|
Post by xna on Apr 20, 2014 7:14:00 GMT -5
~~ Paul was a good person to prove Jesus was NOT a myth but a REAL person God/Man, who incarnated from heaven, according to his testimony. The source reliably of "according to his (Paul's) testimony" is one of the subjects the scholars considers in those videos. That subject has been examined by many, for many centuries. As more and more is discovered about the past, we get closer to the truth of the matter. Our best way of knowing is to look at the evidence, & question everything, & not accept on blind faith that which we were told from those in authority. I think we could both agree that the pursuit of truth is a worthwhile goal. The god question is very important to me, as it was the main influence in my childhood, and early adult life. I am also concerned for my fellow man that he can have the most authentic life. If the bible is literally true then, nothing else is more important. If it is not literally true, but a changing myths then we should learn from that experience, and be better than our holy books. Just like learning the true origins of the 2x2 shook many at their foundation, so too learning how the present day bible came to be, may also sake your foundation. I prefer to know what is true, rather than have the comfort of believing in a known illusion. Each should come to their own decision, keep an open mind, & live what they believe is true, as long as their beliefs do not harm others. It's hard to be objective about this subject, when you have been indoctrinated from birth. Here is video a very religious person SHOULD NOT WATCH IF, YOU ARE EASILY OFFENED. It speaks to my point above on the harm of early indoctrination. youtu.be/TDgBHrKPV5E
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 20, 2014 8:26:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 20, 2014 10:53:31 GMT -5
I had a real hard time watching this movie. The scene in the church where there are 3, 4 and 5 year olds screaming and crying for God to save them just broke my heart.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 20, 2014 12:48:45 GMT -5
Nathan ~ I'm just commenting on what I have learned from my own study of religion and the historical backdrop of Jesus within the first century.There's actually more proof that Paul existed than Jesus, if you check these historical records going back to the first century.
That's the point I wished to make is that some believe the whole life of Jesus is based on myth and stories taken from ancient mystery religions and added to Christianity over a period of time. In fact, that's one reason it is believed that the RCC had a number of book burnings to hid the real history behind the early Christian beliefs surrounding Jesus of Nazareth that they didn't want revealed. The writings of the early Gnostics was at the top of their list for destruction and they did a fine job of it, except for those books that monks managed to carefully hid through burying and discovered centuries later in the mid-1900's.
The book I'm presently reading, entitled "Nailed," by David Fitzgerald, really goes into the historical evidence of record and you get to actually read the different source material relating to Jesus of Nazareth for yourself at the end of the book. This man was a devout Christian at one time before he started researching the historicity of the Jesus, in which he learned a lot of things he wasn't aware of previously. Needless to say, today he is an atheist as a result of his own discovery efforts. However, not all of these people became atheists as a result of their findings. Tom Harpur, author of "The Pagan Christ," who once was an Angelican priest, but would probably be considered a "cultural (cosmic) Christian" today and views the Bible in a whole different light than he did in the past.
gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html
As I read this posting I can not help thinking that so many start off with the view that the historical Jesus is a myth and then set out to read the materials that will support this view. Why not bring a bit of balance to your reading and include something like He walked Among Us by Josh McDowell or Who Moved the Stone by Frank Morrison and then see what you think? I thank God that on this Easter morning I can say that ' Because He lives I can face tomorrow' and without equivocation I believe what Paul wrote: [1] Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, [2] and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. [3] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, [4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, [5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. [6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. [7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. [8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 15:1-8 ESV) Irvinegrey ~ I have read a number of such books in the past and have them in my private library. Why I bring up these other books is because I'm not afraid of researching the evidence that atheists/agnostics have provided in their own quest for truth and knowledge. I feel our belief in Jesus as the Christ should be able to stand up against scrutiny and should be supported by the archives of history in which Jesus supposedly lived and walked during the first century, especially considering the impact of Christianity upon the world today. In all honesty, I'm a avid researcher myself and in past years have been exploring the roots of my core beliefs. I never expected to learn the things I have over this past year from my endeavors, so it obviously took me by total surprise, too. I actually figured quite the opposite would be my experience in my search for concrete material to back up Jesus' existence within the annals of ancient history. Therefore, although I still hold to my Christian beliefs, I realize they may not exactly be based upon genuine evidence from the past. Perhaps "dumbfounded" best describes my present state of mind from my own research into this matter?
However, a real problem arises when you try to find any tangible evidence, since most records pertain to around 100 A.D. and afterwards ~ not exactly eye witness accounts after all. Also, many of the records are not reliable and considered to be forgeries or interpolations added later to scripture. Basically, we do have many eyewitnesses accounts found within the synoptic gospels, but nothing to really substantiate their claims from the annals of ancient Jewish and Roman history. However, Paul, it has been found, can be attested to as having lived, preached, and died by beheading. What I don't understand myself is why the Jesus story lacks in pertinent information to back up his life and ministry compared to men like Paul, who greatly promoted Christianity as we know it today?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 20, 2014 14:19:45 GMT -5
I had a real hard time watching this movie. The scene in the church where there are 3, 4 and 5 year olds screaming and crying for God to save them just broke my heart. Snow ~ I also had a hard time watching this movie due to the indoctrination which is so obviously displayed even in the young ones "screaming and crying for God to save them." That was just a little too extreme for my senses to comprehend in this Pentecostal display of the Spirit of God in the very young.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Apr 21, 2014 7:54:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 21, 2014 21:54:43 GMT -5
The link is incorrect. It should be www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/04/16/3986403.htmI was interested in the following statement: ....there are eminent, scientists, like Professor William Phillips (Physics Nobel Prizewinner, 1998), Professor Sir John Polkinghorne FRS (Quantum Physicist, Cambridge) and, in the United States, the current Director of the National Institute of Health and former Director of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins (to name just three) who, though well aware of Hume's argument, nevertheless publicly, and without either embarrassment or any sense of irrationality or absurdity, affirm their belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which they regard as the supreme evidence for the truth of the Christian worldview.I set out to find some of the words spoken by or written by each of these three men. I started with a podcast interview of Professor Sir John Polkinghorne FRS. This is part of the "On Being" series with Krista Tippett, and requires about an hour to complete: Link: JOHN POLKINGHORNE — QUARKS AND CREATIONI will not attempt a full review, but will make a few observations in response to the interview. Polkinghorne's analogies between science and theology are loose, underwhelming (IMO) and seem, at times, to be set up so the believing reader/listener can leap to their own belief-based conclusions without him needing to make a direct statement. For example, he talks about the wide acceptance of the existence of quarks in scientific circles (including himself), despite the fact that quarks remain "unseen". As he puts it they simply "must exist" for the physical world to be intelligible. I sense a testimony for Meeting in there somewhere! If he is trying to suggest that life only makes sense if there is an "interested" God.....my experience suggests to me that there are alternative possibilities. Polkinghorne speaks about Wave/Particle "duality" of light, then speaks about the Christian belief that Jesus was both man and God. Ok, so there is a form in the Christian belief system which is a kind of duality. So what? The former has been well established through experimentation. The latter remains a matter of faith. He talks a little bit about quantum physics and how this gives us insight into the existence of levels of uncertainty and "cloudiness" in the physical world. It is here that he seems to see some possibility for "God" to have some influence and ability to intervene in the world, including some possibility of answering prayers.....at least those that don't require violating the laws of nature. He specifically mentions the possibility that prayer for healing from illness might be effective under some circumstances (left undefined). He makes no mention of looking at data. In some ways, Polkinghorne's ideas about creation are not that different from my own, except he uses the word "God." He speaks freely about the evolution of life as we know it, and sees Genesis 1 as poetry that cannot reasonably be taken literally. He responds to a question about "Intelligent Design" by stating that the proponents of Intelligent Design ask some "important questions," but he is also quick to distance himself from the idea of Intelligent Design by expressing great "caution" about it. I think some Christians would find his ideas about "God" and "creation" to be unsettling, if not blasphemous. Polkinghorne assumes that there is some form of afterlife and some continuing existence or perhaps a future reassembling of each human "soul." He lost me here. It seems completely reasonable to me that humans evolved with some tendency to hope for life beyond death as a psychological coping mechanism. That some people yearn for an afterlife doesn't (IMO) lend any credence to the idea. He believes otherwise. I don't see his years as a quantum physicist as giving him any advantages in this realm. In fact, I come away from this podcast seeing his background in quantum physics as more of a PR gimmick in his new career as a theologian than anything else. I was disappointed that Polkinghorne did not speak in any detail about his supposed belief in the "resurrection" - I will keep looking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 6:55:31 GMT -5
The interesting thing about this item is that John Lennox is a Professor of Mathematics at Oxford but appears to have chosen (perhaps wisely) to steer clear of his professional field in this article (apart from a rather peculiar ‘money in the drawer’ analogy). Had he been seeking to persuade the reader that God interferes with the laws of mathematics then the fact that he is a Professor of Mathematics at Oxford may carry some weight; however, as regards whether it is possible for the dead to come back to life, it seems to me that his professional standing as a mathematics expert at Oxford carries no more weight than that of an Oxford undertaker or gravedigger. Mr Lennox seems to be claiming that the Christian God interferes with the laws of nature from time to time and that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is one of those times (although he provides little in the way of credible evidence to support either the resurrection of the dead or the existence of a Christian God). I’m not exactly sure what his stance is on the laws of science but he seems to have a particularly peculiar view regarding the decomposition of the human body in a hot climate although (again perhaps wisely) he chooses not go into detail of how the reverse of this process is supposed to happen thereby enabling the recently deceased to hop up and start walking round again. Perhaps Mr Lennox adheres to the belief that his God can do anything and it is not for us to delve too deeply lest we demonstrate a lack of faith. I can’t help but wonder if Professor Lennox is willing to concede that the Christian God also interferes with the laws of mathematics as he claims He does in relation to the laws of science. Can 2+2 ever equal 5 given the right conditions? Can the Christian God intervene to make a + b equal to something other than b + a? Can Pythagoras be dismissed and the side opposite the right angle of a triangle become equal to something other than the sum of the squares of the other two sides? Can God really do anything or is He limited by the laws of mathematics but not the laws of science? If the mathematician that is Mr Lennox wishes to make absurd claims relating to the field of mathematics and provides suitable mathematical proof to support them, then I may well be willing to listen; however the article linked to here seems to me to be so far removed from anything that might be considered academic that the fact that Mr Lennox is an Oxford Professor has little relevance. His views on the laws of nature make no sense whatsoever. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 7:27:12 GMT -5
Back in the '60's I read an atheist's summary of the bible. One thing stood out, "no-one can go through a wall." Not sure what this was in reference to - maybe Jesus appearing to the disciples after the crucifiction or some such thing.
And then, in the 1990's there was this front cover of Scientific America showing a man stepping through a wall. (something about tunneling through space)
So there you had it. 1960's impossible was 1990's possible.
Was it Sagan who said any advanced technology is akin to magic? And we can say, so long as it doesn't violate the laws of maths, that anything is possible.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 22, 2014 19:20:52 GMT -5
... after the crucifiction or some such thing.. Interesting spelling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 20:23:26 GMT -5
Yeah...wot ever happnd to the spell cheker ?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 22, 2014 20:52:14 GMT -5
Back in the '60's I read an atheist's summary of the bible. One thing stood out, "no-one can go through a wall." Not sure what this was in reference to - maybe Jesus appearing to the disciples after the crucifiction or some such thing. And then, in the 1990's there was this front cover of Scientific America showing a man stepping through a wall. (something about tunneling through space) So there you had it. 1960's impossible was 1990's possible. Was it Sagan who said any advanced technology is akin to magic? And we can say, so long as it doesn't violate the laws of maths, that anything is possible. I've heard walking through walls is a great icebreaker at parties. If it doesn't work the first time, just keep trying. That vanishingly small, yet finite probability of your success....well, it just might be your lucky day!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 20:57:36 GMT -5
We keep "violating" the laws of physics. I recall someone saying that we will NEVER create an invisible man - because for light to go through a human it would require the body to be crystaline. Now it seems we CAN make a person invisible by shunting light around the body, not through it.
Wonder if we could do something similiar for the immutable laws of mathematics? Could there be a place where 1+1 doesn't equal 2?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 22, 2014 21:01:43 GMT -5
Back in the '60's I read an atheist's summary of the bible. One thing stood out, "no-one can go through a wall." Not sure what this was in reference to - maybe Jesus appearing to the disciples after the crucifiction or some such thing. And then, in the 1990's there was this front cover of Scientific America showing a man stepping through a wall. (something about tunneling through space) So there you had it. 1960's impossible was 1990's possible. Was it Sagan who said any advanced technology is akin to magic? And we can say, so long as it doesn't violate the laws of maths, that anything is possible. I've heard walking through walls is a great icebreaker at parties. If it doesn't work the first time, just keep trying. That vanishingly small, yet finite probability of your success....well, it just might be your lucky day! Major General Albert Stubblebinein tried to walk through walls without success. americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/01/378-albert-stubblebine-rima-laibow.html
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Apr 22, 2014 23:59:36 GMT -5
What I don't understand myself is why the Jesus story lacks in pertinent information to back up his life and ministry compared to men like Paul. [/p][/quote] Faune, while you're checking things out you might want to check out this website that presents the possibility(probability) that Paul was a false prophet. www.jesuswordsonly.com/This might give you something to research and consider.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 23, 2014 0:38:43 GMT -5
What I don't understand myself is why the Jesus story lacks in pertinent information to back up his life and ministry compared to men like Paul. [/quote] Faune, while you're checking things out you might want to check out this website that presents the possibility(probability) that Paul was a false prophet. www.jesuswordsonly.com/ This might give you something to research and consider. [/quote][/p]
Findingtruth ~ I just finished a thread tonight on "The Development of the New Testament Canon" and was surprised about what I learned from researching some of the notable names within early Christianity. It was a real eye opener to me, in fact! However, I found that a lot of these early Christian men actually wrote about some of Paul's letter in a favorable way compared to this article below, also found at the above site you suggested. However, I do realize that there was a difference in the gospel message of Paul and the 12 Apostles and Jesus, in that Paul's letters exemplified more of a Hellenistic style.
professing.proboards.com/thread/22020/development-canon-new-testament
Therefore, finding this reference article at your above mentioned site I found quite amazing in relation to my new thread on the development of the N.T. Canon. I believe the book entitled, "Zealot ~ The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth," by Reza Aslan, may also support this view proposed here? I just started reading this book, but heard there is a lot about Paul within this book which is not complimentary in relation to Jesus and the apostles.
www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/74-early-church-views.html
www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/56-marcionism.html
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 23, 2014 11:06:39 GMT -5
If you go by Reza, you ain't seen nuthin yet, lol. Some people are REALLY upset with Paul for absconding with the message of Jesus and turning it into a religion.
I personally find Paul quite the enigma. He clearly understood the compassion of Jesus, but he insists he learned it all in a vision (not from anybody else) and fought tooth-and-toenail with the Jerusalem Christians (the "Judaizers".)
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 23, 2014 13:22:01 GMT -5
If you go by Reza, you ain't seen nuthin yet, lol. Some people are REALLY upset with Paul for absconding with the message of Jesus and turning it into a religion. I personally find Paul quite the enigma. He clearly understood the compassion of Jesus, but he insists he learned it all in a vision (not from anybody else) and fought tooth-and-toenail with the Jerusalem Christians (the "Judaizers".) Paul was studying under Gamielo, a well-known/famous Pharisee, doctor of the law of Moses. The 12 apostles were fishermen, tax collector, a zealot.... Their knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures were not up to par as Paul. Jesus taught the 12 but they didn't comprehend his teachings. Some of the Pharisees became Christians but they didn't have the Revelation of the Christ so they were still stuck with obeying/keeping the law of Moses traditions. Paul was a Pharisee himself! but had a Revelation of the Christ and he tried to help them to understand Saved by Grace alone NOT by Grace and keeping the law of Moses."The 12 apostles were fishermen, tax collector, a zealot.... Their knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures were not up to par as Paul." Do you have any support for such a statement?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 23, 2014 16:34:09 GMT -5
If you go by Reza, you ain't seen nuthin yet, lol. Some people are REALLY upset with Paul for absconding with the message of Jesus and turning it into a religion. I personally find Paul quite the enigma. He clearly understood the compassion of Jesus, but he insists he learned it all in a vision (not from anybody else) and fought tooth-and-toenail with the Jerusalem Christians (the "Judaizers".) From what I have read, Paul is more in line with the RCC than Jesus and his apostles were. Some scholars feel that the original apostles were actually Ebionites and did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and that it was Paul through his visions that pulled the story in that direction. Then it was a majority of Paul's writings that were chosen to be in the NT canon and any scripture that may have supported that vision Paul had of Jesus. It's an interesting thought anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 23, 2014 19:04:43 GMT -5
If you go by Reza, you ain't seen nuthin yet, lol. Some people are REALLY upset with Paul for absconding with the message of Jesus and turning it into a religion. I personally find Paul quite the enigma. He clearly understood the compassion of Jesus, but he insists he learned it all in a vision (not from anybody else) and fought tooth-and-toenail with the Jerusalem Christians (the "Judaizers".) From what I have read, Paul is more in line with the RCC than Jesus and his apostles were. Some scholars feel that the original apostles were actually Ebionites and did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and that it was Paul through his visions that pulled the story in that direction. Then it was a majority of Paul's writings that were chosen to be in the NT canon and any scripture that may have supported that vision Paul had of Jesus. It's an interesting thought anyway. Yes, thx snow, the idea is that the Ebionites grew out of the Jerusalem church, headed by James. Such scholars like to point out how down-to-earth the book of James is, suggesting a works-based message over faith. I'm not totally convinced yet about the origin of the Ebionites, but I'm getting there slowly!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 24, 2014 10:08:16 GMT -5
From what I have read, Paul is more in line with the RCC than Jesus and his apostles were. Some scholars feel that the original apostles were actually Ebionites and did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and that it was Paul through his visions that pulled the story in that direction. Then it was a majority of Paul's writings that were chosen to be in the NT canon and any scripture that may have supported that vision Paul had of Jesus. It's an interesting thought anyway. Yes, thx snow, the idea is that the Ebionites grew out of the Jerusalem church, headed by James. Such scholars like to point out how down-to-earth the book of James is, suggesting a works-based message over faith. I'm not totally convinced yet about the origin of the Ebionites, but I'm getting there slowly! Interesting. The more I read the more I believe that no one who knew Jesus thought he was anything other than a man, albeit a very special one. The divinity attached to him was a later thing that grew out of Paul's visions and his more Greek mythology viewpoint. He was a Diasporic Jew after all with a different upbringing so maybe?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 24, 2014 10:26:29 GMT -5
If you go by Reza, you ain't seen nuthin yet, lol. Some people are REALLY upset with Paul for absconding with the message of Jesus and turning it into a religion. I personally find Paul quite the enigma. He clearly understood the compassion of Jesus, but he insists he learned it all in a vision (not from anybody else) and fought tooth-and-toenail with the Jerusalem Christians (the "Judaizers".) Dubious ~ I just noticed that you referred to the "Jerusalem Christians" as being the Judaizers. Were these people perhaps Pharisees who had converted to Christianity and wanting to make the Gentile converts to submit to Jewish customs of the law of Moses? Also, would this group of believers be connected in any way with the Ebionites, who later merged with the teachings of Islam in the 7th century due to their beliefs? Paul spoke about some in Galatians 1 who were really trying to pervert the gospel message and I wondered if this was the group involved here? These people were a real "thorn in the flesh" to Paul and seemingly regarded him as some type of apostate and promoted this image, too. Who knows, perhaps these group within the early church was what he was referring to after all about something God gave him that kept him humble?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 24, 2014 10:57:22 GMT -5
"The 12 apostles were fishermen, tax collector, a zealot.... Their knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures were not up to par as Paul." Do you have any support for such a statement? Peter wrote concerning Paul's wisdom.... II Peter 3:15-17 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked.... Wisdom is not necessarily knowledge nor is knowledge necessarily wisdom. Seems the 12 knew something of the scriptures at that time as they saw Jesus as the messiah and Paul did not....from his knowledge and wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 24, 2014 11:11:16 GMT -5
From what I have read, Paul is more in line with the RCC than Jesus and his apostles were. Some scholars feel that the original apostles were actually Ebionites and did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and that it was Paul through his visions that pulled the story in that direction. Then it was a majority of Paul's writings that were chosen to be in the NT canon and any scripture that may have supported that vision Paul had of Jesus. It's an interesting thought anyway. Yes, thx snow, the idea is that the Ebionites grew out of the Jerusalem church, headed by James. Such scholars like to point out how down-to-earth the book of James is, suggesting a works-based message over faith. I'm not totally convinced yet about the origin of the Ebionites, but I'm getting there slowly! Dubious ~ This may be the opinion of some modern day scholars relating to the Ebionites and the Jerusalem Church, headed by James, but I don't think its a consensus of the majority of biblical scholars? However, I personally doubt they represented the whole church in Jerusalem, but were rather a heretical group that joined the church and caused everybody a lot of concern. Paul speaks of such a faction in Galatians 1, in fact.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%201
In addition, StAnne was kind enough to answer my question which I have been pondering for days about these Ebionites, which I would like to share below, which I feel will clear up some of the confusion here. It doesn't surprise me any that this group was rumored to have joined forces with Islam during the 7th century during their similarities in held beliefs regarding Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 24, 2014 11:14:00 GMT -5
Wisdom is not necessarily knowledge nor is knowledge necessarily wisdom. Seems the 12 knew something of the scriptures at that time as they saw Jesus as the messiah and Paul did not....from his knowledge and wisdom. Before Paul became a Christian he did not see or understand Jesus was the Christ/Messiah/Anointed but After his conversion he saw Jesus clearly as the Christ/Messiah/Anointed. (Acts chapter 9) Paul gained his wisdom and knowledge Jesus is the Christ/Messiah after he became a Christian. Paul understood clearly than some of the apostles, teachers in Jerusalem that becoming a Christian he/she is no longer to observing/keeping the law of Moses to be SAVED.So again....with all his supposed wisdom and knowledge of the then scripture, before his conversion, he did not see Jesus as the Messiah. The 12 did.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 24, 2014 11:15:18 GMT -5
"Judaizers" is a term coined by scholars for the people Paul opposed in Jerusalem ... the teachers who taught obedience to the law, including dietary rules and circumcision. Paul was surely complaining about James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter. Paul's letters betray the tension between them.
Yes, many scholars think the Ebionites came from this Jerusalem faction of Christians. They were, to our knowledge, the first church in Jerusalem, so that would mean they were founded by James. I think snow was saying how they didn't believe in the virgin birth, etc. ... no surprise if the brother of Jesus himself was its founder, ha!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 24, 2014 11:24:58 GMT -5
"Judaizers" is a term coined by scholars for the people Paul opposed in Jerusalem ... the teachers who taught obedience to the law, including dietary rules and circumcision. Paul was surely complaining about James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter. Paul's letters betray the tension between them. Yes, many scholars think the Ebionites came from this Jerusalem faction of Christians. They were, to our knowledge, the first church in Jerusalem, so that would mean they were founded by James. I think snow was saying how they didn't believe in the virgin birth, etc. ... no surprise if the brother of Jesus himself was its founder, ha! Dubious ~ Actually the Ebionites, this Jerusalem faction of Christians, had more than the virgin birth that they disagreed with according to StAnne's reference article she supplied me with regarding this group. They actually rejected most of what the apostles themselves taught and died for as martyrs themselves and believers in the resurrection of Jesus, including James, his half-brother who didn't become a believer in Christ until after his death and proof of His resurrection. At least, that's the way I was told the story in the past?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 24, 2014 11:32:31 GMT -5
"Judaizers" is a term coined by scholars for the people Paul opposed in Jerusalem ... the teachers who taught obedience to the law, including dietary rules and circumcision. Paul was surely complaining about James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter. Paul's letters betray the tension between them. Yes, many scholars think the Ebionites came from this Jerusalem faction of Christians. They were, to our knowledge, the first church in Jerusalem, so that would mean they were founded by James. I think snow was saying how they didn't believe in the virgin birth, etc. ... no surprise if the brother of Jesus himself was its founder, ha! Dubious ~ Actually the Ebionites, this Jerusalem faction of Christians, had more than the virgin birth that they disagreed with according to StAnne's reference article she supplied me with regarding this group. They actually rejected most of what the apostles themselves taught and died for as martyrs themselves and believers in the resurrection of Jesus, including James, his half-brother who didn't become a believer in Christ until after his death.
Yes, that is correct. Very down-to-earth, works-based, rejecting supernatural doctrine. Like I mentioned earlier, very similar to the book of James. Baukham wrote a good paper on the Ebionites, I'll see if I can dig it up. edit: which "apostles" are you talking about, faune?
|
|