Of course it was a Roman practice. And of course it was reserved for criminals. It wouldn't have been reserved for law-abiding citizens, would it? But "criminals" included those that rebelled against Roman rule. It doesn't make sense for Jews to treat one of their own as a "despicable criminal" just because he was crucified by the Romans. — Apollodorus

I suppose that would depend on the crime. It was still a disgraceful way to die- left to rot and then thrown in a mass unmarked grave. And it was also still considered a curse by Jews. So... not good all-around.

And so either way, the suggestion that a crucified peasant was the messiah- the anointed king of Israel- would have struck most Jews as absurd, not just the religious authorities. It was a shocking, shocking claim that they were making, especially for Jews, and it was received as such.

Sure. But they still converted sufficient numbers to start a movement .... — Apollodorus

Sure, chiefly because they had great success converting pagans, and ultimately managed to become the official religion of the Roman Empire.

How and why and to what extent Greek culture was absorbed into the ancient Jewish world is not always clear, but that it was is undeniable. From the time of Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C.E., Jews lived in a world in which Greek culture carried a certain prestige and offered a route to political influence.
Hellenistic and Roman-era art from the biblical world shines a spotlight on Judean identity and cultural influences during a formative period in the region’s history. From Hercules as trendy Israeli bathhouse décor to mosaics celebrating Helios, the sun god, in ancient synagogues, Greek culture permeated Judea.
It is even thought by some scholars that Jews in ancient times considered Helios a minor deity to whom they could offer prayers! Scholars are now weaving together evidence from archaeological sites and early Christian texts. Notes Lucille A. Roussin, A connection between the Jewish worship of angels and astrology is attested by many early Christian writers. According to the Preachings of Peter, referred to by Clement of Alexandria, the Jews, “thinking that they only know God, do not know him, adoring as they do angels and archangels, the months and the moon.” Origen writes in Contra Celsius that "what is astonishing about the Jews is that they adore the sky and the angels that inhabit it.”
As Professor Martin Goodman notes, “Outside of Jerusalem and Judea, Jews rarely treated Greek culture as a threat to their Judaism.” The lovely zodiac mosaic floors of Palestinian synagogues tell us that Jews had simply adopted those Hellenistic features that complemented their own worship, including Hebrew labels on the zodiac signs, and—according to some scholars—used images of the Greek sun god Helios to represent Yahweh, who has no form and cannot be represented in art, but is described in Jewish texts from biblical times as fiery like the sun.
Because the centuries immediately surrounding Jesus’ birth were such a formative period in Judean history, studying the Hellenization of Jewish and early Christian culture during this period is crucial in understanding biblical history. — Apollodorus

This is a fascinating summary of the influence of Greek culture of early Christianity.

I find it a bit not quite misleading, that would be too strong to say but... let's say peripheral. Jesus's thought and early Christian teaching focussed around:
- the acceptance of the holy trinity
- the elevation of everyman to the status of the highborn, in terms of how God looks at them
- the importance of moral behaviour
- and reward reaped in the afterlife based on Earthly toils.

This, around and based on an already established Jewish moral and religious substructure of faith.

If Greek thought was more than superficial and peripheral in Christian culture, I'd venture to say they would really have tried to avoid logical self-contradictions. This by me here is not a criticism of Christian faith; it is rather the view that Greek philosophers did not make an impression during and on the formation of Christianity. There would have been more philosophy in the New Testament, which basically is a teaching guide, for rote memory, not a road map or a programming structure. The guidance that the NT provides is authoritarian, and new at the time of Christ; tremendous inventiveness was there, but there was no arguments or convincing of others, no connection to what and how we know the Greeks thought. The angels, and later, the saints, indeed served in Christian faith as lesser gods served in Greek mythology and faith, but this similarity was borne not only to the Green faith, but practically to all polytheists faiths. It is a fallacy to say it was due to an influence by the Greeks.

I am not trying to convince anyone of my truth, but I do believe that the vehement insistence that Christian faith was connected to the teachings of the wise Greek philosophers is only a reference fabricated (falsely) to gain acceptance, reverence, and credibility, but in essence it's simply not there. Much like a young man at a party of common people would boast that his uncle is a physician, or that his aunt is a congresswoman, only for the belief, that it would garner more respect and also higher social ranking in the community.

This is my opinion, but I'd be trying to stop a speeding locomotive with my bare hands if I thought I could garner any support among Christian philosophers and historians to my opinion as above.

If sufficient evidence appeared proving Grimes’ thesis then yes, I would not have a problem with that.

Several biblical scholars, my two favorite being John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack, suggest that Jesus was influenced by Hellenistic thought. — Dermot Griffin

I had the understanding that the influence flowed the other way - that early Christian doctrine was considerably influenced by Greek philosophy and the Greek-speaking theologians such as Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and others of that ilk. That they found in (neo)Platonism a philosophical framework which they could blend with the Biblical revelation, although this was not without tensions ('what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?')

But I would find it unlikely that Jesus himself was 'influenced' by Greek thought. Jesus was many things, but a philosopher-pedant, he was not. My orientation is not specifically Christian, but I'm by no stretch atheist, and I recognise Jesus as at the very least divinely inspired, with a direct intuition which in my view was greater than that of the philosophers. Origen, whom I already mentioned, said the same - though Platonist by education and training, he insisted that the teachings of Jesus contained more wisdom than could be found in the philosophers. And don't forget the early Christian theologians were quick to incorporate whatever they found congenial in the Greek teachings, even saying that Socrates and Plato were 'Christians before Christ'. But I can't see that Jesus would have needed to benefit from their philosophy.

I suppose that would depend on the crime. It was still a disgraceful way to die- left to rot and then thrown in a mass unmarked grave. And it was also still considered a curse by Jews ... — Seppo

He wasn't "left to rot and thrown into an unmarked mass grave" at all.

The body was taken by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus by express permission of Pilate (John 19:33-34, 38, Luke 19:50-52). Joseph of Arimathea was "a respected member of the council", as was Nicodemus, and the body was given a proper burial, in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea himself.

If Jesus had disciples among the Sanhedrin who did not consider him as "cursed", there is no logical reason why he couldn't have had disciples among the common people.

Moreover, Jesus was said to have come back to life and promised to return and establish the kingdom of God, which was an additional reason for the populace to treat him with honor and respect. Clearly, he had respected followers among the Jews both before and after crucifixion.

Plus, there is no evidence that he was a "peasant".

So, I don't think it is quite the way you are describing it ....

This is my opinion, but I'd be trying to stop a speeding locomotive with my bare hands if I thought I could garner any support among Christian philosophers and historians to my opinion as above. — god must be atheist

Well, truth be told, the exact teachings of Jesus are difficult if not impossible to reconstruct. All we have is an account of how he was perceived by others.

What seems clear is that Hellenistic culture had more influence on later Christianity than on Jesus himself. And, of course, there were other influences, the culture of the eastern parts of the empire being quite a mixed bag at the time, otherwise there wouldn't have been Jewish synagogues with mosaics from Greek religion or mythology.

If sufficient evidence appeared proving Grimes’ thesis, then yes, I would not have a problem with that. — Dermot Griffin

Grimes also claimed that the core of Jesus' message did not reflect the concerns or concepts of Judaism. I hope the contributions by schopenhauer1 and Oliver5, amongst others here, show how ridiculous that claim is.

What I find to be particularly galling about Grimes' idea is that it means that Jesus was importing one religion into another, like a Manchurian Candidate taking control of an alien territory. It is as if the Letter to the Hebrews had been written before all the rest had happened.

But he did write in Greek, for people who could read Greek, no? — Apollodorus

Let me get you that quote again...

I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains. — — — Antiquities of Jews XX, XI

It seems here that Greek wasn't encouraged amongst religious-minded Jews. It was to be avoided as for its association with Hellenists, etc. So he reluctantly learned it so he could explain Jewish history better to Greco-Roman audience. He wrote part of the Jewish Wars in his native language, which was the same as the "Upper Barbarians" which are the Parthians/Babylonians, which again, is Aramaic.

Not necessarily. There could have been a number of other reasons. The text may be simply rendering what was actually said in Aramaic, etc. — Apollodorus

Because people generally spoke Aramaic! :lol:.

Well, by that logic, we might as well ignore the Gospels altogether. PLUS the fact they were written in Greek. In which case, there wouldn't be much point in me giving you any quote .... :smile: — Apollodorus

Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying, because something was written down, it must be true? I hope you aren't committing the often religious-based circular logic that, "The (X holy scriptures) is true because it is considered holy and thus can't not be true". Rather, any writing from ANYONE (gospels, letters, epistles, histories, etc.) always needs to be read with skepticism. Especially so for anything before what we might consider "scientifically-minded" history written after the Enlightenment. And even MORE so in ancient times, when history was replete with mythological tangents, speculations, and the like. Also, everything has a bias. The Gospels were written with a purpose, not just "stating the facts, mam". It was trying to convey something and convince an audience of a point of view.

Ok, regarding your Book of John reference, there are a couple things..

1) The Book of John is without a doubt the MOST Greek-influenced.. They had Jesus fit into the scheme of being an incarnated Logos, etc. There are definitely shades of influence of Plato (probably via ideas from Philo of Alexandria).

2) There is really no way for the author to know what was really stated in private if this was not open to the public. In other words, the authors took literary liberties here. It isn't live, captured recording or anything :lol:.

3) This is a much less important point but possibly relevant. Just because people didn't speak Greek, doesn't mean they couldn't borrow words after 100s of years of cultural diffusion. Hades could have been a term borrowed from Greek without speaking Greek, if it was even used at all and not an interpolation (which is probable anyways). Also, there is a term in Hebrew/Aramaic, and that is Sheol which means "the pit". You don't have to be fluent Spanish, but when someone says, "Comprende?" These are just words that have made it in the vernacular.

It is true that Galilee at the time was hosting a variety of folks and tribes. It's already called 'Galilee of the nations' in Isaiah, written well before the Greeks came in.

But it doesn't necessarily follow that it was a 'melting pot'. It was a place where you could meet Greeks, Cananeans and Phoenicians, as well as many Samaritans IF YOU WANTED to meet them.

Interestingly, at the time of Jesus, Galilean Jews were reputed less observant of the Law than Judeans. Less literal too.

Samaritans are originally from the Hebraic tribe of Ephraim and the kingdom of Israel. They have a slightly different Torah and tradition than the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, aka 'Jews', who lived predominantly in the kingdom of Judah. Today the Samaritans are almost instinct.

I never would have thought that the Jews living in Galilee were “less observant and less literal” than others. Could this have been because of the presence of other groups of people that weren’t Jewish? Greeks of course but Samaritans were at least similar to Jews because of their reverence for the Torah (despite the differences between Judaism’s version).

At least they had this reputation among among Jerusalemites, but I suppose you are right, that having to live with other nations and religions, you might be forced to take a distance with the letter of your own religious law here or there.

I agree. All the evidence points to the concerns of Jesus caring about issues within Judaism and among Jewish society whether he was influenced by Hellenic thought or not. I like Grimes but I think he has a tendency to insert his opinion too much. For example I once listened to him say that logos actually means “self” or “whole” rather than “the Word, reason, or rationality.” I don’t speak Greek (maybe someday soon) but to my knowledge it doesn’t mean any of these. He likes to say that St. Paul “cut out” the Greek tradition from Christianity but says 20-25 years earlier in the 90’s that the similarities between St. Paul and Seneca the Younger are remarkable.

As you must be aware of already, people read whatever they want in scripture.

They invest into it. Readers, midrashers, commentators, translators have always taken sides, made interpretative choices... Hiding or dismissing something important, highlighting something else that might be trivial, as might be necessary to buttress their own view. And nobody is immune to this.

I think the idea of a direct filiation between Greek and Jesus' ideas is improbable, a kind of wishful thinking for convergence between two great literary, religious and philosophical traditions of the Mediterranean sea, the Semitic and Greek, PRIOR TO JC. But historically (the way I see it) this convergence happens after Jesus, not before.

Now, a general terrain favorable to convergence existed at the time, be cause of the population mixing brought about by successive empires, as we were saying.

In this terrain, there was some demonstrated interest on the Greek side for understanding Judaism, and vice versa for Jews to read Greek philosophy. But there were also very strong prejudices on both sides, that prevented convergence.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the Biblical canon at least somewhat “defined” by Christ’s day? Or are you just saying people do naturally pick and choose what they want to read because that is also very true.

The Jewish canon wasn't fixed until later, but the Septuagint gives you a good idea of the books considered normative, and worthy of being translated in Greek.

Jesus himself most probably read scripture from a "targum" ie a translation in Aramaic. That's already an interpretation, literally.

I meant: people understand / interpret scripture the way they like.

So he reluctantly learned it so he could explain Jewish history better to Greco-Roman audience. — schopenhauer1

Scholarly opinion is divided on this:

Scholars debate about Josephus's intended audience. For example, Antiquities of the Jews could be written for Jews—"a few scholars from Laqueur onward have suggested that Josephus must have written primarily for fellow-Jews (if also secondarily for Gentiles) ... Neither motive explains why the proposed Gentile audience would read this large body of material.

Josephus - Wikipedia

Because people generally spoke Aramaic! — schopenhauer1

Not at all. People could have spoken Greek and Aramaic and used each language in different situations, Some may have spoken only Aramaic, etc.

There is really no way for the author to know what was really stated in private if this was not open to the public. — schopenhauer1

That's a big "IF" there. It is not unusual for people to communicate to others what had been said in private. :smile:

The Book of John is without a doubt the MOST Greek-influenced.. — schopenhauer1

I see. If it is "Greek-influenced" then is mustn't be true. :grin:

In other words, the authors took literary liberties here. It isn't live, captured recording or anything — schopenhauer1

In other words, it is "literal and reliable recording" when it comes to Aramaic phrases, but "pure fiction" when it comes to the Greek text. Very scientific methodology you've got there, I must say .... :lol:

You don't have to be fluent Spanish, but when someone says, "Comprende?" These are just words that have made it in the vernacular. — schopenhauer1

Sure. But this does not constitute evidence that Greek was not spoken together with Aramaic, does it?

I see. If it is "Greek-influenced" then is mustn't be true. :grin: — Apollodorus

No, rather it is fitting into a framework the author wanted.. Logos, virgin birth, heavenly version of Jesus that is pre-made and has an end goal in mind.. Jews are looked at more contemptuously as "other" than Jesus.. etc. It has more Greek-inspired rhetorical dialogue, etc.

Sure. But this does not constitute evidence that Greek was not spoken together with Aramaic, does it? — Apollodorus

I already explained in what contexts that it would make sense that Greek was spoken by a person in Judea/Galilee.

Scholarly opinion is divided on this: — Apollodorus

Scholarly opinion is not divided on whether Josephus spoke Aramaic.. His native tongue was Aramaic, as he states himself. And that quote also states Josephus' experience of Greek before he learned it to write (or with others who helped him ghost-write) his Jewish Wars and Antiquities. That is to say, that he didn't know it well, nor would any self-respecting religious-minded Jew (his quote, note mine on this). Also note that I don't doubt Josephus' main audience was fellow Jews primarily and gentile secondarily, but the Jews he was writing to weren't the defeated and depleted countryman from Judea/Galilee but the Jews around the diaspora- that is to say, more Hellenized Jews around the diaspora (Paul and Philo of Alexandria are examples of this).

That's a big "IF" there. It is not unusual for people to communicate to others what had been said in private. :smile: — Apollodorus

Uhuh.. right. Anything is possible.. Maybe the author got an exclusive with Pilate's bodyguard!

So I'm sort of done with this debate. You can say whatever you want otherwise, but I presented my view which aligns generally with most scholarly consensus on this. Say your piece, but if I give you the last word on it, it doesn't mean I agree, or what you say is the last word on this.. I just don't wish to keep harping on this particular part of the history of Jesus.

No, it is fitting into a framework the author wanted.. — schopenhauer1

I get it. By that logic, if a scientist writes a paper that fits into a framework that he wants, then it's all lies.

I already explained in what contexts that it would make sense that Greek was spoken by a person in Judea/Galilee. — schopenhauer1

I know you did. Not very convincingly though.

Scholarly opinion is not divided on whether Josephus spoke Aramaic.. — schopenhauer1

Correct. My comment referred to your claim that Josephus wrote his Greek book "to explain Jewish history better to Greco-Roman audience". This is the point on which scholarly opinion is divided.

Maybe the author got an exclusive with Pilate's bodyguard — schopenhauer1

"Pilate's bodyguard"?! The exchange took place in the "judgement hall" (praetorium) where there would have been many eye-witnesses.

Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

The scene is also mentioned in Matthew and Luke, if you don't like John.

Plus my question was "what language would you say Jesus used when he spoke with Pilate?"

He likes to say that St. Paul “cut out” the Greek tradition from Christianity — Dermot Griffin

Another possibility is that Grimes is overstating the presence of an element and has come up with a cause to explain its apparent absence. The natural question to ask is if there are other accounts that give some evidence for this "cutting out."

He wasn't "left to rot and thrown into an unmarked mass grave" at all. — Apollodorus

He very probably was, as scholars like Ehrman have persuasively argued. The Joseph of Arimathea story is very probably a later- and non-historical- addition to the narrative. Victims of crucifiction were thrown in mass graves, and there's no reason why Jesus would have been different.

But even if that weren't the case, it was still a disgraceful way to die, and particularly for a Jew, in light of the Biblical curse against being hung from a tree, and the notion of a crucified criminal being the anointed king of Israel would still have been an absurdity for most Jews.

If Jesus had disciples among the Sanhedrin who did not consider him as "cursed", there is no logical reason why he couldn't have had disciples among the common people. — Apollodorus

Who said he didn't have disciples among the common people? As I've said already, his disciples were both Jewish and common people/peasants. The point is that Christianity's great explosion was due to their success converting pagans, because they had a tough time converting Jews in any great numbers.

Plus, there is no evidence that he was a "peasant". — Apollodorus

You're joking, right? He was, according to all our records including/especially the Gospels, a peasant born of a peasant family living in a small peasant village- a carpenter/artisan, which, in the social order at the time, was about as low as one could get.

So, I don't think it is quite the way you are describing it — Apollodorus

Yes, it was very much the way I'm describing, and nothing that I've said here is particularly controversial as far as the relevant scholarship goes.

Just so you know who you are dealing with. From Apollodorus:

Most US colleges and universities are notoriously dominated by atheists and anti-Christians like Ehrman. The same applies to journals of "Biblical scholarship".

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544386

He very probably was, as scholars like Ehrman have persuasively argued — Seppo

Well, it's a well-known fact that Ehrman woz there. And with eye-witnesses like him, who needs scholars, right? :smile:

IMO things could perfectly well have been different in Jesus' case (a) if Pilate sentenced him under pressure and (b) if influential members of the Jewish Council requested a proper burial for him.

As I've said already, his disciples were both Jewish and common people — Seppo

So, Jews were not common in Roman Palestine?

Yes, it was very much the way I'm describing, and nothing that I've said here is particularly controversial as far as the relevant scholarship goes. — Seppo

Sorry, but I don't think Ehrman is "relevant scholarship" at all. The truth of the matter is that his theories have been widely criticized by Christians and scholars in general:

Daniel Wallace has argued that in Misquoting Jesus Ehrman sometimes "overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct ...

Bart D. Ehrman – Wikipedia

Interesting… When exactly was the Jewish Canon actually formalized or closed? I’ve heard that the Council of Jamnia in the 2nd century was the official date but some scholars debate this.

Well, it's a well-known fact that Ehrman woz there. And with eye-witnesses like him, who needs scholars, right? — Apollodorus

Who needs critical scholarship when we can just uncritically accept religious narratives? Because critical scholars weren't there, we should just trust uncritical religious narratives that also came from people who weren't there? :lol:

Clearly, you didn't think this response through before posting it.

And in any case you're still missing the point. Suppose Jesus did receive a proper burial (he very probably didn't, but suppose he did, for the sake of argument). He was still crucified as criminal by the Romans, and still died on a wooden cross (a curse, for Jews). Calling a dead person, let alone a crucified criminal, the anointed king of Israel would have been an evident absurdity to most Jews. And dying on a wooden cross was still considered a curse by the Jewish scriptures.

All things confirmed by Paul, when he tells us how they had difficulty converting Jews because the notion of a crucified messiah was a contradiction in terms from a Jewish perspective.

So, Jews were not common in Roman Palestine? — Apollodorus

Um... What?

Sorry, but I don't think Ehrman is "relevant scholarship" at all. The truth of the matter is that his theories have been widely criticized by Christians and scholars in general: — Apollodorus

Of course he is, he's a New Testament scholar. And I'm not only referring to Ehrman, or to arguments Ehrman has made that are controversial. All the things we've been talking about here are uncontroversial among most Biblical scholars and historians- crucifiction was a disgraceful way to die, the Jewish scriptures claim that dying on a tree is a curse, Jesus was a peasant, Christians had trouble converting Jews in any large numbers, and so on.

And btw, "some people criticized this person, therefore everything this person says is wrong" isn't a particularly good argument. You're sort of bringing a plastic butterknife to a gunfight here, so unless you have something serious to argue I think we can conclude this conversation.

Heh, this explains a lot. Should probably have saved myself the trouble. Oh well, maybe someone else will take something from this conversation even if Apollodorus is unable to.

Oh well, maybe someone else will take something from this conversation even if Apollodorus is unable to. — Seppo

I often work under that assumption. Some people have a vested interest in things being as they believe them to be and will go to extraordinary lengths to attempt to discredit the work of generations of scholars because their work leads to conclusions at odds with how they want things to be.

What someone ignores what is said in the very sources they quote to support their claims things will seem to be other than they are. Daniel Wallace was selectively quoted. This is what he said in the wiki article:

Daniel Wallace has praised Ehrman as "one of North America's leading textual critics" and describes him as "one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I have ever known". [emphasis added][ /quote]

I pointed this out months ago, but as he often does, he ignored it and now repeats this misrepresentation.

When exactly was the Jewish Canon actually formalized or closed? I’ve heard that the Council of Jamnia in the 2nd century was the official date but some scholars debate this. — Dermot Griffin

Yes, the canon was set in Jamnia, which is widely seen as the birth date of modern rabbinical judaism. But the text itself in a fully vocalized and punctuated version (the masorah) was only finalized in the 10th century.

Daniel Wallace has praised Ehrman as "one of North America's leading textual critics"

He is considered one of the best specialists of that period in the English-speaking world.

Who needs critical scholarship when we can just uncritically accept religious narratives? — Seppo

Clearly, you didn't think that question through, because "uncritically accept religious narratives" is exactly what you are doing - when it suits you:

the Jewish scriptures claim that dying on a tree is a curse, — Seppo

All things confirmed by Paul, when he tells us how they had difficulty converting Jews — Seppo

according to all our records including/especially the Gospels, — Seppo

Etc., etc.

And you seem to be oblivious to the fact that most original Christians were Jews and that they succeeded in converting other Jews, including Paul himself!

Jesus was a peasant — Seppo

1. If he was a "peasant", so were most other Jews. So, why would peasants look down on other peasants???

2. In the NT Jesus is addressed or referred to by the title of "teacher" many times, so clearly not everyone considered him a "peasant"!

And btw, "some people criticized this person, therefore everything this person says is wrong" isn't a particularly good argument. — Seppo

I don't think "some people praised this person, therefore everything this person says is right" is any better.

It looks like you not only uncritically accept religious narratives (when it suits your agenda), but also uncritically accept the dogmatic narratives of dodgy scholars .... :smile:

Clearly, you didn't think that question through, because "uncritically accept religious narratives" is exactly what you are doing - when it suits you: — Apollodorus

No, I never said that being hung from a tree is cursed... only that the Jewish scriptures say so. Accepting that the scriptures say something obviously isn't the same thing as accepting the thing it says.

Once again, are you even thinking this stuff through before pounding out a reply? This is the sort of thing that should go without saying, and which makes me question your seriousness.

And you seem to be oblivious to the fact that most original Christians were Jews and that they succeeded in converting other Jews, including Paul himself! — Apollodorus

Are you drunk? Quoting myself from earlier in the thread, saying the exact thing you're now saying I'm "oblivious" to (and I don't think this was the only time I said it, either)-

Jesus's closest disciples were Jews. The earliest Christians were those disciples, and their friends and family that they managed to convert... also mostly Jewish, probably. — Seppo

So, are you responding to my posts without reading what I said? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting me as saying the exact opposite of what I actually said? I'm not sure which is worse. :grimace:

1. If he was a "peasant", so were most other Jews. So, why would peasants look down on other peasants??? — Apollodorus

I didn't say other peasants "looked down on him", I said that the notion of a dead peasant (not to mention a crucified criminal) being the literal anointed King of Israel struck most Jews as absurd. Being a peasant and being the king are sort of mutually exclusive- or are you going to dispute that too?

2. In the NT Jesus is addressed or referred to by the title of "teacher" many times, so clearly not everyone considered him a "peasant"! — Apollodorus

Being a teacher and being a peasant are not contradictory. He was a peasant. All of our surviving documents say so; even the Gospels tell us he was a peasant. What's next, are you going to dispute that his name was "Jesus" or that he was from Nazareth? Again, are you even being serious here?

I don't think "some people praised this person, therefore everything this person says is right" is any better. — Apollodorus

Good thing, then, that I never said such a thing. Is this another instance of you not reading the posts you're attempting to respond to, or deliberate misrepresentation?

It looks like you not only uncritically accept religious narratives (when it suits your agenda), but also uncritically accept the dogmatic narratives of dodgy scholars .... — Apollodorus

Yikes. That's a swing and a miss there friend. But hey, at least you tried.. sort of. I think the level of effort and seriousness you're putting in here would probably be better suited to Twitter or Reddit or something, but hey whatever floats your boat I guess, right?