The Text Josephus Never Wrote

[Arbitran]

Thanks Arbitran. You have made my day.

Ben

No, thank you. Your post was superbly-done.

[Ben Masada]

Hi Ben,

What you say is true, the Sanhedrin could not legally condemn James to death, but that does not mean that they could not convene an illegal stoning. The Jews whom Jesus spoke to are on several occasions said to have tried stoning Jesus, despite its illegality. The Josephus text does describe Ananus as insolent and with a temper, so it is not beyond reason to think he may let that anger manifest in illegal activity (with Jesus, the Romans had a reason to execute him, but they had no reason to execute James - Ananus' only recourse would be to carry out vigilante justice). At least, that's how I've always thought of that when reading the text (those historians who dismiss it do so for the exact reasons you state, though).

Just a thought

Ananus was not the Sanhedrin. This was composed of 70 members, and a majority was necessary to pronounce any judgment. If Ananus had carried out vigilante justice, he would have bronken a Roman law and condemned possibly to death for insurrection. Therefore, there is no use to try to blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. Besides, Jesus had come to confirm the most important thing to a Jew, which is God's Law. (Mat. 5:17-19) How could the Jews ask the enemies, occupiers of our land, to crucify a fellow and loyal Jew? It makes no sense. There was some kind of agenda to try to clear the Romans of the death of Jesus and to transfer it to the Jews. Probably Antisemitism was on the rise.

Ben

Edited April 18, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

Replacement Theology, that is a heresy, and not even a christian belief. It is a movement started by anti-semitists, within the church, but it is not a christian belief. It is not defended by christians and much less by Paul, if that is the best you have, you came to the wrong place.

No, they started as Jews, you personally cannot accept that fact. But it is a fact nonetheless. Gamaliel was never a christian, I wonder where you seem to have gotten that idea? I never stated such a thing, and no-one I know who knows his scripture, could possibly state such a thing. He may have sympathized with the Notzrim, who became known as christians later on. Take Peter, and all the other disciples, with one single exception, they were all Jews, they didn't found a new religion, they were present for the ultimate fullfilment of their own religion, they knew the Messiah.

You are basically inventing things as you are going along, from what I see, tell you what prove your assertions, because I can certainly prove mine.

Yes, you are right. Replacement Theology is a heresy. And I copied it from Paul in Gallatians 4:21-31. Here is the whole text:

REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY

Replacement Theology is as old as Christianity itself, considering that the etimology of the expression acquired its real meaning with the rise of Christianity.

Some people object to the focusing on Christianity for the reason why Replacement Theology originated, because the Jewish People was not the only ancient people with the original claim to be God's chosen People.

It's true that a few other ancient peoples upheld the same claim, but there was never one to rise with the claim that a people had been replaced by another as God's chosen People.

Christianity became the first religious organization to rise with the claim that a change had occurred in the designs of God, which would

define the rejection of the Jewish People, and resplacement with Christianity.

The classical NT document, which would give rise to this Christian policy is found in Galatians 4:21-31.

Paul would compare God's Covenant with the Jewish People as Hagar, who was Sara's slave girl, and the Jews as her son, who was rejected even to share with Isaac, the inheritance of Canaan. On

the other hand, he compares Christianity to Sara and Christians to her son Isaac.

To conclude, Paul appeals to cast out the slave girl together with her son for the obvious reason that Israel, the Jewish People, would never be an heir with the son of the one born free.

That's the picture of Replacement Theology and not simply a people claiming Divine election. A group of Interfaith Scholars have classified Replacement Theology as a kind of Antisemitism.

Ben

[+Link of Hyrule]

Ananus was not the Sanhedrin. This was composed of 70 members, and a majority was necessary to pronounce any judgment. If Ananus had carried out vigilante justice, he would have bronken a Roman law and condemned possibly to death for insurrection. Therefore, there is no use to try to blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. Besides, Jesus had come to confirm the most important thing to a Jew, which is God's Law. (Mat. 5:17-19) How could the Jews ask the enemies, occupiers of our land, to crucify a fellow and loyal Jew? It makes no sense. There was some kind of agenda to try to clear the Romans of the death of Jesus and to transfer it to the Jews. Probably Antisemitism was on the rise.

Ben

1- Yes, if Ananus carried out vigilante justice he would have broken Roman law and possibly be subject to the death sentence himself. That's part of vigilante justice, going against the law. That was my point, James had done nothing wrong in Roman law and thus if Ananus wanted James out of the picture his only recourse was to break the law.

2- I wasn't blaming "the Jews", so please don't raise that accusation. I was blaming those Jews in authority who were afraid of Jesus' influence.

3- You portray Jesus as "loyal Jew", and while Jesus did come to fulfil the law of the Jews, he often went against the teachings and beliefs of the Pharisees and other Teachers of the Law. Consider Jesus' comments on ritual handwashing (Mark 7:14-19). Jesus condemned the practises of the Pharisees (who had a very specific set of rules about hand-washing, and if not adhered to exactly, made one "unclean" for meals - I'll share sources, if you like). Instead, Jesus said that it was actually what came out of a man's mouth that made him "unclean".

4- To reiterate, I have never claimed the Jews were responsible, so don't throw out claims of anti-Semitism. The authors were not being anti-Semitic in their statements, and neither was I. I hope you're not stooping to playing the anti-Semitism card just to shut down those who disagree with your point of view (it truly would be a shame to bring such a Logical Fallacy into the debate)?!?!?!?!

~ Regards, PA

[Jor-el]

Yes, you are right. Replacement Theology is a heresy. And I copied it from Paul in Gallatians 4:21-31. Here is the whole text:

REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY

Replacement Theology is as old as Christianity itself, considering that the etimology of the expression acquired its real meaning with the rise of Christianity.

Some people object to the focusing on Christianity for the reason why Replacement Theology originated, because the Jewish People was not the only ancient people with the original claim to be God's chosen People.

It's true that a few other ancient peoples upheld the same claim, but there was never one to rise with the claim that a people had been replaced by another as God's chosen People.

Christianity became the first religious organization to rise with the claim that a change had occurred in the designs of God, which would

define the rejection of the Jewish People, and resplacement with Christianity.

The classical NT document, which would give rise to this Christian policy is found in Galatians 4:21-31.

Paul would compare God's Covenant with the Jewish People as Hagar, who was Sara's slave girl, and the Jews as her son, who was rejected even to share with Isaac, the inheritance of Canaan. On

the other hand, he compares Christianity to Sara and Christians to her son Isaac.

To conclude, Paul appeals to cast out the slave girl together with her son for the obvious reason that Israel, the Jewish People, would never be an heir with the son of the one born free.

That's the picture of Replacement Theology and not simply a people claiming Divine election. A group of Interfaith Scholars have classified Replacement Theology as a kind of Antisemitism.

Ben

Incorrect, and Paul did NOT practice, believe or even encourage such a belief... it is a heresy, it has always been one and it did not come from the bible or the New Testament in any shape or form.

Romans 11:13-32

13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The deliverer will come from Zion;

he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

27And this isf my covenant with them

when I take away their sins.”

28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may nowh receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

His words clearly demonstrate the falseness of your claim.

[Ben Masada]

1- Yes, if Ananus carried out vigilante justice he would have broken Roman law and possibly be subject to the death sentence himself. That's part of vigilante justice, going against the law. That was my point, James had done nothing wrong in Roman law and thus if Ananus wanted James out of the picture his only recourse was to break the law.

2- I wasn't blaming "the Jews", so please don't raise that accusation. I was blaming those Jews in authority who were afraid of Jesus' influence.

3- You portray Jesus as "loyal Jew", and while Jesus did come to fulfil the law of the Jews, he often went against the teachings and beliefs of the Pharisees and other Teachers of the Law. Consider Jesus' comments on ritual handwashing (Mark 7:14-19). Jesus condemned the practises of the Pharisees (who had a very specific set of rules about hand-washing, and if not adhered to exactly, made one "unclean" for meals - I'll share sources, if you like). Instead, Jesus said that it was actually what came out of a man's mouth that made him "unclean".

4- To reiterate, I have never claimed the Jews were responsible, so don't throw out claims of anti-Semitism. The authors were not being anti-Semitic in their statements, and neither was I. I hope you're not stooping to playing the anti-Semitism card just to shut down those who disagree with your point of view (it truly would be a shame to bring such a Logical Fallacy into the debate)?!?!?!?!

~ Regards, PA

To wash one's hands before a meal was not a law in Judaism but a tradition. Jesus did not come to revive traditions but the spiritual sense of the laws in Matthew 5:17-19. And Jesus was of the line of the Pharisees. He had no reason to keep a grudge against them. That grudge was in Paul for having been expelled out of Israel for the havoc he caused in Jerusalem preaching in the Jewish synagogues, that Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God. (Acts 9:30)

And this about Jesus condemning the Pharisees, as we have in Matthew 23:13-33, about thoses curses against the Pharisees, I do not believe they went

from Jesus' mouth, but if you do, it becomes evidence that Jesus broke the Golden Rule of not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto us. It means that Jesus sinned, which would set him in need of a salvior himself.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Incorrect, and Paul did NOT practice, believe or even encourage such a belief... it is a heresy, it has always been one and it did not come from the bible or the New Testament in any shape or form.

Romans 11:13-32

13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The deliverer will come from Zion;

he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

27And this isf my covenant with them

when I take away their sins.”

28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may nowh receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

His words clearly demonstrate the falseness of your claim.

As I can see, you did not understand Galatians 4:21-31 in the thread about Replacement Theology. But never mind for the time being. You have quoted

above in Romans 11:13, a Pauline declaration that he was the apostle to the Gentiles. Now, would you please quote when did he ever decide to go to

the Gentiles? I can't find it in his Letters. What I have is that since his first station in Damascus in the synagogues of the Jews and until his

last in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace. (Acts 9:1,2 and 28:17) I would give him 98% of his missionary works among the Jews and only 2% among

the Gentiles. Now, does 2% of a missionary's work is enough to qualify him as an apostle to the Gentiles?

Ben

[+Link of Hyrule]

To wash one's hands before a meal was not a law in Judaism but a tradition. Jesus did not come to revive traditions but the spiritual sense of the laws in Matthew 5:17-19. And Jesus was of the line of the Pharisees. He had no reason to keep a grudge against them. That grudge was in Paul for having been expelled out of Israel for the havoc he caused in Jerusalem preaching in the Jewish synagogues, that Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God. (Acts 9:30)

And this about Jesus condemning the Pharisees, as we have in Matthew 23:13-33, about thoses curses against the Pharisees, I do not believe they went

from Jesus' mouth, but if you do, it becomes evidence that Jesus broke the Golden Rule of not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto us. It means that Jesus sinned, which would set him in need of a salvior himself.

Ben

Before I respond, I would like to ask your (and by extension, the Jewish) stance on the Talmud. I was under the impression that the Talmud, along with the Tanakh, comprised the two core elements of Judaic teachings and through study of BOTH Talmud and Tanakh one could understand what it meant to be a Jew. Was I wrong in this estimation?

More to the point, I'm not asking so much for Jews living in the 21st Century, but rather the Jews living in the 1st Century AD, when Jesus was supposed to have walked the earth - specifically the Pharisees, since Jesus often went against their views. What was their stance on the teachings of the Talmudic Rabbi's (yes, I know the Talmud wasn't written down until the 2nd Century, but it still existed in oral form, I was interested in their stance on that)?

Thank you for your response, when you get back to me I'll answer your question in greater detail

~ Regards,

Edited April 21, 2012 by Paranoid Android

[Jor-el]

As I can see, you did not understand Galatians 4:21-31 in the thread about Replacement Theology. But never mind for the time being. You have quoted

above in Romans 11:13, a Pauline declaration that he was the apostle to the Gentiles. Now, would you please quote when did he ever decide to go to

the Gentiles? I can't find it in his Letters. What I have is that since his first station in Damascus in the synagogues of the Jews and until his

last in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace. (Acts 9:1,2 and 28:17) I would give him 98% of his missionary works among the Jews and only 2% among

the Gentiles. Now, does 2% of a missionary's work is enough to qualify him as an apostle to the Gentiles?

Ben

You don't know your history, do you?

Since it is quite clear that the gentile church came out of somewhere, where do you think it came out of? Did it just "poof" appear out of nowhere?

The gentile church exists because of Paul, who opened up the doors to the gentiles. You have a major problem with Paul. I'm sorry you feel that way, the truth is Paul was a Jew, a Pharisee and a man who has always been hated by others for what he stood for.

Jews hated him, many christians hated him, the man was hated by nearly everyone at one time or another. But his words demonstrate the truth of God, of grace, of love and sacrifice. Your views are skewed by your hate for this man.

Call him a liar, call him a deciever, call him whatever you want, but if Israel exists today, it is because the words of this man were taken to heart by chrsitians all over the world.

Notice that most of his letters are concerning gentiles, not jews. Actually there isn't a single letter that wasn't about or to gentiles...

Edited April 21, 2012 by Jor-el

[Ben Masada]

Before I respond, I would like to ask your (and by extension, the Jewish) stance on the Talmud. I was under the impression that the Talmud, along with the Tanakh, comprised the two core elements of Judaic teachings and through study of BOTH Talmud and Tanakh one could understand what it meant to be a Jew. Was I wrong in this estimation?

More to the point, I'm not asking so much for Jews living in the 21st Century, but rather the Jews living in the 1st Century AD, when Jesus was supposed to have walked the earth - specifically the Pharisees, since Jesus often went against their views. What was their stance on the teachings of the Talmudic Rabbi's (yes, I know the Talmud wasn't written down until the 2nd Century, but it still existed in oral form, I was interested in their stance on that)?

Thank you for your response, when you get back to me I'll answer your question in greater detail

~ Regards,

PA, I take the Talmud as a commentary and explanation of the Tanach to the community that does not have time to dedicate more to understand the Tanach. In other words, as if what I read in the Talmud, functions more in terms of fences around the Torah. My position has been losely addressed to

by some of my fellow Jews as the one more akin to the Karaiite form of Judaism; or even to the Sadducee orientation. I do not consider myself of either modality, although I bend more towards Biblical Judaism than the Rabbinic one. I do consult the Talmud when I have some extra time. But I reject what seems to me not to go in harmony with the Tanach, like anthropomorphistic references to God.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

You don't know your history, do you?

Perhaps not, but I am sure you are going to teach me.

Since it is quite clear that the gentile church came out of somewhere, where do you think it came out of? Did it just "poof" appear out of nowhere?

I think the gentile church came out of the great campains of evangelization of the pagans during the 4th Century by the Church. Not from Paul, that's

for sure. All his life, as I have told you, was to worry about the Jews, since Damascus and until Rome.

The gentile church exists because of Paul, who opened up the doors to the gentiles. You have a major problem with Paul. I'm sorry you feel that way, the truth is Paul was a Jew, a Pharisee and a man who has always been hated by others for what he stood for.

That was not my question. If I recall, I asked you to show me in the NT when Paul ever decided to go to the Gentiles if he was an apostle of the Gentiles. Paul was not the one who opened up the door for the Gentiles, but the Church in the 4th Century, when it became the official religion of

the Roman Empire.

Jews hated him, many christians hated him, the man was hated by nearly everyone at one time or another. But his words demonstrate the truth of God, of grace, of love and sacrifice. Your views are skewed by your hate for this man.

If you do believe that his words demonstrate the truth of God, why did he contradict Jesus with regards to the Law? Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that

he did not come to abolish the Law and Paul said that he abolished the Law on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15) IMO, he took Jesus as if he did not know what

he was talking about.

Call him a liar, call him a deciever, call him whatever you want, but if Israel exists today, it is because the words of this man were taken to heart by chrsitians all over the world.

The opposite is rather true. It is because of Paul's words that we have lost millions of Jews through our History, through pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and last but not least, the Holocaust.

Notice that most of his letters are concerning gentiles, not jews. Actually there isn't a single letter that wasn't about or to gentiles...

Yes, but the Gentiles that he fished from the synagogues of the Jews. He was never able to raise a church of Gentiles from scratch. He would build his church on the foundation of the Nazarenes.

Ben

[Arbitran]

To wash one's hands before a meal was not a law in Judaism but a tradition. Jesus did not come to revive traditions but the spiritual sense of the laws in Matthew 5:17-19. And Jesus was of the line of the Pharisees. He had no reason to keep a grudge against them. That grudge was in Paul for having been expelled out of Israel for the havoc he caused in Jerusalem preaching in the Jewish synagogues, that Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God. (Acts 9:30)

And this about Jesus condemning the Pharisees, as we have in Matthew 23:13-33, about thoses curses against the Pharisees, I do not believe they went

from Jesus' mouth, but if you do, it becomes evidence that Jesus broke the Golden Rule of not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto us. It means that Jesus sinned, which would set him in need of a salvior himself.

Ben

It should be noted too that Jesus called them fools on numerous occasions...

You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.” But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, “Raca!” shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, “You fool!” shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:21-22)

Well, Jesus is supposed to have gone to hell, so...

[Jor-el]

I think the gentile church came out of the great campains of evangelization of the pagans during the 4th Century by the Church. Not from Paul, that's

for sure. All his life, as I have told you, was to worry about the Jews, since Damascus and until Rome.

Funny... and they just popped up out of nowhere to become the official religion of the Empire. So where did the christians before this time come from exactly?

Oh right, they were Messianic Jews who welcomed gentiles into their midst as Jesus himself would have wanted.

That was not my question. If I recall, I asked you to show me in the NT when Paul ever decided to go to the Gentiles if he was an apostle of the Gentiles. Paul was not the one who opened up the door for the Gentiles, but the Church in the 4th Century, when it became the official religion of

the Roman Empire.

Using Antioch as a base, Paul made three evangelist tours among the Gentiles. His first one (45-48 C.E.) took him to the island of Cyprus and into south central Asia Minor, where he established several churches. Between his first and second tours he attended a conference in Jerusalem (50 C.E.), where his testimony was an important factor in the decision not to bind the Law of Moses upon Gentile Christians (Acts 15; Gal. 2).

His second tour (51-54 C.E.) took him through Syria, Cilicia, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia. The borders of the church were extended everywhere he preached. His third tour (54-58 C.E.) did not cover any new territory, but he did enjoy a long and successful ministry in Ephesus. He also visited the Macedonian and Achaian churches twice during this tour, which ended with his arrest in Jerusalem. He was held in Roman custody five or six years (58-63 C.E.) in Caesarea and Rome before he was released. According to Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus he was then able to travel several more years among the churches of the Aegean area before he was re-arrested and taken again to Rome. Where he died, crucified.

None of these voyages had anything to do with Jewish Synagogues or Jews at all.

If you do believe that his words demonstrate the truth of God, why did he contradict Jesus with regards to the Law? Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the Law and Paul said that he abolished the Law on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15) IMO, he took Jesus as if he did not know what he was talking about.

Oh did he?

Was the sacrificial system and the regulations set therin, not abolished? You enjoy Rabbinical Judaism because of just this fact.

The opposite is rather true. It is because of Paul's words that we have lost millions of Jews through our History, through pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and last but not least, the Holocaust.

Man that is lame... and so very unfair. It is also the perfect excuse to hate, is it not? I suppose the old axiom, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth still applies.

I won't bother to correct you misaprehensions, they are simply too serious to get into and would cause serious problems on this forum.

Yes, but the Gentiles that he fished from the synagogues of the Jews. He was never able to raise a church of Gentiles from scratch. He would build his church on the foundation of the Nazarenes.

Ben

Oh, there were gentiles in the Synagogues? I wonder how they got there. Judaism isn't and wasn't exactly famous for proselytising, rather the opposite, it would seem. No what you have are Jews who saw the truth in Pauls affirmation, that Jesus was the Messiah.

The gentiles who converted, did so, contrary to many Jewish believers desires they wanted them to convert to Judaism 1st. In essence they believed that you couldn't become a christian unless you became a Jew 1st. Guess who changed their minds on the subject? Paul.

Paul opened the church to the gentiles, and in doing so, christianity transformed from a minor Jewish Sect, to a major new religion. It didn't happen overnight, it took centuries, but he started the process, there is no denying that.

It is a pity, that centuiries later, the very same christians, turned on the bretheren, who gave them Jesus Christ and for political gain and power, turned the church into what we have today. But I do not call those people christians, they are known by their fruit, and it stinks.

[+Link of Hyrule]

PA, I take the Talmud as a commentary and explanation of the Tanach to the community that does not have time to dedicate more to understand the Tanach. In other words, as if what I read in the Talmud, functions more in terms of fences around the Torah. My position has been losely addressed to

by some of my fellow Jews as the one more akin to the Karaiite form of Judaism; or even to the Sadducee orientation. I do not consider myself of either modality, although I bend more towards Biblical Judaism than the Rabbinic one. I do consult the Talmud when I have some extra time. But I reject what seems to me not to go in harmony with the Tanach, like anthropomorphistic references to God.

Ben

Fair enough, so you don't take the Talmud as strong as some others. Nevertheless, in 1st Century Judaism (which you'll notice is the more important part of the question, and which you did not answer) the Rabbinic oral tradition was very very important. Of particular note in regards to the issue I brought up:

The hands are susceptible to (spiritual) uncleanness and are rendered clean up to the wrist. How so? If one poured the first water up to the wrist and the second beyond the wrist and it went back to the hand - it is clean. If he poured out the first and the second pouring of water beyond the wrist and it went back to the hand, it is unclean. If he poured out the first water onto one hand, and was reminded and poured out the second water on to both hands, they are unclean. If he poured out the first water on ot both hands and was reminded and poured out the second water on to one hand, his hand which has been washed twice is clean. If he poured out water on to one hand and rubbed it on the other, it is unclean

~ Mishnah, Yadayim 2:3

This was the way the Pharisees looked at ceremonial hand washing. Before eating a meal a particular ritual had to be observed or else they considered a person to be "unclean". In direct contrast to this, Jesus stated:

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them."...

...He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

~ Mark 7:14, 20-23

Jesus challenged the Pharisees on this, who saw these as necessary rules (or traditions, if you like) for Yahweh worship. If you sat down to eat with Pharisees in the 1st Century they would have gone through this ritual hand washing, and if you were a loyal Jew and did not follow suit you would have been deemed "unclean". Jesus often spoke in direct opposition to the legalistic righteousness of the Pharisees.

~ Regards, PA

[eight bits]

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the Law and Paul said that he abolished the Law on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15) IMO, he took Jesus as if he did not know what he was talking about.

I noticed in another thread that you either have trouble reading texts, or else a gift for quote mining them to back up your agenda.

I chose this snippet to comment upon because the epistular passage you have chosen is especially rich in problems. Since the New Testament is, for me, a work of literature, no doubt the God Squad will be as unhappy with my viewpoint as you are about to be.

First, "Paul said." The authorship of Ephesians is disputed. Nobody, including you, knows whether Paul wrote this letter or not, because it is not possible for a living person to know this. Ephesians is "Deutero-Pauline," not quite as confidently inauthentic as the pastorals, but nowhere near as confidently genuine as the magnificent seven.

Secondly, what is widely regarded as authentic Paul, Romans 3: 31, contradicts your reading of Ephesians 2: 15, in black letters.

Authorship aside, in what sense does Ephesians speak of abolishing the law? Clearly, what is abolished is the exclusivity by covenant that formerly divided Jew from Gentile. There is nothing said about Jews not continuing in the covenant. There is nothing said about Jews at all except as bears on their new relationship with Gentiles, presented as peace and harmony.

Thanks to the internetz, there is no sport in finding "contradictions in the Bible." Many atheist sites will supply you a bushel basket of them in their tireless struggle against the minority of a minority of living Christians who are Biblical literalists. The problem is that many of the mass-produced "contradictions" are only differences between strained readings of the contrasted texts, not contradictions among the texts themselves.

That is the case with Ephesians 2: 15. Regardless of who wrote it, and when, there is no textual contradiction with Gospel sayings where Jesus says that he fulfills the Law or Paul in Romans.

-

Edited April 27, 2012 by eight bits

[Ben Masada]

It should be noted too that Jesus called them fools on numerous occasions...

Well, Jesus is supposed to have gone to hell, so...

I don't think so. Why? Because Jesus was a Jewish man; and Jews do not believe in hell as a place to go to. All his references to hell were by means of parables. Evidence of this fact is in the parable of the rich man in hell and Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. (Luke 16:29-31)

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Funny... and they just popped up out of nowhere to become the official religion of the Empire. So where did the christians before this time come from exactly?

No, they were the Gentiles who had become Jewish as a result of the works of Peter, the one who had been chosen to be the apostle to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7)

Oh right, they were Messianic Jews who welcomed gentiles into their midst as Jesus himself would have wanted.

Are you sure that Jesus welcomed the Gentiles into their midst? Rather the opposite is true. Jesus instructed his disciples NOT to take the gospel unto the Gentiles. Read Matthew 10:5,6. Nice welcome that of his. Who changed Jesus' attitude, Paul? You have not yet showed me when he ever went to the Gentiles.

Using Antioch as a base, Paul made three evangelist tours among the Gentiles. His first one (45-48 C.E.) took him to the island of Cyprus and into south central Asia Minor, where he established several churches. Between his first and second tours he attended a conference in Jerusalem (50 C.E.), where his testimony was an important factor in the decision not to bind the Law of Moses upon Gentile Christians (Acts 15; Gal. 2).

Starting with the synagogue of Antioch, the members were from the disciples of the Apostles, who sent Barnabas a senior Nazarene as a leader to the synagogue of Antioch and, instead of doing his work as he had been assingned to, he went to Tarsus to invite Paul to come to help him. At the end of a year, Paul had overturned that synagogue into a Christian church. That's when the disciples were first called Christians. The obviousness is becuase Paul would preach that Jesus was Christ. If they were the disciples of the Nazarenes, followers of Jesus, what did they think about Jesus before? Read Acts 11:19-26. That was the first synagogue Paul vandalized. Then, he went to the synagogues of Cyprus. Read Acts 13:5. Then, he went to the synagogues of Perga in Pamphylia. (Acts 13:14) And so forth. Galatia was another Jewish synagogue that Paul had vandalized. Some of the Nazarenes had been sent to try to salvage the Cause and some of the members were returning to the Law when Paul got upset and was ready to curse any gospel different from his, even if it had brought down by an angel from heaven. (Gal. 1:6-9; 4:21-31) In Ephesus, the very same thing. He would invade the synagogues with his gospel and used to get into hot debates with the Jews. Read Acts 19:19. Etc, etc, everywhere there was a Jewish synagogue.

His second tour (51-54 C.E.) took him through Syria, Cilicia, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia. The borders of the church were extended everywhere he preached. His third tour (54-58 C.E.) did not cover any new territory, but he did enjoy a long and successful ministry in Ephesus. He also visited the Macedonian and Achaian churches twice during this tour, which ended with his arrest in Jerusalem. He was held in Roman custody five or six years (58-63 C.E.) in Caesarea and Rome before he was released. According to Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus he was then able to travel several more years among the churches of the Aegean area before he was re-arrested and taken again to Rome. Where he died, crucified.

Everywhere in the synagogues of the Jews. Even in Rome. Here, since he could not go to the Jews because he was in house arrest, he would invite them to come over to hear his gospel. Read Acts 28:17. When the Jewish leaders suspected of his intentions, as I do today, they started leaving him and returning no more. (Acts 28:25)

None of these voyages had anything to do with Jewish Synagogues or Jews at all.

Because the scales of preconceived notions won't allow you to understand what you don't want to see.

Was the sacrificial system and the regulations set therin, not abolished? You enjoy Rabbinical Judaism because of just this fact.

Neither was Jesus talking about sacrifices nor was Paul. Read Romans 7:7. Paul was referring to God's Law in the Decalogue. And in Matthew 5:19, Jesus was talking about the Law of commandments; hence, the Decalogue too.

Man that is lame... and so very unfair. It is also the perfect excuse to hate, is it not? I suppose the old axiom, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth still applies.

Oh! I see. Jews must sit duck and be killed without any complain. If they speak of their suffering caused by the false accusation of deicide, it suddenly unfair in the ears of Christians. Please, have mercy!

Oh, there were gentiles in the Synagogues? I wonder how they got there. Judaism isn't and wasn't exactly famous for proselytising, rather the opposite, it would seem. No what you have are Jews who saw the truth in Pauls affirmation, that Jesus was the Messiah.

No, I think you ought to brush up a little on your learning skills about History. The Jewish People were famous and successful as proselytizers. The order to stop with that kind of mission was given by our Jewish leaders in the beginning of the 4th Century when the Church started using its authority as the official religion of the Roman Empire by decreeing death sentences on the Jews involved with proselytizing non-Jews. It was about 310 ACE.

The gentiles who converted, did so, contrary to many Jewish believers desires they wanted them to convert to Judaism 1st. In essence they believed that you couldn't become a christian unless you became a Jew 1st. Guess who changed their minds on the subject? Paul.

Show me in your NT a quote that says that Gentiles, to become Christians, had to become Jewish first. One thing had nothing to do with the other.

Paul opened the church to the gentiles, and in doing so, christianity transformed from a minor Jewish Sect, to a major new religion. It didn't happen overnight, it took centuries, but he started the process, there is no denying that.

Christianity was never Jewish but Hellenistic from its onset. It was from Hellenism that Paul copied the concept of the demigod, which is the Greek myth of a son born of a god with an earthly woman. Such a thing was always foreign to Judaism.

It is a pity, that centuiries later, the very same christians, turned on the bretheren, who gave them Jesus Christ and for political gain and power, turned the church into what we have today. But I do not call those people christians, they are known by their fruit, and it stinks.

I am aware of that strategy that when a church commits any kind of atrocity the others immediately procclaim that the members were not Christians. Nice sense of solidarity.

Ben

[J. K.]

If there is not enough information about Jesus to fill a tefillin, it means you don't have much to get from where there is not enough to. All we have is the NT. As far I am concerned, only 20% of what we have from the NT is worth our time to absorb. The other 80% is myth.

Can you provide an outline of the 20% you believe is valid, and the source of information upon which your suppositiion is based?

[Ben Masada]

Fair enough, so you don't take the Talmud as strong as some others. Nevertheless, in 1st Century Judaism (which you'll notice is the more important part of the question, and which you did not answer) the Rabbinic oral tradition was very very important. Of particular note in regards to the issue I brought up:

The hands are susceptible to (spiritual) uncleanness and are rendered clean up to the wrist. How so? If one poured the first water up to the wrist and the second beyond the wrist and it went back to the hand - it is clean. If he poured out the first and the second pouring of water beyond the wrist and it went back to the hand, it is unclean. If he poured out the first water onto one hand, and was reminded and poured out the second water on to both hands, they are unclean. If he poured out the first water on ot both hands and was reminded and poured out the second water on to one hand, his hand which has been washed twice is clean. If he poured out water on to one hand and rubbed it on the other, it is unclean

~ Mishnah, Yadayim 2:3

This was the way the Pharisees looked at ceremonial hand washing. Before eating a meal a particular ritual had to be observed or else they considered a person to be "unclean". In direct contrast to this, Jesus stated:

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them."...

...He went on: "What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person's heart, that evil thoughts comesexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person."

~ Mark 7:14, 20-23

Jesus challenged the Pharisees on this, who saw these as necessary rules (or traditions, if you like) for Yahweh worship. If you sat down to eat with Pharisees in the 1st Century they would have gone through this ritual hand washing, and if you were a loyal Jew and did not follow suit you would have been deemed "unclean". Jesus often spoke in direct opposition to the legalistic righteousness of the Pharisees.

~ Regards, PA

Fences around the Torah, as I have told you, is the way I look at these little things in the tradition of the Mishnah. Little things without the power of a commandment. But, with regards to the offensive attitude of Jesus against the Pharisees, I do not believe it was from Jesus, as this was of the line of the Pharisees himself. Paul was the one who had a grudge against the Pharisees for having set the Land of Israel out of Paul's reach under penalty of being arrested if he was ever caught around. Hence, Paul never succeeded to raise a church in the whole of the Land of Israel. He did have some disciples in Israel who would gather in private houses. But a church was forbidden to be raised in Israel. Hence his imprecations against the Pharisees in the gospels.

You have mentioned above, supposedly from Jesus, that what defiles a person is what comes out from inside and not what comes in. I do not fully agree with that. Poison comes in and does defile a person, whereas physically. But since the text means spiritually, Lustful thoughts occur by what comes in through the eyes. Therefore, it is from outside. As well as through the touch, which, of course comes from outside. It means that if Jesus was a wise Jew, he could not have said those words as an intelligent proverb.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

I noticed in another thread that you either have trouble reading texts, or else a gift for quote mining them to back up your agenda.

I chose this snippet to comment upon because the epistular passage you have chosen is especially rich in problems. Since the New Testament is, for me, a work of literature, no doubt the God Squad will be as unhappy with my viewpoint as you are about to be.

First, "Paul said." The authorship of Ephesians is disputed. Nobody, including you, knows whether Paul wrote this letter or not, because it is not possible for a living person to know this. Ephesians is "Deutero-Pauline," not quite as confidently inauthentic as the pastorals, but nowhere near as confidently genuine as the magnificent seven.

Secondly, what is widely regarded as authentic Paul, Romans 3: 31, contradicts your reading of Ephesians 2: 15, in black letters.

Authorship aside, in what sense does Ephesians speak of abolishing the law? Clearly, what is abolished is the exclusivity by covenant that formerly divided Jew from Gentile. There is nothing said about Jews not continuing in the covenant. There is nothing said about Jews at all except as bears on their new relationship with Gentiles, presented as peace and harmony.

Thanks to the internetz, there is no sport in finding "contradictions in the Bible." Many atheist sites will supply you a bushel basket of them in their tireless struggle against the minority of a minority of living Christians who are Biblical literalists. The problem is that many of the mass-produced "contradictions" are only differences between strained readings of the contrasted texts, not contradictions among the texts themselves.

That is the case with Ephesians 2: 15. Regardless of who wrote it, and when, there is no textual contradiction with Gospel sayings where Jesus says that he fulfills the Law or Paul in Romans.

-

Well, my friend, your post above only confirms the fact of contradictions in the NT. Besides the acknowledgement of Paul himself at the introduction of the Letter to the Ephesians, as being his, Christian tradiction, beginning with Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria in the late 2nd Century, unhesitatingly ascribed this epistle to Paul.

Now, with regards to the contradiction of Ephesians 2:15 with Matthew 5:17 which you do not see, Jesus was clear enough in verse 19 to convey that he was talking about the Law of commandments, just as what is meant by the Decalogue. And when Paul said that Jesus, in his flesh, had abolished the Law with its commands and precepts, any one with the minimum of common sense can see that the Law of commandments and precepts is indeed a reference to the Decalogue.

Besides, if you read Romans 7:7, he, Paul, makes a straight reference to the Decalogue as he brings up one of the commandments, "Thou shall not covet." And this was under the title of an allegory of the widow who got rid of the law with the death of her husband. Therefore, Paul was, no doubt, talking about God's Law of the Decalogue when he contradicted Jesus by saying that he did come to abolish it.

Now, go wonder why he needed to say that. Perhaps the answer is in Romans 7:25. Since he came to the concludion that it was impossible to eliminate the Law, he decided to serve both, the Law in his mind and sin in his flesh at the same time. Being this also an exception to Jesus' rule that none can serve two masters.

Ben

Edited May 10, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

Can you provide an outline of the 20% you believe is valid, and the source of information upon which your suppositiion is based?

I cannot be that specific right off hand. I am based on the fact that anything not Jewish in the NT, must be exposed as Hellenistic and not Jewish. That's not because it is any of my business detacting what is valid or not, but because Jesus was a Jewish man and any claim about him must be in tune with his Faith which was Judaism. And from my researches in the NT, I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't go up to more than 20%.

Ben

[eight bits]

Well, my friend, your post above only confirms the fact of contradictions in the NT. Besides the acknowledgement of Paul himself at the introduction of the Letter to the Ephesians, as being his, Christian tradiction, beginning with Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria in the late 2nd Century, unhesitatingly ascribed this epistle to Paul.

Well, that's all very interesting. The fact remains, my friend, that you do not know whether or not Paul wrote Ephesians. It should not need to be explained that the author of Ephesians claiming to be Paul is different from Paul being the author of Ephesians.

In any case, as I already noted, whoever wrote it, Ephesians 2: 15 is talking about the exclusivity of covenant, not its persistence. This is "scientific myth" being rewritten by you to read just "myth" all over again.

My point in posting about two weeks ago was that you do that a lot. Doing it some more in belated reply isn't rebuttal.

[J. K.]

I cannot be that specific right off hand. I am based on the fact that anything not Jewish in the NT, must be exposed as Hellenistic and not Jewish. That's not because it is any of my business detacting what is valid or not, but because Jesus was a Jewish man and any claim about him must be in tune with his Faith which was Judaism. And from my researches in the NT, I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't go up to more than 20%.

Ben

How then do you interpret this Scripture in regard to Judaism?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:16-18

1. Who is encompassed by the term 'whosoever': all of humanity or only a select portion of humanity?

2. How does belief in the Son sidestep condemnation without benefit of following the Law?

[Ben Masada]

Well, that's all very interesting. The fact remains, my friend, that you do not know whether or not Paul wrote Ephesians. It should not need to be explained that the author of Ephesians claiming to be Paul is different from Paul being the author of Ephesians.

In any case, as I already noted, whoever wrote it, Ephesians 2: 15 is talking about the exclusivity of covenant, not its persistence. This is "scientific myth" being rewritten by you to read just "myth" all over again.

My point in posting about two weeks ago was that you do that a lot. Doing it some more in belated reply isn't rebuttal.

Not only the Letter to the Ephesians but also the one to the Hebrews, several scholars have verified and come to the conclusion that Paul was indeed the author.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

How then do you interpret this Scripture in regard to Judaism?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:16-18

1. Who is encompassed by the term 'whosoever': all of humanity or only a select portion of humanity?

2. How does belief in the Son sidestep condemnation without benefit of following the Law?

The Son of God, according to the only Scriptures that Jesus used to refer to as the Word of God, is Israel. See Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My Son; so, let My Son go that he may serve Me." Jesus was son of God for his part with Israel, and not on an individual basis. That's not my saying. It is written. Then, for John 3:16, here is another version to the same text:

ANOTHER ASPECT OF JOHN 3:16

And God so loved the world that, to teach Mankind what love is, He became a Jew. That's a truth that every single Christian believes in it, but refuses to behave as such. To start with, because of the NT false charge that Jews have killed Jesus, a serial persecution has been developed since the Church got organized by Constatine in 310 ACE and up to this very day, through pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition, and last but not least, the Holocaust of only 70 years ago, when millions of Jewish lives have been destroyed. I guess God made a mistake. Mankind was not ready to be taught what love is.

Ben