This of course coming from a guy who thinks he's a faith healer. Thanks for the biased disection bodhi.

Bod states: "Just wanted to correct an error that Rook made."

I hope you brought more then your own words.

Bod states: "Paul was a Jew"

Not according to Paul. If anything Paul despised the Jews.

1 Thess. 2:14-16, "For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved--so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last!"

He was brought up a Pharisee, but later renounced those teachings as 'mere rubbish' (Phil. 3:8). He was certainly a Gentile, in fact he was a Hellenized Jew - part of the diaspora (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church), and even considered a native of Tarsus, one of the main Greek hotspots. He wrote in Greek, and not Hebrew (which was common among Hellenized Jews).

Paul might have been born into a Jewish family, but he recants Judaism - especially the teachings of the Torah and Mishnah overand over again. (Rom. 3:28, 6:14, 7:4, 7:6, 10:4; 1 Cor. 8:8; Gal. 2:16, 2:19, 2:21, 3:13, 3:23-25, 4:10; etc...) This is not the way a Jew acts - see Josephus. Read the Talmud, Sanhedrin (Vol 16. in the Neusner Series).

Bod states: "and worshipped Yahweh as the Father of Jesus,"

This is not accurate. This is the Orthodox viewpoint. Many people do not hold this to be accurate. Read books by Elaine Pagels, Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Earl Doherty, and Marvin Meyer.

Bod states: "he did not believe that the father of Jesus was some other God."

See above. Stay tuned for my book.

Bod states: "The only time Paul disagrees with Peter and James is when paul wants to incorporate gentiles as followers of Christ."

Apparently you have not read the Epistles of Paul?

Bod states: "These are important things to know because if he doesn't have the correct information critics will tear his work apart."

Funny, I had no problem with gaining acceptance among scholars and historians of a higher calibre then you. But thanks for your concern.

The best,

Rook

Rook first you say paul was not a Jew and despised the Jews and then you call him a Hellinized Jew, these are the kind of fundamental flaws that someone will tear you apart on.

But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
Acts 21:39

And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
Acts 28:17

Did Paul speak Hebrew?

And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,
Acts 21:40

Acts 22
1Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.

2(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

3I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Philippians 3:4-5

Was paul a gentile? Of Course not! This type of misinformation only confuses others but it is in no way true. Rook, can you clearly see why you are in error?

When Jesus said "Our Father" was he not referring to Yahweh a.k.a. Jehovah in Latin and also The One and Only God a.k.a in arabic as Allah(The God).

Paul never recants Judaism and in fact he says that Jesus has revealed that the law was a tutor

Romans 2:11-13 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

11For there is no respect of persons with God.

12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

As you can see Paul was a very obedient Jew and when Christ revealed himself to Paul, Paul became a very obedient Jewish follower of Christ. Christianity is reformed Judaism and Islam is reformed Christianity. This is called progressive revelation. I really think you want to learn Rook, however you will not learn properly unless you think more objectively.

I don't mind helping you because I want you to come to your own conclusion and you can't do that with the wrong information. I believe I have proved my point, however if you can refute, please do.

In Conclusion Paul writes:

3Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

7Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Clearly Paul is stating that Jesus came to redeem those who believe in God.

Way to keep citing no evidence for your baseless claims.

I agree - there is some compelling evidence for it, and I've looking into it for some time, but I'm just not swayed on it. I am fairly convinced the Pauline Corpus was pre-second century, and there is evidence internally that the Corpus was written about the time before the fall of Jerusalem. I don't see a problem with some of the Pauline Corpus being authentic, although I agree there are cases of redactions, even additions (like that of Romans). I am just not convinced that they are all late works - some perhaps, but not all of them. There is simply no reason historically in my opinion, to yet doubt the existence of authentic Pauline letters - that being before Marcion.

But I'm still up for the possibility, I just have yet to see a very convincing case made for them. I hope to hear from you, anyway. Feel free to contact me.

Thank you very much! I actually have obtained a copy of the book. I was hoping to have you on my show in the future to discuss your book, and hope you can also keep in touch on a few issues. If possible, please shoot me an e-mail: rookhawkins@aol.com

I'd love to dialog with you on some things, and possibly get you on the show in the future.

The best to you,

Rook

I find Rook's work interesting, but I would like to know what his academic qualifications are. He bills himself as a critical historian, and I see him mentioned along with Robert Price and others.

For all I know, his qualifications may be outstanding. There would be no probem sharing them with us, would there?

Hawkins states that he has no 'paper credentials'. So he has no academic qualifications in history, or training as an historian.

Then there are the authorities he has claimed will be reviewing and contributing to his work. Carrier and Doherty, as far as I know, don't exactly have much academic cachet as historians either.

Price and Ehrman are accredited scholars, though this does not mean that their work is any good, and critics like J.P. Holding have described Price's own journal of Biblical Criticism as essentially an exercise in vanity publishing.

As for Burton L. Mack being a reliable source, his Cynic Sage hypothesis has been torn to ragged shreds by historians. This doesn't surprise me. He tended to see in the Bible what he wanted to see, and tried to fit the evidence to match. In the introduction to his edition of the Gospel of Thomas, he describes Christ as going around Palestine making 'koan-like' utterances. Now there's a lot of stuff in the Gospel of Thomas which is genuinely obscure, but the idea of Christ as a kind of Gnostic Zen teacher doesn't say anything about the historical Jesus, but does say something about Mack being attracted to Zen Buddhism and wishing to find something like it in 1st Palestine.
Monro, Editor of Female Sexual Stimulation Project