Which prophecies did Jesus fulfill as to be the Messiah?

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Totally agree.



I'm quite sure this happened as well.



Obviously, as I stated previously, I'm far from convinced that Paul was tearing James or the others down but, instead, building himself up, which is understandable when we consider the circumstances. Am I positive of this? Of course not, but this is how I connect the dots-- correctly or incorrectly.

Clement stated later that James was very much a leader within the church, and it very much appears that he stays even though Paul convinced the others to change. Now, did James change his mind? I don't know because it's always possible he may have stayed while still disagreeing with Paul. How many organizations have you and I belonged to whereas we may not always agree with some of the decisions that were made by the leaders?

Well I mean that James had died, not that he was taken out. James died around 62 or 69 AD, the only Gospel that would have been penned at that point would be Mark. It was a trying time, circulation of Paul's letters, and the Gospels would have been key in unifying the Gentile Church and those who were no longer Jerusalem.

I don't think there was a major division, but if anything I don't think it was ever as healed as people think it was.

 

[metis]

Well I mean that James had died, not that he was taken out. James died around 62 or 69 AD, the only Gospel that would have been penned at that point would be Mark. It was a trying time, circulation of Paul's letters, and the Gospels would have been key in unifying the Gentile Church and those who were no longer Jerusalem.

The irony is that the gospels sometimes were criticized, although I do agree with you here. Let me mention, however, that it really wasn't the gospels or even Paul's letters that were the main unifier within the early church but, instead, it was really apostolic succession. Different churches used different books as the canon didn't really really get solidified until much later. Some scholars note that Revelations and Letter to the Hebrews wasn't used by maybe a third of the churches or more.

I don't think there was a major division, but if anything I don't think it was ever as healed as people think it was.

Hey, they were Jews.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The irony is that the gospels sometimes were criticized, although I do agree with you here. Let me mention, however, that it really wasn't the gospels or even Paul's letters that were the main unifier within the early church but, instead, it was really apostolic succession. Different churches used different books as the canon didn't really really get solidified until much later. Some scholars note that Revelations and Letter to the Hebrews wasn't used by maybe a third of the churches or more.



Hey, they were Jews.

True, maybe unify isn't the right word, maybe it would be better to say create an underlying foundation to build upon?

 

[metis]

True, maybe unify isn't the right word, maybe it would be better to say create an underlying foundation to build upon?

I tend to use the word "rudder", but I can accept the above.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I tend to use the word "rudder", but I can accept the above.

It would be interesting to get a good glimpse of the audience that the writers were writing too.

I've heard theories that the Gospel of John was actually aimed towards those who followed the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[metis]

It would be interesting to get a good glimpse of the audience that the writers were writing too.

I've heard theories that the Gospel of John was actually aimed towards those who followed the Gospel of Thomas.

I had not run across that, but who knows?

What I think is all to easy to forget is that when we read the scriptures, any scriptures, we are not reading history-- we're reading various peoples' takes on history, and probably the vast majority of that they never actually witnessed themselves. Also, objectivism in recording this "history" really was less important than subjectivism. There's a tendency for us in the west to forget that these cultures were often very different than ours, and this gets reflected in the writings in ways that we're not used to.

In regards to the latter point, I grew up in the Abrahamic tradition, and when I first started studying the eastern religions, I jumped to way too many wrong conclusions, and it took quite a while for me to hit "reset" on my brain and try to look at this differently than I was used to.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I had not run across that, but who knows?

What I think is all to easy to forget is that when we read the scriptures, any scriptures, we are not reading history-- we're reading various peoples' takes on history, and probably the vast majority of that they never actually witnessed themselves. Also, objectivism in recording this "history" really was less important than subjectivism. There's a tendency for us in the west to forget that these cultures were often very different than ours, and this gets reflected in the writings in ways that we're not used to.

In regards to the latter point, I grew up in the Abrahamic tradition, and when I first started studying the eastern religions, I jumped to way too many wrong conclusions, and it took quite a while for me to hit "reset" on my brain and try to look at this differently than I was used to.

That's what I've been trying to do. In the scriptures I've been looking at them from the various themes that they have in them. Particularly right now is my interest in the politics of the Hebrew Bible.

 

[metis]

That's what I've been trying to do. In the scriptures I've been looking at them from the various themes that they have in them. Particularly right now is my interest in the politics of the Hebrew Bible.

Ya, and we think here in the States that somehow we invented political disfunction.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Ya, and we think here in the States that somehow we invented political disfunction.

Lol, some of the prophets like Amos and Hosea would be called socialists in todays market.

 

[metis]

Lol, some of the prophets like Amos and Hosea would be called socialists in todays market.

As would also found in halacha based on Torah, and some of my Jewish buddies here in the west don't even understand this.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

As would also found in halacha based on Torah, and some of my Jewish buddies here in the west don't even understand this.

I would love to be able to sit down with the writers and really get inside their heads about what they were thinking, I wonder if they knew how things would end up today, if they still would.

 

[CMike]

Lol, some of the prophets like Amos and Hosea would be called socialists in todays market.

How so?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

How so?

Well the raging on the lavish lifestyles of the rich in Israel. They seem to advocate a type of fairness and caring of social welfare for the widows and the orphans. Some on the very far right would look at that is handouts.

Not that they actually would have been socialists (since the term probably didn't exist).

 

[nazz]

But you're missing the point. When one converts into a Jewish group, any Jewish group, one falls under the Law-- all of it. The idea that gentiles would be allowed into a Jewish group without being under the Covenant and the Law has no precedence. If they chose to remain separate, as the "God-fearers" did, that was fine and dandy, but they are not Jews inside a Jewish branch. The fact that they allowed gentiles in without full conversion should tell one something.

That's a very good point. One I had not considered before. This could very well explain why James and others had the attitude they had. But that being the case I have to wonder why they would even agree to the compromise with which they are reported to have agreed. And if your theory is correct, that they were talking their cues from Jesus, then why would they even think Jews had to continue following Torah? That's why I am skeptical of that notion. But as I mentioned earlier they might have agreed to it as a temporary measure fully expecting Gentiles to take on the full mantle of Torah observance at a later date and perhaps in a gradual manner.

Paul himself speaks of the Gentile being grafted into the olive tree of Israel. So why did Paul think they did not need to observe Torah as the "natural branches" did? I think it is because Paul did not see this as an exclusively "Jewish movement". As he explains in Romans he feels that salvation was offered to the Gentiles because most Jews spurned it. What is important in his mind is that everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, get their lives in order because Jesus was coming back to judge the living and the dead. And he rejects the idea that the way to do that is through following the Torah. He explains that anyone who tries that way will fail so that the only way to be saved is through faith in the Messiah.

The question then becomes who is a better representation of the teaching of Jesus? Is it James with his insistence of proper observance of Torah by both Jews and converting Gentiles? Or is it Paul who thinks the ritual aspects of Torah observance don't really count for much and that it is faith in Messiah which truly saves?

Then the gospels have less reliability than Paul's letters since they were written by and large later. And since all of them are quite subjective, there really isn't much room for any of it being reliable.

I think we should avoid both extremes, one accepting everything as gospel truth, the other rejecting everything as bunk. I think the truth lies in the middle somewhere and that is what critical scholarship seeks to ascertain.

But which part is history and which is imagination and/or subjective fabrication, which is why I throw up my hands and just treat it all as allegory. Instead, I just deal with the basic teachings and see if any are applicable to my life. As far as history is concerned, whatever happened, happened; and speculation is just that-- speculation.

That's fine. I more or less do the same thing in my own way.

I do believe you're taking this out of context. Remember Paul's past, and imagine trying to put trust in a man that was persecuting your group earlier. Doncha think you're going to have some reservations? And doncha think you're gonna have some "issues" on top of that since Paul only met Jesus in a "vision", whereas the twelve knew Jesus personally? Why should you believe him would logically be a concern, especially when he keeps asking for donations, right?

Indeed.

So, what I believe Paul is saying is that he is authentic. BTW, if Peter and the others were hostile, or Paul was hostile to them, then why would they give Paul even the time of day?

I think for the reason the NT gives. They clearly saw God working in the lives of the Gentiles and could not deny it.

And why is it that the early church (still 1st century) honored his letters even more than the gospels at first?

I've not heard they did. But obviously his letters preceded the writing of the gospels.

And one simply cannot say there were no Jews left or that there were none in any leadership positions.

I'm not saying that. I am just saying the position of the Jewish church was eclipsed by the rising influence of the Gentile churches.

 

[nazz]

I do think it's likely that Paul and James at least at first had different visions as far as which way the church should go, but the fact that this is being discussed at all in Luke encourages me to lean in the direction that this got resolved. Otherwise, why would Luke even mention it?

I've already given a good reason. It was embarrassing to admit the early leadership was at odds. As they say history is written by the victors. Paul's view eventually won out so it would be natural to have James and the others agreeing to it.

If this issue had persisted, then why is it we see nothing in any text whereas James denounces Paul?

Mainly because we don't have any writings we can definitely say were written by James. But if the Epistle of James was written by that same James we actually do have something along those lines where the author attacks the notion of faith without works.

Why is it that Paul's letters get wide circulation amongst the various communities?

Because he founded them; they looked to him as a leader.

 

[nazz]

To take a secondary/tertiary viewpoint, the early Gospels can be looked at as Propaganda. By the time of Luke's estimated writing, the church in Jerusalem had already lost James as its leader, the temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed, and the Roman Empire had begun it's persecutions. It was a trying time for Christians, who was to be followed the viewpoints of Paul, or should they follow the trends set down by the Church of Jerusalem? But there was no longer any temple, what did this mean for the Jews who had been part of the Church of Jerusalem, they were suddenly torn from their land and sent away, there was not a stable community for the remainders to flourish. Obviously Paul's viewpoints won out, but you don't just toss aside the Disciple who was Jesus's brother, so even if he had a falling out with Paul, that was never reconciled, it is not something that would have ever made the Gospels. James was a leader, you don't tear down a pillar like that if you can help it. This is of course, just a theory.

Actually we do see something in the gospels about Jesus brothers rejecting him and thinking him crazy. This may be a subtle attempt to discredit James.

 

[nazz]

I had not run across that, but who knows?

What I think is all to easy to forget is that when we read the scriptures, any scriptures, we are not reading history-- we're reading various peoples' takes on history, and probably the vast majority of that they never actually witnessed themselves.

That's pretty much true of ALL history. None of it is totally objective.

As for the Gospel of John it seems to me to be a the product of a Gnostic group but with underlying layers from earlier times.

 

[nazz]

As would also found in halacha based on Torah, and some of my Jewish buddies here in the west don't even understand this.

Indeed. Imagine the economic impact forgiving all debts every seven years would produce!

 

[metis]

That's a very good point. One I had not considered before. This could very well explain why James and others had the attitude they had. But that being the case I have to wonder why they would even agree to the compromise with which they are reported to have agreed. And if your theory is correct, that they were talking their cues from Jesus, then why would they even think Jews had to continue following Torah? That's why I am skeptical of that notion. But as I mentioned earlier they might have agreed to it as a temporary measure fully expecting Gentiles to take on the full mantle of Torah observance at a later date and perhaps in a gradual manner.

There would be a real reluctance to leave the Law since a Jew is brought up in that tradition, but there already had been groups that we now call "liberal Pharisees" that tended to be more Hellenized and more inclusive, thus more emphasizing the "law of love", as it came to be called later. To me, Jesus and Paul are not saying the Law is bad and must be left, but that something was greater than the Law in their opinion, namely Jesus. Therefore, the following of the Law could at least be tolerated as long as Jesus' basic teachings were followed. Thus we see references to following the Law that appear to be inconsistent but really aren't. At least that's how I connect the dots-- correctly or not.

Paul himself speaks of the Gentile being grafted into the olive tree of Israel. So why did Paul think they did not need to observe Torah as the "natural branches" did? I think it is because Paul did not see this as an exclusively "Jewish movement". As he explains in Romans he feels that salvation was offered to the Gentiles because most Jews spurned it. What is important in his mind is that everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, get their lives in order because Jesus was coming back to judge the living and the dead. And he rejects the idea that the way to do that is through following the Torah. He explains that anyone who tries that way will fail so that the only way to be saved is through faith in the Messiah.

I totally agree with everything you wrote here.

The question then becomes who is a better representation of the teaching of Jesus? Is it James with his insistence of proper observance of Torah by both Jews and converting Gentiles? Or is it Paul who thinks the ritual aspects of Torah observance don't really count for much and that it is faith in Messiah which truly saves?

We have to remember that James is Jesus' brother, and we well know that hiding things from your brother ain't gonna be that easy. IOW, your brother is going to see you at what you really are, although maybe a bit on the negative side. Paul doesn't know Jesus that way, therefore he's probably unaware that Jesus squeezes the toothpaste tube from the middle and periodically farts. Therefore, it's not really hard to imagine why James is more going to focus in on the Law whereas Paul is more going to focus in on the more pristine image of Jesus.

I think for the reason the NT gives. They clearly saw God working in the lives of the Gentiles and could not deny it.

The "God-fearers" hung around the Temple, and it may well be that the 12 believed they should be allowed into the fold since they believed in God and followed at least some of the Law. IOW, "Ya, these are good people, so let's take them in", especially since attracting more observant Jews didn't seem to be working too well, as you mentioned previously.

I've not heard they did. But obviously his letters preceded the writing of the gospels.

You have to remember that the gospels were actually quite controversial since they often differed from each other, plus what was carried orally sometimes didn't match either. Papias, I believe in the latter 2nd century, just bad-mouthed the Gospel of Mark by saying that it was sometimes inconsistent from eye-witness reports that were being passed down.

 

[metis]

Indeed. Imagine the economic impact forgiving all debts every seven years would produce!

Good point. And it was expected that the government would take an active role in helping the poor and the widows, and when we didn't have sovereignty, the Romans allowed us to do so through both the Great Sanhedrin and the Temple priesthood.