dog-on

Are you referring to the circumcision/dietary controversy in Galatians?

Where does Paul specify what the "Jerusalem church" practiced, other than the two issues referred to above? More so, where does Paul mention that the beliefs of this group, other than those two issues, differed from his own?

Just wondering.

aa5874

There was NO Jerusalem Church, NO Jesus cult until AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

Please, I am NO longer accepting Presumptions, not even from Crossan.

This a Serious inquiry.

There is ZERO credible evidence for churches in JERUSALEM of a Jesus cult where a character called Jesus is OPENLY worshiped as the Son of the God of the Jews and Jewish Laws were abolished for remission of sins because Jesus was SACRIFICED.

There is a Big Black hole for the events in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Not even a rumor about Jesus, the Apostles and Paul has surfaced in any Jewish and Roman writings for the period from Pilate to the Fall of the Temple c 27-70 CE.

It was the author of short-ending gMark who had massive influence on apologetic writers and that was still AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

The authors of the short-ending gMark, the INTERPOLATED gMark and gMatthew show that their Jesus did NOT claim he was a UNVERSAL Savior, did NOT claim he would be crucified and Sacrificed to save All mankind and did NOT start any new religion under the name of Christ.

I am sorry, I can no longer accept Presumptions about the historical accuracy of events in Acts and the Pauline writings when even apologetic sources Contradict them.

Diogenes the Cynic

The fact that the Jerusalem church still observed Jewish law means they did not have any belief in a new covenant or see Jesus as a redeemer of sins (something the Jewish Messiah is not supposed to be), so those are pretty major differences. The Jerusalem cult was still completely Jewish with no belief in Jesus as soteriological figure. Keeping kosher contradicts the eucharist.

aa5874

Again, you are making PRESUMPTIONS and Ad Hoc speculation. There is NO evidence, NO facts at all to support your claims.

The actual written staments in the story of Acts of the Apostles CONTRADICT you.
Acts 2:38 KJV Again, you do not seem to understand that the Pauline writer claimed he was a PERSECUTOR of the Faith he now preached.

You are utterly confused.

The Pauline writer claimed that there were people in CHRIST before him.

The Pauline writer claimed that it was WRITTEN that Jesus Christ DIED for OUR SINS.

Surely, the supposed people in the Jerusalem church BEFORE Paul are expected to have preached that Jesus died for their sins and were PERSECUTED by Paul himself in the Pauline writings.

Galatians 1:23 KJV You are all over the place--your ad hoc on the fly statements do not make much sense at this point.

In the NT, the Jerusalem Church did preach that Jesus was the Son of God who died for the sins of mankind.

Duvduv

That's quite a change from the gospels where baptism with water for remission of sins is the lesser baptism through John whereas the Christ baptizes in the holy spirit and fire. And this is of no importance in the epistles.

Diogenes the Cynic

Even in the Gospels (and actually Josephus says this too), John's baptism did not remit sins, but was only for the washing of the physical body after God did the remitting. The key to John's formula was repentance, not the water and not John himself.

Paul does talk about baptism quite a bit, and describes it as a "baptism [as in a metaphorical submersion] into death" with Jesus.

Iskander

Harnack says this on the last supper.


Harnack in History of dogma, volume 1

“The earliest practice had the character of a real meal. I have been strengthened in this suspicion by the profound and remarkable investigation of Spitta (z. Gesch. u. Litt. d. Urchristenthums: Die urchristl. Traditionen ü. den Urspr. u. Sinnd. Abendmahls, 1893).

He sees in the supper as not instituted, but celebrated by Jesus, the festival of the Messianic meal, the anticipated triumph over death, the expression of the perfection of the Messianic work, the symbolic representation of the filling of believers with the powers of the Messianic kingdom and life.

The reference to the Passover and the death of Christ was attached to it later,”

Diogenes the Cynic

None of this has any support in Judaism. There was no Jewish belief that the Messiah would die.

More significantly though is that the ritual itself would be anathema to Judaism. Blood and corpses were both extremely unclean spiritually, and Jews internalized this into a cultural and physical revulsion that was as bad (in fact probably worse) than aversions to human waste. Blood was disgusting and literally evil (spiritually corrupting). So were dead bodies. Jesus asking them to drink his blood and eat his flesh even symbolically was the same to them as if he had told them they had to drink his piss and eat his shit.

It also has nothing at all to do with Judaism. There is no kind of precedent or meaning for it in a Jewish context.

Crossan thinks Jesus just had a communal meal enacting what he calls a call to "open commensality," a subversive act of egalitarianism against class stratification and ritual purity. This may have an echo in Luke's road to Emmaus story. Two disciples meet a stranger on the road, then recognize the "presence of Jesus" when they break bread together.

I kind of have my doubts that Jesus even did that much, though. Not a word of the Last Supper story is creditable in my opinion.

Iskander

Harnack says it was a communal meal. The linking to the Passover and death of Jesus came later.


This is what he says about early Christian practice:

“Finally, prayers offered by the worshipper in the public worship of the community, and the gifts brought by them, out of which were taken the elements for the Lord’s supper, and which were used partly in the common meal, and partly in support of the poor,”

aa5874

Again, your presumptions and speculation continue. Please show a Jewish source of antiquity which states that the Jewish Messiah would NOT die.

At this point, your ad hoc statements are just getting more outrageous. You have NOT even started to show who your Jesus was.

Your Jesus is a PUZZLE but gMark's Jesus was the Son of God, an unknown Messiah to the Jews, that walked on water, transfigured and resurrected.

gMark was a Myth fable that people of antiquity believed and had a major impact upon the authors of the INTERPOLATED gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline writers.

That is all.