What would be the need? You don't think Paul referred to Kyrios Iesus Christos? This would have been Lord Jesus Annointed, where "Jesus" is a Greek approximation of the Hebrew for "savior." St. Paul's central message is redemption by this Son of the Lord. Is there a reason to think he wouldn't have named Him "savior"?Since Paul does not know any Earthly, temporal details of Jesus of Nazareth's human life, and we only are privy to copies of copies of the original texts, then it is a rather simple matter for scribes to pre-pend Iesous in front of Christos in the few places that the name of Jesus is referred to by Paul.
Dear appendage of Spiderman's creator, what leads you to believe such things? I would never suspect Paul to be a Zealot unless he was preaching to the Zealots. He preached to an audience which was predominantly gentile and around the north (and mostly eastern) part of the Mediterranean, not to an audience that was predominantly even Jewish, and certainly not within their homeland.You are the only one here doing so. Jerry was asking a question, with the underlying premise that SaulcumPaul was indeed a double agent.
Why, I'm sure I'm just as confused as anyone :: twirls hair ::I'm starting to suspect that you are onto my original intent. But you went along with the deception a good while.
The feds (USA) have long granted the Indians a unique exception so they can use peyote. Now let's see someone start throwing peyote parties in private homes (Paul's followers had no temples) of non-Indians and claiming that because they are doing it in the name of a fictitious "Chief [Cherokee word for 'savior'] Anointed" that they are also exempt, and then see how much of a "superficial appearance" law enforcement considers it to be. And peyote is not an executable offense, unlike refusal to worship the emperorThe issue in the verse is a moot point. The Romans had long granted the Jews a UNIQUE exception to doing performing all the monkey games. We are talking about the core needs of the state and not superficial appearances.
I count two places where "the Egyptian" is mentioned, and the author in both cases is suspected to be the same person. Not that it makes that big of a deal, but it seems to me that the Egyptian could just as well be made up as historicalOr: On such a tumultuous occasion, who was counting?
By the fourth century, yes. During the time of St. Paul... :: raised eyebrow ::Or, in other words: the Romans didn't care who the people worshipped, as long as they paid their taxes.
I can only hazard a guess, but seeing as his first letter is to the people of Thessaloniki, I figure it's not impossible this was the first church he started. If that is the case, then I think it's significant to look at what was going on in the spiritual life of the city in the first century.That is, who was the Christ that Paul was preaching about -- according to Marcilla.
Setting aside the imperial cult, the three main cults in 1st century Thessaloniki were Dionysus, Serapis, and Cabirus - Greek, (Greco-)Egyptian, and Thracian dying-and-rising godmen. Also trending was #Judaism. So I figure that Paul, a sort of "zealot" of a more general sort
I certainly don't think it's the only way it could happen, but is it difficult to imagine an intellectual Jew, burnt out on the status quo of the synagogue, inspired by the various mystery cults, and driven to innovate his own path?
Am I missing something? I thought Paul was ten years in Heaven before the Flavians came to powerYes, Flavian (Pauline) Xianity had covert had, not overt aid.