letters to.
Oh gosh! I can't believe it! I have just written above and you don't know what I am referring to! I said, "When Peter and John were preaching the gospel of Jesus... I was referring to Peter and John and not Paul. I couldn't refer to Paul, who probably had a degree from the Stoic University of Tarsus. How could he be illiterate? Read again Acts 4:13.
His pride--which seems considerable--was hurt. He refers to the “pillars” sarcastically as the “super apostles.” There is no indication from the evidence we have that the conflict was ever resolved in Paul’s lifetime. His letters present him, of course, in the best light possible. And there is a growing consensus that Acts is way more belief-based than referring to actual historical events. It serves as positive public relations for the early church.
So, the early Church was based on unhistorical facts! Well, you are not too far from the truth.
2 - No, they did not see Jesus as the Messiah. The idea that Jesus was the Messiah was fabricated by Paul about 30 years later when in a letter to Timothy, Paul revealed the secret that Jesus was of the lineage of David and that he had resurrected was of his - Paul's gospel - It means that there must have existed another gospel at the same time in whose agenda, Jesus was not preached as the Messiah neither that he had resurrected. And I became sure of it when I read II Cor. 11:4-6, 13. And the Pauline secret revealed to his disciple Timothy is in II Tim. 2:8. When the gospels were written, all these doctrines were already down in the letters of Paul to the churches.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It was impossible for the traditional Jewish messiah to be executed as a common criminal.
Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. If you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13 "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord, aka Israel His People.
What is your opinion of the separation of Paul’s letters from his authentic ones and those most scholars consider forgeries?
No need of such a separation when 80% of the NT is a paraphrase of forgeries.
3 - Pure fallacy to appeal to Christian scholars to establish a Christian position.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One of the areas evident in the new scholarship is a recognition and awareness that Jesus was a Jew and so were most of his followers. Christian, Jewish, atheist, secular and even Muslim scholars are studying the authentic figure of Jesus.
ALL Jesus' followers were Jews. Gentiles he even forbade his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to them, especially Samaritans which I find weird because the Jews had been assigned as light unto the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6; and Mat. 10:5,6)
The best scholars, in my opinion, put their methodology and conjectures up front for peer review and public view.
4 - I do not agree. Christianity was born as a result of Hellenistic minds as Paul was from birth the descendant of a well-to-do Hellenistic couple in the city of Tarsus in the Cilicia where he learned in the Platonic Stoic University of Tarsus. Hence he was expert enough to vandalize the Tanach by plagiarizing the Jewish text to enhance the Theology of his Church in Antioch. (Acts 11:26)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am not aware of any textual mention of Paul’s family, his childhood or anything else. The Bible says he was a tentmaker and a student of the Torah who studied its precepts and applications “zealously.” But that is all be basically know.
No, I did not read that view about his family in the NT but, if I don't make a mistake, in the Catholic Encyclopedia. under "Paul and the NT."
5 - Which, as you have mentioned above, it has nothing to do with Judaism. The Jewish truth about soul is taken from Gen. 2:7 when the Lord formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man BECAME a living soul. Since to become is to be and not to have, we don't have souls; we are souls. At death, the body goes back to the dust and the breath of life aka spirit goes back to God Who gave it to man. (Eccles. 12:7) So, soul is simply a synonym with a person and not a different entity. Soul is only the combination of body with the breath of life. When that combination is undone with death, soul becomes as if it never existed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Genesis says nothing about a “living soul.” There may have been some midrashic theological overlays that were available to Jews. I guess I still need some interpretative information that addresses the Greek (and our modern) concept of a “soul” in a corporeal body.
Please, don't do that! I see that you are answering our posts without checking for the quotations. I gave the quotation in Gen. 2:7 and you say there is nothing in there about a living soul! At least, read the quote when you are not sure. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; AND MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL." Now, see if that's not written in Gen. 2:7.
