Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

One of the most irritating of the several irritating Christian abuses and twistings of scripture is what Jesus meant by "All the Law hangs on these two".

All Jesus was saying is that every single one of the commandments is somehow based on Love of God and love of Neighbor. Not that those two trump the rest.

whereas the early church walked away from the Law just based on what Paul said.

The earliEST church did not walk away from the Law. Only the non-Jewish element did later on. And it's debatable whether they "walked away" or never were there in the first place. You gotta understand that the Nazarenes and Ebionites and Cerinthians and such were never anti-Torah. You cannot lump sum all the sects together as representative of the original teaching. Perhaps you can lump sum the early Jewish Christian sects to an extent.

 

[nash8]

The Same Law Jesus was talking about in Matthew 5:17-20, the one Moses instituted as he was commanded to by God, the one that is "perpetual" for "All generations" of which "Heaven and Earth will collapse" before a single "iota" is dropped or made void, of which anyone who teaches to break the least of its precepts will be among the least in the Kingdom. The same law the Female disciples followed when they obeyed Sabbath even after Jesus had been crucified.

What is that law exactly? Like what are the exact requirements of following that law?

And didn't Moses bring down two sets of laws, and weren't their some groups of Essenes before Jesus, who were Jewish from what I remember, who rejected the law of Moses?

 

[Shermana]

What is that law exactly? Like what are the exact requirements of following that law?

And didn't Moses bring down two sets of laws, and weren't their some groups of Essenes before Jesus, who were Jewish from what I remember, who rejected the law of Moses?

Moses brought down the law in parts. The first set of ten commandments was indeed different from the second, but they were reenumerated. As for the revisionist faction of Essenes who rejected the Law, I believe they only really rejected the animal sacrifice and meat eating parts, and I don't think they became a large scale part of the movement, but they most certainly may have made a huge impact on the early Ebionites and especially certain Jewish Gnostic groups like the Elcasites who may have had a hand in the "Clementine Homiles" or at least a redaction of the Clementine literature.

The exact requirements of obedience to the Law especially in regard to when there is no Temple and organized Priesthood, and in context to what Jesus taught about the specifics and misinterpretations of the Pharisees, and whether there is some truth in various Talmudic approaches, is a question best fit for another thread.

 

[metis]

The earliEST church did not walk away from the Law. Only the non-Jewish element did later on. And it's debatable whether they "walked away" or never were there in the first place. You gotta understand that the Nazarenes and Ebionites and Cerinthians and such were never anti-Torah. You cannot lump sum all the sects together as representative of the original teaching. Perhaps you can lump sum the early Jewish Christian sects to an extent.

Even though your post wasn't addressed to me, let me jump in here on this.

Did Jesus appoint the 12 or not? Did the 12 appoint others to succeed them or not? Did Peter declare all foods to be "clean" or not, which violated what's found in Torah? Did Paul consult with the others or not? Did Paul tell others to follow the teachings of the 12 or not? Did the teachings of the 12 get written down or not, including Paul's writings? If so, where? If it's the Bible, which group chose and canonized it? Did this group incorporate the writings that came from the other groups that they considered "heretical"? If Jesus meant for all these groups to somehow speak for him, why did he select the 12 to begin with and teach them privately?

Just a couple of questions.

Shalom

 

[Shermana]

Even though your post wasn't addressed to me, let me jump in here on this.

This entire issue may be best addressed on another thread where its more in the scope, but I'll answer here for now.

Did Jesus appoint the 12 or not? Did the 12 appoint others to succeed them or not?

Yes, but whether they appointed Paul or whether Paul appointed himself is a major controversial issue. There are many who say the Book of Acts was written to reconcile the huge divide after the Jewish and gentile Schism in the 1st century.

Did Peter declare all foods to be "clean" or not, which violated what's found in Torah?

Absolutely not, and when people say his vision was anything more than purely the metaphor for allowing Gentiles into the church WHICH IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT IS, it makes my blood boil enough to want to curse them to have nothing to eat but rats and roaches. Maybe I should. This is definitely in my top ten verses that infuriate me (rather than simply annoy) when they are abused by gentile Supercessionists.

Fortunately there are a few groups honest enough to admit the truth of this passage.

A Hebraic Perspective on Peter's Vision (Acts 10) | by Robert Roy - Messianic Publications

Did Paul consult with the others or not?

Nope. He basically expected them to conform to what he believed. At best he was willing to undergo a test to see if he'd take the Nazarite vow after some rumors that he was telling Jews to abandon Moses. Which is a huge topic of discussion.

Did Paul tell others to follow the teachings of the 12 or not?

Arguably not.

Did the teachings of the 12 get written down or not, including Paul's writings? If so, where?

This begets a question on the development of the Gospels, I say they did not in their entirety.

If it's the Bible, which group chose and canonized it?

The official NT with all its interpolations, edits, redactions, and canon choices (Which defy the canon choices of earlier church fathers, including books the authors of the NT such as Jude went by) was canonized centuries, at least 4-6 after the writing of these texts. Many of the letters by Paul may be "Pseudepigraphic" forgeries. (Books written in his name).

Did this group incorporate the writings that came from the other groups that they considered "heretical"?

Very possibly. There's some speculation Marcion's writings wormed their way into proto-orthodox doctrine.

If Jesus meant for all these groups to somehow speak for him,

Which he didn't

why did he select the 12 to begin with and teach them privately?

I believe he did do so to make sure the message stayed correct without distortions and with games of "Telephone", unfortunately this obviously did not stick as they themselves preached. Why and how this happened, is up to dispute.

Just a couple of questions.

No problem Achi, I am glad to have the opportunity to dispel the distortions and strawmen that gentile Christianity has fenced around the truth of Yeshu's teachings to my Hebrew brothers.

 

[metis]

Yes, but whether they appointed Paul or whether Paul appointed himself is a major controversial issue. There are many who say the Book of Acts was written to reconcile the huge divide after the Jewish and gentile Schism in the 1st century.

To me, it's really not that controversial because of there was any doubt about Paul's acceptance, this should have shown up in the early church's rejection of his books whereas there's no evidence that occurred. My rule of thumb is that if there's a question of interpretation, then look at the subsequent actions, and those actions of the early church suggest that Paul was recognized as an authentic leader.

Absolutely not, and when people say his vision was anything more than purely the metaphor for allowing Gentiles into the church WHICH IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT IS, it makes my blood boil enough to want to curse them to have nothing to eat but rats and roaches. Maybe I should. This is definitely in my top ten verses that infuriate me (rather than simply annoy) when they are abused by gentile Supercessionists.

Fortunately there are a few groups honest enough to admit the truth of this passage.

A Hebraic Perspective on Peter's Vision (Acts 10) | by Robert Roy - Messianic Publications

Acts.11[1] Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
[2] So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him,
[3] saying, "Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?"
[4] But Peter began and explained to them in order:
[5] "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, something descending, like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came down to me.
[6] Looking at it closely I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air.
[7] And I heard a voice saying to me, `Rise, Peter; kill and eat.'
[8] But I said, `No, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
[9] But the voice answered a second time from heaven, `What God has cleansed you must not call common.'

The citation you linked to is a rather bizarre interpretation of the above. Look what's really going on here with Peter's eating with gentiles (a no-no in and of itself back then because of the danger of ritual contamination), and then the voice saying that nothing is "unclean", which negates what Torah says-- pure and simple. Yes, I do believe this was done to allow gentiles to come into the full church but was done at the expense of violating at least the letter of Torah

The official NT with all its interpolations, edits, redactions, and canon choices (Which defy the canon choices of earlier church fathers, including books the authors of the NT such as Jude went by) was canonized centuries, at least 4-6 after the writing of these texts. Many of the letters by Paul may be "Pseudepigraphic" forgeries. (Books written in his name).

But it's the only thing you really have because there's no other sources that are dependable. I've never been a literalist, but it seems to me that you're picking and choosing what you want to believe and then quickly dismissing that which you don't.

I believe he did do so to make sure the message stayed correct without distortions and with games of "Telephone", unfortunately this obviously did not stick as they themselves preached. Why and how this happened, is up to dispute.

But the fact still remains that the church walked away from at least the letter of the Law, and it did so quite early.

No problem Achi, I am glad to have the opportunity to dispel the distortions and strawmen that gentile Christianity has fenced around the truth of Yeshu's teachings to my Hebrew brothers.

How do you know they're "distortions"? There's no way for you to know that if one takes what you're written above even at face value. I'm afraid that all you're doing is picking and choosing what you want to believe which, unfortunately, all too often goes with the territory and with so many people.

As for me being non-theistic, it makes little difference. As Joseph Campbell was fond of saying, "The myth becomes the reality". My approach is to treat all scripture as allegory, learn from the teachings, and see which may be useful.

Anyhow, interesting discussion.

Shalom

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

To me, it's really not that controversial because of there was any doubt about Paul's acceptance, this should have shown up in the early church's rejection of his books whereas there's no evidence that occurred. My rule of thumb is that if there's a question of interpretation, then look at the subsequent actions, and those actions of the early church suggest that Paul was recognized as an authentic leader.




Acts.11[1] Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
[2] So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him,
[3] saying, "Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?"
[4] But Peter began and explained to them in order:
[5] "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, something descending, like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came down to me.
[6] Looking at it closely I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air.
[7] And I heard a voice saying to me, `Rise, Peter; kill and eat.'
[8] But I said, `No, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
[9] But the voice answered a second time from heaven, `What God has cleansed you must not call common.'

The citation you linked to is a rather bizarre interpretation of the above. Look what's really going on here with Peter's eating with gentiles (a no-no in and of itself back then because of the danger of ritual contamination), and then the voice saying that nothing is "unclean", which negates what Torah says-- pure and simple. Yes, I do believe this was done to allow gentiles to come into the full church but was done at the expense of violating at least the letter of Torah



But it's the only thing you really have because there's no other sources that are dependable. I've never been a literalist, but it seems to me that you're picking and choosing what you want to believe and then quickly dismissing that which you don't.



But the fact still remains that the church walked away from at least the letter of the Law, and it did so quite early.



How do you know they're "distortions"? There's no way for you to know that if one takes what you're written above even at face value. I'm afraid that all you're doing is picking and choosing what you want to believe which, unfortunately, all too often goes with the territory and with so many people.

As for me being non-theistic, it makes little difference. As Joseph Campbell was fond of saying, "The myth becomes the reality". My approach is to treat all scripture as allegory, learn from the teachings, and see which may be useful.

Anyhow, interesting discussion.

Shalom

Well Paul mentions scriptures, I wonder what those scriptures were as the evangelical gospels had not been written yet. The acceptance of Paul's letters were focused around the churches of the Gentiles with the war that would occur between the Jews and the Romans I can see the church of Jerusalem having other things to worry about.

 

[metis]

Well Paul mentions scriptures, I wonder what those scriptures were as the evangelical gospels had not been written yet. The acceptance of Paul's letters were focused around the churches of the Gentiles with the war that would occur between the Jews and the Romans I can see the church of Jerusalem having other things to worry about.

The "scriptures" was then a reference to the Tanakh. The "N.T" as scripture wasn't canonized until the 4th century c.e.

BTW, it appears that many in "the Way", but certainly not all, had left eretz Israel prior to 70 c.e., and undoubtedly more fled when hostilities started. Some Christian theologians believe that maybe the main purpose of the writing of Acts was to show the movement of the church into the diasporah, thus giving evidence to the leadership's authenticity.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The "scriptures" was then a reference to the Tanakh. The "N.T" as scripture wasn't canonized until the 4th century c.e.

BTW, it appears that many in "the Way", but certainly not all, had left eretz Israel prior to 70 c.e., and undoubtedly more fled when hostilities started. Some Christian theologians believe that maybe the main purpose of the writing of Acts was to show the movement of the church into the diasporah, thus giving evidence to the leadership's authenticity.

Right but there were definitely writings going around about the life of Jesus. I would think the Jerusalem church would be more focused on observing the law as the book of James does seem to stress that.

 

[Shermana]

To me, it's really not that controversial because of there was any doubt about Paul's acceptance, this should have shown up in the early church's rejection of his books whereas there's no evidence that occurred. My rule of thumb is that if there's a question of interpretation, then look at the subsequent actions, and those actions of the early church suggest that Paul was recognized as an authentic leader.

You are confusing the meaning of "early Church". There is indeed evidence that the Ebionites and Nazarenes (the descendents of the EarliEST church) rejected the books of Paul. A common Semantic issue when debating Christians is that they use the term "Early Church" to denote EarliEST church, as if "Early Church" somehow is synonomous with EarliEST. It's not.

So if Paul was accepted by the EarliEST church, that would be a different issue. But he wasn't necessarily. We only know that he was accepted in testimony from other Christians around the time of Justin Martyr and Clement. And the books of Ignatius are in question as to their authenticity as well. And again, the entire book of Acts may, according to numerous scholars, be an example of the later church trying to patch up issues of their authenticity of their split from the Nazarenes.

The citation you linked to is a rather bizarre interpretation of the above. Look what's really going on here with Peter's eating with gentiles (a no-no in and of itself back then because of the danger of ritual contamination), and then the voice saying that nothing is "unclean", which negates what Torah says-- pure and simple. Yes, I do believe this was done to allow gentiles to come into the full church but was done at the expense of violating at least the letter of Torah

Did you notice what I said that it specifically says it's just a metaphor and a vision? It's not a bizarre interpretation, it's the full context one. The bizarre interpretation is assuming that this vision did away with the dietary laws in ADDITION to being a pure vision about letting unclean gentiles into the church. As for eating with gentiles, if there's no pork on the plate and it's thoroughly washed, it may not be a problem. The "no no" is an example of Rabbinical artificialities like the hand washing episode that so many Christians are deluded into thinking was about the dietary laws and not just the handwashing. There is nothing in the Torah against eating with gentiles. If they coat their plates with pork grease, that's another story.

Are you actively looking for an interpretation of the NT to break the Torah? If Peter's vision did do that, he'd be completely violating what Jesus actually taught about the entirety of the Torah. I can show you many other links that agree that the general anti-dietary position of Peter's vision is flat out wrong.

As sure as God lives, Peter's vision has nothing to do with all foods being made unclean anywhere outside of his vision. Since there's no way I can convince you even with many links that all say similarly, I can only give you my vow that this is not the case and that it's only specifically referring to a Vision that it specifically explains is a metaphor for allowing gentiles into the church.

James and the Jerusalem Church would have given Peter the same treatment they gave Paul if this was anything close to otherwise.

But it's the only thing you really have because there's no other sources that are dependable. I've never been a literalist, but it seems to me that you're picking and choosing what you want to believe and then quickly dismissing that which you don't.

It seems to me you're simply rejecting any interpretation and scholarship that goes against your confirmation bias and then accusing me of picking and choosing when I choose to side with the Nazarene and Ebionite view. I don't think you're quite interested in an objective examination. Why exactly do you think I'm picking and choosing? What am I supposed to accept in totality exactly? As for "Dismissing what I don't", there is very valid reason for dismissing what I don't. It's not quite just random. If you decided to actually do some bible research before engaging headfirst in this conversation (which is what most Christians and Atheists do as well) you would know that my position is hardly new or unfounded.

You didn't even know that 2 Peter is considered spurious, you know absolutely nothing about the scholarship and historical studies on the matter. I'd take a seat and learn about it instead of telling me that I pick and choose.

But the fact still remains that the church walked away from at least the letter of the Law, and it did so quite early.

Yes, the gentile aspect of the church most certainly did. There was indeed a schism but they only represent one part of "The Church". The Nazarenes and Ebionites were also "The Church". And I don't believe the antinomians truly were "The Church". Why should they be?

Jesus warned about the "doers of Lawlessness" who would come acting in his name. He said anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the kingdom. He said heaven and earth will collapse before a single iota of the Torah goes void. The Female Disciples obeyed the Sabbath after he was crucified and apparently never got the memo from all that time with him that they didn't need to. What do you do with those verses?

How do you know they're "distortions"? There's no way for you to know that if one takes what you're written above even at face value. I'm afraid that all you're doing is picking and choosing what you want to believe which, unfortunately, all too often goes with the territory and with so many people.

I'm afraid all you're doing is rejecting the concept that there can be independent studies on the matter and that there was in fact an "early Church" that was completely lawful. It seems you're not going to actually listen to what I say and will simply write it off as "picking and choosing" when in fact I have many scholars and theologians who say similarly to what I'm saying. Perhaps then we must just ask God to arbritrate and show you that what I speak is not as unjustified as you'd like to write off my words as. I assure you, what I say is hardly completely unique or unsupported.

There are a great many, though hardly the majority, who reject Paul and believe Jesus never intended any unlawfulness, even among the gentiles. There are a great many who believe the NT canon is incomplete or flawed as well. The Ethiopian Church includes the writings of Clement in their NT canon as well as the Shepherd of Hermas. They believe in many aspects of the Law, such as where Clement wrote to not shave your beard. Are they picking and choosing too?

Now if you're interested in an objective discussion on Christian history and the development of the institution known as "The Church" we can have a civil discussion, but you are doing what most Christians do when I rebut their assertions, simply brushing me off and doubling down on your false assertions without actually rebutting what I said.

As for me being non-theistic, it makes little difference. As Joseph Campbell was fond of saying, "The myth becomes the reality". My approach is to treat all scripture as allegory, learn from the teachings, and see which may be useful.

Well then perhaps you may want to include the possibility that there was a bit of a civil war among the early church as to which scripture they decided to incorporate and that the "Early Church" does not equate to "Original Church".

Anyhow, interesting discussion.

It would be more interesting if your only response wasn't to simply brush off what I said as picking and choosing.

 

[Walkntune]

Roses are redish, violets are bluish, if it wasn't for Paul, we would all be Jewish!

 

[Shermana]

Roses are redish, violets are bluish, if it wasn't for Paul, we would all be Jewish!

Carnations are pink, Hemp flowers are Green.

What a wonderful world without Paul 'twould have been!

 

[Shermana]

Did Jesus say he was God? Of course.

Of course not!

 

[Shermana]

"I am the way, the truth and the life..."
John 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

You cut it off for a reason?

Finish your quote:
"No one comes to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME". That's because he's the holy gatekeeper of the Highest heavens, the second in command.

He is the way that Leads to the Father. He Speaks His Truth as he was SENT to do. He is the Life, for he is the vehicle of which all things were made through, the Holy Logos, incarnated.

That does not mean he was God, that means he was the appointed one, the Logos, the subcreator of Life sent to Earth.

There has been 800 pages on this thread and every single attempt to say Jesus said he was God has been thoroughly debunked, do you presume to somehow be the first to score a goal?

 

[metis]

Right but there were definitely writings going around about the life of Jesus. I would think the Jerusalem church would be more focused on observing the law as the book of James does seem to stress that.

There definitely appears to be some differences of opinion dealing with the issue of the Law, which has led me to lean in the direction that I've mentioned before in that Jesus must have taught something to the 12 that opened that door because normally following the Law is a slam-dunk requirement. To me, I think the most likely possibility is his elevation of the "law of love" over the entire Law, which would obviously be objected to by most observant Jews but could be quite possibly acceptable to some more liberal Jews. This is the only thing I've run across that could explain the animosity going on between Jesus and the leaders as well as the disagreement within the ranks of the Way.

One of the things I haven't mentioned before is that if one was a gentile and decided to join a Jewish group, some converted, which involved circumcision for the men. For the 12 to allow people to essentially join the group without being circumcised should pretty much tell us something, and that "something" simply cannot be blamed on Paul because he certainly doesn't control the 12. In the 2nd century, the view of gentiles being circumcised while attempting to come into the church is a no-no, and just a reminder that Paul is out of the picture at that time and there were Jews still very much running the show after he was executed.

Paul simply was not a dictator of the 12, and I cannot picture any scenario whereas the 12 would blindly follow him. OTOH, I do believe Paul convinces the 12, with James maybe being at least somewhat of a holdout for a while, that the inclusion of gentiles without the requirement of circumcision would better allow the Way to really operate as "one body", otherwise it could have easily have fragmented.

 

[metis]

You are confusing the meaning of "early Church". There is indeed evidence that the Ebionites and Nazarenes (the descendents of the EarliEST church) rejected the books of Paul.

I have never denied the existence of these groups but have mentioned that the church of the 12 considered these groups to be not in their fold, nor did the 12 accept their teachings or writing. Yes, there are others around, which is even mentioned in the gospels, but they are not of the Way, and it is the Way that is ancestor to all modern Christian groups directly or indirectly.

So if Paul was accepted by the EarliEST church, that would be a different issue. But he wasn't necessarily. We only know that he was accepted in testimony from other Christians around the time of Justin Martyr and Clement. And the books of Ignatius are in question as to their authenticity as well. And again, the entire book of Acts may, according to numerous scholars, be an example of the later church trying to patch up issues of their authenticity of their split from the Nazarenes.

There's many other books, some more questionable than others, that deal with the issue of Paul and his teachings. Some scholars view the books attributed to Clement as those maybe that should have been included in the canon.

But, again, let me remind you that it is the church that chose the canon and not the other way around.

Did you notice what I said that it specifically says it's just a metaphor and a vision?...

Yes, but since it says "vision" in the text, I gotta feeling it was a "vision" because the church acted on it that way by abandoning the laws of kashrut, and Paul wasn't a dictator of the Way.

I don't think you're quite interested in an objective examination. Why exactly do you think I'm picking and choosing? What am I supposed to accept in totality exactly?

Since I'm non-theistic, I have no irons in this fire, but you do. I'm not defending any position other than trying to be objective. You, otoh, are trying to fit the "N.T." into your paradigm.

If you decided to actually do some bible research before engaging headfirst in this conversation (which is what most Christians and Atheists do as well) you would know that my position is hardly new or unfounded.

Another personal slam that is absolutely false, and I'm not going to post anything else on this because it would be self-serving. You know very little about my past and my studies, and I prefer to keep it that way because I simply don't believe in your or mine personhood being what this discussion should be about.

You didn't even know that 2 Peter is considered spurious, you know absolutely nothing about the scholarship and historical studies on the matter.

Anther slam based on an absurd assumption on your part.

Now if you're interested in an objective discussion on Christian history and the development of the institution known as "The Church" we can have a civil discussion, but you are doing what most Christians do when I rebut their assertions, simply brushing me off and doubling down on your false assertions without actually rebutting what I said.

No, I have no intention of discussing anything with you again, thus I will be ignoring your posts from now on. To intentionally demean another is a violation of Jewish Law ("halacha"), and you have done this twice to me and I've seen how you have done it to others. For one to insist of the following of the Law while violating it in more ways than one is hypocritical. And, btw, it isn't just one teaching that you've violated as there's another that maybe you've forgotten about.

I really don't care that much about what you might believe in the context of your brand of Christianity, whether you like that label or not, so you can just keep trucking on without me. I'm not angry, but I am disappointed.

Shalom and take care.

 

[metis]

BTW, I meant to post this:

Matthew 5:31-32: “everyone who divorces his wife… forces her to commit adultery.”

5:38: “’an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’… offer no resistance.”

8:22: “Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury the dead.”

21:43: “The kingdom of God taken away from you and given to another.”


Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.”


John 8:44: “The father you spring from is the devil… The Jews answered… .”


Romans 6:14: “Sin will no longer have power over you; you are under grace, not under the Law.”

7:6: “Now we are released from the Law.”

10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law.”

11:20: They were cut off because of their unbelief and you are there because of faith.”

14:20: “All foods are clean.”


I Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision counts for nothing.”


Galatians 3:10: “All who depend on the observance of the Law… are under a curse.”

5:2: “If you have yourself circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you.”

5:4 “Any of you who seek your justification in the Law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God’s favor.”

6:15: “It means nothing whether you are circumcised or not.”


Ephesians 2:15: “In his own flesh he abolished the Law with its commands and precepts.”


Hebrews 7:18: “The former Commandment (I.e. priests according to the order of Melchizedek) has been annulled because of its weakness and uselessness.”

8:7: “If that first Covenant had been faultless, there would have been no place for a second one.”

8:13: “When he says ‘a new covenant’, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing.”

10:9: “In other words, he takes away the first Covenant to establish the second.”

No matter how one may view the source, I think the consensus of these is quite clear when taken together as a whole, namely that the Covenant and the Law were walked away from by the apostolic church which, let me re-mention, chose these scriptures as part of their canon.

 

[Shermana]

Matthew 5:31-32: “everyone who divorces his wife… forces her to commit adultery.”

This is the same thing that Shammai taught, that divorce is not applicable for everything from poorly washed clothes to burnt toast as Hillel taught, but only for adultery. Please note that all my positions are well founded and backed by quite a few commentators and scholars, and that a completely "plain reading" of the text, while good for many verses, does not help whatsoever in some of the more complex issues regarding the customs and specifics such as this.

5:38: “’an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’… offer no resistance.”

Wrong absolutely wrong. This has nothing to do with not offering resistance. This is about not seeking revenge for every petty infraction and saying that it might be more metaphorical than not.

Do Jews today perform eye for an eye? No? Okay then. If not, why not? Why don't Jews today wound for wound and stripe for stripe?

8:22: “Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury the dead.”

Now this is a controversial verse that you may have a case on if there wasn't more to the context than initially seen. The issue here may be in reference to elaborate burial rites, and that the Father was already in the burial cave.

Let the Dead Bury Their Dead

21:43: “The kingdom of God taken away from you and given to another.”

Given to Israelites who obey the Covenant as Yeshu taught. And lo and behold, look what happened to them after 70-130 A.D.

Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.”

This is a commonly abused verse. READ THE NEXT VERSE.

John 8:44: “The father you spring from is the devil… The Jews answered… .”

Another common problematic issue is that "The Jews" does not mean "All the Jews", it is in reference to the Pharisees and leaders. Jesus was a Jew too, so were the disciples, so obviously it's not referring to the Jewish bloodline.

and the Law were walked away from by the apostolic church

You consistently refuse to accept that there's no evidence linking the Pauline church to the Apostolic church and you reject what I said about James and the Jerusalem Church. I told you about the Nazarenes and Ebionites but you didn't seem want to accept that there was in fact a split with the Pauline gentiles in the early church but just thought of them as "other groups". I don't see much point in trying to objectively discuss this with you if you absolutely refuse to hear other points of view. You are ignoring the verses that clearly claim the entire Law is in force and effect for all time. You want the Gospels and the earliEST to be anti-Law, even though there are a multitude of scholars who prove it to not be the case, and if you're not willing to accept other interpretations, that's your own deal. Just don't tell me that I am picking and choosing when you yourself are picking and choosing what interpretations you want to go by. Let me know if you are interested in hearing different views that go against your pre-determined one.

 

[Shermana]

I have never denied the existence of these groups but have mentioned that the church of the 12 considered these groups to be not in their fold, nor did the 12 accept their teachings or writing. Yes, there are others around, which is even mentioned in the gospels, but they are not of the Way, and it is the Way that is ancestor to all modern Christian groups directly or indirectly.

There is no evidence that groups like the Nazarenes and Ebionites were the ones who were rejected for not being part of "The way" by the Law-abiding disciples under Peter's authority. If anything, Revelation, a very Jewish book, may be condemning the "False teacher of Ephesus" who was Paul, and is condemning Pauline doctrines like being taught that it's acceptable to eat idol-meat. How do you know what was considered of "The way" or not? Certainly the Law abiding groups were the original way, and it was from there that the split emerged. ANY decent scholar will tell you that.

There's many other books, some more questionable than others, that deal with the issue of Paul and his teachings. Some scholars view the books attributed to Clement as those maybe that should have been included in the canon.

But, again, let me remind you that it is the church that chose the canon and not the other way around.

What does the later church have anything to do with this? Why are you so dead set on believing that the later church represents the original? Are you basing your idea that they had apostolic authority on the Catholic Church view?

Yes, but since it says "vision" in the text, I gotta feeling it was a "vision" because the church acted on it that way by abandoning the laws of kashrut, and Paul wasn't a dictator of the Way.

The Church dejudaized everything and misinterpreted the text to be very gentile and anti-Law since the early days of the mid-2nd century, and I don't even understand what you're saying by that it was a "Vision" in your quotation marks, are you saying they interpolated it to make it a vision? That would only confirm the original point! The fact is that it was not a call to abandon Kashurt, it was a call to accept gentiles into the church.

Since I'm non-theistic, I have no irons in this fire, but you do. I'm not defending any position other than trying to be objective. You, otoh, are trying to fit the "N.T." into your paradigm.

You are not trying to be objective, you are trying to fit the NT and "Early church" into YOUR paradigm all the same. Is that offensive to point this out to you? Both of us have confirmation biases. I will admit mine. But the thing is, my confirmation bias is backed by numerous secular scholars, as well as Liberal Christians.

Your confirmation bias happens to be similar to the Catholic Church and Evangelical Christian view.

Hmmm....

Another personal slam that is absolutely false, and I'm not going to post anything else on this because it would be self-serving. You know very little about my past and my studies, and I prefer to keep it that way because I simply don't believe in your or mine personhood being what this discussion should be about.

You've already proven that you know little about basic bible scholarship and your repeat insistence that the actions of the "Early" Church are somehow representive of the "Earliest" Church are a bit annoying. I'm sorry if you find this offensive as well. You're right that I don't know your past and studies, but from what you've said, you are clearly not in a position to say what is what on this matter, and I'd suggest you take a more "Sit back and learn" approach than the combative position telling me that Jesus was anti-Law, when there is in fact a strong scholarly support for the position that the Gospels were entirely Jewish in their context. This is a very passionate issue for me, and I do not accept bold assertions that say otherwise. I deal with Christians every day who attempt to say Jesus was anti-Law and my patience for them grows thinner and thinner as they act less and less willing to discuss objectively.

Anther slam based on an absurd assumption on your part.

I don't see what's absurd about it. You are going headstrong making claims that the Church was antinomian without addressing the counter views in a similar way that many Evangelical Christians do, and you think its offensive for me to point this out! You think any kind of demonstration that you are in no position to make claims, when you accuse me of picking and choosing, about the Bible is an "Absurd slam". I get slammed like that a lot when I don't know something about scholarship but make a claim about something I'm not educated about.

Here's another slam: You're displaying some very thin skin and hypersensitivity about basic criticism, especially when you are making assertions.

No, I have no intention of discussing anything with you again, thus I will be ignoring your posts from now on. To intentionally demean another is a violation of Jewish Law ("halacha"), and you have done this twice to me and I've seen how you have done it to others. For one to insist of the following of the Law while violating it in more ways than one is hypocritical. And, btw, it isn't just one teaching that you've violated as there's another that maybe you've forgotten about.

You don't have to respond to me, but I'll be happy to respond to your fallacious points to make a point to the other readers. As for breaking Halacha, you simply confuse any kind of criticism as breaking Halacha. As sure as God lives, I did not break Halacha with that quote, you simply get offended by the fact that I point out the fact that you are simply behaving like other Christians and Atheists by dismissing and brushing off what I said. So now it's a personal attack to point out your flawed methodology? Did I call you any names? Did I say anything about you personally except how you're acting? I don't deal with passive aggressiveness and an unwillingness to address what I said, and I , I just don't.

You should see the way the other Jews here act towards each other, you obviously have no idea what it means to even personally attack. In addition to not wanting to accept basic information, it seems you are personally looking to be offended. If you found what I said offensive, then I can't help you, it's a fact, you're behaving like many Christians do regarding this.

Otherwise, I see NOTHING offensive in what I said to you, and I see nothing that isn't factual about it. If you don't like it, tough.

I really don't care that much about what you might believe in the context of your brand of Christianity, whether you like that label or not, so you can just keep trucking on without me. I'm not angry, but I am disappointed.

You are disappointed that I called you out that you are not interested in objective discussion but brush off counter-views and repeat your assertions without really addressing what I said? I'm sorry if you find that offensive.

Shalom and take care.

It is hard for me to wish peace on someone who acts so ultrasensitive yet also asserts fallacious things and acts like he knows what he's talking about and gets offended when it's pointed out that he doesn't.

 

[metis]

Some may find this interesting:

1 Clement, a letter written by the Roman bishop Clement of Rome, around the year 90 reports this about Paul:
"By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance". -- Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many times have we seen some Christians throw Paul under the bus, and they typically do so by cherry-picking the scriptures, but then they turn around and quote these same scriptures when it suits their fancy? It makes not one iota of sense or logic to do so because of the actions of the early church itself actually are more than clear.

BTW, I highly recommend this book: "Tradition in the Early Church": by R.P.C. Hanson (Aug 1, 2009), who's an Anglican theologian. What Dr. Hanson does that makes his book special is he very carefully documents his assertions using especially the writings from the patriarchs of the 2nd through 4th centuries. This book is worth its weight in gold, and it's the best I've run across thus far.