A lot of what you’re saying is just repetition of things you’ve already said so I’ll just address a couple of quibbles.
First, there is no reason to believe that the Jerusalem cult necessarily believed that Jesus was the Messiah. None of Jesus’ direct followers left any writings or testimony so we don’t really know how they perceived Jesus. It’s highly doubtful that they thought he was God and the Christ mythos developed outside of Palestine in Syria, Asia Minor and Greece, among Hellenized Jews and gentiles.
Since Jesus in no way fit the criteria for the Jewish Messiah, it’s dubious in the extreme that he was perceived as such in Palestine after the crucifixion. Pauline Christianity is largely dependant on a redefinition of the Messiah and an assumption of a second coming. These are ideas that would work with gentiles but not with Jews.
Second, Paul said directly that Peter and James still expected converted gentiles to follow Mosaic law (and at the time, they were perceived as converting to Judaism, not to “Christianity.”) Paul says nothing in his letters about Peter’s “vision” or about the Jerusalem cult coming around to his way of thinking. The description of the conflict in Acts is probably ahistorical propaganda since it describes a trip to Jerusalem which Paul himself seems to be unaware of.
Third, I will reiterate that there are no scriptural justifications for abrogating Moasiac Law in the Hebrew Bible. Paul had to be facile and work at that. this shows me that the problem preceded the justification.
THAT is a big one. I’m gonna be by far the most respected poster here if I can pull that one off. Only after I manage peace on Earth do y’all have to debate my lineage.
I appreciate the comprehensiveness of it. We have mercilessly and shamelessly hijacked this thread. If you wish to discuss it further, perhaps we should start a new thread.
In any event, it would be great if you would cite these individually in both the “Must” and “Must not” categories. Multiple cites for any one item are acceptable where they exist, and appreciated. (I can identify them, but it is your post, and I want to make sure we’re on the same page, quite literally)
I would imagine that if we addressed them, one by one, it will be a long thread.
Just to save time, I’ll link you to the Jews for Judaism site which itemizes the scriptural references.
[Nitpick] I did not say “must not,” I said “not supposed to.” None of the stuff in my “not supposed to” list is represented as Messianic prophecy anywhere in the Hebrew bible. [/Nitpick]
This is also off topic, but Dio, did you see Crossan and Reed’s new biography of Paul? They argue, first, that Paul’s main targets were neither Jews or pagans, but instead, “God fearers”…those Gentiles who adopted aspects of Jewish teaching and practiced a kind of ethical monotheism, and secondly, that Paul taught a kind of radical egalitarianism, where Roman hierarchical values and arbitrary decision making would be replaced by a community of believers, all equal brothers and sisters in Christ, that would rule itself through consensus and with a kind of divine judgement and mercy. (They also point out that most of the passages in the epistles that seem to talk about hierarchy come from later, pseudo-Pauline letters.)
I’ve seen the book and browsed it at the bookstore but I haven’t bought it yet. It looks pretty good. Crossan has argued previously for radical egalitarianism as being central to Jesus’ ministry. He also argues that Jesus activated his ethical philosophy through the practice of “open commensality” (common dining) which later became heavily ritualized as the eucharist. The story of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus would exemplify this ideal. The “presence of Christ” is recognized when they break bread with a stranger.
It seems relevant to the discussion here to note that the baptism/circumcision debate was already in progress within Judaism. We know this from the Mishnah, admittedly written some 200-400 years later, but containing some traditions going back to the time of Jesus. (It’s tempting to suppose the whole thing was kicked off by John the Baptist, since he’s the first baptizer on record, but that’s pure speculation.)
I read the evidence about Paul this way: he was initially of the pro-circumcision party, “zealous for the Law”. Then he had his conversion experience. Whatever that entailed (he doesn’t tell us, and the account in Acts is legendary), it convinced him that Jesus Christ was Lord and that circumcision was no longer necessary - two things that were clearly linked in his mind. Presumably this was the theology of the group from which he learned about Jesus (at Damascus, if Acts 9 has any historical validity).
OTOH, it is clear from Paul’s letters that some of the Jerusalem leaders, James in particular, continued to insist on circumcision and the rest of the Law. (I’m not sure why **Diogenes ** insists on including Peter in this group: he seems to have been more of a moderate, or wishy-washy, depending on how you look at it.)
The evidence that the issue was, at least in part, tied to recruitment comes from the section of Acts 15 that raindog cited:
Now, this speech is put into the mouth of James by the author of Acts. But it doesn’t seem likely in view of what we know about James from other sources. He was known as “James the Righteous”, and “righteous” was always a term for “one who abides by the Law”. When Stephen was executed (ACTS 7), a persecution began, but this didn’t seem to affect the Jerusalem group. You have to remeber that Luke is trying to smooth over the differences of opinion in the early church in order to give a picture of one big happy family.
W. Schmithals (The Theology of the First Christians) sees this as evidence of two main groups of Jesus-follwers: the Damascus group around Stephen who felt the Law was no longer necessary, and the Jerusalem group around James who felt the full Law was still in force.
There is some evidence that the Jerusalem group survived for several hundred years. Irenaeus (130-202 AD) writes about the sect of the Ebionites, who denied the virgin birth. These may be connected to the group that fled Jerusalem before it was destroyed by the Romans, referred to by Epiphanius (315-403 AD - tho he calls them Nazoreans). So this “heretical” group might represent a purer form of the Church than any of the churches that survive today!
Please tell me where in the Mishna there is any discussion of baptism in the “needed for salvation” sense?
Likewise, please point me to anywhere in the Mishna where there is even the faintest idea that circumcision is not necessary for either converts or native-born Jews.
Don’t think I said anything about the “needed for salvation” sense?
b. Yebam. 46a, according to Joan E. Taylor (The Immerser, p. 67) :
R. Joshua’s argument is based on the fact that Jewish women were not circumcised. Similarly, female proselytes would not have been circumcised, and so baptism would have been the only requirement to “become Jewish”.
Firstly, the quoted text is NOT from Yevamos 46a. I called up an image of the Vilna edition (which is the one most commonly used and the edition with the pagination that 46a would have been drawn from) and the text you presented in your cite is not there at all.
For those who can read Aramaic and are willing to back me up, the image can be found here. Yevamos 46a deals with legal acquisitions, not conversions and circumcision.
Secondly, there is no Mishna on 46a. Even on the “46a” you cited, there is no Mishna.
Thirdly, I can guarantee you beyond a shadow of a doubt that even if the quote presented from your cite is accurate (and I’ll have to do some research to determine if it is or not), R. Yehoshua would still maintain that conversion is still required. His opinion is simply that if it was not done yet (for whatever reason) it is still a good conversion (a position that is rejected in Jewish law), but nonetheless, the circumcision is still required.
And Friendrob, it’s up to you, of course, but if I were you, I wouldn’t make citations from that site. I’m willing to believe that their translation of the Talmud is accurate, but even so, seeing what that site is, I wouldn’t cite from it, if I were you.
I have not studied Mishnah, although I am familiar with it and it’s origins. I have no opinion on it in this discussion.
However I appreciate the post. It is clear that Paul, after his conversion at Damascus, saw that circumcision was unnecessary. It’s particualrly appropriate to italicize, “in his mind.” An argument can be made that he had no sound scrpitural basis from which to believe this. One might also argue that he lacked the authority. Those are irrelevent as to his belief, and why he took the postion he did.
Paul cites his rationale several times in the NT. (cited above) It’s clear that the abrogation of the Law Code and the sacrificial death of Jesus were inextricably linked in his mind.
*There is nothing in the text to support that his basis included a desire to make recruitment easier. *
I would caution a reader to see this for what it says, not for what it doesn’t say. Peter is indeed seen as a moderate, and prone to being influenced by the Pharisees. (As shown in the cite Diogenes provided earlier at Galations 2.) He is not shown as being a hardliner, nor is there evidence that Peter opposed Paul.
It is clear that “Some men[who] came down from Judea to Antioch…” (verse 1) and “…some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees…” (verse 5) felt strongly that circumcision was still necessary.
What was James’s views? As you cited in verse 19, he appears to be in agreement with Paul. Why does he express these views?
If he believes as Paul does (perhaps due to Paul’s influence…) that the sacrificial death of Christ provided the basis to abrogate the Law, than it is entirely reasonable that he would have seen circumcision as a burden to the converts. An unnecessary requirement. If he believes this—and there’s nothing in the text to suggest he doesn’t— he might well be saying, “Why are we burdening the new converts with these matters when they’re no longer required?”
Put another way, if James believes as Paul does, on what basis should any convert–Jew or Gentile— be subjected to the requirements of the Law Code? There is none! And…subjecting converts to them would be an unnecessary burden.
It is this explanation, supported in context and by the words of the men themselves, (Paul in particular) that is most compelling.
Does verse 19 support the view that a concession needed to be made to support recruitment? Only if you’re willing to impute intent that is not in the text; to speculate.
I won’t get ahead of your thoughts, and if you’d like tp provide cites I’d like to see them. I will say this though…
Among this generation it is hard to see a man more oriented towards the rigidity of The Law than Saul of Tarsus. Yet Paul was foremost in espousing the view that the Law was no longer binding. Certainly it would be an accurate description of Paul to say was “one who abides by the Law!”
With all due respect, you haven’t answered it yet,* for the first time.* I added the full text, and a summary of your allegations set in contrast in the same post to give you an opportunity to sunstantiate your claim. (See Post #76)
They were repeated, and distilled down for clarity, because you have not cited or made your claim.
I harbor no illusions that you and I will change our views on these type of things. However, it might be useful for those who might be lurking. If I understand you correctly, are you saying that Jesus’s own apostles did not see him as the Christ; as the Messiah?
In my reading, I find no text in which Jesus identifies himself as God, but rather as the Son of God. He always shows himself subordinate to God. He is virtually never self-willed. And I find no text that shows that the apostles saw him as God. (other than John 1:1 one might argue…)
If Peter, James, Matthew and John didn’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah, who did they think they were following? It seems stupefying silly to mine the bible for the hundreds of cites that would indicate that they saw him as The savior, The Christ.
This allegation is silly in so many ways. If the congregation in Jerusalem didn’t see Jesus as the Messiah, than they were essentially no different [ideologically] than the Jews who had Jesus crucified. Paul, the former Saul of Tarsus, would have been seen as an apostate for advocating belief in Jesus as the Messiah.
It is lunacy to imagine that the Jews who had rejected the claim that Jesus Christ was the Messiah would invite the most prominent advocate of that claim to help arbitrate an internal doctrinal dispute. This is Paul, not Saul, and given his outspokeness about Christ post Damascus it’s hard to imagine him as anything but an apostate. This is the guy you are suggesting they’re welcoming with open arms? (See verse 4)
In addition, if not for the question of conversion to Christianity, the debate over the abrogation of the Law vaporizes. After a couple thousand years the Jews are now scrapping their Law Code and whole way of life? For what?
I noted that you copied/pasted from a web site for Jews. Cool. There is certainly more than enough to discuss there. It’s kindd of an old argument, huh? I think it goes back to around…30 C.E., right?
I’d be glad to discuss it, but it doesn’t appear to me that you’ve formulated a cogent set of thoughts of your own, but rather directed me to a web site. It’s hard to formulate an argument with a web site.
Please provide a cite, with context. The previous cite was misapplied and out of the context you were wishing to use it in. If you can’t, please concede that you are unable to cite this cogently, and that it is, like so much of your positions, pure speculation.
Once again, it’s clear that Paul believed that, right? And who was Paul? Prior to conversion he was schooled by the foremost laywer in the Law and had sterling credentials. He was highly schooled in the Law. Yet there is "no scriptural justicications for abrogating the Law?? (with all due respect to those of the Jewish faith)
I’d be willing to discuss any of these items independently, but each one of them is irrelevent to the allegaions you made and were summarized in post 76. If you wish to start a thread on any one of them, I’d be interested in discussing them.
I’ve explained everything repeatedly. I don’t know what more you want. Mosaic law was an obvious obstacle for conversion and Paul acknowledges as much in Galations. Acts is ahistorical propaganda so it’s not very meaningful or useful. Peter’s “vision” never happened and there is nothing in any of Paul’s own letters to suggest that Peter ever thought the law should be dispensed with. Even leaving Peter aside, James, th bother of Jesus and the nominative leader of the movement in Jerusalem thought the law was still valid. Jesus never said any differently.
I think part of the problem here is that I’m looking at this through a historical lens and you’re looking through a theological one. I do not regard the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles to be genuine history and you do. Historical method requires some reading between the lines. There is no point in demanding scriptural evidence because I’m not making a scriptural evidence. To put it quite bluntly, I’m saying the scripture is wrong. I’m saying it is not an accurate reflection of events but a justification after the fact. It is “history” written by the winner. The ideology of the original Jesus movement has been lost.
Yes. That’s what I’m saying. There is certainly no evidence of it and it extremely unlikely within their historical and cultural context.
Jesus probably never said he was the “Son of God” either but in a Jewish context that phrase, “Son of God,” was a figurative way to designate kings, not a literal claim to divine descent.
We have no records of what any of those individuals thought, if indeed they ever existed at all. Most likely, if there was a real historical movement, they saw Jesus as a prophet or a teacher. There’s an outside chance they saw him as a potential Messiah but I doubt it.
The Jews did not crucify Jesus, the Romans did. The Sanhedrin trial in the synoptics is an apologetic fiction devised by mark to take the heat off of Pilate. Having said that, it is indeed my contention that the Jerusalem sect did not see itself as anything but plain old Jews who were following a specific Jewish teacher.
Pauline Christians were indeed labled as apostates and expelled from Jewish synagogues, but to be nitpicky, there was no heresy in thinking the wrong person was the Messiah, just in thinking they were God.
There is no evidence that Jesus ever made such a claim, the notion that he was “rejected” is senseless since the Jewish Messiah is not defined by belief but by deeds. faith does not enter into it. And I don’t believe that the dispute in Acts ever occurred.
I’m saying that event never happened.
They weren’t. That’s the point. Only Paul was.
No I didn’t. I only posted an url. Do you have a problem with using a Jewish source to get the definition of the Jewish Messiah?
Well, more like 40-50, but yeah, that’s when Paul went off the rails into his own definition.
Excuse me? I only linked to the website because you wanted a list of the scriptural refernces. The criteria is the criteria. My “set of thoughts” has no bearing on it. It’s not my OPINION that what I posted is the OT criteria. That is in FACT, the OT criteria. The scriptural references are also what they are. What did you expect me to do, construct a brand new scriptural basis other than that which has always been used in Judaism? Why would I do that? That would be senseless.
You don’t seem very educated about this stuff, quite frankly. This is first year “Intro to Judaism” material.
[quote]
Please provide a cite, with context. The previous cite was misapplied and out of the context you were wishing to use it in. If you can’t, please concede that you are unable to cite this cogently, and that it is, like so much of your positions, pure speculation.[./quote]
I already posted the cite. You just don’t like it. Paul said that Peter still wanted gentiles to follow the law. Acts says otherwise. Acts is fiction.
Yes, Paul sincerely believed his own justifications.
Well, historically speaking, all we really know about “who paul was” was that he was the author of seven letters in the NT. His biography from Acts may or may not be accurate but regardless of that, all the education and training in the world does not make his justifications scriptural. It just isn’t in there that Mosaic law can be abrogated even by the Messiah (which speaking from a scriptural standpont, Jesus was NOT).
If you’d like to start a separate thread on the OT criteria for the Messiah, I’d be happy to.
