Incredibly, he insists that "Jesus was an orthodox Jew" (p 95). Has he never read the New Testament? Why does he think all those Pharisees called him a blasphemer? Jesus touched lepers, ate without washing his hands, forgave sins, threw moneychangers out of the temple, made Pharisees furious with his nonorthodox statements, including claiming to be God Himself, and, as a result, many demanded his death.
Obviously Wilson meant that Jesus considered himself to be an orthodox Jew, and the pharisees were in fact the heretics. Jesus preached strict following of the Law of God, unlike Paul, who wrongly claimed Jesus had come to abolish the law with its rules and regulations. (Ephesians 2:15)
Also, Jesus wasn't accused of claiming to be God Himself. The reason the Jews, particularly the Sanhedrin and the Sadducees, wanted him dead was because he claimed to be the messiah. This is evident in his trial before the sanhedrin, where the high priest asks him whether he is the messiah, the son of the living God. (For the Jews, the term son of God does not correlate to the Christian concept of God the son). when Jesus affirmed that he is the promised messiah, the high priest declared it to be blasphemy. Therefore, the reason the Jews wanted to kill Jesus عليه السلام was because he claimed to be the Messiah, not God. And the reason such a claim was so feared by the Jews, particularly the elitist sadducees who controlled the sanhedrin council, was because these Jews feared Roman reprisal against the entire Jewish community. They also feared that a Messiah would become popular, challenge their authority (as he had already done) and therefore destroy their influence and whatever prestige they had. the bottom line is, they weren't about to let some Galilean country preacher destroy everything they had.
Wilson thinks the Ebionites were the inheritors of the James/Jesus group. He forgets to mention to Ebionites were Gnostic heretics with a great many odd beliefs, most of which appear to have nothing to do with Judaism.
I agree, the Ebionite rejection of the virgin birth would definitely fall into this category.
"Paul was a Hellenized Jew" (p 109) he argues, who was familiar with the "beliefs and practices of the mystery religions" (p 110). This is an old argument. Many scholars believed it...around 1900 AD. When it became known as the 'History of Religions' theory in biblical scholarship. It is now utterly refuted. Two modern books that cover this theory and why it was discarded are "The Gospel and the Greeks" by Nash and "The Jesus Legend" by Eddy and Boyd. Among the many reasons this theory was discarded was that the mystery religions only arrived after the 1st century, the only exception being the Orphics. At any rate, this theory is now considered so dead and gone that I find it utterly amazing that he could make this claim with a straight face.
The Mithraic mystery cult may have gained popularity later on, but it was still in existence before Christianity. Likewise the cult of Isis, and the cult of dionysus. In any case, the people to whom Paul preached to, mostly the inhabitants of Asia Minor, were indeed practicing these kinds of mystery cults.
And if Paul simply invented a new mystery religion, why did he call pagan gods 'demons'? It's not as if mystery religions were exclusive; you could belong to 20 at one time if you liked. Why did he forbid Christians to eat the meat that came from animals sacrificed to pagan gods?
This objection makes no sense whatsoever. Paul was preaching a new mystery cult, that doesn't preclude him from writing harsh words about other mystery cults which are in fact his competition. Similarly why Paul wrote virulently against Judaism and Judaic practices, he wanted to take Christianity in totally new direction. Also the part of your text which I bolded is a complete lie on your part. Either you are ignorant or just plain lying. I find it hard to believe you would be ignorant of what Paul actually taught regarding eating meat sacrificed to pagan idols:
"But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do" (1 Corinthians 8:7-8, NIV)
Paul's argument that there is nothing wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols, since those idols don't really exist, and only people whose "conscience is weak" will think such meat is defiled. So I guess that means Paul would have no problem with you prostrating or kneeling before an idol, since that idol doesn't really exist, there's no problem in doing such a thing! Interesting, Paul says those who are "weak in conscience" consider meat offered to idols to be defiled. He completely fails to mention that the Torah, which Christians consider to be the Word of God, has strictly forbidden meat offered to idols.
Besides, scholars have shown through textual evidence that, among other places, 1 Cor 15:3f is proof of an early creed. This creed was created probably a decade or more earlier than any of Paul's epistles. The creed proclaims Jesus God and Messiah. Where the heck did that come from if Paul created Christianity? Where did the 'traditions' Paul keeps talking about come from?
And of course, 1 Corinthians is itself a letter attributed to Paul, claiming it contains an early creed accepted by all followers of Jesus is nothing but absurd.
Wilson claims Paul's "was a Hellenistic religion with very little--if any--Jewish content" ( 125). Talk about false! Paul's epistles are drenched, soaked in Jewish culture and, even more, in Jewish scripture. Practically every other sentence refers to a Jewish concept or is a quotation from the Old Testament. I cannot imagine how Wilson could read the epistles and claim there is "no Jewish content". This has got to be the single most ignorant and telling statement Wilson makes, and perhaps the most easily refutable statement I have ever read.
Obviously you think the deceptive use of Jewish terminology constitutes Jewish content. Paul was very clever in being able to mask his hellenistic/pagan ideas in Jewish terms, no doubt about that. Ideas like God incarnating himself in a man, dying for the sins of mankind, etc., these ideas have nothing to do with Judaism, or more importantly the Hebrew scriptures, and everything to do with paganism.
Wilson says Jesus was just an orthodox Jew who wanted to overthrow the Romans. Funny how every single statement in the New Testament argues against this. The resurrection! The miracles! Blessed are the peacemakers! And let's not forget forgive your enemy seventy times seven! Because forgiving your enemy forever would have been of no help in overthrowing the Romans.
I wouldn't go as far as Wilson in claiming Jesus was basically a zealot who wanted to form an army and overthrow the Romans and become a messiah the way in which bar kochba attempted. However, I think its quite clear from Jesus' words that he expected the kingdom of God to come very soon and was expecting the Jews to accept him as their messiah. He felt that he wouldn't need to force the Romans out, but rather God would supernaturally intervene somehow in this affair. This is all evident from Jesus prophecies that the kingdom of God is about to come very soon, so soon in fact that some of his disciples will still be alive when it comes.
If Wilson were correct and Christianity was yet another Hellenistic mystery religion, why were Jews persecuting them?
Why were Jews persecuting the followers of Paul? I think it's pretty obvious, Paul was spreading heretical pagan ideas in the name of Jesus to the Jews. I think they would definitely see such kind of evangelism as a threat to themselves.
Then there's the fact that Wilson keeps insisting that James was just an orthodox Jew. Oh for pity's sake. Then why did the Jewish authorities stone him to death? So clearly, he wasn't just an orthodox Jew.
Internal Jewish strife. The Sadducees and priests especially feared a movement that is claiming the messiah has come. I explained already this was their motivation for wanting Jesus dead in the first place.
