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.
I just see a problem when you say the original followers of Jesus were pretty much observant Jews. If that were the case, they wouldn't have continued to preach Jesus after He died. The same reasons they would have to come up with to reason why Jesus was still Messiah after His death, would effectively bring them out of regular observation. For example, as I mentioned from James' letter (a letter scholars give a late date, but nonetheless people use to support Jewish Christians who didn't agree with Paul), they didn't offer any trespass offerings for when they sinned against the commandments. They saw Jesus as the last offering for sin. It could also be safe to say that if they believe Jesus died for sin, they also saw Him as God in the flesh, because as the letter of James states that Jesus is the Lord of glory. Back in the Tanakh, this glory was called Shekhinah, and was only referred to with God. So we can't say they were observant Jews to the strictest sense.
With all that in mind, Paul's teaching was basically we weren't justified by the Torah. He didn't have a problem with the Jewish people still keeping their customs in terms of culture, but to say that justified them officially eliminates the need for Christ. The Jewish Christians were the first believers in Christ, so their customs with the Torah was an ordinary thing. Everyone was circumcised, and everyone still celebrated the Feasts albeit with new meaning. Yet once the gentiles started to believe on Jesus, that's when the debate came up. The debate was understandable, but clearly Paul's arguments are right. I would say observance of the Law (If Jesus did preach He was sent by God and was God) after Jesus rose again, was not something He taught. All the Gospels agree that Jesus spent some time with the disciples after He rose again. So the oral traditions that lead up to these works and any earlier works that we don't have, Jesus probably didn't put an emphasis on Torah observance. Just by the fact that everything that is said of Him after resurrection, is not something a strict observer of the Torah would say.
Also you said that Paul didn't believe Jesus rose bodily, but that His spirit rose again. That Peter and James believe Jesus' spirit rose again. Paul certainly believed Jesus rose again, body and all. As someone mentioned, resurrection was a popular theme during the days Jesus walked the earth anyway. Yet Paul himself said that if Jesus didn't rise again, that our faith was in vain and we are to be the most pitied. And again, it's not likely Paul invented this story, so we can say all the original disciples taught Jesus rose again, body and all.
Now there is something I want to mention about Luke's telling of history. Firstly with the mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean, and how Luke got it wrong. My question, is Josephus the only source used to disagree with Luke's telling of the story? Also I've heard that there are words in Luke's account, that some say are plagiarised from Josephus works. Josephus wrote his work "Antiquities of the Jews" around 94 AD/CE. Most scholars give Luke's accounts a date of 80-100 AD/CE (while I argue the date for Luke's account as much earlier around 62 AD/CE), which indicates it could have been written before Josephus accounts. If anything, it seems Josephus borrowed from Luke, but you rarely hear that case being made for some reason. Yet even if Luke's works were written much later, and he borrowed from Josephus, wouldn't you think he would get the history right concerning Theudas and Judas the Galilean? So this tells me that Luke probably didn't borrow from Josephus. Finally if that is the case, why don't we argue that Josephus got the history wrong? (Again going back to my question is Josephus the only source that disagrees with Luke concerning Judas and Theudas?)
Nice post. Now, the first point seems to be agreeing that Paul and the apostles both agreed with the jews keeping their customs and observances as demanded by God's Laws. Paul's departure was in saying that this wasn't necessary for gentiles and you say he was right. Well, of course I don't myself believe that the Jewish observances are of any value whatsoever, but the point is that the Apostles were observant Jews which conflicts with the image of Jesus in the Gospels and makes Paul's argument about the law purely his own and not derived from the apostles, much less Jesus.
Leading on from that, if Paul's Jesus was effectively talking to a voice in his own head, which would of course tell him just what he wanted to hear, then the risen Jesus is a spiritual one - which is to say, exist only the heads of the apostles and Paul.
I do not get the impression from Paul that he in any way believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus. In fact I recall some remark that the once knew Jesus in the flesh but now know him in the spirit. I know that he talks about rising up and meeting Jesus in mid -air. I also gather that the Pharisee view of resurrection was of people coming out of graves to a new world order. There are reasons, nevertheless why I think that a non -physical resurrection is what the apostles and Paul were talking about and the physical resurrection of the Gospels shows definite evidence of invention.
As to the epistle of James, I can't make up my mind. While it does resemble James telling Paul he was an idiot for saying that Faith didn't need works (in fact Paul does imply that doing wrong can nullify faith) it does have a very Christian flavour. I know that there are doubts about the authenticity of the later epistles.
As to the Theudas thing, Josephus is our source for that, but there are circumstantial indications that support it. The Judas the Galilean revolt is associated with the census and that has to be at the time of the Roman census. The Theudas messianic effort on the other hand is linked with procurator Felix and his is linked with Claudius, so it has to be later than the Judas revolt.
There are other historians mentioned - Tacitus, Philo and Suetonius, but what they do to help support the timeline of procurators, High Priests and Judean events I can't say in detail. I can only say that nobody since the 18th century (1) has suggested that Josephus got it wrong rather than Luke.
(1) John Gill - a theologian rather than a historian. Others have suggested an earlier Theudas, but another (historically unknown) messiah doing the same thing but before the Roman takeover is a bit too glib a way of explaining away an awkward problem in the gospels.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-02-2013 at 04:08 AM..
P.s Looking further at James 2 the 'glory' is greek 'doxa/doksa'
1) opinion, judgment, view 2) opinion, estimate, whether good or bad concerning someone a) in the NT always a good opinion concerning one, resulting in praise, honour, and glory 3) splendour, brightness a) of the moon, sun, stars b) magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace c) majesty 1) a thing belonging to God a) the kingly majesty which belongs to him as supreme ruler, majesty in the sense of the absolute perfection of the deity 2) a thing belonging to Christ a) the kingly majesty of the Messiah b) the absolutely perfect inward or personal excellency of Christ; the majesty 3) of the angels a) as apparent in their exterior brightness 4) a most glorious condition, most exalted state a) of that condition with God the Father in heaven to which Christ was raised after he had achieved his work on earth b) the glorious condition of blessedness into which is appointed and promised that true Christians shall enter after their Saviour's return from heaven
This can mean just being the majestic messiah in the Jewish, non -Divine sense as much as a Christian Jesus = God sense.
Also I note that James writes to the (Jewish) tribes of the dispersion. That places it after the end of the Jewish war and the dispersion of the Jews which really wasn't until the time of Hadrian. Can we really be thinking of James, the leader of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-02-2013 at 05:35 AM..
Ps "The Theudas messianic effort on the other hand is linked with procurator Felix and his is linked with Claudius, so it has to be later than the Judas revolt."
Not Felix but Fadus (still later than the 6 AD census revolt of Judah/Judas of Gamalah). Sorry about that. We see how easy it is for an addled of geezer to get a bit mixed up.
Also the letter of James to the twelve tribes (Jews) of the dispersion of course must means those who had left Judea and were living elsewhere in the Roman empire. That is a little odd as I am sure that it was Paul's teachings to gentile converts, rather than to Jews living in Greece or Asia minor that was the matter of disagreement. Of course, James might well have seen his authority, not to mention interest, as being limited only to the '12 tribes'.
All the miracles Jesus performed, he performed on behalf of the God of Moses. Ergo, Jesus performed all those miracles on behalf of Satan and his false prophet. Jesus condemned the terrorist(Pharisees) while praising the doctrine of terrorism they were following. Jesus bit the proverbial Apple, and all of mankind is living with the sin as a result. He is not the savior. The Rider is. The Rider from Rev.19 is who Jesus SHOULD have been.
Nice post. Now, the first point seems to be agreeing that Paul and the apostles both agreed with the jews keeping their customs and observances as demanded by God's Laws. Paul's departure was in saying that this wasn't necessary for gentiles and you say he was right. Well, of course I don't myself believe that the Jewish observances are of any value whatsoever, but the point is that the Apostles were observant Jews which conflicts with the image of Jesus in the Gospels and makes Paul's argument about the law purely his own and not derived from the apostles, much less Jesus.
Leading on from that, if Paul's Jesus was effectively talking to a voice in his own head, which would of course tell him just what he wanted to hear, then the risen Jesus is a spiritual one - which is to say, exist only the heads of the apostles and Paul.
I do not get the impression from Paul that he in any way believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus. In fact I recall some remark that the once knew Jesus in the flesh but now know him in the spirit. I know that he talks about rising up and meeting Jesus in mid -air. I also gather that the Pharisee view of resurrection was of people coming out of graves to a new world order. There are reasons, nevertheless why I think that a non -physical resurrection is what the apostles and Paul were talking about and the physical resurrection of the Gospels shows definite evidence of invention.
As to the epistle of James, I can't make up my mind. While it does resemble James telling Paul he was an idiot for saying that Faith didn't need works (in fact Paul does imply that doing wrong can nullify faith) it does have a very Christian flavour. I know that there are doubts about the authenticity of the later epistles.
As to the Theudas thing, Josephus is our source for that, but there are circumstantial indications that support it. The Judas the Galilean revolt is associated with the census and that has to be at the time of the Roman census. The Theudas messianic effort on the other hand is linked with procurator Felix and his is linked with Claudius, so it has to be later than the Judas revolt.
There are other historians mentioned - Tacitus, Philo and Suetonius, but what they do to help support the timeline of procurators, High Priests and Judean events I can't say in detail. I can only say that nobody since the 18th century (1) has suggested that Josephus got it wrong rather than Luke.
(1) John Gill - a theologian rather than a historian. Others have suggested an earlier Theudas, but another (historically unknown) messiah doing the same thing but before the Roman takeover is a bit too glib a way of explaining away an awkward problem in the gospels.
I agree they kept observing the laws, but as a part of their culture. Also, that they didn't keep it as other observant Jews kept them. My argument is that if they kept them as the Law demands, they wouldn't be Christians, and whatever Jesus taught would have fallen by the wayside. (Much like Theudas and Judas the Galilean) So we know the original disciples made extra-ordinary claims concerning Jesus, and they didn't keep the laws as an ordinary practicing Jew. They kept it as part of their culture norm, and the debate was about is it necessary for gentiles to do the customary norm along with Jesus to be God's people. (Especially concerning circumcision, because circumcision was before the giving of the laws)
So this wasn't a great divide type argument, because if the original disciples believe by keeping the laws you were God's people, you effectively remove the purpose of Jesus. (And anything said of Jesus after His death, is totally Christian. Going back to the topic of did Paul create Christianity) Of course if you except Acts and Paul's telling of the story, they agreed it wasn't necessary for the gentiles to keep their customs, but compromised on the Jewish Christians. The biggest dispute concerning this was really over whether or not the Jewish people should keep the customs of circumcision. That is where the original disciples and Paul butted heads. Yet again, my main argument concerning all this is that they weren't observing Jews in the same sense as the leadership of Israel during that day. They didn't observe the Law from the standpoint that that justified them, but that Jesus was the end of the Law. They saw the Law through Jesus' glasses if you will. So in other words they had a different view of the Law.
To your second point concerning Paul's Jesus, Paul went to the original disciples to get a better picture of who Jesus was. So he didn't just go on a voice in his head, but that voice led him to becoming a believer, and he sought more teaching on Jesus from the disciples. So it's safe to say what Paul thought concerning Jesus, was one in the same with the disciples. If the disciples thought Jesus is the Messiah, even after His death, they would have to believe He literally rose from the grave. There is no place in the Torah to say the Messiah will be a spirit. Paul mentions he saw Jesus risen, but as one born out of due time. Here he is mentioning he saw Him in his vision or a vision he had. Yet the rest saw Him bodily. (1 Corinithians ch. 15) So Paul makes a distinction between himself, and the rest of the apostles, in that they physically saw Him, while he saw Him in a vision. We can say with that, the disciples definitely believed Jesus literally rose again, body and all.
To your third point, I don't think Paul ever said you didn't need works, but that you are justified by faith. That is you receive Jesus' finished work, and that Jesus perfects you. He preached no one can earn eternal life because if they could, again the need for Jesus is eliminated. James agree with this, only that he comes from another angle of faith in saying your works show what you believe. James is saying your works show your faith, faith is still the main thing. Paul agrees with this, and it is seen throughout his letters.
I never understood the belief that James is saying something different from what Paul has said. Paul did a lot of things, and he preached what he did. Yet for some reason, people think Paul is saying you don't need to do anything, just believe. However don't you know if you believe, you will do? If I believed I had a million dollars in the bank, don't you know I'm going to use that money? Yet people believe the essence of what Paul is saying, is you believe you have a million dollars in the bank, but live like you don't. That's not logical. If you never go to the bank to withdraw from that account, chances are you don't really believe you have a million dollars. (And thus, your faith is dead, you don't really believe) So Paul and James are in agreement. James used Abraham as an example. Abraham believed God, that is why he was obedient. If Abraham didn't trust God, he certainly wouldn't have done what God instructed him to do, no matter how much Abraham would have said he trusted God. It's that trust that justified Abraham, and the works showed his trust.
(Ps- you mentioned James wrote to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, and that this was a mention that places the letter post the Jewish revolt. Yet, the tribes were scattered even before that. They were scattered all over the place before the revolt, particularly the lost tribes of Israel. It's possible for this mention to exist before and after the revolt.)
On Josephus, I hear you. Josephus places Theudas during the reign of Fadus as procurator. I guess I still have a problem with Josephus being the only source concerning Theudas to combat Luke's account, yet it wouldn't make sense for Josephus to make an error concerning something as trivial as this. Again, some say Luke copied from Josephus, but if that's true, how could he make such an error? Now there are scholars who suggest Luke may have copied from Josephus, but it could also be that Josephus copied from Luke. I imagine Josephus used a lot of sources for his work concerning the history of Israel and the Jewish people. Because Acts (if it was written earlier) may been among some of the few detailed histories written concerning Israel, it's possible he used Luke's account as a source. Of course even if Josephus did use Acts as a source, Luke could have still been wrong about Theudas. I'll continue to look over this.
Thanks. Nice post. I'll just remark that I got Felix and Fadus mixed up relying on memory. Perhaps luke did the same, though of course that means that his Gamaliel's speech was rather his own invention, but then there is indication that much of Luke and Acts is his own invention.
Also I am having to speculate a bit about how a dead failed messiah turned into Lord Jesus in heaven who would save his faithful. I have to assume that the apostles where the medium through which that message was transmitted.
Paul made it quite clear in his letters that, while he may have visited the apostles, his message or gospel was not from men but from Jesus and he explains just how he got it. That gospel, I am willing to believe differed only from the apostles in that is sidelined the need for observing Jewish ritual - particularly circumision - as a prerequisite for, effectively, becoming Jewish.
Whether a Law observant Jew in any way nullifies a messiah, either one who by his death renews the old covenant (and I must say I incline to the apostles believing that) or just one who happens to have failed this time around, but never you worry, he'll do the forces of darkness some no good when he comes again.
Either way, neither require a Jesus who showed any Christian characteristics at all. Even the Gospel half -way stage of a man propelled about the landscape by the Shekinah is not necessary for messianism, though messianism does require a Davidic spirit, but not necessarily God's spirit, descending and inhabiting a human bod. I can certainly see that idea of a body abandoned at death by the messianic David -spirit reflected in the Mark and Matthew nan abandoned by the Shekinah, as pointed up by the quote from Psalms.
I must reiterate that a lot of this is my own rather pet theory and I believe not put forwards by anyone else (I may be overlooking someone), but I do believe that it is following the right general lines and explains a lot of puzzles in the NT.
Sorry I got delayed in responding to you post let's take it bit by bit and give it the attention it deserves.
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
I agree they kept observing the laws, but as a part of their culture. Also, that they didn't keep it as other observant Jews kept them. My argument is that if they kept them as the Law demands, they wouldn't be Christians, and whatever Jesus taught would have fallen by the wayside. (Much like Theudas and Judas the Galilean) So we know the original disciples made extra-ordinary claims concerning Jesus, and they didn't keep the laws as an ordinary practicing Jew. They kept it as part of their culture norm, and the debate was about is it necessary for gentiles to do the customary norm along with Jesus to be God's people. (Especially concerning circumcision, because circumcision was before the giving of the laws)
My argument is of course that the apostles were not Christians but observant Jews and kept the mosaic laws for the same reason that all Jews keep them - because they were laws given by God and you couldn't be a Jew and not keep them.
My argument is that the NT tends to regard Jesus as a sort of proto -christian, sidelining the sabbath, temple observance and of course circumcision as irrelevant. But as soon as you look at acts, you can see that the apostles are acting like observant Jews being asked by God or Paul to reconsider and give them up.
That is why I say that Paul was the one who argued that only Faith in Jesus was needed to save people. The Jewish laws didn't save and in fact were only there to increase the possibility of sinning.
That is why I say that Paul really invented Christianity and the apostles were messianic Jews. In fact the faith of the apostles did fall by the wayside and generally non -messianic Judaism superseded those who expected the messiah, and it was Pauline Christianity with its manifold appeal that proliferated.
Quote:
So this wasn't a great divide type argument, because if the original disciples believe by keeping the laws you were God's people, you effectively remove the purpose of Jesus. (And anything said of Jesus after His death, is totally Christian. Going back to the topic of did Paul create Christianity) Of course if you except Acts and Paul's telling of the story, they agreed it wasn't necessary for the gentiles to keep their customs, but compromised on the Jewish Christians. The biggest dispute concerning this was really over whether or not the Jewish people should keep the customs of circumcision. That is where the original disciples and Paul butted heads. Yet again, my main argument concerning all this is that they weren't observing Jews in the same sense as the leadership of Israel during that day. They didn't observe the Law from the standpoint that that justified them, but that Jesus was the end of the Law. They saw the Law through Jesus' glasses if you will. So in other words they had a different view of the Law.
Of course I argue that you only remove the purpose of Jesus in the Christian sense. The apostles are seen not through Jesus' glasses but through Pauline Christian glasses. The gospels are not a reliable guide to what Jesus though, taught, said, did or was. They are Christian documents.
In the Jewish sense, Jesus as a messiah is perfectly commensurate with Jews keeping the laws. In fact Paul himself says that Jews are obliged to keep the law and it is Gentiles who are not bound by it. You can read this quite clearly in Romans. Paul never butted heads with the Jews about the need for Jews to be circumcised but for Gentiles to be circumcised before they could be saved by their Faith in Jesus as the risen messiah.
Anything said of Jesus after his death is purely Christian - if you go by the views of Christianity. In terms of messianic Judaism, a messianic spirit going back to heaven until it is time to return in the Last Days, is perfectly ok in Jewish terms. The idea of a body getting up and walking may or may not be ok in Jewish terms, though God can make a cow into a tree, if he wants, but as I pointed out, the story ends with the women discovering an empty tomb and thereafter, they add different resurrection stories to suit the Christian needs. Even the synoptic original has an angel explaining everything which John doesn't have.
The 'Jewish Leadership' were either pharisees, who did believe in resurrection, but didn't believe that Jesus, Theudas, John or any of the others had been the messiah. Apart from that they were just the same as messianic Jews. The Sadducees who were really part of the roman leadership did not believe in resurrection and did not believe in interpreting the Law, either as the Pharisees did. This is really not relevant to the discussion which is whether the apostles were observing Jews or had been taught by Jesus that the Jewish law didn't matter.
Quote:
To your third point, I don't think Paul ever said you didn't need works, but that you are justified by faith. That is you receive Jesus' finished work, and that Jesus perfects you. He preached no one can earn eternal life because if they could, again the need for Jesus is eliminated. James agree with this, only that he comes from another angle of faith in saying your works show what you believe. James is saying your works show your faith, faith is still the main thing. Paul agrees with this, and it is seen throughout his letters.
I never understood the belief that James is saying something different from what Paul has said. Paul did a lot of things, and he preached what he did. Yet for some reason, people think Paul is saying you don't need to do anything, just believe. However don't you know if you believe, you will do? If I believed I had a million dollars in the bank, don't you know I'm going to use that money? Yet people believe the essence of what Paul is saying, is you believe you have a million dollars in the bank, but live like you don't. That's not logical. If you never go to the bank to withdraw from that account, chances are you don't really believe you have a million dollars. (And thus, your faith is dead, you don't really believe) So Paul and James are in agreement. James used Abraham as an example. Abraham believed God, that is why he was obedient. If Abraham didn't trust God, he certainly wouldn't have done what God instructed him to do, no matter how much Abraham would have said he trusted God. It's that trust that justified Abraham, and the works showed his trust.
Yes, I agree that that both Paul and James (or whoever wrote that epistle) both make faith in Jesus the main thing and Paul's argument is that works alone won't save. He does originally seem to think that faith would guarantee the works (in the sense of an innate code of behaviour) but immediately he find out this isn't the case. I will need to look at that James epistle a bit more. However, I am still saying that the apostles and Paul, too - read Romans - both held the same view that observance of the jewish mosaic laws was incumbent on Jews and what they disagreed on was whether it was necessary for believing gentiles.
Incidentally, the James example of Abraham obeyed God reminds me of Paul's argument that Abraham was righteous before the law was given so the law is not required for righteousness. James argues that faith cannot be shown without works. This is a matter of dickering and the real question is - what are the works?
If they are just being a naturally good person, that is good enough for Paul and gentile Christians. But if it is keeping God's laws, that is not going to suit Paul or his gentile believers.
I agree that the dispersion of Jews refers to them having gone abroad before the Jewish war. It is a puzzling question of why James should be writing to them. He had no authority over any Jews other than those who were Jesus' followers.
It is also a question of who copied who - Josephus copying Luke or Luke copying Josephus. Well, I imagine that rather like my argument that Matthew couldn't have copied Mark or he would have make the same geographical mistakes, Josephus couldn't have copied Luke or he would have made the same mistake regarding Judas and Theudas. As I say, the indications are that Josephus is right and Judas was associated with the census and Theudas was a failed messiah under a later procurator.
That Luke shows signs of being unfamiliar with Judean history (except in the books) and geography suggests to me that he wrote after Paul's time. It is true that it only goes to 60 AD but perhaps that is all that he had. It is assumed that he died in the massacre of Christians by Nero, but nobody knows for sure.
I do suspect that the Flavian testament does draw on Luke (24. 19-22) but that is considered to be a later Christian insertion drawing on Luke's gospel and does not mean that Josephus himself referred to Luke or acts.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-06-2013 at 02:42 AM..
Sorry I got delayed in responding to you post let's take it bit by bit and give it the attention it deserves.
My argument is of course that the apostles were not Christians but observant Jews and kept the mosaic laws for the same reason that all Jews keep them - because they were laws given by God and you couldn't be a Jew and not keep them.
My argument is that the NT tends to regard Jesus as a sort of proto -christian, sidelining the sabbath, temple observance and of course circumcision as irrelevant. But as soon as you look at acts, you can see that the apostles are acting like observant Jews being asked by God or Paul to reconsider and give them up.
That is why I say that Paul was the one who argued that only Faith in Jesus was needed to save people. The Jewish laws didn't save and in fact were only there to increase the possibility of sinning.
That is why I say that Paul really invented Christianity and the apostles were messianic Jews. In fact the faith of the apostles did fall by the wayside and generally non -messianic Judaism superseded those who expected the messiah, and it was Pauline Christianity with its manifold appeal that proliferated.
I still think it's more likely they kept the laws as more of a cultural norm, but with new meaning. For instance, they probably didn't sacrifice animals anymore, because they saw Jesus as the final sacrifice for trespasses against the Law. I believe all scholars agree, that the historical Jesus most likely was crucified by Pilate. If anyone saw Jesus as the Messiah prior to His death (as messianic Jews would see), would have to reject everything He said and who He claim to be once He was on the cross. According to the Law, everyone who hanged on a tree was cursed. No way the Messiah would be cursed if you are looking at this thing strictly from how the people viewed the Torah. So if anyone continued to believe Jesus was Messiah after His death, in this case the original disciples, had to believe in the Christian oriented things we believe today. So the original disciples couldn't have been your ordinary observant Jews of the day. I agree though, there was an evolution in how they saw Jesus, that Paul started the entirely grace movement if you will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Of course I argue that you only remove the purpose of Jesus in the Christian sense. The apostles are seen not through Jesus' glasses but through Pauline Christian glasses. The gospels are not a reliable guide to what Jesus though, taught, said, did or was. They are Christian documents.
In the Jewish sense, Jesus as a messiah is perfectly commensurate with Jews keeping the laws. In fact Paul himself says that Jews are obliged to keep the law and it is Gentiles who are not bound by it. You can read this quite clearly in Romans. Paul never butted heads with the Jews about the need for Jews to be circumcised but for Gentiles to be circumcised before they could be saved by their Faith in Jesus as the risen messiah.
Anything said of Jesus after his death is purely Christian - if you go by the views of Christianity. In terms of messianic Judaism, a messianic spirit going back to heaven until it is time to return in the Last Days, is perfectly ok in Jewish terms. The idea of a body getting up and walking may or may not be ok in Jewish terms, though God can make a cow into a tree, if he wants, but as I pointed out, the story ends with the women discovering an empty tomb and thereafter, they add different resurrection stories to suit the Christian needs. Even the synoptic original has an angel explaining everything which John doesn't have.
The 'Jewish Leadership' were either pharisees, who did believe in resurrection, but didn't believe that Jesus, Theudas, John or any of the others had been the messiah. Apart from that they were just the same as messianic Jews. The Sadducees who were really part of the roman leadership did not believe in resurrection and did not believe in interpreting the Law, either as the Pharisees did. This is really not relevant to the discussion which is whether the apostles were observing Jews or had been taught by Jesus that the Jewish law didn't matter.
Can you show me some specific references in Romans that says Jewish people should keep the Law as part of their justification? I do know that Paul said if you are circumcised, don't seek to be uncircumcised, or if you are not circumcised, don't seek to be circumcised. That every man should remain in the state he was when he was called by God. What this tells us, is don't try to earn God's favor, because He gave it to you before you did anything in the first place.
And again, an observant Jew wouldn't see Jesus as Messiah after He died on the cross. I don't know if a Messianic spirit would do for the Jewish people. I think they are expecting the Messiah to be a person who is alive, body and all. They certainly don't expect him to go through any kind of suffering, but that he will come in and set stuff straight from the get go. So even if Jesus died a normal death, the fact that He died would eliminate Him as Messiah according to the Jewish view.
Scholars tend to agree that Paul's letters are the oldest writings in the NT. I argue that Mark's Gospel was written around the same time of Paul's letters or a little afterward (2 or so years after most of Paul's letters). With this being the case, even though Mark's Gospel ends with the angel telling the women about the risen Christ, it just mean Mark didn't record all that happened afterward for one reason or the other. Paul mentioned that Jesus appeared to all the disciples, and even to 500 people at once (by the way going back to some of our earlier discussion about whether the original disciples saw Jesus rising again as a spirit, or body and all, it's hard to imagine 500 people having the same vision of Jesus' spirit at the same time. I think that would be good evidence to suggest the original disciples believed Jesus literally rose again). If we are to believe Paul actually fellowshipped with the original disciples, and that Paul's letters were before the Gospel of Mark, then there was more to the story that Mark didn't write down. So that addition to Mark's Gospel, can be forgiven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Yes, I agree that that both Paul and James (or whoever wrote that epistle) both make faith in Jesus the main thing and Paul's argument is that works alone won't save. He does originally seem to think that faith would guarantee the works (in the sense of an innate code of behaviour) but immediately he find out this isn't the case. I will need to look at that James epistle a bit more. However, I am still saying that the apostles and Paul, too - read Romans - both held the same view that observance of the jewish mosaic laws was incumbent on Jews and what they disagreed on was whether it was necessary for believing gentiles.
Incidentally, the James example of Abraham obeyed God reminds me of Paul's argument that Abraham was righteous before the law was given so the law is not required for righteousness. James argues that faith cannot be shown without works. This is a matter of dickering and the real question is - what are the works?
If they are just being a naturally good person, that is good enough for Paul and gentile Christians. But if it is keeping God's laws, that is not going to suit Paul or his gentile believers.
I agree that the dispersion of Jews refers to them having gone abroad before the Jewish war. It is a puzzling question of why James should be writing to them. He had no authority over any Jews other than those who were Jesus' followers.
It is also a question of who copied who - Josephus copying Luke or Luke copying Josephus. Well, I imagine that rather like my argument that Matthew couldn't have copied Mark or he would have make the same geographical mistakes, Josephus couldn't have copied Luke or he would have made the same mistake regarding Judas and Theudas. As I say, the indications are that Josephus is right and Judas was associated with the census and Theudas was a failed messiah under a later procurator.
That Luke shows signs of being unfamiliar with Judean history (except in the books) and geography suggests to me that he wrote after Paul's time. It is true that it only goes to 60 AD but perhaps that is all that he had. It is assumed that he died in the massacre of Christians by Nero, but nobody knows for sure.
I do suspect that the Flavian testament does draw on Luke (24. 19-22) but that is considered to be a later Christian insertion drawing on Luke's gospel and does not mean that Josephus himself referred to Luke or acts.
Yeah I agree with you mostly on this, and don't have much to add. Again can you show me some specific references to where Paul said the Jewish Christians had to follow the laws and believe in order to be justified. Of course I could do as you say and read all of Romans, but I'm kind of lazy in this regard. Much appreciated
I want to point out that faith would inspire you to act. If Paul mentioned something that he found out that faith wouldn't necessarily guarantee the works, I think it was more the people didn't fully believe their sins were forgiven in Jesus. In other words, there was doubt. Paul mentioned to the people in one of his letters asking them did they not know their bodies were the temple of the Spirit. That if they knew it, they wouldn't be doing some of the things he was hearing them do. So I think it was along those lines you might be referencing here.
Other than that, I agree with the rest here. I guess I can't physically disprove Josephus' account concerning Theudas, because it is Josephus who links Theudas with Fadus from what I'm understanding. (And of course we then get the dates of Fadus' reign as procurator) So unless I have another source concerning Theudas, Luke got it wrong here, or at best it becomes a "He said he said". Of course I'm too familiar with the geography argument, so I can't comment on that one. Of course with evidence you gave in past posts, it seems Luke made edits in his work, so the chances for Luke being wrong about things are increased.
I thought Constantine worshiped the Unconquerable Sun after his little "vision" before the battle... then latter his mother (who was already a Christian from lack of choosing another religion) convinced him to convert (or fuse his god beliefs) with Christianity... He then moved to establish the Catholic Christian Church and murder his own pagan family who (among other things) refused to convert to the blood and human sacrifice cult that was Christianity in their eyes.
Here is what wikipedia has to say:
Biblical Christianity, which according to Christ is the only one recognized, identifies pagan sun worship as Idolatry.
Jesus is not the "Sun" God but the only begotten SON of God. JESUS is alive today sitting at the right hand of God waiting for His appointed time to put all enemies under His feet. He can not be found by looking at the Sun nor is He represented by it. This is Pagan worship, and if not forsaken to serve the living God will come into judgment.
Constantine worked to create a politically correct pseudo "Christianity" in with intent to unite His empire, and it worked. As Constantine attempted to change Christianity, Christ has not changed nor His Word.
As for Paul, his case is bulletproof. He uses the Jewish Old Testament to make His case. Abraham believed God, and it was counted him for righteousness.
How can sinful Man be justified by a Just Holy God? Only the cross of Christ. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. As Christ is the eternal God that entered His creation as a man so that He could die and conquer death in the resurrection, only His blood will suffice. We must come to a living person, Jesus Christ, to receive forgiveness of sins. Salvation is not something Man can purchase with their good works but only receive trusting in the one who did the purchasing, Jesus Christ. Without accepting our sins are paid on that cross, we will have to pay the penalty ourselves. The penalty is death.
Christianity has the only answer to mankind, and the only hope. Sinful man will be at the brink of destroying themselves with our evolution "king of the mountain"climb over/kill others to get ahead for our own gain theology prior to Christ returning. That is the picture that is painted.
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.
"The Theudas messianic effort on the other hand is linked with procurator Felix and his is linked with Claudius, so it has to be later than the Judas revolt."
Much appreciated
