T'was good to listen to Dr Crossan again, he is wonderfully provocative teacher and original thinker. T'was a good interview, I also appreciate that Jacob doesn't constantly interrupt his guests and gives them enough time to think and speak at length. Thanks for the good work and all the best for the New Year!
Wow it’s crazy someone mentioned this book I happened to stumble across a few days ago. I’m about a qtr of the way though and it’s definitely a good book.
@@trina2100 If I recall correctly the author calls out Paul as a semi con-man. He doesn't buy Paul's claim to even have been a Pharisee. Isn't that what the book says? That part was hard to swallow, but he makes good arguments for it.
20:07 - ha! Despite his well made point ten minutes earlier, Dr Crossan here makes the same faux pas that he was criticising earlier. We only know that Paul was from Tarsus because Acts says so. Paul doesn't say that in any of his undisputed letters. It doesn't affect Dr Crossan's point, but I got a chuckle from it.
Wonderful teaching. Dominic is always so. I love his brief summary of how Luke prefers Peter and lets Paul be his shadow. It reminds me of an insight I heard a few years back about the gospels......Mark (somewhat following Paul) is pro-gentile. Matthew writes next to "correct" Mark, dragging the movement back to Pro--Judaism. Then Luke steps in and says, Let's all just get along, Jew and Gentle alike. What Dom's statement here says to me is that Mark pro Paul. Matthew is pro-Peter, James, and Jew. Luke is settling for a compromise between the two and adds in a lot of Pro-Rome too. HHhmmm... I just love you Dominic. You have settled issues for my Christian faith that no one else has had the courage to settle.
I must give it to John Dominic Crossan: he can communicate how he views Paul. But i also note something: The statement that Paul depicts civilization as fundamentally corrupt seems at first glance a plausible one. But then i also note how much Paul admires this very civilisation. Just look at how he sticks to rhetorical rules of his time in his letters. That has become my major focus: what does a person say and what does she do? The argument from action is my way to penetrate the real beliefs of a person. We can talk all day.
Paul wasn’t speaking reconciliation with the 12 apostles. He was trying to pay for a position as an apostle. His letters showing him constantly defending his claim of apostleship.
This is a great discussion on Paul... thank you. I like to compare Acts 9:7 to Acts 22:9 and draw the conclusion from that the Damascus Encounter was just a fabrication, and Paul's testimony is not to be relied upon. That places Paul/Saul still working for the Romans, be it unded cover put down Jewish civil unrest. I love you have a similar conclusion about the resurrection as I have reached... all be it through a different path. I looked at all the biblical authors of the resurrection, and to spite some 33 odd verses making the resurrection claim, when you look closer all the claims are from just four authors, Paul who never meet the Jesus guy, Luke who lived in Greece all his life and never meet the Jesus guy, John and Matthew which the bible states were not present for Jesus death... So basically witnessed by none when you get down to facts. You are so right about Paul not being an Apostle. Paul had given himself the title Apostle, which so outraged Jesus real Apostles that by this time had been publically calling Paul a liar at the Council of Jerusalem, and fighting with Paul over the Jewish laws. That they stopped Paul from ever using the title Apostle, 2 Timothy 1:15 & 1 Corinthians 9:1-3 if you want to read about it. That makes Paul the false Apostle and liar that is described in Revelations 2:2.. I can go into why you would find such information in Revelations, but I want to stick to what Paul did in retaliation. According to Galatians 1:8-9 & 1:13 paul used his postion in scripture writing to stop other followers of Jesus from writing or preaching anything Paul was not preaching. Hence you find all the dates of the gospels are dated after the Apostles death, because they are attributed to not written by. One last point I like to show is Galatians 1:11-16 Paul tells us very clearly that none of the information in any of his scriptures is from any eye witnesses, any other person or any other source.... which rules out being divinely inspired! So now look at 1 Corinthians 11:24 It is Paul quoting Jesus at the 'Last Supper' saying eat this bread in remembrance of me etc. (prety famous quote)... but Paul was never at the Last Supper, Paul never meet the Jesus guy who died in 33AD... Paul's claimed conversion was after 36AD... And Paul tells you he is not divinely inspired or has any information from any other person... So the whole thing is fabricated lies... with Paul inventing a new more manageable faith for the Jews to be tricked into following that would be easier for the Romans to control... Hence the name Roman Catholic! load more of course but interesting stuff... one guy even used AI to fact check me expecting to see my points all fall away... from what I can tell my comments are what AI believes!
Notice romans 1.32 was never written to the churches serial killer Saul who changed his name to Paul to persuade his readers to kill them all romans 1.32
If Paul was working for the Romans to trick Jews into following a faith that Romans could control, why was Paul's big thing taking Jesus's message to the Gentiles? It was Paul who led to the new faith becoming something other than a minor Jewish sect.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Have you read Jesus' message? Have you read Paul's different messages? How is it that you see them as the same? Is it just because Paul said they're the same?
@@FDroid01 That wasn't at all them point of what I said. I agree that they're different. I will rephrase to satisfy your pedantic question: "If Paul was working for the Romans to trick Jews into following a faith that Romans could control, why was Paul's big thing taking his version of Jesus's message to the Gentiles?"
Drusus = Andreas the elder, Anneus = the wicked priest Annas FJ : Festus (ophiuchus) snakehandler and Albinus (cepheus) his highness 'on the road'. Huqoq elephants mosaic ; elves versus alpheides .
I've got to chime in and take issue with the wonderful John Dominic Crossan. There is no possible way that Paul was a Pharisee. I don't think Paul could either read or speak Hebrew based on the way he speaks about the language. He doesn't understand simple things like irregular plurals and he's a Pharisee? His interpretation on some of the very simple verses contradicts the plain meaning. Plus, as an aside, if he was Pharisee, why was he working for a sadducee in his persecution of Christians? That's another nonsensical claim that he makes that he persecuted Christians. No I am quite sure that a little more research needs to be done in the life of Paul. Does not the New Testament claim he was a kinsman of Herod? That would make him an Idumean. Act claims he he's a Roman citizen. How does that square with his claim that he's of the tribe of Benjamin. If anyone can chime in and perhaps answer that I would appreciate it!
I believe he could be both a Roman citizen and "of the tribe of Benjamin". Roman citizenship could be granted to or inherited by people from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds by this time.
@digitaurus That's certainly true although I don't know how likely. Usually it could happen if the father was Roman and the mother was Jewish. That could be one mechanism to get in citizenship as a Jew. What I actually find of greater interest is the New testament's assertion that Paul was a kinsman of Herod. Well that's interesting because Herod was Idumean. And if Herod was Idumean and Paul was his kinsman that creates a few other questions. If Paul is a kinsman to Herod that means either his mother or father was Idumean. If his father was the direct relation to Herod then Benjamin's claim of being of the tribe of Benjamin cannot be true. If his mother was somehow related to Herod that would make Paul most likely not Jewish. The Idumeans for actually forced comveets. I think that was the only time in Jewish history that happened and they were not actually Jews. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that Paul's father was herodian and that's where the Roman citizenship derived from. Paul's mother could well have been Jewish but he would not then be counted among the tribe of Benjamin. That tribal identity can only be passed through the Father. But Paul himself is an absolute narcissistic liar. The first time I read Paul I was laughing when he was describing himself as a Pharisee of Pharisees. Zealous of the law. Circumcised on the 8th day under the law and the tribe of benjamins yada yada. Okay, assuming is circumcision was valid that he is Jewish through his mother. His father was herodian and therefore thus not of Benjamin. He was clearly not a student of Gamaliel, he doesn't make that claim and his claimed for him in the book of Acts. The same anonymous author who wrote Luke also wrote Acts and that basically is a work of fiction anyway so just take it with a grain of salt. It is so easy to prove that the events in both acts and in the Book of Luke were just invented. But interestingly, scholars like Bart Ehrman have been on record saying that he didn't think Paul could even read or speak Hebrew. Well that's fascinating. A Pharisee who couldn't speak Hebrew? I will tell you from my own knowledge that he probably didn't speak Hebrew he didn't understand simple things like irregular plurals for example in the Hebrew language. His biblical interpretation stumbles into the realm of the absurd. What he discusses the oxen not being muzzled in the field? And he states do you think God cares about oxen? His conclusion is so completely opposite to what is found in Torah that you know he was not raised in the Jewish tradition. That's absurd. Plus a million other questions. He claims he was persecuting Christians? This would have been in the '40s. All estimates about the size of the Christian population at that time were tiny. And there were other sects that were much more problematic at the time. I don't believe that story at all. Plus he says he is sent by the high priest to Syria to persecute Christians? The high priest in the temple has no authority outside the temple. Sending Paul to Syria to close trouble? The Romans would have no problem with that? It's a story that was completely invented. Plus the high priest was a sadducee. If Paul was a Pharisee there is zero chance he's working for the high priest. It's all just complete nonsense But it is interesting to try and unravel. Sorry I got a little out of control with this explanation lol.
@@davidkatz341 I certainly agree that Paul's background is somewhat mysterious. It seems unquestionable to me that he had sufficient status, whether through some level of Roman citizenship or something else, to be able to appeal to Rome for trial, rather than facing trial and punishment locally and summarily. And yet, back at the Jerusalem 'conference(s)', he seems to have been a junior member of the delegation as sidekick to Barnabus.
Another view: Paul trained as a Pharisee, became associated with one minor apocalyptic Jewish sect, The Nazarene Sect of the Way, which was creating excitement and disruption within ‘normative’ Judaism. This movement, accepting writings such as the scrolls of Enoch, changed Pauls religious philosophy while he created a different interpretation of the traditional roles.
How was Jesus legally executed? Under whose law bcuz last time I looked at the Western World's law the Justices, Chiefs, Attorneys, Law enforcement, Dept. Of Defense, Monarchy, ect all swears a oath before God. So doesn't that make it 2 laws? Doesn't that prove that man's law & morals are under God's law n if u say no then its those same People who swore a oath under God that protects U right now from other enemies. Also Rome was Illegally ruling over Judaea in the 1st place & Everyone knows that so how can u say Yeshua was legally executed unless u take the side of the Romans who are evil idolatry conquering, robbing, holy land destroying, materialists, everything against God who are truly guilty of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY in today's Law both God & Man so u all tell me what LAW IS YESHUA " Jesus " GUILTY of n chose your words very wisely.?
It seems hard for me to wrap my heard around this too, but why? Why is it so hard for us to see Luke as someone calling the faith back from Paul to Peter? HHHmm... What is the reason you call this idea dumb?
@Boxerr54 Peter was a turncoat... preached Jesus's gospel of the Way in Jerusalem and had to flee for his life. 20 years later he is preaching the gospel of Christ to "the circumcision" with James and the rest, living comfortably in Jerusalem, keeping the Law and participating in Temple worship practices... fell under James influence and took up the gospel of Christ perversion of the original gospel of the Way! The original and authentic gospel of the Way rejected anything to do with Judaism and messianism... that is why the Jews despised Jesus and Paul as his only faithful apostle.
The reign of Alexander the Great (336-323 B.C.) would change the face of Europe and Asia forever (10.132. 1; 55.11. 11). As crown prince, he received the finest education in the Macedonian court under his celebrated tutor Aristotle
Jesus in the Quran reminds the Israelites the afterlife is real, the fashioning of the shape of a bird and breathing in it becomes living, a reminder of the beginning, 0f the human creation from clay, just as he told them [from the unseen] what they eat/kept hidden in their homes [eg. money and treasure], in the afterlife people will be informed what they did 3.49 And ˹make him˺ messenger to the Children of Israel ˹to proclaim,˺: “I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I make for you out of clay the figure of a bird; then I breathe into it, and it becomes a ˹real˺ bird by Allah’s leave. And I heal the blind and the leprous, and I revive the dead, by Allah’s leave. And I inform you concerning what you eat, and what you store in your homes. Indeed, that is a sign for you, if you are ˹truly˺ believers.
Paul is Abraha building the Church (kaaba) at Petra by the grace of EL-oh. EL-qavah and the birds (elkanites, valkyries, Hymenaei) destroy the twin baby elephants Marzuk and Yaqub with stones and arrows. Huqoq elephants mosaic.
[Book Link] = amzn.to/3ZYgUEk
T'was good to listen to Dr Crossan again, he is wonderfully provocative teacher and original thinker. T'was a good interview, I also appreciate that Jacob doesn't constantly interrupt his guests and gives them enough time to think and speak at length.
Thanks for the good work and all the best for the New Year!
The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity" by Hyam Maccoby examines Paul in the development of early Christianity.
Just bought it to have a look.
That is a good one. Becoming a classic.
Wow it’s crazy someone mentioned this book I happened to stumble across a few days ago. I’m about a qtr of the way though and it’s definitely a good book.
@@trina2100 If I recall correctly the author calls out Paul as a semi con-man. He doesn't buy Paul's claim to even have been a Pharisee. Isn't that what the book says? That part was hard to swallow, but he makes good arguments for it.
@@Boxerr54 Yes that's it....I'm not finished with the book but I've always been suspect of Paul so I'm finding it to be an interesting read.
9:15 - really insightful observation here I'm glad someone as prestigious as Dr Crossan is saying this.
20:07 - ha! Despite his well made point ten minutes earlier, Dr Crossan here makes the same faux pas that he was criticising earlier. We only know that Paul was from Tarsus because Acts says so. Paul doesn't say that in any of his undisputed letters. It doesn't affect Dr Crossan's point, but I got a chuckle from it.
JDC is amazing. Always great to hear his perspective.
Always loved John Dominic Crossan. I think I first became aware of him through the PBS documentary series From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians.
Wonderful teaching. Dominic is always so.
I love his brief summary of how Luke prefers Peter and lets Paul be his shadow. It reminds me of an insight I heard a few years back about the gospels......Mark (somewhat following Paul) is pro-gentile. Matthew writes next to "correct" Mark, dragging the movement back to Pro--Judaism. Then Luke steps in and says, Let's all just get along, Jew and Gentle alike. What Dom's statement here says to me is that Mark pro Paul. Matthew is pro-Peter, James, and Jew. Luke is settling for a compromise between the two and adds in a lot of Pro-Rome too. HHhmmm...
I just love you Dominic. You have settled issues for my Christian faith that no one else has had the courage to settle.
funny enough Mark = Matthew, Peter = Luke (lucius)
Deuteronomy 13:1-5
😂
Huqoq Elephant Mosaic
i swear i bumped into Dr. Crossan in Dublin one day
I must give it to John Dominic Crossan: he can communicate how he views Paul.
But i also note something: The statement that Paul depicts civilization as fundamentally corrupt seems at first glance a plausible one. But then i also note how much Paul admires this very civilisation. Just look at how he sticks to rhetorical rules of his time in his letters.
That has become my major focus: what does a person say and what does she do? The argument from action is my way to penetrate the real beliefs of a person. We can talk all day.
I agree, but the double think continues (throught the fiction) because it is useful cognitive dissonance brainwashing for the cult.
Paul = Matthew (mathan, nathanael) as a starting point.
Thank you Jacob. Blessings 🙏 to all
JC is back ✝️
Closest it will ever get anyway!
Wouldn't it be nice to know what the saddecees believed?
Oooh a discussion on Paul, this is gonna be fun.
Paul wasn’t speaking reconciliation with the 12 apostles. He was trying to pay for a position as an apostle. His letters showing him constantly defending his claim of apostleship.
Please host a discussion between Crossan and Ehrman.
Seems everyone in the Bible was wrong about virtually everything, especially the narcissistic predictions of the end of the world in their time.
This is a great discussion on Paul... thank you.
I like to compare Acts 9:7 to Acts 22:9 and draw the conclusion from that the Damascus Encounter was just a fabrication, and Paul's testimony is not to be relied upon. That places Paul/Saul still working for the Romans, be it unded cover put down Jewish civil unrest.
I love you have a similar conclusion about the resurrection as I have reached... all be it through a different path. I looked at all the biblical authors of the resurrection, and to spite some 33 odd verses making the resurrection claim, when you look closer all the claims are from just four authors, Paul who never meet the Jesus guy, Luke who lived in Greece all his life and never meet the Jesus guy, John and Matthew which the bible states were not present for Jesus death... So basically witnessed by none when you get down to facts.
You are so right about Paul not being an Apostle. Paul had given himself the title Apostle, which so outraged Jesus real Apostles that by this time had been publically calling Paul a liar at the Council of Jerusalem, and fighting with Paul over the Jewish laws. That they stopped Paul from ever using the title Apostle, 2 Timothy 1:15 & 1 Corinthians 9:1-3 if you want to read about it.
That makes Paul the false Apostle and liar that is described in Revelations 2:2.. I can go into why you would find such information in Revelations, but I want to stick to what Paul did in retaliation. According to Galatians 1:8-9 & 1:13 paul used his postion in scripture writing to stop other followers of Jesus from writing or preaching anything Paul was not preaching. Hence you find all the dates of the gospels are dated after the Apostles death, because they are attributed to not written by.
One last point I like to show is Galatians 1:11-16 Paul tells us very clearly that none of the information in any of his scriptures is from any eye witnesses, any other person or any other source.... which rules out being divinely inspired!
So now look at 1 Corinthians 11:24 It is Paul quoting Jesus at the 'Last Supper' saying eat this bread in remembrance of me etc. (prety famous quote)... but Paul was never at the Last Supper, Paul never meet the Jesus guy who died in 33AD... Paul's claimed conversion was after 36AD... And Paul tells you he is not divinely inspired or has any information from any other person... So the whole thing is fabricated lies... with Paul inventing a new more manageable faith for the Jews to be tricked into following that would be easier for the Romans to control... Hence the name Roman Catholic!
load more of course but interesting stuff... one guy even used AI to fact check me expecting to see my points all fall away... from what I can tell my comments are what AI believes!
Notice romans 1.32 was never written to the churches serial killer Saul who changed his name to Paul to persuade his readers to kill them all romans 1.32
This. Matthew 24. ❤
If Paul was working for the Romans to trick Jews into following a faith that Romans could control, why was Paul's big thing taking Jesus's message to the Gentiles?
It was Paul who led to the new faith becoming something other than a minor Jewish sect.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Have you read Jesus' message? Have you read Paul's different messages? How is it that you see them as the same? Is it just because Paul said they're the same?
@@FDroid01 That wasn't at all them point of what I said. I agree that they're different.
I will rephrase to satisfy your pedantic question: "If Paul was working for the Romans to trick Jews into following a faith that Romans could control, why was Paul's big thing taking his version of Jesus's message to the Gentiles?"
Paul makes to many blatant errors on halakic law to even have been a Jew .
the Egyptian aka Elymas, Heli
Another very fascinating take on these Gospels and Epistles. Is Dom mostly correct? Shrugs, I but find it most entertaining to go along for the ride.
A perfect Paul, apologist! Completely, ignoring, the fact that Paul taught opposite of the teachings of Jesus and the 12
Drusus = Andreas the elder, Anneus = the wicked priest Annas
FJ : Festus (ophiuchus) snakehandler and Albinus (cepheus) his highness
'on the road'. Huqoq elephants mosaic ; elves versus alpheides .
Paul, a pharisee Jew that converted himself to a Hellenistic Jew.:: Greek:: Alexander, the great, so happened to be a gay man. Born of virgin
I've got to chime in and take issue with the wonderful John Dominic Crossan. There is no possible way that Paul was a Pharisee. I don't think Paul could either read or speak Hebrew based on the way he speaks about the language. He doesn't understand simple things like irregular plurals and he's a Pharisee? His interpretation on some of the very simple verses contradicts the plain meaning. Plus, as an aside, if he was Pharisee, why was he working for a sadducee in his persecution of Christians? That's another nonsensical claim that he makes that he persecuted Christians. No I am quite sure that a little more research needs to be done in the life of Paul. Does not the New Testament claim he was a kinsman of Herod? That would make him an Idumean. Act claims he he's a Roman citizen. How does that square with his claim that he's of the tribe of Benjamin. If anyone can chime in and perhaps answer that I would appreciate it!
I believe he could be both a Roman citizen and "of the tribe of Benjamin". Roman citizenship could be granted to or inherited by people from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds by this time.
@digitaurus That's certainly true although I don't know how likely. Usually it could happen if the father was Roman and the mother was Jewish. That could be one mechanism to get in citizenship as a Jew. What I actually find of greater interest is the New testament's assertion that Paul was a kinsman of Herod. Well that's interesting because Herod was Idumean. And if Herod was Idumean and Paul was his kinsman that creates a few other questions. If Paul is a kinsman to Herod that means either his mother or father was Idumean. If his father was the direct relation to Herod then Benjamin's claim of being of the tribe of Benjamin cannot be true. If his mother was somehow related to Herod that would make Paul most likely not Jewish. The Idumeans for actually forced comveets. I think that was the only time in Jewish history that happened and they were not actually Jews. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that Paul's father was herodian and that's where the Roman citizenship derived from. Paul's mother could well have been Jewish but he would not then be counted among the tribe of Benjamin. That tribal identity can only be passed through the Father. But Paul himself is an absolute narcissistic liar. The first time I read Paul I was laughing when he was describing himself as a Pharisee of Pharisees. Zealous of the law. Circumcised on the 8th day under the law and the tribe of benjamins yada yada. Okay, assuming is circumcision was valid that he is Jewish through his mother. His father was herodian and therefore thus not of Benjamin. He was clearly not a student of Gamaliel, he doesn't make that claim and his claimed for him in the book of Acts. The same anonymous author who wrote Luke also wrote Acts and that basically is a work of fiction anyway so just take it with a grain of salt. It is so easy to prove that the events in both acts and in the Book of Luke were just invented. But interestingly, scholars like Bart Ehrman have been on record saying that he didn't think Paul could even read or speak Hebrew. Well that's fascinating. A Pharisee who couldn't speak Hebrew? I will tell you from my own knowledge that he probably didn't speak Hebrew he didn't understand simple things like irregular plurals for example in the Hebrew language. His biblical interpretation stumbles into the realm of the absurd. What he discusses the oxen not being muzzled in the field? And he states do you think God cares about oxen? His conclusion is so completely opposite to what is found in Torah that you know he was not raised in the Jewish tradition. That's absurd. Plus a million other questions. He claims he was persecuting Christians? This would have been in the '40s. All estimates about the size of the Christian population at that time were tiny. And there were other sects that were much more problematic at the time. I don't believe that story at all. Plus he says he is sent by the high priest to Syria to persecute Christians? The high priest in the temple has no authority outside the temple. Sending Paul to Syria to close trouble? The Romans would have no problem with that? It's a story that was completely invented. Plus the high priest was a sadducee. If Paul was a Pharisee there is zero chance he's working for the high priest. It's all just complete nonsense But it is interesting to try and unravel. Sorry I got a little out of control with this explanation lol.
@@davidkatz341 I certainly agree that Paul's background is somewhat mysterious. It seems unquestionable to me that he had sufficient status, whether through some level of Roman citizenship or something else, to be able to appeal to Rome for trial, rather than facing trial and punishment locally and summarily. And yet, back at the Jerusalem 'conference(s)', he seems to have been a junior member of the delegation as sidekick to Barnabus.
Another view: Paul trained as a Pharisee, became associated with one minor apocalyptic Jewish sect, The Nazarene Sect of the Way, which was creating excitement and disruption within ‘normative’ Judaism. This movement, accepting writings such as the scrolls of Enoch, changed Pauls religious philosophy while he created a different interpretation of the traditional roles.
How was Jesus legally executed? Under whose law bcuz last time I looked at the Western World's law the Justices, Chiefs, Attorneys, Law enforcement, Dept. Of Defense, Monarchy, ect all swears a oath before God. So doesn't that make it 2 laws? Doesn't that prove that man's law & morals are under God's law n if u say no then its those same People who swore a oath under God that protects U right now from other enemies. Also Rome was Illegally ruling over Judaea in the 1st place & Everyone knows that so how can u say Yeshua was legally executed unless u take the side of the Romans who are evil idolatry conquering, robbing, holy land destroying, materialists, everything against God who are truly guilty of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY in today's Law both God & Man so u all tell me what LAW IS YESHUA " Jesus " GUILTY of n chose your words very wisely.?
Paul never said that the Romans killed Jesus, or that he died on a "Roman cross"
makes sense
Crossan is a legend in the field but his understanding of Acts and how Luke presents Paul and Peter is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
It seems hard for me to wrap my heard around this too, but why? Why is it so hard for us to see Luke as someone calling the faith back from Paul to Peter? HHHmm... What is the reason you call this idea dumb?
@@Boxerr54 Paul = Zacherias (saleh), Peter = Ananias ( hud )
@Boxerr54 Peter was a turncoat... preached Jesus's gospel of the Way in Jerusalem and had to flee for his life. 20 years later he is preaching the gospel of Christ to "the circumcision" with James and the rest, living comfortably in Jerusalem, keeping the Law and participating in Temple worship practices... fell under James influence and took up the gospel of Christ perversion of the original gospel of the Way!
The original and authentic gospel of the Way rejected anything to do with Judaism and messianism... that is why the Jews despised Jesus and Paul as his only faithful apostle.
The reign of Alexander the Great (336-323 B.C.) would change the face of Europe and Asia forever (10.132. 1; 55.11. 11). As crown prince, he received the finest education in the Macedonian court under his celebrated tutor Aristotle
Drusus germanicus : the roman alexander
Jesus in the Quran reminds the Israelites the afterlife is real, the fashioning of the shape of a bird and breathing in it becomes living, a reminder of the beginning, 0f the human creation from clay, just as he told them [from the unseen] what they eat/kept hidden in their homes [eg. money and treasure], in the afterlife people will be informed what they did
3.49 And ˹make him˺ messenger to the Children of Israel ˹to proclaim,˺: “I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I make for you out of clay the figure of a bird; then I breathe into it, and it becomes a ˹real˺ bird by Allah’s leave. And I heal the blind and the leprous, and I revive the dead, by Allah’s leave. And I inform you concerning what you eat, and what you store in your homes. Indeed, that is a sign for you, if you are ˹truly˺ believers.
Paul is Abraha building the Church (kaaba) at Petra by the grace of EL-oh.
EL-qavah and the birds (elkanites, valkyries, Hymenaei) destroy the twin
baby elephants Marzuk and Yaqub with stones and arrows.
Huqoq elephants mosaic.