Which would be a good enough consilience for me. But you can see how a (generic, this time) cynic would say that all we have to go on in support of that is an after-the-fact collection of writings compiled by the faction that won the argument.
JRDelirious said:
I’d say this:
The Mosaic Law had governed the Jews for something along the lines of 1500 years before Christs’s arrival. It would be insufficient to simply say that “old habits die hard.” The Law was central to their day to day life. What they ate, circimcision, relations between men and women, matters of worship, legal disputes, rules on commerce----everything----- the Law touched.
How would you react if most of all the Laws that govern your day to day life were ended? It took the Christian congregation time to fully recognize the full import of the reality that Christ had fulfilled the Law and that there was a new Law that was to govern their lives.
The embyonic Christian congregation had accepted Christ, and there was no dispute among them about that fact. Yet, Paul and the older men of the congregation found themselves–more than once— in a position to clarify for them that they were not still subject to all of the [rigid] laws that has so dominated their lives. There was a new Law: The Law of the Christ.
(This was not then last time that Paul had to counsel someone as to the proper perpspective one should have regarding the Mosaic Law)
Cool! And that’s why we’re talking. I have no quarrel with Diogenes or anyone else who states flatly that Christianity is a form of delusion, or that the bible is an error riddled book of fables.
In fact, my challenge to Diogenes—as virtually all of my challenges to him—may as well come from someone who shares his views on Christianity or the bible. I endeavor to respect his views as you’ve articulated above. Where I stand ready to challenge him is when he overstates his case (as he is wont to do) or to present rank speculation as universally accepted fact. I’m particualrly strident with him I guess because it seems that many here look to him for “knowledge” about the bible, even many who are Christians.
Still I’ve often agreed with him. When he’s wrong —or at least when it is clear to me he is-- i challenge him. I’m on record many times telling particpants and lurkers alike to read their own bible and come to their own conclusions.
Case in point below:
There is no shortgage of rationalization in Christianity, particulalry if it involves methods of gaining converts. There’s no better example than Christmas. (or Easter) which have roots that are pagan. It’s not unreasnaoble to think that the early Christian congregation would blanch at Christianity today.
But Diogenes is offering us that the dropping of dietary restrictions were made “concessions to make evangelization easier.”
I think you (and Diogenes also in the past) are making the mistake of assuming that I am somehow blinded by “faith.” If I was a full atheist I’d be making the same challenge. We’re not talking about the Catholic Church of a thousand years ago—we’re talking about the absolute beginning of Christianity. From the very people who governed the early church in the immediate aftermath of Christ’s death.
For those who don’t know, the “kosher restrictions” weren’t dropped; the whole Mosaic Law was dropped or “fulfilled.” The dietary restrictions were one small part of a group of Laws that numbered around 600.
So Diogenes would have us believe that the Mosaic Law, conceived and spelled out by God Himself (by God himself!) would be capriciously and unceremoniously ended by Paul et al after 1500 years simply to gain converts?
Show me!
If you can’t, please qualify your agreement with Diogenes by stating flatly that this view is unsupported explicitly in the bible by those who presumably made this concession, nor can it be inferred by the text. It’s pure unfounded speculation. If I’m wrong, show me.
While you’re at it, show me that the reason the Law was dropped (the rationalization part) was to gain converts. (vs the reason stated several times by Paul himself)
Agreed!
And what do we have in support of the opposing view espoused by Diogenes et al?
Those after the fact writings are the best evidence of the intent, purpose and thoughts of the participants of those in the argument!
I’d be inclined to buy into Diogenes argument if the early Christian congregation showed themselves to be the types to favor political expedience. How much did Paul compromise the basic non-negotiable principles that governed their faiths?
The record shows again and again and again that the apostles were willing to suffer beatings, floggings, prison, and other sundry abuse rather than compromise their principles.
These men…these men who are willing to stand before kings in defense of their faith and who died willingly rather than give in—these men---- abrogated God’s Law (The Mosaic Law) to make their work easier?
I find nothing in my reading that suggests that the early apostles were prones to back door dealings. It’s clear that they endeavored to follow God’s law and counted themselves worthy if suffering came with it. Historians from that period agree with that assesment. There is nothing in history (from that period in particualr) or in biblical history that suggests that they were prone to expediency. On the contrary.
If you have more compelling evidence, I’d love to see it.
This is taken from Colossians 2:11 - 23
I think this qualifies as resonable.
Hmmm… I need an edit button for when I hit the post button to fast. To get rid of the extraneous smiley and “resonable” which should be reasonable. Ooops.
Diogenes the Cynic said:
Well, the rules of best evidence would suggest that the biblical account is the most compelling evidence. Still, I’d love to see non-biblical historical references that are as compelling, and that show that concessions were made to gain converts.
highlights mine
Whose answer? The NT doesn’t even provide this rationalization best as I can tell; I see no commentary whatsoever that shows gaining converts was strategized that way, nor can I find any commentary that shows concessions were made for that purpose.
Before I get to that however, it appears you’ve stated the answer without supprting it and than went out in search of it’s rationalization.
Why is this the answer?
Show me that. Show me that “Paul acknowledges[d] that circumcision and kosher laws were an obstacle to to converting gentiles.” That.
Cult? Where did he admit anything? Why did he have to? He was called into help resolve a dispute among those who believed that circumcision was still applicable and that converts would have to comply. Paul assisted in this resolution and pointed out that the Law of Moses was no longer binding.
This is purely speculation, right? The Jews had lived with the Law for centuries. Maybe they were looking to take the path of least resistence in order to gain converts. (Of course that flies in the face of their stated reasons, and their history)
Or maybe the post-Christ early Christian congregation was finding it’s sea legs and struggling to find it’s way after centuries of Mosaic Law. Maybe it was what the accounts describe: a period of learning and adjustment.
I agree with much of this. There were conflicts. The Christian congregation was nascent. It had to be worked at. And Paul was a pragmatist. (See 1 Cor 9:19-23) But there is nothing in the text that suggests that Paul arbitrarily compromised thelogy in order to solve a problem. The texts are clear that Paul believed (with scrpitural eveidence to back him up) that Christ’s death fulfilled the Mosaic Law. So his approach to the conflict about circumcision was not about that narrow issue, but to remind than that the whole of the Law was fulfilled. He didn’t need to improvise here----there was scriptural certainty in his mind and wasn’t there to broker any deals.
Appropriate texts which speak directly to Paul’s view of the Mosaic Law. NIV renders verse 14:
“14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.”
It’s clear that Paul saw Christs’s death as the fulfillment of the Law, and so the issue of circumcision was clear as it was a provision of the Law. He didn’t need to play fast and loose with the rules to gain converts. He has scrpitural clarity guiding his decisions.
I guess I don’t see what the problem is. Do you deny that circumcision and kosher laws were an obstacle to converting gentiles? Do you deny that the Jerusalem cult stil saw the law as binding? If Jesus’ death had wiped out Mosaic law (which was probably only about 300 years old, not 1500, btw.) then why didn’t those followers who actually knew him personally, including one of his own brothers, know that the law had been “fulfilled?” If such an interpretation of the crucifixion was part of Jesus’ message then why didn’t James and Cephas know it? Why did Paul (who never met Jesus) have to formulate this theory on his own?
And is it a coincidence that he happened to be evangelizing gentiles?
All you’re reading in Paul’s letters is the propaganda of the faction that won a strategic argument. I understand that you think I’m being too cynical or that I’m painting Paul himself as being a cynic who altered his theology to serve his own interest. To make myself a little more clear, I don’t think Paul was being deliberately calculating or that he didn’t believe what he was saying. I think that Paul had a problem, that he deliberated on it, and that he came up with a resolution that was beneficial to his cause but which also…and this is important…was consistent with how he viewed Jesus. It was a sincere attempt to find a theological solution which did not violate his core understanding of God and the role of Ho Christos. It was still, however, a solution to a problem and was not part and parcel of the original apostolic Jesus movement.
You’re quoting one of Paul’s own letters as giving him scriptural authority to guide his decisions. Isn’t that a bit circular? Isn’t that like saying that his post was his cite?
Again putting myself in the shoes of the abstract Generic Cynic, the Cynic might say, “come on, it’s common sense, it stands to reason, Ocham’s Razor, blah, blah, what’s the likeliest explanation for changing such a heretofore important policy”.
But as you point out, indeed it’s documented that the Early Christians were uncompromising even to a heroic degree when it came to something they considered fundamental. Which is why I would agree with Thudlow that it can be a case of both that Paul recognized that compromise on the OT Law was an effective evangelization tool AND that he (and the faction that came out on top) sincerely understood the Revelation of the Gospel to mean that the OT Law had now become something you could compromise with a clear conscience.
For what it’s worth, I think Paul made the right decision, not only pragmatically speaking but also in the sense that his decision was in keeping with the Jesus’ ethical teachings. I don’t think it was necessary to contrive all that nonsense about “fulfilling” the law with his death (that falls apart under logical scrutiny) but it could be argued that Jesus sought to emphasize compassion and the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. Jesus said, for instance, that “It is not what goes into your mouth that defiles you but what comes out.” This could be milked as an authoritative argument against the need to keep kosher. There was also the unauthorized healing that Jesus did on the Sabbath, etc. It could have been argued that Jesus had clarified the law rather than fulfilled it but Paul seemed to show virtually no interest in anything Jesus actually taught (at least he never talks about them in his letters). He seemed more obsessed with cosmic interpretations of the crucifixion and “Christ” than with the life and teachings of Jesus.
I would agree with you if this discussion was about his authority. But we’re talking about his rationale, his belief, his basis for making the decision he made in resolving the dispute.
Did he make this decision as a concession to gain converts, or was it because he believed that the Law was now invalid as a result of Christ’s death? Based on his writing, he believed that the Mosaic Law was completed, fulfilled, and no longer binding on Christians. (That would include both Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles)
That of course begs at least a couple more questions:
-
Did his basis have a sound scripitural foundation?
-
Did he have the authority to resolve this dispute in the manner he did?
Either of those are worthy of discussion, (probably in a different thread) but are not germaine to the question as to whether the end of the Mosaic Law was specifically due to concessions made to gain converts.
I see no commentary in the bible that suggests that this rationalization took place. The commentary that I do see suggests that he had a firm reason, and that he stated it clearly.
I’ll post more later…
Diogenes the Cynic said:
I’m saying that I don’t know. The fact that there was a dispute doesn’t tell me anything about that. Just that there was a dispute. For all I know, the growth of Christianity may have been going smashingly. Maybe some hardliners in the growing congregation were riled because the goyim weren’t getting clipped as had been their Law/custom.
The text may support that. In verse 5 it says: "5 Yet, some of those of the sect of the Pharisees that had believed rose up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and charge them to observe the law of Moses.” (bolding mine)
Given that the Pharisees were known to be sticklers in matters of the Law, it is not hard to see them as the hardliners in the nascent Christian congregation. But that is speculation.
At any rate, there is nothing written as to the source of the dispute.
Maybe circumcision and kosher laws were a problem for gaining converts, maybe they weren’t. Maybe they were just a problem for those in the congregation who clung to old traditions that were now being dismantled.
If there is some text that shows that converts, who were otherwise receptive to Christianity, resisted becoming Christians because of circumcision/kosher laws I’d like to see it. I’d also like to see texts that show that the older men in the congregation saw it as a recruitment issue.
(Words are funny things, but “cult” is a pejorative to me so I’ll kinda gloss over it’s use, ok? ) Once again, I don’t know how widespread this view was. It is quite clear that this view was not universal. Verse 5 says that “…some of those of the sect of the Pharisees…”
It does not appear that Paul and Barnabas caught wind of some rebel teachings in Jerusalem and went to set them straight. * It appears that some internal dissension was already taking place * and that there were two different thoughts on the matter. This is important in lieu of the quote box below…
It’s important because… it certainly appears that within the dispute in Jerusalem there were those who held to the notion that circumcision/kosher laws were still required and those who did not. This certainly suggests that there must have been some who believed that at least this portion of the Law Code was no longer applicable. If this is true, and it certainly looks that way contextually, it suggests that Paul didn’t improvise this solution.
Of course not! Baby conversions/baptisms weren’t done AFAIK. So any adult Jew seeking conversion, given the proximity to Jesus’s death, would have been circumcised according to the Law Code already. (prior to seeking conversion, and according to custom)
Further the Jews, by and large, had rejected Jesus as the Messiah. (Which Jesus foretold!) Add to that that the preaching/conversion work had been opened to Gentiles after Peter’s vision and it is cklear that, if there was to be a dispute, it could only be with Gentiles!
That still doesn’t address whther it was a recruiting obstacle, or whether Paul et al would have been willing to make this concession.
I appreciate that. And I agree with you in part. Where we disagree is that I see in the texts that Paul’s basis for his belief for resolving the dispute at Acts 15 was that he interpreted the scpriture to mean that Christ’s sacrifice meant the end of the Law Code. That’s what he states as his belief. (right or wrong , authority or not) I take him on his word. There’s nothing there that suggests that it is part of a good intentioned effort to facilitate conversions.
It’s worth noting a couple things here…
-
Paul was exceptionally well schooled in the Law from a young age. If there was a scrpitural basis for believing that Christs’ death fulfilled the Law, he would likely would have been knowledgeable.
-
The dispute at Acts 15 revolved around circumcision/kosher laws. If Paul used this as a solution one is left wondering why he dismantled the whole Law Code! For someone reading these texts it is remarkable how pervasive these laws were for day to day life. It’s hard to imagine that he would scrap the entire Mosaic Law over these two issues. As a pragmatist, he could easliy have used a line item veto and invalidated only those provisions of the Law that hindered recruitment.
I agree with some of this. I would submit that rather than Paul coming up with solutions, with good intentions and based on his perception of Jesus, but that he was taking direction from Jesus via prayer and through application of the scrpitures. I don’t believe that Paul had the authority to invalidate the Law Code, and was simply the leading spokesman for the new Christian congregation.
Once the Jews had rejected Jesus as the Messiah there was a new pardigm. The hope of Christianity was now open to Jews and Gentiles alike. There were going to be changes. The Jews had been God’s chosen people. God’s chosen people would now include others. It seems clear (to me anyway) that Jesus foretold that eventuality. There is also evidence that that Paul’s writing did indeed have a scrpitural basis, and that the Mosaic Law did serve as “tutor leading to the Christ.” If that’s true, the end of the Mosaic Law was part of the plan and was not someting that Paul had to ponder over.
No, actually, it did not.
He had whatever authority his converts and followers were willing to invest in him.
You’re being disingenuous. Of course it was a problem.
There’s no evidence to support such a hypothesis and the description of the controversy in Acts (along with plain common sense) tells us that gentiles didn’t want to cut the tips of their junk off. That only stands to reason. It hurts. People also tend to be resistant to drastic dietary changes. It’s just human nature.
Those “hardliners” woukd have included the direct disciples of Jesus and at least one of his own brothers. Why would Paul know more about what Jesus wanted than those who actually knew him?
Let’s look at Galatians which was actually written by Paul and was written much earlier.
Galatians 2:11-14
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
There you go. The dispute was between Paul and the Jersalem cult led by Peter and James.
They were. Peter himself called circumcision a “yoke” which Jews had to bear.
Yeah, sure, maybe people liked to snip parts of their johnsons off. Maybe basic human nature had no application to 1st century gentiles.
Would you like to see a text that people don’t like to get kicked in the stomach or have sticks poked in their eyes? Use a little common sense, dude. There would not have been a dispute if it hadn’t been a problem.
It’s not meant to be derogatory. It’s how historians refer to the first generation of Jewish followers of Jesus. Perhaps it was more accurately a sect but either way, the terms are intended to distinguish the group from other Jews as well as from Pauline Christians.
What Paul implies in Galatians is that the Jewish converts still followed the law and that Peter and James also expected gentiles to follow the law (Luke’s fictionalized and self-serving account of Peter’s “vision” notwithstanding).
Paul was the rebel, not the group in Jerusalem. Peter and James, after all, were apostles, Paul was not (at least not in the sense of a direct disciple who knew Jesus.
The dispute was between those in Jerusalem who knew Jesus and the guy on the gentile mission who did not. as it turns out, that guy won and he got to write the propaganda but at the time, he was the cowboy.
Those would be Peter and James.
Paul.
That would be Paul.
Contextually, that is the only conclusion which can be drawn. There is no evidence that anybody tried to relax those restrictions before him.
Yes, and since the Jerusalem cult still saw themselves as Jews, not as a new religious group, they still regarded gentile converts as converting to Judaism, not to Christianity, hence the pissiness of the Pharisees.
They didn’t “reject” him. He made himself ineligible as the Messiah by failing to meet the criteria. The Jewish Messiah is defined by deeds, not by faith. It’s not a birthright. It’s like if someone says he’ll be the guy who cures cancer…fine, cure cancer. If he does it, great, he was right. If he dies first, then…oh well… he wasn’t the guy who cured cancer. He wasn’t “rejected” as the guy who cured cancer. He just didn’t cure cancer. Jesus didn’t do anything the Jewish Messiah was supposed to do, hence he wasn’t the Jewish Messiah. Faith does not enter into it.
Cite?
Peter’s vision was a self-serving fiction.
I don’t see how you can conclude that it suggests anything else.
There was no scriptural basis whatsoever to suggest that the Messiah was supposed to die for anyone’s sins.
The laws were not pervasive at all in the communities where Paul was living and preaching. No one would have even asked a question if he skipped any mention of circumcision while preaching at Corinth.
Well, not the scriptures. There is demonstrably no support in Hebrew scriptures. I have no opinion as to whether he recieved guidance from Jesus through prayer. From a historiological perspective, it needs to be proven before it can be factored into anything.
Sure, Paul had the authority. He was the leader of the gentile movement. He could do whatever he wanted. He was inventing a lot of things as he went along anyway. Sure, he thought Jesus was talking to him and maybe he thought Jesus told him to suspend the law. I guess I don’t have to tell you that I see that as a distinction without a difference. Unless you can prove God actually spoke to him, then practically speaking, we have a guy who decided to remove some inconvenient obstacles to converting gentiles. His internal justification makes no difference to me. He certainly didn’t get it from the Hebrew Bible.
The Jews did not reject Jesus as the Messiah. He disqualified himself by dying without fulfilling the requirements.
Sure, sure. Getting rid of Mosaic law was the only way Christianity could have survived. Paul’s inspiration to make his religion universal rather than cultural was extremely significant.
Jesus spoke of “salvation” as being dependant on ethical behavior rather than legalisms so I think an argument could be made from the words attributed to Jesus that the Law was not necessary. Paul never attempts to do so, though.
There is nothing whatever in Hebrew scripture to support this. If you’d like to dispute me on that, then please refer me to chapters and verses.
Diogenes the Cynic said:
Perhaps, but that’s another thread, right? (And whether he had a scriptural basis or not, that’s not relevent to his stated belief )
And this differs in what way from Jesus…? And relevent to your assertion how…?
Deluded? Maybe. Disingenuous? Never. You could, of course, provide me a cite to show that it was a problem of recruitment as you’ve alleged…
I’ve offered you another explanation that was more compelling, (based on the context) and went so far as to qualify my statements by saying they were speculative in nature, as the text doesn’t expicitly state the source of the dispute.
The Jews were getting the tips of their junk cut off for centuries. Do you really believe that the Jews would give the Gentiles some special dispensation over a Law that they themselves had undergone willingly for centuries?
Further, the history of the Jews, the Pharisees in particular, was one of formal adherence to structure–to rules. The Christians would prove themselves no less willing to be uncompromising in their faith, even over the smallest of details. Yet, in the briefest of interludes, their fath becomes a version of “Let’s Make a Deal?”
Do you think for a moment that a potential believer wasn’t aware of the abuse that the Christian sect underwent with stunning regularity? Ironically, who was their greatest persecutor? Saul of Tarsus! Any potential convert was well aware of the reputation of Christians, and well aware that conversion might mean the end of a job, a divided family, jail, mob action, and other abuses. And you would propose that the change in diet would be a stumbling block in light of the very real abuse that certainly would come their way?
Lurkers, sit up and pay attention now. Does this account (and I’m suggesting that anyone interested go read the whole account, in context) show explicitly or implicitly that either Peter or James believed that circumcision/kosher rules were to be enforced?
NOT AT ALL!
IN FACT it has nothing to do with that dispute. IN FACT,to the extent it paints a picture it suggests the exact opposite of what Diogenes suggests. It portrays Peter as living in accord with the arrangement that made accomodations for Gentiles within the Christian congregation. Yet it is apparent that those “of the circumcised class” had some influence on Peter so he hypocritically behaved in a fashion that was consistent with the bias’s held by the hardliners when in their presence.
Were Peter’s actions the actions of a hardliner, or as a progressive? He only acted as a hardliner (defined as one who kept separate from the Gentiles) when with the hardliners!
******It’s important to note also that the cite Diogenes provided above is NOT dealing with the dispute at Acts 15, nor is Paul specifically referring to circumcision/kosher laws when he says “that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs.”
Further, Diogenes say that this account was “written much earlier”, yet ends with “There you go. The dispute was between Paul and the Jersalem cult led by Peter and James.”
How in the heck can this be used as a cite when the dispute hadn’t happened yet?
The most Diogenes can hope for with this cite is to point to Peter as a hardliner who would have opposed Paul in Jerusalem. For those thoughtful folks who read this in it’s entirety, does it support that? Absolutely not! It portrays Peter as receptive to Gentiles, and not as a Pharisaical hardliner. It presents him as a hypocrite and prone to peer pressure. It says NOTHING about his later views in Jerusalem.*******
Read it for yourself! Does it support Diogenes’s explanation?
Cite, with context please. (I assume you’re not referring to Acts 15:10; as in that particular verse he is advocating the removal of this yoke. At any rate, please provide cite and context)
And this is relevent how…? Of the abuses those choosing to convert would suffer, circumcision would likely be the least of their worries. Of course, we’re still both speculating, right?
What they liked is not relevent is it? I mean, if they chose to become to become a Christian, circumcision would be the first of many indignities they’d suffer, willingly.
There was a problem! But I find NOTHING in my reading that shows me that the problem was one of resistence by potential converts to cirumcision. I’m not suggesting that they were thrilled about it, but it remains that the text doesn’t identify the problem as one of recruitment. Nor does it say that it was an impediment for those who were moves to become Christians. We’re not talking about removing their kidneys.
It could just as likely be hardliners unhappy that the new converts get to keep their whole johnson. (or a variety of other sources)
Diogenes you’re engaging in rank speculation, plain and simple.
Did Peter expect Gentiles to follow Jewish customs when not under the influence of hardliners? Is there any text that supports this? What does Peter’s involvement at Acts 15 support?
Further, the account shows that the dispute was already raging and that Paul and Barnabas came to mediate in the dispute. Can you show me where the ‘cult’ in Jerusalem was in unison in their opposition to Cowboy Paul? Can you show me in the account at Acts 15 that Peter and James were both in opposition to Paul? As the dispute unfolds can you show me where they stoof as a unified front against Paul?
Please add to the list of irrelevent items. Of course, this is the wildest of speculation so it is not only irrelevent but uncite-able.
Are there Catholic cults in Vatican City? The congregation—a group of people— in Jerusalem had accepted Jesus as the Messiah. The question was, do we still have to follow the Law/Customs of Moses? That was the central dispute. The Jews who accepted Christ would become followers of him and his teachings. They would, of course, remain Jews. The Messiah was a central part of the Jewish religion.
These Jews believed that the long foretold and anticipated Messiah had arrived and that it was their choice to follow him. That was of course a function of Judaism! Jesus was the Messiah for the Jews/Judaism!
However, a large part—the largest part— of the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. This caused a division within Judaism—between those who saw Christ as the Messiah, and those who did not.
Among those in this dispute, they shared in common a belief that Christ was indeed the Messiah. What does the account say? Verse 1, "1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers:… Verse 2, "So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. Verse 3, "The church sent them on their way,…they told how the Gentiles had been converted. Verse 4, "When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders,…Verse 5, “Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees…”
Both the Jews who accepted Christ, and those who did not, felt that they were practicing the “true” Judaism. In time, a distinction was made between those—Jew or Gentile-- who accepted Christ, and those who did not. Followers of Christ would be called Christians, whether they were Jew or not.
Whether the people in that room identified themselves specifically as “Christians” or not is not relevent. What is clear is, that this group saw themselves as followers of Christ and following the correct Judaism. (which now included believing Gentiles)
They were arguing a doctrinal issue as to the appropriate place the Mosaic Law should now have in their lives/faith given the reality that the Christ had arrived.
Jesus was/or was not the Messiah.
In your analogy, if he dies, he dies. OTOH, if his co-workers take him out to the parking lot and nail him to a telephone pole, I’d say that they’re rejecting him somehow.
** I don’t like to dodge requests for cites, however this is not germaine to our dispute. It is germaine to the recurring theme with you that there is no evidence to conclude Jesus was the Messiah. Let’s finish this, and if you want to start a thread, I’d be glad to provide cites.
Self serving or not, fiction or not, this doesn’t answer the allegation that the Law was scrapped (the entire Law!) to ease recruitment, or that it was even a problem. If you wish to start a thread, I’d be interested in seeing your cites.
** See above. Not relevent to your assertion. That’s another thread.
** See above.
Whoa! I can appreciate that you don’t care what his “internal justification” was. And there’s at least a couple threads there; like his authority, or the biblical basis for his “justification.” My issue with you is that you have flatly stated his justification. Your explantion doesn’t agree with Paul’s own words as to his justification, and you haven’t supprted it at all. (other than misapplying a non-related text in Galations)
** See above. This is a thread for another day.
Nonsense. This is reckless speculation. (And I say this as a non-believer. There are many religions that have survived centuries, many longer than Christianity, whose adherents have suffered for the continuation of their faith. There is no way that anyone could presume to know what Diogenes asserts here. It’s wild speculation)
As stated, this is not relevent to this disussion. Once we’re done here, and you wish to start a thread, I’d be glad to participate.
“Faith” is a personal matter. However, regardless of your motivation, it’s important to have an accurate understanding of what the bibles actually says.
A sincere student will endeavor to see what the author actually says, and will try to not have the text colored by outside speculation and conjecture.
Now for some readers, that will develop appeciation and a faith in God. For others, it’s a purely academic excercise.
Where I take exception is when speculation is presented as fact, when texts are blatantly misapplied, or not cited. I don’t mean to pick on Diogenes, but he is the most vocal on this subject, and has been referred to as an authority on the subject.
Now we’ve been discussing Acts 15. Here’s the account: (NIV)
*
"1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.”
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: “Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16“ ‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it, 17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’
18that have been known for ages.
19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” 22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul– 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
30The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers. 33After spending some time there, they were sent off by the brothers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them.[d] 35But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord. 36Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.”*
For the discerning reader it is a farly straight forward account. An experienced reader would benefit from a fuller understanding of the context, people involved, theological arguments/beliefs etc. Still, this is not particularly difficult reading.
Based on this text, Diogenes has presented the following as fact. If you’ve chosen to read the account with an eye towards discernment (as opposed to skimming it) please see if you can find as fact the following assertions:
-
Circumcision and kosher laws were an obstacle to converting gentiles.
-
Paul acknowledged that circumcision and kosher laws were an obstacle to to converting gentiles. (highlighting mine)
-
The elimination of kosher restrictions (as well as circumcision) were indeed concessions to make evangelization easier.
-
It was rationalized by the declaration that the crucifixion had eliminated the “Old Covenant” and that Mosaic law was no longer binding. (highlighting mine)
Now it would be common, if not expected, for a discerning reader to make certain inferences and assumptions based on compelling evidence in the text. But the thinner the evidence, the more likely the inference is really just wild speculation.
In the account above, there is NOTHING in the text, either expicitly or implicitly, to support the claims. In fact, other texts directly refute the claims.
What do you believe?
I submit that if you’re accepting stuff on a message board somewhere as “fact” you’re running the the risk of getting it all wrong. The internet is full of bad information.
True. Let’s assume that what the NT records is true, including the miracles. For any Jew that wasn’t there to witness the miracles, all they would know about Jesus is that he preached, some people claimed he worked some miracles, and then others claimed that he was crucified and rose from the dead. The Jewish conception of the Messiah isn’t that it is a matter of believing what some people claim about what the Messiah did, but instead what they can actually themselves observe the Messiah did. If I can pull off arranging global peace, and rebuild/bring the Temple back in in Jerusalem, then Jews is Israel will bow down and pray to me as the True Messiah. Of course, pulling off world peace would be beyond my ability if I am just your Average Joe. And if I do pull off world peace, if I wander around Israel and someone comes up challenging that I am the Messiah, if I respond “If arranging world peace doesn’t convince you, like what else must I do?”, this would be a compelling argument 
If Jesus really is the Messiah, he’s gotta do more than just rise from the dead to fulfill the prophesies. The Christian perspective is that Jesus will fulfill the prophesies in the second coming. However, until that happens, skepticism is reasonable.
There is very little evidence to begin with on Mithraic practices. However, there is no evidence that ritual self-castration was part of the Mithraic mysteries. Some have tried to interpret the blood bathing ritual as a substitution for self-castration that was a component of the Cybeline mysteries.
rfgdxm said:
That would put them in the same position as you and I.
There is no biblical cite to substantiate this. I’d be interested how you came to this. How about a cite?
Please provide some comprehensive cites as to what would identify the Messiah. (Perhaps in another thread) Be thorough. The “build the temple in 3 days” thing is low hanging fruit. Even there, please cite it in context. Then we can compare the how closely Jesus Christ resembles the Messiah. We’ll see just how complelling the argument is.
It isn’t necessary to rebuild the Temple “in three days,” the Messiah just has to rebuild it.
Here is a list of what criteria for the Jewish Messiah as stipulated by the Hebrew Bible.
He must be Jewish
He must be a direct descendant of David through Solomon.
He must be of the tribe of Judah.
He must restore the unified kingdom of David and Solomon.
He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.
He must cause the world to worship one God.
He must bring world peace.
Anyone who fails to accomplish even one of these things is not the Jewish Messiah. As we can see. Jesus was definiitely Jewish but his Messianic resume ends right there.
Here are some things that the Messiah is NOT supposed to be or do:
He’s not supposed to be born of a virgin.
He’s not supposed to be God or the “Son of God,” just a human king.
He is not supposed to save anybody from their sins.
He is not supposed to die before fulfilling the requirements.
He is not supposed to be resurrected from the dead.
It’s also important to note that even the real Messiah isn’t the Messiah until he fulfills the requirements. It may also surprise some to know that the Jewish Messiah is not regarded as a unique individual who is fated to be the Messiah by birthright, but is simply defined as whoever is the first to fulfill the requirements. Anyone is allowed to try. According to some Jewish legend, every generation has at least one individual who is capable of becoming the Messiah.