|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2020 14:40:29 GMT -5
Exactly. Jesus likely would be horrified to be so misunderstood by Christians. He was a Jew. He upheld the Mosaic law and wanted to get back to a more rigid interpretation of it. He didn't think his generation were following the law to it's fullest. Curious . Is it your understanding or “belief” ,then , that a believer in Jesus is supposed to follow all the Old Testament laws , with rigid interpretation? Alvin Yes. Jesus was a Jew who would be appalled by his followers not abiding by the Mosaic law. He certainly wasn't a Christian and he certainly did not agree with most of what Christians believe. Especially the part where they think that they can cherry pick what they believe is still relevant in the OT and what is not. I am thankful that Christians don't believe like Jesus did and that they don't uphold all the horrific practices in the OT, but I am very sure Jesus would not approve.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 19, 2020 14:59:02 GMT -5
It still didn’t make him safe. They were trying anything to appease the Jews from Asia. The assumption was he was teaching against the laws and the assumption he’d taken a Greek into the temple. He didn’t do either. Their main beef was him preaching about resurrection, they were Sadducees, who don’t believe in resurrection. They were Christians that didn't believe in the resurrection for the same reason Marks original gospel didn't write about it. They didn't believe it happened and they should know since they were actually there. The Bible says nothing about there being anyone being Christians or being present during Jesus’ last days. What are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 19, 2020 15:08:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2020 15:09:35 GMT -5
They were Christians that didn't believe in the resurrection for the same reason Marks original gospel didn't write about it. They didn't believe it happened and they should know since they were actually there. The Bible says nothing about there being anyone being Christians or being present during Jesus’ last days. What are you referring to? You were the one that brought up that their main beef was because he was preaching about the resurrection that they didn't believe in. I was just commenting that early followers of Jesus in Jerusalem didn't believe in the resurrection as was obvious in it's being left out of the gospel of Mark until the later Hellenistic gospels were written. I didn't say they were upset because he taught the resurrection, you did. I thought it was because he preached that Gentiles didn't have to follow Mosaic law that was the reason they were upset and hostile towards Paul. He had to prove that he did uphold the Mosaic laws before he was safe in Jerusalem.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 19, 2020 15:09:39 GMT -5
Curious . Is it your understanding or “belief” ,then , that a believer in Jesus is supposed to follow all the Old Testament laws , with rigid interpretation? Alvin Yes. Jesus was a Jew who would be appalled by his followers not abiding by the Mosaic law. He certainly wasn't a Christian and he certainly did not agree with most of what Christians believe. Especially the part where they think that they can cherry pick what they believe is still relevant in the OT and what is not. I am thankful that Christians don't believe like Jesus did and that they don't uphold all the horrific practices in the OT, but I am very sure Jesus would not approve. Im sure Jesus WOULD APPROVE. He came to FULFILL ALL THE LAW, not a jot or tittle was lost or broken. However he came to give a New Testament or Covenant and accomplished it when he died and was risen. Thus when he said in the cross, he meant the old covenant had been finished and a new one given. This was the work his Father sent him to do. The old law was as a “schoolmaster “ until Jesus came and died. Otherwords it held the Jews supposedly to reverence God and always remember God in their daily lives and sacrifices. But God. said a offering or sacrifice he would not, but obedience. Jesus showed the very meaning of obedience to the old law, but he finished the old law. Even in the OT it says a new covenant would be given. No more sacrifice would help anyone get close. To God. God had left the temple. The veil split in Twain is the definitive sign that God no longer wanted animal sacrifices. Because his Son had offered up himself once and for all. The old law was finished. Jesus said it is finished.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2020 15:13:32 GMT -5
No I don't know of anyone that still succeeds in following all of the OT laws, but the Orthodox Jews are likely the closest. They do uphold many of the food laws I know as well as keeping women and men separate during her time of the month etc. But I don't know of any Orthodox Jews that still sell their daughters or stone their children. Some Muslims still do some of that from what I read. Their treatment of women is more in line with the OT teachings than Christians or modern day Jews in that sense I believe.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2020 15:16:39 GMT -5
Yes. Jesus was a Jew who would be appalled by his followers not abiding by the Mosaic law. He certainly wasn't a Christian and he certainly did not agree with most of what Christians believe. Especially the part where they think that they can cherry pick what they believe is still relevant in the OT and what is not. I am thankful that Christians don't believe like Jesus did and that they don't uphold all the horrific practices in the OT, but I am very sure Jesus would not approve. Im sure Jesus WOULD APPROVE. He came to FULFILL ALL THE LAW, not a jot or tittle was lost or broken. However he came to give a New Testament or Covenant and accomplished it when he died and was risen. Thus when he said in the cross, he meant the old covenant had been finished and a new one given. This was the work his Father sent him to do. The old law was as a “schoolmaster “ until Jesus came and died. Otherwords it held the Jews supposedly to reverence God and always remember God in their daily lives and sacrifices. But God. said a offering or sacrifice he would not, but obedience. Jesus showed the very meaning of obedience to the old law, but he finished the old law. Even in the OT it says a new covenant would be given. No more sacrifice would help anyone get close. To God. God had left the temple. The veil split in Twain is the definitive sign that God no longer wanted animal sacrifices. Because his Son had offered up himself once and for all. The old law was finished. Jesus said it is finished. Just because he said it was a new covenant does not mean that he dissolved the need to follow the Mosaic law. That is a presumption and excuse that Christians use when they don't want to follow the Mosaic laws. Why do you think fulfilled means they were no longer required? If anything Jesus supported the Mosaic law in it's more rigid form than the Jews of his day and he lamented that fact.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 19, 2020 15:17:11 GMT -5
The Bible says nothing about there being anyone being Christians or being present during Jesus’ last days. What are you referring to? You were the one that brought up that their main beef was because he was preaching about the resurrection that they didn't believe in. I was just commenting that early followers of Jesus in Jerusalem didn't believe in the resurrection as was obvious in it's being left out of the gospel of Mark until the later Hellenistic gospels were written. I didn't say they were upset because he taught the resurrection, you did. I thought it was because he preached that Gentiles didn't have to follow Mosaic law that was the reason they were upset and hostile towards Paul. He had to prove that he did uphold the Mosaic laws before he was safe in Jerusalem. I said it was Jews from Asia who were upset. They never believed in resurrection. Even before Jesus’ time. It was NOT the Jerusalem ir Israeli Jews, it was Jews from Asia. He was “cleansed” by recommendation by the believing Jerusalem Jews to try to “show” the Asian Jews he WAS A PRACTICING JEW. The cleansing was over the Asian Jews wrong ASSumptions about Paul. The cleansing was an attempt to pacify the Asia Jews and as it turned out THE ONLY THING they could lay on him was he preached the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They were Sadducees, a sect of Jews who don’t believe in resurrection. This is. NOT CONTRARY TO THE LAW.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2020 15:22:17 GMT -5
You were the one that brought up that their main beef was because he was preaching about the resurrection that they didn't believe in. I was just commenting that early followers of Jesus in Jerusalem didn't believe in the resurrection as was obvious in it's being left out of the gospel of Mark until the later Hellenistic gospels were written. I didn't say they were upset because he taught the resurrection, you did. I thought it was because he preached that Gentiles didn't have to follow Mosaic law that was the reason they were upset and hostile towards Paul. He had to prove that he did uphold the Mosaic laws before he was safe in Jerusalem. I said it was Jews from Asia who were upset. They never believed in resurrection. Even before Jesus’ time. It was NOT the Jerusalem ir Israeli Jews, it was Jews from Asia. He was “cleansed” by recommendation by the believing Jerusalem Jews to try to “show” the Asian Jews he WAS A PRACTICING JEW. The cleansing was over the Asian Jews wrong ASSumptions about Paul. The cleansing was an attempt to pacify the Asia Jews and as it turned out THE ONLY THING they could lay on him was he preached the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They were Sadducees, a sect of Jews who don’t believe in resurrection. This is. NOT CONTRARY TO THE LAW. STR it was Paul that concocted the Christos belief. Not the Jews. I never said that he was in danger from teaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, you did. I said that he was in trouble for not preaching that Mosaic law needed to be upheld. That was the reason for the Purification ritual he had to undertake in order to be safe. I'm not sure why you brought that up if it was the Asian Christians. He wasn't where the Asian Christians were when he went to Jerusalem?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 19, 2020 15:25:02 GMT -5
Im sure Jesus WOULD APPROVE. He came to FULFILL ALL THE LAW, not a jot or tittle was lost or broken. However he came to give a New Testament or Covenant and accomplished it when he died and was risen. Thus when he said in the cross, he meant the old covenant had been finished and a new one given. This was the work his Father sent him to do. The old law was as a “schoolmaster “ until Jesus came and died. Otherwords it held the Jews supposedly to reverence God and always remember God in their daily lives and sacrifices. But God. said a offering or sacrifice he would not, but obedience. Jesus showed the very meaning of obedience to the old law, but he finished the old law. Even in the OT it says a new covenant would be given. No more sacrifice would help anyone get close. To God. God had left the temple. The veil split in Twain is the definitive sign that God no longer wanted animal sacrifices. Because his Son had offered up himself once and for all. The old law was finished. Jesus said it is finished. Just because he said it was a new covenant does not mean that he dissolved the need to follow the Mosaic law. That is a presumption and excuse that Christians use when they don't want to follow the Mosaic laws. Why do you think fulfilled means they were no longer required? If anything Jesus supported the Mosaic law in it's more rigid form than the Jews of his day and he lamented that fact. He lamented the fact that the Jews didn’t follow the law in its purpose to keep them “schooled” to remember God in their daily sacrifices. That’s what the OT law was all about. But the evidence that God didn’t want any more blemished sacrifices is the fact the curtain wasrent in Twain when Jesus was sacrificed. God left the temple. He grew tired of their faint hearted rituals and yet they served Baalam who is who they sacrificed their children to. Their hearts were not turned to God and that was the purpose of the Mosaic laws. Jesus did away with the purpose of the OT law when he was crucified and risen. He established the NEW COVENANT AND FINISHED THE OLD COVENANT.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 19, 2020 15:26:04 GMT -5
No I don't know of anyone that still succeeds in following all of the OT laws, but the Orthodox Jews are likely the closest. They do uphold many of the food laws I know as well as keeping women and men separate during her time of the month etc. But I don't know of any Orthodox Jews that still sell their daughters or stone their children. Some Muslims still do some of that from what I read. Their treatment of women is more in line with the OT teachings than Christians or modern day Jews in that sense I believe.[/quote I’m surprised that people understand and interpret the teachings of Jesus as promoting the stoning of children and selling their daughters , eye for eye .... I thought that much changed when Jesus taught about “ it hath been said ......but I say unto you .rfc etc ....44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Alvin
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 19, 2020 15:26:20 GMT -5
I said it was Jews from Asia who were upset. They never believed in resurrection. Even before Jesus’ time. It was NOT the Jerusalem ir Israeli Jews, it was Jews from Asia. He was “cleansed” by recommendation by the believing Jerusalem Jews to try to “show” the Asian Jews he WAS A PRACTICING JEW. The cleansing was over the Asian Jews wrong ASSumptions about Paul. The cleansing was an attempt to pacify the Asia Jews and as it turned out THE ONLY THING they could lay on him was he preached the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They were Sadducees, a sect of Jews who don’t believe in resurrection. This is. NOT CONTRARY TO THE LAW. STR it was Paul that concocted the Christos belief. Not the Jews. I never said that he was in danger from teaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, you did. I said that he was in trouble for not preaching that Mosaic law needed to be upheld. That was the reason for the Purification ritual he had to undertake in order to be safe. I'm not sure why you brought that up if it was the Asian Christians. He wasn't where the Asian Christians were when he went to Jerusalem? You’re not reading correctly. ASIAN JEWS.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 19, 2020 15:33:35 GMT -5
I said it was Jews from Asia who were upset. They never believed in resurrection. Even before Jesus’ time. It was NOT the Jerusalem ir Israeli Jews, it was Jews from Asia. He was “cleansed” by recommendation by the believing Jerusalem Jews to try to “show” the Asian Jews he WAS A PRACTICING JEW. The cleansing was over the Asian Jews wrong ASSumptions about Paul. The cleansing was an attempt to pacify the Asia Jews and as it turned out THE ONLY THING they could lay on him was he preached the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They were Sadducees, a sect of Jews who don’t believe in resurrection. This is. NOT CONTRARY TO THE LAW. STR it was Paul that concocted the Christos belief. Not the Jews. I never said that he was in danger from teaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, you did. I said that he was in trouble for not preaching that Mosaic law needed to be upheld. That was the reason for the Purification ritual he had to undertake in order to be safe. I'm not sure why you brought that up if it was the Asian Christians. He wasn't where the Asian Christians were when he went to Jerusalem? Snow, Paul taught the same Christ follower beliefs that the 11 and 70 taught. He did NOT TELL THE JEWS NOT TO CIRCUMSIZE but the Gentile converts which the 11 and James the elder supported in Jerusalem. The 11 and James sent a letter to the Gentile converts saying so. Paul was not the one who gave the name “Christians” to the believers. It was the society at Antioch that gave them that name. As to giving “Christ” name to Jesus, he did it himself; but of course he used the Armaic term Messiah. But our Bible translated it to Christ.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2020 17:42:00 GMT -5
What I said had nothing whatsoever to do with what Jesus wanted. It was all about what the Roman church wanted. Well your post implied you were in full agreement with Snow's post so unless you say otherwise I take it you agree with Snow that Jesus wanted the old law enforced!. I thought my post implied that what I said had nothing to do with what Jesus wanted. Maybe you selected the wrong antecedent to my post.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2020 17:46:16 GMT -5
It wasn't Paul. It was Saul who was present at Stephen's stoning. LOL It's okay. My legal name is Chuck Sharp. These situations arise.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jan 19, 2020 18:43:33 GMT -5
So where was Paul accused of false teaching?. And where did the 11 disagree with his teachings?. Do you know what the ritual was about? Im unsure what your point is?. He certainly was considered to be a false teacher. He was talking about Christians that weren't Jews not needing to uphold the Mosaic Law. One of the biggest problems was he said they didn't need to be circumcised. Also, Paul taught about the Christos and the resurrection which the Jewish branch of Christians didn't believe. Mark, the first gospel, was revised at a later date to include the resurrection so the teaching lined up with the other later gospels that were written with a Gentile/Hellenistic slant. So who considered him a false teacher out of the 11?. The 11 agreed that the Gentiles did not need the mosaic law. Neither did the Jews for that matter but many rejected that. This does not mean trying to uphold the law in Gods original intent like Jesus suggests in Matthew 5 is a bad thing. Just realise that we never can, and Jesus came to full fill the Law. So if we only 1/100th full fill the intent of the law, do you trust Jesus will fill the rest (99). If Marks Gospel was changed how does the story change?. I would suggest to you that if there was no contradictions I would discredit the bible as it would be a conspiracy. Multiple authors over multiple years and you expect it to be perfect, how so?. Inspired word of God written by man. But yet many see the contradictions as a conspiracy and see it statically.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2020 19:37:31 GMT -5
He certainly was considered to be a false teacher. He was talking about Christians that weren't Jews not needing to uphold the Mosaic Law. One of the biggest problems was he said they didn't need to be circumcised. Also, Paul taught about the Christos and the resurrection which the Jewish branch of Christians didn't believe. Mark, the first gospel, was revised at a later date to include the resurrection so the teaching lined up with the other later gospels that were written with a Gentile/Hellenistic slant. So who considered him a false teacher out of the 11?. FWIW: We have evidence of meaningful differences between Paul and the original twelve apostles from the beginning. When Paul went to Palestine to meet with James and the others, they told him to take note that there were thousands of Jews there which believed, and they [were] all zealous of the law.2 They obviously pointed that out because Paul had taught that the Law did not bring salvation, but punishment.3 Further, they accused him of teaching all the Hellenistic Jews to forsake Moses.4 He was instructed to purify himself, walk orderly, and keep the law.5 His reputation had preceded him, and as the apostles had warned him he was confronted by a mob of angry Jews – their reasons obvious. As it turned out it was the Romans who came to his rescue6 because they recognized he hadn’t offended any Roman law.7 Paul, however, did confess to his Jewish heresy,8 to his faith in Christ,9 and that he knew Jesus lived,10 a blaspheme when naming a dead Jewish messiah. There is no account of the apostles coming to his defense, and when he faced trial he claimed his Roman right to justice from none other than the Roman emperor.11 The New Testament doesn’t address what became of the believers in Palestine after Jesus’ crucifixion, but their influence spread even to other Jews throughout the Diaspora. Peter obviously went to Rome – he’s reputed to have been the first bishop of Rome. He was possibly there before Paul arrived. Missionaries had been sent out from Jerusalem, and Peter wrote of his disapproval of converts who did not keep the Jewish law. He wrote in typically Jewish manner about the ministries of Paul and his followers, that the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.12 His interpretation of Paul’s perceived freedom from the Law is not unlike the traditional Jewish perception of gentile wickedness and uncleanness.13 Peter’s attitude on this matter was the norm among the original apostles, because it was on instruction from James, their apparent coordinator, that he separated himself and his Jewish followers from Paul and his gentile followers.14 It’s commonly believed among modern Christians that the early Christians in Rome were persecuted. This is true, but somewhat out of context. Peter’s followers, or believers, had already found respect, if not other believers, among the Roman elite; but Paul’s Christian followers did not associate with them.15 The believers in Rome had so negatively reacted to Paul’s message that he decided to preach only to gentiles, for they [would] listen.16,17 It was those Christians who were persecuted. Paul in his own account described his resistance to the apostles in Jerusalem, how he felt about their interference with his followers.18 This explains why Saint Peter became the first pope in Rome, and Saint Paul, who much later became the father of Christianity, was executed in Rome. The Bible did not yet exist. Williston, Bob, I Will Disentangle Myself . . . and Leave, LitFire Publishing, 2018. pp. 231-233.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2020 19:46:39 GMT -5
If Marks Gospel was changed how does the story change?. The original book of Mark had no Chapter 16 -- there was no resurrection.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 19, 2020 20:18:50 GMT -5
So who considered him a false teacher out of the 11?. FWIW: We have evidence of meaningful differences between Paul and the original twelve apostles from the beginning. When Paul went to Palestine to meet with James and the others, they told him to take note that there were thousands of Jews there which believed, and they [were] all zealous of the law.2 They obviously pointed that out because Paul had taught that the Law did not bring salvation, but punishment.3 Further, they accused him of teaching all the Hellenistic Jews to forsake Moses.4 He was instructed to purify himself, walk orderly, and keep the law.5 His reputation had preceded him, and as the apostles had warned him he was confronted by a mob of angry Jews – their reasons obvious. As it turned out it was the Romans who came to his rescue6 because they recognized he hadn’t offended any Roman law.7 Paul, however, did confess to his Jewish heresy,8 to his faith in Christ,9 and that he knew Jesus lived,10 a blaspheme when naming a dead Jewish messiah. There is no account of the apostles coming to his defense, and when he faced trial he claimed his Roman right to justice from none other than the Roman emperor.11 The New Testament doesn’t address what became of the believers in Palestine after Jesus’ crucifixion, but their influence spread even to other Jews throughout the Diaspora. Peter obviously went to Rome – he’s reputed to have been the first bishop of Rome. He was possibly there before Paul arrived. Missionaries had been sent out from Jerusalem, and Peter wrote of his disapproval of converts who did not keep the Jewish law. He wrote in typically Jewish manner about the ministries of Paul and his followers, that the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.12 His interpretation of Paul’s perceived freedom from the Law is not unlike the traditional Jewish perception of gentile wickedness and uncleanness.13 Peter’s attitude on this matter was the norm among the original apostles, because it was on instruction from James, their apparent coordinator, that he separated himself and his Jewish followers from Paul and his gentile followers.14 It’s commonly believed among modern Christians that the early Christians in Rome were persecuted. This is true, but somewhat out of context. Peter’s followers, or believers, had already found respect, if not other believers, among the Roman elite; but Paul’s Christian followers did not associate with them.15 The believers in Rome had so negatively reacted to Paul’s message that he decided to preach only to gentiles, for they [would] listen.16,17 It was those Christians who were persecuted. Paul in his own account described his resistance to the apostles in Jerusalem, how he felt about their interference with his followers.18 This explains why Saint Peter became the first pope in Rome, and Saint Paul, who much later became the father of Christianity, was executed in Rome. The Bible did not yet exist. Williston, Bob, I Will Disentangle Myself . . . and Leave, LitFire Publishing, 2018. pp. 231-233. That’s all your own writing.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jan 19, 2020 21:16:02 GMT -5
If Marks Gospel was changed how does the story change?. The original book of Mark had no Chapter 16 -- there was no resurrection. The gospel of Mark, is a nephew of Barnabas= John Mark was NOT an eyewitness of Jesus Resurrection. John Mark mentioned for the first time in Acts chapter 14. John and Matthew were eyewitnesses of Jesus own resurrection and they wrote it in their gospels.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jan 19, 2020 21:17:33 GMT -5
FWIW: We have evidence of meaningful differences between Paul and the original twelve apostles from the beginning. When Paul went to Palestine to meet with James and the others, they told him to take note that there were thousands of Jews there which believed, and they [were] all zealous of the law.2 They obviously pointed that out because Paul had taught that the Law did not bring salvation, but punishment.3 Further, they accused him of teaching all the Hellenistic Jews to forsake Moses.4 He was instructed to purify himself, walk orderly, and keep the law.5 His reputation had preceded him, and as the apostles had warned him he was confronted by a mob of angry Jews – their reasons obvious. As it turned out it was the Romans who came to his rescue6 because they recognized he hadn’t offended any Roman law.7 Paul, however, did confess to his Jewish heresy,8 to his faith in Christ,9 and that he knew Jesus lived,10 a blaspheme when naming a dead Jewish messiah. There is no account of the apostles coming to his defense, and when he faced trial he claimed his Roman right to justice from none other than the Roman emperor.11 The New Testament doesn’t address what became of the believers in Palestine after Jesus’ crucifixion, but their influence spread even to other Jews throughout the Diaspora. Peter obviously went to Rome – he’s reputed to have been the first bishop of Rome. He was possibly there before Paul arrived. Missionaries had been sent out from Jerusalem, and Peter wrote of his disapproval of converts who did not keep the Jewish law. He wrote in typically Jewish manner about the ministries of Paul and his followers, that the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.12 His interpretation of Paul’s perceived freedom from the Law is not unlike the traditional Jewish perception of gentile wickedness and uncleanness.13 Peter’s attitude on this matter was the norm among the original apostles, because it was on instruction from James, their apparent coordinator, that he separated himself and his Jewish followers from Paul and his gentile followers.14 It’s commonly believed among modern Christians that the early Christians in Rome were persecuted. This is true, but somewhat out of context. Peter’s followers, or believers, had already found respect, if not other believers, among the Roman elite; but Paul’s Christian followers did not associate with them.15 The believers in Rome had so negatively reacted to Paul’s message that he decided to preach only to gentiles, for they [would] listen.16,17 It was those Christians who were persecuted. Paul in his own account described his resistance to the apostles in Jerusalem, how he felt about their interference with his followers.18 This explains why Saint Peter became the first pope in Rome, and Saint Paul, who much later became the father of Christianity, was executed in Rome. The Bible did not yet exist. Williston, Bob, I Will Disentangle Myself . . . and Leave, LitFire Publishing, 2018. pp. 231-233. That’s all your own writing. I don't think so. He must copy it from a book.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 19, 2020 21:29:05 GMT -5
That’s all your own writing. I don't think so. He must copy it from a book.
He gives his source at the bottom as his book.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jan 19, 2020 21:33:42 GMT -5
I don't think so. He must copy it from a book.
He gives his source at the bottom as his book. I could see the way the writing which he posted that it came from a book. That was why I said it was NOT his writing to your post.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 19, 2020 21:52:39 GMT -5
He gives his source at the bottom as his book. I could see the way the writing which he posted that it came from a book. That was why I said it was NOT his writing to your post.Whatever, but it isn’t really true. For it says the Christians had early recognition/respect in Rome. They did not. The Jewish Christians were the first Christians there, then there were Gentile Christians that joined them but The Jews maintained the leadership roles. Then the Emperor didn’t like it because the Jewish Christian didn’t worship the emperor as part of their religion. That was the requirement for all religions, which there were many in Rome. But the Jewish Christians and their Gentile followers said there was only one God. So the emperor drove the Jews out. The Gentile Christians stayed and when Nero became emperor they were persecuted often burned at the stake “lighting up Nero’s gardens at night”. Paul finally arrived at Rome as a prisoner but was given a house where he was allowed visitors. Nero and a Paul locked horns and Nero beheaded Paul. There were very few Christians left in Rome or Judea in the reign of Nero, who was spurred on by his mother’s hatred of Christians.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 19, 2020 22:13:04 GMT -5
That’s all your own writing.
I don't think so. He must copy it from a book.
- Yes, -Bob did copy it from a book, Nathan.
Who do you think this person is? Williston, Bob, I Will Disentangle Myself . . . and Leave, LitFire Publishing, 2018. pp. 231-233.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2020 22:16:27 GMT -5
FWIW: We have evidence of meaningful differences between Paul and the original twelve apostles from the beginning. When Paul went to Palestine to meet with James and the others, they told him to take note that there were thousands of Jews there which believed, and they [were] all zealous of the law.2 They obviously pointed that out because Paul had taught that the Law did not bring salvation, but punishment.3 Further, they accused him of teaching all the Hellenistic Jews to forsake Moses.4 He was instructed to purify himself, walk orderly, and keep the law.5 His reputation had preceded him, and as the apostles had warned him he was confronted by a mob of angry Jews – their reasons obvious. As it turned out it was the Romans who came to his rescue6 because they recognized he hadn’t offended any Roman law.7 Paul, however, did confess to his Jewish heresy,8 to his faith in Christ,9 and that he knew Jesus lived,10 a blaspheme when naming a dead Jewish messiah. There is no account of the apostles coming to his defense, and when he faced trial he claimed his Roman right to justice from none other than the Roman emperor.11 The New Testament doesn’t address what became of the believers in Palestine after Jesus’ crucifixion, but their influence spread even to other Jews throughout the Diaspora. Peter obviously went to Rome – he’s reputed to have been the first bishop of Rome. He was possibly there before Paul arrived. Missionaries had been sent out from Jerusalem, and Peter wrote of his disapproval of converts who did not keep the Jewish law. He wrote in typically Jewish manner about the ministries of Paul and his followers, that the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.12 His interpretation of Paul’s perceived freedom from the Law is not unlike the traditional Jewish perception of gentile wickedness and uncleanness.13 Peter’s attitude on this matter was the norm among the original apostles, because it was on instruction from James, their apparent coordinator, that he separated himself and his Jewish followers from Paul and his gentile followers.14 It’s commonly believed among modern Christians that the early Christians in Rome were persecuted. This is true, but somewhat out of context. Peter’s followers, or believers, had already found respect, if not other believers, among the Roman elite; but Paul’s Christian followers did not associate with them.15 The believers in Rome had so negatively reacted to Paul’s message that he decided to preach only to gentiles, for they [would] listen.16,17 It was those Christians who were persecuted. Paul in his own account described his resistance to the apostles in Jerusalem, how he felt about their interference with his followers.18 This explains why Saint Peter became the first pope in Rome, and Saint Paul, who much later became the father of Christianity, was executed in Rome. The Bible did not yet exist. Williston, Bob, I Will Disentangle Myself . . . and Leave, LitFire Publishing, 2018. pp. 231-233. That’s all your own writing. It is indeed. But you will notice that I gave credit to 17 sources for what I said. If you're interested I can provide the sources for you.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2020 22:18:45 GMT -5
The original book of Mark had no Chapter 16 -- there was no resurrection. The gospel of Mark, is a nephew of Barnabas= John Mark was NOT an eyewitness of Jesus Resurrection. John Mark mentioned for the first time in Acts chapter 14. John and Matthew were eyewitnesses of Jesus own resurrection and they wrote it in their gospels.Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John DID NOT write the four gospels themselves.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2020 22:19:51 GMT -5
That’s all your own writing. I don't think so. He must copy it from a book.
It's called cut and paste, Nathan.
|
|