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.
In his time, Jews were Orthodox and he would probably have been seen as Reform (or even a cult leader) in the eyes of the Kohenim (high priests or senior rabbis). So possibly the Kohenim may have advised the Romans that he was creating a subculture of discontent by causing some Jews to stray away from traditional ways of living their lives. So even though the Romans directly killed him, the Kohenim may not have had clean hands in their conversations with the Romans in relation to him. Looking at the Torah and Mishna, he was in the gray area of being stoned. He lived as a Jew and died as one. But his followers and the following generations made so many changes that it was no longer seen as a sect of Judaism within a few hundred years. Christians were continuously killed for about 400 more years following his death.
Even if that was true, then the Kohenim, the chief priests, as I believe the Gospel puts is, had some input into the case against Jesus before the Roman governor. But the fact is that the Roman governor executed Jesus for the reason given - sedition. Even though Luke on his own account suggests that the Sanhedrin tacitly threatened to make trouble for Pilate if he didn't find Jesus guilty of that charge.
This isn't the place to go through the numerous reasons why the whole trial scenario and the supposed pushing of the Chief priests for a death sentence is utter nonsense, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that, if Jesus existed, and had really been crucified by Pilate (and I think it very likely) then Pilate knew exactly what Jesus had said and done and was quite capable of staging his arrest without the help of the Sanhedrin, let alone Judas. If they were involved at all, it was as part of the Roman provincial administration for which Caiaphas acted as assistant for what 25 years? (18 -36 CE.)
Jesus never advocated sidelining Jewish ritual. That was put into his mouth by the Christian writers of the gospels. Jesus was never accused of blasphemously claiming to be the son of God and coming on the clouds as the returning messiah. Indeed I don't believe that would have been blasphemy, any more than if Elijah had returned in power. That was a scene put into the mouths of the Chief priests by Christian writers who were familiar with their claim that Jesus was God in person WAS blasphemy to the Jews.
It was not Jesus nor indeed his followers who made changes to Judaism. It was a process begun by Paul for very specific reasons and then taken further by his followers who then retrospectively applied their views to Jesus and his followers.
I am aware that it is generally mainstream to suppose that Jesus did try to revise or reform Judaism and that Christianity essentially got its cues from the disciples. I believe this is a false view and I trust that one day it well become known that the gospels are a Christian document and in no way are reliable as a record of what Jesus and his disciples did, said or thought. Paul is already called the 'First Christian' but it still isn't appreciated how applicable (though not strictly true) that is.
That is the reason why these discussion threads are so valuable. While it may seem that I am constantly bashing my shoe on the lectern, I am actually always learning something.
The Jews, especially the pharisees were saying that in order for a gentile to become a Christian they had to be circumsized, this was not true, this was legalistic on their part, Paul stated this was wrong as it was by God's grace that we are saved.
The Jews, especially the pharisees were saying that in order for a gentile to become a Christian they had to be circumsized, this was not true, this was legalistic on their part, Paul stated this was wrong as it was by God's grace that we are saved.
It's certainly true that one doesn't need to be circumcised to be a Christian and that it was argued by Paul that, while it was required by law for Jews, it would not save them. Only faith in Jesus would do that -for Jews and for gentiles.
What seems to have been the basis of the Jewish opposition to Paul is that he was claiming that faith in Jesus would admit gentiles to the promise of Abraham - effectively make Jews of them - without the need for them to be circumcised or to observe the jewish laws. Let's face it, if Christianity were not that, the Jews wouldn't have cared what the gentiles thought or believed. 'Unless you are circumcised..you cannot be saved' (Acts 15. 1)
It is made to look in Acts as though the disciples are pretty much on Paul's side and it is 'those of the circumcision' as though there any other kind of Jew at that time that were insisting of circumcision and observance of Jewish rites for those who Paul was telling had been made part of the promised salvation when the messiah came again. It is a reasonable surmise that those 'coming down from Judea' had been sent by the leader of the Nazorenes, James.
Luke rather gives the game away when he shows (Acts 21. 17 -on) that James was concerned with Jewish orthodoxy and observances and Luke has his doing a bit of a PR demonstration to allay fears that he was teaching Jews not to be circumcised.
Now it has been pointed out here that Gentiles need only observe the 'Noachian commandments' (I believe they are called) which is a limited number of commandments to make Gentiles eligible for the world to come, though exactly eligible as what is not made clear. So it is possible that James did give some limited admission for gentiles under the law, but that vague supposed letter after council of Jerusalem explains nothing clearly and is never discussed or explained by Paul.
I strongly suspect that the contents of the letter (repeated by Luke in Acts) is reduced to what suited Paul who carried on teaching as before - that Faith in Jesus would make Gentiles equally good Jews as those who were circumcised and observed the Mosaic laws. It is not surprising that, when report got back to James, he sent out those messengers to undermine Paul's 'gospel' that so infuriated him.
Podium:
Noun
1.A small platform on which a person may stand, as when making a speech or conducting an orchestra.
2.A lectern.
Synonyms
dais - platform - stage - rostrum - stand
So a podium can be the platform or the lectern. Oxford notes that definition #2 is North American. My guess is that #2 was a common error that became accepted over time.
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.
