Helpmabob

My answer is that they hang on the question which must be answered by everyone. As your supplementary question 'And who was Jesus?' showed. My answer is that He is the Son of God.... or was He the only Begotten of God? There's that question again.There is no need to do that. That makes no difference to Jesus' status. The absence of a written statement about something doesn't make it untrue.

bacht

What did the first believers really believe? Did they see the Christ, the Son of God? Did they see Him in the flesh, or in revelations? Why did the Christ appear, was it a sign of the end of the age?

My answer to your question is that Jewish apocalypticists had visions of the spiritual Christ, and were waiting for his appearance in this world sometime soon on the Day of the Lord. This better fits the evidence we have than the traditional story imo.

skepticdude

Yes. If Jesus intended a Gentile ministry, ain't it peculiar that NONE of the original apostles did it. Only Paul, the oddball number 13 apostle does it. Further proof that the gentile ministry was not Jesus' original intention is from Galatians 2, where Paul says he consulted with the pillar apostles privately, "lest I run or had run in vain." The only way Paul could seriously consider the possibility of having run in vain, is if he felt it was a serious possibility that the pillar apostles could disagree with his ministry. That shows that very early, a gentile-ministry was extremely controversial, hardly what we'd expect if Jesus simply went around offering salvation to any and all.

Further proof is Peter needing to be told that Gentiles can now be saved in Acts 10 and 11.

More proof is Peter's Jew-brothers criticizing him for eating with Gentiles in Acts 11. What gospel did they convert too? Your gospel shows Jesus eating with Gentiles, why should the early Jewish Christians criticize Peter for something that was so Christ-like? Answer: Jesus never told his disciples "go to the gentiles", that ministry is purely 100% Pauline, no Jesus in it whatsoever.

Better proof: Galatians 2:12, Peter gives in to the legalistic tendencies of "men from James" and ceases his habit of eating with Gentiles. This shows that James, Jesus's own brother, certainly didn't think Jews eating with Gentiles was acceptable. But doesn't the gospel show Jesus eating with Gentiles? Well...the gospel as it reads today does...but apparently...the original gospel known to James did not offer any approval for Jews to eat with Gentiles even within the Christian faith.

Acts 21: There are tens of thousands of Jew-Christians who converted to Christianity under James. James says they are all "zealous for the Law." (v. 20). How could their conversion be genuine, if they didn't give up the shadows (law) for the substance/fulfillment (Jesus)? If James was teaching them Pauline theology, how do they maintain their fierce committment to the Law that Paul negated? Answer: because James did not teach them Pauline theology:

Original Christianity was perfectly compatibile with the continuing divine significance of the Temple and it's Mosaic rituals/ceremonies after Jesus died. All that crap about Jesus fulfilling the Law FOR you, doing away with the Law, new covenant, etc, is purely Pauline.

Compare Galatians 2:12 (men from James enforce legalism, convincing not just Peter but also Barnabas, Paul's right hand man, to follow after) with Acts 15:24 (luke puts a statement in James' mouth, that some over-zealous members of his church are trying to bring Paul's churches into bondage, and James gave them no such instruction.)

What I conclude is that Acts is little more than an attempt to fabricate justification for Paul's wacky idea that salvation goes to the Gentiles...so naturally, Luke spin-doctor's what James really said, to make it appear there was a blessed agreement among James and Paul, which would then help Paul.

Or he was a fanatic, loved to travel, and loved to be the center of attention and make money, his stories about persecution being little more than exaggeration.

The best proof that James disagreed with Paul? Epiphanius says James was a high priest, using specific language that can mean no other. A high-priest agreeing with Paul on justification by faith? Not a chance. Earliest Christianity was purely Jewish, Paul sanitized it and marketed it for Gentiles after Jesus' 2nd coming promise failed. It's as easy as pie. Preterism to the rescue, never mind Acts 1:11

Joan of Bark

Good post, skepticdude, and thanks for the additional ammunition. I've maintained before (as have many others here and in the scholarly world) that Jesus was simply a Jew preaching to other Jews. His constant negative and sometimes derogatory remarks about gentiles in the gospels confirms as much.

bacht

Yes. Paul gave us the gentile gospel, or at least his voice was primary.

The other question is, what did Jesus or his early followers expect to happen? Were they trying to create a new "philosophy" like Phariseeism or Essenism? Or were they simply putting in time until their messiah showed up to launch a fiery apocalypse? If they had no long term vision, why should we consider the Jewish-Christianity of James and Peter as anything more than a failed sect?

penguinfan

skepticdue, thank you for your response. You seem to be the first person in this thread to actually understand what I was asking.

The only problem I have with Paul inventing the idea that the Law is dead, is from Acts 7, where Stephen is martyred for not following the Law. What do make of that? Do you think it is possible that Paul was influenced by Stephen's practice of not adhering to the Law and adopted it as a way for Gentiles to enter the fold en masse? Additionally, you mentioned Acts 10 and Peter's conversion of the Gentiles Cornelius, are you aware of Peter founding the Church in Rome before Paul and Barnabas' mission to the Gentile world (this would also apply to the Church in Antioch where followers of Stephen founded the Church there I believe)?

I definitely agree with you that there is a high possibility that the stories of Jesus' ministries to the Gentiles to be later inventions. If Jesus, for example, really fed four thousand gentiles, or said that his death would bring all men together (John 12), then why would the Apostles seem hesitant to preach in the Gentiles world?

One thing I am not sure about, however, is your statement of Pharisaic Christians opposing Peter for eating with the Gentiles. My understanding is that they opposed Peter eating with Gentiles because he was not eating kosher food and not necessarily because it was with Gentiles. Additionally, even though these men were from James does not mean that James approved of their views. I totally agree that James was a devout Jew who followed the Law. Josephus records James' martyrdom as a Jew who followed the Law and other Jews were opposed to his death because of his observance.

Anyway, I'm rambling, so I'll end my post.

skepticdude

exactly

skepticdude

It was not a silly question.

The Christianity of today is mostly abberations of the Pauline sort.

Original Christianity is wholly lost. Jesus nowhere taught justification by faith, nowhere taught that his death would bring about some new covenant, taught that he did NOT come to abolish the law, but to fulfil (which Christians make hash out of, since by their understanding of "fulfil", they equate it with "abolish" whether they think they are doing this or not).

The great debate in Acts 15 about what Gentiles must do to be saved is absurd: If Jesus came to save Gentiles, what's the liklihood that he'd never have given instructions on how much of the Law, if any, Gentiles had to observe to be saved? The fact that this debate occured, implies that the salvation of Gentiles was not part of Jesus' purpose, but only came to be after Christianity evolved as Paul's version gained in popularity.

Peter's Christian Jew-brothers chastise him for eating with Gentiles in Acts 11. But in Christianity, Jews eating with Gentiles is perfectly Christ-like, since Jesus himself ate with Gentiles. What gospel had Peter's concerned brothers converted under? If a false gospel, ain't it peculiar that Peter didn't simply say "why are you criticizing me, Jesus showed us by example that Jews can eat with Gentiles". Peter doesn't say that, because the gospel they all knew, at the time, did not justify Jews eating with Gentiles.

Peter and "even Barnabas" were looked down on by Paul for having acquiesced to the legalistic demands of the "men from James" and ceasing their eating with Gentiles in Galatians 2:12. The fact that Paul's right hand man in the Gentile ministry, Barnabas, could also be led by "men from James" to believe Jews and Gentiles shouldn't eat together even if both are Christians, demonstrates that the "men from James" carried a very high authority. If what the men from James requested was against what Christ taught, Barnabas at least would have detected the obvious heresy and renounced it. Nope. Earliest Christianity was Jewish, not Gentile.

Many people overlook a curious gem in Paul's rebuke of Peter. Paul noted in Galatians 2:13 that Peter (and Barnabas, acting in obvious concert) were going around compelling Gentiles to live as Jews.

You never knew that Peter was a Judaizer until just now, huh?

No apologist can explain how Barnabas could have given in so fully to the demands of men from James, if indeed those men were just false representatives of James who were more legalistic then James. Barnabas knew the gospel, so he'd have know whether those men advocated something true or false. His giving in suggests either extreme gullibility, or that James himself was legalistic to this degree. Apologists wish to choose neither option, but that's all they get. Paul lived in that honor/shame "agonistic" society, but he relates how he refused to give in to the demands of false brothers in Galatians 2:5, so this "honor/shame" rationalization doesn't explain why Barnabas refused to act like Paul and resist the legalistic demands.

Original Christianity was Jewish to the core, and Jesus preached a salvation by works and faith, while Paul directly contradicted that with his justification by faith alone stuff.

skepticdude

I don't trust much of anything in Acts as historically reliable, given it's obvious apologetic intent to justify Paul's Gentile ministry. Luke knew he was writing in an honor/shame culture, so he knew that the fantastic stories of Acts would be believed especially by those who already are Christian, who may have questions about Paul's doctrinal relation to the original disciples. If you don't believe someone's solemn testimony like Luke's, then you are disgracing the storyteller. I wonder how many Gentile-Christians, living far away from Jerusalem, could have spared the time and expense to take Luke's apologetic to Jerusalm to confirm it's accuracy?

Sure, it could just as easily be that Peter knew Jesus' promise had failed, but that Paul was great at keeping the dream alive, and agreed with him that recasting Christianity as a Gentile-religion would keep their popularity going. Either way, the better position is not to dogmatically conclude too much from the unreliable biblical and patristic testimony...except of course that it is of dubious reliability.

I've got one better. Paul admits in Galatians 2 that the apostles agreed that HE should go to the Gentiles. That means ALL of the 12 felt compelled to stay within the Jewish-mission field. Where did they ever get the idea to restrict their ministry this way? Jesus, of course.

No, that is wild speculation from some commentary or article written by an apologist. Read Galatians 2:13 and you will find that after the "men from James" arrived, Peter began compelling Gentiles to live as Jews.

Those "men from James" were thus fully legalistic. If they motivated Peter to compel Gentiles to live like Jews, then he was saying Gentiles cannot be saved unless they live like Jews, and that's far more comprehensive than simply asking Gentiles to eat kosher food. What's worse, if Peter and Paul and James were in agreement with Paul on everything as apologists insist, any and all food would have been acceptable, as Paul believed.

The trouble is, if they were falsely representing James, Peter and Barnabas would have detected this. Yet they obey the legalistic mandates and begin withdrawing from table-fellowship with Gentiles. Those "men from James" were more than likely correctly representing James. Barnabas's going along with it is the check on the the apologists who try to explain that Peter was a fickle fellow. A further check is that Peter didn't remain the bumbling idiot of the gospels, but was transformed before the scene in Galatians 2, into a spirit-filled wonder working fearless preacher who brought such great fear on the church (by calling down death on Ananias and Sapphira) that city-folk laid their sick and dead in the streets, thinking his mere shadow touching such would cure them (Acts 5). Peter's stupidity cannot explain his agreement with the legalists in Galatians 2:12.

Do you agree with Epiphanious, that James was a Jewish High Priest, who performed animal sacrifice, and took sin upon himself? Now who's authority are Peter and Barnabas bowing to? Obviously not any James that could agree with Paul on too much, that's for sure.

GrahamSA

WoW !!!!!

What a thread, simply fantastic :notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:

New to this site and reading through this thread has given me plenty of food for thought and plenty to work through, thank you !

Picked this up elsewhere .......... could Saul/Paul and Josephus be one and the same person ?

Graham