Acts 13:5 Preaching the word of G-d in the Synagogues.

[Desert Snake]

From the KJV, Acts 13:5
And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the Synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

This is referring to the early Christians of course, but, the question is, what would the 'word of God' be that would be different from what the Jewish priests were teaching? The Jewish priests already taught the Judaic doctrine previous to Jesus's teachings, yet the Christian teachings here are being referred to as the word of God, not the "word of Jesus". Is this a 'new god" being referred to? or, is it saying that Jesus is God, and they were teaching his Doctrine.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

From the KJV, Acts 13:5
And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the Synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

This is referring to the early Christians of course, but, the question is, what would the 'word of God' be that would be different from what the Jewish priests were teaching? The Jewish priests already taught the Judaic doctrine previous to Jesus's teachings, yet the Christian teachings here are being referred to as the word of God, not the "word of Jesus". Is this a 'new god" being referred to? or, is it saying that Jesus is God, and they were teaching his Doctrine.

Some guesses:

1) They were targeting Gentile supporters and listeners (so called God-fearers) who were outside of the Jewish gathering, recruiting them to be full members of the community of God rather than partial members due to diet and purity laws

2) They preached continuity between the Hebrew prophets and Jesus the Messiah (that is, how Jesus fulfilled OT prophesy)

3) They preached against idol worship and possibly against the participation of Gentile believers in such practices

A handful of other stuff, but they did not teach a doctrine that did not yet exist - the divinity of Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

Some guesses:

1) They were targeting Gentile supporters and listeners (so called God-fearers) who were outside of the Jewish gathering, recruiting them to be full members of the community of God rather than partial members due to diet and purity laws

2) They preached continuity between the Hebrew prophets and Jesus the Messiah (that is, how Jesus fulfilled OT prophesy)

3) They preached against idol worship and possibly against the participation of Gentile believers in such practices

A handful of other stuff, but they did not teach a doctrine that did not yet exist - the divinity of Jesus.

Well...
That pretty much takes care of this thread.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well...
That pretty much takes care of this thread.

No, those were just some guesses.

 

[sojourner]

No, those were just some guesses.

Pretty solid ones though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well...
That pretty much takes care of this thread.

 

[sojourner]

Jordan fades back... swish... AND THAT'S THE BALL GAME!!

 

[Pegg]

From the KJV, Acts 13:5
And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the Synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

This is referring to the early Christians of course, but, the question is, what would the 'word of God' be that would be different from what the Jewish priests were teaching? The Jewish priests already taught the Judaic doctrine previous to Jesus's teachings, yet the Christian teachings here are being referred to as the word of God, not the "word of Jesus". Is this a 'new god" being referred to? or, is it saying that Jesus is God, and they were teaching his Doctrine.

The early christians were preaching that the Messiah had come and was killed and resurrected. They preached about the Kingdom of God that the Messiah would be its leader and they must repent of their lack of faith.

Jehovah promised to send a messiah, he promised that a new covenant would be instituted and he promised to re-established the throne of David. The christians were preaching these things...the fulfillment of the promises. So it wasnt' anything new or anything that the Jews did not already know. They simply didnt believe in the fulfillment of those promises through Jesus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I dunno, Pegg. The word 'Messiah' all but vanishes from Christian thinking until the Gospels tried to reclaim it. By the time the Gospels were written, the separation between Judaism and Christianity was all but complete, and the Gospels (and later Christian writers) tried vainly to reconnect Christianity with its "Jewish roots." This is why we have Paul miserably failing at unifying Jews and Christians in the churches -- and then the Gospels have Jesus going to Jews first -- but both of them neglect the Jewish teachings concerning the Messiah and worse, neglect circumcision and dietary laws - to say nothing of the rest of the law, which is summarily tossed out.

You cannot have contact with Judaism while neglecting its core tenants, not matter how much theological duct tape you waste on the project.

 

[Renji]

From the KJV, Acts 13:5
And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the Synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

Well, salamis are definitely delicious.

This is referring to the early Christians of course, but, the question is, what would the 'word of God' be that would be different from what the Jewish priests were teaching?

The fulfillment of the prophecy of the prophets about the coming of a messiah and ofcourse, Jesus being the son of god.

The Jewish priests already taught the Judaic doctrine previous to Jesus's teachings, yet the Christian teachings here are being referred to as the word of God, not the "word of Jesus". Is this a 'new god" being referred to?or, is it saying that Jesus is God, and they were teaching his Doctrine.

Well it is written that what Jesus preaches is actually from the father, and that he mediates between man and the father.

 

[Pegg]

I dunno, Pegg. The word 'Messiah' all but vanishes from Christian thinking until the Gospels tried to reclaim it. By the time the Gospels were written, the separation between Judaism and Christianity was all but complete, and the Gospels (and later Christian writers) tried vainly to reconnect Christianity with its "Jewish roots." This is why we have Paul miserably failing at unifying Jews and Christians in the churches -- and then the Gospels have Jesus going to Jews first -- but both of them neglect the Jewish teachings concerning the Messiah and worse, neglect circumcision and dietary laws - to say nothing of the rest of the law, which is summarily tossed out.

You cannot have contact with Judaism while neglecting its core tenants, not matter how much theological duct tape you waste on the project.

do you mean the word 'Messiah' (annointed one) vanishes from 'Jewish' thinking until the christians tried to reclaim it?

The Messiah is a firm promise in the hebrew scriptures. I dont know how it could be that they somehow forgot about that promised one.
But Paul didnt fail at anything. His preaching activity is what got Christianity in all parts of the mediterranean and out into Europe and probably even beyond that. Christianity is a universal religion thanks to the foundation of the Apostles and of Paul.... and Jews are still becoming followers of Christ today, so nothing really failed.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, I mean that Christians replaced the Jewish idea of the Messiah with the Christian idea of the Christ. This is why Messiah doesn't appear in Paul, and it's rare in the Gospels. I was saying that the Gospels were trying to reclaim the Jewish idea of the Messiah, but this attempt was rather thin, considering that they also alienate Jews quite a bit.

There is a very strong theme in Christianity -- an attempt to connect Judaism and Christianity while minimizing Jewish influence. That is, Christianity's theological and historical legitimacy depends on its Jewish roots, but Christianity also has to redefine or toss out all of its Jewish distinctions, beginning with monotheism and ending with dietary laws and circumcision.

So early Christians vainly tried to heal this divide by claiming that Jesus was the fulfillment of Messianic prophesy, that the Trinity is the Jewish God, and Christianity is the fulfillment of the law, the truest expression of Judaism itself.

So Christians try to claim these things, but all of them must be redefined from Jewish interpretation of their own religion... so Christianity cheats at its own game --

1) Christianity claims Jewish roots
2) Christianity claims Jewish God, introduces the Trinity [violation of Jewish monotheism]
3) Christianity rejects Jewish dietary laws, which means Jews cannot fellowship with Christians while following their religion
4) Christianity claims the Jewish Messiah, but redefines the Messiah to fit Christian tradition
5) Christianity claims to be the fulfillment of Jewish prophesy, but introduces new interpretations of the prophesy

In other words, Christianity baked its own theological/historical cake -- and ate it, too.

 

[Pegg]

No, I mean that Christians replaced the Jewish idea of the Messiah with the Christian idea of the Christ. This is why Messiah doesn't appear in Paul, and it's rare in the Gospels. I was saying that the Gospels were trying to reclaim the Jewish idea of the Messiah, but this attempt was rather thin, considering that they also alienate Jews quite a bit.

There is a very strong theme in Christianity -- an attempt to connect Judaism and Christianity while minimizing Jewish influence. That is, Christianity's theological and historical legitimacy depends on its Jewish roots, but Christianity also has to redefine or toss out all of its Jewish distinctions, beginning with monotheism and ending with dietary laws and circumcision.

So early Christians vainly tried to heal this divide by claiming that Jesus was the fulfillment of Messianic prophesy, that the Trinity is the Jewish God, and Christianity is the fulfillment of the law, the truest expression of Judaism itself.

So Christians try to claim these things, but all of them must be redefined from Jewish interpretation of their own religion... so Christianity cheats at its own game --

1) Christianity claims Jewish roots
2) Christianity claims Jewish God, introduces the Trinity [violation of Jewish monotheism]
3) Christianity rejects Jewish dietary laws, which means Jews cannot fellowship with Christians while following their religion
4) Christianity claims the Jewish Messiah, but redefines the Messiah to fit Christian tradition
5) Christianity claims to be the fulfillment of Jewish prophesy, but introduces new interpretations of the prophesy

In other words, Christianity baked its own theological/historical cake -- and ate it, too.

christians may have done that at some later time... but i dont think the writings of the New testament do that at all.

Christ is the greek word for Messiah. Its not something they made up... its simply how they translated the hebrew word. At that time, Greek was a common language and many jews spoke greek. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the hebrew scriptures written by Jews and they had no problem with using the word Christ as a translation of Messiah.

But i agree with you that some of the things christainity came to teach are way out of harmony with Jewish thought, jewish scripture and Christian scripture. But we can't blame Paul for that. Paul was dead before 70CE. So he really isnt the cause of the confusion that came later.

 

[ebgebg]

Isn't it such a coincidence that Synagogues were already established throughout the known world at that time in order that a Jewish Roman Citizen named Paul, also Greek educated, could travel and preach about Jesus Christ in the Synagogue? Paul wrote almost half of the new testiment...a Greek educated Jewish Roman Citizen? Is that luck or Providence?

 

[gsa]

Isn't it such a coincidence that Synagogues were already established throughout the known world at that time in order that a Jewish Roman Citizen named Paul, also Greek educated, could travel and preach about Jesus Christ in the Synagogue? Paul wrote almost half of the new testiment...a Greek educated Jewish Roman Citizen? Is that luck or Providence?

Who else is better situated to tone down Judaism for gentiles? Or more inclined to persuade Gentiles for that matter?

 

[ebgebg]

Who else is better situated to tone down Judaism for gentiles? Or more inclined to persuade Gentiles for that matter?

But Paul didn't start preaching in the Synogogues until after his conversion to Christianity. Before his conversion he was on a mission to destroy Christians because they contradicted Jewdism. He relished killing Christians because he believed them to be blasphermers against the Jewish God. So How he could be preaching Jewdism and preaching about Jesus Christ at the same time in the Synogogues?

 

[gsa]

But Paul didn't start preaching in the Synogogues until after his conversion to Christianity. Before his conversion he was on a mission to destroy Christians because they contradicted Jewdism. He relished killing Christians because he believed them to be blasphermers against the Jewish God. So How he could be preaching Jewdism and preaching about Jesus Christ at the same time in the Synogogues?

I agree that Paul was a deeply heretical, blasphemous Jew by the standards of the time (and also today, at least by the standards of traditional Judaism). My point is simply this: Paul was basically (and legally) a Hellenized Roman Jew, whose ties to the Jews of the time are a matter of self-reporting, which seems to suggest he had very few ties to Judaism as practiced by the vast majority of Jews. Maybe he felt some guilt because he was a horrible human being who murdered other human beings over stupid theological disagreements and then came to regret it, and began to identify with his victims.

Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[ebgebg]

I agree that Paul was a deeply heretical, blasphemous Jew by the standards of the time (and also today, at least by the standards of traditional Judaism). My point is simply this: Paul was basically (and legally) a Hellenized Roman Jew, whose ties to the Jews of the time are a matter of self-reporting, which seems to suggest he had very few ties to Judaism as practiced by the vast majority of Jews. Maybe he felt some guilt because he was a horrible human being who murdered other human beings over stupid theological disagreements and then came to regret it, and began to identify with his victims.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Well, he wrote almost half of the new testiment. But why then didn't christians through out the ages disregard the new testiment as being written from someone who really didn't believe in the deity of christ? If he was so stricken with guilt...wouldn't that be reflected in the new testiment. Was he "Insane" with guilt when he wrote half of the new testiment? Maybe? can't we guess at anything on his motives? Maybe he wanted to fool everyone because he was unhappy of not be born a christian...or he was upset with his ex girl friend? What would be the psychiatrist answer: chemical imbalance? Maybe he was on the wrong meds?

 

[gsa]

Well, he wrote almost half of the new testiment. But why then didn't christians through out the ages disregard the new testiment as being written from someone who really didn't believe in the deity of christ? If he was so stricken with guilt...wouldn't that be reflected in the new testiment. Was he "Insane" with guilt when he wrote half of the new testiment? Maybe? can't we guess at anything on his motives? Maybe he wanted to fool everyone because he was unhappy of not be born a christian...or he was upset with his ex girl friend? What would be the psychiatrist answer: chemical imbalance? Maybe he was on the wrong meds?

1. He wrote almost nothing of substance in the so-called "New Testament." No gospel account, no teachings of Jesus...Paul's Jesus is an anomalous event, barely a person who was, oddly, "born of a woman."

2. Very few Christians could even read what he wrote early on; he was chosen as "canon" for political and sociological reasons, at the time indistinguishable from theological reasons. It is unclear he affirmed the trinity or Jesus' divinity.

3. Are you suggesting that he did not feel remorse for persecuting Christians?

4. We can guess at a lot; I'm suggesting that there are common sense reasons he was prone to melodrama and exaggeration, ones that can be sourced in his alleged writings.

 

[ebgebg]

1. He wrote almost nothing of substance in the so-called "New Testament." No gospel account, no teachings of Jesus...Paul's Jesus is an anomalous event, barely a person who was, oddly, "born of a woman."

2. Very few Christians could even read what he wrote early on; he was chosen as "canon" for political and sociological reasons, at the time indistinguishable from theological reasons. It is unclear he affirmed the trinity or Jesus' divinity.

3. Are you suggesting that he did not feel remorse for persecuting Christians?

4. We can guess at a lot; I'm suggesting that there are common sense reasons he was prone to melodrama and exaggeration, ones that can be sourced in his alleged writings.

I kind of don't understand what your saying...of cource the Catholic church never interprets Paul's writings as an account of Jesus's life. Yes, He conveys as a writer the anomalous position of being an insider who is also an outsider. But isn't that what he claims in his writings the Holy Spirit gives Christians. The knowlege of Christ through God the Holy Spirit? Certainly, you don't think the New testiment is just a repetitive account of Jesus's life without the inclusion of the works of the Holy Spirit? Only the first four books of the new testament are an account of Jesus's life...the rest is about the Holy Spirit? And that is what Paul wrote about.

There are over I believe 23,000 documents pertaining to christ's life, not accounting for non-religious writings. But, beyond "political" and "social" consideration, the books of the Bbile were compiled based on consistency beween documents as it pertains to the 23,000 documents. Why do you think that the "Book of Mary" wasn't chosen,,,conspiracy? How about the "common sense" reason that it's not consistent with the other 23,000 documents?