James, Jesus' brother
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2015, 02:44 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(18-05-2015 08:18 AM)Plan 9 from OS Wrote:  Fascinating discussion. It's interesting to speculate about what really happened back then because the history is quite murky. The official story from how I understand it from the RCC is that Peter was the first pope, moved to Rome to reestablish the center of Christenndom there because it was the "center of the universe" back then, and then he and Paul were ultimately martyred there. I believe the first official church leader who would have followed Peter would have been Clement of Rome. If I recall correctly, a number of the earliest popes had fictionalized accounts of their martyrdom, but that's for another thread.

I've seen some apologetics done by fundie sites that had proof that Peter was never in charge in Rome and that he always resided in Jerusalem and ran things there till his death.

I thought Paul being a citizen of Rome would have changed his perception to that of a hellenized jew. I have no clue if Paul read the works of Plato and Aristotle, but the descendents of the disciples were well aware of them and these works had a huge influence on Christianity. Did Paul early on inject Plato into the works? Because I swear that when I reread the gospel of John, it seemed to be dripping with gnosticism.

Apologies if some of this was covered in earlier threads, I'm kinda late to the discussion.

"I've seen some apologetics done by fundie sites that had proof that Peter was never in charge in Rome ..."

YEP. I can feel another post coming on if anyone is interested.

"and that he always resided in Jerusalem"

Maybe.

"and ran things there till his death."

NOPE. Peter was never in charge. James was.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
19-05-2015, 02:48 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(18-05-2015 08:18 AM)Plan 9 from OS Wrote:  Fascinating discussion. It's interesting to speculate about what really happened back then because the history is quite murky. The official story from how I understand it from the RCC is that Peter was the first pope, moved to Rome to reestablish the center of Christenndom there because it was the "center of the universe" back then, and then he and Paul were ultimately martyred there. I believe the first official church leader who would have followed Peter would have been Clement of Rome. If I recall correctly, a number of the earliest popes had fictionalized accounts of their martyrdom, but that's for another thread.

I've seen some apologetics done by fundie sites that had proof that Peter was never in charge in Rome and that he always resided in Jerusalem and ran things there till his death.

I thought Paul being a citizen of Rome would have changed his perception to that of a hellenized jew. I have no clue if Paul read the works of Plato and Aristotle, but the descendents of the disciples were well aware of them and these works had a huge influence on Christianity. Did Paul early on inject Plato into the works? Because I swear that when I reread the gospel of John, it seemed to be dripping with gnosticism.

Apologies if some of this was covered in earlier threads, I'm kinda late to the discussion.

"If I recall correctly, a number of the earliest popes had fictionalized accounts of their martyrdom, but that's for another thread."

YEP. There was no such thing as a pope in Rome until at least the middle of the second century.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 07:02 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(19-05-2015 02:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Here is the passage. I admit that I was mistaken... Justin doesn't use the word "Nazarene," but he's quite obviously referring to Jewish supporters of Jesus.
...

I also skimmed through Justin Martyr's fictional conversation with Trypho the Jew, and it reminded me very much of the pro Gentile anti Jewish propaganda in the book of Act.....

Why did the early Christians need to heap shit on Judaism? Because Jesus was a Jew and so was his family, and so were his mates! In fact the whole Christian circus was originally created to piss Jews off!

Your reading is stretched a great deal. You distort the writings to support you thesis.

Justin Martyr answered a question regarding the dependency on the mosaic ritual laws for salvation. He points out some basic fact that any Jew including Typrho would acknowledge. That these laws weren't always in place, and that folks like Abraham where saved in spite of observance to these laws:

" But you are aware that, up to Moses, no one in fact who was righteous observed any of these rites at all of which we are talking, or received one commandment to observe, except that of circumcision, which began from Abraham."

And he replied, "We know it, and admit that they are saved."

Justin goes on to explain that these Ritual laws, were not for the sake of salvation, but for the sake of remembrance:

"He enjoined you to place around you [a fringe] of purple dye,[134] in order that you might not forget God; and He commanded you to wear a phylactery,[135] certain characters, which indeed we consider holy, being engraved on very thin parchment; and by these means stirring you up[136] to retain a constant remembrance of God"

Justin also scolds Jewish Christians in the passage for excluding the Gentile Christians, by claiming that these observances are required for salvation.

He also says that those who recanted their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, will not be saved:

"And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have repented not before death, shall by no means be saved."

He's clearly talking about apostates here, those who recanted their christian beliefs.

He also says this about non-christain jews as well:

"Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before death, shall likewise not be saved, and especially those who have anathematized and do anathematize this very Christ in the synagogues, and everything by which they might obtain salvation and escape the vengeance of fire"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 07:27 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(19-05-2015 07:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Justin Martyr answered a question regarding the dependency on the mosaic ritual laws for salvation. He points out some basic fact that any Jew including Typrho would acknowledge. That these laws weren't always in place, and that folks like Abraham where saved in spite of observance to these laws:

The character's name was Trypho, you imbecile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_with_Trypho

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 07:35 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(19-05-2015 07:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The character's name was Trypho, you imbecile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_with_Trypho

That's an error in the English translation of the word from the original Greek. Since I'm a student of Greek, at Chobani university, I use the correct spelling: "Typrho", instead.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 01:57 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
Mark, I think it is a very interesting idea that you present, that the Nazarenes/Ebonites were the group that Yeshua (a.k.a. Jesus) belonged to (and lead briefly but did not start). That this group contained Yeshua's brother, James and potentially the other well known disciples that studied under Yeshua.
That Saul (a.k.a. Paul) who was a Roman Jew by birth and devout Jew having had 6 years of religious studies under a rabbi named Gamaliel. Saul possibly saw the Nazarenes as a departure from his Jewish beliefs and used his position of power as a lawyer to oppose the threat that he believed the Nazarenes presented.
It seems however that Saul appeared at some point to shift away from his prior Jewish beliefs and took on and modified the Nazarene beliefs to suit his own idealistic views. I'd be interested to know why this happened.
Of course the myth-story is that Saul was blinded by a light on the road to Demascus. But perhaps, Saul realising he couldn't defeat the Nazarenes by force (possibly due to public backlash) used an alternative approach of confusing their audience by creating a similar religion that he controlled and hence stealing their flock and removing them as a threat.
We had a similar type of thing happen in NZ politics, National (Centre right) were campaigning for government, Bob Jones didn't want National to win so he started up a political party, campaigned on similar policies to National. National lost votes to this new party and hence lost the election to the Labor (Centre left).

Do you think it is possible that Saul's "conversion" to Christianity was merely an attempt to thwart the Nazarenes, that perhaps once he had achieved that, he may have intended to close down his new church and be done with this bastardisation of Jewish religion, but then perhaps he found he couldn't close it down because the evil empire of the Catholic church got bigger than Saul and perhaps the Roman government bought into it in order to get control of the people. An unholy alliance between the Catholic church and the govt?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(19-05-2015 01:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It seems however that Saul appeared at some point to shift away from his prior Jewish beliefs and took on and modified the Nazarene beliefs to suit his own idealistic views. I'd be interested to know why this happened.

Maybe Saul wanted a new charriot and he figured that the money he could get from tithing could be an easy way to get it. Kind of like Billy Graham before Billy Graham. Sorry, that was too funny to let go. Big Grin

@ Tom,

What Mark wrote seems to mesh with the tone of the Jewish responsibility in the gospels (the crowd asking for his death in Matt, Mark, and Luke and in Matthew directly saying his blood is on their hands), Acts, and Thessalonians. If it is indeed true that these were stories written by early believers, some who may not have been so sympathetic, is it really that much of a stretch?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 02:41 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2015 05:09 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(19-05-2015 07:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 02:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Here is the passage. I admit that I was mistaken... Justin doesn't use the word "Nazarene," but he's quite obviously referring to Jewish supporters of Jesus.
...

I also skimmed through Justin Martyr's fictional conversation with Trypho the Jew, and it reminded me very much of the pro Gentile anti Jewish propaganda in the book of Act.....

Why did the early Christians need to heap shit on Judaism? Because Jesus was a Jew and so was his family, and so were his mates! In fact the whole Christian circus was originally created to piss Jews off!

Your reading is stretched a great deal. You distort the writings to support you thesis.

Justin Martyr answered a question regarding the dependency on the mosaic ritual laws for salvation. He points out some basic fact that any Jew including Typrho would acknowledge. That these laws weren't always in place, and that folks like Abraham where saved in spite of observance to these laws:

" But you are aware that, up to Moses, no one in fact who was righteous observed any of these rites at all of which we are talking, or received one commandment to observe, except that of circumcision, which began from Abraham."

And he replied, "We know it, and admit that they are saved."

Justin goes on to explain that these Ritual laws, were not for the sake of salvation, but for the sake of remembrance:

"He enjoined you to place around you [a fringe] of purple dye,[134] in order that you might not forget God; and He commanded you to wear a phylactery,[135] certain characters, which indeed we consider holy, being engraved on very thin parchment; and by these means stirring you up[136] to retain a constant remembrance of God"

Justin also scolds Jewish Christians in the passage for excluding the Gentile Christians, by claiming that these observances are required for salvation.

He also says that those who recanted their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, will not be saved:

"And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have repented not before death, shall by no means be saved."

He's clearly talking about apostates here, those who recanted their christian beliefs.

He also says this about non-christain jews as well:

"Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before death, shall likewise not be saved, and especially those who have anathematized and do anathematize this very Christ in the synagogues, and everything by which they might obtain salvation and escape the vengeance of fire"

"Your reading is stretched a great deal. You distort the writings to support you thesis."

Did you read this one page article? It basically backs up what I've been saying...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...10501.html

Which parts of my ideas do you find "stretched?"

I think I need to do a post on the book of Acts sometime so that you better understand where I'm coming from.

I agree with what you say about Justin Martyr.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 03:04 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2015 05:59 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(19-05-2015 01:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Mark, I think it is a very interesting idea that you present, that the Nazarenes/Ebonites were the group that Yeshua (a.k.a. Jesus) belonged to (and lead briefly but did not start). That this group contained Yeshua's brother, James and potentially the other well known disciples that studied under Yeshua.
That Saul (a.k.a. Paul) who was a Roman Jew by birth and devout Jew having had 6 years of religious studies under a rabbi named Gamaliel. Saul possibly saw the Nazarenes as a departure from his Jewish beliefs and used his position of power as a lawyer to oppose the threat that he believed the Nazarenes presented.
It seems however that Saul appeared at some point to shift away from his prior Jewish beliefs and took on and modified the Nazarene beliefs to suit his own idealistic views. I'd be interested to know why this happened.
Of course the myth-story is that Saul was blinded by a light on the road to Demascus. But perhaps, Saul realising he couldn't defeat the Nazarenes by force (possibly due to public backlash) used an alternative approach of confusing their audience by creating a similar religion that he controlled and hence stealing their flock and removing them as a threat.
We had a similar type of thing happen in NZ politics, National (Centre right) were campaigning for government, Bob Jones didn't want National to win so he started up a political party, campaigned on similar policies to National. National lost votes to this new party and hence lost the election to the Labor (Centre left).

Do you think it is possible that Saul's "conversion" to Christianity was merely an attempt to thwart the Nazarenes, that perhaps once he had achieved that, he may have intended to close down his new church and be done with this bastardisation of Jewish religion, but then perhaps he found he couldn't close it down because the evil empire of the Catholic church got bigger than Saul and perhaps the Roman government bought into it in order to get control of the people. An unholy alliance between the Catholic church and the govt?

"Mark, I think it is a very interesting idea that you present, that the Nazarenes/Ebonites were the group that Yeshua (a.k.a. Jesus) belonged to (and lead briefly but did not start). That this group contained Yeshua's brother, James and potentially the other well known disciples that studied under Yeshua."

Thankyou. Yes it is fascinating. Many authors think this was historical reality....Robert Eisemann, Hugh Schonfield, James Tabor, Douglas Lockhart and others.

"That Saul (a.k.a. Paul) who was a Roman Jew by birth"

Probably true. His parents were Jewish and Roman citizens.

"and devout Jew"

Paul claimed he was this, but in reality he wasn't.

"having had 6 years of religious studies under a rabbi named Gamaliel."

This is almost certainly not true. It is only what is claimed in the book of Acts. Gamaliel lived in Jerusalem, Paul grew up in Tarsus. Paul never says anything in his own letters about growing up in Jerusalem or being a student of Gamaliel. The book of Acts was trying to make out how fiercely pro-Jewish Paul was before he saw the light and became a Christian. It was part of the propaganda spiel.

"It seems however that Saul appeared at some point to shift away from his prior Jewish beliefs and took on and modified the Nazarene beliefs to suit his own idealistic views."

YEP.

"I'd be interested to know why this happened."

It is my opinion that Paul was a Roman government agent. There was a war brewing in Palestine in the 50's and 60's. It was inspired by fanatical Jewish messianic belief. Paul's job was to water down Judaism and infiltrate it with Gentiles. He preached that their Messiah had already been and gone and his name was Christ. All you had to do was believe in this character and your future was secured. He claimed the Jews were not special and that their god was everyone's god. The Roman government was clever... it used propaganda to suppress militaristic uprisings. If I'm right, the idea has enormous implications for the legitimacy of today's Christianity.

Paul was a trouble causer. He fell into conflict with Jews nearly everywhere he went. Eventually he caused so much trouble the Roman army had to rescue him from belligerent Jews.

Of course the whole project failed, as there was a seriously large war in 66 to 70. Paul and his theological nonsense became redundant, which is why we don't hear anything more of him after the early 60's.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
19-05-2015, 07:19 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(19-05-2015 07:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 07:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The character's name was Trypho, you imbecile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_with_Trypho

That's an error in the English translation of the word from the original Greek. Since I'm a student of Greek, at Chobani university, I use the correct spelling: "Typrho", instead.


Mmmmmm..... I'm no Greek scholar, when I put "Typrho" in Google nothing comes up.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: