paarsurrey
Veteran Member
What scripture James brother of Jesus and Thomas Didymus read from and followed, please?
Regards
Regards
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What scripture James brother of Jesus and Thomas Didymus read from and followed?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
It would have to be the Tanakh, no?
On the one hand they were both Jews, and on the other, nothing else was around that we know of.
I am unfamiliar with Thomas Didymus. The book James is only 5 chapters long and frequently alludes to Exodus. It talks about sweet versus bitter, about freedom, about wisdom and about how the wealthy oppress the poor. It might be interesting to read Exodus and then James. I have not done this, but your question makes me think about it.
Were they literate enough to read scripture?
Doubting Thomas.
There was actually only the TaNaKh in those days. That is were they got their grace-filled messages from.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
" Thomas Didymus "
Yes, Thomas Didymus is sometimes described by the Pauline-Christians as Doubting Thomas which is totally wrong, I understand.
Acts of Thomas - Wikipedia
Right?
Regards
Assuming they were real, they probably read from no Scripture as they were likely illiterate. They would have generally believed in the Tanakh as read to them by priests though.
'Doubting Thomas' could be a gentle way of speaking of someone who has not yet converted or a believer who struggles with doubt in God or in some doctrines. I don't think this is a good usage, and I don't think its the point of the story in the gospel of John chapter 20. I think a better phrase and more useful would be 'Thomas the Inconsistent'. Consistency seems to me to be the point.
The phrase 'Doubting Thomas' comes about because of a story in the gospel of John (chapter 20) where Thomas refuses to believe Jesus has been resurrected unless he physically touches Jesus wounds. The question is: is it wrong of Thomas not to believe Jesus has been resurrected without this physical proof? Many say yes that it is wrong of Thomas, however Jesus does not rebuke him for not believing. He does not praise him for it either, and he praises those who believe without proofs. But what does he mean, and who can believe without proofs?
My thinking is that we should not stick with surface reading of the terms 'Belief', here or 'Doubt' here. This is not a legal treatise. It is an illustration, not a plain explanation. In real life belief is not an accomplishment. Action is. That which is an accomplishment for Thomas in this story is not an accomplishment for people in natural life. He is in the story. We, the readers, have a different situation but an analogous one. The story with doubt in it is probably a figure illustrating our inconsistent actions not our doubts. A similar story in Christian gospels has Peter walk on water, but walking on water is itself a useless miracle. it is useless except as an illustration. In life it is not doubt with which we struggle with but consistency. It is doing what we know to do. This is what matters to us, and therefore this is what the doubt in the story is illustrating about our own lives. Doubt in story --> the inconsistency in us.
Thomas receives the proof he needs. We receive what we need in order to be consistent, and that is what the belief in the story likely illustrates. We aren't required to walk upon water or to fly. We simply must learn to live consistently. That will accomplish much more than walking upon water or flying.
So he should be called Thomas the Inconsistent.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Yes Jesus was a follower of Mosaic Law and he had brought no new religion, so very naturally the Twelve Apostles and other followers of Jesus followed Torah and needed nothing else, I gather. Right?
Regards
Yes, he was a follower and fully enacted the Mosaic Law. He didn't bring a new religion but rather started a New Covenant and his death and resurrection as declared through the prophet by the Lord:
Jeremiah 31:31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
But Jesus didn't die a cursed death on the Cross, I understand, so there is no question of his resurrection from the dead, please. Right?
Please don't feel free to sin, Jesus had not authority to atone one's sins, it transpires, please. Right?
Isn't it an accusation on (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah that he preached dying and rising deity of Hellenism for atonement of sins of the Christians, please? Right?
Regards
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Thomas didn't doubt, I understand.
Regards
I mean I do not know who Thomas Dydymus is. I do not know who that person is or anything about that person.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
If Jesus, James the brother of Jesus and Thomas as well as other followers of Jesus read Torah only, why the Hellenist-Pauline Christians read from the NT that has neither spoken by Jesus nor authored by Jesus nor written by Jesus, please? Right?
Regards
Our understanding is that he did as mentioned both in the TaNaKh as well as the NT.
1. Psalm 22:16-18.
2. Isaiah 52:13-53:12.
3. Zechariah 12:10.
Many more versus...
john 19"31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: 34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. 35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
Absolutely - have no desire nor want to be free to sin. But Jesus did have authority:
Matthew 1:21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
Matthew 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? 5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
There are some who don't believe who would use that position. However, as mentioned in the versus I gave in the TaNaKh as well as others way before there was a Hellenistic viewpoint, it was already written.
Hope this helps:
Jesus And Atonement In The Old Testament / CSB Study Bible
Thank you for asking...
I'm not sure why people ask this question. What part did Paul speak of that didn't have the basis in the Torah? (He was a student of Gamaliel - very versed in the Torah)
