The necessity of Jesus death.

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

On a separate tread, I’ve been discussing New Testament theology with Felix. Arcturus joined in with this statement:

“By appearances, it may seem that Jesus was created but at that time in history, all that happened was that he let go of His Godhood to become Man. Just as the Spirit of the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity issued forth from him.”

My response would have been long and on the subject. But I wanted to address something in particular about NT theology. Any would-be-theologian has to begin his research from a very uncomfortable proposition= Jesus death.
If the Spirit flowed from the divine nature of the second person of the Trinity, the Son, the why did the Son have to die? Why couldn’t the Spirit flow from the Son right then and there while Jesus was giving his Sermon on the Mount for example? Why did the Spirit only flowed afterwards? Seems to me that if the power was with Jesus before his tragic death that the Son was just a masochist who enjoyed unecessary pain. But I am going to assume that none believes that, so my question is what made it necessary for the Divine Son to suffer.

The alternative position, I think, is that Jesus was a heavenly being, but not of the same stuff as the Father. The Father however is well pleased and through him the Father created all and means to save all by it’s, Jesus’, sacrifice. It is through his suffering that Jesus gains the merit, the right, the authority to issue forth the Holy Spirit to those that believe in the Christ. Jesus earns what we cannot earn ourselves and gives it freely to us as a gift; but since the plan is the Father’s plan, the result of the plan, the gift, is said to be the Father’s. The work of Jesus is the Father’s work.

If Jesus was full God, or “very God”, then he could only choose to deny himself the natural and eternal power to issue the Spirit, to only reclaim what had been his from all-time. In-between, his suffering at the cross has no real causal necessity. But if it did, then we have to admit of a time when Jesus was not able to issue forth the Spirit, and if such a time existed, then the equality between Son and Spirit is not proven.

My guess is that Jesus “became” worthy of such a divine honor. Is it unheard of for what is created lowly to be raised to the status of a God? or to share power with God? It is as old as Genesis. The powers of God are abstracted from God and open for adquisition by that which is categorically lower than God. For God says:
“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
As an adjective, “like” can mean “same” and “equal”. But this is the trasformation of the PREVIOUSLY lowly into the NOW glorified as the Divine.

So, my point is simply this:
The necessity of Jesus Christ’s suffering means that something, that was not there before, became present after, and only after, through the satisfaction of a necessary condition by Jesus suffering. The Holy Spirit was not available, it seems, to us, and Jesus death made it available. Before that it was not. Why? is the question we must ask. If Jesus was perfectly God prior to his incarnation, then there would have been no real need for his suffering. The “need” would have been artificial, by a choice by Jesus, or the “Christ”, to withdraw from the Godhead splendor to die as a man to then receive the right that had been his and which he willingly abdicated.
An argument might be raised that Jesus had to die to seal the deal, and so the Godhead, of which Jesus is part of, provided from itself the requirements needed for itself. Something was not known by man, which needed to be known and sealed in blood, the most perfect blood. Jesus is the streched hand of God that pulls His pre-chosen ones to Himself. But this covenant is executed in time. As such the rights which God would convey to His Son were delegated in time, and the ability of the Son to issue the Spirit, while intended by the Father before-hand, is attained in time after and not there before the glorification of the Son.

Another interesting argument would follow here that “in-time” is one thing, but if God is omnisent, the the development of the plan “in-time” was only a perfunctory event that HAD to go in just this way and none other. Because it was pre-known by God, it was pre-existent. This is to apply a bit of greek philosophy into the discussion, but the text is not perfectly understood as such. For one, the text expressess relations within the God head in-time. A “father” precedes a “son” in-time. Before the son is begotten, the Father is not a father. We are what we do in-time. Then secondly, there is the measure of merit. The worthiness of the Son to receive special praise and favor lies in the ability of the Son to choose. Thus in the Garden we see the Son make a choice that may or may not have been known. Jesus own omniscense of all things is challeneged in the text. God, as the most perfect being, has complete freedom and is free of all necessity. Because he remains an unknown variable, everything that is is slightly uncertain unless he intervenes and by His power alone forces a certain outcome- but that is an event in-time and not fore-known.

It is thus possible, that the gift of the Spirit was obtained in time by the worthines of Jesus and this worthines dependent on the uncertainty of history and freewill, though each subject to the Might of God.

…Have I babbled long enough…

2

Two (of the many) reasons I don’t believe in Paul’s vision that Jesus died for our sins, is that it is an example of plain human sacrifice–same as they used to use cows, sheep, goats and doves for, all with the same pointless result. The other is that no one, not even God, can die for your sins. Repentance is the path to salvation, which was John the Baptizer’s and Jesus’ message.

You can be martyred for an idea, but not to correct the evil in another soul.

3

I’m in full accord with PT on this one.
The doctrinal holding of Jesus salvation analytically stands counter to the literal context of what is recorded for Jesus’ preachings, and prior to his, as PT stated, John’s.

Responsibility and being honestly remorseful over what one has done to degrade the relationship between oneself and one’s god, oneself and another person, or oneself and their ideal; with an actual investment to attempt to not offend the relationship in the future, was the general point of Repentance.

To be frank…I don’t often get the sense that many “saved” people are really taking responsibility for anything that they actually feel remorse over at all.
Seems more like traffic fines and a free ticket to ride card more and more is the general perspective, with an interest in the concentration of celebrating the free ticket to ride; of which the free ticket to ride is respected, and praised, and the guy that handed them out is lofted. But no one is being more the responsible and owner of anything they feel remorse of; anything which actually degrades their perceived relationships.

4

Hello Painful Truth.

— Two (of the many) reasons I don’t believe in Paul’s vision that Jesus died for our sins, is that it is an example of plain human sacrifice–same as they used to use cows, sheep, goats and doves for, all with the same pointless result. The other is that no one, not even God, can die for your sins. Repentance is the path to salvation, which was John the Baptizer’s and Jesus’ message.
You can be martyred for an idea, but not to correct the evil in another soul.

I am not trying to argue here whether Jesus was a Christian or that he would have agreed with Paul’s theology. The perenial theology is that doing X will bring forth something good or help prevent something bad. IF repentance was able to deliver on this perennial theology, then we would not be talking today about Paul- he, like those drawn to Jesus, would have been content with what was and always had been perennially true. This was not the case. The POE was upon them. Repentance DID NOT bring salvation as they had long defined salvation, and so, something had to change.
Jesus was probably an apocalyptic prophet, and in Mark’s gospel we might be witness to the most probable outcome= Jesus asks in utter despair as to Why his righteousness had not purchased for him salvation. If the story was allowed to end there then Jesus was not more and no less than a failed messiah. But whether we like it or not, whether we understand it or not, this man was loved by those that survived his death. His message was inspiring and they returned, as first century, to dig through scripture and probably came to believe that there was a Divine purpose for Jesus death. That is what we Paul’s theology finally secured for them. It was not their original intention to cut their ties with Jesus own religion, but they, out of love, had little choice.

5

Positing human logic and reason to Jesus’ death will fall short in understanding the ‘why’s’ behind it. It was a simplistic act (though set in a tragic scenario) which is considered barbaric by some observers. Jesus’ visage of heresy as deemed by the religious leaders of the ‘then’ Jewish people was not unexpected. Years of Jewish law were all of a sudden challenged by the appearance of a man proclaimed from earlier prophesies to be the King of the Jews.

Perhaps the Messiah that was expected from God was visioned to be adorned in fineries accompanied by throngs of angels to save the world. That was where human logic failed. The Son of God being born to a poor family living as everyone else. Then as an adult speaking with authority as knowing what God wanted from His children. People were too afraid to go against convention, especially when stoning of people was still a common occurrence in that day.

It’s understandable people could not fathom that Jesus was not given any special advantage materially or that God’s Spirit was strong in Him. This is why I say we can not apply our finite reasoning abilities to God’s. It could be associated to a grand master chess player who can think fifteen moves ahead during a game against a child that can barely read and make sense of what is happening. Jesus’ death was a neccesity for everyone’s salvation. We have a hard time reconciling the path that it took because life here on earth has a different meaning due to our needs and wants. Aspiring to the spirit seems an intangible goal when all of our experiences revolve around this existence.

6

But it DID bring salvation, as both Jesus and John taught. And even if it didn’t, merely honoring Jesus’ memory wouldn’t bring it.

Just as Job had asked. And just as Job was answered, God, with words no doubt provided by the early Jewish priests, said, it isn’t for you to know. Don’t ask (which is the wrong answer in my opinion. God cannot intervene on the behalf of righteousness or against evil, in order to maintain our free will.)

.

Which actually he was. He failed when the people didn’t swarm the Temple when he and his band “cleansed” it. As it was, he probably held it for a day, but then, when the expected response didn’t materialize, he probably had a good idea at that time that he was doomed. He may even have designed with Judas to martyr himself rather than be caught fleeing.

Jesus’ followers, lead by his brother James, believed that Jesus would return “in the clouds of glory”, but they ascribed no divine purpose to his death. That was Paul, and the theology he invented that became Christianity. As you said:

“That is what we Paul’s theology finally secured for them.” It was the theology he invented that was considered blasphemous by most Jews, especially Jesus closest followers.

It wasn’t the Jews cutting ties with Jewish theology, it was Paul incorporating the philosophy he’d invented into their paganism so that they would accept it. Paul used Judaism to give himself and his theology a credibility and tradition that would strengthen its acceptance with the "gentiles".

7

Hello Litenbolt:

— Positing human logic and reason to Jesus’ death will fall short in understanding the ‘why’s’ behind it. It was a simplistic act (though set in a tragic scenario) which is considered barbaric by some observers. Jesus’ visage of heresy as deemed by the religious leaders of the ‘then’ Jewish people was not unexpected. Years of Jewish law were all of a sudden challenged by the appearance of a man proclaimed from earlier prophesies to be the King of the Jews.
O- No one is trying to fathom the will of God here, through logic of theology. But I am commenting on what the authors of those texts and the characters in those texts seem to have understood as God’s will, not because of logic, for logic is never the starting point, but the projection of a feeling, a faith. As human beings, our psychological well-being depends on understanding the “Why” behind a situation. We need meaning and purpose in our lives and without those “why”, we would be vulnerable to depression.
Jewish Law was not challenged by Jesus, but fulfilled. He did not keep up with the letter of the Law in order to keep with the spirit of the law. Many understood this within the jewsih religion framework. What Jesus was doing was part of a tradition that influenced rabbinic judaism. It is present in the text that Jesus is called “rabboni”. His opposition to the Temple priesthood was an act that was not new. Prophets had opposed the Temple without, in doing so, rejecting God’s Law- in fact they rejected, just as Jesus upturned tables at the Temple, in the spirit of the Law.

— Perhaps the Messiah that was expected from God was visioned to be adorned in fineries accompanied by throngs of angels to save the world. That was where human logic failed.
O- But that is what is prophesized in scripture, and though it is where logic fails, it is also where fairness ends. If this logic, this theory of justice, God’s justice, fails then God is unreachable. This leads to depression.

— The Son of God being born to a poor family living as everyone else. Then as an adult speaking with authority as knowing what God wanted from His children. People were too afraid to go against convention, especially when stoning of people was still a common occurrence in that day.
O- Not everyone. But if you were part of the Temple, a political as well as religious entity, then you knew that Jesus was going to incite something he would not be able to finish and cost you your temple. Jesus, on the other hand, was convinced that God’s hand would be revealed by his obedience onto death. They both understood salvation on the same basis- intervention from God to right the scales and return the israelites to a position of power over all nations, beginning with Rome. The later writers have Jesus adjusting the time table of this event (2nd comming), not adjusting the nature of such event (as imagine by the writer of the Apocalypse)

— Jesus’ death was a neccesity for everyone’s salvation. We have a hard time reconciling the path that it took because life here on earth has a different meaning due to our needs and wants. Aspiring to the spirit seems an intangible goal when all of our experiences revolve around this existence.
O- If you understand that Jesus death was a necessity for everyone’s salvation, then you must hold a reason why this is so, a theory, a hypothesis, a form of formal logical, assumptions, all of which you advise against.

8

Hello Painful Truth:

— But it DID bring salvation, as both Jesus and John taught. And even if it didn’t, merely honoring Jesus’ memory wouldn’t bring it.
O- Maybe as John taught, not Mark’s gospel, where salvation is left hanging in Jesus’ “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”. Salvation was not the release of the Holy Spirit to all peoples. Salvation is tied with a Judgment Day. The Holy Spirit is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The book of the Apocalypse list the reasons why all was not done.

— Just as Job had asked. And just as Job was answered, God, with words no doubt provided by the early Jewish priests, said, it isn’t for you to know.
O- God is silent. This is why the Gospels appear years later.

— Don’t ask (which is the wrong answer in my opinion. God cannot intervene on the behalf of righteousness or against evil, in order to maintain our free will.)
O- If that is true then there is no basis for believing in a Day of Judgment or in God’s Justice, for there is no measure of Justice either. Some may be able to live like this, for they have bellies that are full, but for others, on empty stomachs (a metaphor), they HAVE to ask, and issue forth answers on God’s behalf (though what they feel is as mere tools of God, who is the one providing the words of these answers).

— Which actually he was.
O- No he wasn’t. Those that believe in Him returned to the OT and believe to have found the reason why Jesus HAD to die before he could come back a Second time- that time full of the signs that jews prophesized would have been present in the Messiah. At some point, God would place under His Annointed all, and in this, the jews and Christians agreed- they only disagreed on the identity annointed.

— He failed when the people didn’t swarm the Temple when he and his band “cleansed” it.
O- Salvation was always understood as God’s action, so it wasn’t dependent on what men did, but on what God choose to do. The “Day of the Lord”, therefore, depended on the Lord and not on what men did or failed to do. I don’t think that Jesus turning himself over was an ad hoc action brought about by the unresponse of the people to his small rebellion. Jeremiah had done similarly, not because he wanted to incite the people, but to disgrace the priests in power and to challenge their absolute claims of being the representatives of God.

— It was the theology he invented that was considered blasphemous by most Jews, especially Jesus closest followers.
O- Not so quick. They may not have agreed with Paul’s theology, but only because of some of it’s unintended consequences, such as the devaluation of jewish tradition, and not because they were indifferent to assign a value to Jesus untimely death. Somehow, they were sure, Jesus HAD TO DIE. For Paul it was because he had to serve as a sin offering. For others because it was in scriptire that the Servant would suffer. I don’t think that the “Servant” always had meant the “Christ”, but the Chosen People, or Israel. This thus became a requirement that Jesus death had “fulfilled”, and now, they concluded, the same Messiah would return to to fulfill the rest of the checklist. This did not invalidate anything on the Law but fulfilled scripture, as they saw it. They still were Jews, they still would circumscise new converts. Paul went a different route, and probably one more popular and open to converts, since it did not include the uncomfortable act of sawing off your foreskin.

— It wasn’t the Jews cutting ties with Jewish theology, it was Paul incorporating the philosophy he’d invented into their paganism so that they would accept it. Paul used Judaism to give himself and his theology a credibility and tradition that would strengthen its acceptance with the “gentiles”.
O- That is too cynical. I believe that Paul genuinely believed that he was merely a tool, and that his views were in line with God’s plan. Was his theology hellenic? Maybe. It was certainly bound to move that way since the bulk of it’s Church ranks were being drawn from a greek community with a greek culture and worldview. But he was convinced, I think, that he was opening the Church’s doors to uncircumcised gentiles because it was in accordance with Jesus message. And is it not? Paul imitated Jesus is disregarding the letter of the Law in order to stay within the spirit of the Law. This is consistent with Jesus, and with gentile philosophy (Aristotles). “Judaism” in his day, as Christianity has become in our day, was a wide open mess, with ill-defined bonds. Paul had the leeway to explore the mystery of Jesus death within those bounds. What made Paul’s Christianity an element outside of judaism was the jewish reaction towards Jesus. Not everyone saw his death as necessary, but as an arbitrary and complete failure.

9

Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Mar 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luk 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
Luk 17:4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

God has been silent since the Creation. Again, no revelation, no intervention, in order to preserve our free will.

But there is, we will be our own judges, but we will not be able to hide behind lies to others and lies to ourselves. We will by exposed to the unavoidable light of Truth, and if that Truth is unbearable, our only recourse will be to condemn ourselves to oblivion. Hell is a fabrication for the vindictive who seek revenge. Would God and the Heavenly Hosts want to live throughout eternity with all that torment and suffering going on? Why even punish?

Those are the “prophesies” of men, not the revelations of God.

And Jesus did disgrace the priests, which is precisely why they had him executed by the Romans for sedition in attempting to fulfill his mission as the messiah by virtue of his royal blood and thus the King of the Jews. It’s why Pilate cynically had that label tacked on his cross.

Consequences such as blasphemous ritual cannibalism, discounting good works as unnecessary, salvation only through belief in human sacrifice (Jesus") not repentance, and the deification of Jesus were not unintended by Paul. In fact they weren’t consequences at all, they were his founding principles.

Not until after he died. It’s amazing what we can rationalize to fit occurrences, not to mention self-fulfilling “prophesies”.

The only thing we can offer for redemption from sin is our own repentance, not someone else’s death. It’s barbaric and pagan.

God has not “chosen” anyone or any people.

Paul had to either be a cynic or irrational. If he was rational, he had to know he was corrupting Jewish tradition and scripture to fit his own purposes–recruiting pagan gentiles.

.

See above. Those were not fashioned after Jesus’ or Jewish ideas, traditions or behavior.

No, it was what Paul did to that vision (James and the early Jewish Church were Jesusites after all.) Jews naturally turned on Paul’s version of “Christianity” later, for the same reasons James et al turned on it then. It’s amazing that the Bible has any of the enmity between the Jerusalem Church and Paul at all. It was too well known to ignore, which means it was almost certainly was toned down considerable by subsequent gospel narrations and editors. A group of Jews tried to kill Paul, after all. Why? Really, why? Paulistic blasphemy, exile from Jerusalem, and the persecution of Jews for centuries by “Christians” for being “Christ-killers” is what turns the Jews off to the Paul’s version of Christianity–then and now.

10

JWs teach that Jesus’s death undid adam’s sin. Adam was a perfect man, and a perfect man [jesus] had to die to pay the ransom.

Some branches of christianity teach that jesus is God, but the jehovah’s witnesses reach jesus is God’s first creation, but not God.

I personally don’t see the justice in that.
It’s one of the reasons why i don’t really like christianity.

11

Yeah, Original Sin is really a cool concept. A kid gets born and the Fickle Finger of Fate is pointing at it and saying, “Hey, kid, if you die before you get Christened, or baptized or Saved or whatever, you’re damned and going to Hell because Adam ate an apple 6000 years ago”.

Life’s a bitch, and so is death. Too bad. And it’s sad because it’s taken so literally. It is an outstanding metaphor for the consequences of having self-awareness and the temptation to use the free will it provides to choose to harm others for our own benefit.

12

Hello Painful Truth:

— Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Mar 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luk 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
Luk 17:4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
O- Seems like we are going past one another here. What do you define as the Christian- NOT YOUR- concept of “salvation”. That repentance was necessary is not my question, but what did such repentance gained for you? What did Jesus think his righteous living would gain for him?

— God has been silent since the Creation. Again, no revelation, no intervention, in order to preserve our free will.
O- A later apology. The text does not contain a word about freewill and many occurances of the word “predestination”. Paul’s letter to the Romans clearly supports the Bondage of the Will and not the liberty of it, even if to the detriment of God’s Justice and Fairness…it is a mystery.

— But there is, we will be our own judges, but we will not be able to hide behind lies to others and lies to ourselves.
O- Now we are talking other-than-christian theology. If you’re not a Christian then I would need some background as to what you believe.

— We will by exposed to the unavoidable light of Truth
O- The “Painful Truth”?

— and if that Truth is unbearable, our only recourse will be to condemn ourselves to oblivion.
O- Everyone believes, as Socrates saw, that what they did was the good- that is why they did what they did.

— Hell is a fabrication for the vindictive who seek revenge.
O- That is everyone in history. Revenge is a natural response.

— Would God and the Heavenly Hosts want to live throughout eternity with all that torment and suffering going on?
O- Do we mind encarcerating a man who kidnaps a little girl of just eleven years of age, rapes her, impregnates her, forces her to bear his children in a little shack behind his “home”, where she is found 18 YEARS later, after 18 YEARS of rape and abuse, after 18 years of lost innocense, after her life was stolen? I don’t think that her Mom would mind the existence of a prision for as long as they live to contain the likes of him.

— Why even punish?
O- Are you a father or a mother?

— Those are the “prophesies” of men, not the revelations of God.
O- Again this is an other-than-christian theology. You need to clarify what you actually believe and why. Probably not because you have read christian scripture, as your views are against christian scripture and interpretation.

— And Jesus did disgrace the priests, which is precisely why they had him executed by the Romans for sedition in attempting to fulfill his mission as the messiah by virtue of his royal blood and thus the King of the Jews. It’s why Pilate cynically had that label tacked on his cross.
O- The jews were not against a messianic mission, but they were against a suicide messianic mission.

— Consequences such as blasphemous ritual cannibalism, discounting good works as unnecessary, salvation only through belief in human sacrifice (Jesus") not repentance, and the deification of Jesus were not unintended by Paul. In fact they weren’t consequences at all, they were his founding principles.
O- And yet the guiding principle behind belief in Christ still guided both Jerusalem and Paul. You’ve got to understand that Paul was believer in Christ, just as many others. Paul bears witness to them. The deification of Jesus was not Paul’s intention. It is still unresolved centuries after his death and disputed in the Arian heresy. Popular as it was, it took imperial action to stamp out- not “Paul’s guiding principles”.

— The only thing we can offer for redemption from sin is our own repentance, not someone else’s death. It’s barbaric and pagan.
O- Then Jesus died for nothing. Agreed? Jesus did not add anything to our possibility of salvation BY HIS DEATH, correct? So his death was tragic and of no salvitic value other than to serve as inspiration, correct?

— God has not “chosen” anyone or any people.
O- Which God? How do you know?

— Paul had to either be a cynic or irrational. If he was rational, he had to know he was corrupting Jewish tradition and scripture to fit his own purposes–recruiting pagan gentiles.
O- Not for his glory, but for the glory of God. Paul himself wants no one to say of him that he lives off the wealth of his converts…you ought to read some of his letters before condenming him.

— See above. Those were not fashioned after Jesus’ or Jewish ideas, traditions or behavior.
O- Wow. To stand before an expert of jewish tradition, someone who knows the ideas, the very mind of the Christ!

— No, it was what Paul did to that vision (James and the early Jewish Church were Jesusites after all.) Jews naturally turned on Paul’s version of “Christianity” later, for the same reasons James et al turned on it then. It’s amazing that the Bible has any of the enmity between the Jerusalem Church and Paul at all. It was too well known to ignore, which means it was almost certainly was toned down considerable by subsequent gospel narrations and editors. A group of Jews tried to kill Paul, after all. Why? Really, why? Paulistic blasphemy, exile from Jerusalem, and the persecution of Jews for centuries by “Christians” for being “Christ-killers” is what turns the Jews off to the Paul’s version of Christianity–then and now.
O- Before the tables were turned, it was the jews who persecuted and killed Christians…Paul being one of the ones throwing stones at christian martyrs, so, obviously, before the jews became the target of christian persecution there was already a “strong”, to say the least, reaction against the christian message-- EVEN BEFORE PAUL"S THEOLOGY CAME ALONG. Christianity stood as a treath to jewish tradition before Paul’s theology. They were not friends to Christians before Paul and enemies of Christians only after Paul, and the Jerusalem council was not supported by jews but a target of jewsih criticism. Remember that the Jesus-jews still believed that their, jewish, messiah had already come. The jews did not. They believed that the Christ was still to come since nothing had changed for them, before of after Jesus’ death. But for the brother of Jesus, Peter and Paul, something HAD CHANGED, something had been given, by one who was meant to come afterwards. This is not the issue of the dispute between the brother of Jesus and Paul. You are correct to suspect that the conflict was a lot more serious than the NT lets on, but it was a dispute between followers of Jesus and all of them stood, in some fashion or another, OUTSIDE of judaism because of their belief about who Jesus was. For the Jews, Jesus was a failed messiah, or a false messiah, and for the community of “The Way”, regardless of the differences in theology between them, Jesus was the one and only Christ.

13

Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Mar 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luk 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
Luk 17:4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Do you dismiss all those passages on the necessity of repentance?

Salvation–in this world and possibly the next.

Just more evidence that the text is the word of men, not of God. Our free will is the only explanation for Creation, and for the allegory behind the Garden of Eden.

Paul’s word is not only that of a man, but of a man who opposed Jesus and his subsequent followers. He is the beast of Revelation (words of other men, but they prove my point).

I am an agnostic deist. I don’t know that deism is right, but I do know that there are only 2 reasonable positions on the existence of God–deism and atheism. All others require blind faith.

Yes, sometimes, and I suppose at least some of it would be painful for everyone. The question is how much Truth is in you.

Not everyone. The light of Truth shines everywhere, even here, but here we have the option to ignore it.

Yes, and even I am subject to it, but I try my best to restrain it with reason. And lest we forget, certainly God would be above it. And we’re talking eternal revenge here.

You forget that in my scenario, punishment in the afterlife is administered by the one who does the evil because he can no longer lie to himself or “live” with what he is. And in your example, in this world, I would execute him, not as punishment, but because it is our only option to remove him from society. Why should we pay to keep his sorry soul in prison, or worse, let him out?

Yes, but that doesn’t change anything. We flush our excrement, we don’t punish it.

I used to be a Christian, I was raised as one and consider that I was devout. But I came to realize that God does not intervene, and then realized that He doesn’t because to do otherwise, would be to undermine this carefully designed stage where we can make reasoned choices in a rational universe. One supernatural exception would destroy the whole thing. We are created (evolved) in His image, we are self-aware spirits, and as such we can chose to impose our egos on others–or not. That is what we’re here for. And God is not disinterested, He is very interested and cares about what we do, and I am sure He is delighted when we do the right thing.

I don’t disagree. But Jesus failed, so he wasn’t the messiah, he wasn’t anointed. Jesus arranging for his death is just a possibility anyway. We’re looking back through 2000 years of fog. The most likely historical Biblical event in the NT, given that Jesus did exist, which I believe, was the cleansing of the Temple.

If by guiding principle you mean that Jesus died for our sins, the Jerusalem Church didn’t believe that. They believed (wrongly as well) that Jesus would return, much as Elijah would, not as a salvific son of God. It’s a complete Pauline fabrication.

And you must understand that Paul invented the idea of the divine Christ.

His death was not an inspiration, but his life, at least parts of it, was.

Because either God does not intervene, or there is no God. (On a side note, God, or god, is equivalent with Truth, whether that Truth is a sentient, divine spirit, or not.)

I have. As I said, I was a Christian. And a very good case can be made that Paul became wealthy and bought his Roman citizenship from money skimmed off what he collected in Asia Minor for the Jerusalem Church. Paul was evil, not only in my eyes but in the eyes of the Jerusalem Church. And the most evil thing he wrote was this:

But didn’t he earn his right to heaven by all the good things he did? No, for being saved is a gift; if a person could earn it by being good, then it wouldn’t be free—but it is! It is given to those who do not work for it. For God declares sinners to be good in his sight if they have faith in Christ to save them from God’s wrath.
–Romans 4:4 (The Living Bible)

The Sanhedrin yes, and Paul was working for them. It was they that had the Romans crucify him for his cleansing the Temple. They and Jesus were enemies. Nobody doubts that. But they don’t stand as the moral representatives of the Jews in anybody’s scenario that I know of. If anything, the average Jew-n-the-street, the followers of Jesus in particular, wanted Paul dead and were about to kill him when his Roman citizenship saved him.

14

Hello Painful Truth:

— Do you dismiss all those passages on the necessity of repentance?
O- No. Only that it is not the end but a means to an end, under Christian theology.

— Salvation–in this world and possibly the next.
O- I had asked you to define the Christian concept of “salvation”.

— Just more evidence that the text is the word of men, not of God.
O- The text is always a human text. It takes faith to believe it to be otherwise.

— I am an agnostic deist. I don’t know that deism is right, but I do know that there are only 2 reasonable positions on the existence of God–deism and atheism. All others require blind faith.
O- What positive beliefs do you have as a deist? What reasons lead to be agnostic even though that would be an irrational position, according to the two reasonable positions you list, which do not include “agnosticism”?

— The question is how much Truth is in you.
O- What do you mean? Define your terms. What is “Truth”? and what do you mean by “in”?

— The light of Truth shines everywhere, even here, but here we have the option to ignore it.
O- So much for your agnostic deism. How do you know that the light that “shines” is not merely YOUR prejudice?

— Yes, and even I am subject to it, but I try my best to restrain it with reason. And lest we forget, certainly God would be above it. And we’re talking eternal revenge here.
O- Why would God be above it and how do you know that It is?

— You forget that in my scenario, punishment in the afterlife is administered by the one who does the evil because he can no longer lie to himself or “live” with what he is.
O- IS THAT SO? How do you know all this?

— Yes, but that doesn’t change anything. We flush our excrement, we don’t punish it.
O- So much for “freewill”. “…with what he is…”, “We flush our excrement…” meaning that people are determined, that if you do bad then you ARE bad, that is your essence instead of you choice. We punish because of the implicit principle, believed or not, that people have freewill that is modifiable. That no one is determined or condemned or ever can refuse their ability to change their ways. Punishment provides them an incentive to choose to avoid bad behaviour. When we kill, we deny this principle that a person can choose. We can kill some due to the hideousness of their crime, but for the most part, we punish, lest we give up the belief in the dignity of our species- our ability to change.

— But I came to realize that God does not intervene, and then realized that He doesn’t because to do otherwise, would be to undermine this carefully designed stage where we can make reasoned choices in a rational universe.
O- But is God moral then? We can deduct that the universe is rational because it follows predictable outcomes when we have all the information of the variables involved. But the universe cannot be infered to be moral, because the processess involved are above good and evil and cannot be bargained with. Secondly, you suppose that this regularity has a motive, so, is this personality behind the regularity moral? Apparently this God of yours does not intervene because he chooses not to, but could He or It ever intervene? If it could then it is morally liable. The value of freewill is undisputed here but divine intervention would not necessarly destroy freewill, while It’s non action can destroy freewill agents.

— One supernatural exception would destroy the whole thing.
O- How do you know? God’s action is not incompatible with a rational universe. His action could very well form part of a rational creation, just as ours lies within this rational creation. If we have freedom of choice then choice is not incompatible with what is rational, especially if we consider that choices have by definition reasons behind them and so “rational” by definition.

— We are created (evolved) in His image, we are self-aware spirits, and as such we can chose to impose our egos on others–or not.
O- What would you do if you see a child starving and there is no one there to feed it? What if the land this child was born into is going to the worst drought in it’s known history? Would you choose to impose YOUR EGO on this person? You probably would and you would not even see it as an imposition. Well, if you would, then God, in whose image we are made could as well. Since the human intervention would not destroy reality, why would God’s actions?
I think that there is no reason to believe as you do, exceppt to eliminate the possibility of judgement of the God in whom you WANT to believe. It is not what you must believe but what you want to believe, i.e. that all tragedies have a reason behind them, a value, and thus left to proceede because otherwise the whole universe would be destroyed, or something you (only half-heartedly) believe in is of value, freewill, would cease to be. For the love of choice, you despise life.

— That is what we’re here for. And God is not disinterested, He is very interested and cares about what we do, and I am sure He is delighted when we do the right thing.
O- Does God do the right thing when a baby is born without eyes? Does God do the righte thing when hospitals collapse during an earthquake killing children and those doing the “right” thing, trying to help them?

— If by guiding principle you mean that Jesus died for our sins, the Jerusalem Church didn’t believe that.
O- The guiding principle is that Jesus was Christ. But yes, they believed that too. Can you prove to me that they did not? Or give me reasons why they could not? Even better, what did they believe, according to you? Seems to me that the council was as jewsih as it needed to be, so why was it persecuted?

— They believed (wrongly as well) that Jesus would return, much as Elijah would, not as a salvific son of God. It’s a complete Pauline fabrication.
O- So, Jesus would return, according to the Jerusalem council, but NOT as the salvific son of God? So why would Jesus need to return for?

— And you must understand that Paul invented the idea of the divine Christ.
O- You must explain to me then WHY did Paul persecute Christians before becoming a Christian? Why were the members of the Jerusalem council persecuted by jewish authorities if they only believed in the messiah and not in the divine christ? What then would have been the cruical difference between the jews and the jerusalem council?

— The Sanhedrin yes, and Paul was working for them.
O- But he was a Pharisee as well, so both sects had a bone to pick with the upstarts. The Christian testament attacks both sects, so that confirms that independently of the differences between Saducees and Pharisees, they were still seen as sects within judaism while Christians, like Stephen were seen as outside judaism-- again, not because of Paul’s theology.

15

I belive that God created the universe in order to spawn sentient creatures such as us, who have free will, which is the only way God can be surprised by anything. Imagine eternity where he can know in advance every detail of everything. He’d go stark raving bored in nothing flat. In fact it’s a good thing there was no time before the universe.

Knowledge, justice, love and beauty–the aspects of Truth.

Because I and the universe exist in a rational state. Agnosticism, as I use it, merely means I don’t know something for certain. If God exists, I’m certain He must be a non-interventionist God. But He may also not exist. Those are our only two reasonable choices.

I don’t know that it is so, but if there is a God and an afterlife, it makes the most sense.

You draw a lot of conclusions that don’t follow.

God knows what morality, and virtue are, He just doesn’t lay them out for us. That’s our job in a universe with free will.

No supernatural action could be.

Man is the only one capable of lying to others, or himself. A lie is merely the intentional avoidance of Truth. With afterlife light of Truth, we can’t do that anymore

???

Truth leads to the conclusion that for the establishment and maintenance of good order, we must adopt the philosophy of enlightened self-interest. Lead others by your example to value all human life.

All of the most senseless deaths and other such misery, are examples of God’s dedication to our free will. The misery may seem completely swamping now, but against the backdrop of eternity, it is but a blink.

For the Jerusalem Church, Christ meant the messiah. That’s completely different from Paul’s salvific savior.

Same old same old, corrupt power. That is what Jesus was trying to overcome.

To establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. Like I said the Jerusalem Church wasn’t always right either.

He was a hired gun for the Sanhedrin.

There were and remain different Jewish factions, same with Christianity, Islam…

That was a later claim. A Pharisee wouldn’t have done what he did for the Sanhedrin.

16

Hello Painful Truth

— I belive that God created the universe in order to spawn sentient creatures such as us, who have free will, which is the only way God can be surprised by anything. Imagine eternity where he can know in advance every detail of everything. He’d go stark raving bored in nothing flat. In fact it’s a good thing there was no time before the universe.
O- Why do you anthropomorphize God in such a way? Does God need to be surprised? Does It feel joy, or boredom? Suffer change? I may very well agree with you, but only insist that we recognize the painful truth that there is fancy in all statements about God.
The universe may very well eliminate us and our will. Perhaps the painful truth is that there is no grand master plan behind the emergence of the human will- that if we were to rewind time to the start of creation, there would be no certainty that we would emerge. But if it did have to develop in such a way then how can such design admit of an uncertain variable? If the universe developed through an absolute certainty then how can anything uncertain exist within it?

— Knowledge, justice, love and beauty–the aspects of Truth.
O- Aspects that are ill-defined and again beg the questions:
What is knowledge?
What is just?
What is beauty?
We cannot know for certain the answers for these because they depend on a judgment that is as free as our will and our fancy.

— Because I and the universe exist in a rational state.
O- What is meant by “rational”? And can you define “freewill”?

— Agnosticism, as I use it, merely means I don’t know something for certain.
O- But if the universe and you exist in a “rational state”, as I understand it as of right now, wouldn’t that allow you to know for certain? If you cannot measure what the universe is, then why do you suppose that it is rational?

— If God exists, I’m certain He must be a non-interventionist God.
O- You mean other than the intervention of creating the conditions to keep Himself entretained?

— But He may also not exist. Those are our only two reasonable choices.
O- And obviously you cannot know either way. What is more elegant as a theory?

— I don’t know that it is so, but if there is a God and an afterlife, it makes the most sense.
O- Formaly perhaps, but we are talking about objective existence, not linguistic consistency.

— You draw a lot of conclusions that don’t follow.
O- Where and how?

— All of the most senseless deaths and other such misery, are examples of God’s dedication to our free will. The misery may seem completely swamping now, but against the backdrop of eternity, it is but a blink.
O- What is most probable: That God allows senseless suffering out of His dedication to our freewill, or that there simply is no God behind nature’s fury, only forces beyond the need for entretainment by freewilling pets? Whatever is most painful for you to accept should be the truth…

— To establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. Like I said the Jerusalem Church wasn’t always right either.
O- What about the salvific Son? Would he return according to Paul? And if so, what for?

— There were and remain different Jewish factions, same with Christianity, Islam…
O- But while the pharisees and saducees did not see eye to eye about certain beliefs, they did not stone one another, so being of a different sect was not enough to explain the persecution of the jerusalem faction.

— That was a later claim. A Pharisee wouldn’t have done what he did for the Sanhedrin.
O- Why not?

17

It’s the other way around, He “divined” us, if you will, or created us in His image as the Bible puts is so well. Just imagine being the only being in existence. He could (and has) created beauty beyond imagination, but who else could appreciate it, who could He share it with. If He’d decided to create a sentient being with free will, poof, and there you are standing beside Him and He asks you what you think about that waterfall over there. But before you can answer, He knows; He can hear you thinking “what should I say that won’t offend him”. And “I better do whatever He tells me, or…”. Creation would be like walking on eggshells and living in a glass cage. I often think of angels as metaphors for God’s “first attempt” at companion beings. But they couldn’t have free will around Him if they hadn’t had the opportunity to develop it away from His influence in the first place. And it had to be in a rational environment, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to deduce and apply a moral code without becoming schizophrenic (our emotions bring on enough mental problems as it is when we don’t guide them with reason). But we need the emotions as our engine of motivation to pursue the aspects of Truth and morality.

Except one, that God is Truth, no matter what that Truth is, even that there is no divine sentient supernatural spirit.

Beauty, yes, but it is the only completely subjective aspect. Knowledge is the only completely objective aspect. The other two are blends.
But that’s strange, why did you leave love out? Surely that’s the most difficult to define of the four–or at least it used to be. But that’s another thread.
This is all part of the simple, poetic beauty of the model. It combines the four into one complete whole. One Truth. One God (or possibly “god”, in the sense of an ultimate non-divine ideal).

The physical laws of the universe (nature) are universal and not subject to supernatural exception. (Yes God technically has the power to override them, but only if He’s willing to disrupt reason and our ability to use it.)

Because everything we’ve discovered (which is a helluva lot) so far (without exception) is rational. That’s enormous evidence that it will continue to be so. But because we haven’t discovered everything (and probably won’t), we still have to allow .(10 to the -43 zeroes)1 of doubt.

If we were puppets (or angels), entertainment would indeed be all He’d get out of our existence. But we’re much more. We’re sentient creatures with the free will to pursue Truth (God) and thereby worship and commune with Him, or not.

Good question. I think neither, and both. They are both unlikely, but one has to be the answer. I have considered that question actually leads to a .(10 to the -43 zeroes)1 edge for believing in design. How could a spontaneous universe be so elegant, while He remains so hidden. A long way to go, but I’ll pin my hopes on that, especially since I was happy with a pure 50-50.

I threw that out there after the quote that preceded it. I was at a loss to follow what you were getting at. But more generally, you are very precise when you’re talking about philosophy, but when philosophy and theology are combined, not so much. I speak from first hand experience. It was decades between when I became a deist, and when I finally gave up on prophesy or divine providence (which both Washington and Paine believed in among other deists at the time). The one just isn’t consistent with the other. Divine intervention is divine intervention. I think it was actually harder to give up than my Christianity originally was.

I don’t see that the entertainment of natures forces has anything to do with it. That there is no God and therefore no purpose behind our suffering would be the most painful, but I don’t see that as affecting the probability of one over the other at all.

The salvific son is Paul’s invention. He would ultimately have to take responsibility for it.

There were many more factions as well. Those were the two most powerful, and the Pharisees in particular enjoyed respect as scholars throughout the Roman Empire (thus Paul’s attempt to glom onto their reputation.) Jesus and John the Baptizer could well have been Nazorites, Essenes, early Ebioniets and of course there were others. But they were much less powerful and thus more easily subject to execution–as were John, Jesus, and most of his brothers before the fall of Jerusalem.

There are modern Ebionite Jewish Christian movements on the web, and the one I’ve known about the longest is this one:

ebionite.org/

The information on their site added to my belief that Paul was the beast of Revelation.

The same reason the Sadducees didn’t do it, they were above it. The Pharisees in particular were scholars and learned men, not thugs creating havoc for hire. I’ve known about Paul for a long time. I actually waded through (most of) Eisenmann’s James the Brother of Jesus, but Hyam Maccoby’s Paul, the Mythmaker is much more concise. Over the past 10 years, I’ve probably referred back to that book more than any other. More of it is highlighted than un-highlighted (slight exaggeration).

18

Hello Painful Truth

— It’s the other way around, He “divined” us, if you will, or created us in His image as the Bible puts is so well. Just imagine being the only being in existence. He could (and has) created beauty beyond imagination, but who else could appreciate it, who could He share it with. If He’d decided to create a sentient being with free will, poof, and there you are standing beside Him and He asks you what you think about that waterfall over there. But before you can answer, He knows; He can hear you thinking “what should I say that won’t offend him”. And “I better do whatever He tells me, or…”. Creation would be like walking on eggshells and living in a glass cage. I often think of angels as metaphors for God’s “first attempt” at companion beings. But they couldn’t have free will around Him if they hadn’t had the opportunity to develop it away from His influence in the first place. And it had to be in a rational environment, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to deduce and apply a moral code without becoming schizophrenic (our emotions bring on enough mental problems as it is when we don’t guide them with reason). But we need the emotions as our engine of motivation to pursue the aspects of Truth and morality.
O- Why do you explain God to me using the Bible? You cannot put new wine in old skins. If you are going to charge parts of the Bible as the works of men and Paul as the beast then the whole Bible is suspect, for it is claimed that all of it is divine. If Paul is not, then we have no way of knowing where it is or isn’t. Genesis? An archaic myth. I am asking about God, not about projections of human vanity.

— Except one, that God is Truth, no matter what that Truth is, even that there is no divine sentient supernatural spirit.
O- Knowledge is not possible without fancy- Hume showed that. “Just” requires a judgment and that judgment comes often depending on what we fancy to be “motives”, which are beyond our experience- hence, what is “just” comes, in part, from our fancy. Beauty is about what we fancy to be beautiful. And just so that you know that love is not safe from this accusation, love is what we imagine others to feel and what we imagine that we feel, for the fancy can often cover what is just lust.

— Beauty, yes, but it is the only completely subjective aspect. Knowledge is the only completely objective aspect. The other two are blends.
O- All are blends of fancy and facts when it comes to Reality.

— Because everything we’ve discovered (which is a helluva lot) so far (without exception) is rational. That’s enormous evidence that it will continue to be so. But because we haven’t discovered everything (and probably won’t), we still have to allow .(10 to the -43 zeroes)1 of doubt.
O- So, you fancy that the amount of previous experience of one thing serves as proof that it will be so again, or at leads leaves you greater reason to imagine that it will be so…still, however reasonable, it is still rational because of a feat of fancy. Without that fancy nothing could be concluded.

— Good question. I think neither, and both. They are both unlikely, but one has to be the answer. I have considered that question actually leads to a .(10 to the -43 zeroes)1 edge for believing in design. How could a spontaneous universe be so elegant, while He remains so hidden. A long way to go, but I’ll pin my hopes on that, especially since I was happy with a pure 50-50.
O- What is Painful about the Truth then?

— I don’t see that the entertainment of natures forces has anything to do with it.
O- I said “beyond”- not an affirmative statement but a ngeative one.

— That there is no God and therefore no purpose behind our suffering would be the most painful, but I don’t see that as affecting the probability of one over the other at all.
O- So why not name yourself the “Pleasurable Truth” instead?

— The salvific son is Paul’s invention. He would ultimately have to take responsibility for it.
O- I got that. But did Paul believe in the return of the Son and if so for what purpose?

— There were many more factions as well. Those were the two most powerful, and the Pharisees in particular enjoyed respect as scholars throughout the Roman Empire (thus Paul’s attempt to glom onto their reputation.) Jesus and John the Baptizer could well have been Nazorites, Essenes, early Ebioniets and of course there were others. But they were much less powerful and thus more easily subject to execution–as were John, Jesus, and most of his brothers before the fall of Jerusalem.
O- So Paul either was a Saducee or a Pharisee…fine. My question is not answered. My question is that if the theology of the Jerusalem christian-jews was so jewish, then why were they persecuted by jewish authorities? Only Roman authorities could cricify. Why did they choose to crucify Jesus? Because of a dispute about theological fine points that exceeded their understandings? Acts gives us the argument that they would not. Jesus is cricified because of the political meaning of his theology, not for the jewishness or lack there-of. So how could Paul and James and Peter all be persecuted? Obviously not because of ONLY what Paul said or wrote, but by something eslse that stood apart from Paul’s theology, or else the persecution could be narrowed down to after the beginning of Paul’s ministry. Seems to me that the jews had a problem with Christianity that predated Paul, used Paul and continued after Paul switched sides.

— The same reason the Sadducees didn’t do it, they were above it. The Pharisees in particular were scholars and learned men, not thugs creating havoc for hire.
O- So no one persecuted no one?

— I’ve known about Paul for a long time.
O- You’ve known ABOUT the man, not the man himself who died millenia ago.