"On this Rock I will build my church"

[metis]

The Sect of the Nazarenes was called the Way or the New Way long before Paul founded the Christian Church if you read Acts 9:1,2. Paul lived the first part of his life as a Jew and died as a Christian and, that he was a Pharisee, he was lying. The Sect of the Pharisees was names as the "Separated Ones."
It means that they would never accept a Hellenist Jew as a member of the Sect.

It is true that the Way existed before Paul, but Paul definitely was very much a part of it or why else would the apostles given Paul even the time of day.

Secondly, there does appear to have been a Hellenization process that affected the Way, especially with it's greater emphasis on inclusion that preceded Paul's acceptance into the community. On top of that, Jesus' views on Heaven and Hell reflect a Greek influence because no such pattern existed in the Tanakh nor the Oral Law. And this should not be a surprise since the northern coastal region of eretz Israel was very strongly influenced by the Greeks and Romans.

Paul clearly was a Pharisee, and so was the general direction of the Way, especially when one studies their beliefs in certain areas. Paul's use of dichotomy (black/white, light/darkness, etc.) is thoroughly Greek.

However, with that being said, it's not possible today to know whether the leadership of the Way identified themselves as Pharisees.

 

[Kemosloby]

Oh! That's true! Paul as a Christian always went to the Jewish synagogues and especially on the Sabbath to catch a good number of Jews. That's wherefrom he got his members to people his churches. He was never able to raise a church from scratch. Now, Jesus never had a Christian for a follower. When Paul founded the Christian Church, it was about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Jesus never even dreamed that Christianity would ever rise.

Peter was the first one to baptize non Jews. fulfilling the prophesy of the fishing boat. The disciples were fishing in a boat, not catching any fish. Jesus was standing on the shore (symbolically the shore of heaven) and told them to try fishing on the other side of the boat. Then they started to catch a lot of fish. So you see the one side of the boat was the Jewish side, and the other side was the Gentile side. They had caught all the Jews who were going to believe and Jesus told them to fish on the Gentile side. The prophecy was made even before Jesus died.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Peter was the first one to baptize non Jews. fulfilling the prophesy of the fishing boat. The disciples were fishing in a boat, not catching any fish. Jesus was standing on the shore (symbolically the shore of heaven) and told them to try fishing on the other side of the boat. Then they started to catch a lot of fish. So you see the one side of the boat was the Jewish side, and the other side was the Gentile side. They had caught all the Jews who were going to believe and Jesus told them to fish on the Gentile side. The prophecy was made even before Jesus died.

True that Peter was the first one to convert Gentiles as he was the one assigned to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7) But this that Jesus said to Peter "to fish on the Gentile side" I am not going to ask you for a quote because I know that there isn't any. The opposite is rather true that, if you read Mat. 10:5,6 every time Jesus sent his disciples on a mission to spread the gospel of salvation, he would worn them not to go the way of the Gentiles, especially Samaritans. I wonder why he would do that because he should know better that Israel had been assigned as light for the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:6)

 

[Ben Avraham]

[QUOTE="metis, post: 4961973, member: 47735"

It is true that the Way existed before Paul, but Paul definitely was very much a part of it or why else would the apostles given Paul even the time of day.

They didn't but only when they wanted to get rid of him away from Jerusalem. Hence, when Paul applied to join the Sect of the Nazarenes aka the New Way, they rejected him on the pretext that he could not be a disciples due to his persecutions of the Nazarenes. (Acts 9:26)

Secondly, there does appear to have been a Hellenization process that affected the Way, especially with it's greater emphasis on inclusion that preceded Paul's acceptance into the community. On top of that, Jesus' views on Heaven and Hell reflect a Greek influence because no such pattern existed in the Tanakh nor the Oral Law. And this should not be a surprise since the northern coastal region of eretz Israel was very strongly influenced by the Greeks and Romans.

I don't agree with you that Jesus' views on Heaven and Hell reflected a Greek influence, except when he was speaking in parables as for instance in the parable of the Richman and Lazarus in Luke 16. I see rather that his views on Heaven reflected a scientific influence if you read Mat. 5:17-19.

Paul clearly was a Pharisee, and so was the general direction of the Way, especially when one studies their beliefs in certain areas. Paul's use of dichotomy (black/white, light/darkness, etc.) is thoroughly Greek.

You have all the right in the world to believe as you please but Paul was no Pharisee as I understand. The direction of the Way was Jewish of the Nazarene kind. Paul yes, was thoroughly Greek. He was Greek by birth and Hellenist by education. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, chapter on the NT, Paul was the son of a well-to-do Hellenist couple from the Greek city of Tarsus in the Cilicia.

However, with that being said, it's not possible today to know whether the leadership of the Way identified themselves as Pharisees.

It didn't. They did have free access into the Pharisaic Yeshivas but they were of the Sect of the Nazarenes, not the Sect of the Pharisees. Some Pharisees though did join the Sect of the Nazarenes but as representatives of the Sect of the Pharisees.
(Acts 15:5-7)

 

[Kemosloby]

True that Peter was the first one to convert Gentiles as he was the one assigned to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7) But this that Jesus said to Peter "to fish on the Gentile side" I am not going to ask you for a quote because I know that there isn't any. The opposite is rather true that, if you read Mat. 10:5,6 every time Jesus sent his disciples on a mission to spread the gospel of salvation, he would worn them not to go the way of the Gentiles, especially Samaritans. I wonder why he would do that because he should know better that Israel had been assigned as light for the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:6)

John 21:4- He doesn't spell it out , " fish on the gentile side", you have to understand the significance of the miracle. Peter was a fisherman that Jesus said I will make you a fisher of men. So when they were sitting in the boat fishing it was symbolic of their fishing of men. Jesus standing on the shore was the shore of heaven, like he told Peter to baptize the Gentiles after he was already resurrected. Paul also went to synagogues first, when they stopped biting then to the Gentiles. "First the Jews, then the Gentiles" And that's what they did.

 

[Ben Avraham]

John 21:4- He doesn't spell it out , " fish on the gentile side", you have to understand the significance of the miracle. Peter was a fisherman that Jesus said I will make you a fisher of men. So when they were sitting in the boat fishing it was symbolic of their fishing of men. Jesus standing on the shore was the shore of heaven, like he told Peter to baptize the Gentiles after he was already resurrected. Paul also went to synagogues first, when they stopped biting then to the Gentiles. "First the Jews, then the Gentiles" And that's what they did.

Of course! "He doesn't spell it out." I knew something was wrong because I didn't recall to have read Jesus saying to Peter to fish on the Gentile side. Yes, fishing of men but not of Gentiles. Jesus didn't like Gentiles, especially if they were Samaritans. I never understood why but hey! I didn't write Mat. 10:5,6. Now, Jesus did not resurrect and I have already told you why. He was a Jew and his gospel aka the Tanach says that once dead, no one will ever return from the grave. (II Samuel 12:23; Psalm 49:12,20; Isaiah 26:14; Job 7:9; etc.

You say above that Paul went to the synagogues first. Can you provide us with a quote about when he went to the Gentiles? All I know is that all his life as a missionary, he never left the Jews in peace, since his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome. (Acts 9:1,2, and 28:17) Perhaps he thought that Gentiles were to be found in the synagogues of the Jews.

 

[Kemosloby]

Of course! "He doesn't spell it out." I knew something was wrong because I didn't recall to have read Jesus saying to Peter to fish on the Gentile side. Yes, fishing of men but not of Gentiles. Jesus didn't like Gentiles, especially if they were Samaritans. I never understood why but hey! I didn't write Mat. 10:5,6. Now, Jesus did not resurrect and I have already told you why. He was a Jew and his gospel aka the Tanach says that once dead, no one will ever return from the grave. (II Samuel 12:23; Psalm 49:12,20; Isaiah 26:14; Job 7:9; etc.

You say above that Paul went to the synagogues first. Can you provide us with a quote about when he went to the Gentiles? All I know is that all his life as a missionary, he never left the Jews in peace, since his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome. (Acts 9:1,2, and 28:17) Perhaps he thought that Gentiles were to be found in the synagogues of the Jews.

There are other ones, but here he's trying to convince both alike.
Acts 18:4
and he stayed and worked with them because they were tent makers by trade, just as he was. Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks alike. And when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself fully to the word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.…

 

[Ben Avraham]

There are other ones, but here he's trying to convince both alike. Acts 18:4 and he stayed and worked with them because they were tent makers by trade, just as he was. Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks alike. And when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself fully to the word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.…

Aquila and Pricilla were a Jewish couple who had been expelled from Rome and, for some reason settled down in Antioch. Since Paul was always after the Jews, he took advantage of the fact that both were tent makers, and threw his net on that Jewish side and came out with a good catch. He did reason every Sabbath in the synagogues but not to observe the Sabbath but because of the number of Jews he could work with. The Greeks in the synagogues were no longer Gentiles but converted to the Sect of the Nazarenes probably by Peter. (Acts 15:7)

 

[Kemosloby]

Aquila and Pricilla were a Jewish couple who had been expelled from Rome and, for some reason settled down in Antioch. Since Paul was always after the Jews, he took advantage of the fact that both were tent makers, and threw his net on that Jewish side and came out with a good catch. He did reason every Sabbath in the synagogues but not to observe the Sabbath but because of the number of Jews he could work with. The Greeks in the synagogues were no longer Gentiles but converted to the Sect of the Nazarenes probably by Peter. (Acts 15:7)

You seem slightly biased sometimes.

 

[Ben Avraham]

You seem slightly biased sometimes.

I understand. Sometimes it does sound biased when one says the truth as it happened.

 

[metis]

They didn't but only when they wanted to get rid of him away from Jerusalem.

That is an assumption that simply doesn't make sense when put into the context of the whole, which I covered in post #161.

Hence, when Paul applied to join the Sect of the Nazarenes aka the New Way, they rejected him on the pretext that he could not be a disciples due to his persecutions of the Nazarenes. (Acts 9:26)

At first, yes.

I see rather that his views on Heaven reflected a scientific influence if you read Mat. 5:17-19.

There is no "scientific evidence" for Heaven or Hell, nor do they show up anywhere in the Tanakh. However, when compared to some texts reflecting Greek mythology, one can see the parallel even though it's not an identical copy. IOW, it appears that the Greek concepts were copied but then altered. Pretty much all religions do this, btw, even if the "true believers" want to deny any outside influences that were incorporated into their "pure religion".

You have all the right in the world to believe as you please but Paul was no Pharisee as I understand. The direction of the Way was Jewish of the Nazarene kind. Paul yes, was thoroughly Greek. He was Greek by birth and Hellenist by education. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, chapter on the NT, Paul was the son of a well-to-do Hellenist couple from the Greek city of Tarsus in the Cilicia.

He was Jewish, but a Hellenized one, and he identifies himself as being a Pharisee upon arrest, and there's no reason to believe otherwise since there would have been no advantage of identifying as such when arrested by the Romans.

It didn't. They did have free access into the Pharisaic Yeshivas but they were of the Sect of the Nazarenes, not the Sect of the Pharisees. Some Pharisees though did join the Sect of the Nazarenes but as representatives of the Sect of the Pharisees.
(Acts 15:5-7)

It is widely understood in theological circles that "Jesus of Nazareth" is a reference to where he lived since last names weren't given back then. Plus "Jesus" was a fairly common name, so naming where one lived or whom was their father ("Ben...___"), was typically used.

There are no references to a Nazarene cult in any known literature until the 4th century, but in that reference there's no reference to the time-table. IOW, they may have come into existence at some time after Paul was executed, but we can't be sure.

 

[rharris001]

Jesus was referring to himself, not Peter. Jesus is the cornerstone (rock).

"Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone," (Ephesians 2:20)

"But he looked directly at them and said, “What then is this that is written: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’?" (Luke 20:17)

 

[Ben Avraham]

Jesus was referring to himself, not Peter. Jesus is the cornerstone (rock).

"Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone," (Ephesians 2:20)

"But he looked directly at them and said, “What then is this that is written: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’?" (Luke 20:17)

Well, I still have a problem with this all the same. Jesus could not have been the cornerstone of a Christian church when he was a Jew; especially a church that caused millions of deaths among the Jews by means of pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and, last but not least, the Holocaust.

 

[Ben Avraham]

It is widely understood in theological circles that "Jesus of Nazareth" is a reference to where he lived since last names weren't given back then. Plus "Jesus" was a fairly common name, so naming where one lived or whom was their father ("Ben...___"), was typically used.

There are no references to a Nazarene cult in any known literature until the 4th century, but in that reference there's no reference to the time-table. IOW, they may have come into existence at some time after Paul was executed, but we can't be sure.

The name of Jesus was Yeshua ben Yoseph. But then, because he was from Nazareth, the Apostles organized a Jewish Sect, the most recent one in the First Century as homage paid to Jesus for having been born in Nazareth. Another reference to the Sect of the Nazarenes is mentioned in Acts 24:1-7 when the Attorney Tertulus who had been hired by the High Priest Ananias to represent Paul in Court. That's when he accused Paul as a ring-leader of the Sect of the Nazarenes.

Now, I said above that Jesus was born in Nazareth. That's true. The claim of Bethlehem was only a plagiarism from the birth of king David in the Tanach. The Hellenists who wrote the gospels needed that to score one more prophecy to enhance Jesus' credibility as the Messiah. That does not affect me though, because I do not believe in an individual Messiah but in the collective concept of the Messiah aka Israel the Son of God if you read Ezodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My Son," said the Lord.

 

[rharris001]

Well, I still have a problem with this all the same. Jesus could not have been the cornerstone of a Christian church when he was a Jew; especially a church that caused millions of deaths among the Jews by means of pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and, last but not least, the Holocaust.

Understood. Yet, who said that Yeshua was sent here to establish a "Christian" church. He never spoke of such a thing. It is men - namely, the European - who speaks of "Christianity" and setting up a "Christian" church.. Christianity appears to be an impostor and its words and deeds throughout history and up to this day reflect that it is not from the One God and neither is it a reflection of the teachings of Yeshua.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Understood. Yet, who said that Yeshua was sent here to establish a "Christian" church. He never spoke of such a thing. It is men - namely, the European - who speaks of "Christianity" and setting up a "Christian" church.. Christianity appears to be an impostor and its words and deeds throughout history and up to this day reflect that it is not from the One God and neither is it a reflection of the teachings of Yeshua.

Behold! I agree with your post above. You must find a lot of Christians who can't agree with you.

 

[metis]

The name of Jesus was Yeshua ben Yoseph. But then, because he was from Nazareth, the Apostles organized a Jewish Sect, the most recent one in the First Century as homage paid to Jesus for having been born in Nazareth. Another reference to the Sect of the Nazarenes is mentioned in Acts 24:1-7 when the Attorney Tertulus who had been hired by the High Priest Ananias to represent Paul in Court. That's when he accused Paul as a ring-leader of the Sect of the Nazarenes.

.

OK, let me repeat that the historians who have studied this do not believe there was an actual Nazarene "sect", using the word literally, until the 4th century. Instead, what they understand is that the area around Nazareth and to the nearby coast had a very liberal reputation, at least partially due to Hellenization.

So, instead of viewing them as actually being a literal organized "sect", view it instead as being a reference to a very liberal movement that existed long before Jesus was on Earth. It is from this group that at least some theologians believe that most, or at least many, of the "God-Fearers" came from that formed the earliest Gentile base for the Way.

 

[2ndpillar]

Well, I still have a problem with this all the same. Jesus could not have been the cornerstone of a Christian church when he was a Jew; especially a church that caused millions of deaths among the Jews by means of pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and, last but not least, the Holocaust.

Dear Avraham,
Daniel 7:24-28 explains the setting up the "Christian" church, which was instituted by the king of Rome, Constantine, at his convened Council of Nicaea, whereas he "will intend to make changes in times and in law".. wear down the saints".... "they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time"...."but the court will set in judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever (Daniel 9:27)..... and the kingdoms of the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints".

Constantine changed the day of rest from the 7th day to the day of the sun by decree in the year 321 AD. He changed the commandment of having one God, into 3 gods, at his convened Council of Nicaea. His church, which followed the sign of the sun god , Sol Invictus, was the cross, under which he conquered and was to "wear down the saints". The time, times, and half a time (season), was detailed in Daniel 11, and is after 2000 years as explained in Hosea 5:10 - Hosea 6:2.
BATTLE OF MILVIAN BRIDGE

 

[Ben Avraham]

Dear Avraham,
Daniel 7:24-28 explains the setting up the "Christian" church, which was instituted by the king of Rome, Constantine, at his convened Council of Nicaea, whereas he "will intend to make changes in times and in law".. wear down the saints".... "they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time"...."but the court will set in judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever (Daniel 9:27)..... and the kingdoms of the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints".

Constantine changed the day of rest from the 7th day to the day of the sun by decree in the year 321 AD. He changed the commandment of having one God, into 3 gods, at his convened Council of Nicaea. His church, which followed the sign of the sun god , Sol Invictus, was the cross, under which he conquered and was to "wear down the saints". The time, times, and half a time (season), was detailed in Daniel 11, and is after 2000 years as explained in Hosea 5:10 - Hosea 6:2.
BATTLE OF MILVIAN BRIDGE

Sorry 2ndpillar, but there is absolutely nothing in Daniel 7:24-28 about the Christian church. And for Daniel 9:27, that's a reference to the Jews returning from exile in Babylon to take possession of the kingdoms of the whole Land of Israel aka the whole heaven, North and South aka Israel and Judah.

Who are the people of the saints? Read Revelation 14:12. "Here are the saints of the Most High; those who keep the commandments of HaShem and the Faith of Jesus." What was the Faith of Jesus? Judaism aka the Tanach.

As for Hosea 6:2 is concerned, the expression "in three days" means, in a short time more and HaShem will raise us up from our exilic graves and we will be back to the Land of Israel. If you read Isaiah 53:8,9, when Jews are forced into exile, it is as if we have been cut off from the land of the living and graves are assigned to us among the nations. At the end of the exile, HaShem opens up those graves and brings us back to the Land of Israel. (Ezekiel 37:12.)

 

[Ben Avraham]

OK, let me repeat that the historians who have studied this do not believe there was an actual Nazarene "sect", using the word literally, until the 4th century. Instead, what they understand is that the area around Nazareth and to the nearby coast had a very liberal reputation, at least partially due to Hellenization.

So, instead of viewing them as actually being a literal organized "sect", view it instead as being a reference to a very liberal movement that existed long before Jesus was on Earth. It is from this group that at least some theologians believe that most, or at least many, of the "God-Fearers" came from that formed the earliest Gentile base for the Way.

Metis, you have all the right in the world to believe as you wish but, as I am concerned, Historians also come in all sizes as most of them build their historical concepts and don't care to check for their veracity especially if they are religious moved by Christian preconceived notions. The Sect of the Nazarenes did not exist long before Jesus was born if the name was on behalf of Jesus. Logic also counts.