Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Probable education, class and influence of NT authors.
Mark - Educated Greek/Roman following Paul's Jewish religion, influenced by the OT.
Mathew - Educated Greek/Roman, a Jewish Christian influenced by the OT.
Luke/Acts - Educated Greek/Roman, influenced by the OT as well as Josephus.
John - Educated Greek/Roman, Gnostic influenced by the OT and the gospels.
Paul's genuine letters - Educated Jew, influenced by the OT and Greek philosophy.
Epistle to the Hebrews - Educated Greek/Roman, influenced by the OT.
James - Educated Jewish, influenced by the OT.
1 Peter - Educated Jewish, influenced by the OT.
Jude, 2 John, 3 John, influenced by the OT.
1 John - various Jewish authors, influenced by the OT, with some sections maybe influenced by NT theology.
Two excellent post. Trans. So all that could be concluded from theexpulsion of Jews from Rome woud be that they were trouble makers, and that by the time of Nro there was a fairly clear distinction between Jews and Christians, who were largely gentile converts. And that Paul taught that works of the Law were not what was required, though there was nothing wrong wit Jewish observation of the ceremonies and traditions.
In Romans he makes it clear that Jews (being circumcised) have to keep the Law and they can only be Righteous if they keep the whole law, honestly. Gentiles are free of it and can be righteous through instinctive Law. That is why it is essential that they don't circumcise. If they do , they become subject to Jewish Law (so he believes).
It becomes clear later on that he behaves as a jew when it suits him and a gentile when it suits him. Thus I suspect that he is not a very observant Jew, and this bothered him.
I suspect dropping the circumcision requirement was based more on culture than theology. The Greeks viewed circumcision as a mutilation of the human body. If Paul was going to require circumcision, he was not going to get many converts or make much headway in Hellenistic society.
I suspect dropping the circumcision requirement was based more on culture than theology. The Greeks viewed circumcision as a mutilation of the human body. If Paul was going to require circumcision, he was not going to get many converts or make much headway in Hellenistic society.
So, in terms of the OP we are talking about almost all original Jews with some change of perceptions and/or redactions. I have to wonder about Luke's account of the first church council in Jerusalem and the sops made to the Ebionite party.
Let's keep this simple. First and foremost the so called "new testament" was an invention of the Church of Rome with the intention of altering the direction of the true "Followers of The Way". They were NOT xtians. Let's be blunt here with historical FACTS not religious belief desire. jesus christ was NOT the Messiah's name in the FIRST place. There was NO "J" in Hebrew (Messiah was a Hebrew) and 2nd the name given by the Church of Rome "christ" was derived from "christos" a name used by the Romans to exalt their pagan gods.
Now down to brass tacks. The so called "new testament" is a collection of "Letters" written by the Talmadim (you call them apostles) in which those letters were directly written to specific "Assemblies" (not churches) most of which ironically were Hellenized Jews who KNEW the Torah but were no longer observant. It was the Talmadim's intention to educate them regarding the Messiah Yahshua, of HIS significance of being the promised ONE and THE sacrifice for ALL sin if one were to accept HIM as the sacrifice. Also to continue on the teachings of Messiah which was pure Torah, removing the added mens rules and regulations carried on by the leader Pharisee party of that time, which of course persecuted Messiah as they wanted to retain their powers given by the Roman government. It was ALL political AND about Power. They considered Messiah a threat to their power.
The Talmadim (apostles) were indeed teaching pure Torah and the observance of it. If you read Shaul's (Paul's) writings any other way you're taking it purely from a Grecko-Roman mindset and NOT the Hebraic one it WAS. Shaul was a Torah scholar like NO other, hence his logical selection as the best one to reach back out to those that had gone away from Torah to bring them BACK. The irony is he taught more Hellenized Jews to come BACK to Torah then he did Gentiles. If you take your heads OUT of the altered distorted church teachings and take the language BACK to the Aramaic and Hebrew it was originally written in by 11 of the 12 Talmadim (apostles) who were actually Jews, and do your historical research (not church research which was altered for their intentions) you'll discover in a Jewish household Aramaic and Hebrew were taught and spoken others being considered an abomination. This is to say nothing of the fact there was NO such thing as "christianity" till the Church of Rome determined it so........pagan to the core removing ALL of the ways Messiah lived and taught HIMSELF. Go figure. But do I think this will be well accepted by those of the cemetery er um I mean seminary distorted teachings? Na........just wanted to put some truth out there to digest.
In Romans he makes it clear that Jews (being circumcised) have to keep the Law and they can only be Righteous if they keep the whole law, honestly. Gentiles are free of it and can be righteous through instinctive Law. That is why it is essential that they don't circumcise. If they do , they become subject to Jewish Law (so he believes).
It becomes clear later on that he behaves as a jew when it suits him and a gentile when it suits him. Thus I suspect that he is not a very observant Jew, and this bothered him.
Galatians, not Ephesians, is what I have in mind. Galatians 3.25.
Ga. 3.23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
Paul is saying that 'we' were under the Law (since this did not apply to non Jews, he must mean Jews) but now "Faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian".
This looks as though Faith has freed Jews from the Law - in his view. It looks to me as though he has got what he wanted; Jesusfaith has freed Jews from any need to observe the law, and that means himself.
I don't doubt that this was not the view of the disciples of Jesus, and this split between Paul and those 'super -apostles' who taught a gospel other than Paul's reflects this. So the disciples are free from your Fatwah.
I agree. Constantine made a Christianity the state religion, but it was a Christianity that the Greeks had already built on Paul's rejection of Jewish mosaic law as needful for becoming one of God's people.
That's what I think. Important bods were regularly given some divine parentage. It was probably inevitable that Jesus, filled with the messianic spirit as Paul saw it (and no doubt the disciples claimed that) should become a son of God in the Greco -Roman sense, not just the Jewish sense.
Obviously Paul is a two faced lying coward in your opinion and your translation of Galatians, why in the world would I read the words of a lying coward, a false prophet?
Paul took people to get circumcised, and if you are correct about Paul, then he shows what a liar he is in Acts 21, he proves beyond any doubt that he will say or do anything to save his own skin, even lying to thousands of Jewish believers in Acts, and so I am not all impressed with Paul's words.
You should google Eddie Chumney and Galatians so you might have a chance of understanding Galatians, otherwise, I don't want to hear the words of a two faced coward, you listen to the cowardly liar, not me.
I mean, i know it's neither here nor there to you lol, but again, you begin thinking Christianity was not a sect of Judaism.
I suspect dropping the circumcision requirement was based more on culture than theology. The Greeks viewed circumcision as a mutilation of the human body. If Paul was going to require circumcision, he was not going to get many converts or make much headway in Hellenistic society.
I totally agree. Since Paul initially regarded the Mosaic law as incumbent on all Jews (and anyone else who was circumcised) the initial jettisoning of the Law and Righteousness being an instinctive knowledge of God (though the watchmaker argument, apparently, or at least "Look at the trees, look at the flowers") merely required actual salvation (instinctive Righteousness not being sufficient, apparently) could be attained for the Goyyim through Belief in Jesus as the risen messiah.
This was perfect for recruiting his fellow (Roman) citizens who would never tolerate the Jewish restrictions (as they would see it - and so do I, I'm obliged to say) as he could simply say the Laws of Moses didn't matter.
As I say, he later appears to have moved onto Jesusfaith excusing even Jews from the law, which I believe would suit him as he was evidently not a very Observant Jew.
Obviously Paul is a two faced lying coward in your opinion and your translation of Galatians, why in the world would I read the words of a lying coward, a false prophet?
Paul took people to get circumcised, and if you are correct about Paul, then he shows what a liar he is in Acts 21, he proves beyond any doubt that he will say or do anything to save his own skin, even lying to thousands of Jewish believers in Acts, and so I am not all impressed with Paul's words.
You should google Eddie Chumney and Galatians so you might have a chance of understanding Galatians, otherwise, I don't want to hear the words of a two faced coward, you listen to the cowardly liar, not me.
I mean, i know it's neither here nor there to you lol, but again, you begin thinking Christianity was not a sect of Judaism.
I don't trust Act any more than I trust Luke. Paul I regard as well meaning. He believed that Jews (the deserving ones at any rate) would be saved when the End Times came. He was a Roman citizen and it pained him that the gentiles were not going to share in the promise of Abraham.
I won't go into my Pet Theory of how he came to it from initial opposition to the Jesus -followers, but he saw (and surely believed) that believing that Jesus was (as he says) the Risen Messiah, who would come again (1) was all that was needed to make Greeks and Romans as much God's people as the Jews and sharing in the promise of salvation at the End (which he seems to have seen as Imminent) and they didn't need to bother about clean food and certainly not circumcision.
He really wanted the best for everyone, and if he outrageously misrepresented scripture and chopped logic and shifted goalposts (or whatever they had in those days) it was the best of intentions. If he seems to have
turned a blond eye to problems, indulged in self -justification to the point of hypocrisy and (I suspect) disregarded the authority of Jesus own followers in favour of his Own teachings, it was all with the best of intentions, and when they vented their displeasure as his offense against their beliefs, his expression of pained martydom would have beat even Mel Gibson's best.
P.S Eddie Chumney and Galatians
I watched a snippit of his talk and he blew his foot off right away. We should 'walk as Yeshua (Jesus as pronounced by pedants who want to sound authoritative) walked. Which he blithely assumes, was following the Torah. Has he READ the gospels? Jesus spent his time undermining the Torah saying the Sabbath didn't matter and cleanliness and (Mark explains and Luke hints) kosher food wasn't important. Now I agree that Jesus probably was an observant Jew but you won't get that from the Gospels and without that, you have almost nothing other than between -the- lines inferences from what Paul Doesn't say to tell us about Jesus and what he thought, taught and believed.
Of course I did my usual Thing of not watching it all the way through. But if he says 'forget the gospels' (and Acts) I don't know what he's going to talk about in his vid. Let alone the other two parts. If he references the gospels, his views are (in my view) worthless.
(1) and I am sure that this was what the disciples believed, and also (from what Paul says) that this was a spiritual resurrection (Aka - in the heads of the believers) and not a solid body walking still with holes in for identification Purposes.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-05-2018 at 12:28 PM..
I don't trust Act any more than I trust Luke. Paul I regard as well meaning. He believed that Jews (the deserving ones at any rate) would be saved when the End Times came. He was a Roman citizen and it pained him that the gentiles were not going to share in the promise of Abraham.
I won't go into my Pet Theory of how he came to it from initial opposition to the Jesus -followers, but he saw (and surely believed) that believing that Jesus was (as he says) the Risen Messiah, who would come again (1) was all that was needed to make Greeks and Romans as much God's people as the Jews and sharing in the promise of salvation at the End (which he seems to have seen as Imminent) and they didn't need to bother about clean food and certainly not circumcision.
He really wanted the best for everyone, and if he outrageously misrepresented scripture and chopped logic and shifted goalposts (or whatever they had in those days) it was the best of intentions. If he seems to have
turned a blond eye to problems, indulged in self -justification to the point of hypocrisy and (I suspect) disregarded the authority of Jesus own followers in favour of his Own teachings, it was all with the best of intentions, and when they vented their displeasure as his offense against their beliefs, his expression of pained martydom would have beat even Mel Gibson's best.
P.S Eddie Chumney and Galatians
I watched a snippit of his talk and he blew his foot off right away. We should 'walk as Yeshua (Jesus as pronounced by pedants who want to sound authoritative) walked. Which he blithely assumes, was following the Torah. Has he READ the gospels? Jesus spent his time undermining the Torah saying the Sabbath didn't matter and cleanliness and (Mark explains and Luke hints) kosher food wasn't important. Now I agree that Jesus probably was an observant Jew but you won't get that from the Gospels and without that, you have almost nothing other than between -the- lines inferences from what Paul Doesn't say to tell us about Jesus and what he thought, taught and believed.
Of course I did my usual Thing of not watching it all the way through. But if he says 'forget the gospels' (and Acts) I don't know what he's going to talk about in his vid. Let alone the other two parts. If he references the gospels, his views are (in my view) worthless.
(1) and I am sure that this was what the disciples believed, and also (from what Paul says) that this was a spiritual resurrection (Aka - in the heads of the believers) and not a solid body walking still with holes in for identification Purposes.
Bottum line is that if Paul ever taught any Jews not to keep the laws, he deserves death and if somebody takes what he says to show him him teaching Jews not to keep the laws of Moses, they should rip all his words from the bible. Again, you are not understanding what Paul is teaching in Galatians and if is teaching Jews not to keep the laws, he deserved death.....
Paul never taught Jews not to keep the laws and what he said to Gentiles doesn't apply.......Acts 21 shows what Paul is without a doubt, he never stopped keeping the laws himself, and he had people circumcised.
You are cancelling out everything written of Paul showing the facts that he never left Judaism, he presents himself yo the priests and he went in and out of the Temple and this would not have been possible if Paul was really teaching Jews not to keep the law.......
Jesus said that whoever kept the laws to then teach others to keep the laws would be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and so either Paul contradicts Jesus and doesn't deserve to be heard, or the same lies are believed. The same lies that killed Stephen, the same lies that almost killed Paul until he proves his innocence to the priests of Judaism, and they found him innocent and this would be impossible if Paul did what all the liars say he did.
Two excellent post. Trans. So all that could be concluded from theexpulsion of Jews from Rome woud be that they were trouble makers, and that by the time of Nro there was a fairly clear distinction between Jews and Christians, who were largely gentile converts. And that Paul taught that works of the Law were not what was required, though there was nothing wrong wit Jewish observation of the ceremonies and traditions.
Excellent cut and pastes from handy sources on the 'Net, rather. It's perhaps complicated by a lot of Jews from Alexandria. We're looking at near a century later before John's gospel was written and that is supposed to reflect the gnostic type of Christianity that we find in the Gospel of Judas, and the gospel of Peter that shows Jesus as man that has power from God but was not God. This led to Arianism, denounced by the Latin -type of theology that saw Jesus as God from conception. We don't know why the Jews were being troublesome. in the time of Tiberius and Claudius, the Romans tried to conciliate the Jews (though Pilate stood no nonsense) and the Alexandrine Jews were more likely to be rioting about the Alexandrine Greeks than about the Roman rule in Judea.
The Christians had a bad reputation from the first, and I think for 2 reasons - it was a religion that appealed to slaves (almost all gentiles) who had no part in Roman religion and it was a religion that would not pay respect to the Roman state cult. Even Jews did that. If Nero did blame the Christians for the great fire, he had an audience ready to listen.
Clearly in 'Romans', Paul teaches that the Law will 'save' Jews, but they have to observe it properly. His view was that they often didn't and lost the chance of surviving the Last Days. He was appalled at the idea of gentile concerts (who could be Saved by faith in Jesus as Messiah) should listen to the Jews, circumcise and become subject to the whole Law. This is what's behind that puzzling remark of Peter's in Acts (council of Jerusalem, 50/51 AD) that the Jews of the circumcision wished to place on the Pauline converts a burden that the (Jewish) ancestors had not been able to bear. This makes no sense, as to a Jew observing the Law is a pleasure and a privilege. It was a burden to Paul, though, and I glean that he was happy to have jesusfaith make it irrelevant to Jews being saved even without observing the law, which suited him down to the ground.
Of course though I regret the Council not being true, Paul (In Galatians, I recall) has it more as a private talk with James and Peter, which he claims gave him all he wanted. Luke, basing his Acts on Paul's letters,invented a full hearing before the Jesus -Jews (and even Luke sees that they were still observing Jews) and the 'Circumcision' who insisted that Paul stop telling his converts that they didn't need to observe the Law.
I won't go into the shorter list of laws (Noahyde or Noachian : ?) that associate Jews (Gentiles) could get away with and still have a place in the salvation at the End. But that might be a factor, too.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-05-2018 at 08:42 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
of how he came to it from initial opposition to the Jesus -followers, but he saw (and surely believed) that believing that Jesus was (as he says) the Risen Messiah, who would come again (1) was all that was needed to make Greeks and Romans as much God's people as the Jews and sharing in the promise of salvation at the End (which he seems to have seen as Imminent) and they didn't need to bother about clean food and certainly not circumcision. 
It's perhaps complicated by a lot of Jews from Alexandria. We're looking at near a century later before John's gospel was written and that is supposed to reflect the gnostic type of Christianity that we find in the Gospel of Judas, and the gospel of Peter that shows Jesus as man that has power from God but was not God. This led to Arianism, denounced by the Latin -type of theology that saw Jesus as God from conception. We don't know why the Jews were being troublesome. in the time of Tiberius and Claudius, the Romans tried to conciliate the Jews (though Pilate stood no nonsense) and the Alexandrine Jews were more likely to be rioting about the Alexandrine Greeks than about the Roman rule in Judea. 
?) that associate Jews (Gentiles) could get away with and still have a place in the salvation at the End. But that might be a factor, too.