Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2014, 05:08 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(03-11-2014 04:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 03:25 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'm not sure what drum you're beating. Are you trying to say that Jesus was a Christian?

Did I say he was a Christian?

Quote:The primary sources include the writings of Josephus, the dead sea scrolls, and the church fathers (some of which are a little dubious). Yet there is also Philo, Jewish literature, for example, the banning of the Nazarenes in the late first century from worshipping in the synagogues.

So there's Jewish literature besides the aforementioned sources, and Philo, which speak of the Nazarenes, or do they just give us a background into first century Jewish thought, but not the Nazarenes in particular per se?

Quote:There is also scripture itself, upon which all forms of Judaism were based.

Duh, OT scripture can be used to convey non-christian Jewish thought.


Quote:There's also the (genuine) writings of Paul, which I assume you may have read.


Yep.

Quote:which also indirectly admit that there was no cordial relationship between him and Jesus' followers?

So we'll start slowly.

Paul writers of a non-cordial relationship with certain Christians similar to the Nazarenes and Ebionites, in that they practiced the Jewish ceremonial laws, and states that this conflict centers around this practice and in particular demanding that other followers of Jesus adhere to this, in order to part of the christian community. This is the only thing Paul states their dispute is about.

Are you in denial of this, or do you recognize this as well? That Paul does not express any other doctrinal or theological differences between this group than what centers around the concept of works and faith in relationship to these practices? Do you or do you not realize this?

Quote:Then there are the non-primary sources… people who have devoted a life time studying the topic such as Hugh Schonfield, Robert Eisemann, Douglas Lockhart, Peter Cresswell, James Tabor and numerous others.

I'm not interested in the non-primary sources at this point. There's only a handful of primary sources any of these individuals or any of us could use to determine the nature of the conflict between these particular nazarene like christians and Paul, or anything else regarding their views and beliefs.

Quote:who all claim Jesus was a Jew, and not a watered down Jew with some Christian beliefs either, but a fundamentalist xenophobic, Torah loving fanatic.

Don't start an argument with me over a claim I did not make. If you want to argue about what Jesus would have thought of Paul's view on the laws, that's an entirely different argument than the one being made here, which to repeat is not so much what these individuals did or did not believe, but when you lay claim to what they did or did not believe, in ways not supported by the evidence we have. They are in essence baseless speculations. But in order to show that, we need to establish the primary sources being used.

Which at this point, the only additions, to my previous list being Philo, and Jewish writings, though there is no Jewish writing outside the aforementioned ones, that mention anything about the Nazarenes, or Paul, and their supposed conflicts.

Quote:Do you have any understanding of the bad feelings of the times that existed between Jews and Gentiles?

All the primary sources that describe what this bad feeling between these groups was, indicate that this was primarily regarding the Jewish Ceremonial law, and not much else. This is the main point I am trying to get through to you, and would like to hear you acknowledge this much.

Quote:Are you aware that the gospels were created by anonymous authors decades after Jesus died, and there is no known real connection between the writings and the life of this man, who may or may not have existed? Are you aware that the gospels were edited and interpolated for hundreds of years after they were first written?

Ah huh.

Quote:Are you aware that Paul, the real creator of Christianity, was diametrically opposed to the original followers of Jesus? Or do you simply swallow what was written in the book of Acts?

The evidence we have for the conflict between the two parties of christians, indicate the conflict was in regards to the ceremonial law. All the writing speaking of the conflict indicate just this. Arguments for anything else are nothing but supposition.

Quote:Has it occurred to you that Paul was in fact a Roman government agent, writing literature to undermine Messianic Jews?

Are you aware that 9/11 was an inside job? This claim has no evidential support, so we can all just dismiss it with ease.

Quote:Please tell us all what you think the original Jesus and his disciples believed, and then tell us why.

All that can be argued as to what they believed, would have to be based on the primary sources, and the picture these sources painted. Since we are limited to these resources we can't argue for anything else beyond that, or that which is not grounded in these sources.

Imagine if we are trying to explain a dispute between a man and his friend, and the only sources we have are comments they wrote to each other on Facebook, and some remarks by their friends regarding their dispute. We can only speak of the dispute, or discuss the nature of that dispute on the facts available to us, from these sources. Anything we argue beyond that can be dismissed as being not being based on the evidence, but a product of the persons imagination, is pure speculation.

"Did I say he was a Christian?"

I don't know. Why don't you...um.... tell everyone what you think he was?

"Paul writers of a non-cordial relationship with certain Christians"

Not sure who you mean, please explain

"with certain Christians similar to the Nazarenes and Ebionites,"

Huh? The Nazarenes weren't Christians. "Ebionites" is a Christian term, and implies a mildly derogatory phrase meaning "the poor ones". Jews may or may not have used this term but if they did it, it had no derogatory connotations. For the Jews "Ebionites" were not Christians. For the Christians "Ebionites" who were in fact, Nazarenes, were incorrectly called "Jewish Christians."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 05:16 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(03-11-2014 04:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 03:25 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'm not sure what drum you're beating. Are you trying to say that Jesus was a Christian?

Did I say he was a Christian?

Quote:The primary sources include the writings of Josephus, the dead sea scrolls, and the church fathers (some of which are a little dubious). Yet there is also Philo, Jewish literature, for example, the banning of the Nazarenes in the late first century from worshipping in the synagogues.

So there's Jewish literature besides the aforementioned sources, and Philo, which speak of the Nazarenes, or do they just give us a background into first century Jewish thought, but not the Nazarenes in particular per se?

Quote:There is also scripture itself, upon which all forms of Judaism were based.

Duh, OT scripture can be used to convey non-christian Jewish thought.


Quote:There's also the (genuine) writings of Paul, which I assume you may have read.


Yep.

Quote:which also indirectly admit that there was no cordial relationship between him and Jesus' followers?

So we'll start slowly.

Paul writers of a non-cordial relationship with certain Christians similar to the Nazarenes and Ebionites, in that they practiced the Jewish ceremonial laws, and states that this conflict centers around this practice and in particular demanding that other followers of Jesus adhere to this, in order to part of the christian community. This is the only thing Paul states their dispute is about.

Are you in denial of this, or do you recognize this as well? That Paul does not express any other doctrinal or theological differences between this group than what centers around the concept of works and faith in relationship to these practices? Do you or do you not realize this?

Quote:Then there are the non-primary sources… people who have devoted a life time studying the topic such as Hugh Schonfield, Robert Eisemann, Douglas Lockhart, Peter Cresswell, James Tabor and numerous others.

I'm not interested in the non-primary sources at this point. There's only a handful of primary sources any of these individuals or any of us could use to determine the nature of the conflict between these particular nazarene like christians and Paul, or anything else regarding their views and beliefs.

Quote:who all claim Jesus was a Jew, and not a watered down Jew with some Christian beliefs either, but a fundamentalist xenophobic, Torah loving fanatic.

Don't start an argument with me over a claim I did not make. If you want to argue about what Jesus would have thought of Paul's view on the laws, that's an entirely different argument than the one being made here, which to repeat is not so much what these individuals did or did not believe, but when you lay claim to what they did or did not believe, in ways not supported by the evidence we have. They are in essence baseless speculations. But in order to show that, we need to establish the primary sources being used.

Which at this point, the only additions, to my previous list being Philo, and Jewish writings, though there is no Jewish writing outside the aforementioned ones, that mention anything about the Nazarenes, or Paul, and their supposed conflicts.

Quote:Do you have any understanding of the bad feelings of the times that existed between Jews and Gentiles?

All the primary sources that describe what this bad feeling between these groups was, indicate that this was primarily regarding the Jewish Ceremonial law, and not much else. This is the main point I am trying to get through to you, and would like to hear you acknowledge this much.

Quote:Are you aware that the gospels were created by anonymous authors decades after Jesus died, and there is no known real connection between the writings and the life of this man, who may or may not have existed? Are you aware that the gospels were edited and interpolated for hundreds of years after they were first written?

Ah huh.

Quote:Are you aware that Paul, the real creator of Christianity, was diametrically opposed to the original followers of Jesus? Or do you simply swallow what was written in the book of Acts?

The evidence we have for the conflict between the two parties of christians, indicate the conflict was in regards to the ceremonial law. All the writing speaking of the conflict indicate just this. Arguments for anything else are nothing but supposition.

Quote:Has it occurred to you that Paul was in fact a Roman government agent, writing literature to undermine Messianic Jews?

Are you aware that 9/11 was an inside job? This claim has no evidential support, so we can all just dismiss it with ease.

Quote:Please tell us all what you think the original Jesus and his disciples believed, and then tell us why.

All that can be argued as to what they believed, would have to be based on the primary sources, and the picture these sources painted. Since we are limited to these resources we can't argue for anything else beyond that, or that which is not grounded in these sources.

Imagine if we are trying to explain a dispute between a man and his friend, and the only sources we have are comments they wrote to each other on Facebook, and some remarks by their friends regarding their dispute. We can only speak of the dispute, or discuss the nature of that dispute on the facts available to us, from these sources. Anything we argue beyond that can be dismissed as being not being based on the evidence, but a product of the persons imagination, is pure speculation.

"in order to part of the christian community."

You keep implying the original followers and family of Jesus were Christians. This is an historical impossibility. Perhaps you had better define what you understand by the term Christian? To me it is someone who believes in the Divinity of a Christ. The Nazarenes never believed in the Divinity of a Christ. Certain church fathers claimed that the Ebionites did, but that is highly unlikely, and almost certainly non-historical. ( in reality the church fathers had no idea who the flesh and blood historical Jesus was- that much is obvious when reading their pathetic attempts to prove that there was such a character.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 05:16 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(03-11-2014 05:08 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 04:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  "Did I say he was a Christian?"

I don't know. Why don't you...um.... tell everyone what you think he was?

A Jew, who was perhaps bipolar.

Quote:"Paul writers of a non-cordial relationship with certain Christians"

Not sure who you mean, please explain

Those folks he was having a conflict with in the Galatians passage you mentioned earlier. And Paul describes that this conflict as one centering around the question of the role of the jewish ceremonial laws, and not any other disputes concerning doctrine.

Quote:Huh? The Nazarenes weren't Christians. "Ebionites" is a Christian term, and implies a mildly derogatory phrase meaning "the poor ones". Jews may or may not have used this term but if they did it, it had no derogatory connotations. For the Jews "Ebionites" were not Christians. For the Christians "Ebionites" who were in fact, Nazarenes, were incorrectly called "Jewish Christians."

They where Christians in the broad sense of the term. But to be specific they were jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, and I'm just going to call them Ebionites for brevities sake.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 05:23 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(03-11-2014 04:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 03:25 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'm not sure what drum you're beating. Are you trying to say that Jesus was a Christian?

Did I say he was a Christian?

Quote:The primary sources include the writings of Josephus, the dead sea scrolls, and the church fathers (some of which are a little dubious). Yet there is also Philo, Jewish literature, for example, the banning of the Nazarenes in the late first century from worshipping in the synagogues.

So there's Jewish literature besides the aforementioned sources, and Philo, which speak of the Nazarenes, or do they just give us a background into first century Jewish thought, but not the Nazarenes in particular per se?

Quote:There is also scripture itself, upon which all forms of Judaism were based.

Duh, OT scripture can be used to convey non-christian Jewish thought.


Quote:There's also the (genuine) writings of Paul, which I assume you may have read.


Yep.

Quote:which also indirectly admit that there was no cordial relationship between him and Jesus' followers?

So we'll start slowly.

Paul writers of a non-cordial relationship with certain Christians similar to the Nazarenes and Ebionites, in that they practiced the Jewish ceremonial laws, and states that this conflict centers around this practice and in particular demanding that other followers of Jesus adhere to this, in order to part of the christian community. This is the only thing Paul states their dispute is about.

Are you in denial of this, or do you recognize this as well? That Paul does not express any other doctrinal or theological differences between this group than what centers around the concept of works and faith in relationship to these practices? Do you or do you not realize this?

Quote:Then there are the non-primary sources… people who have devoted a life time studying the topic such as Hugh Schonfield, Robert Eisemann, Douglas Lockhart, Peter Cresswell, James Tabor and numerous others.

I'm not interested in the non-primary sources at this point. There's only a handful of primary sources any of these individuals or any of us could use to determine the nature of the conflict between these particular nazarene like christians and Paul, or anything else regarding their views and beliefs.

Quote:who all claim Jesus was a Jew, and not a watered down Jew with some Christian beliefs either, but a fundamentalist xenophobic, Torah loving fanatic.

Don't start an argument with me over a claim I did not make. If you want to argue about what Jesus would have thought of Paul's view on the laws, that's an entirely different argument than the one being made here, which to repeat is not so much what these individuals did or did not believe, but when you lay claim to what they did or did not believe, in ways not supported by the evidence we have. They are in essence baseless speculations. But in order to show that, we need to establish the primary sources being used.

Which at this point, the only additions, to my previous list being Philo, and Jewish writings, though there is no Jewish writing outside the aforementioned ones, that mention anything about the Nazarenes, or Paul, and their supposed conflicts.

Quote:Do you have any understanding of the bad feelings of the times that existed between Jews and Gentiles?

All the primary sources that describe what this bad feeling between these groups was, indicate that this was primarily regarding the Jewish Ceremonial law, and not much else. This is the main point I am trying to get through to you, and would like to hear you acknowledge this much.

Quote:Are you aware that the gospels were created by anonymous authors decades after Jesus died, and there is no known real connection between the writings and the life of this man, who may or may not have existed? Are you aware that the gospels were edited and interpolated for hundreds of years after they were first written?

Ah huh.

Quote:Are you aware that Paul, the real creator of Christianity, was diametrically opposed to the original followers of Jesus? Or do you simply swallow what was written in the book of Acts?

The evidence we have for the conflict between the two parties of christians, indicate the conflict was in regards to the ceremonial law. All the writing speaking of the conflict indicate just this. Arguments for anything else are nothing but supposition.

Quote:Has it occurred to you that Paul was in fact a Roman government agent, writing literature to undermine Messianic Jews?

Are you aware that 9/11 was an inside job? This claim has no evidential support, so we can all just dismiss it with ease.

Quote:Please tell us all what you think the original Jesus and his disciples believed, and then tell us why.

All that can be argued as to what they believed, would have to be based on the primary sources, and the picture these sources painted. Since we are limited to these resources we can't argue for anything else beyond that, or that which is not grounded in these sources.

Imagine if we are trying to explain a dispute between a man and his friend, and the only sources we have are comments they wrote to each other on Facebook, and some remarks by their friends regarding their dispute. We can only speak of the dispute, or discuss the nature of that dispute on the facts available to us, from these sources. Anything we argue beyond that can be dismissed as being not being based on the evidence, but a product of the persons imagination, is pure speculation.

"That Paul does not express any other doctrinal or theological differences between this group than what centers around the concept of works and faith in relationship to these practices? Do you or do you not realize this?"

Paul, and the followers and family of Jesus, were worlds apart. They were diametrically opposed to each other. What you're saying is a bit like claiming the Catholic pope and Osama Bin Laden bat for the same team. I could explain why to you, But you'd only skim over it and accuse me of being too wordy and writing pretty words. So you are absolutely and definitively wrong here.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 05:30 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(03-11-2014 05:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 05:08 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I don't know. Why don't you...um.... tell everyone what you think he was?

A Jew, who was perhaps bipolar.

Quote:"Paul writers of a non-cordial relationship with certain Christians"

Not sure who you mean, please explain

Those folks he was having a conflict with in the Galatians passage you mentioned earlier. And Paul describes that this conflict as one centering around the question of the role of the jewish ceremonial laws, and not any other disputes concerning doctrine.

Quote:Huh? The Nazarenes weren't Christians. "Ebionites" is a Christian term, and implies a mildly derogatory phrase meaning "the poor ones". Jews may or may not have used this term but if they did it, it had no derogatory connotations. For the Jews "Ebionites" were not Christians. For the Christians "Ebionites" who were in fact, Nazarenes, were incorrectly called "Jewish Christians."

They where Christians in the broad sense of the term. But to be specific they were jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, and I'm just going to call them Ebionites for brevities sake.

"They where Christians in the broad sense of the term."

NO! This is fundamental. Yes they were Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, but to call them Christians is like calling a modern day Jew a Nazi. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was a war going on in those days between two ideologies, That of the Jews and that of the Gentiles. Paul, he pretended to be pro-Jewish was in fact ProGen tile. Jesus James and the original disciples were intensely patriotically nationalistic xenophobic Jews. They hated the fact that Romans were in charge of gods holy land. Jesus was killed by the enemy Gentile Roman soldiers. Has the penny dropped for you yet?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 05:41 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(03-11-2014 05:30 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  NO! This is fundamental.

No it's not, but the point being made is irrelevant for me at least. I'll just invent a new term to refer to these Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah, but adhered to the jews ceremonial laws. From now on I will refer to them as Jewmelaws for short.

Quote:Yes they were Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, but to call them Christians is like calling a modern day Jew a Nazi. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was a war going on in those days between two ideologies

The only conflict between the Jewmelaws and Paul and his supporters, was that on the role of the Jewish ceremonial laws, there is no evidence of any other dispute beyond this between these two parties.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 05:42 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(03-11-2014 05:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 05:08 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I don't know. Why don't you...um.... tell everyone what you think he was?

A Jew, who was perhaps bipolar.

Quote:"Paul writers of a non-cordial relationship with certain Christians"

Not sure who you mean, please explain

Those folks he was having a conflict with in the Galatians passage you mentioned earlier. And Paul describes that this conflict as one centering around the question of the role of the jewish ceremonial laws, and not any other disputes concerning doctrine.

Quote:Huh? The Nazarenes weren't Christians. "Ebionites" is a Christian term, and implies a mildly derogatory phrase meaning "the poor ones". Jews may or may not have used this term but if they did it, it had no derogatory connotations. For the Jews "Ebionites" were not Christians. For the Christians "Ebionites" who were in fact, Nazarenes, were incorrectly called "Jewish Christians."

They where Christians in the broad sense of the term. But to be specific they were jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, and I'm just going to call them Ebionites for brevities sake.

"Those folks he was having a conflict with in the Galatians passage"

Ah yes, the famous Galatians passage. You bought it up....I'm going to get all "wordy" and "pretty" now.....

At the so-called “Jerusalem council,” of about 49 CE, James convened a meeting to discuss tactics for promoting the Nazarene’s beliefs. 2 Galatians, written by Paul, describes this meeting. It’s a truly enlightening passage from the bible:

“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB.)

Each sentence reveals a facet of a very strained relationship. Paul was clearly intimidated by James,’ John’s and Peter’s authority. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and “leading men,” and he writes he was well aware they mightn’t accept his proclamation of “Good News:”

“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.” What’s more, he barely concealed the fact he begrudged their authority:

“Not that their importance matters much to me.” Can anyone imagine him writing that about someone (James) he thought was the half brother of the son of God? He quite clearly regarded them as competition:

“I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.”

Paul mistrusted them. They didn’t “belong to the brotherhood.” He accused them of spying on “the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” He said they had “nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” He believed they “want to reduce us all to slavery.” He thought that the “Good News” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to be part of his brotherhood. He thought he was freeing people from the “slavery” of the Judaic Law.

Then, he and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement, (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together) bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter didn’t respect his “Good News.” Paul claimed he publically challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy.

What an intriguing snippet of scripture! A churlish, hostile Paul, who was probably the first founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with Jesus’ brother and disciples! He was angry and frustrated that they’d been undermining him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Paul and them obviously weren’t preaching the same message! (as claimed in Acts.)

Here’s the probable historical reality. Devout Jews (such as the Nazarenes) despised Paul and rejected his ramblings. The idea that their mysterious, perfect, one and only God could be incarnated in a Christ was unthinkable to them. They couldn’t imagine that their God could die, or that a Christ’s death somehow addressed man’s sins. For them the kingdom of God promised in scripture never was in a hypothetical heaven, but was to be on earth in the here and now. Their messiah wasn’t some savior of souls, but a leader of the Jews who was to herald in a glorious age in which Israel triumphed and pagans recognized the glory of their god, Yahweh. This messiah was to build the temple, (Ezek. 37:26–28) gather all Jews back to Israel, (Isa. 43:5–6) and, importantly, bring an end to Roman rule. He was supposed to end all exploitation, corruption, famine, disease, and war. Paul’s fictional Christ had done none of this!

Paul claimed:
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2;16, KJV) and

“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Gal. 3:13, KJV) and

“Before faith came, we were allowed no freedom by the Law; we were being looked after till faith was revealed. The law was to be our guardian until the Christ came and we could be justified by faith. Now that that time has come we are no longer under that guardian, and you are, all of you, sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. All baptized in Christ, you have all clothed yourself in Christ, and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:23–28, NJB.)

Jews didn’t buy this. They wouldn’t be Jewish if they did. They believed - and still do - that the way to find favor with God was to obey “the Law” - that is, the Torah, as allegedly taught by Moses. There’s no mention in their scriptures about an end to the covenant God made with their ancestors on Mount Sinai. Jews regarded the Law almost like a gift from their God, not a curse, or an imposition on freedom. They didn’t recognise a “new covenant.” Why would they give up centuries of tradition to believe a renegade like Paul?

Imagine a hypothetical modern analogy; a fanatic from a small cult, such as the “branch davidians,” grabbing a microphone during a Catholic mass at the Vatican, and proclaiming that David Koresh was Jesus’ son, and that Koresh’s teachings replaced the sermon on the mount. Paul was behaving like a deluded fanatic.

Paul had an ambivalent attitude to Jewish scripture, which varied with the audience he was writing to. At times he used it to justify his own ideas, such as when writing to “Hellenized” Jews in the diaspora. Yet when writing to Gentiles he claimed large parts of it were redundant.

Yeshua had died over a decade before Paul appeared on the scene, and had he been alive, there is little doubt that he would have been perplexed and offended by the idea that his death could somehow give Gentiles a ticket to heaven. He hated the Romans, (they did nail him to a cross!) and never imagined that Yahweh, whom he never regarded as his temporal sire, would grant them a place in heaven!

Jesus said,
“Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but complete them. I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved” (Matt. 5:17–18 JB.) Paul and the sayings attributed to Jesus contradict each other! So much for biblical infallibility! (http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm).

Many Christians today insist that Jesus came, in part, to do away with the Jewish Law. In believing this, they’re not following words attributed to Jesus, but Paul’s words.

Most Jews believed God dwelt in the temple, in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital. Paul made a cavalier dismissal of the importance of Israel by suggesting that all believers become a temple for God:

“And that is what we are—the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:15, NJB) and
“Didn’t you realize that you were God’s Temple” (1 Cor. 3:16 JB.) He was trying to expand God’s seat of power out of Jerusalem and into the whole known world. Yet for most first century Jews this downplayed the importance of the temple, the geographical pivot of Judaism.

Jews thought they were Abraham’s descendants and God’s special people. Yet Paul claimed:

“Those therefore who rely on faith receive the same blessing as Abraham, the man of faith.” (Gal. 3:9, NJB,) and

“Merely by belonging to Christ you are the posterity of Abraham, the heirs he was promised” (Gal. 3:29, NJB.) He wanted believing Gentiles to consider themselves God’s chosen, so that they too were special, and weaken the patriotic fervor of Jews by downplaying their exclusivity.

Throughout Paul’s travels, it is clear from the book of Acts, that he was initially welcome in synagogues because he masqueraded as a traditional Jew, but after Jews heard what he had to say, he was rejected, sometimes even beaten and pelted with rocks. Most Jews liked to think they were part of a chosen race, superior in all ways, and in God’s eyes, to the pagan hordes. These Jews must have imagined Paul was upsetting their God, and the whole Jewish community would suffer as a consequence. Is it any wonder they physically attacked him? Jesus’ own people were attacking Paul because he was promoting Christian ideas, a fact that should raise eyebrows in today’s churches.

In the decades Paul was preaching, the Nazarenes were expanding into a significant force under James’ leadership in Jerusalem. They also enjoyed a strong membership among Jews throughout the empire. They definitely didn’t preach the divinity of Christ, nor intend to start a new religion. Paul, when he wasn’t pretending to be one of them, considered them competitors. He got very upset when he encountered rival missionaries, who were probably Nazarene, and complained bitterly about them hijacking “his” converts. He cursed them, using the undeniable truth of his own gospel as justification:

“I am astonished at the promptness with which you have turned away from the one who called you and have decided to follow a different version of the Good News. Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some trouble makers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one that we have already preached to you, whether it be ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is condemned” (Gal. 1:6–9, NJB.)

He sounds like an upset child whose best friend has gone off to play with someone else. It’s ironic that he was accusing his adversaries of the very thing he was guilty of - preaching a fabrication! He clearly undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. They were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews promoted subversive fantasies about a messiah, but today’s God had revealed to him the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ! He, not them, was plugging the “good news.” He claimed he knew what the flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. He thought of himself as an educated, savvy sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion than the old fashioned anti-Roman bumpkins from Jerusalem!

Paul probably tried to ingratiate himself with the Nazarenes when in their company, but they became implacably opposed to him, as verified by the verbal confrontation described in Galatians chapter two, and the adamantly anti-Pauline assertions in James’ letter.

Paul knew he wasn’t a popular figure amongst traditional Jews. In his letter to the Romans he expressed his nervousness that the Nazarenes in Jerusalem might reject him, which, if the story in Acts is true, is precisely what happened. James summoned Paul to Jerusalem when it became apparent Paul was preaching against the Torah, and sent him to the temple to be purified and prove he was still a true Jew, (see Acts 21, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 21&version=KJV) which led to Paul’s so called arrest and eventual transportation to Rome. James, Jesus’ brother, effectively terminated Paul’s missionary career!

When Paul was forced to admit that he was a Roman citizen, his cover was well and truly blown. Nazarenes were implacably opposed to Rome. According to Acts, Roman authorities had to dedicate considerable resources (500 soldiers) to protect Paul from angry Jews. That’s about the same number of soldiers who arrested Jesus. It appears as though Rome was looking after one of their own.

Paul wasn’t deterred from his work. He kept writing letters from Rome.

His modern-day reputation as an honest and important evangelist, and the implication he taught Yeshua’s message, appear to have no foundation, yet they’ve become part of Christian tradition, largely because of Acts, written some time in the early second century. In order to bolster Paul’s Paul’s legitimacy, the author of Acts had Jesus’ ghost appear to Paul on the road to Damascus, which was obviously a fiction, as was the story of Paul becoming best friends with Jesus’ disciples. The author tried to shore up Paul’s status by having him (and his handkerchief) perform a number of miracles. Yet Paul failed to mention Jesus’ ghost or his own miracles in his own writings; impossible omissions if they were true. Paul revealed many personality traits in his letters, but genuine personal modesty wasn’t one of them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 05:49 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(03-11-2014 05:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 05:30 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  NO! This is fundamental.

No it's not, but the point being made is irrelevant for me at least. I'll just invent a new term to refer to these Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah, but adhered to the jews ceremonial laws. From now on I will refer to them as Jewmelaws for short.

Quote:Yes they were Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, but to call them Christians is like calling a modern day Jew a Nazi. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was a war going on in those days between two ideologies

The only conflict between the Jewmelaws and Paul and his supporters, was that on the role of the Jewish ceremonial laws, there is no evidence of any other dispute beyond this between these two parties.

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Consider the book of James...

I don’t think we can be sure Yeshua’s brother wrote James’ letter, but even if he didn’t, it’s from an early Jewish source, so one probably close to Yeshua. Many scholars date it to about 60 CE, (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html) although the Catholic Encyclopedia states “about A.D. 47.”

The letter is addressed to the twelve Jewish tribes of the dispersion, so was to be distributed outside Jerusalem. It has a mildly authoritarian tone, as one would expect from a leader. The author doesn’t mention the word “church.” The communities he wrote to (outside Jerusalem) worshipped in synagogues, not churches:

“Now suppose a man comes into your synagogue…” (James 2:2, NJB.)

James says nothing about his (now) famous brother’s exploits. He doesn’t mention Jesus’ divinity, miracles, sacrificial death or resurrection. Let’s imagine ourselves in James’ sandals. If you thought your brother, or your close associate, was a miracle working son of God, and you knew he’d risen from the dead, there wouldn’t be much else worth talking about! All your letters would be laced with excited expletives about supernatural events. James’ letter isn’t, because he didn’t believe bullshit about Jesus.
He was a pious Jew. A central theme of the letter is that it’s important to obey “the Law.”

“You see, if a man keeps the whole of the Law, except for one small point at which he fails, he is still guilty of breaking it all” (James 2:10 JB.)

“But the man who looks steadily at the perfect law of freedom and makes that his habit - not listening and then forgetting, but actively putting it into practice - will be happy in all that he does” (James 1:25 JB.)

He was referring to the Jewish Law, which the Jerusalem bible admits in a footnote. This is the opposite of Paul’s proposition that salvation is secured by releasing oneself from obedience to the Law, an admission also admitted in another footnote.

James wrote that faith was pointless without good works:

“Take the case, my brothers, of someone who has never done a single good act but claims that he has faith. Will that faith save him? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ‘I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty’, without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that? Faith is like that: if good works do not go with it, it is quite dead” (James 2:14–17, NJB.)

He emphasized the importance of action:

“If there are any wise or learned men among you, let them show it by their good lives, with humility and wisdom in their actions” (James 3:13, NJB.) It’s obvious James had heard Paul’s preaching about faith, and quite rightly rebutted it as nonsense.

Consider the following:
“Remember this, my dear brothers, be quick to listen but slow to speak and slow to rouse your temper, God’s righteousness is never served by man’s anger.” (James 1:19–20, NJB.)
James was cut from a different cloth to the self righteous, often angry Paul, a man who rarely listened to others.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
03-11-2014, 06:21 AM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2014 07:28 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(03-11-2014 05:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No it's not, but the point being made is irrelevant for me at least. I'll just invent a new term to refer to these Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah, but adhered to the jews ceremonial laws. From now on I will refer to them as Jewmelaws for short.

Quite typical for cult members presented with inconvenient facts. Just make up some new shit, to cover your ass.

(03-11-2014 05:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The only conflict between the Jewmelaws and Paul and his supporters, was that on the role of the Jewish ceremonial laws, there is no evidence of any other dispute beyond this between these two parties.

They were not "ceremonial Jews" The were synagogue-going total JEWS. Which is why the Expulsion Curses were necessary.
Nice try. But thanks for playing, and demonstrating yet again you have not a clue about the period in question.

Still waiting.

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-11-2014, 06:53 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(03-11-2014 05:42 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The idea that their mysterious, perfect, one and only God could be incarnated in a Christ was unthinkable to them.

No, there is no evidence Paul and the Jewmelaws conflicted in this view. No where does Paul claim he was in dispute with James and the Jewmelaws regarding the nature of Christ, his incarnation, or his divinity. His silence regarding these supposed disputes is compelling enough to show that this question wasn't in dispute.

Quote: They couldn’t imagine that their God could die, or that a Christ’s death somehow addressed man’s sins.

Again not supported by the evidence we have regarding what Paul and the Jewmelaws were arguing about. If they were arguing about this, Paul likely would have mentioned these points of contention.

Quote:For them the kingdom of God promised in scripture never was in a hypothetical heaven, but was to be on earth in the here and now.

Again, no evidence that Paul and Jewmelaws where in dispute over the meaning of the kingdom of God.

Quote:Their messiah wasn’t some savior of souls, but a leader of the Jews who was to herald in a glorious age in which Israel triumphed and pagans recognized the glory of their god, Yahweh. This messiah was to build the temple, (Ezek. 37:26–28) gather all Jews back to Israel, (Isa. 43:5–6) and, importantly, bring an end to Roman rule. He was supposed to end all exploitation, corruption, famine, disease, and war. Paul’s fictional Christ had done none of this!

Again, no evidence that Paul's view of the meaning and the purpose of the Messiah was in conflict with the James and Jewmelaws, his silence on this supposed conflict, indicates the conflicts your proposing did not exist.

Quote:Paul claimed:
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2;16, KJV) and

“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Gal. 3:13, KJV) and

Jews didn’t buy this. They wouldn’t be Jewish if they did. They believed - and still do - that the way to find favor with God was to obey “the Law” - that is, the Torah, as allegedly taught by Moses. There’s no mention in their scriptures about an end to the covenant God made with their ancestors on Mount Sinai. Jews regarded the Law almost like a gift from their God, not a curse, or an imposition on freedom. They didn’t recognise a “new covenant.” Why would they give up centuries of tradition to believe a renegade like Paul?

Yes, before we discuss Paul dispute regarding the "Law", I want you to recognize this is only conflict between the two Parties that Paul acknowledges, Paul speaks of no other contentions between him and Jewlaws besides one centering around this very question, on the role of the Law. Do you acknowledge this. Yes or No?


Quote:Imagine a hypothetical modern analogy; a fanatic from a small cult, such as the “branch davidians,” grabbing a microphone during a Catholic mass at the Vatican, and proclaiming that David Koresh was Jesus’ son, and that Koresh’s teachings replaced the sermon on the mount. Paul was behaving like a deluded fanatic.

The analogy doesn't work given the evidence. Since the evidence suggests that Jewmelaws and Paul both believed Jesus was the son of God. A better analogy would be the Reformed Evangelicals criticizing Pentecostals for denying the Lord's supper to those wearing jewelry.


Quote:Yeshua had died over a decade before Paul appeared on the scene, and had he been alive, there is little doubt that he would have been perplexed and offended by the idea that his death could somehow give Gentiles a ticket to heaven. He hated the Romans, (they did nail him to a cross!) and never imagined that Yahweh, whom he never regarded as his temporal sire, would grant them a place in heaven!

Except of course, that even the Jewmelaws allowed the gentiles to be a part of the Christian community provided they adhere to the ceremonial laws, become circumcised, etc....

Quote:Jesus said,
“Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but complete them. I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved” (Matt. 5:17–18 JB.) Paul and the sayings attributed to Jesus contradict each other! So much for biblical infallibility! (http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm).

Not, really because whole slew of concepts here to deal with, such as "fulfillment", Paul's letter and spirit of the law. Because this a discussion about the theology proposed by the Gospels writers, and that of Paul, but either way this is all besides the point for not.


Quote:When Paul was forced to admit that he was a Roman citizen, his cover was well and truly blown. Nazarenes were implacably opposed to Rome. According to Acts, Roman authorities had to dedicate considerable resources (500 soldiers) to protect Paul from angry Jews. ...Paul wasn’t deterred from his work. He kept writing letters from Rome.

Relevant NT chapter and verses please, in support of these assertions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: