Steven Carr

In Acts 21, Paul goes to the Temple and performs a rite of purification.

I thought Jesus was supposed to have abolished all this ceremonial law, and prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed.

Why then is Paul obeying a ceremonial law?

Why doesn't Paul ever speak of the Temple in Jerusalem being doomed, when it was supposed to be a major part of the teaching of Jesus?

Has he never heard this prophecy, perhaps because it did not exist until after AD 70, when Mark wrote it?

Magdlyn

The Acta Apostolorum is a gloss, meant to bring together the diverse teaching found in the 4 gospel narratives and the gnostic gospel as preached by Paul in his authentic letters. Acts is spurious, written as a boy's adventure novel to establish both "Peter" and "Paul" as founders of the Roman Church.

Bingo.

Amlodhi

Magdlyn, you are likely correct and likely for reasons similar to those you've stated.

This, however, doesn't remove some serious implications in regard to the early Jerusalem council's understanding of the purpose of the crucifixion. Paul submits to the purification ritual at the instigation of James. James' reason for having Paul do this is to demonstrate that Paul was not teaching Jews to forsake Mosaic law (which, of course, was exactly what he was doing).

In these passages (Lk. 21), James declares that the Jerusalem "Christians" are zealous for the law. This, of course, refers to Mosaic law which includes ritual animal sacrifice for the remission of sin (which offering Paul's purification ritual also required).

The general apologetic for this undeniable state of affairs, is that the disciples just didn't know yet that Jesus' crucifixion was intended to be a vicarious sacrifice; that this was a later revelation given only to Paul.

Yet, these (alleged) events took place long after pentecost when the disciples received the Spirit for understanding:

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you."

Therefore, the original disciples did not consider Jesus' crucifixion to be a vicarious sacrifice for their sins, but continued to make sacrifices in accordance with Mosaic law.

And in addition, even though these disciples had (allegedly) received the Holy Spirit of truth, they are portrayed as going around teaching false doctrine to thousands of Jews.

A sticky wicket indeed.

Amlodhi

capnkirk

VERY GOOD, Amlodhi!!

I would, however, like to expand the point you are making and to perhaps provide some clarification. Implicit in your comments is the undeniable fact that James, Peter, et al, are NOT Xtian in any contemporarily recognizable sense of the word, and the reason they weren't is because Jesus wasn't either.

While there just isn't sufficient space here to provide an in-depth explanation for the claim that Jesus wasn't Xtian, I will offer one critical fact that deals a "hammer blow" to the Jesus = Christ concept:

Over the last two hundred years, comparative work on the gospels has slowly but surely established certain results and conclusions. One such conclusion (which most Christian scholars try to ignore) is that it has become embarrassingly obvious that all references to christ in the gospels are the result of translational problems. There simply was no word in either Hebrew or Aramaic that carries the deific overtones that christ does for Christians. ‘Christ’ is derived (via Latin) from the Greek word (krestos) that essentially means “good� or “great�. Jewish scholars translating the Septuagint (c. 200 BCE) first used the term as the closest available Greek translation for the Hebrew term we call Messiah (which literally meant “anointed one�). They applied this translation everywhere anointment was described in the Old Testament (OT); all the Davidic kings and High Priests were anointed and were called messiah. It was not until Paul, writing in Greek, used krestos to describe the Christ figure familiar to all modern Christians that the term first came to mean a divine being. Since Paul came after Jesus was executed, all references to Christ in the Gospels must be mentally retranslated back into the Hebrew meaning of messiah, a non-deific human entity. This realization sheds considerable light on how Christians developing the gospels after Paul’s death read the familiar christ-figure back into the proto-gospel materials available to them.

Bernard Muller

Well done, Amlodhi & capnkirk. That's what I think and I exposed on my web site, all over.

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

capnkirk,


How does the above fit in with the idea that the Ebionites represent the earlier beliefs of TJC? In the Gospel of the Ebionites, Jesus is portrayed as saying he has come to do away with the practice of sacrificing in the Temple.

GakuseiDon

I don't think it's been ignored at all. Do you have any evidence of that?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, published 1911: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm

capnkirk

Perhaps some clarification is required.

Immediately above the line that you quoted, I said: "While there just isn't sufficient space here to provide an in-depth explanation for the claim that Jesus wasn't Xtian, I will offer one critical fact that deals a "hammer blow" to the Jesus = Christ concept:" That is what I am saying has been "ignored" by Xtian scholars. Obviously, (as you just demonstrated) the "dots" have all been visible for quite some time, it's just that Xtian scholars have not been willing to publicly connect them as I just did. Perhaps you need to show me where one has done so.

capnkirk

Ahhhh...where to start.

If you look at the context of Paul's going to the Temple in Acts 21, it is at James' (as leader of The Jerusalem 'Church' (TJC)) command. It is to be a public demonstration that Paul is still an 'observant Jew', because Paul has been accused of teaching Jews and Gentiles alike that "Christ" supersedes "the Law" (i.e. the Torah). Jesus' disciples follow an exclusively human Jewish Messiah that is a claimant to the Davidic throne, while Paul is teaching the doctrine of a divine sacraficial savior, and there is a bitter quarrel in progress because Paul has endeavored to hide this from James and TJC. James has ordered this test to force Paul to publicly demonstrate that he is still an observant Jew.

Quote:

I thought Jesus was supposed to have abolished all this ceremonial law, and prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed.

The Gospels say so, but they are a later reflection of Paul's doctrine, not Jesus'. This is just the kind of teaching Paul is accused of and by demonstration is being required to denounce.

Quote:

Why then is Paul obeying a ceremonial law?

In 1 Cor 9:19-23, Paul brags that he has made himself all things to all people in order to gain converts: To Jews, he seemed like a Jew. To those under the Law, he seemed like he also was under the Law. To those without the Law, he seemed like he also was without the Law. This insight is key to understanding to what extent Paul was willing to misrepresent himself in pursuit of his goals.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13:
"I am come to do away with sacrifices, and if you cease not sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you."
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16,4-5)

That's rather ambiguous (purposely?). The author was using hindsights: the temple was destroyed in 70, the sacrifices stopped then, therefore the Jews did not heed to Jesus (alleged) warnings and suffered God's wrath.
The first clause does not mean Jesus replaced the sacrifices by his own, even if that possibility is not shut down here.

For me, that shows an Ebionistic (vegetarian) sect was in the process of assimilating orthodox Christian beliefs.
This gospel was probably written in the 2nd century and certainly dependant on the Synoptics (including GLuke).

Best regards, Bernard