1. 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!

Which prophecies did Jesus fulfill as to be the Messiah?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Me Myself, Nov 6, 2013.

  1. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,107
    Ratings:
    +16,003
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Again, I gotta be quick, so sorry for that.

    The above questioning of the whether divine inspiration is to be found in Torah was echoed by Aquinas, but taking that position creates some rather serious problems, such as how does one take that position and then turn around and say that the quotations attributed to Jesus are in any way accurate?

    Secondly, why are only some of the "moral obligations" a requirement, and exactly how does the church derive which Laws are to be followed and which are OK to ignore? IOW, which Laws were divinely inspired and which were not, and exactly how does one go about telling the difference?

    Finally, Jesus, the apostles, and Paul were all Jewish and, therefore, the Law-- all of the Law-- pertains to each of them. Since they set up a new Jewish sect, how is it that one could join that Jewish sect and not be circumcised, which is required by both the Covenant and the Law?

    Just some questions to consider, but I'm finally out of here, so take care and...

    shalom.
     
  2. nazz

    nazz Doubting Thomas

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,470
    Ratings:
    +518
    Religion:
    Gnostic Christian
    I hope not. I hope I am past that sort of thing. I've got no dog in this fight but am just doing my best to understand what is presented in the Christian Scripture. I no longer regard it as the inerrant Word of God so that takes a lot of pressure off trying to defend a view or make it all consistent.

    Well keep in mind that Gentiles were never required to observe the entirety of Jewish law anyway. So saying they "walked away from it" isn't accurate. The issue again is what Jewish Christians should observe. And the church split on that issue which is why the sect of the Nazoreans and Ebionites arose.

    I actually agree. And I believe in neither.

    Yes, I agree. I was just trying to explain what I think was Paul's reasoning.
     
  3. nazz

    nazz Doubting Thomas

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,470
    Ratings:
    +518
    Religion:
    Gnostic Christian
    For me I am coming from a belief that Jesus was God incarnate and actually a God that was previously unknown. So not in every way like the deity of the Tanakh. So of course there would be disagreement on what came from God (the one Jesus revealed) and what did not.

    The usual answer to that is whatever is echoed in the NT is valid for Christians.

    One could if one was a Gentile.
     
  4. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    10,814
    Ratings:
    +327
     
    #464 Shermana, Nov 22, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2013
  5. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    10,814
    Ratings:
    +327
    And again, there is a difference between "The early church" and the "Later early church" which was made up of gentiles. The Jerusalem Church most likely did not include gentiles. It's important to not look at the proto-orthodox groups (many of them likely inspired by Marcion even if they viewed him as a heretic later) and not let them be the representative of the totality of the movement, even if they came to dominate in numbers (i.e. a lot more gentiles than Jews in the Empire).

    It's quite obvious that not ALL the "Early Church" backed away from the Law, or the "heresy hunters" wouldn't be so hard pressed against the "Judaizers", the "Nazarenes" and their close cousins the Ebionites.

    There was indeed a "Schism" but it's not right to include the break-away from the Jerusalem Sect as "The early church". There is evidence that the Nazarene communities existed even until the 11th century in Arabia. So no, observance of the Law does not completely disappear by the 5th century. And it's highly unlikely the 11th century "Nazoreans" simply fizzled out as well in my view. They just simply became the minority. But that should not be a reflection on the totality of Christianity's origin altogether.
     
    #465 Shermana, Nov 22, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2013
  6. nazz

    nazz Doubting Thomas

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,470
    Ratings:
    +518
    Religion:
    Gnostic Christian
    Well I follow Jesus, not Arius. Jesus is reported to have said:

    All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.


    I have my understanding of Jesus' teachings going on. I don't agree with Marcion.

    All part of a view I used to hold myself. What finally broke it was asking the question why would Jesus expect Gentiles to observe the entire Torah rather than just the Noachide laws? I could not come up with a good reason why he would.
     
  7. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    10,814
    Ratings:
    +327
     
  8. roger1440

    roger1440 I do stuff

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,355
    Ratings:
    +969
    Religion:
    Christian
    The readersÂ’ interpretation must be in agreement with the writer. If not then there is a lack of communication. The root of the word communication is the word common. The reader and the writer must agree on the meaning of words and the context in which they are being used. If I were to tell you I was hit by a truck and the image that comes to your mind is an animal with feathers and a beak, obviously there is a lack of communication. Much of the images in the Jewish and Christian Bible are symbolic and allegory. Others images are meant to be literal. The problem always has been how to separate the two. There lies the challenge.
     
  9. nazz

    nazz Doubting Thomas

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,470
    Ratings:
    +518
    Religion:
    Gnostic Christian
    A different debate?

    Okay :shrug:

    The Gnostics, an idea I know you dispute. Marcion was an extremist in his view. The Gnostics took a more balanced approach to the OT.

    No, I don't think that. I just think it wouldn't much matter to him. It is not reported that he was that concerned with halachic matters. The only time we see him discussing this is with the Pharisees and he dismissed their concerns.

    Jesus reportedly had encounters with Gentiles who expressed faith in him. He is never reported as commanding them to observe Jewish law.

    I've argued forcefully that Jesus taught nothing in conflict with the written Torah. I would argue just as forcefully that his own torah concerned itself with what he considered the "weightier" matters of the Law like justice and mercy and not with the minutae of proper observance. Ethics, not ritual observance, is what he was about.

    But they are sourced in the Written Torah.

    "In the land" being the operative phrase. According to rabbinic Judaism some mitvot don;t even apply to Jews not "in the land".

    The same moral standard, sure.
     
  10. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,107
    Ratings:
    +16,003
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Ditto.

    Ditto again, and in my case I'm actually non-theistic, but was curious as to how you would deal with the issue of supposed divine interpretation.

    Actually it is accurate. I didn't reference either the Nazoreans nor the Ebionites, which were different groups under different leadership with different interpretations. What I was talking about if the apostolic church, which did indeed remain quite intact.

    We have to remember that the mark of the early "true church" was not which scriptures they had but were your leaders appointed by an apostle or an appointee of an apostle. This is not speculation, unless one wants to entirely discard the "N.T." altogether, since it permeates the scriptures.

    This early church was Jewish led, but as you say, became increasingly gentile as time went on. However, even with the Jewish leadership we see breaks in the observance of at least the letter of the Law. To me, the only thing that makes sense that ties these elements together is that Jesus elevated the "law of love" so as to include all of the Law, which is found in the gospels, thus leading to the changes in gradually walking away from the letter of the Law. But once one starts to walk away from the letter of the Law, ... :run:

    Also, what I do believe really pushes this envelop is that it would be darn near impossible for there to be "one body" with two groups operating under very different rules, one for Jews and one for gentiles.
     
  11. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    30,960
    Ratings:
    +11,769
    Religion:
    liber-scripta grim Christian
    That is difficult to work out for me. It sounds worth looking into, but I cannot see as beneficial a Paul who is so inconsistent with Jesus or with Moses. Christians are not at a place where Paul can be summarily dismissed, because without him many don't know the law at all. He discusses creation, sin, purpose, community and many other things, and he's the textbook for most common questions. Its intolerable for him to become neither here nor there. Even so, you could be correct. I hope not though.

    Like you I hold Jesus subject to Moses and Paul subject to both, but I disregard as an addition anything contrary to those two. I don't allow for a vacillating Paul on whether gentiles should practice the law, though he seems to encourage interpretations of it. My pet theory is that Galations is some kind of a one-off or corruption (not original), that Paul actually preached the end of Noah's covenant for gentiles not the Mosaic covenant for Jews. Where Paul talks about the end of 'Rule upon Rule' and 'Death to the law' it becomes clear that he is referring to Noah's law, since Noah's law can end according to Genesis. I haven't worked out every detail of this theory, but it works very well for modeling a Paul who is consistent with Jesus and for retaining Paul's more beneficial and consistent teachings. Making this easier Galations is alread questioned for other reasons by the scholars, and so is very likely a forgery. Galations runs contrary to Paul's other statements about Jews, for instance. Removing the inconsistent parts from Paul would I think benefit Christians and by extension everybody who knows one.

    I meant that most don't understand it at all. Sorry that was unclear.
     
  12. nazz

    nazz Doubting Thomas

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,470
    Ratings:
    +518
    Religion:
    Gnostic Christian
    It held together for a generation or so but it was always a fragile alliance that eventually disintegrated. We see the cracks already coming to the surface in Paul's letter to the Galatians:

    Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
    [Gal 2:11-13]

    Critical scholars believe the account given in Acts is something of a whitewash and that the disparate groups were not as on friendly terms as that account would have it. Basically you had a faction that was very dedicated to full Torah observance led by James, a faction led by Paul who did not believe Gentiles should be forced to adhere to Jewish law, and a bunch of people somewhat on the fence (like Peter). A compromise may have been struck requiring the Gentile converts to observe a version of Noachide law but tensions still existed among the different groups and sometimes erupted as is recounted in Galatians. Even in Acts itself we see this:

    On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
    [Acts 21:18-21]

    So basically we have these two groups with different ideas trying to coexist as one church. It works mainly because the Jewish Torah observant faction is based in Jerusalem and the other groups are remote and in Gentile territory. But the problems arise when the two groups try to come together as one. How can they even eat together?

    When this fragile confederation finally disintegrates is when we find two separate churches, a non-observant Gentile church and a fully observant Jewish one. The former gains the upper hand and eventually even declares the latter heretical and it fades away into history.

    Did you have something specific in mind? Do you mean eating with Gentiles or eating meat sacrificed to other gods as Paul did? Otherwise I'm not seeing it.

    If anything that would be a minor influence in my estimation. it certainly had no impact on those like James who were "zealous for the Law". And even Paul could be quite legalistic in his own way. I think it had to do more with the issue of whether or not Gentiles needed to observe Jewish law and if not how could these two groups coexist as one.

    Yes, exactly.
     
    #472 nazz, Nov 24, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2013
  13. nazz

    nazz Doubting Thomas

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,470
    Ratings:
    +518
    Religion:
    Gnostic Christian
    I'm sorry but this is not the case. Critical scholarship is unanimous that Galatians is an authentic letter of Paul.
     
  14. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    30,960
    Ratings:
    +11,769
    Religion:
    liber-scripta grim Christian
    Oh, I might be mistaken about that.
     
  15. nazz

    nazz Doubting Thomas

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,470
    Ratings:
    +518
    Religion:
    Gnostic Christian
    from Galatians :

    "Galatians is one of the four letters of Paul known as the Hauptbriefe, which are universally accepted as authentic. It is typically dated c. 54 CE.
    "
     
  16. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,107
    Ratings:
    +16,003
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    I do think the evidence, as scanty and questionable as it is, points to Paul changing his mind but not necessarily being inconsistent with himself or with Jesus' teachings. As I previously mentioned, Jesus seems to have opened the door to such a liberal interpretation because I simply cannot believe the changes could have been made by his followers without some sort of paradigm being established by Jesus himself.

    To me, it seems most likely that Jesus looks at the Law just in regards to love of God and man paradigm, and since this seems to be his position, then indeed the letter of the rest of the Law could be walked away from. To me, no other pattern makes sense in terms of what we see in the scriptures and try to match it up with how the apostolic church reacted.

    So, with this in mind, I don't see Paul as some sort of renegade who's distorting Jesus' teachings, although I do believe he took his teachings much further than Jesus did, and it's impossible to say whether Jesus would have approved.

    There's more method to my madness, but I'll stop at this point.
     
  17. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,107
    Ratings:
    +16,003
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    I would suggest that the evidence indicates that the apostolic church remained and at least the Ebionites broke away, which really is not that much of a surprise. I have studied this extensively in the past and have found no reason to suspect that the apostolic church "disintegrated". Again, the mark of the "one body" was the issue of apostolic succession.

    What we find reported in Acts and elsewhere is a mentioning of various disputes that arose and how they supposedly got resolved. Now, some consider this a "whitewash", and I guess it's impossible to prove otherwise, but this becomes difficult to swallow because not all the Jews in the early church suddenly croaked, only leaving gentiles.

    On top of this, we really don't know much about the Ebionites, especially since we simply don't know how they formed or acted in the 1st century since the first writings about them are not until the 2nd century.

    Hey, they were Jews.

    But did James eventually reconcile and rejoin Peter, Paul, and the others? Can't say. Also, it does little good to quote any of the scriptures dealing with the Ebionites since they themselves only recognized one gospel ("Aramaiic Matthew"), which we don't have a copy of, which makes it even harder yet.

    Except the're no evidence that all or most of the Jewish followers suddenly left the apostolic church and all went to the Ebionites.

    One simply cannot call it a "non-observant gentile church" for reasons mentioned above. Nor does it seem to make sense since we know there were Jews who lived on to the end of the 1st century (John, for just one example) and who had appointed leaders that went on into the 2nd century.

    Peter was eating with gentiles would have been an absolute no-no back then, and we see his confrontation with James over that. Also, Peter's vision on all animals being "clean" is just another example. BTW, isn't it possible that James eventually came around to agree with Peter, Paul, and Mary, singing the same tunes together? :D

    The fact that it was even in question should tell us something, and that simply is that there's some controversy even in the minds of the apostles. If it wasn't a controversial issue then why does it even show up in Acts? Why is it that Paul's writings were actually the most widely circulated and accepted in the 1st century church? Why is it that both Peter and Paul end up in Rome? Etc.
     
  18. nazz

    nazz Doubting Thomas

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,470
    Ratings:
    +518
    Religion:
    Gnostic Christian
    What I am talking about disintegrating was the alliance between Jewish and Gentile churches. The Gentile churches in the Diaspora held allegiance to Paul who supposedly deferred to the home church in Jerusalem. When you refer to the "apostolic church" are you referring to the Jerusalem based church? I think that probably continued in some form until the banishment of all Jews from Jerusalem in 130 CE. But we also know Jewish Christians fled the city much earlier before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Have you studied anything that would dispute this?

    Not sure you are following what I am saying. The whitewash was to paint a more friendly picture between Paul and the other Apostles. The Jerusalem church was and remained Jewish.

    This is true.

    :p

    No evidence suggests he did. And he was martyred in 62 CE so...

    Not sure what this is in reference to. I was quoting Scriptures to show there was controversy between different factions.

    I don't think that is what happened. The groups we know as the Nazoreans and the Ebionites were what was left of the original Jewish church. We know them by distinct names because at that point they saw themselves as forming a separate church from the Gentile churches in the Diaspora they saw as apostate.

    I am talking about the Gentile churches in the Diaspora. I think you agreed they were not Torah observant? :confused: The Elder John seems to be the head of a Jewish Gnostic sect, yet another faction.

    Yes, as it is to this day among Orthodox Jews.
     
  19. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,107
    Ratings:
    +16,003
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    I'm going to stop at this point minus one final item below because of what you wrote above. The above question should not have had to even been asked, so there's simply no reason to continue.

    Today, Orthodox can eat with gentiles but just not food prepared as trief (not kosher). The exception is Passover. The difference back at Jesus' time had to do with ritual contamination, which is of far lesser concern today.
     
  20. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    10,814
    Ratings:
    +327
    I'd like to see the proof.

    Also, the work known as the "Apostolical consitutions" may have in fact had some pro-Law leanings, and was only later redacted by an anti-Judaizer. There may be much evidence that anti-Judaizing redactors had their way with a LOT of ancient manuscripts, including Paul's letters. It straight up tells Christians to obey the Sabbath. And we know according to Socrates Scholasticus that almost all Christians outside of Rome and Alexandria did in fact celebrate the Sabbath until even the 5th century when it was made illegal to do so.

    James' Thoughts and Musings: Sabbath and Law in the Apostolic Constitutions
     
Loading...