|
Post by intelchips on Mar 12, 2019 11:04:30 GMT -5
Setting the scene: In Galatians at a place called Antioch, the place where a group of gentiles and Jews including Peter and Paul were first called Christians. The messengers of James came with his letter to overseas followers of his movement. And at this time Paul admits that all of the jews who use to keep table fellowship with gentiles withdrew and stopped doing it because of the instructions from the party of the circumcision (which is what James’ party was called). Even Peter withdrew and Paul then called Peter a hypocrite. And here after Paul starts caviling against james and his party in Jerusalem.
Caviling? What is caviling? From Old French caviller (“mock”, “jest”, “rail”), from Latin cavillor (“jeer, mock, satirise, reason captiously”), from cavilla (“jeering”, “raillery”, “scoffing”); cognate with Italian cavillare, Portuguese cavillar, and Spanish cavilar; nominal usage developed within English from the original verbal usage as found in the Oxford English Dictionary, second edition (1989)
My opinion is we should not allow such wonderful words to fall out of usage. Yes I could have used rail or mocking but in this case i chose to be supportive of James Joyce and his ilk. Anyway back to Paul and his diatribe against the party of the circumcision.
Even Barnabas withdrew along with Peter. And after everyone shuns Paul and he will only travel with with non-jewish followers hereafter
Paul continues to cavil against the chief apostles. He says “ who are these people , pillars, not that they are important to me (meaning important to Paul's message). "Men of knowledge?" They (meaning these super apostles] "are not even able to tell that idols are nothing." Paul says “an idol is nothing in the world.” "Hebrews are they?" "So am I." "Super apostles are they?" "So am I." and finally he says to his gentile followers “tell those who are bothering you that I wish they would cut off themselves, "off" (meaning not just circumcision but to cut off their whole penis.)
Has anyone ever hear any worker speak to these cavilings of Paul? And what was their thoughts on the railings?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 12, 2019 13:59:47 GMT -5
No, not that I remember anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 1:59:29 GMT -5
i've heard the workers and friends speak about Paul correcting Peter and that no one is above correction...
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 13, 2019 8:51:06 GMT -5
i've heard the workers and friends speak about Paul correcting Peter and that no one is above correction... Don't you think it should be the other way around. Should have been Peter correcting Paul and saying. "brother you have corrupted me, I allowed you to get inside my mine and lead me astray but now James has sent his messenger and I now know I had fallen away from the truth." And if a worker did indeed preach that they were lacking in knowledge of who was the real leaders of Jesus' family and what the were really all about and what ideals they followed. It would be interesting to find out why your worker thought support of Paul was more important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 11:22:26 GMT -5
i've heard the workers and friends speak about Paul correcting Peter and that no one is above correction... Don't you think it should be the other way around. Should have been Peter correcting Paul and saying. "brother you have corrupted me, I allowed you to get inside my mine and lead me astray but now James has sent his messenger and I now know I had fallen away from the truth." And if a worker did indeed preach that they were lacking in knowledge of who was the real leaders of Jesus' family and what the were really all about and what ideals they followed. It would be interesting to find out why your worker thought support of Paul was more important. well to my understanding peter was trying to reinstate the law and that would be incorrect...
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 13, 2019 11:44:38 GMT -5
Don't you think it should be the other way around. Should have been Peter correcting Paul and saying. "brother you have corrupted me, I allowed you to get inside my mine and lead me astray but now James has sent his messenger and I now know I had fallen away from the truth." And if a worker did indeed preach that they were lacking in knowledge of who was the real leaders of Jesus' family and what the were really all about and what ideals they followed. It would be interesting to find out why your worker thought support of Paul was more important. well to my understanding peter was trying to reinstate the law and that would be incorrect... What evidence would you suggest points to reinstating the law? Seems plain enough that the followers of James and thus Jesus never abandon the law?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 14:00:41 GMT -5
well to my understanding peter was trying to reinstate the law and that would be incorrect... What evidence would you suggest points to reinstating the law? Seems plain enough that the followers of James and thus Jesus never abandon the law? Jesus fulfilled the law then put it to rest...at least the ceremonial part....
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 13, 2019 14:28:09 GMT -5
What evidence would you suggest points to reinstating the law? Seems plain enough that the followers of James and thus Jesus never abandon the law? Jesus fulfilled the law then put it to rest...at least the ceremonial part.... Again if you are taking this from a Pauleen view then you also must be a Romanized pagan and not a Jew. Are you also a Herodian Araba? Paul and his ilk have corrupted the religion and the hopes and dreams of the Jews who hated the sects that opened the doors to the Romans. And if you study with a careful mind you will see how Paul and his follows were supporting the Romans.. Turn your other cheek, Love your Roman neighbors as you would yourself. Pay your taxes to Roman, etc.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 13, 2019 15:52:19 GMT -5
Jesus fulfilled the law then put it to rest...at least the ceremonial part.... Again if you are taking this from a Pauleen view then you also must be a Romanized pagan and not a Jew. Are you also a Herodian Araba? Paul and his ilk have corrupted the religion and the hopes and dreams of the Jews who hated the sects that opened the doors to the Romans. And if you study with a careful mind you will see how Paul and his follows were supporting the Romans.. Turn your other cheek, Love your Roman neighbors as you would yourself. Pay your taxes to Roman, etc. And, that is also the reason for the differences found in the synoptic gospels, even though they are quite similar. They needed to make sure to praise the Romans because they lived among the Romans, something that most Jews would never think of doing. Why else would they have said that Pilate pleaded on the part of Jesus and it was the Jews that had him crucified? The ones who wrote the NT all had an agenda based on where they lived and who they wanted to stay on the good side of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 17:11:55 GMT -5
Jesus fulfilled the law then put it to rest...at least the ceremonial part.... Again if you are taking this from a Pauleen view then you also must be a Romanized pagan and not a Jew. Are you also a Herodian Araba? Paul and his ilk have corrupted the religion and the hopes and dreams of the Jews who hated the sects that opened the doors to the Romans. And if you study with a careful mind you will see how Paul and his follows were supporting the Romans.. Turn your other cheek, Love your Roman neighbors as you would yourself. Pay your taxes to Roman, etc. i'm a american gentile neither pagan or jew...that might be your opinion and your welcome to it....are you saying love your neighbor as yourself was inserted into the gospels by Paul?
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 14, 2019 9:49:43 GMT -5
Again if you are taking this from a Pauleen view then you also must be a Romanized pagan and not a Jew. Are you also a Herodian Araba? Paul and his ilk have corrupted the religion and the hopes and dreams of the Jews who hated the sects that opened the doors to the Romans. And if you study with a careful mind you will see how Paul and his follows were supporting the Romans.. Turn your other cheek, Love your Roman neighbors as you would yourself. Pay your taxes to Roman, etc. i'm a american gentile neither pagan or jew...that might be your opinion and your welcome to it....are you saying love your neighbor as yourself was inserted into the gospels by Paul? I think it was an idea spread by the Pharisees of which Paul was one. It was the Pharisees that welcomed Rome saying "can't we all just get along." OF course the Ebonite's didn't agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 10:35:21 GMT -5
i'm a american gentile neither pagan or jew...that might be your opinion and your welcome to it....are you saying love your neighbor as yourself was inserted into the gospels by Paul? I think it was an idea spread by the Pharisees of which Paul was one. It was the Pharisees that welcomed Rome saying "can't we all just get along." OF course the Ebonite's didn't agree. so the pharisees inserted love your neighbor as yourself into the gospels?
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 14, 2019 12:01:26 GMT -5
I think it was an idea spread by the Pharisees of which Paul was one. It was the Pharisees that welcomed Rome saying "can't we all just get along." OF course the Ebonite's didn't agree. so the pharisees inserted love your neighbor as yourself into the gospels? One of two things either I did a poor job of explaining what I think I have learned from study or no matter how much reference I offer you will continue to ask curt simple questions in the hope I struggle to write you tons of info which will again get a quick unresearched response for more data. In regards to this thread and the love your neighbor here is what I think I know. Jesus, 'the Essenes,' John the Baptist, and James all taught the twin Commandments - 'Righteousness towards one's fellow man' - How I know this or come to understand this? - Josephus puts that label on it in his writing called Antiquities Book Eighteen. But here is what you may be failing to understand. Who were their fellow men? It certainly wasn't the Romans. If one reads and studies the Dead Sea Scrolls you find the second part of that idea which is hate the sons of the pit, The Kittium - the Romans etc. Thus my thought (and a few others) is that Paul and his followers who were all Pharisees (which includes Joe) use part of this commandment to rewrite/over write the original ideal behind it to get people (Pharisees following Jews to stop rebelling). There are no quick studies to this topic because two fold first the followers of Jesus and James lost and the victors always write the history and two because Paul and his party did such a great job in overwriting the losing parties philosophy and history. And if you can't get enough of the strife between Paul and James from the New testament to go dig deeper then I can't be of help to you.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 14, 2019 18:38:44 GMT -5
so the pharisees inserted love your neighbor as yourself into the gospels? One of two things either I did a poor job of explaining what I think I have learned from study or no matter how much reference I offer you will continue to ask curt simple questions in the hope I struggle to write you tons of info which will again get a quick unresearched response for more data. In regards to this thread and the love your neighbor here is what I think I know. Jesus, 'the Essenes,' John the Baptist, and James all taught the twin Commandments - 'Righteousness towards one's fellow man' - How I know this or come to understand this? - Josephus puts that label on it in his writing called Antiquities Book Eighteen. But here is what you may be failing to understand. Who were their fellow men? It certainly wasn't the Romans. If one reads and studies the Dead Sea Scrolls you find the second part of that idea which is hate the sons of the pit, The Kittium - the Romans etc. Thus my thought (and a few others) is that Paul and his followers who were all Pharisees (which includes Joe) use part of this commandment to rewrite/over write the original ideal behind it to get people (Pharisees following Jews to stop rebelling). There are no quick studies to this topic because two fold first the followers of Jesus and James lost and the victors always write the history and two because Paul and his party did such a great job in overwriting the losing parties philosophy and history. And if you can't get enough of the strife between Paul and James from the New testament to go dig deeper then I can't be of help to you. I appreciate your patience in relating what you've read and researched. It's far from simple the dynamics of the different groups and what they believed. I wish modern day Christians would take a good look at the beliefs of the different groups in those times and maybe they'd better understand just how different Jesus' group is from Paul's group and why there was so much tension between the two groups. Also, the belief that Jesus was talking about heaven being the 'kingdom of god' when knowing the beliefs then about what the kingdom of god really was, would help shine some light into Jesus mission. I don't believe for a minute that Jesus was talking about heaven. He was like many of the zealots then. They figured that the Pharisees were selling them out to the Romans and that the kingdom of god was a reference to the Hebrew nation free of Roman control. He felt the priests in the temple were betraying the people by charging for the healing and blessings, hence the incident with the money changers. And then they would understand why he was betrayed and crucified so soon after that little temper tantrum. Also that it was the Sanhedrin that got him crucified and that Pilate would never try to appeal for Jesus life when he clearly had committed treason. But the story as told by the priests tries to gloss over these things and when they don't make sense they put a spiritual twist to it. Some of the authors portrayed Rome as beneficent and not to blame for Jesus crucifixion because it was in their best interests to not anger them. Hence the story of Pilate. Paul was in that group. The Essenes, which were more closely portrayed with the same beliefs as Jesus, would never have thought to write about a beneficent Pilate. That would have been unheard of. As you say, the victors get to write the history. The Ebionites were not the victories. Paul and his group were and modern Christianity is very much based on Paul's version. He doesn't even talk about a living Jesus. Just a dead and resurrected Jesus. That is very similar to the dying rising godman myth of other religions that he would have known of. Zoroastrianism and Mithraism would be known to him. It's all very interesting history, fascinating even, but it's not about Jesus being God of heaven, but about Jesus being King of Israel and being the long awaited Messiah that would do this for the Hebrew people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 20:10:07 GMT -5
so the pharisees inserted love your neighbor as yourself into the gospels? One of two things either I did a poor job of explaining what I think I have learned from study or no matter how much reference I offer you will continue to ask curt simple questions in the hope I struggle to write you tons of info which will again get a quick unresearched response for more data. In regards to this thread and the love your neighbor here is what I think I know. Jesus, 'the Essenes,' John the Baptist, and James all taught the twin Commandments - 'Righteousness towards one's fellow man' - How I know this or come to understand this? - Josephus puts that label on it in his writing called Antiquities Book Eighteen. But here is what you may be failing to understand. Who were their fellow men? It certainly wasn't the Romans. If one reads and studies the Dead Sea Scrolls you find the second part of that idea which is hate the sons of the pit, The Kittium - the Romans etc. Thus my thought (and a few others) is that Paul and his followers who were all Pharisees (which includes Joe) use part of this commandment to rewrite/over write the original ideal behind it to get people (Pharisees following Jews to stop rebelling). There are no quick studies to this topic because two fold first the followers of Jesus and James lost and the victors always write the history and two because Paul and his party did such a great job in overwriting the losing parties philosophy and history. And if you can't get enough of the strife between Paul and James from the New testament to go dig deeper then I can't be of help to you. whatever your reading i think you need to put it down and walk away...is that curt enough for you?
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on May 12, 2019 12:50:51 GMT -5
One of two things either I did a poor job of explaining what I think I have learned from study or no matter how much reference I offer you will continue to ask curt simple questions in the hope I struggle to write you tons of info which will again get a quick unresearched response for more data. In regards to this thread and the love your neighbor here is what I think I know. Jesus, 'the Essenes,' John the Baptist, and James all taught the twin Commandments - 'Righteousness towards one's fellow man' - How I know this or come to understand this? - Josephus puts that label on it in his writing called Antiquities Book Eighteen. But here is what you may be failing to understand. Who were their fellow men? It certainly wasn't the Romans. If one reads and studies the Dead Sea Scrolls you find the second part of that idea which is hate the sons of the pit, The Kittium - the Romans etc. Thus my thought (and a few others) is that Paul and his followers who were all Pharisees (which includes Joe) use part of this commandment to rewrite/over write the original ideal behind it to get people (Pharisees following Jews to stop rebelling). There are no quick studies to this topic because two fold first the followers of Jesus and James lost and the victors always write the history and two because Paul and his party did such a great job in overwriting the losing parties philosophy and history. And if you can't get enough of the strife between Paul and James from the New testament to go dig deeper then I can't be of help to you. whatever your reading i think you need to put it down and walk away...is that curt enough for you? I hold that's its the other way around. You Wally have not read and studied the proper information and I don't hold you to blame because it has been hidden from you. What can one extract from the knowledge that James the brother of Jesus, was known as James the Just? Was it because of his surpassing Righteousness and Piety? James is a character familiar to only those with some knowledge of Christian origins. I have notice over the years I have studied the historicity of the New Testament that James is not so well known to the public at large and even few of the most adherent believers know him well. This then leads myself as a student of these matters to reach an opinion that JAMES was written out or as some students and a few professors claim overwritten with purpose which I will try to describe herein. But I also am of the opinion that James is not only the key to clearing up a whole series of obfuscations in the history of the early church, he is also the missing link between the Judaism of his day, however one chooses to defined it, and Christianity. In addition I hold a further opinion that the ‘Righteous Teacher’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls occupies a similar position, the parallels between the two and the respective communities they led narrows considerably, even to the point of convergence. I hope as one crying in the wilderness on this subject for these views and providing an alternative historical and textual framework in which to fit the most important Dead Sea Scrolls, others will come to understand that most of the pre-conceptions that have dominated Scrolls research for so long will simply fade away and new ideas will be brought into play and previously unused sources given their proper scope. When this is done, individual beings, the facts of whose lives tradition has distorted beyond recognition or who have been otherwise consigned to historical oblivion, will spring immediately to life and a whole series of associated historical fabrications and accusations evaporate. 1 It is to the task of rescuing James, consigned to the scrap heap of history, that I seek to encourage others to dig into. When James emerges as the leader of the ‘Jerusalem Church’ or ‘Assembly’ in Acts 12:17, there is no introduction as to who he is or how he has arrived at his position. Acts’ subsequent silence about his fate, which can be pieced together only from extra-biblical sources and seems to have been absorbed into the accounts both about the character we now call ‘Stephen’ and even Jesus himself, obscures the situation still further. Once the New Testament reached its final form, the process of James’ marginalization became more unconscious and inadvertent but, in all events, it was one of the most successful rewrite – or overwrite – enterprises ever accomplished. James ended up ignored, an ephemeral figure on the margins of Christianity, known only to aficionados. But in the Jerusalem of his day in the 40’s to 60’s CE, he was the most important figure of all – ‘the Bishop’ or ‘Overseer’ of the Jerusalem Church. Designated as ‘the brother’ of Jesus, James the Just is often confused or juxtaposed, and this probably purposefully, with another James, designated by Scripture as ‘James the brother of John’, the ‘son of Zebedee’, thus increasing his marginalization. This multiplication of like-named individuals in Scripture was often the result of the rewrite or overwrite processes just remarked. There is a collateral aspect to this welter of like-named characters in the New Testament – even going so far as to include ‘Mary the sister of’ her own sister Mary (John 19:25). These instances are all connected with downplaying the family of Jesus and writing it out of Scripture. This was necessary because of the developing doctrine of the supernatural Christ and the stories about his miraculous birth. And Wally even if you don't want to go down this road if you are a fair logical minded person you will at lest investigate to the point of understanding how I arrive at my opinions and then walk them back with facts.
|
|