SteveB
Well-known member
I said I don't keep track of the materials I've read. I didn't say I didn't remember that I've read them.
Origin of christianity
- Thread starter SteveB
- Start date
SteveB
Well-known member
Hypatia_Alexandria
Well-known member
What can you recall reading from Geza Vermes? What points of his do you recall?
Hypatia_Alexandria
Well-known member
Therefore you have no idea as to the accuracy of all those gospel texts.
We can suppose that some of the comments reportedly made by Jesus have a historic veracity and Geza Vermes discusses this in his work The Authentic Gospel of Jesus but for the rest we cannot be certain.
SteveB
Well-known member
It's been a few years. I'd have to look at my pdf file directory.
I do a lot of reading, so I don't recall right off the top of my head.
They were all sourced from BAS, so they would have been related to articles on the historical credence of the bible, from ancient Judaism to early christianity.
SteveB
Well-known member
I'd say that you have even less idea of an idea, simply because you're choosing to perish in your sin, and believe that you can hide behind other's beliefs.
Well then, I'd say it'd be foolish to remain uncertain.
Eternity is a long time to live with what was once uncertainty and upon death becomes--- oh sh88! I seriously screwed up!
I would contend the first bit of that. Jesus certainly came to reach the Jews rather than the gentiles but there are examples where he must have reached out to gentiles such as the woman who said even the dogs eat the crumbs from the table, and the casting out of the demon into pigs must have been a gentile community.Another BAR article about the origin of biblical christianity. An originally Jewish community. One that was viewed as a sect of Judaism in its early days.
The Origin of Christianity
To understand the origin of Christianity, one must begin with the population of Jewish Christians who lived during Jesus’ lifetime.www.biblicalarchaeology.org
The letter to the Romans highlights how the gentile church were uncomfortable welcoming back the Jews after being exiled by Nero
What Geza is probably seeing is Greek influence in the.modern church
Pipiripi
Active member
Christians are Spiritual Israel. Not the physical Israel is God chosen people anymore. Everybody in this world 🌎that accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour is an Israelites SPIRITUAL.Ok.
And?
Bless Israel With Yeshua - ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry
We are Jews and Arabs, together serving Messiah Jesus, sharing the Gospel with Israel, making disciples, training leaders, and blessing our communities in the name of Yeshua.www.oneforisrael.org
SteveB
Well-known member
That's not what is written.
Have you ever read Romans 9-11?
Israel is the People of God.
Nope.
We who are following Jesus are offspring of Abraham, Galatians.
Hypatia_Alexandria
Well-known member
When you are cornered you invariably resort to offering advice about redemption.
Hypatia_Alexandria
Well-known member
Here are some paragraphs from the actual article by Geza Vermes:
During his days of preaching, Jesus of Nazareth addressed only Jews, “the lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 10:5; 15:24). His disciples were expressly instructed not to approach gentiles or Samaritans (Matthew 10:5). On the few occasions that Jesus ventured beyond the boundaries of his homeland, he never proclaimed his gospel to pagans, nor did his disciples do so during his lifetime. The mission of the 11 apostles to “all the nations” (Matthew 28:19) is a “post-Resurrection” idea. It appears to be of Pauline inspiration and is nowhere else found in the Gospels (apart from the spurious longer ending of Mark [Mark 16:15], which is missing from all the older manuscriptsa). Jesus’ own perspective was exclusively Jewish; he was concerned only with Jews.
[..]
In addition to their attachment to the Law of Moses, including worship in the Temple, the religious practice of the first Jewish Christians also included the “breaking of the bread” (Acts 2:46). This breaking of the bread was not a purely symbolic cultic act but a real meal. It had the double purpose of feeding the participants and symbolically uniting them with one another as well as with their Master Jesus, and with God. The frequency of the rite is not immediately specified, but the initial impression is that it took place daily, not unlike the sacred dinner of the fully initiated Essenes described by the Jewish writers Philo and Josephus and by the Community Rule of the Dead Sea Scrolls. “And day by day, attending the Temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous heart” (Acts 2:46). On the other hand, according to Acts 20:7, Paul in Troas broke the bread on the first day of the week, and the Didache, the earliest Christian treatise (late first century C.E.), also orders that the bread should be broken and thanksgiving (Eucharist) performed each Sunday (Didache 14.1).
The Jerusalem Jewish Christians also practiced religious communism. “No one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common” (Acts 4:32). They were not formally obliged to divest themselves of their property and goods, as was the case with the Essenes at Qumran, but strong moral pressure was imposed; not to do so would have been judged improper.
So prior to the admission of gentile candidates, the affiliates of the Jesus party appeared to ordinary people in Jerusalem as representatives of a Jewish movement or sect. They were comparable to the Essenes in number and they exhibited similar customs such as the daily solemn meal and subsistence from a common kitty. Indeed, the followers of Jesus were referred to in the late 50s of the first century as the “sect [hairesis] of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5, 14). In later patristic literature the Judeo-Christians were designated as the Ebionites or “the Poor.” The church historian Eusebius (260–339 C.E.) reports that up to the Bar-Kokhba war (the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome [132–135 C.E.]) all of the 13 bishops of Jerusalem, starting with James, the brother of Jesus, came from the “circumcision” (Ecclesiastical History 4.3,5).
[...]
After Paul’s first successful missionary journey to Asia Minor, the entry of pagans into the Jesus fellowship became a particularly acute issue. A council of the apostles, attended by Paul and Barnabas, was convened in Jerusalem, at which James the brother of the Lord and head of the mother community overruled the demands of the extremist members of his congregation and proposed a compromise solution (Acts 15:19–21): Gentiles wishing to join the church would be exempted from the full rigor of the Law of Moses, including circumcision, and would merely be required to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from the consumption of blood, from eating non-ritually slaughtered meat, and from certain sex acts judged particularly odious by Jews.
These rules were necessarily intended for gentile converts in the diaspora. In Jerusalem different conditions prevailed, for gentile Christians could not join their Judeo-Christian coreligionists in the Temple as non-Jews were prohibited under threat of instant death to set foot in the area of the holy precinct reserved for Jews.
[..]
Two of the oldest Christian writings offer a splendid insight into the divergences between the two branches of the Jesus followers. The Didache, or Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, probably composed in Palestine or Syria, is our last major Jewish-Christian document preserved in full. The Epistle of Barnabas is one of the earliest expressions of gentile Christianity, filled with anti-Jewish strictures.
The Didache is generally assigned to the second half of the first century C.E., thus probably antedating some of the writings of the New Testament. Its religious program is essentially a summary of the Mosaic Law, the love of God and of the neighbor, to which is added the so-called “golden rule” in its negative Jewish form: “Whatever you do not want to happen to you, do not do to another” (Didache 1.2; cf. the positive Gospel version: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them” [Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31] ). The lifestyle recommended in the Didache is that of the primitive Jerusalem community described in Acts, including religious communism: “Share all things with your brother and do not say that anything is your own” (Didache 4.8). The Didache seems to recommend the observance of the entire Mosaic Law or at least as much of it as is possible (Didache 6.2).
[...]
The switch in the perception of Jesus from charismatic prophet to superhuman being coincided with a geographical and religious change, when the Christian preaching of the gospel moved from the Galilean-Judean Jewish culture to the pagan surroundings of the Greco-Roman world. At the same time, under the influence of Paul’s organizing genius, the church acquired a hierarchical structure governed by bishops with the assistance of presbyters and deacons. The disappearance of the Jewish input opened the way to a galloping “gentilization” and consequent de-judaization and anti-judaization of nascent Christianity, as may be detected from a glance at the Epistle of Barnabas, the earliest work of gentile Christianity.
This letter—falsely attributed to Barnabas, the companion of Paul—is the work of a gentile-Christian author, probably from Alexandria. It was most likely written in the 120s C.E. and almost made its way into the sacred books. It is included in the oldest New Testament codex, the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus but was finally declared non-canonical by the church. A reference to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem definitely dates it after 70 C.E., but the absence of any allusion to the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (132–135 C.E.) suggests that the epistle was written before c. 135. It is a hybrid work, in which moral instructions (Barnabas 18–21) based on a Jewish tractate on the way of light and the way of darkness, attested to also in the Didache 1–5, and ultimately in the first-century B.C.E. Community Rule among the Dead Sea Scrolls, is preceded by a lengthy anti-Jewish diatribe (Barnabas 1–17). The author depicts two quarreling parties designated simply as “we” and “they,” the first representing the Christians and the second the Jews, and the dispute is founded on the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), which both factions consider their own property.
[...]
The Didache is the last flowering of Judeo-Christianity. After Hadrian suppressed the Second Jewish Revolt in 135 C.E., the decline of Jewish Christianity began. Justin Martyr (executed in 165 C.E.) proudly notes that in his day non-Jews largely outnumbered the Jewish members of the church (First Apology).
Thereafter, Judeo-Christianity, the elder sister, adhering to the observance of the Mosaic precepts and combining them with a primitive type of faith in Jesus, progressively became a fringe phenomenon. Judeo-Christians progressively vanished, either rejoining the Jewish fold or being absorbed in the gentile church.
Actually, most modern Bibles translate that as "Simon the Zealot". It is generally recognised that he was either a zealous Jew, or a Jew with that as his family name. I am not aware of anyone who seriously thinks one of Jesus twelves disciples was not a Jew.
Pipiripi
Active member
Is time to see only in the Bible.
I'm going to take chapters and verses only written in the Bible.
THE TRUE ISRAEL TODAY!
Matthew 3:9.
John 18:33,36 ... "MY kingdom is NOT of this world."
Exodus 19:5-6 ... "THEN ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people."
1 Kings 6:12-13 ... "THEN I will cut ✂️off Israel"
Jeremiah 18:7-10 ... "If it do evil 😈 in my sight, that it obey not my voice, THEN I will REPENT of the good, wherewith I would benefit them."
Do you see? CONDITIONAL.
Jeremiah 19:8-11... "That cannot be whole again"
Jesus even confirmed Himself, saying to the Jewish nation: Matthew 23:38.
Romans 2:28-29.
Romans 9:6-8 ... "they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of THE PROMISE are counted for the seed."
The nation of Israel is NOT the 'vine', JESUS CHRIST is the 'vine' (John 15:5). The nation of Israel is not the 'seed', JESUS CHRIST is the 'seed' (Galatians 3:16). It is Jesus we are to look to, not the nation of Israel.
Need more BIBLICAL evidence??
let me know!!
SteveB
Well-known member
So, you think picking selective things "only in the bible" and ignoring the rest of what's "only in the bible" will actually justify your beliefs?
From Romans 11.
Rom 11:11-36 WEB 11 I ask then, did they stumble that they might fall? May it never be! But by their fall salvation has come to the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy. 12 Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness? 13 For I speak to you who are Gentiles. Since then as I am an apostle to Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh, and may save some of them. 15 For if the rejection of them is the reconciling of the world, what would their acceptance be, but life from the dead? 16 If the first fruit is holy, so is the lump. If the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the root and of the richness of the olive tree, 18 don’t boast over the branches. But if you boast, it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.” 20 True; by their unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by your faith. Don’t be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God didn’t spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 See then the goodness and severity of God. Toward those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in his goodness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 They also, if they don’t continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more will these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I don’t desire you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, so that you won’t be wise in your own conceits, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and so all Israel will be saved. Even as it is written, “There will come out of Zion the Deliverer, and he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. 27 This is my covenant with them, when I will take away their sins.” 28 Concerning the Good News, they are enemies for your sake. But concerning the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sake. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you in time past were disobedient to God, but now have obtained mercy by their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that by the mercy shown to you they may also obtain mercy. 32 For God has bound all to disobedience, that he might have mercy on all. 33 Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! 34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” 35 “Or who has first given to him, and it will be repaid to him again?” 36 For of him, and through him, and to him are all things. To him be the glory for ever! Amen.
I.e., "only in the bible."
SteveB
Well-known member
Yep.
The word translated canaanite, is the word zelotes.
So, the question is, why would 1611 bible scholars take that word and use canaanite.
We're not talking about uneducated people here.
Similarly, why would 70 highly educated Hebrew scholars take the word almah, and translate it into parthenos when bethula is an unmistakable use of the word we translate virgin?
What is it that they knew and understood that you don't actually know or understand?
You've made it quite clear that you don't actually want to know God.
So why are you wasting your time on this forum?
Why not go waste your time preaching to the choir of your fellow unbelievers who abandoned their previous beliefs, and convinced themselves that they are smarter than others who still believe in Jesus?
I think the answer is that seventeen century scholars did not know as much about the issues as modern scholars do. Our knowledge of ancient languages is better, we have access to more documents - such as the Dead Sea Scrolls - and it is just so much easy to read the views of other scholars. You and I have easy access to vastly more scholarly paper than any seventeen century scholar could ever hope to see in his life time (not saying we read as many, but we are not Biblical scholars)
Or do you think seventeenth century scholars tend to be better informed than twentieth and twenty-first century scholars?
You want to drag that up?
The prophecy in Isaiah is clearly about a woman alive at that time, and likely already pregnant. It is not prophesising the birth of the child, it is prophesising the fall of two nations that threated Judah; the baby merely proves the time scale.
A timescale that becomes nonsense if it is about Jesus!
That would be why religious folk feel they can twist their sacred book to mean whatever they want. I will never understand that.
SteveB
Well-known member
I think they knew more than you do now.
I think they know more than you do now.
What's to drag.
I think that the whole point carries weight, and is valid.
It's your eternity. Seems like a very important timescale.
You clearly don't understand anything, because you keep engaging in discussions where you twist our sacred book to mean whatever you want it to mean.
which is exactly why I stated---
You've made it quite clear that you don't actually want to know God.
So why are you wasting your time on this forum?
Why not go waste your time preaching to the choir of your fellow unbelievers who abandoned their previous beliefs, and convinced themselves that they are smarter than others who still believe in Jesus?
Pipiripi
Active member
Yes, you have just pick another chapter and verses that confirms 👍🏾, that Gentiles are grafted in the place of the disobedience of some literal Israel. Now that you are ignoring to be grafted to the branch. God has put any other Jew or Gentiles in your place.
I earlier said:
Sure. But the fact that you have chosen to dodge the question I asked tells me you know as well as I do that modern scholars - the guys who translated for modern versions of the Bible - knew much more than seventeenth century scholars.
And they all agree with me, Steve, so I guess the whole of your post will be you doing all you can to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Modern scholars agree with me that all of Jesus' twelve disciples were Jews; they disagree with you.
The point is that modern scholars agree with me that all of Jesus' twelve disciples were Jews; they disagree with you.
So it is important we get his stuff right, so why are you not just acknowledging that modern scholars agree with me that all of Jesus' twelve disciples were Jews; they disagree with you.
And yet modern scholars agree with me that all of Jesus' twelve disciples were Jews; they disagree with you. Not me twisting it, Steve.
Because I am interested in the truth. Clearly you are not, given you refuse to acknowledge that modern scholars agree with me that all of Jesus' twelve disciples were Jews; they disagree with you.
I am highlighting how Christians handle a truth they do not like. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that modern scholars agree with me that all of Jesus' twelve disciples were Jews and they disagree with you tells us a lot about the Christian approach to truth. If you do not like it, just ignore it.
That works great for you Steve, you are clearly not interested in what is actually real or not. It does not work so well for those who are.