Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clouseau · 10-24-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Not so:

'See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the Lord my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people."' Dt 4:5-6 NIV

Quote:

That says absolutely nothing about whether goyim should follow the 613 mitzvot.

It does say that they could do so, and many were circumcised and were then obligated to obey all 613 according to Mosaic Law itself. It is also arguable that those who witnessed the Israelites at their best should have become converts.

Quote:

But this debate is about whether Mosaic Law applies to anyone now.

Quote:

Right, and as I also said, it applies to no one but Jews.

It's no use coming late into a debate and just stating a pov. There are substantive arguments here, and they need to be read and addressed.

Magdlyn · 10-24-2007, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

It does say that they could do so, and many were circumcised and were then obligated to obey all 613 according to Mosaic Law itself. It is also arguable that those who witnessed the Israelites at their best should have become converts.

Irrelevant.

Quote:

It's no use coming late into a debate and just stating a pov. There are substantive arguments here, and they need to be read and addressed.

In your opinion. I am under no obligation to address them if I don't care to. They've been covered well enough, and/or I find them lame.

Consider my posts a followup on Gudjonsson's post #61 about Robert Price's commentary and criticisms.

Clouseau · 10-24-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

It does say that they could do so, and many were circumcised and were then obligated to obey all 613 according to Mosaic Law itself. It is also arguable that those who witnessed the Israelites at their best should have become converts.

Irrelevant.

Quote:

It's no use coming late into a debate and just stating a pov. There are substantive arguments here, and they need to be read and addressed.

In your opinion. I am under no obligation to address them if I don't care to. They've been covered well enough, and/or I find them lame.

Consider my posts a followup on Gudjonsson's post #61 about Robert Price's commentary and criticisms.

I look on them as the literary equivalent of stamping one's foot. At least the Borat thing was slightly amusing.

douglas · 10-24-2007, 09:06 AM

Dr. James Tabor, in his book the Jesus Dynasty, points out another reason to think that Paul's "Gospel" of salvation through faith vs. works did not represent what Jesus actually taught. Remember James, Jesus' friggin brother, one of the 12 disciples, who's book was almost not included in the canon by the early christian fathers?

The book of James repeats many ideas from the sermon on the mount. Nowhere does he say that his bro' was God himself. In fact, he barely mentions Jesus, but spends his ink reminding the readers of the importance of the law...

Quote:

22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.

James believed in the law.

Clouseau · 10-24-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas

Dr. James Tabor, in his book the Jesus Dynasty, points out another reason to think that Paul's "Gospel" of salvation through faith vs. works did not represent what Jesus actually taught. Remember James, Jesus' friggin brother, one of the 12 disciples, who's book was almost not included in the canon by the early christian fathers?

The book of James repeats many ideas from the sermon on the mount. Nowhere does he say that his bro' was God himself. In fact, he barely mentions Jesus, but spends his ink reminding the readers of the importance of the law...

Quote:

22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.

James believed in the law.

Best to start from verse 21.

Clouseau · 10-24-2007, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas

James believed in the law.

So did he sacrifice bulls and goats? Did he insist upon circumcision?

Chris Weimer · 10-24-2007, 11:26 AM

I think the new perspective on Paul has essentially "killed" douglas' (and other's) position on James "believing in the Law", i.e. legalism.

Julian · 10-24-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

We don't know this. There was some level of affinity but there were also divergences. We don't have a copy of this gospel.

Julian

Dear Julian,

This post piqued my interest.

Do you know where I could go to find out what the differences were, at least what ancient writers at least said they were?

The wikipedia article gives some references to the ancient sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Ebionites

Julian

douglas · 10-24-2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas

James believed in the law.

So did he sacrifice bulls and goats? Did he insist upon circumcision?

I should have said "James believed in the law as reinterpreted by his brother Jesus." With that correction in mind, No, he did not sacrifice bulls and goats. Here's the argument in a nutshell:

Jesus' message was that the Torah needed to be reinterpreted.
James carried on the message after Jesus' death.
Paul, being the apostle to the Gentiles, found the new law inconvenient and unnecessary considering Jesus would return soon to save the world.
Paul preached that Jesus' was the message.
The gospels, being written after Paul's mission, were heavily influenced by him and purposely marginalized James as leader of the church.

On circumcision, I know James supposedly capitulated to Paul on this point, which doesn't surprise me. I don't know of any teaching of Jesus that takes a position either way on this, but I'm open to other ideas.

Clouseau · 10-24-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

So did he sacrifice bulls and goats? Did he insist upon circumcision?

I should have said "James believed in the law as reinterpreted by his brother Jesus." With that correction in mind, No, he did not sacrifice bulls and goats.

Quote:

Here's the argument in a nutshell:
[LIST][*]Jesus' message was that the Torah needed to be reinterpreted.

So what parts of the Torah did Jesus think should be kept? Don't tell me- the weekly Sabbath!

Quote:

On circumcision, I know James supposedly capitulated to Paul on this point, which doesn't surprise me.

You don't know that at all.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-24-2007, 11:26 AM	#77
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I think the new perspective on Paul has essentially "killed" douglas' (and other's) position on James "believing in the Law", i.e. legalism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.