Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2014, 04:57 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(03-11-2014 06:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

RE
"No, there is no evidence Paul and the Jewmelaws conflicted in this view."

So you keep saying. Did you read what I wrote about James's letter?

I'm going to give you something. Information. I invite you to put your preconceptions away, including everything you've been told in church, and digest an alternative view .

What we are discussing here is the relationship between Paul (Proto-Christianity) and the followers of Jesus (who I think were traditional Jews). This relationship is discussed in the book of Acts, which is largely fictional. I'll tell you why. This is long, and no doubt I'll be accused of being too wordy. Most people will do a "TL; DR." So be it.

If you bother to read it you'll get a new insight into the fabricated origins of Christianity and I think that's important. If something is based on a foundation of lies it can't have any true value.

The Book of Acts

The book of Acts is the only attempt in the bible to document a diary of the first “Christians.” I hope I’ve made a convincing case that the real Jesus, his family and his disciples were Jews, not Christians. The author of Acts, writing for second century proto-Christians, had an important task; to write the history so it appeared that the chief characters in the Jesus story were Christians. He bent over backwards to build the untrue impression that Christianity, a new way of thinking quite separate from Judaism, was derived from Jesus and his disciples. He failed, at least at the intellectual level, because many non-evangelical biblical scholars regard Acts as unforgivably imaginative (http://xcntrik.wordpress.com/lukeacts-as...-fiction/, http://jamestabor.com/2012/07/06/two-ass...tianity/). I will demonstrate why.

It’s commonly agreed that the same Gentile author or community who wrote a version of Luke’s Gospel also wrote Acts, yet I think we can’t be sure of that. Most modern scholars date Acts’ authorship to anywhere between 100 and 170 CE, yet there’s no reference to Acts in other literature before the year 170 CE. I think it was probably written after the second Jewish war of 132-136 CE. The author(s) wasn’t Jewish, nor a member of the Nazarene community, and was writing for a Gentile audience. Jews were unpopular after two expensive, bloody wars, and it shows throughout the book, as the author had a very anti-Jewish, pro-Roman bias.

Chapters 1 through 9 tell a tale about the early community after Yeshua’s death, and Chapters 9 through 28 are concerned with Paul’s conversion and ministry. The author was attempting to portray a cordial connection between the disciples and Paul, as this gave Paul’s Christianity a link with a once-human Jesus. I don’t think any such connection ever existed.

In chapter one Jesus’ ghost appeared to his disciples and told them
“not to leave Jerusalem” (Acts 1:4, NJB.) The author didn’t require his readers to be reminded that the disciples were Galileans, because Galilee was the heartland of Jewish zealotry. Yet Matthew’s and John’s Gospels claim that the disciples returned to Galilee. Someone got the story wrong.

James Tabor points out that the author had eleven disciples gathered together in Jerusalem forty days after Jesus’ death:

“There were Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Jude son of James” (Acts 1:13, NJB.) The author then, quite deliberately, mentioned the brothers of Jesus separately:

“All these joined in continuous prayer, together with several women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (Acts 1:14, NJB.) He tried to exclude the brothers from an inner circle, and from any leadership role. He made out they just happened to be there, perhaps lurking in the background; a highly unlikely scenario. Family was everything in Jewish circles, so Yeshua’s brothers would have had the highest status - James was, in fact, the leader of this community.

The author claimed this smallish community, 120 in number, stopped working, sold all their possessions, and lived together in Jerusalem. They denounced sexuality, as they believed the end of time was near, so couldn’t see the point of bringing children into the world. He claimed many people in Jerusalem joined the community, yet lived separately.

The story starts to sound ridiculous and fabricated from here on. This group somehow started to talk in different languages, thereby impressing visitors from all parts of the Empire. The author was trying to explain how Gentiles came to understand Yeshua’s teachings, as second century readers knew that Galilean peasants spoke only in their native tongue.

The author claimed there were three thousand converts in one day, an obviously gross exaggeration, and he called them those “destined to be saved.”

He had Peter, (incorrectly) portrayed as a Christian, boldly proclaim:

“Rulers of the people and elders! If you are questioning us today about an act of kindness to a cripple, and asking us how he was healed, then I am glad to tell you all, and would indeed be glad to tell the whole people of Israel, that it was by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom god raised from the dead, by this name and by no other that this man is able to stand up perfectly healthy here in your presence today. This is the stone rejected by you the builders, but which has proved to be the keystone. For all the names in the world given to men, this is the only one by which we can be saved” (Acts 4:8–13, NJB.)

The foundations of Pauline Christianity were being promoted; the Jews were condemned for killing Jesus, who rose from the dead, and who was the only key to salvation. This speech was obviously fabricated, as there is no evidence outside the Gospels that anyone who knew Jesus thought he was a god or that he’d risen from the dead.

The author claimed the community was a deeply united group of miracle-working enthusiasts fiercely preaching Christianity

“The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul” (Acts 4:32, NJB.) Then

“So many signs and wonders were worked among the people at the hands of the apostles that the sick were even taken out to the streets and laid on beds and sleeping mats in the hope that at least the shadow of Peter might fall across some of them as he went past. People even came crowding in from the towns round Jerusalem, bringing with them their sick and those tormented by unclean spirits, and all of them were cured” (Acts 5:12–15, NJB.)

If any of these miracles actually happened, Jews everywhere in a close-knit city like Jerusalem would have been convinced, even enthralled, by the new theology. They weren’t. We know from the facts of history, and even the later discussion in Acts, that Jerusalem in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s was a dangerous place to live, full of discontented Jews unhappy with the Roman occupation. These stories of miracles, including the embarrassingly tasteless tale of a husband and wife’s murder for not pooling their resources, were just pro-Christian myth making.

The true atmosphere in Jerusalem in the decades before the first war was volatile. Gentiles preaching Paul’s prattle wouldn’t have been welcome. The Nazarenes thought Gentiles were foreigners in God’s holy land. Yeshua had tried to start a war with them, and been crucified for his efforts. Galileans didn’t speak Greek. They didn’t eat with pagans, as Jews had a strictly kosher diet. The Nazarenes had an intensely nationalistic and xenophobic worldview; one determined by their interpretation of scripture. They dreamed they would one day be in charge. If you weren’t Jewish you were a person non-gratia. One didn’t sleep with the enemy. So the claim that Nazarenes embraced a non Jewish doctrine (Christianity) is obviously unfounded.

The author had Peter and John run into trouble. He claimed the Sanhedrin (the body of Jewish judges) were

“extremely annoyed at their teaching the people the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead by proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus” (Acts 4:2, NJB.)
Yet there’s no good evidence these two ever believed Yeshua had risen from the dead. Acts goes on:

“Then the high priest intervened with all his supporters from the party of the Sadducees. Prompted by jealousy, they arrested the apostles and had them put in the common jail. But at night the angel of the Lord opened the prison gates and said as he led them out ‘go and stand in the Temple and tell the people all about this new Life’” (Acts 5:17–20, NJB.)

One wonders why the “angel of the Lord” didn’t go to the temple himself and start preaching? He could have flown away when angry Jews pelted him with rocks!

It’s quite feasible there was friction between the Sadducees (the high priests) and the Nazarenes. The Nazarenes were probably still trying to rally the people against Rome. The amateur author of Acts inadvertently effectively admits this was their real agenda when he wrote that Gamaliel, leader of the Pharisees, made the following speech:

“Then he addressed the Sanhedrin, ‘Men of Israel, be careful how you deal with these people. There was Theudas who became notorious not so long ago. He claimed to be someone important, and he even collected about four hundred followers; but when he was killed, all his followers scattered and that was the end of them. And then there was Judas the Galilean, at the time of the census, who attracted crowds of supporters; but he got killed too, and all of his followers dispersed. What I suggest, therefore, is that you leave these men alone and let them go. If this enterprise, this movement of theirs, is of human origin it will break up of its own accord, but if it does in fact come from God you will not only be unable to destroy them, but you might find yourselves fighting against God’” (Acts 5:35–39, NJB.)

Theudas and Judas were men who had started insurrections against the Romans and been killed. The author had read about them in Josephus. (http://www.josephus.org/ntparallels2.htm). “Gamaliel” was drawing an analogy between these trouble causers and the followers of Jesus! I’m surprised the author didn’t realize that he was correctly portraying Jesus’ followers as zealots.

The author of Acts had to emphasize that Christianity was something quite distinct from traditional Judaism. He had to jettison the Judaic link, and used the character of Stephen to help do it.

Stephen

He introduced Stephen as having a minor role in the community - someone who distributed food to widows while the apostles went about the more important task of evangelizing. Yet Stephen was soon portrayed as a man of more importance:
“Stephen was filled with grace and power and began to work miracles and great signs among the people” (Acts 6:8, NJB.)

The term “the Jews,” with a negative connotation, was introduced. Stephen debated “the Jews” from synagogues outside Jerusalem, so he was being used to represent Gentile Christianity.

Pharisees denounced Stephen, and he was put on trial before the Sanhedrin and accused of being an agitator. In a long speech in Acts 7, an angel-faced Christian Stephen replied by claiming the Jewish Law had now lost its relevance, as it had been replaced by faith in Christ. He delivered an ominous charge; the Jews had betrayed and killed Christ, just as their ancestors had killed earlier prophets:

“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:51–56 KJV.)

The confident Christian Stephen openly slandered Jews by saying they’d always, throughout history, got things wrong, and that they’d repeated the act by killing Jesus. To add some color and weight to the argument, Jesus then appeared in the clouds next to Yahweh, just to prove how correct Stephen was, but the belligerent Jews never noticed the dynamic duo. They were so steamed up they stoned Stephen:

“At this all the members of the council shouted out and stopped their ears with their hands; then they all rushed at him, sent him out of the city and stoned him” (Acts 7:57–58, NJB.)

So the obstinate, misguided, teeth-gnashing, Christ-murdering Jews were pitched against Stephen, the angel-faced Christian apologist. Jewish beliefs were portrayed as incorrect and out-dated, and Jews as inflexible, angry, and aggressive when a Christian criticised them. Those stubborn Jews were so headstrong they never even noticed Yahweh had a newly invented son, Jesus. Christianity, the new kid on the block, was now the real religion. It had found its voice, then rejected its roots, like an opinionated adolescent who despises his deluded old dad.

It’s claimed Christians were persecuted, and they fled Jerusalem. Many supposedly went to Antioch, well away from those Christ-killing Jews in Jerusalem who would shortly start a war with Rome (in 66 CE.) This was the author’s explanation for Christianity’s separation from Judaism, why Christians no longer associated with Jews, and why the new religion became so widespread so quickly.

This whole story is, of course, a whopping fiction, remarkable only for its amateurish audacity. Consider the author’s account of the persecution of “the church:”
“That day a bitter persecution started against the church in Jerusalem, and everyone except the apostles fled to the country districts of Judaea and Samaria” (Acts 8:1, NJB.) If the apostles had been Christians, wouldn’t they have been persecuted too? It’s farcical to claim that the minor members of the Christian cult were chased out of Jerusalem while the apostolic leaders were left unprosecuted. The author couldn’t hide the fact the Nazarenes remained centered in Jerusalem. The “tradition” that Peter moved to Rome hadn’t been invented yet.

The assertion that Jews persecuted Christians is untrue, because Christianity never even existed in Jerusalem prior to the first Jewish war of 66-70 CE, other than in Paul’s head. Paul was never comfortable or safe in Jerusalem, and never gained a foothold there (see below.) Gentiles were given a hard time in Jerusalem in the 50’s and 60’s, yet to call them Christians is too long a stretch.

There’s an important incidental point about Yeshua to be surmised from the story of Stephen’s stoning. If “the Jews” had wanted Yeshua dead, why wasn’t he stoned without a Roman trial, just like Stephen? One or both of the stories are fabricated.

Paul in Jerusalem

The author claimed that Paul got on real well with the disciples after his alleged conversion:

“When he (Paul) got to Jerusalem he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him: they could not believe he was really a disciple. Barnabas, however, took charge of him, introduced him to the apostles, and explained how the Lord had appeared to Saul and spoken to him on his journey, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. Saul now started to go round with them in Jerusalem, preaching fearlessly in the name of the Lord” (Acts 9:26–29, NJB.)

Yet Paul’s own story, a primary source written at least fifty years earlier, specifically stated he didn’t go to Jerusalem after his “conversion:”

“Then God, who had specifically chosen me, while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his Son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus” (Gal. 1:15–18, NJB.)

Paul being baptized and becoming an enthusiastic associate of the apostles is another of the author’s inventions. I think the Nazarenes didn’t trust Paul, and were implacably opposed to him (as already discussed in chapter four.)

The author wrote that Peter

“fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things and birds of the air. And a voice came to him: ‘Now Peter; kill and eat!’ but Peter answered, ‘Certainly not, Lord; I have never yet eaten anything profane or unclean.’ Again a second time, the voice spoke to him: ‘What God has made clean, you have no right to call profane.’ This was repeated three times and then suddenly the container was drawn up into heaven again” (Acts 10:11–16, NJB.)

The only person who could have told anyone about these visions was Peter himself, and he would hardly have admitted he questioned Yahweh! This was a bumbling attempt to portray that God told Peter, a Jew, how to be a good Christian by giving up his kosher diet. The obstinate Peter needed to be told three times, by God himself! Those damn Jews, even those who’d (allegedly) become Christians, were sticklers for tradition!

The author wrote
“It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. (Acts 12; 1-3 KJV.) “The Jews” are made out to be encouraging the persecution of Christians.

There are two separate accounts of a meeting between Paul and the Nazarenes at the famous Council of Jerusalem, in 49 CE. The one in Acts claimed that the meeting was held to discuss what was required of Gentiles who wished to become Nazarenes. The author wrote,

“Certain members of the Pharisees’ party who had become believers objected, insisting that the pagans should be circumcised and instructed to keep the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5, NJB.)

The issue was whether Gentiles wishing to join the Nazarenes must be circumcised. The author was trying to make out that the followers of Jesus weren’t committed to circumcision, but that the more pro-Jewish Pharisees, who just happened to be hanging around, were. He made out Peter gave a speech saying there was no need for circumcision, and then so did James,

“I rule, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans who turn to God, we send them a letter telling them merely to abstain from anything polluted by idols, from fornication, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:19–21, NJB.) How convenient for the author of Acts, who was hoping to spread a new version of Judaism that ignored the requirement for penile surgery. The new faith was opened up to a massive market; men reluctant to be circumcised.

What’s more, the author indirectly admitted James was in charge, because James made the definitive ruling. Jesus’ brother, who had previously just been lurking in the background, clearly had a superior status to Peter.

I don’t believe James or Peter ever said anything of the sort. They wouldn’t have been interested in the spiritual welfare of Gentiles, who they didn’t want infiltrating their faction. Elsewhere in the bible, Paul referred to James as insisting on circumcision! The author was trying to make James and Peter sound pro-gentile and less Jewish than they were.

It’s worth recalling Paul’s eyewitness account of this meeting, written many decades earlier, which gave a different version of events. In his letter to the Galatians he described a meeting where he justified his own “good news” story to Peter, James, and John, who he quite clearly had little respect for:

“Not that their importance matters to me” (Gal. 2:6, NJB.)

He referred to them as the
“so-called pillars of the church,” a phrase dripping with sarcasm. He writes they (he and the pillars) shook hands and agreed that he was to preach to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. I doubt he ever shook hands with the apostles. They never ever accepted his heretical ideas. Paul would have received a thorough dressing-down, or worse, from them. Paul was telling a tale to make him sound like an authority the Nazarenes respected.

Why did Paul, a man full of his own self-importance, even bother associating with Nazarenes? In the real world at the time he was just a two-bit player amongst Jews, and he knew it. He lacked credibility. He only had a few co-workers and a small circle of supporters to back him up. He admits that one of his communities spurned his instructions in his absence (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians 1:6-10&version=KJV). James and the others were the leaders of a large well-established sect within Judaism supported in synagogues throughout the Diaspora. They thought James was the real, legitimate high priest. They were a threat to peace in Palestine. Paul needed to know what they were up to, so he often masqueraded as one of them. This gave him access to the synagogues, and an attentive audience. In other words, Paul presented himself as a Nazarene, but then tried to sabotage Judaism by promoting ideas that are now recognized as proto Christian. He was so self-righteous he unashamedly admitted being two-faced:

“So though I am not a slave of any man I have made myself a slave of everyone so as to win as many as I could. I made myself a Jew to the Jews, to win the Jews; that is, I who am not a subject of the Law made myself a subject of the Law to those who are the subjects of the Law, to win those who are subject to the Law. To those who have no Law, I was free of the law myself (though not free from God’s law, being under the law of Christ) to win those who have no law. For the weak I made myself weak. I made myself all things to all men in order to save some at any cost; and I still do this, for the sake of the gospel, to have a share in its blessings” (1 Cor. 9:19–23, NJB.)

After he was accepted as a teacher he preached his own peculiar gospel, and the full implications of his novel doctrine were revealed; that the messiah had already been and gone, the Torah was obsolete, and that everyone should obey the government.
Paul was undermining the Nazarenes, and didn’t respect their beliefs. He did whatever was necessary to get information, shore up his own power and spread subversive anti Jewish propaganda. He was a dishonest double-dealing pretender.

Paul’s Travels

From Chapter 14 on, Acts portrayed Paul’s evangelical missions.
To augment Paul’s authority, the author alleged he was a miracle maker. Paul supposedly made a blind man see again, (Acts 13:6–12) a lame man walk, (Acts 14:8–10) raised a youngster from the dead, (Acts 20:7–20) and survived a lethal snakebite (Acts 28:3–7.) Even his handkerchief cured the sick and cast out evil spirits (Acts 19:12.) His stunts were just as jaw dropping as Jesus’! Yet if Paul, desperate to be believed, had pulled off these party tricks, he would have waxed lyrical about them in his letters. He doesn’t because he didn’t.

According to Acts, Paul created converts among Gentiles who were associated with synagogues in the Diaspora. He also wrote to groups of Gentiles who would meet in houses. He didn’t do so well with Jews, who took exception to someone preaching heresy. The Jews were convinced that if individuals ignored God’s commandments, the whole community would be punished. He upset them at Antioch, Iconium, Thessalonika, Beroea, Ephesus, Philippi, and Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, the Nazarenes were sending envoys out from Jerusalem to Jews in the diaspora. Paul was desperate to destabilize them. He wasn’t acting alone. Agrippa, the king of Judea from 41-44 CE, (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/he...pa_i.html) had a number of Jewish dissidents in Jerusalem arrested and murdered at this time, and they may have been Nazarenes. This would tie in with the claim in Acts that the Sadducees had Peter arrested.

The author made a clumsy attempt to claim Paul’s teachings were the improved ideas of the Nazarenes:

“An Alexandrian Jew named Apollos now arrived in Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, with a sound knowledge of the scriptures, and yet, though he had been given instruction in the Way of the Lord and preached with great spiritual earnestness and was accurate in all the details he taught about Jesus, he had only experienced the baptism of John. When Priscilla and Aquilla heard him speak boldly in the synagogue, they took an interest in him and gave him further instruction about the Way. When Apollos thought of crossing over to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote asking the disciples to encourage him. When he arrived there he was able by God’s grace to help the believers considerably by the energetic way he refuted the Jews in public and demonstrated from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ” (Acts 18:24–28, NJB.)

Apollos was a Jew, baptized by John, so he was a Nazarene, and therefore portrayed as a little naive. He needed some polish by learning about Christ from Priscilla and Aquilla, Paul’s lackeys. He then became a new man, a Christian, and publicly put down his own people and his old beliefs. One wonders why the author thought he could get away with telling such a tall tale!

The author claims James summoned Paul back to Jerusalem. James was on to him. He sent Paul to the temple, allegedly to prove he was still a dutiful Jew (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 21&version=KJV). Once there, Paul was recognized and physically attacked by devout Jews. He was rescued in the nick of time by Roman soldiers. After he publically admitted he was a Roman citizen, he was spirited out of town to nearby Caesaria with a military escort of five hundred men!

Five days after his so called arrest in Jerusalem, the High Priest Ananias and his lawyer Tertullus allegedly went to Caesaria and accused Paul of being an insurrectionist:

“And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul. And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence, we accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him. And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so. (Acts 24:1-9, KJV.)

The High Priest was portrayed as wanting Paul killed, but I doubt that the High Priest would have been at odds with Paul. What may be historical is the fact the High Priest was cow tailing to Felix, the Roman procurator.

It’s interesting that the author portrays the Nazarenes as insurrectionists, and that he correctly makes out that the high priesthood was sympathetic to Rome.

It’s ironic that a few decades earlier a High Priest had tattled on Yeshua, allegedly for more or less the same crime; being a trouble causer. Yeshua was crucified, but Paul was a Roman citizen and government agent, so Felix was never going to execute him. Paul was kept in “safe custody” in a palace, for two years, before he was packed off to the relative safety of Rome. If he hadn’t been a government agent, he wouldn’t have been treated so well. The Romans were protecting one of their own, a spy who had blown his cover in Jerusalem.

The author portrayed Paul as the misunderstood good guy, and made sure his readers knew Paul’s manufactured life story by having him repeat it.
Paul continued writing his pro government letters from Rome. People in real prisons didn’t have access to pen, paper and mailmen, so I think in reality he was never a true prisoner.

I suspect he was eventually put out to pasture somewhere safe, well away from any Jew who might identify him, which may be why we don’t know for sure how or when he met his demise. There were no more letters after his sojourn in Rome. It’s said he was tried and executed there, yet there’s no good evidence for either, and no reason to think the government would have executed one of their own.

The author finished the story there. There’s nothing more about Yeshua’s disciples, or about James’ demise, the first Jewish war, or anything that happened afterwards. This meant there was a massive gap left for anyone hoping to understand the real history of Christianity.

Summary of Acts

The informed, modern reader can’t help but judge Acts as an amateurish work written by a dishonest spin-doctor. The tale in which Christianity inherited Yeshua’s teaching is grossly misleading. Paul was the founder of the new theology, not Jesus, and the new religion was never associated with Yeshua’s disciples.

The author’s clumsy attempts to denigrate Judaism and promote Christianity are pathetic. I find it condescending that he assumed his readers would accept what he wrote. That, of course, is my modern perspective, one from which I expect to be told the truth. This wasn’t an important priority for many ancient storytellers. Acts was written to buttress and convey belief, and historical truth could be sacrificed in the process.

It matters that the author was creating, not recording, history, because characters such as Jesus, James, Paul and Peter are the key players in the Christian story. The fact that Acts is largely fabricated is further evidence that the very foundation of Christianity is fraudulent.

References:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UZeR3yV...CrR68jFe2J (…seriously great viewing…)
Cresswell, Peter 2010 “Jesus the Terrorist” O books, Winchester, UK.
Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.
Schonfield, H. 1977 “The Passover Plot”. Futura Publications. London
Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York.
Theiring, B. 1995 “Jesus Of The Apocalypse – The Life of Jesus After The Crucifixion” Moorebank. Doubleday Australia.
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp01.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJIHgMR7LP0
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0580Paul.php
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/s...idden.html
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
04-11-2014, 10:24 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(03-11-2014 04:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  RE
"No, there is no evidence Paul and the Jewmelaws conflicted in this view."

So you keep saying. Did you read what I wrote about James's letter?

Yes, assuming of course that epistle of James was actually written by the same James Paul speaks of, and that it was being addressed to Paul, the only conflict being addressed would be the one i already mentioned, regarding the role of the law.

The area your quoted me from was in regards to their views on "The idea that their mysterious, perfect, one and only God could be incarnated in a Christ was unthinkable to them." Nothing in Jame's short letter suggests he held differing views than Paul in this regard, and nothing in Paul's letter claims a dispute on these matters either.

Your argument that they disagreed in other matters besides the role of the ceremonial laws, is unsupported by the evidence we have regarding the disputes between these parties. You keep avoiding acknowledge this, though you provide lengthy follow up post, that have no real bearing on this either. So there by you whole spew about the Book of Acts can in fact be ignored, since I've said next to nothing about the Book of Acts or it's validity.

The fact of the matter is claiming that the Jewmelaws conflicted in their theological perspectives regarding anything beyond the role of the Jewish law, is not supported by any of the primary sources regarding their conflicts. You can dance around his all you want, and at this point I might as well just keep copying and pasting this response to every single post you attempt to follow this up with, because you likely will continue avoiding admitting this much, for whatever reasons you might have..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 02:12 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
These are "ceremonial " ?
LMFAO,

You cannot be saved by works
(Ephesians 2:8-9)
You cannot show that you are saved without works (James 2:14,18)
How can a person be saved?
By faith alone (Rom. 3:28)
How can a person show that he is saved? How can he “show his faith”?
Only by works (James 2:18)
Faith without works saves
(Romans 3:28)
This is a living faith (saving faith)
Faith without works does not save
(James 2:14)
This is a dead faith (James 2:17,20,26)

Tomasina needs to read her Babble.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-11-2014, 02:49 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(05-11-2014 02:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  These are "ceremonial " ?
LMFAO,

You cannot be saved by works
(Ephesians 2:8-9)

You cannot show that you are saved without works (James 2:14,18)
How can a person be saved?

For Paul they are. His references to works, are almost exclusively to things such as circumcisions, the food laws, Sabbath observances.

" Jewish Christians at Galatia were perplexed as to how Gentiles could now sit with them and break bread. True enough, Christ had come to save both Jews and Gentiles, but how could these Gentiles be considered part of Abraham’s family unless they bore the marks of being Jewish — circumcision, the food laws, and Sabbath observance? These Jewish Christians were prepared to allow Gentiles in their midst but only if they bore the “works of the law” and submitted to circumcision, ate the proper food, and observed the Sabbath. Paul wrote to the Galatians so they would understand that Christ had done away with the “works of the law” and that Gentiles could be Christians without these Jewish identity markers. Jesus had lowered the flag of the works of the law and raised a new one in its place — faith in Him — to identify the people of God." -NT Wright.

Quote:How can a person show that he is saved? How can he “show his faith”?
Only by works (James 2:18)

The writer of James on the other hand has a entirely different notion of works than what Paul was speaking of, and that is works such as doing good deeds, tending to the orphan and the widow, etc..

So if the writers of James was in fact writing a response to Paul (which doesn't seem to be the case), than he would have misunderstood Paul. Either way, the dispute would have been about the role of the Law between both parties, even if the writer of James misunderstood Paul's take on it..

Again, all the evidence regarding Paul's dispute with the early Christians revolved around the role of the Law, not anything else beyond that. There is no evidence of a dispute in regards to the divinity of Jesus, the incarnation, etc.... no matter how you look at it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 03:06 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(05-11-2014 02:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 02:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  These are "ceremonial " ?
LMFAO,

You cannot be saved by works
(Ephesians 2:8-9)

You cannot show that you are saved without works (James 2:14,18)
How can a person be saved?

For Paul they are. His references to works, are almost exclusively to things such as circumcisions, the food laws, Sabbath observances.

" Jewish Christians at Galatia were perplexed as to how Gentiles could now sit with them and break bread. True enough, Christ had come to save both Jews and Gentiles, but how could these Gentiles be considered part of Abraham’s family unless they bore the marks of being Jewish — circumcision, the food laws, and Sabbath observance? These Jewish Christians were prepared to allow Gentiles in their midst but only if they bore the “works of the law” and submitted to circumcision, ate the proper food, and observed the Sabbath. Paul wrote to the Galatians so they would understand that Christ had done away with the “works of the law” and that Gentiles could be Christians without these Jewish identity markers. Jesus had lowered the flag of the works of the law and raised a new one in its place — faith in Him — to identify the people of God." -NT Wright.

Quote:How can a person show that he is saved? How can he “show his faith”?
Only by works (James 2:18)

The writer of James on the other hand has a entirely different notion of works than what Paul was speaking of, and that is works such as doing good deeds, tending to the orphan and the widow, etc..

So if the writers of James was in fact writing a response to Paul (which doesn't seem to be the case), than he would have misunderstood Paul. Either way, the dispute would have been about the role of the Law between both parties, even if the writer of James misunderstood Paul's take on it..

Again, all the evidence regarding Paul's dispute with the early Christians revolved around the role of the Law, not anything else beyond that. There is no evidence of a dispute in regards to the divinity of Jesus, the incarnation, etc.... no matter how you look at it.

You are obviously totally delusional.
The question of whether one is saved by faith or by works is NOT "ceremonial".
It''s PHILOSOPHICAL and THEOLOGICAL.
Saying black is white, does not make it so.
You can provide NOT ONE scholar that agrees with your nonsense, JUST LIKE you cannot provide ONE scholar or example of what you asserted about biographies.
Apparently you are yet another believer suffering from Dunning-Krueger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-11-2014, 10:15 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(05-11-2014 03:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You are obviously totally delusional.
The question of whether one is saved by faith or by works is NOT "ceremonial".
You can provide NOT ONE scholar that agrees with your nonsense,

Except for the one i did cite? NT Wright. and you could look up the New Perspective on Paul, and find whole slew of scholars.

When Paul speaks of the Law he is primarily speaking of ceremonial laws, and specifically in regards to table fellowship, and whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised, follow the dietary mandates, etc... to be a part of the Christian community. Paul viewed Gentiles as being justified by faith, not by subscribing to these practices.

The situation Paul is responding to is quite a different thing all together than what James is responding too.

In fact in a number of passages from Paul, it can be suggested that he likely would have been in agreement with James' view as well.

"For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life;" (Romans 2)

Here Paul is endorsing deeds, and how it's deeds that determine our entrance into eternal life. In fact for Paul faith is not even the highest value, love is (1 corinth 13).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 10:50 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(05-11-2014 10:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 03:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You are obviously totally delusional.
The question of whether one is saved by faith or by works is NOT "ceremonial".
You can provide NOT ONE scholar that agrees with your nonsense,

Except for the one i did cite? NT Wright. and you could look up the New Perspective on Paul, and find whole slew of scholars.

When Paul speaks of the Law he is primarily speaking of ceremonial laws, and specifically in regards to table fellowship, and whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised, follow the dietary mandates, etc... to be a part of the Christian community. Paul viewed Gentiles as being justified by faith, not by subscribing to these practices.

The situation Paul is responding to is quite a different thing all together than what James is responding too.

In fact in a number of passages from Paul, it can be suggested that he likely would have been in agreement with James' view as well.

"For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life;" (Romans 2)

Here Paul is endorsing deeds, and how it's deeds that determine our entrance into eternal life. In fact for Paul faith is not even the highest value, love is (1 corinth 13).

Nope. As is well known, there are at least TWO Pauls writing. All that says to me, is that whoever made that stuff up, thought, (or didn't realize) someone would later realize there were two conflicting concepts going on. I see no reason to accept ANYTHING they say at face value.
They were liars. And they admitted it.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church

N.T. Wright is a fool. He;s demonstrated it, repeatedly.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstth...x-marriage

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
05-11-2014, 10:58 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(05-11-2014 10:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  N.T. Wright is a fool. He;s demonstrated it, repeatedly.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstth...x-marriage

Ah, so it has to be scholars who support gay marriage? lol.

It doesn't matter, if you think Paul means something different when he speaks of the Law in relationship to Gentiles, than what NT Wright suggests, I would like to hear your perspective on it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 11:09 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(05-11-2014 10:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 10:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  N.T. Wright is a fool. He;s demonstrated it, repeatedly.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstth...x-marriage

Ah, so it has to be scholars who support gay marriage? lol.

It doesn't matter, if you think Paul means something different when he speaks of the Law in relationship to Gentiles, than what NT Wright suggests, I would like to hear your perspective on it.

"He who laughs last, laughs best", Smiling Jack.
I never said that. Science has informed humans about the (vast) range of sexual behaviors and attractions, and it has NOTHING to do with the ignorant view Fundies, and NT Wright have of it, and he IS IGNORANT of the science of the subject, and even the Biblical references to it. As are you.
See post 19 : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rah?page=2

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
05-11-2014, 11:35 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(05-11-2014 11:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I never said that. Science has informed humans about the (vast) range of sexual behaviors and attractions, and it has NOTHING to do with the ignorant view Fundies, and NT Wright have of it, and he IS IGNORANT of the science of the subject, and even the Biblical references to it. As are you.
See post 19 : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rah?page=2

I have no idea what this has to do with the topic at hand, and it all appears to be a Red Herring.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: