|
Replies: 59
| visibility 1458
|
Clemson Conqueror [11917]
TigerPulse: 96%
46
|
Jesus was pretty clear
1
5
5
Nov 8, 2023, 9:43 AM
|
|
In a couple of the gospels that when we pray we should pray privately in the closet or at least alone. He even demonstrates by going off alone to pray and there really is only one instance of Christ praying publicly with the Lord's prayer. Outside of asking for blessings on meals.
Which leads me to my question. Why is it that we pray publicly so often? Is this a form of hypocrisy? Is it because we've been conditioned to believe that we need public justification on our prayers?
I'm asking genuinely and would love to know what you all think.
|
|
|
|
 |
Tiger Titan [48983]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 45320
Joined: 2002
|
the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
5
5
Nov 8, 2023, 9:56 AM
|
|
publicly prays. But of course he was not a hypocrite when doing so.
I think Jesus calls us to corporate worship which include both public and private prayer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3625]
TigerPulse: 98%
35
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
2
Nov 8, 2023, 10:10 AM
|
|
On the other hand, he was also pretending to be the son of God when he was just a man like every other male is on Earth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11917]
TigerPulse: 96%
46
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
3
Nov 8, 2023, 10:18 AM
|
|
Except for all the eye witness accounts of him performing miracles...
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
2
Nov 8, 2023, 10:27 AM
|
|
What eye witness accounts do we have?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11917]
TigerPulse: 96%
46
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
2
Nov 8, 2023, 11:12 AM
|
|
Well we have 2 of the gospels written as eye witness accounts. We also have through verified non biblical sources that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived for approximately 33 years.
We have a gospel of a historian/physician in Luke who was committed to recording the details accurately.
The same as any other historical document that we consider to be truth.
I wasn't there when the declaration of independence was signed but I don't question it's existence
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
2
Nov 8, 2023, 5:44 PM
|
|
"Well we have 2 of the gospels written as eye witness accounts."
Yes, the christian tradition contends that Matthew was the tax collector and disciple of Jesus, Mark was a companion of Peter, and John was the younger son of Zebedee and the "disciple that Jesus loved". This would make 3 of the 4 gospels based on eye witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
However, this is just a tradition. We do not have the original writings, and it's pretty much unanimous among scholars that the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) used each other and other earlier writings as sources.
Also, some think the gospel of John was a later work by an elder in the early church. It is considered to be one of the last books of the New Testament written.
"We also have through verified non biblical sources that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived for approximately 33 years."
I have never heard of these sources. What are they? I know Jesus is fleetingly mentioned by Josephus and a couple other historians, however the authenticity of those passages are in question.
Either way, just because we can nail down where Jesus was born and when he died, that doesn't prove that he rose from the dead.
"We have a gospel of a historian/physician in Luke who was committed to recording the details accurately."
The weird thing is the gospel writers never identify themselves. Whoever wrote Luke says at the beginning of his gospel that "many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us" and then "just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."
So in other words, there were a lot of "gospels" about Jesus floating around, and he admits that the information he has gathered was "handed down". So Luke is a second hand account, and not from an eyewitness.
"The same as any other historical document that we consider to be truth.
I wasn't there when the declaration of independence was signed but I don't question it's existence"
Ok, but the Declaration of Independence doesn't claim that a man rose from the dead, and that every one who doesn't believe it goes to hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11917]
TigerPulse: 96%
46
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
2
Nov 9, 2023, 8:20 AM
|
|
Oh I love people who research!
You are correct, John was the one of the last New Testament books to be written. Mark as you mentioned a second hand account, and companion of Paul, was written around 55 AD roughly 20 years after Christ's death. We do not have the original, that is also correct.
But we do have letters from several early church leaders; Ignatius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp used and cited over 18 books of the New Testament excluding John as you mentioned and Jude.
We have 7 different letters from Ignatius citing the New Testament. And the early church leaders quoted the New Testament so much from 70-110 AD that if we lost every Greek manuscript we have of the New Testament, we could still reconstruct the majority of it based off these early Christian church leaders.
Because of this, any impartial person cannot help but be impressed with their abundant testimony. To dismiss these areas of support would be self-defeating, it would mean that every extrabiblical ancient work considered “reliable” by secular scholars, all of which are based on lesser evidence, would need to be brought into question.
The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic, Nubian, and Armenian.
And from these manuscripts the New Testament has a 99.5% purity rating, meaning that over the span of a thousand plus years the New Testament was copied and copied accurately thousands of times. No other book can say the same and God absolutely knows how to preserve his word.
And then let's move to the personal side of things where we know that all of Jesus' disciples were martyred for their faith. Each one died a severally painful death. Peter was crucified upside down, Paul was beheaded, John poisoned and exiled to the island of Patmos. Every single one of them were persecuted for their faith in Christ yet not one of them stepped forward and said this is made up, its false, to save themselves. That's also a powerful testimony to the New Testaments authenticity.
@thThe Big Dog
I can also get into the archeological evidence that supports the Old Testament if you are interested, sorry about the long post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
2
Nov 9, 2023, 3:51 PM
|
|
Thanks for the response. No problem on the long post. This is one of my favorite topics...the origins of the New Testament.
"You are correct, John was the one of the last New Testament books to be written. Mark as you mentioned a second hand account, and companion of Paul, was written around 55 AD roughly 20 years after Christ's death. We do not have the original, that is also correct."
55 AD is a very conservative date for Mark. I think only evangelical scholars would agree with that date. Most put it later in the 70's or 80's. Paul's authentic letters most likely predate any of the gospels.
Also like I said, we know there were other writings, and sources that Matthew, Mark, and Luke used. That is why they are called the "synoptic" gospels. In reality they are not 3 separate accounts, but basically one harmonized account. There is even evidence that Marcion's gospel predated any of these, and was used as a source. Marcion was considered a heretic for his views that Jesus was a separate god from the Old Testament god yahweh.
What did Marcion's gospel, and these other writings say?
"But we do have letters from several early church leaders; Ignatius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp used and cited over 18 books of the New Testament excluding John as you mentioned and Jude.
We have 7 different letters from Ignatius citing the New Testament. And the early church leaders quoted the New Testament so much from 70-110 AD that if we lost every Greek manuscript we have of the New Testament, we could still reconstruct the majority of it based off these early Christian church leaders."
That is very interesting, but a thought comes to mind...
If there was so much quoting of these books going on, why were the originals not preserved?
"Because of this, any impartial person cannot help but be impressed with their abundant testimony. To dismiss these areas of support would be self-defeating, it would mean that every extrabiblical ancient work considered “reliable” by secular scholars, all of which are based on lesser evidence, would need to be brought into question.
The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic, Nubian, and Armenian.
And from these manuscripts the New Testament has a 99.5% purity rating, meaning that over the span of a thousand plus years the New Testament was copied and copied accurately thousands of times. No other book can say the same and God absolutely knows how to preserve his word."
Like Bart Ehrman points out though, more copies means more errors, of which there are hundreds of thousands. There were passages added to the text and changed to confirm doctrine.
But here's the million dollar question...
You say they are 99.5% accurate, why are the not 100% accurate? Wouldn't that without a shadow of a doubt prove they are divine?
But they are not perfect, so that means they are not divine. Right?
I would say .5% proves they are not, rather than 99.5% proving they are.
"And then let's move to the personal side of things where we know that all of Jesus' disciples were martyred for their faith. Each one died a severally painful death. Peter was crucified upside down, Paul was beheaded, John poisoned and exiled to the island of Patmos. Every single one of them were persecuted for their faith in Christ yet not one of them stepped forward and said this is made up, its false, to save themselves. That's also a powerful testimony to the New Testaments authenticity."
There's little proof that the apostles were actually martyred. The apostle Paul and nor any of the disciples are even mentioned in any extrabiblical source.
"I can also get into the archeological evidence that supports the Old Testament if you are interested, sorry about the long post."
I have read a lot about the historical evidence for the Old Testament as well. I think there may actually be more support for it than the New Testament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
2
Nov 9, 2023, 5:57 PM
|
|
>Paul's authentic letters most likely predate any of the gospels.
I'd say there's very reasonable chance of that. I always ask, "Why write anything at all?" And usually the answer is "to get everyone on the same page."
For instance, Paul's letters are an interesting mix. In Philippians, he's basically telling the church a proper lifestyle; in Galatians, he's chiding backsliders; in Ephesians, he's giving them so much fundamental information it makes one wonder what he taught them to set up the church in the first place - or if they just forgot everything he said after he left.
But the purpose of the corpus is to get everyone on the same page.
For the Gospels, they feel like a recruiting tool, tailored to different groups. Someone who walked with Jesus doesn't need the history - they were there. It's new folks that need the history.
And theologically, Mark seems the simplest, Matthew and Luke about the same, and John much more advanced. In terms of content, Matthew and Luke seem the most similar, Mark seems either like a simplified redaction from one of those, or an earlier account that Matt and Luke built on, and John is just put there on its own, full-on filled with Greek philosophy the other three lack.
Plus, when one considers all the other sects in competition with the Apostles, it's dizzying. All the people who walked with Jesus, but were not in the 12, or the 72, etc. When all of those 4,000, or 5,000 people left his sermons, they all went out and told others what they got from them. And you can bet it was not all the same.
That first 100 years or so might be my favorite time in Christian history. So, so many alternative ideas floating around. Just a great period to dig into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
1
Nov 10, 2023, 6:35 AM
[ in reply to Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus ] |
|
“For the Gospels, they feel like a recruiting tool, tailored to different groups. Someone who walked with Jesus doesn't need the history - they were there. It's new folks that need the history.”
I’ve never heard it put like that. That’s pretty good. Christians accuse each other nowadays of making Jesus who they want him to be, but they were doing that right from the beginning.
You’re right about Paul’s letters. The weird thing about them is he had to be writing to people who were around or knew Jesus personally, yet he had to interpret his words and set them straight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5238]
TigerPulse: 99%
38
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
1
Nov 15, 2023, 11:26 PM
|
|
Most people didn't understand what Jesus taught during his ministry. Many dollars him around hoping to get a free meal and see a miracle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
1
Nov 10, 2023, 6:36 AM
[ in reply to Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus ] |
|
Doesn’t that seem odd?
Claiming authority for the gospels because they came from an eyewitness account, yet most of church doctrine comes from a man who never even met Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
Nov 10, 2023, 3:01 PM
|
|
Yes, I find that interesting, too. Today, a lot of people don't realize just how two-tracked early Christianity was: 1) The Jerusalem/Galilee group that walked with Christ, and 2) Paul.
Paul's track eventually became the predominant one partly because he was preaching over a much larger area, and partly because the Jerusalem group got largely wiped out by the Romans in 70ish AD.
And what's more weird, the two tracks hardly ever met. Here's the timeline:
1)Saul converts and becomes Paul and goes to Damascus
2)Paul goes to Arabia for 3 years, then back to Damascus
3)Paul goes to Jerusalem and meets with Peter and James for 2 weeks
4)Paul leaves and goes to Tarsus for 14 years
5)Paul is summoned to Antioch and meets Peter there again
That's over 17 years with only 2 weeks of documented contact between the two tracks. What was Paul doing in Tarsus for those 17 years? There are no churches in Arabia that we know of, and the Churches in Turkey he set up in the 50's on his first mission, after Antioch. It's yet another mystery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26102]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14894
Joined: 2001
|
Count me as one who doesn't realize it.
2
Nov 10, 2023, 8:49 PM
|
|
The only difference I am aware of is the initial assumption that The Way was for Jews only, while Paul more quickly understood the relationship between Law, Jew, grace and gentile. There was a well documented argument, and the Jerusalem component agreed. Peter, in his own letter, said, "Listen to Paul". So, there was never disagreement about the track: Mankind's sinful state, the need for a Savior, Jesus being the Savior, as proved by the resurrection.
There can be, and are, disagreements about other things, but they are not "salvation issues". If there was another track, I am open to having it explained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it.
Nov 10, 2023, 10:02 PM
|
|
No, I wasn't speaking of the end result of salvation, but more along the lines of the value of the Law in that process.
As I read through the Gospels and Epistles, I see a trend of Paul playing footsie with the law. I'm trying got figure that all out. On the one hand, he's adamant about Gentiles not needing it...particularly, and almost overwhelmingly, regarding physical circumcision as a "marker."
Yet, he keeps the concept of a marker though "spiritual" circumcision, or "circumcision of the heart."
I also notice that while he seems enraged at the liturgy and ritual of the law, he seems to adopt the moral aspects of it. His rules for a good Christian community adopt many of the very same rules as the moral elements of the Law.
Plus there's some pretty harsh stuff about the very same people he is preaching with:
1 Thess 2:14 "You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out."
Since he was a Jew himself, and is working in conjunction with jews to get both the Jews and Gentiles to salvation, that just seems like a really odd statement.
Many times he gripes about Jewish-Christians who are tempting his converts back into physical circumcision and Law rules, which I suppose could be a legitimate gripe, rather than in the faith-alone message he's teaching. But to me that's evidence of the 2 tracks clashing with each other; Paul's way, vs. the Jewish Christian way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26102]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14894
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it.
1
Nov 10, 2023, 10:28 PM
|
|
Sure. If the first-few-decades argument about the role of the Law in one's surrender to Jesus, and what then follows, is considered two tracks, sure, one can call it that. That is a vocabulary thing, used at your discretion: if it's your comment, you can define the terms. 
However, the thread your comment was in could also be used to support the idea that the growing understanding of the cross is merely a reflection of human origin, people changing the story, two tracks being two stories. The recorded nature of the argument about the Law would preclude that being the case: it happened in front of everybody, and they reconciled the argument. So, I just wanted to clarify the "two tracks". If by that you mean the role of the Law, okay, especially if we recognize that they reconciled that argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it.
Nov 11, 2023, 12:06 AM
|
|
>understanding of the cross is merely a reflection of human origin, people changing the story, two tracks being two stories.
I almost never, if ever, think that people make things up. In my mind, people always are honest in their beliefs (particularly those that are willing to be persecuted and even die for them.)
But, people can experience things differently. Even a singular experience. That's the whole wrangle with the Jewish Christians (and I'm using this research to aid in my upcoming post on that.)
What I'm starting to realize, is that although the issue was addressed at the highest levels (Paul, Peter, and James) at Antioch, I'm not sure word got down to all the "troops on the ground."
So, one gets instances of Jewish Christians going for Paul's converts in Asia, and telling them that circumcision is the way to salvation after he's told them that faith alone is. And, it leads to an underlying friction that Paul has with Jewish Christians where he even lashes out at his own "team" on occasion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26102]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14894
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it.
1
Nov 11, 2023, 1:30 AM
|
|
Sure. All that did happen. To be clear, I am addressing more the thread than your comments specifically.
In fact, if we didnt know anything about Christianity, and someone stops the story at AD 40 (we know the gospels and the first few chapters of Acts) and asks, "What do you think happens next", at some point in the conversation we would say, "The Jewish Christians and the soon-to-be gentile Christians are going to have some "fun" things to work out." The surprise would be if the conflict didn't happen.
Peter, though in error (the Gospel authors honestly include comments by Jesus about gentiles that went right over Peter's head), was sincere, as you say. Obviously Paul was. The conflict was therefore as unnecessary as it was inevitable. The idea that Paul invented anything is shallow and unsupportable. Instead, the truth of Paul's position predates him, and he was speaking that truth, not inventing it. The story is not that Paul developed any theology, but that Peter was wrong from the start, and that he admitted it.
How insincere is it to propose that it is the documents that are in error (theology changing over time) rather than simply Peter? That is severe bias, manufacturing an error rather than seeing the one that is clearly presented. Again, that is not toward you (I dont know what you think about that) but the thread, and the surprising traction that idea gets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it.
1
Nov 11, 2023, 3:15 AM
|
|
Might need a new thread, we're getting pretty deep in here ">
It's a complex topic and a complex time period, and that's why I like it so much and dig so deeply into it.
The deeper I get into it, the more I feel like Paul saw the Law as a moral truth, wrapped up in the unnecessary rituals of man. I can't get into Paul's brain, but a simplistic expression might be that the 10 Commandments were legit from God, but all the extra stuff was from man, just as one possibility of what he may have been thinking.
I can't quote verses to back that on the fly, but it was my reading of Paul's Epistles that gave me that feeling (I should have taken better notes because now I have to go back to find them  ">">">">">">">">"> )
>How insincere is it to propose that it is the documents that are in error (theology changing over time) rather than simply Peter?
I'm not sure anyone is in error, actually. We can take Paul as a great singular example, because he had the unique position of being on both sides of the issue, Anti-Christian and Pro-Christian.
Prior to his conversion Paul was as Pharisee as it gets, and proud of it. He even says he was "far advanced" beyond his peers. So, not only did he believe in the Law, he liked it enough to be exceptionally good at it.
Since Paul was probably in school before Jesus ministered, much less died and was resurrected, I wouldn't call Paul's position, or his enthusiasm, an error. He was simply following God's instructions as he knew them, up to that point.
Of course, once adult Jesus came along all that changed, as did Paul. But what is interesting is, did Paul think he had been in error, before he believed in Jesus, or did Paul think that the rules had changed with his revelation? That I would love to know, and I'm not sure if he addressed it.
I think he maybe mentions some "from the beginning of time" type stuff, but if so, he wasn't practicing it in his youth, or trying to teach Gentiles the Law in preparation for a coming spiritual Messiah, he was following the Law, strictly among Jews. So whatever else he learned on the road to Damascus must not have been full revealed, or clear to him, in his youth.
He was very specific about saying his revelation was from God himself, not man. The "not man" part makes me think he saw all the extra Law rituals, beyond the morality parts he subscribed to, as "man-made." He even says that he didn't get his instruction from disciples or even Jesus himself. God alone told him.
That puts him in an equal footing with Jesus on instructions from God. Jesus got his direction from God before Paul converted, and Paul got his direction from God after Jesus died.
And I'm not even entirely sure that instruction was identical. Paul was convinced God told him to go to the Gentiles. But Jesus seemed committed to his Jewish roots, and followers.
Matthew 10:1 "Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness." These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near."
So it's all very confusing in those first years, and I'm trying to put together a cogent and clear proposal on what different groups thought at the time; Jews, Jewish-Christians, and Gentiles. We know how it all ended up centuries later, so this is more of an early peek into the sausage-making.
As I said, I don't see any of it as error, but it could be God telling different people different things at different times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26102]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14894
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it.
1
Nov 11, 2023, 3:21 PM
|
|
We can indeed say who is in error, if Peter is admitting he was. This is therefore not a complex matter. Many 'scholars' over intellectualize Paul's comments about grace vs Law, as if they are discovering some theological evolution. There can be no evolution of Christianity by Paul, if Paul was right all along per the Gospels. Peter admitted that this was the case. That solves the matter for all except those who want to write a book. But no matter what someone writes, Peter is still there, saying in his own words, "Listen to Paul."
That is continuation, not evolution. That's a stretch for a -tion word. But still.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it.
1
Nov 11, 2023, 3:45 PM
|
|
How do you know Peter actually said that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it.
1
Nov 11, 2023, 5:31 PM
[ in reply to Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it. ] |
|
>We can indeed say who is in error, if Peter is admitting he was.
>if Paul was right all along per the Gospels.
I'm not sure Peter admitted that he was wrong. It may be that he just acceded to James's decision. When under interrogation at Jerusalem, Peter waffled, then folded:
Acts 15:7 "Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe...We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
So the issue isn’t about grace for either Peter or Paul, it’s the role of the Law. And, Peter says he was entrusted with a message and sent by God just like Paul was..."God made a choice". And I don't think either Peter or Paul lied about that.
It seems that what happened here was that the Jeru Church sent Peter to teach the Gentiles one way, and Paul was teaching the Gentiles another way, in the same place, and they each went "What are you doing?" And so they had to go to the boss in Jerusalem to sort it out. The Boss being James in the case.
That also indicates to me that Paul wanted James’s approval, rather than Paul just saying "I'm gonna do it my way and Peter/James can do it their way." Paul went to James, not the other way around.
Paul could also have said "This is what God told me. Period." But he didn't, he went to James. Peter would have said exactly the same thing. "This is what God told me." And they both could have been right.
In the end, James split the difference on the matter. He didn't say "Yes, Paul, it's by faith alone." And he didn't say "Yes Peter, they must be circumcised."
James said: "19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
So James himself invokes the Law in his answer, and provides a super-stripped down version of the 618 Torah Commandments for Paul to give his converts. All the way down to 4. And Paul accepted that, though he may not have agreed.
The Gentiles got 4 commandments, and Jewish-Christians could abide by the full 618 commandments if they wanted to. A win-win decision. And that "not just faith" solution worked for Paul, because he accepted the decision letter without argument. Here’s the letter:
Acts 15:24 "The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
"We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul. 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
I see the whole matter a very-nuanced dance between personalities, beliefs, and instruction. Paul never again mentions the 4 requirements or the decision letter from Jerusalem in any of his Epistles, at least not in terms of the Law. Though as I mentioned earlier, he seems to adopt the morality aspects of the Law nd not the ritual aspect.
Paul continues to double down on “Faith alone” in everything else he writes. James, on the other hand, in his gospel, continues to go the “not-Faith alone” route. It feels to me like the two men came together and compromised…Faith with 4 conditions for Gentiles, Faith with the full Law for Jewish Christians, and just the Law for Jews.
Then each man went away and taught exactly what they each want to, lol. Or, what God told them to do. Only they know how God instructed them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26102]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14894
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it.
1
Nov 11, 2023, 6:02 PM
|
|
Paul and Peter had a very direct conversation in Antioch. Other conversations occurred, some of which you summarized from the text. While we can't say who said what to who between the two of them, after all the conversations played out, Jerusalem and Paul were as you say, 'on the same page'. Paul's view was adopted.
That is not to say that all of Jerusalem disagreed with Paul at the start, or to what degree they agreed/disagreed on details of the grace/Law/gentile matter. We don't know. What it does say is that we are not seeing a reforming of Christianity by a person, but the recognition by all of what was true all along. The issues between the parties were clear, the conversations open and public, and the decisions sound if Jesus is the example. It is a very interesting episode to discuss, but the end result to us is not that Christianity evolved, but that it was applied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it.
1
Nov 11, 2023, 6:47 PM
|
|
>Paul's view was adopted.
I'd say on the circumcision issue of the Law yes, clearly and completely.
But on the other aspects of the Law, as related to Gentiles, Paul's view was only accepted conditionally since there were 4 exceptions. Paul teaches frequently against sexual immorality, but despite the compromise, he never mentions the prohibition on blood and or strangled animals again to my knowledge to any Gentile Christians. So I think in the end Paul just conveniently "forgot" the compromise.
That's pretty risky business for Paul if James was speaking for Jesus/God and Paul left out such details. And if James wasn't speaking directly for Jesus/God, then you have a situation where the men who literally walked the earth with Jesus, and set up the Jerusalem Church itself, after seeing and teaching about his resurrection, didn't have a pretty good direct link with the spirit of Jesus and his Will and intentions. That's even more disturbing.
That's why this seems so complex to me.
Which group was Jesus/God truly speaking to, if not both groups?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26102]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14894
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it.
1
Nov 11, 2023, 10:48 PM
|
|
This is good. More cards on the table, I think. We can speak more directly to what's on your mind, I think. The part of your comment that stood out to me:
"And if James wasn't speaking directly for Jesus/God, then you have a situation where the men who literally walked the earth with Jesus, and set up the Jerusalem Church itself, after seeing and teaching about his resurrection, didn't have a pretty good direct link with the spirit of Jesus and his Will and intentions. That's even more disturbing."
This will be fun to discuss, but I want to first close the issue we were on. My point was that what we are seeing is not an invention of Christianity by Paul, as some want us to believe, but is an issue occurring at a point in time, with all relevant people a party to it, with Paul's view prevailing (perhaps subject to your qualifications), because that was the truth all along. I think that point stands.
So, on to your issue here, which I read to be this: The disagreement with Paul continued on to some degree, and this reflects a "disturbing lack of link with the spirit of Jesus". Heck, I'll go you one better: Paul didn't merely fail to mention meat prep, but actually told the Colossians, "Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or don't eat." Did he have James in mind when he said that, like: "If James gets onto you about meat prep, just nod your head and move on"? Maybe so. So, observation granted, at least for this discussion. Given that, I have this question:
In their disagreement, there was never any question about what we know as the Gospel (man, sin, Messiah, Jesus). Is your point that If Jesus is the Messiah, and if He has sent His Spirit to His followers, that those followers will agree on all applications of grace and truth? And that if they don't agree, Jesus's identity as Messiah is called into question?
Edit: if these comments are getting too vertical, reply to one of my commets below to continue this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it.
Nov 12, 2023, 1:33 AM
[ in reply to Re: Count me as one who doesn't realize it. ] |
|
Yeah, our posts are getting pretty slim, lol.
For purposes of this discussion I'm not questioning if Jesus was the Messiah to any of these guys, but rather the inspiration they received regarding the salvation of Jews, Jewish-Christians, and Gentiles.
God told Paul Faith for all.
God told Peter circumcision and Faith for all.
God told James Faith and 4 laws for all.
More succinctly, assuming Faith (through Grace) has been the way to salvation for all since Jesus was resurrected, as Paul asserted, why didn’t James simply answer “Faith.”)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26102]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14894
Joined: 2001
|
If you are I are talking, literally me and you, I agree with much
1
Nov 10, 2023, 9:35 PM
[ in reply to Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus ] |
|
of what you say. However, in a general discussion there are some characterizations that will be misunderstood, unless what follows is actually what you intended.
"Getting people on the same page" and "recruiting tool" are tools of organizational growth and stability, and will be understood as the establishment of a religion. People have certainly done that. The beginning assumption for those comments is that this was their motivation. Is that a reasonable assumption? Or even conclusion? Is it more likely they had other motivations?
Paul was at the top of the game, educationally and professionally. He didn't merely give up social status and financial security: he traded it for social derision, near poverty, imprisonment, and attempts on his life, which eventually succeeded. Luke, a gospel writer, tagged along with Paul for the fun: nice work if you can get it. Peter, as one example the 12, was heir to an apparently successful family business, was married and likely had children. These people stood to lose everything and gain nothing, and that's what they got.
What did they accomplish? Almost nothing. At their deaths there was no fame, no money, no respect outside the very small and persecuted sect. As you pointed out, Paul would be a failure by today's church standards: he couldn't leave for 6 months without having to write back in single syllable words to re-establish the basics. Heck, it would be 300 more years before there was even the first church building. Not exactly Jeff Bezos organizational skills
Could the motivation have been that they knew first hand or experienced the resurrection, and that with life and death now literally on the line for humanity, they were willing to pay any price for you and I to know what they knew? Does that not more reasonably fit their actions?
Whether the resurrection took place is another matter, though this would be evidence for it. At this point, it seems we can say they believed it to have happened. If telling people about that is getting people on the same page, fine, they were getting people on that page. If it is, as some here irrationally say, crafting a story, that is not what they seemed to be doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26102]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14894
Joined: 2001
|
Edit:
1
Nov 10, 2023, 10:36 PM
|
|
Again, this comment is not so much about yours, but the direction of the thread. Your comment was a part of it, so am clarifying the intent of some ideas or terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: If you are I are talking, literally me and you, I agree with much
1
Nov 10, 2023, 10:54 PM
[ in reply to If you are I are talking, literally me and you, I agree with much ] |
|
>At this point, it seems we can say they believed it to have happened.
Yes, I agree with that 100%. No one would have made the sacrifices Paul did without complete conviction that he was correct.
>If it is, as some here irrationally say, crafting a story, that is not what they seemed to be doing.
I see it as Paul trying to convey his revelation, which took extreme and constant effort. He wasn't just telling Gentiles how they would get to heaven, them was teaching them a lifestyle, from how to treat one's neighbors, to how to select church leaders, to other details in their day-to-day lives.
And there was backsliding...
2 Tim 1:15 "You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes."
So by "on the same page" I mean the extraordinary effort he made to convey his personal experience to so many people across so much space and time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26102]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14894
Joined: 2001
|
Or as he said to Corinth:
1
Nov 11, 2023, 1:53 AM
|
|
"Dont make me come over there. And dont think I dont what you're doing."
If I have to stop this car ...
To your point about Paul having great persistence and patience, it is in those two letters, written to the most severely backslidden, where we find much of the NT encouragement about our new identity, the one granted on the cross. The message is a little bit of "What the ...?", and a lot of, "You are forgetting who you are, who you became the day He died for you. Stop acting like the person you used to be, and be the one Jesus made you."
If one erased the entire NT, and kept II Corinth 5:21, he would have what the NT has to say, imo. "He who knew no sin, became sin, so that we would have God's righteousness." Fall as far as you can go, and Paul tells you that. That is as much a knock up side the head with a 2x4 as it is a pat on the back. "You forgot who you are. You are therefore without either excuse or condemnation. So be who you are."
Meanwhile, Peter be like, "Told ya! See what happens when you let a bunch of uncircumcised ignorants take care of themselves? Where's my knife?"
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Or as he said to Corinth:
1
Nov 11, 2023, 2:06 AM
|
|
Lol so true!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26102]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14894
Joined: 2001
|
Peter's running two-a-days.
1
Nov 11, 2023, 2:20 AM
|
|
Paul's running camp Run-A-Muk.
That's not true. But you can read it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: If you are I are talking, literally me and you, I agree with much
1
Nov 11, 2023, 5:07 PM
[ in reply to If you are I are talking, literally me and you, I agree with much ] |
|
There’s little proof that the apostles were martyred. Most of this tradition comes from church fathers.
Tertullian wrote that John before being sent to Patmos was dipped in hot oil and when he was pulled out unscathed, the entire Roman colosseum that was watching converted to Christianity.
Is this really believable? I think that would merit a mention in at least one Roman source….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26102]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14894
Joined: 2001
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
1
Nov 9, 2023, 11:24 PM
[ in reply to Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus ] |
|
This is not the best essay supporting the accuracy of the NT one can find, but if this is a critique, the smart money will go on the pro side.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5238]
TigerPulse: 99%
38
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
1
Nov 15, 2023, 11:25 PM
[ in reply to Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus ] |
|
The Gospel of Luke was thought to be written by it named after the "beloved physician" that Paul mentioned in Acts. In fact it is believed by some that Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
Nov 16, 2023, 1:17 PM
|
|
Yes, they are so similar in many ways that they are sometimes referred to as "Luke-Acts"
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3625]
TigerPulse: 98%
35
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48983]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 45320
Joined: 2002
|
^^^^gotta love the evangelical atheists***
1
Nov 8, 2023, 11:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3625]
TigerPulse: 98%
35
|
Re: ^^^^gotta love the evangelical atheists***
2
Nov 8, 2023, 11:20 AM
|
|
I am not an atheist. I just know organized religion is nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5238]
TigerPulse: 99%
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11917]
TigerPulse: 96%
46
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
2
Nov 8, 2023, 10:17 AM
[ in reply to the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus ] |
|
Respectfully, no. The gospels only have one instance where Jesus prayed publicly. And that's when he taught us how to pray.
There are no other scenarios where Jesus prays publicly. It's always off to himself. Why would he tell us to pray privately then he himself does it publicly. That's a direct contradiction of what he wants from us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26102]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14894
Joined: 2001
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
2
Nov 8, 2023, 10:29 AM
|
|
I get your point, and I would agree that we pray too often in public, depending on the examples you have in mind. Two things come to mind:
- If there is one example of a thing, there can be others. There is no example of Him telling a joke, but we can assume He did. But yes, he didnt seem to do it often.
- He was referring to a specific practice, as 88 pointed out. And there is a long prayer, not seemingly in a home, in John 16 or 17.
I do basically agree with your point. More conversational prayer would maybe mean less formal prayer. But it seems you are turning a principle into more of a rule than He had in mind. He was freeing us from religious rules, not adding more,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48983]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 45320
Joined: 2002
|
he seems angry about it for sure***
2
Nov 8, 2023, 11:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26102]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14894
Joined: 2001
|
Re: he seems angry about it for sure***
2
Nov 8, 2023, 11:22 AM
|
|
Nobody wants to admit to it, but we all look for rules and a boss. See it in politics, sports, whatever. Any voice of "its up to you, not me, and my job is to insure that's the case", gets unelected toot sweet. Or in His case, worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48983]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 45320
Joined: 2002
|
you should do some more readying
2
Nov 8, 2023, 11:07 AM
[ in reply to Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus ] |
|
here's one example: John 11:41-42
41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus
1
Nov 8, 2023, 5:29 PM
[ in reply to the gospels are also full of instances where Jesus ] |
|
conservativealex, I'm genuinely curious...
Why do you say "of course he was not a hypocrite when doing so"?
Is this based on your presumption that he was the perfect son of god, or do you really not see a contradiction?
What if he was found to be in error logically here or in some other way, would change your perception of who he is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98997
Joined: 2009
|
Those who know Him understand that His condemnation of public prayer...
5
5
Nov 8, 2023, 10:05 AM
|
|
was directed at a specific group which made long speeches to feign their piousness.
Public prayer is for praise to God, thanksgiving and seeking God's will and His guidance. The Bible encourages that and I too encourage all to so do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48983]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 45320
Joined: 2002
|
^^^^this^^^^***
2
Nov 8, 2023, 12:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20271]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
Prayer is something special
3
Nov 8, 2023, 10:33 AM
|
|
between Creator and creation. For those who love God, it is not something [of a show] given for critique. love and dependency upon God is also not something to be hidden.
Prayer is also a special time of talking with God, in public or in private. If someone is offended because I speak to God in public, would they also be offended if I spoke to my wife, or child, or grandparent in public in the same manner? That being a manner in which I tell them I love them, ask for their help or guidance in making a decision, or to just to thank them for loving me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13598]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 15550
Joined: 2003
|
I tend to agree with you herewhich is a bit odd.
4
Nov 8, 2023, 11:29 AM
|
|
Public displays of religiosity are all the rage these days. We have a contingent that loves their sack cloth and ashes, and I am naturally suspicious of them. However, it’s just not a huge bother to me and it’s not egregiously offensive…do what you wanna.
I do find it incredibly humbling, though, when I know someone is praying for me or my family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98997
Joined: 2009
|
Old Sac rejects the pharisees almost as much as did Chirst.
1
Nov 9, 2023, 6:13 PM
|
|
I'm moved by your sentiments toward those who say they are praying for you but in fact, they've given you up to God who is your only help.
Regarding you, they've come to the place spiritually where that's their only hope. They are happy and filled with joy in the comfort that God can handle it. His service to a Christian is the same as a slave who has his master's best interest at heart.
Finally, we/they can understand how our worst fears are conquered and our hearts and minds can rest when we read Romans 8:
"28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."
Please don't disparage them. Some of younger spirits might struggle with their confidence in God. Such as all those who worry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65737]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49277
Joined: 2000
|
Seems to me the point is not to make a public display of your prayers
3
Nov 8, 2023, 11:56 AM
|
|
in order to be seen by outhers how righteous and devout you are. Don't showboat to impress others. Otherwise, I see no problem with or hypocrisy in sincere public prayers, like in church, at sporting events, etc.. Also there are advantages to private prayer, and we should always make time for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32210]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Jesus was pretty clear
1
Nov 8, 2023, 1:47 PM
|
|
That's a really good question.
Jesus did go off on many occasions to pray alone, but I don't think that was the only way he intended prayer to be. In Matthew 6 he speaks of closing the door and praying in private, but when asked how to pray he gives these instructions:
"Give us today our daily bread." That's plural, which implies a group. He didn't say to say "Give me my daily bread, etc."
I agree with others that Jesus's reaction was to the hypocrisy of the Temple priests, so his overarching message was "don't be like them."
"do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others"
The tradition in which he was brought up in, as with all Jews, was daily, public prayer at the sacrifices, so that would have almost been the expected norm. And later, Paul mentions people praying in their house, which was their mini-church.
And, I can't imagine some public prayer didn't go on at the feedings of the 4 and 5 thousand, among the other gatherings Jesus was at.
So public prayer has always seems to have been an accepted expectation in Judaism and Christianity, as has private prayer, but as I read the Gospels Jesus was simply saying, be true and sincere about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11917]
TigerPulse: 96%
46
|
Re: Jesus was pretty clear
1
Nov 9, 2023, 8:28 AM
|
|
I agree with this as well. And on the surface yes it's basically saying don't be like them meaning the Pharisees and hypocrites that want to be like them.
But as a former associate pastor, I found it very hard not to try to impress the congregation in my public prayers with the church.
We have every incentive to try and make ourselves seem holy and righteous in front of people because we know that we tend to benefit from others seeing us that way.
I believe this was more of a warning to us that in the case that we do pray publicly we should keep it brief and remove the notion in our minds that we somehow need to be impressive with our words.
Not to say that all forms of public prayer are considered as sin but that when we do pray publicly it shouldn't be to impress anyone even though it typically is for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98997
Joined: 2009
|
Member compare and contrast forms of exposition from freshman English?
1
Nov 9, 2023, 6:22 PM
|
|
Here is the record of the only example of Jesus giving a comparison to an honored prayer and one which is not.
Luke 18:
"9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
An associate pastor who doesn't know the Bible? And as for me? Why did I shoot off an opinion previous to this post on this thread without scriptural background?
We both ought to spend more time reading God's Holy Word and less time elsewise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3646]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: Jesus was pretty clear
1
Nov 9, 2023, 4:50 PM
|
|
When I went to church, I always thought it was funny that the pastor would call on a well spoken respected member of the congregation for a closing prayer because he would say the right things so to speak, even though Jesus warned against that kind of prayer.
Also thought it was funny that I never saw a woman called on. That's a another can of worms, but since we are talking about the New Testament text, Bart Ehrman contends that the passage about women "keeping quiet in church" started popping up in manuscripts at the point in church history when a woman's role was a hot debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98997
Joined: 2009
|
That guy's opinion is almost as biased as mine.***
1
Nov 9, 2023, 6:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7233]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 11055
Joined: 2003
|
Re: Jesus was pretty clear
1
Nov 23, 2023, 7:50 PM
|
|
There are different prayer types. His point was not to pray in a self gratifying manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 59
| visibility 1458
|
|
|
50
