Hey, Beautiful(m)! Did somebody revoke my Baptismal Certificate?
(What sort of extra information did you want Christians to provide?)
Sorry, did I miss something here? Maybe I just don’t get it.
I wanted Christians to reply to my original post. And while you touched on the issue with some great historical information, the lack of theological enlightment kind of leaves me in the dark (again, pun intended). From what I gathered as a response to the OP, Christianity grew out of a Jewish cult/sect. However, you think the son of God would be more in the mainstream, no? And I believe cmkeller suggested that the idea of original sin is purely Christian, never a Jewish concept.
My OP listed 4 contradictions between the core beliefs of the two religions, and I guess I’m saying there should be ANY of those four if Christianity really sprang from, born out of, logical extension of, (however you would like to phrase it) Judaism. Did Christianity just pick up the messiah idea and run with it, changing the other concepts and tenets of the faith. If so, why believe that Christianity is the way when it’s basic ideas are not actually where they claim to be? If Jesus, as a Jew, didn’t believe in original sin, the origin of evil as defined today be Christianity, the very nature of God, and an eternal Hell as well as other concepts of afterlife, why should ANY Christian believe in it?
I guess I’m looking for information to reconcile each side in the four points I originally stated, if possible.
I guess I’m missing your point. There are a great many places in both Jewish and Christian thought where they overlap or are identical. You have found four places where they have gone distinctly separate ways. I think you set up a false dichotomy, however, when you state that/ask whether
In the first century, Judaism as a belief system was more like (not a lot like, but more like) Christianity, today. If you look at Christianity, you have 3+ basic groups: Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants with additional theologies among the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Unitarians, etc. Each of these groups have very close theologies in a number of areas, with some groups holding ideas that most of the other groups would not. Which is the “true” Christian belief?
Throughout the first century, a number of pressures were brought to bear on Judaism. The Christian heresy was one, the persecution by the Romans (in several ways) was another. When the scholars of Judaism began to seek to define clearly a single Jewish system of belief, they made a concerted effort to include only that which could be identified as having been part of Judaism from the very beginning.
However, if we back up 60 years from the councils at Jamnia and other locations, and ask “Who is a Jew?” we get a potentially different answer from the answer we would get in 110. Jews (not all Jews, perhaps not “good” Jews) did have a belief in resurrection before the beginning of the first century. The books of Maccabees were not written by Christians. We have other Jewish works that also allude to this belief.
It is certainly not any part of the Torah. It is not a message of the Prophets.
The same point can be made about the seminal ideas regarding Original Sin and your other issues. Christianity definitely did not adhere to the narrowest or purest definition of Judaism. However, the earliest Christians were Jews who believed as Jews.
Imagine a catastrophe overtaking the Protestant world, today. The leaders of the various paths, denominations, and sects make common cause to ensure that Protestant Christianity survives. (We’ll never make this work if we let in the Catholics, Orthodox, and + groups.) As the leaders meet, they have to go through all the beliefs that each group has developed, some ideas going back to the first century, some ideas going back to the sixteenth century, some ideas more recent. What would the new Protestant Christianity look like? If those who follow Luther or those who follow Calvin decided to opt out of the process, how would they be viewed by the “real” Protestants in a few hundred years?
The point is that Jews are quite right in pointing out the way in which Christians have “strayed” from Judaism. It is not right, however, to claim that Christianity simply went out and made stuff up. The beliefs on which Jesus based his preaching, including references to a paradaisic Heaven and a flaming Hell and an eventual resurrection, were held by some portion of the Jewish community or Jesus could never have found an audience. Christians would claim that the Spirit had led those people to those beliefs to prepare for the ministry of Jesus. Jews would claim that those people had wandered too far from their solid Jewish roots. As an RC, I hold to the former thought, but I have enough intellectual honesty to acknowledge that it is not a cut-and-dried issue.
(The one area in which a charge of “making it up” can be laid on Christianity is in the area of the “messiah.” Jesus got tagged as “messiah” (i.e., Christ–both words mean anointed) fairly early on, yet Jesus clearly did not meet many of the prophecies regarding the messiah and Christians have had to redefine their perceptions of the prophecies to make it work.)
If you are searching for a spiritual “home,” the best that can be said for a message board is that it will give you information. I think following up with personally with people that cmkeller can refer you to is an excellent idea. I wish SoxFan59 still posted here. He also lives in the Chicago area and is a devout (Fundamentalist) Christian who might be able to put you in touch with people to speak with on the subject.
No we’re talking! Thanks for the response! Let’s try taking this in order here.
Yes, but these are four very important points. And throughout history, I think we need to look at those beliefs and when they started. Can you be a Christian and not believe that the Satan is a rebellious angel, banished from heaven, in direct opposistion to God? Can you be a Christian and not believe in the Trinity? Can you be a Christian and not believe in an eternal Hell? Can you be a Christian and not believe in original sin? Aren’t these necessary to believe that Christ was God incarnate, came to die for our sins, broke the hold Satan had on men since the fall, and only through Christ can we approach God or face eternal damnation? These are not 4 trivial points!
It looks as if to me they didn’t follow hardly ANY of the definitions of Judaism. Along with the four original conflicts, you have to look at the fact that they no longer believed in following the Mosaic laws. I’m sorry, but I think that the laws of Moses are pretty central to Judaism. If you no longer adhere to those laws, you are no longer a Jew, are you. Well, an apostate Jew, but you get my drift (I hope).
I think he would have found a huge audience outside of Judaism, as mythraism and other mystery type religions were around, not to mention Roman/Greek mythology. The idea of a heavenly rebellion, the fall of Satan, an eternal Hell split between Hades and Paradise is much closer to the mythological story of the Titans vs. Olympian, Hades, Tarturus, the Elysian Fields etc. than to Judaic beliefs. The NT even uses the words Hades and Tartarus for criminy Pete! If the ideals and teachings didn’t come from Judaism, they had to come from somewhere.
That is what I’m looking for, information. A spiritual home is another story. I’ve had one for 20 years, I’m just trying to justify where I’ve been living. I’m just looking for the guys who made the blueprints to the house. I’ve studied mainly in the Pentecostal area, but HS was a Dutch Reformed private school, and up till the age of 13 I was Catholic, so I’ve got the Protestant angle down. These are issue I couldn’t resolve and am looking for more viewpoints.
[minor hijack]
Jesus said, “I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.”
Thomas: 77
[/hijack]
The fall of Satan story, while existing for centuries (and possibly millenia) didn’t become part of widespread Christian mythology (and I use mythology to mean the body of literature, not as a perjorative term) until John Milton wrote Paradise Lost in the 17th century. Milton was VERY much not a Catholic, indeed he had very Puritan leanings, IIRC.
I’m not sure that Catholicism deals officially with Satan’s origins.
Back to the OP’s questions about the judaism/christianity split: Doesn’t modern Judaism differ strikingly from Judaism at Christ’s time, especially since the Hillel rabbinical tradition, didn’t begin until the first century CE? I had always thought, and I ask to be corrected if this is wrong, that modern Judaism and modern Christianity both diverged from the form of Judaism as it was practiced during the Roman period? I had always thought that Judaism underwent profound changes in practice (though not necessarily theology) with the destruction of the temple in the first century, which was also Christianity’s formative years, the years of St. Paul and of the Gospels.
So would it be * more * acurate to say that Christianity and modern Judaism have more of a sibling relationship (both decended from the same root) than a one leads to the other type relationship?
I would say (and get a lot of disagreement) that a Christian is not required to believe in the Lucifer-and-his-fallen-buddies story to be Christian. The other points are pretty much required by all mainstream Christianity to be accepted as a member.
You are confusing the historical development through the 40’s to the 60’s with the original Christians. There is no evidence that the Twelve and their surrounding disciples ever behaved except as devout Jews originally. Even Paul, who fought with the Twelve to not impose Jewish Law on Gentile converts, appears to have remained faithful to the practice of Jewish Law throughout his life. He could not be considered a “good” Jew as he developed his heresy that Jesus was both Christ and Lord, obviously.
There is no question that Christianity is not Judaism. You seem to be making some sort of argument that it did not even spring from Judaism, and that is just not historically correct. Christianity is clearly a heresy. It diverged sharply from Judaism within 20 years of its founding. Once Christians accepted Jesus as Lord and God and developed the idea of the Trinity, there could never be a reconciliation between the groups from that point on. That, however, is not the same thing as saying that Christianity had no roots in Judaism. (Which leads to:)
But, in fact, Jesus did not preach among the Gentiles. He found his audience among the Jewish community. The ideas that you are trying to hand off to the Greeks actually came from within Judaism. The NT notion of Hell to which Jesus alludes comes directly from the 2d century BCE through 1st century CE Jewish writings: The Assumption of Moses, the Apocalypse of Baruch*, Esdras, and I Enoch among others. Esdras and different versions of Enoch also include a lot of description of Paradise. Similarly, the notion of Satan as the leader of rebellious angels was not invented by Christians. It is found in the various intertestamental works that include some of the ones already mentioned. It is probably true that much of this is taken from Hellenistic influence after the conquests of Alexander the Great. To claim that the ideas were not Jewish, however, would be akin to saying that the idea of the Eucharist or the ideas put forth by the 19th century Fundamentalist movement in Christianity were not “really” Christian because they were not carved in stone in 34 CE. You can point out where they diverge from any specific line of belief; you cannot claim that they are not part of the whole matrix of that belief.
Aack. This dropped out of my off-line cut-and-paste.
The use of Hades and Tartarus reflects the fact that the NT is written in Greek for a Greek audience. Hades is actually a good translation of the Hebrew Sheol, both words describing the general abode of the dead in which all is gray and lifeless. The usual word for the fiery torment of the evil-doers is Gehenna, transliterated directly from the Aramaic.
Thanks for your input Tom, don’t think it isn’t appreciated. Do I understand correctly that you are Roman Catholic? I don’t know why, but that surprises me. Probably because I’ve been taught for the longest time that the RC church is very wrong in their teachings, bordering on heresy and idolatry (infant baptism, importance of Mary almost to the point of worship, etc.), which is something that always bothered me about protestantism. Especially since 99% of my friends are RC.
Ok, so why did they change, what made them differ later in life. Should my question be is the Christianity being taught today have the same precepts as that taught by Jesus? Was Jesus’ upbringing in Judaism not in the mainstream Judaism of the day? how different was Judaism of the day? Which leads to
Jayron 32
Anybody? How different is 1st century Judaism from Judaism today? I know we’ve touched on that a bit, but anyone care to elaborate?
I’m really not argueing for or against any point, I’m kind of playing devil’s advocate (no pun intended this time), so since I’m coming from a Christian background, I’m looking at the opposite arguement to try and bolster what I already believe. It may not make much sense to you, but it does to me. But I digress. . . So within 20 years it diverged sharply. Why? Is it because of the influx of Pagan converts and their ideas of god and the afterlife? Which leads to . . .
I know, in fact he was rather short with the Gentile woman and it was the apostles who went out to the Gentiles. I guess that begs the question just how much of a following did Jesus have within Jewish circles?
Which ideas are you refering to?
Another issue I have. How often did Jesus allude to a literal, berning, eternal Hell? The parable of Lazarus is just that, a parable. This is the story I hear most often to explain Hell with protestant circles. If they take that as literal, why not the other parables. I don’t see many of them sitting at the base of mountains telling them to move, even they have very much faith. The other references that Jesus makes seem to be more in the lines of figurative and not literal (plucking your eye out if it offends you type stuff).
Nothing was written in stone in 34CE, aren’t most of the books of the NT written by people who never heard Jesus directly? And as for them not being Jewish, I questioned that and got the response from cmkeller
Are you saying he is incorrect?
Lastly
I thought that this word translated was Valley of Hinnon, which refered to the garbage heap outside Jerusalem or some city in Israel that constantly caught on fire and began to take on a collaquial meaning more than a destination in the afterlife.
Ok lunch is over, but don’t think I won’t be checking in 
Well, I have seen this and found it weird too…
I was raised Roman Catholic, and have never seen any open hostility by Catholics on those of other faiths. AFAIK, the RC chuch officially expresses regret at the state of Scism in the christian world, but does not openly refute the existence of or condemn other Christian churches. I have never heard a priest or practicing Catholic speak angrily of other faiths. Yet the reverse is not always true. My GF, who was raised Baptist, has said that there was indeed an air of open hostility towards the RC church, and I have often wondered why this is so… As a now non-religious person who respects religion, I am often puzzled when members of one faith condemn those of another.
Yes, I am one of those horrible mackeral-snappers.
To try to put this into a narrative flow and get away from the point-by-point discussion, (since I am not always comfortable with that):
Judaism in the beginning of the first century had developed into a religion that was analogous (in a small way) to Christianity today. It embraced a number of different schools of thought. The great learning centers in Mesopotamia and Egypt encouraged scholars to think about and comment upon Scripture. The Jewish nation-state, with its successive triumphs and suppressions from the Greek period through the Roman period and the political battles that resulted from attempts by accomodationists and Zionists* to control the monarchy and the priesthood under the threats of outside powers inspired different writers and leaders to couch theological ideas in military terms or terms of peace and prosperity in the land. Groups such as (but not necessarily limited to) the Essenes struck out on their own to try to create an ordered society away from the world, but they provided commentary on the religious leadership in the Jewish nation. During this period, Judaism (or some segment of Judaism) actively embraced proselytization, preaching to and converting people to Judaism throughout Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, with some “missionary” efforts going into North Africa, Rome and Spain.
When using the analogy of Christianity, you can compare the different varieties of Jewish belief to the various denominations of Christianity. Are Catholics “really” Christian? Where do the mystical associations of liturgy and ikonography in the Orthodox traditions fit with the teachings of Calvin. Even among the allegedly “pure” Fundamentalists (who have only had about 120 years to sprout new sects) you can find divisions among the Dispensationalists, the post- and pre-Millennarists, etc. At the time when the Romans had effectively brought peace to the Mediterranean, but had not begun to impose emperor-worship on the peoples of that region, Judaism found a brief period in which to “try out” many new ideas.
Once the Romans began their persecutions and their war on both the land and the belief of the Jews, the Jewish leaders re-examined the various different beliefs that had crept under the large Jewish umbrella and declared that many of them had gone too far astray. At that time, they closed the Scriptural canon and called on all Jewish believers to adhere to a stricter interpretation of their faith.
How many people believed in any one of the various “side trips”? I don’t know. I don’t know how we could estimate them. Perhaps 60-75% of all Jews were always strict adherents. Perhaps far more, perhaps far fewer. I have no way to know.
We do know that some percentage of Jews did entertain beliefs that were not “core” beliefs. We might know this because Christians held onto the records/texts, although I do not believe that that is strictly the case. Among the ideas that we know they entertained were those set forth in the several Apocalypses that I mentioned earlier. These Jewish books record the development in a belief in everlasting punishment and everlasting reward, along with the notion of Satan as evil tempter rather than agent of God. (It was in these books (especially 1 Enoch) that the word Gehenna was transformed from merely the Jerusalem town dump filled with trash fires to the place of everlasting torment for the wicked.)
When you read the words of Jesus in the Gospels, his imagery when speaking of Heaven and Hell very closely follows the imagery used in these other works. From this we conclude that he was speaking to an audience that was aware of these texts and that they were receptive to his words because of their familiarity. The idea that Jesus “merely” meant the town dump when he spoke of gehenna does not square with the imagery that he uses when he speaks of it.
As to the division between Judaism and Christianity: As the idea developed among the Christians that Jesus was (in some not-quite-understandable way) God, a rift that could not be mended separated the (Jewish) Christians from their Jewish neighbors. The idea of Jesus-as-God is not compatible with the Jewish belief of One-God. The concept of the Trinity is the result of the Christian attempt to wrestle with reconciling One God to God as Father, as Redeemer, and as Paraclete. With this break, no reconciliation is possible.
Once the break occurred, the (Jewish) Christians, who had followed the then-Jewish practice of proselytization, found themselves trying to balance the idea that they were simply a completion of the Jewish religion against (on the one hand) the reality that Gentile converts had no desire to become Jewish and (on the other hand) that the Jewish religious auhorities considered them blasphemers. Paul had the inspiration to simply declare Christianity a fulfillment and, at the same time, a new birth. From that point, Christianity moved further and further from Judaism.
Shortly after the severance had begun, the calamity of the destruction of the Temple followed by the persecution of Diocletian prompted the Jewish reconsideration “what is Judaism?”. All the “baggage” that had accreted during the pre-Imperial Roman peace (including the theologies of Heaven, Hell, and Satan) were set aside. By that time, Christianity had spent 40 - 60 years building a theology that included much of that “baggage.” The Christians simply chose to not throw out those beliefs (since, by then, they were convinced that they were the “new” religion).
*My use of the word Zionist is anachronistic. The point is that there were always those who fought for a truly Jewish state while others tried to accomodate whatever larger power was interfering in the area. Their battles generally centered on the controlling the temporal (king) and spiritual (high priest) offices.
El Guapo:
I mean to spite its roots. While Christians could probably tell you more, and/or be more accurate, but my understanding is that there was a serious difference of opinion between Peter and Paul over whether the future of the movement was amongst only the Jews or amongst the non-Jews as well. Paul won the argument, and Christians started proseletyzing to the Romans. The Romans viewed Jews as scum of the Earth or worse, so much of the movement’s Jewish “baggage” was discarded. Such Catholic traditions as the dating of Easter and the observance of Sunday as the day of rest were specifically established in order to not be tied to Jewish tradition.
jayron32:
Not really. While it’s true that many Jewish practices changed as a result of the destruction of the Temple, those changes were themselves a part of the Jewish practice that had been established during the Babylonian exile, the period between the two Temples. Hillel was one of the great Rabbis of the Talmud, but he doesn’t represent a distinct Rabbinical tradition; he represents a link in the chain from his own teachers to his own students.
True…but as you said, those were not a change in theology. Those changes in practice were due to the Temple’s destruction, because there are certain things that are not supposed to be done in the absence of a Temple.
I don’t think so. Of course, I am an Orthodox Jew, so I can’t claim to be free of bias on the issue.
However, if one reads the Talmud, a document which was compiled beginning around a century after the time in question, one finds that most of the non-Temple-related stuff is practiced by modern-day Orthodox Jews. There might be a few minor variations, but just about every modern-day Jewish practice can be traced to passages in the Talmud, which in turn cite their sources in the Scripture…indicating that there have not been any radical changes, but merely continuing clarifications of finer points.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Horrible macral-snappers? I just don’t get you Tom But I do appreciate all your input. I never quite understood the negative feelings toward the RCC by protestants, especially the newer “sects” of Pentecostalism. Personally, I’m much more comfortable with Catholism than a denomination that has only been around for 120 years and preach and practice some pretty weird stuff. But that is another story once again.
Ok, I won’t go into point by point analysis here since your naration was pretty thorough and as far as I know accurate. Although from what I know of Judaism (or at least current Judaism) proseletyzing is not a practice they take, and in fact, try talking potential converts out of converting.
So let me sum up and throw a question (or two) your way. You are saying that Christianity sprung from “fringe” Judaic beliefs that were around before Jesus and came about due to more of a religious freedom in the empire. They were throwing out new ideas that later, due to perhapps perscution, pressure and possible heresies. But Christianity, which by now had a larger following, hung on to these ideas despite the Jewish “recall” of new thoughts isnce by now, the rift between the two had grown so great.
Anyone disagree with that?
So my question is, would you contend that God then stopped leading the Jewish people as a nation and more or less turned his back on the people he had a relationship with for a couple thousand years because of a teacher that adhered to a great many of these non-popular ideas in the Judaic teachings of the time? Was the idea that the Messiah was for atonement of sins another one of these ideas? Is Christianity then based on the throw away ideas, concepts dismissed by Judaism not to long after Christ had left the earth? And Christ, while Jewish, was on the outside edge of Judaism for the concpets in the OP? I’m not sure how comfortable I am with that, that the Messiah (God on earth to Christians), promised for thousands of years, snuck around the edges of the religion that God himself instituted and the result was something that evolved into something so drastically different.
Also, I never really understood the “fullfilment” of the law concept. Can anyone explain that?
I’m not sure how far we are off the original OP now. I guess Tom is saying that those concepts through time have devolped, but their basis was in Judaism in one form or the other at the time of Jesus. Anyone else?
Mackeral-snapper is an old pejorative for Catholics from their practice of eating fish (or, at least, abstaining from meat) on Fridays.
I wouldn’t think that the early Christians were recruited from among a “fringe” element of Judaism, simply because I would not expect an itenerant preacher to build up a following from the fringe in a fairly small country. I would be more likely to see the earliest Christians as being aware of various strains of theology within Judaism and Jesus basing much of his message on the common understanding of one of those threads.
Another (not very good, this time) Christian analogy: at different times, Protestant theology has absolutely opposed or absolutely embraced celebrations of Christmas. Anyone who lived in any of those periods will be well aware of the ideas that that period has toward Christmas. The attitudes toward the celebration do not change the text of Luke’s nativity narrative and the celebrations or condemnations of celebrating do not compel people to join in. There is an expressed idea that takes different forms of expression at different times.
Did God turn away from the Jews?
Never!
A belief that a fulfillment of God’s message has been handed to people does not imply that God would ever break His earlier promises. (Far too many Christians have made that assumption far too often, but their error does not make it true.)
El Guapo:
Only with the wording. Possibly those ideas existed amongst a fringe group of Jews, but they were definitely considered heretical even by the large majority of JC’s contemporaries…not just by those who survived the shakeout that occurred in later generations. So I don’t know that they really could have been called, as you say it, “Judaic beliefs.”
Chaim Mattis Keller
I just want to thank cmkeller for clarifying some things. I make it a point to have as full an understanding as possible (for a non-practicer) of all faiths, and I want to thank him for giving me a better grasp of Jewish history.
Well, it seems to be just myself (my name is Bill by the way), Chaim and Tom in this discussion.
Tom is saying he doesn’t see a problem with the OP, since the two religions are different now, and they were different very shortly after Jesus’ death. But the ideas in the OP were still of Jewish thought, just maybe not the mainstream thought of the day. The two developed seperately right away, both with quite a few “revisions”.
Chaim is saying that the even though Christ came from some thought of Jewish thought, it was still considered heretical in the day and probably even more so now. Jesus was a heretical Jew, as were his followers, so it isn’t a surprise that Christianity broke off from a splinter group of Judaism to a new religion.
But isn’t a promise two ways? If God didn’t break his promises, but the Jews were no longer required to obey the dietary laws (among others), wouldn’t the Jews of the day be breaking their promise to God, as directed by the Torah, God’s given laws?
I can understand the Gentiles not having to convert to Judaism, but having the Jews abandon their faith practices to follow Jesus and his followers seems wrong to me. Would the messiah do that? I was under the impression the messiah would bring the Jewish people together, not seperate them.
On a side note to Chaim, I used the term “Judaic beliefs” to differentiate from that of Christian beliefs, since I see the two as vastly different. I hope I did not come over as disrespectful, that was NOT my intention. Also, I said I can understand Gentiles not having to convert given my knowledge of B’nai Noach (sp?). Is this a relatively new concept in Judaism? I always feared this was in response somewhere in history to the “Christian heresy”.
Bill
jayron32:
You’re quite welcome.
El Guapo:
Of course not. I was merely trying to clarify.
I doubt it. The concept of Gentile righteousness (without converting to Judaism) is definitely mentioned in Jonah (G-d accepts the repentance of the people of Ninveh, without requiring observance of Judaism) and Isaiah (I think it’s in Chapter 66). These two prophets prophesied while Israel was under the rule of Jewish kings, not under Gentile domination. The Torah, while I suppose it could be said to be ambiguous, certainly doesn’t imply that its laws (beginning with those given to Abraham) are binding on anyone other than the Jewish people.
Chaim Mattis Keller
I’m not sure of your point. There is no evidence that the earliest Jewish Christians ever gave up their Jewish practices. Paul certainly never did. The big break is the issue of Jesus-as-God. That is such an enormous obstacle that all other discussion falls away by comparison.
There is nothing in that issue that involves the practices mandated in the Torah. The original debates over those practices within early Christianity were specifically over the issue of Gentile converts. By the time the “history” of those debates was being written (in Acts), Christianity was 50 or more years old, and Judaism and Christianity were very distinct. I do not see early Christianity telling Jewish people to give up their practices (or implying that God said for them to abandon those practices), so I do not see where there is a break in the promise. In any event, God remains faithful regardless of humanity’s response. He has declared that the Jews are His chosen people, and so they remain. (And Judaism has certainly remained faithful to the covenant that its adherents recognize.)
Giving up their Jewish practices and believing in them are two different things. Many people adhere to the 10 commandments and the golden rule, but it makes them neither Jew nor Christian. Reading through the NT, you can see that Peter and Paul both put their faith in Christ above their adherence to the law (I Cor. 9 and Gal. 3), I believe Paul even saying that that the law was the tutor for the messiah, and now that the messiah has come they no longer need the tutor. The lines between Jews and Gentiles were erased (neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free) and if the Gentiles didn’t have to adhere, than neither did the Jews (wasn’t this part of the Peter/Paul arguement, with Peter later having the dream of the unclean animals and being instructed by God to kill and eat them?). They may still have, but for appearance purpose only. Wasn’t it Paul who said that he is all things to all people so he can win a few to Christ, to one under the law he acts under the law, to one not under the law, he becomes one not under the law. Notice he says he is under the law, but Christ’s law, not the law of Moses. A man as God certainly conflicts with Numbers 23:19, and that may have been the final straw, but whether or not “Paul certainly never did” with respect to keeping the law has to be questioned just by his teachings alone. I can give you the NT verses if you like.