Did Christianity Start with Jesus?

[Miken]

Jewish Law covers both quite thoroughly. Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

There is nothing in the Written Torah (the 613 mitzvot) that explicitly requires any sort of mercy or charity in general. It does say that in the Mishnah, said to be the written record of the Oral Torah, for example in Tractate Yevamot. One might suspect that the Oral Torah as practiced or claimed by some Pharisees was really more about super strict than rules than anything else. Hint: Beit Shammai, the predominant school of Pharisees in the putative timeframe. Two things should be made clear. Shammai himself was a stickler for the Law to be sure, but his followers after his death were simply fanatical. Rabbinic Judaism was founded mostly on Beit Hillel, still fully observant but understanding the purpose behind the Law.

 

[YoursTrue]

Jewish Law covers both quite thoroughly. Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Are you are under those commandments?

 

[YoursTrue]

In Mark it was the Pharisees who were following laws not found in the Written Torah. Whether Jesus was opposed to the Oral Torah or only to certain newly propagated rules is not clear. In Matthew it was again Pharisees that Jesus berated for not following the spirit of the law although the did following the letter of the law. But it was certainly not the Apostles that Jesus was faulting. We definitely see Jesus and his Apostles follow the Written Law. So why did Jesus not tell the Apostles to stop following Jewish law completely like Paul tells Jewish Christians to do?

Because the Written Law was still in effect for the Jews by the time Jesus died. I find it more than a coincidence that the temple was virtually destroyed after Jesus died. Of course, I believe he was resurrected.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is nothing in the Written Torah (the 613 mitzvot) that explicitly requires any sort of mercy or charity in general. It does say that in the Mishnah, said to be the written record of the Oral Torah, for example in Tractate Yevamot. One might suspect that the Oral Torah as practiced or claimed by some Pharisees was really more about super strict than rules than anything else. Hint: Beit Shammai, the predominant school of Pharisees in the putative timeframe. Two things should be made clear. Shammai himself was a stickler for the Law to be sure, but his followers after his death were simply fanatical. Rabbinic Judaism was founded mostly on Beit Hillel, still fully observant but understanding the purpose behind the Law.

Just to mention, here is what is written that Jesus said: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former." Matthew 23:23.
Jesus was never against the Law.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is nothing in the Written Torah (the 613 mitzvot) that explicitly requires any sort of mercy or charity in general. It does say that in the Mishnah, said to be the written record of the Oral Torah, for example in Tractate Yevamot. One might suspect that the Oral Torah as practiced or claimed by some Pharisees was really more about super strict than rules than anything else. Hint: Beit Shammai, the predominant school of Pharisees in the putative timeframe. Two things should be made clear. Shammai himself was a stickler for the Law to be sure, but his followers after his death were simply fanatical. Rabbinic Judaism was founded mostly on Beit Hillel, still fully observant but understanding the purpose behind the Law.

The commentator Matthew Henry wrote the following regarding Jesus condemnation of teaching overruling that of God: (Back to Matthew 23) Henry wrote: "The scribes and Pharisees were enemies to the gospel of Christ, and therefore to the salvation of the souls of men." And as far as I am concerned, Henry's comment is true.

 

[YoursTrue]

By 'sell' his gospel, I meant that Paul sought to convince people to accept the ideas he was putting forward as opposed to the ideas that others were. I did not mean that anyone gave him money or anything material. Paul himself said that he never accepted anything material but worked to support himself. Luke in Acts said that Paul made tents, the Greek word used referring to a small portable tent suitable for one or two persons. This would be popular among travelers passing through the crossroads cities Paul visited.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul talks about other missionaries who came to Corinth with other ideas such as the meaning of the crucifixion (not the fact but the meaning), and even the fact of the resurrection. Although he never says which missionary held what point of view, Paul names Cephas (Peter) as having his own followers among the Corinthians. Also, Paul was not considered an Apostle, one ever in contact with Jesus, suggesting that there were others who were considered Apostles and had different teachings than Paul.

In several letters in addition to 1 Corinthians, Paul speaks of being given information by Jesus several years after the resurrection when Jesus was in ‘the third heaven’. The implication is that the information given to Paul was not known to the Apostles before that, exactly as indicated in 1 Corinthians. The question is why.

Paul was probably the most learned of all the apostles regarding the delicacies of Jewish law interpretation.

 

[YoursTrue]

According to Carrier Jesus was crucified in outer space. Can't possible have the slightest hint of Jesus actually existing on earth after. all. Besides, the crazier a book is (like getting to mention Jesus and sperm in the same sentence) the more copies it will sell. Von Daniken anybody?

My point in the post you quoted was that Carrier insists that there were many mythical figures who met every single of those criteria. The truth is that . not none of them did. Time and again Carrier quotes way out of context or just plain lies. Or has near zero understanding of what is being said. But that is how to see books these days.

Again -- if you would be so kind -- who's the prophet Carrier?

 

[Skywalker]

There is nothing in the Written Torah (the 613 mitzvot) that explicitly requires any sort of mercy or charity in general. It does say that in the Mishnah, said to be the written record of the Oral Torah, for example in Tractate Yevamot. One might suspect that the Oral Torah as practiced or claimed by some Pharisees was really more about super strict than rules than anything else. Hint: Beit Shammai, the predominant school of Pharisees in the putative timeframe. Two things should be made clear. Shammai himself was a stickler for the Law to be sure, but his followers after his death were simply fanatical. Rabbinic Judaism was founded mostly on Beit Hillel, still fully observant but understanding the purpose behind the Law.

I agree. Good works arent as important as people make them out to be. What good does it do if someone does good works but they dont even help out an old relative?

 

[Miken]

Paul not getting money or anything material supports what I said about Paul had nothing to gain by being an apostle. Paul not agreeing with other peoples ideas doesn't mean that he had anything to gain from believing in Jesus. Paul’s Martyrdom: Killed For Believing Jesus Appeared To Him | Reasons for Jesus



The apostles didnt receive the information that Paul received by Jesus when Jesus was in the third heaven for the same reason they didnt receive what Paul wrote about in his epistles. Paul came after the apostles. Pauls writings are part of the New Testament because the Bible wasnt complete when the four gospels were written-there was still the writings of Paul and the apostle John to be included in the Bible.

The Synoptic Gospels refer to the writings of Paul even when it causes problems. The big trial of Jesus scheduled by the elders complete with witnesses on the first night of Passover is simply impossible. Mark took Paul's narrative about the Lord's Supper and the Passover sacrifice image Paul uses and the Paul's comment about the night Jesus was betrayed and made it into a Passover Seder. Dramatic image and a chance for Mark to weave in his clever hidden allusions again. But in terms of Jewish religious practices and sensibilities quite impossible.

We also see references to Paul, and not friendly ones, in Matthew where Jesus is a special person but not a god, which would be anathema to Matthew's Jewish Christian audience, and in stating that the Law would stand until the end of time, and in saying that the church was founded on Law following Peter, the Apostle to the Jews, and not Law abandoning Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles. Luke connects with much of Matthew. It is clear that the Gospels were written after Paul.

The last we hear of Paul in his letters is that he is going to Rome. Tradition has it that Paul died in Rome under Nero. Suetonius tells that the Christians were killed en masse in large numbers as they were betrayed by others. I see no reason to doubt that.

In addition, Mark, Matthew and Luke clearly refer to the historical destruction of the Temple in 70 CE with increasing delay times put forward for the end of days. We can see apparent references in Mark to the persecutions by Nero in 64 CE and to the siege of Gamla in 67 CE.

The Gospels were written after Paul. The original Jewish followers of Jesus did not preach the same gospel Paul did and that this original Jewish Jesus movement lack very significant elements that Paul introduced supposedly on the authority of Jesus in heaven,

 

[Miken]

The commentator Matthew Henry wrote the following regarding Jesus condemnation of teaching overruling that of God: (Back to Matthew 23) Henry wrote: "The scribes and Pharisees were enemies to the gospel of Christ, and therefore to the salvation of the souls of men." And as far as I am concerned, Henry's comment is true.

The Gospel of Christ, a clear statement of the purpose of the crucifixion and the meaning of the resurrection in terms of a future resurrection are only vaguely stated and never to anyone outside of the disciples. The need to abandon the Law is never stated. John who clearly separates non-Christian Judaism from Christianity still has Jesus observe more Jerusalem pilgrimages than any other Gospel writer.

Taken in that context it sounds like Henry is saying that Jesus requires adherence to the Written Torah but not necessarily the Oral Torah. That appears to be what the Gospel of Matthew is saying too, very clearly,

 

[YoursTrue]

The Gospel of Christ, a clear statement of the purpose of the crucifixion and the meaning of the resurrection in terms of a future resurrection are only vaguely stated and never to anyone outside of the disciples. The need to abandon the Law is never stated. John who clearly separates non-Christian Judaism from Christianity still has Jesus observe more Jerusalem pilgrimages than any other Gospel writer.

Taken in that context it sounds like Henry is saying that Jesus requires adherence to the Written Torah but not necessarily the Oral Torah. That appears to be what the Gospel of Matthew is saying too, very clearly,

For many, Jesus was and is the awaited Messiah. For others, he is not. The future will have some interesting events.. Matthew 24:14 says the good news of the kingdom (God's kingdom) will be preached and then the end will come. "And the Good News about the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, so that all nations will hear it; and then the end will come." Remember Jesus prayer, when he said, "Let your kingdom come." How do you feel about that? Remember, Jesus had disciples, they followed him, yes they had questions, but he taught them and they believed and taught he was the long-awaited Messiah.

 

[Miken]

Again -- if you would be so kind -- who's the prophet Carrier?

A running joke with joelr about his insistence that I could not possibly have read Carrier's works because I disagree with them. This is despite me repeatedly quoting large amounts of Carrier's work and criticizing it with extensive supporting evidence. Nonetheless he claims I am lying when I say I ever read any of Carrier's work. The Great Prophet Carrier must not be doubted. Just a joke really.

 

[YoursTrue]

A running joke with joelr about his insistence that I could not possibly have read Carrier's works because I disagree with them. This is despite me repeatedly quoting large amounts of Carrier's work and criticizing it with extensive supporting evidence. Nonetheless he claims I am lying when I say I ever read any of Carrier's work. The Great Prophet Carrier must not be doubted. Just a joke really.

OK. So does the real Carrier exist? Who is Carrier? OK, I give up. Now on to another subject perhaps, although I'm still curious. Who is Carrier?

 

[YoursTrue]

The Gospel of Christ, a clear statement of the purpose of the crucifixion and the meaning of the resurrection in terms of a future resurrection are only vaguely stated and never to anyone outside of the disciples. The need to abandon the Law is never stated. John who clearly separates non-Christian Judaism from Christianity still has Jesus observe more Jerusalem pilgrimages than any other Gospel writer.

Taken in that context it sounds like Henry is saying that Jesus requires adherence to the Written Torah but not necessarily the Oral Torah. That appears to be what the Gospel of Matthew is saying too, very clearly,

OK, leaving Carrier aside, I was reading what Paul was saying in the book of Hebrews, chapter 1. He made good sense. Because -- every year there was a Day of Atonement for the nation. Every year. And there still is. Now if there is a yearly day of atonement, that means--doesn't it(?-- that the Law was not kept entirely. Otherwise no need for sacrificial offerings, and prayers asking for peace with God. Remember, sacrificial offerings were made every year on that day. He wrote, "Otherwise, would not the sacrifices have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service once cleansed would have no consciousness of sins anymore?" So now, let's go over this a little. To have consciousness of sin means what? That the person knows he sinned, did not fill the requirements of the law in some part. And some people, such as adulterers, homosexuals, may actually not think they're doing anything wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

A running joke with joelr about his insistence that I could not possibly have read Carrier's works because I disagree with them. This is despite me repeatedly quoting large amounts of Carrier's work and criticizing it with extensive supporting evidence. Nonetheless he claims I am lying when I say I ever read any of Carrier's work. The Great Prophet Carrier must not be doubted. Just a joke really.

OK, I looked him up in one of favorite reference works -- wikipedia. Maybe I'll give him a look. When I have time. I'm glad you kind of pointed me to Paul and the Law and so I was reading Hebrews chapter 10 for a while. Very, very interesting. Also Acts.

 

[Miken]

For many, Jesus was and is the awaited Messiah. For others, he is not. The future will have some interesting events.. Matthew 24:14 says the good news of the kingdom (God's kingdom) will be preached and then the end will come. "And the Good News about the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, so that all nations will hear it; and then the end will come." Remember Jesus prayer, when he said, "Let your kingdom come." How do you feel about that? Remember, Jesus had disciples, they followed him, yes they had questions, but he taught them and they believed and taught he was the long-awaited Messiah.

Mark emphasized that the end of days would come after soon enough after the destruction of the Temple that not everyone who had heard Jesus speak of the Son of Man coming in the glory of his Father with the holy angels and the kingdom of God has come in power would be dead yet when it happened. In the Olivet Discourse Mark says ALL these things will happen including the arrival of the Son of Man and the end of days before ‘this generation’ passes away. The language is unmistakable, despite various word games played in English that do not work in Greek. It is the same people who will ‘not taste death’ before the Son of Man comes with his angels.

Matthew and Luke keep that language, too well known to ditch I guess, but add all sorts of disclaimers about just how soon ‘soon’ might be. We might note that kingdom still has not yet come.

Bar Kokhba had disciples and they believed he was the long-awaited Messiah. He came close to fulfilling a lot of the genuine Jewish beliefs about the Messiah. Unfortunately for him and his followers, he lost it in the home stretch and got removed from contention for the title courtesy of the Roman legions. Christians could not even agree on exactly what they believed about Jesus until it was enforced by Imperial mandate near the end of the 4th century.

 

[Miken]

OK, leaving Carrier aside, I was reading what Paul was saying in the book of Hebrews, chapter 1. He made good sense. Because -- every year there was a Day of Atonement for the nation. Every year. And there still is. Now if there is a yearly day of atonement, that means--doesn't it(?-- that the Law was not kept entirely. Otherwise no need for sacrificial offerings, and prayers asking for peace with God. Remember, sacrificial offerings were made every year on that day. He wrote, "Otherwise, would not the sacrifices have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service once cleansed would have no consciousness of sins anymore?" So now, let's go over this a little. To have consciousness of sin means what? That the person knows he sinned, did not fill the requirements of the law in some part. And some people, such as adulterers, homosexuals, may actually not think they're doing anything wrong.

First of all, Hebrews was not written by Paul. Too many strikes against it. It was a very long time before anyone thought it was written by Paul.

But even independent of that, there are many rules in Judaism about atonement for various kinds of sin, mostly from Leviticus. Not many of them involve blood. Now none of the them do because the only allowable place for that was the Temple which is gone. Yom Kippur was a blood sacrifice since it involved forgiveness of sins against God. Obviously a very serious matter. But for that forgiveness to be given to an individual it was/is necessary for sins against other people. Each individual must ask for and receive forgiveness for sins against any other from the wronged person. And this must be done before Yom Kippur if one wants to be written in the book of life for another year. Not literally, but spiritual life after death.

Although a blood sacrifice, Yom Kippur is not about any kind of group atonement as Christians often think. And neither is it the sacrifice that Paul talks about. The Passover sacrifice is about celebrating the freedom from slavery because of the killing of the firstborn of Egypt from which Israelites were protected by marking their door lintels with the blood of sacrificed lambs and by implication the receiving of the Law from God that would soon happen. However, that event itself is Simchat Torah, months later.

The correct Greek word for ‘atonement’ does not appear in the any of the Pauline epistles. The KJV, not known for the best word choice, uses ‘atonement’ only once, but mostly uses the correct word ‘reconciliation’. Trained Pharisee that Paul was, he would never make the mistake.

 

[Miken]

Because the Written Law was still in effect for the Jews by the time Jesus died. I find it more than a coincidence that the temple was virtually destroyed after Jesus died. Of course, I believe he was resurrected.

Matthew says that the entirety of the Written Law would be in full force until heaven and earth pass away. If that happened almost two thousand years ago, I missed the memo. And do not try to tell me it is a Jewish expression that means ‘in a few months now’. It is not. It is a reference to Isaiah describing the end of the world. And in that context ‘until all is accomplished’ is very clearly a reference to that same end of days scenario as Matthew describes in the Olivet Discourse. Is the Jewish audience in Mathew going to get this in any other way?

I find it more than a coincidence that Mark writes a story about the destruction of the Temple, yet in referring to 1 Corinthians as part of his overall story, he messes up by sticking together three parts and coming up with that impossible trial on the first of Passover. Recall also that the other two storytellers add disclaimers to the timeframe of Mark that actually violate Mark’s original timeframe, yet keep it in place..

 

[Miken]

OK. So does the real Carrier exist? Who is Carrier? OK, I give up. Now on to another subject perhaps, although I'm still curious. Who is Carrier?

Last post for a while.It is in the wee hours and I have things to do tomorrow.

Here is a recent book by Richard Carrier.

 

[YoursTrue]

Last post for a while.It is in the wee hours and I have things to do tomorrow.

Here is a recent book by Richard Carrier.

Thanks. I looked him up. Meantime it's on my agenda to read a couple of chapters in Leviticus, thanks for your reminder about Carrier. I think I'll look for a few of his reasonings.