100 replies to this topic

[Ben Masada]

Dash--, on 25 July 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Quote

Stephen from The Jewish Encyclopedia: Hellenist Jewish convert to Christianity who, according to tradition, was martyred at Jerusalem Dec. 26, in the year 29C.E. Epiphanius ("Hæres." xx. 4) records him as one of the seventy chosen disciples of Jesus. That he was a Hellenist is seen from his Greek name; according to Basil of Seleucia ("Oratio de S. Stephano"), his Jewish name was Kelil (="crown"), the equivalent of Στέφανος. Stephen is said to have been chosen one of the seven deacons charged with the distribution of the common fund entrusted to the Apostles. To him was ascribed the power of miracle-working (Acts vi. 5 et seq.); but he was accused of having spoken blasphemous words in declaring that Jesus would destroy the Temple and would change the customs instituted by Moses (verses 11-15 of the same chapter). When the high priest asked him whether such was the case, Stephen is said to have made a long speech in reply, imitating that of Samuel (I Sam. xii. 6 et seq.) and passing in review Jewish history from the time of Abraham until that of the building of the Temple of Solomon. Then, imitating the Prophets, he rebuked the people for their stubbornness, insisting that the Temple stood against the desire of God. This enraged the people, who cast him out of the city and stoned him, Saul of Tarsus being present at the execution and consenting thereto (Acts vii. 1-viii. 1).http://www.jewishenc...s/14022-stephen

I am not contesting the Jewish Encyclopedia but the NT. When the Jewish Encyclopedia  mentions "according to tradition," it means according to the NT or Christian tradition. It is not stating anything as an endorsement to what the NT or Christian tradition stand for.

Quote

The Nazarenes from The Jewish Encyclopedia: Sect of primitive Christianity; it appears to have embraced all those Christians who had been born Jews and who neither would nor could give up their Jewish mode of life. They were probably the descendants of the Judæo-Christians who had fled to Pella before Titus destroyed Jerusalem; afterward most of them, like the Essenes in former times, with whom they had some characteristics in common, lived in the waste lands around the Dead Sea, and hence remained out of touch with the rest of Christendom.http://www.jewishenc...11393-nazarenes

Here, the reference in the Jewish Encyclopedia is to a later group of former Nazarenes, whose synagogues Paul had overturned into Christian churches throughout Asia Minor and later in Israel. Evidence of the fact, we have in the Nazarene synagogues of Antioch, Galatia, Ephesus, and all the others. Paul was, obviously, unable to raise a church of Gentiles from scratch. He would act like the Cuckoo bird laying its eggs in foreign nests. But the original Sect of the Nazarenes had nothing to do with Christianity till Paul entered the stage.

Ben

[Mr Walker]

Ben Masada, on 25 July 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Mr. Walker, God would not work against His own laws. According to the prince of Philosophers, Baruch de Spinoza, it would be weakness in God to do so. It would be proof that "Adonai who lo Elohim." In English, that the Lord is not God. And for immortality, one that has had a beginning can never be made immortal. And even if he could, once immortal, one is immortal and can never turn back from immortality. For the NT... well, I accept 20% of it as worthy for a Jew to learn something from. The other 80% of it is made out of anti-Jewish interpolations good only to promote Replacement Theology.

Ben

Thank you for your response. It confirms the point I was making. First your belief about the nature of god precludes any other possibilities about his nature. That is a problem. God is what god i,s not a product of what you believe him to be.  And you are so hung up on replacement theology it also biases all your thinking. Christianity does not replace judaism It is an evolution of that faith. Both faiths can bring a person to god, as can many other belief systems. Judaism represents a way of living dedicated to god, as does christianity NOT an exclusive mandate or even an essential prerequisite to be one with god. NO religion is required for that, just a personal relatonship with god as experienced by moses abraham etc.

[Ben Masada]

Mr Walker, on 26 July 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

Thank you for your response. It confirms the point I was making. First your belief about the nature of god precludes any other possibilities about his nature. That is a problem. God is what god i,s not a product of what you believe him to be.  And you are so hung up on replacement theology it also biases all your thinking. Christianity does not replace judaism It is an evolution of that faith. Both faiths can bring a person to god, as can many other belief systems. Judaism represents a way of living dedicated to god, as does christianity NOT an exclusive mandate or even an essential prerequisite to be one with god. NO religion is required for that, just a personal relatonship with god as experienced by moses abraham etc.

I believe that God is what He is. And about Replacement Theology, sorry, but that's all that the NT is about. I agree with you that Christianity does not and has not replaced Judaism. Nevertheless that is the Pauline wish-thinking method to abolish the Jewish Law, and Priesthood and replace them with Jesus' priesthood and a new Law whatever it may be. Read Hebrews 7:12,22.The problem is that you either do not believe what your NT says or faith won't allow you to understand it.

Now, if Christianity is an evolution of Judaism, where did it get the idea of a Jew born of God with an earthly woman? Not from Judaism, I tell you for sure. I read about this idea in the Iliad of Homer, which is a book of Greek Mythology. So, can I have an answer to my question?

Ben

[Dash--]

Ben Masada, on 25 July 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

[/size][/font][/color]

I am not contesting the Jewish Encyclopedia but the NT. When the Jewish Encyclopedia  mentions "according to tradition," it means according to the NT or Christian tradition. It is not stating anything as an endorsement to what the NT or Christian tradition stand for.

Is there a Jewish "tradition" of Stephen? If so,why wasn't it put into Stephen's page? If it's true that Stephen was interpolated into the NT,why is there no mention of it?
One would assume that giving only the NT version of Stephen,and nothing to the contrary,that the Jewish Encyclopedia follows that version.As no other definition is given.

Ben Masada, on 25 July 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

Here, the reference in the Jewish Encyclopedia is to a later group of former Nazarenes, whose synagogues Paul had overturned into Christian churches throughout Asia Minor and later in Israel. Evidence of the fact, we have in the Nazarene synagogues of Antioch, Galatia, Ephesus, and all the others. Paul was, obviously, unable to raise a church of Gentiles from scratch. He would act like the Cuckoo bird laying its eggs in foreign nests. But the original Sect of the Nazarenes had nothing to do with Christianity till Paul entered the stage.

Ben

Again,Why is there no other mention of the Nazarenes,other than the one I listed?It would seem that the Jewish Encyclopedia would have made mention if they were talking about this "other" sect of Nazarenes.
Instead the only mention of Nazarenes on the page are associated with "Christians".

Why do you think that is,Ben?

[Mr Walker]

Ben Masada, on 28 July 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

I believe that God is what He is. And about Replacement Theology, sorry, but that's all that the NT is about. I agree with you that Christianity does not and has not replaced Judaism. Nevertheless that is the Pauline wish-thinking method to abolish the Jewish Law, and Priesthood and replace them with Jesus' priesthood and a new Law whatever it may be. Read Hebrews 7:12,22.The problem is that you either do not believe what your NT says or faith won't allow you to understand it.

Now, if Christianity is an evolution of Judaism, where did it get the idea of a Jew born of God with an earthly woman? Not from Judaism, I tell you for sure. I read about this idea in the Iliad of Homer, which is a book of Greek Mythology. So, can I have an answer to my question?

Ben

Just as judaism evolved ideas and concepts from egyptian and babylonian periods, christianity kept many aspects of judaism For example, I live keeping the origianl sabbath,  using dietary advice  etc from the old testament. As so many christians. As many critics will describe, christianty  modelled many egyptian and earlier beliefs and the "mythology" of christ is quite similar to some egyptian mythologies. Christian and judaism are both evolutionary movements in human spirituality and worship going back at least 15000 years and probably closer to 100000 years. They are both ways in which humans order their innate spiritual thinking and awareness and reflect cultural and social realities of the millieus in which they  were fashioned.

Every time god appears to man, the way in which man perceives god is constructed around their individual and cultural knowledge and understandings. SO hunter gathers have different forms of god to nomadic pastoralists and to settled agrarian peoples. This explains why some cultures have feminine gods and others masculine ones, and why the teachings of god are different for differnt peoples/societies..  Judaism was the first movement to perceive a monotheistic  god who relates to individuals at their own level, as he did with moses abraham and other early jewish people. Christianity took that new  human concept and evolved it another step.

[Ben Masada]

Dash--, on 29 July 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

Quote

Is there a Jewish "tradition" of Stephen?  If so,why wasn't it put into Stephen's page?

Yes, there is; the NT. If you mean, in the Encyclopedia, it was put in there according to the NT and not as a confirmation of the fact.

Quote

If it's true that Stephen was interpolated into the NT,why is there no mention of it?

Why it had to be mentioned? It was enough to say "according to the tradition in the NT.

Quote

One would assume that giving only the NT version of Stephen,and nothing to the contrary,that the Jewish Encyclopedia follows that version.As no other definition is given.

That's the point. The Encyclopedia follows the NT version because there is no other anywhere. Hence, "according to the NT." Then, it becomes up to the reader to figure it. Either to believe it or to discard it. Because of the contradictions involved, I discard it.

Quote

Again,Why is there no other mention of the Nazarenes,other than the one I listed?It would seem that the Jewish Encyclopedia would have made mention if they were talking about this "other" sect of Nazarenes. Instead the only mention of Nazarenes on the page are associated with "Christians."
Why do you think that is,Ben?

I told you before and I repeat: The Encyclolpedia mentions "according to the (Christian) tradition. That is, according to the NT. The editor was not confirming anything as a fact.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Mr Walker, on 29 July 2012 - 01:59 AM, said:

Just as judaism evolved ideas and concepts from egyptian and babylonian periods, christianity kept many aspects of judaism For example, I live keeping the origianl sabbath,  using dietary advice  etc from the old testament. As so many christians. As many critics will describe, christianty  modelled many egyptian and earlier beliefs and the "mythology" of christ is quite similar to some egyptian mythologies. Christian and judaism are both evolutionary movements in human spirituality and worship going back at least 15000 years and probably closer to 100000 years. They are both ways in which humans order their innate spiritual thinking and awareness and reflect cultural and social realities of the millieus in which they  were fashioned.

Every time god appears to man, the way in which man perceives god is constructed around their individual and cultural knowledge and understandings. SO hunter gathers have different forms of god to nomadic pastoralists and to settled agrarian peoples. This explains why some cultures have feminine gods and others masculine ones, and why the teachings of god are different for differnt peoples/societies..  Judaism was the first movement to perceive a monotheistic  god who relates to individuals at their own level, as he did with moses abraham and other early jewish people. Christianity took that new  human concept and evolved it another step.

To keep the Sabbath holy was not a Christian aspect of Judaism. Christianity started with Paul and Paul made it very clear that, whether one regards a day better than another or considers all days alike, he should be certain of his own conscience and do it for the Lord. Either he observes a day or no day at all, he does for the Lord. IOW, that's not important, as the Sabbath was only a shadow of things to come. (Rom. 14:5,6; Col. 2:16,17)

And so is the same with regards to dietary or Kashrut. Paul implied that it wal all nonsense. That Christians should eat whatever was sold in the market without raising any question. And if an unbeliever invited them to his table, they should eat of whatever was placed before them without question. (I Cor. 10:25-27) There is no connection here with Judaism. Therefore, Christianity did not evolve from Judaism.

Now, I agree with you that the way people perceive God, it depends on the kind of culture he comes from. That's why we, Jews, have been set asside, according to Ezekiel 20:41 to manifest the glory of God in the sight of the nations. IOW, to bring the right idea of the Monotheistic God of Abraham. And what did Christianity do with that monotheistic concept of God? It turned it into the concept of the Trinity, which is anything but monostheistic.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 30 July 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[Dash--]

Ben Masada, on 30 July 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

That's the point. The Encyclopedia follows the NT version because there is no other anywhere.

Then we go with the only evidence of Stephen.The New Testament.If you have any conflicting evidence,then by all means, present it.

Ben Masada, on 30 July 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Hence, "according to the NT." Then, it becomes up to the reader to figure it. Either to believe it or to discard it.

What is there to figure?

Ben Masada, on 30 July 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Because of the contradictions involved, I discard it.

^That's where you need to start.By showing that Stephen didn't preach that Jesus was the Messiah.If you can't,it shows Stephen was preaching Christian beliefs before Paul's conversion.

Ben Masada, on 30 July 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

I told you before and I repeat: The Encyclolpedia mentions "according to the (Christian) tradition. That is, according to the NT. The editor was not confirming anything as a fact.

Ben

So apparently,The Jewish Encyclopedia only knows of the Nazarenes related to Christianity. Not of this other sect of Nazarenes that you mention....Alrighty.

To the point.
You take this: " And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".Acts 11:26
and try to make it say : "And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and Christianity first started in Antioch".
Big difference

As to Paul starting Christianity:
Galatians 1:22 "I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ";
How could the founder of Christianity not be known to these "Christian" churches at the time?
And...
Romans 16:7 "Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me".
How could they be "in Christ" before Paul,if Paul created Christianity?

All the Apostles were preaching of Jesus as the Messiah.Not just Paul.
And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.Mark 16:15.
After Jesus ascended,the Apostles preached of Jesus as the Messiah.Those who believed became what would be known as Christians.
1.Peter preached to the Jews.2.Andrew preached in Achaia and Scythia. 3.James the greater preached in Jerusalem and Judea. 4.John preached in Asia Minor   5.Philip preached in w.central Turkey.6.Bartholomew preached in Armenia,India,Egypt,and Ethiopia. 7.Thomas preached in Parthia and Southern India. 8.Matthew preached in Judea,Persia,and Ethiopia.9.James the less preached in Egypt. 10.Jude preached in Assyria and Persia. 11.Simon preached in Egypt and Persia.12.Matthias preached in maybe Ethiopia.not really known.
All these Apostles,all that traveling,and all that preaching,and yet you give Paul all the credit.

If the Apostles believed Jesus was the Messiah,wouldn't that make them Christians as well?(i.e.followers of Christ)

Now Ben,provide evidence for Paul creating the belief of Christianity,other than one verse in Acts that just tells about the naming of that belief.

Edited by Dash--, 31 July 2012 - 09:05 AM.

[Ben Masada]

Dash--, on 31 July 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

Quote

Then we go with the only evidence of Stephen.The New Testament.If you have any conflicting evidence,then by all means, present it.

Yes, I have Logic. If Stephen was executed, it was by a riot of Sicarii, who were famous by behaving like the mafia does today. The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin to condemn one to death had been replaced by Rome. This was the Roman policy in all Roman provinces throughout the Empire.

Quote

^That's where you need to start.By showing that Stephen didn't preach that Jesus was the Messiah.If you can't,it shows Stephen was preaching Christian beliefs before Paul's conversion.

That's one of the things to figure. Stephen did not preach that Jesus was the Messiah, because, the Nazarenes had never heard before that Jesus had been the Messiah. Read about the experience of Apollos from Alexandria. He was an expert about Jesus and never had preached about him as the Messiah till he met Aquila and Priscilla, a couple who had been converted by Paul. Read Acts 18:24-28.

Quote

So apparently,The Jewish Encyclopedia only knows of the Nazarenes related to Christianity. Not of this other sect of Nazarenes that you mention....Alrighty.

Probably the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia never read the book of Acts. When Paul was arrested in the Temple and taken to Court, Tertullus, the Attorney hired by the High Priest Ananias, connected Paul with the Sect of the Nazarenes because James and the Elders had spirited him out of Israel and back to Tarsus to escape trial in a blatant obstruction of justice. Read Acts 24:5.  

Quote

To the point. You take this: " And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".Acts 11:26 and try to make it say : "And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and Christianity first started in Antioch".

Well, it is written, isn't it? So, blame Luke who was the one who wrote the book of Acts and not me.

Quote

Big difference. As to Paul starting Christianity: Galatians 1:22 "I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ";
How could the founder of Christianity not be known to these "Christian" churches at the time?

First of all, the Galatians were originally a Nazarene synagogue and not Christian. Paul acted like the Cackoo bird and did what he had done in Antioch: He overturned the Galatian Nazarene synagogue into a Christian church. Read Galatians 1:6-9 and 4:21-31. Then, Paul's expression "which were in Christ" was only his method to refer to Jesus as Christ, which was his own personal creation. Read 2 Tim. 2:8.

Quote

And...Romans 16:7 "Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me". How could they be "in Christ" before Paul,if Paul created Christianity?

The Apostles of Jesus were in Jesus and not in Christ. Apollos was in Jesus too; how come he never preached that Jesus was Christ before he met Aquila and Priscilla, a couple converted by Paul?

Quote

All the Apostles were preaching of Jesus as the Messiah.Not just Paul.

If you are right, you have dug one more contradiction in the NT, because not only that Christianity started with Paul, according to Acts 11:26 but also that Paul himself confessed to Timothy that Jesus was the Messiah according to his gospel. (2 Tim. 2:8) It is only obvious that there was another gospel in whose agenda Jesus did not figure as the Messiah. (Gal. 1:6-9)

Quote

And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.Mark 16:15.

If you honestly believe that Jesus said that and it did not come out of the top of the head of the Hellenist who wrote the book of Mark, tell me who said that Jesus forbade his disciples not to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles and not even enter a Samaritan town, the same Jesus? (Mat. 10:5,6) Be careful with another contradiction.

Quote

After Jesus ascended,the Apostles preached of Jesus as the Messiah.Those who believed became what would be known as Christians.

Really! Why didn't they tell Apollos that Jesus had been the Messiah? (Acts 18:24-28)

Quote

1.Peter preached to the Jews.2.Andrew preached in Achaia and Scythia. 3.James the greater preached in Jerusalem and Judea. 4.John preached in Asia Minor  5.Philip preached in w.central Turkey.6.Bartholomew preached in Armenia,India,Egypt,and Ethiopia. 7.Thomas preached in Parthia and Southern India. 8.Matthew preached in Judea,Persia,and Ethiopia.9.James the less preached in Egypt. 10.Jude preached in Assyria and Persia. 11.Simon preached in Egypt and Persia.12.Matthias preached in maybe Ethiopia.not really known.

And Paul preached to the Jews. Then, why would he claim to be the apostle to the Gentiles if he would never leave the Jews in peace?

Quote

All these Apostles,all that traveling,and all that preaching,and yet you give Paul all the credit.

Paul's credit is for the origin of Christianity. The Apostles' credit was for the origin of the Sect of the Nazarenes.

Quote

If the Apostles believed Jesus was the Messiah,wouldn't that make them Christians as well?(i.e.followers of Christ)

That's where the problem is. They did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. They didn't even believe that Jesus had resurrected. Read Luke 24:10,11.

Quote

Now Ben,provide evidence for Paul creating the belief of Christianity,other than one verse in Acts that just tells about the naming of that belief.

I have provided you with what you ask, but faith won't allow you to consider the truth.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 02 August 2012 - 09:24 PM.

[Dash--]

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Yes, I have Logic. If Stephen was executed, it was by a riot of Sicarii, who were famous by behaving like the mafia does today.

This still does nothing to disprove Stephen,or why he was stoned.

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin to condemn one to death had been replaced by Rome. This was the Roman policy in all Roman provinces throughout the Empire.

Please provide dates of when the Sanhedrin lost power to try capital cases.And when they regained it.
From my understanding,the Romans gave the Sanhedrin a good bit of independence in settling it's own matters.
But again,by being condemned to stoning,or by being lynched,it still does not disprove Stephen's existence,or explain away the reasons for his stoning.

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

That's one of the things to figure. Stephen did not preach that Jesus was the Messiah, because, the Nazarenes had never heard before that Jesus had been the Messiah.

Read Acts 6&7,then tell me if Stephen believed Jesus was the Messiah.
Acts 7:59-While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Read about the experience of Apollos from Alexandria. He was an expert about Jesus and never had preached about him as the Messiah till he met Aquila and Priscilla, a couple who had been converted by Paul. Read Acts 18:24-28.

Apollos was a "learned " man.Luke tells us that Apollos,himself, was teaching "accurately" about Jesus,before he met Aquila & Priscilla.Now,if Luke was conspiring,wouldn't he have wrote that Apollos wasn't teaching accurately,and Aquila & Priscilla had to straighten him out? What do you think "teaching accurately" meant to Luke? Answer=that Jesus is the Messiah. Apollos,apparently knew of Jesus and was preaching it accurately according to Luke."and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately"Acts 18:25.
It doesn't say Aquila & Priscilla taught him that Jesus was Messiah.It says they explained the way of God more adequately.Not that they changed his mind or brainwashed him.He was a well versed in scripture.If something didn't line up with Jesus as the Messiah he wouldn't have debated the Jews.Acts 18:28-For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
So,we can see that Apollos was a "learned" man,well versed in scripture.Who "taught about Jesus accurately".We also see he spoke "with great fervor" and "boldly" and "vigorously" debated the Jews.
From that we can see; Aquila & Priscilla didn't want to change what Apollos was teaching (since Luke says Apollos taught accurately).They were ,it seems, trying to tone down the manner in which he was teaching.(i.e. too extreme)

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Probably the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia never read the book of Acts.

Really Ben? Not one? Here,Ben,i'll give you the link to the editorial page.As the list of scholars involved in the Jewish Encyclopedia is far too numerous to post here.http://www.jewishenc...ctorate_listing
While we're on the subject of the origin of Christianity and scholarly input of The Jewish encyclopedia.
John the Baptist from The Jewish Encyclopedia:
Essene saint and preacher; flourished between 20 and 30 C.E.; fore-runner of Jesus of Nazareth and originator of the Christian movement.http://jewishencyclo...ohn-the-baptist

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Well, it is written, isn't it? So, blame Luke who was the one who wrote the book of Acts and not me.

Can't blame Luke.He's clear that it was first named in Antioch.Not created.You are the one who makes the misinterpretation.Not Luke.

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

First of all, the Galatians were originally a Nazarene synagogue and not Christian. Paul acted like the Cackoo bird and did what he had done in Antioch: He overturned the Galatian Nazarene synagogue into a Christian church. Read Galatians 1:6-9 and 4:21-31. Then, Paul's expression "which were in Christ" was only his method to refer to Jesus as Christ, which was his own personal creation. Read 2 Tim. 2:8.

Differences between Paul and the Nazarenes were no different than the divisions of Christianity we have today.Not everyone accepted Pauline Christianity.Nor do they today.

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

The Apostles of Jesus were in Jesus and not in Christ. Apollos was in Jesus too; how come he never preached that Jesus was Christ before he met Aquila and Priscilla, a couple converted by Paul?

Peter was speaking for the Apostles when he said "We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."-John 6:69
Luke,who wrote Acts and believed Jesus was the Messiah, says Apollos "taught accurately" about Jesus.It doesn't say he wasn't preaching Jesus as the Messiah before Aquila & Priscilla.

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

If you are right, you have dug one more contradiction in the NT, because not only that Christianity started with Paul, according to Acts 11:26 but also that Paul himself confessed to Timothy that Jesus was the Messiah according to his gospel. (2 Tim. 2:8) It is only obvious that there was another gospel in whose agenda Jesus did not figure as the Messiah. (Gal. 1:6-9)

Again,not everyone agreed with Paul about Christianity.He thought he had the right Gospel,they thought they had the right Gospel.
Christianity is not so black and white as you make it Ben.It isn't today and it wasn't back then.There was and probably always will be dispute about the true divinity of Jesus.But it doesn't mean that people back then not following Paul's idea of Christianity weren't Christians.They were still following the belief of Jesus as the Messiah.Just not Paul's idea of it.
I'll add more to this if need be.It just starts taking up a lot of space.

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

If you honestly believe that Jesus said that and it did not come out of the top of the head of the Hellenist who wrote the book of Mark, tell me who said that Jesus forbade his disciples not to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles and not even enter a Samaritan town, the same Jesus? (Mat. 10:5,6) Be careful with another contradiction.

We don't truthfully know what Jesus said.All we have to go on is The New Testament Books.What I'm saying is this is what the authors wrote.And not just Mark.
Matthew 28:19-"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
Luke 24:47-"and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."
Acts 1:8-but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."
As for the gentiles and Samaritans.It wasn't time yet to teach them of the Messiah.We can see from Luke's writing that it wasn't time."Beginning from Jerusalem" and The Apostles being "witnesses" in Jerusalem,Judea,Samaria,and to the remotest parts of the earth.Jerusalem being mentioned first.As was custom to show importance.
So,we can see the writers initial intent is to show Jerusalem as a matter of importance to be taught first.Not to be the only ones taught to.As Peter,himself,converts gentiles in Judea.

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Really! Why didn't they tell Apollos that Jesus had been the Messiah? (Acts 18:24-28)

Again,before he meets Aquila & Priscilla:"and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately"Acts 18:25
And after he meets Aquila & Priscilla:For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.Acts 18:28
Sounds like he knew it.He spoke the same message.Luke says he spoke accurately about Jesus.To Luke,who believed Jesus to be the messiah,accurately would mean Jesus as the Messiah.Otherwise he would say Apollos spoke inaccurately.If there was a conspiracy it would make more sense to say he wasn't speaking accurately.Not that he was.

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Paul's credit is for the origin of Christianity. The Apostles' credit was for the origin of the Sect of the Nazarenes.

Paul's credit is for the origin of Pauline Christianity.The Apostles' credit is for continuing the belief in Jesus.
There...fixed it for ya.

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

That's where the problem is. They did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. They didn't even believe that Jesus had resurrected. Read Luke 24:10,11.

If someone said that Jesus was resurrected,would you believe them at first?Even if it was on the news there would still be non-believers.The Apostles had to see for themselves.
Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.Luke 24:31
When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.Matthew 28:17.
Thomas doubted but when he saw Jesus and his wounds and felt them he believed.Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"-John 20:28
As we can see,the Apostles didn't know what to think at first..After seeing Jesus resurrected and being in his company,they knew he was divine.
Before the resurrection they believed but didn't know.After the resurrection and Jesus came to them,they knew.

Ben Masada, on 02 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

I have provided you with what you ask, but faith won't allow you to consider the truth.
Ben

I'm afraid I have you at an advantage then,as my faith is not reliant upon any scripture.And yours is.
Which is why you need to avoid "your preconceived notions" when addressing these points.

We can go into this exegesis further if you like,but it really needs it's own thread.
Unless you,as the OP,wish to continue in this thread.I'm fine with that too.

[Ben Masada]

Dash--, on 05 August 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

Quote

Please provide dates of when the Sanhedrin lost power to try capital cases.And when they regained it. From my understanding,the Romans gave the Sanhedrin a good bit of independence in settling it's own matters. But again,by being condemned to stoning,or by being lynched,it still does not disprove Stephen's existence,or explain away the reasons for his stoning.

The time was when Rome conquered Israel and made of it a Roman province. The Jews did not regain power because before the Romans left Israel, this no longer existed as a jurisdictial State. The Jewish People had been exiled. The independence given by Rome to Israel was to practice Judaism and not to condemn anyone to death. Pilate opened an exception in the case of Jesus by asking the Jews to give Jesus the verdict of death themselves and they reminded Pilate that they did have the Law but they could not use it, because, according to Roman law they could not put anyone to death. (John 18:31; 19:7) It means that Pilate did not have the power to change that law.

Quote

Read Acts 6&7,then tell me if Stephen believed Jesus was the Messiah. Acts 7:59-While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

That's forgery. Stephen was not a Christian. Jews didn't and do not believe that Jesus was Christ, which in Greek means the Messiah.

Quote

Apollos was a "learned " man.Luke tells us that Apollos,himself, was teaching "accurately" about Jesus,before he met Aquila & Priscilla.Now,if Luke was conspiring,wouldn't he have wrote that Apollos wasn't teaching accurately,and Aquila & Priscilla had to straighten him out? What do you think "teaching accurately" meant to Luke? Answer=that Jesus is the Messiah. Apollos,apparently knew of Jesus and was preaching it accurately according to Luke."and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately"Acts 18:25.

That's a contradiction. What kind of accuracy was Apollos speaking about Jesus if he had never heard that he had been the Messiah? Only after Aquila and Priscilla brainwashed him, he returned preaching that Jesus was the Messiah. Read Acts 18:26,28.

Quote

Can't blame Luke.He's clear that it was first named in Antioch.Not created.You are the one who makes the misinterpretation.Not Luke.

You need to use Logic here. How were the disciples in the synagogue of Antioch called before Paul? Definitely, not Christians, since they got that name after a whole year that Paul was there, it is only obvious that Paul was the one who started with the idea that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 11:26; 2 Tim. 2:8)

Quote

Differences between Paul and the Nazarenes were no different than the divisions of Christianity we have today.Not everyone accepted Pauline Christianity.Nor do they today.

But all accept the same NT. What is the NT without Paul? Can you see the fallacy you are adopting? There would be no Christianity without Paul.

Quote

They were still following the belief of Jesus as the Messiah.Just not Paul's idea of it.

More contradictions. Paul himself declared that Jesus was the Messiah and had resurrected according to his - Paul's - gospel. (2 Tim. 2:8)

Quote

We don't truthfully know what Jesus said.All we have to go on is The New Testament Books.What I'm saying is this is what the authors wrote.And not just Mark.

We are discussing nothing else but the NT books. You are the one breaking Paul away from it and defending him in the process. That's confusion.

Quote

Matthew 28:19-"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Baptism in the name of the Trinity was not known among the Nazarenes but fabricated by Paul. (Acts 19:1-6)

Quote

Again,before he meets Aquila & Priscilla:"and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately"Acts 18:25
And after he meets Aquila & Priscilla:For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.Acts 18:28.

See how confused you are? You read about the evidence and refuse to understand the fact. Apollos spoke about Jesus with accuracy, but not that he was Christ the Messiah. After he was brainwashed by the Christian couple Aquila and Priscilla, he returned preaching that Jesus was Christ. Make up your mind!

Quote

Thomas doubted but when he saw Jesus and his wounds and felt them he believed.Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"-John 20:28.

This Thomas could not have been Jewish. A Jew would never call another, "My Lord and my God!"

Quote

We can go into this exegesis further if you like,but it really needs it's own thread. Unless you,as the OP,wish to continue in this thread.I'm fine with that too.

That's all right with me, as long as you write less. I had to cut a lot of the material I could comment about but time and space didn't allow me to.

Ben