Christianity without Paul

[sojourner]

So that's yet another refusal to actually link to something specific when asked.
The cognitive dissonance must be staggering. You just said earlier that you "Don't give a rat's a-- about 1 John". It has a LOT to do with the OP, can you take a guess how? It's about what Jesus actually taught. And what 1 John states is in line with what Jesus actually taught.

Don't we all think each other's opinion in wrong and their own is right. Except I try to actually back my case.
For someone who complains about dismissal, you sure don't like to actually address counterpoints.

Again with the hypocritical dismissal from the person who likes to call people dismissive. You said that I ignore everything Jesus teaches, so I simply turned it around. You don't actually obey what Jesus teaches, do you disagree? If not, please feel free to explain why you think I don't actually obey what Jesus teaches and you do.

Ummm, you're completely ignoring all the times Jesus argues with people who he disagrees with. Saved the prostitute? Are you referring to the Pericope Adulterae? Pretty much everyone knows by now that's a false later addition.

And how exactly does that have to do with what I said? If anything, you're not catching on to the actual context of the Samaritan woman story. I don't think you even know what the actual context was. Did the Samaritan woman outright disagree with Jesus's teachings? Your example here has NOTHING to do with the concept, if you feel it does, quote John 4 where you think it does, or kindly admit that the Samaritan woman example has nothing to do with the subject in question. He specifically says "You Samaritans worship what you don't know" and is if anything castigating her to change her views in a way, but accepts her acceptance that the Moshiach is coming.
So what does that have to do with the fact that Jesus is not exactly too respectful to the people who he disagreed with? Are you talking about when he says "Forgive them father for they know not what they do?" Feel free to quote for your example and show how it relates to the actual context of the disagreement about what I said how Jesus calls the Pharisees a "brood of vipers".

He ate and drank with sinners because he was apparently teaching them about the Kingdom of G-d and trying to get them to change their ways. So what does that have to do with the fact that Jesus is not exactly too respectful to the people who he disagreed with?


WHOA THERE. Did you just say that Jesus was aligned with the Pharisees????

Ummm, so not only do you completely ignore the fact that Jesus was outright aggressively disrespectful to the Pharisees, you say that he was ALIGNED with them, and then you accuse me of not obeying Jesus's teachings. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, end of story. I challenge anyone else reading to validate your claim.

Your point is hogwash, Did Peter and Paul consider those of what they considered heretical sects to be brothers? You keep dancing around the concept of Paul saying "Let those who preach another gospel be damned", like say the Nicolations. Do you think Paul considered the Nicolations brothers? Neither did the Apostles. Do you consider anyone who calls themselves Christian a brother? Do you consider me a brother? If not, drop the act.

So you're saying you know for a fact that it displeases Jesus to use quotation marks on people who call themselves "Christian" when you disagree with their views? Pretensiousness precedes you.
Ummm, are you completely dismissing the concept that Jesus said "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" and divide families? This is utterly desparate.

Really? All this time?

I say the same to you.
So you mean to say that you think I need to go back and read Matthew again with YOUR interpretation. Why don't you explain what exactly you mean with actual quotes, unless you like showing that you make blatant assertions that have absolutely no biblical precedent while dismissing the actual claims which disprove you.

I don't see how your objections have anything to do with the OP, but I'm simply responding to your objections. This is about what Jesus taught as opposed to Paul. Why don't you start by explaining how your initial objections had anything to do with the OP of which I'm responding to.

Oh really now, only to a point? Why don't you explain what it's for then.
Calling my rebuttal "increasingly weird" is not a substitute for an actual reply. If you want to continue to embarass yourself, have at it.

That's your reply to me saying that you haven't defined who the Luke warm are?


Have you even read Revelation? It point blank says that the Luke Warm are those who haven't done enough good works. I've asked you like perhaps 8 times by now, and the reader can see that you've absolutely refused each and every time to define who you think the Luke warm are. It's quite obvious that you are dodging the subject.
Well then why don't you explain why you think that particular passage is symbolic and what the symbolism is. I challenge anyone else reading to say if they think the Luke Warm passage is purely symbolic or uses just enough metaphor to explain that its' referring to "Christians" who haven't done enough good works.

It must be so nice to think you can just call people delusional instead of countering their points.

...None of which actually addresses the OP. Subterfuge. Puerile nonsense.

 

[Penumbra]

***Staff Advisory***

Please remain reasonably civil on the forum.

As a general rule, it's wise to talk to people on the forum the same way one would talk to them in real life.
(Assuming that one is reasonably polite in real life, that is...)
​

 

[Shermana]

In my opinion: Extinct.

Not necessarily, if Paul's views didn't get popular, the Nazarenes and Ebionites could very well have flourished and not gone off the radar.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not necessarily, if Paul's views didn't get popular, the Nazarenes and Ebionites could very well have flourished and not gone off the radar.

Again, you are pretending to know far more about "the Nazarenes and Ebionites" than is remotely warranted. All we 'know' is that the nascent 'Christian' movement was plagued with a plethora of 'Judaizers.'

 

[sojourner]

Not necessarily, if Paul's views didn't get popular, the Nazarenes and Ebionites could very well have flourished and not gone off the radar.

I doubt it. The groups you mention weren't squashed by the proliferation of Gentile Xy, so much as they were by the Romans. Even Judaism almost died out -- and most likely would have, had it not been for the sheer power and will of the Pharisees to save it. Gentile Xy survived only because it flourished outside the clutches of the Romans.

 

[Shermana]

Again, you are pretending to know far more about "the Nazarenes and Ebionites" than is remotely warranted. All we 'know' is that the nascent 'Christian' movement was plagued with a plethora of 'Judaizers.'

You gave your opinion, I gave mine. What makes you think that the "Christian movement" itself would have gone extinct without Paul's epistles? If there was a "Plethora of Judaizers", then what would have happened if there wasn't a much bigger organized movement of "Anti-judaizers" that seemed to utterly detest them?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What makes you think that the "Christian movement" itself would have gone extinct without Paul's epistles?

Trick question: the Christian movement is the Pauline mission. I do not believe there would have been a Christian movement without Paul, and the only way you manage to achieve such a belief (best I can tell) is to pretend that you know far more than you know about the Ebionites et al. You may wish to pick up Josephus and Flusser's 2 volume Judaism of the Second Temple Period, read them, and suggest a compelling reason why the Jesus sect (about which pitifully little is known for sure) should have uniquely flourished.

 

[Shermana]

Trick question: the Christian movement is the Pauline mission. I do not believe there would have been a Christian movement without Paul, and the only way you manage to achieve such a belief (best I can tell) is to pretend that you know far more than you know about the Ebionites et al. You may wish to pick up Josephus and Flusser's 2 volume Judaism of the Second Temple Period, read them, and suggest a compelling reason why the Jesus sect (about which pitifully little is known for sure) should have uniquely flourished.

Hold on here, how do you presume to know that the Pauline mission is the Christian movement? Aren't you making an assertion about who was first of which we have no real idea? You're stating that all we know is that it was 'plagued with Judaizers", are you implying that because the Paulinists were the majority and won the number battle and because the Nazarenes as they were referenced faded off the radar that the "Christian mission is the product and purpose of the Pauline sect? We can't say either way. All we can say is that the Anti-Judaizers got the political and numerical upper hand. I don't see why you can write off the "Judaizers" as being the unwanted dissenting Jewish tag-alongs of what was the "Pauline mission". In a way, that's sort of like what Maccoby tries to say. In a way.

I have a copy of the Complete works of Josephus, is there any particular chapter and verse (and book) you would suggest? I will look into Flusser's work. Don't most scholars agree that James (who Josephus seems to reference) was a Torah obedient Nazarene as opposed to the Pauline beliefs?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hold on here, how do you presume to know that the Pauline mission is the Christian movement? Aren't you making an assertion about who was first of which we have no real idea?

Hold that thought and stop digging. :yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Don't most scholars agree that James (who Josephus seems to reference) was a Torah obedient Nazarene as opposed to the Pauline beliefs?

What is a Torah obedient Nazarene and who are these "most scholars" who use such a designation?

 

[Shermana]

I know its Wiki, but do you disagree?

Modern interpretation

Modern historians of the early Christian churches tend to place James in the tradition of Jewish Christianity; where Paul emphasized faith over observance of Mosaic Law, which he considered a burden, an antinomian disposition, James is thought to have espoused the opposite position, which is derogatively called Judaizing. One corpus commonly cited as proof of this are the Recognitions and Homilies of Clement (also known as the Clementine literature), versions of a novel that has been dated to as early as the 2nd century, where James appears as a saintly figure who is assaulted by an unnamed enemy some modern critics think may be Paul. Scholar James D. G. Dunn has proposed that Peter was the "bridge-man" (i.e. the pontifex maximus) between the two other "prominent leading figures": Paul and James the Just.[56]


James the Just - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last I checked, most references to James regard him as a "Jewish Christian" as in the leader of the "Judaizers", so I don't doubt this article summation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I know its Wiki,

I won't hold that against you.

Modern historians of the early Christian churches tend to place James in the tradition of Jewish Christianity; where Paul emphasized faith over observance of Mosaic Law, which he considered a burden, an antinomian disposition, James is thought to have espoused the opposite position, which is derogatively called Judaizing. One corpus commonly cited as proof of this are the Recognitions and Homilies of Clement (also known as the Clementine literature), versions of a novel that has been dated to as early as the 2nd century, where James appears as a saintly figure who is assaulted by an unnamed enemy some modern critics think may be Paul. Scholar James D. G. Dunn has proposed that Peter was the "bridge-man" (i.e. the pontifex maximus) between the two other "prominent leading figures": Paul and James the Just

Last I checked, most references to James regard him as a "Jewish Christian" as in the leader of the "Judaizers", so I don't doubt this article summation.

Perhaps, but looking at the sole reference offered I see nothing about James as

• a Torah obedient Nazarene, or
• the leader of the "Judaizers"

So I'll ask again: What is a Torah obedient Nazarene and who are these "most scholars" who use such a designation?

 

[Shermana]

I won't hold that against you.

Perhaps, but looking at the sole reference offered I see nothing about James as

• a Torah obedient Nazarene, or
• the leader of the "Judaizers"

So I'll ask again: What is a Torah obedient Nazarene and who are these "most scholars" who use such a designation?

I will look up the specific names of the historians and scholars besides Dunn and Tabor (I believe it mentioned such on the article of his I posted on another thread or maybe it was this one) that are mentioned in that reference besides the article itself in the near future, hang tight.

As for the definition of "Torah obedient Nazarene", I'd say you can put it synonomously with what is called "Judaizer". I don't think we have to have those words specifically to get the idea that James was of the non-Pauline variety of early "Christian" and perhaps the original before him, which is of course the issue at hand.

We do see from Josephus however that James was considered a leader of the Jerusalem Church unless I'm mistaken.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for the definition of "Torah obedient Nazarene", I'd say you can put it synonomously with what is called "Judaizer".

But I won't because to do so would be historically baseless and intellectually irresponsible. You interchange "Torah obedient Nazarene" with Judaizer" and "Judean Christians" with "Jewish Christians" without the slightest embarrassment or awareness. You've managed to become a victim of your own dogma.

 

[Shermana]

But I won't because to do so would be historically baseless and intellectually irresponsible. You interchange "Torah obedient Nazarene" with Judaizer" and "Judean Christians" with "Jewish Christians" without the slightest embarrassment or awareness. You've managed to become a victim of your own dogma.

Why would it be historically baseless? We have "Church Father" writings who call the Nazarenes and Ebionites as "Judaizing", do we not? I don't remember interchanging "Judean Christians" with "Jewish Christians" though. I never said all Christians in Judea were Judaizers, or even that all ethnically Jewish Christians were Judaizers.

Why don't you state what kind of evidence you'd be looking for exactly or what kind of criteria to establish the connection.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why would it be historically baseless? We have "Church Father" writings who call the Nazarenes and Ebionites as "Judaizing", do we not?

Have a good Pesach, Shermana.

 

[Shermana]

Have a good Pesach, Shermana.

You too Jay, maybe you'll want to answer the question sometime. Don't forget to throw out anything with yeast.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You too Jay, maybe you'll want to answer the question sometime. Don't forget to throw out anything with yeast.

Maybe sometime you'll come to understand what a stupid statement it was ...

Why would it be historically baseless? We have "Church Father" writings who call the Nazarenes and Ebionites as "Judaizing", do we not?

Just brilliant! Some "Church Fathers" called the Judaizers Nazarenes and/or Ebionites. Therefore

The Nazarenes and/or Ebionites were Judaizers. Therfore

All Judaizers were Nazarenes and/or Ebionites. Therefore

James the Judaizer is a Nazarene and/or Ebionite. Therefore

James the Torah observant Nazarene is the leader of the Judaizers. And,

This designation is used by most scholars. QED
​

What a majestic piece of leavened nonsense ... :biglaugh:

 

[Shermana]

Maybe sometime you'll come to understand what a stupid statement it was ...Just brilliant! Some "Church Fathers" called the Judaizers Nazarenes and/or Ebionites. Therefore

The Nazarenes and/or Ebionites were Judaizers. Therfore

All Judaizers were Nazarenes and/or Ebionites. Therefore

James the Judaizer is a Nazarene and/or Ebionite. Therefore

James the Torah observant Nazarene is the leader of the Judaizers. And,

This designation is used by most scholars. QED
​

What a majestic piece of leavened nonsense ... :biglaugh:

Well perhaps you'd like to answer the last question I asked of what kind of evidence you'd be willing to accept or examine on such an issue to begin with. And from what I understand, virtually everything we know about early church practices comes from what "Some church fathers" said about a subject. Do you have any sources that say differently? Do you think Tabor is wrong? Obviously we can't say for sure on anything, we can only go by what the evidence appears to be. And I don't believe everything the Church Fathers wrote either. But if it's one thing I think we can look at it's when they universally condemn a movement for the same reasons.

Now I don't think I said specifically that "All Judaizers were Nazarenes/Ebionites" either, did I? I think I said that the Nazarenes and Ebionites were Judaizers, and regarded as such. In response to your (baseless) assertion that Christianity was purely a Pauline thing.

Even then, this is completely away from the original subject. You said that you know for a fact, you asserted, that Christianity was Paulinism. Why don't you back YOUR claim on that one.

 

[Muffled]

Okay, well, Jesus spoke quite clearly that there were strict requirements to get into Heaven, that one must "work hard", and that one must obey the commandments to enter into life. The usual interpretation of "Legalism" is "having to actually do anything" especially in the spectrum of the Mosaic Law. Whether Jesus replaced the Sacrificial system or not (or served as a temporary replacement until the Temple is rebuilt as in Ezekiel), the fact remains that Jesus was quite "legalistic" in the traditional sense, if your idea is that "Legalism" means a bunch of manmade requirements, then you are now saying that PAUL is the "legalist" yet you earlier said that without Paul it would be legalistic, since Paul states that the church needs elders. Therefore, in this interpretation of Legalism, Paul is the legalist one and Christianity without Paul would have been more purely about what Yashua actually taught.

I have never seen any. My guess is that you are confusing some other reference with heaven.

I have never seen this either. You willhave to provide what you think are supporting scriptures.

This is true but it doesn't mean that one has to work at it.

I don't view Legalism that way but it is true that God's grace is sufficient. I do not actually have to do anything because God will do it for me. I view legalism as the spin people put on the law to find fault with others when God finds no fault. For instance some say worship must be on Saturday but most Christians worship on Sunday. However God is ok with Sunday worship. In truth there is no law that says that people must worship on Saturday but it is a tradition of men.

ROFLMAO. The new temple is for the anti-christ, the devil incarnate who the Jews will worship.

No. What I am saying is that Paul taught about grace in a way people could understand but then didn't practice what he preached. However one could argue that Paul received all his information from God and that God wanted elders in His church.