11 replies to this topic

[omar111]

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" -- Jesus (Matthew 15:24)

RIVAL RELIGIONS: THE JESUS AND CHRIST MOVEMENTS
As we have seen, Paul's views were vasdy different from those of the Jesus Movement and from Jesus himself. They rested on Paul's mystical experience: everything flowed from that deep spiritual connection made between the Christ and Paul. Through this ongoing relationship, Paul received information that differed from the original followers of Jesus and from what the Jesus of history taught and practiced. It was a separate revelation. From this movement, and from his experience, however, emerged subsequent Christianity. It is not often noted the extent to which the foundations of Christianity depend crucially on Paul's personal experience. That vision defined the central character of Paul's message, the shape of his movement, and subsequent Christianity.


The contrast between the two rival movements is stark, differing in terms of origins, practices, and beliefs, as we have seen. More than that, the focal point of the two movements differed. The Jesus Movement represented the religion of Jesus. The Christ Movement, however, was a religion about the Christ. These were two separate religions.


Two traditions were born in the early decades of the first century a.d. One tradition goes from Jesus, through the Jesus Movement under James, into the Ebionites as they were later called. We have carefully profiled this movement and its subsequent history will be traced later on. The other tradition stems from Paul through the Christ Movement and then on into modern Christianity. Scholars such as Bart Ehrman refer to the Christ Movement as it moved out into the wider arena of the Roman Empire in the second through fourth centuries as Proto-Orthodoxy. We will use this convenient phrase rather than the more cumbersome "what eventually became Christianity." The Proto-Orthodox represents the faction that, in time, became the dominant _expression_ of the new faith. This tradition won out over every other form of early Christianity, the Ebionites and Gnostics included. Leading figures of early Christianity such as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertul-lian, and Augustine were all Proto-Orthodox writers.

The Proto-Orthodox did not know that they were Proto-Orthodox; that is, they were not aware, of course, that they represented the group that was destined to become Christianity. During the period of intense rivalry within the early church—the second through fourth centuries—everyone proclaimed their movement to be the true faith and denounced others. Why the Proto-Orthodox eventually won out is a complex story that Bart Ehrman traces through several chapters of his Lost Christianities.9 They include such reasons as having a superior infrastructure—a worldwide network of bishops in communication with one another—as well as a vast writing apparatus that undertook the task of producing gospels, theological and philosophical treatises, legends, romances, letters, and attacks upon every conceivable heretical position. They were driven to succeed, answering every _object_ion and battering down every perceived heresy in a way that their rivals did not. In modern terms, they controlled the airwaves, winning what Ehrman terms "the battle over texts."


But there were other factors at work as well. The shape of Paul's new religion offered immense advantages over that of the Jesus Movement. It was simpler to join. It encouraged faith in a religious figure who bore strong similarities to other saviors who were well known throughout the ancient Mediterranean world. That made it much easier than having to back up through the history of Israel to explain the necessity for a political Messiah. It offered immediate rewards: eternal life through faith in Christ. It opened up food choices, with dietary restrictions abandoned. It was easier—much easier—to follow, with none of the laws of Torah constandy on the minds of its members. In fact, like most Hellenistic religions, it made few demands on its members. Furthermore, it radically reduced the need to read and understand what we call the Old Testament since its central message, that of Torah observance, had been shattered. God-fearers no longer had to attend synagogue services. The welcome mat was out for them in the new Christ Movement, which greeted them without making them second-class members. No more were they appendages to Judaism but full-fledged members of the new movement. And it was inclusive. Everyone was welcomed on the same terms. Paul unleashed a powerful new religious dynamic within the world of his time. It was appealing and inviting.


That is not to say that Paul's movement was not without its problems. It faced strenuous opposition. Paul was constantly attacked. Virtually every one of Paul's letters addresses issues raised by various kinds of opponents, most of them coming from Jewish or Jesus Movement teachers. We tend to ignore the anger that Paul's views stirred up wherever he went, but his catalogue of opposition is immense. The earliest letter of Paul (and, thus, the earliest Christian writing we possess), 1 Thessalonians, for instance, talked about being treated shamefully at Philippi and that he faced great opposition in Thessalonica. Somewhat later, in 1 Corinthians, he mentioned several rival factions at work within that congregation, one led by Apollos and another by no less a personage than Peter. In Philippians he criticized opposition leaders who, he maintained, preached out of envy or rivalry. There, too, he attacked those who practice circumcision—that is, every form of Judaism, including the Jesus Movement people—as "dogs" and "evil-workers" (Philippians 3:2). In 2 Corinthians, he denounced Judaism as a "ministry of death" (2 Corinthians 3:7) and advanced the view that whenever Torah is read by Jewish people, a veil clouds their understanding. He battled against what he sarcastically called "the super apostles," (2 Corinthians 11:7) probably referring to the original followers of Jesus, and brands them as "false apostles," "deceitful workers," and agents of Satan.


In addition to being confronted with immense opposition, Paul's religion faced other significant challenges. He had to contend with a number of major ethical questions. Letters such as 1 Corinthians testify to this, where family, sexual, and social matters dominate the discussion. Even at the end of Galatians, he cautioned his hearers that freedom from the law does not mean anarchy. In the process of abandoning Torah, however, he could not refer to these ready-made ethical principles to resolve the contentious matters that had surfaced. In practice he tended to answer these issues on a rather ad hoc, piecemeal basis.


In addition, Paul had to face problems about which we hear very little. What replaced the Sabbath? Did his members take a day off work? If so, when? How did his new converts get along with their old Jewish friends and acquaintances in the synagogues they had recently left? How much social interaction was possible between them and observant Jews? How much bitterness was present? Did Paul's pragmatic instructions that it makes no difference what one eats, including meat from temples dedicated to idols, really persuade his membership to engage in this practice? And, apart from having faith in the Christ and waiting for his return, what else did his membership have to believe?
Moreover, without the distinctiveness of Torah, what distinguished Paul's followers from those of the mystery religions of the time? It would appear that only the name of the dying-rising savior divine-human differs—Christ for Mithras or Dionysus, for instance.


On the other side of the fence were the members of the Jesus Movement. They were shocked by Paul's teachings; they opposed him vigorously and were probably dismayed by his success. They viewed him as a false teacher, someone who had developed a thoroughly Hellenized religion. They thought of themselves as the true successors of Jesus, following in his footsteps and continuing his practices. Ironically, however, this did not seem to count as Paul's religion swept through the Mediterranean. The Jesus Movement had little in common with its rival. There could have been little interaction between Paul's group and the Jesus Movement. Everything was different: the holidays, the food they ate, the beliefs they entertained, and the practices they considered important. Outsiders, however, Jews and Gentiles alike, might make the mistake of supposing that they were similar, sharing as they did some common terminology including mention of Jesus, whom Paul typically called the Christ. No wonder outsiders were confused.


In time, Paul's Christ Movement and its successors, the Proto-Orthodox, won out over all the alternatives. It's difficult to date the birth of Christianity as a church, but I would date it to the fourth century. It was during this century that the Proto-Orthodox faction became favored by Constantine and subsequently decreed the official religion of the Roman Empire under Emperor Theodosius in 380. This imperial backing allowed this dominant group to do away with all their rivals, their rivals' leadership, and their rivals' writings—the Ebionites, Gnostics, as well as many other forms of Christianity that had emerged by this time.


The Proto-Orthodox succeeded for many reasons, some of which we have cited—imperial backing, the shape of the religion created by Paul, strong episcopal leadership, and a network of communications. In modern business terms, they occupied an enviable and strategic position. They had the product, a flexible, welcoming, easy-to-follow religion. They had the distribution network, bishops scattered around the Mediterranean in constant communication with one another. They controlled the communication process, producing endless writings that supported their own position while responding to every criticism in a way that the Ebionite and Gnostic Christians failed to do. They wrote gospels, letters, romances, fictitious histories, attacks on heretics, and defenses of the faith. They advanced an effective public relations campaign, contending that their bishops were descended from the original disciples of Jesus. They also had the branding—a modern Roman religion with some _link_s to an ancient and respectable Jewish ancestry.


But there was another important factor at work. None of this would have happened without the Book of Acts, which glued the Christ Movement on to the Jesus Movement-—at least on paper. That, of course, never happened in reality. The Jesus and Christ Movements were parallel movements, at odds with each other. But Acts tries to tell us otherwise

How Jesus Became Christian: the early Christians and the transformation of a Jewish teacher into the Son of God
Barrie Wilson

Quite interesting reading, but not for my Christian friends. But they must agree that they can never find support of Pauline doctrines in gospels. So what they have is a new Prophet, Paul. But why is this new Prophet, not prophesized by Jesus? And why Jesus opposed preaching to gentiles if Paul preached to them? Who is the false Prophet?
Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves Mathew 7;15

[iere]

I have to disagree. Paul did not believe nor teach that the law was swept aside due to Jesus' sacrifice. While yours is the common understanding of the message in Paul's writings, context is extremely critical in understanding this issue. Here is an alternate understanding within Christianity of Paul’s message, held by a minority (within Gentile Christianity).

The laws that Paul referred to as being nailed to the cross were the sacrificial/ceremonial laws (law of Moses). This entailed the laws for sacrifices and burnt offerings, which was a temporary system that typified the future coming of the Messiah and His ultimate sacrifice. To put it simply, within that particular system was the message that death is the result of sin, and either the sinner or a savior would suffer the ultimate consequences. The ceremonial system - including the feast days, new moons and sabbath days (which includes the high sabbaths, not the weekly seventh day sabbaths) – also pointed to the impending sacrifice of the Messiah. The ceremonies and sacrifices were literal lessons for the people regarding God’s plan of salvation. Christ became our Pesach (Passover lamb) when He paid the ultimate price for our sin (death). At that very point in time, the sacrificial/ceremonial system became no longer necessary, because the foreshadowing became a reality. See 1 Corinthians 5:7-8. This is what Paul is referencing repeatedly, particularly in his reference to the handwriting of ordinances in Colossians. Jewish Christians has been accustomed to the feasts, new moon etc. but some felt is was mandatory for all (including Gentiles) even after type met antitype. Thus, even though they were free to continue, adherence was not a mandatory practice for any Christian. Paul was clarifying this matter in this writings. This is not to assert that the sacrificial/ceremonial system is not important even today. It certainly should be carefully studied, understood and recognized as part of God's ongoing message of salvation through history.

Paul in his writings upholds Ten Commandments,also referred to by some as the moral law, which includes the seventh day sabbath. Neither does he do away with the dietary laws. He never states that all of God's laws are done away with but rather provides clarification of the purpose of the commandments. Here, we find the true meaning of what it means to be “under the law” as opposed to “under grace.”

Romans 3:19 - 24
¹⁹ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
²⁰ Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
²¹ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
²² Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
²³ For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
²⁴ Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

The distinction is very clear in these verses. The purpose of the law is show us what is sin in the eyes of God. It provides knowledge of sin but cannot justify. Justification is solely through the grace of God through the “redemption that is in Christ Jesus. “ The problem back then was that many believed that adherence to the law is what saved them and were living “under the law.” Paul devotes much time into explaining that this should not be. No matter how precisely the individuals keep the laws, they are still in need of the grace of Jesus.

So naturally one would ask, why then should keep the laws if the laws have no other purpose than to inform us of what is sinful and cannot provide justification? This is very simple and answered by the words of Christ.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

All over the New Testament (and Old), the keeping of God’s Ten commandments is evidence of our love and belief in God. Christ emphasizes that you will know His people by their fruits (works). Matthew 7:16. The popular belief that Paul taught that all of the Old Testament law was abolished has taken a serious toll on the majority of Christianity, and it is certainly wrapped up in the whole Jew/Christian/Jewish Christian dialogue that continue today. The reality for the Christian is that we should keep the laws of God out of love, honor and appreciation and understand that it is through grace of God that we are justified.

The prevailing viewpoints embraced by wider Christianity regarding the laws of God has other origins and some have used verses from Paul to justify those viewpoints even though Paul complete message differs from their own.

Edited by iere, 27 July 2012 - 12:00 AM.

[omar111]

That is the general belief of the Law free christians. But the question still remains that why Jesus never taught all these things. Why these things were not preached by his disciples? Why we needed a new Prophet like Paul? Why there were two movements in early Christianity?
Paul abused all Jews, Muslims and even Jesus.
Watch out for those dogs, those people who do evil, those mutilators who say you must be circumcised to be saved. Philippians 3:2
Jesus warned  in 2 Corinthians 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.
Can you think of anyone else who claimed to be an apostle, other then Paul?
Matthew 5: 17) 'Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil.
(18) For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Now you interpret it as being fulfilled by Jesus, but it can only means Day of judgement. It is supported by
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."  (Luke 16:17)
While Paul says:
Rom.10
[4] For Christ is the end of the law, that everyone who has faith may be justified

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.  Mark.7:9-13  "Whoever curses father or mother shall die"  Mark 7:10
“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”  Matthew 15:4
Like the Bible he commands slaves to fear their masters 1 Peter 2:18
Paul contradicts:
Rom.7
[9] I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died;
[10] the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me.
Vs.
Jesus:

Matt.19
[17] And he said to him, Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.

And on a lighter note, Paul did it all for money.

1Tim.5
[17] Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;
[18] for the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages.
1Cor.9
[11] If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits?
[12] If others share this rightful claim upon you, do not we still more?

While Jesus wanted him to do it for free

Matt.10
[7] And preach as you go, saying, `The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'
[8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay.


After  Jesus’ supposed death and resurrection some of Jesus’ more intimate disciples and members of his family established themselves in Jerusalem as the First Community of Believers. The circle of the Twelve formed the nucleus of this community. There is no evidence any disciples or core followers remained in Galilee. Counted among the first followers are also “several women” as well as some of Jesus’ immediate family, his mother and brothers. James was the leader of the first community. The members of this community wereall Jews.. Following the events of Shavuot (Pentecost) there was a large influx of converts, from many nationalities and languages. However, they were all Jews or Jewish proselytes. The image of the Jerusalem community as being completely Jewish is confirmed by Paul in Galatians.
    But Paul had a fan ,Luke and he corrupted stories in acts to justify conversion of gentiles. According to the author of Acts, Peter visits the household, evangelizes, and then baptizes Cornelius. On returning to Jerusalem, Peter is forced to justify his behavior by recounting the events that led to the conversion. On hearing his defense, his detractors conclude that, "....God has granted even Gentiles repentance....". (It is often noted that the Cornelius episode is replete with numerous literary features and legendary motifs that are unique only to the author of Acts. F. Watson in Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles dismisses the whole episode as a Lukan creation. Several of these catalogued traits areFirst there is Cornelius the centurion, one of several centurions populating Luke and Acts that serve to demonstrate the favorable attitude of the Roman authorities to the new Christian Law-free movement.(Second, the motif of divine guidance given through the agency of angels and visions is typically unique to Luke.(Finally, the de_script_ion of the descent of the Spirit on Cornelius and his household, and their subsequent gift of glossolia (speaking in tongues), is clearly a mirrored composition to the Pentecost episode in Acts. These considerations force us to suspect, along with the other conflicting information, that the Cornelius episode is a (Lukan) literary constru(Luke’s purpose is not to just note the extraordinary character of these events, but to signal the initiation of the Law-free Gentile mission per se. The Cornelius episode is presented by Luke, not as the exception to the Jerusalem Believers' current Law-observant faith-practice but as the first instance of a new Law-free policy on the part of the Jerusalem Believers, which is reported to have been ratified later by the Jerusalem Council. Such is the radical nature of this departure of the Cornelius story that it seems Incredible, especially in the light of the First Jerusalem Community*s constituency and faith-practice. With the conclusions concerning the Law-observant Jerusalem community we must assume that any change in policy that allowed the admission of uncircumcised Gentiles would have been unthinkable, particularly at this early stage in the development of a thoroughly Jewish movement.
(Through his subsequent narrative of the "Hellenist Story Cycle" Luke provides an alternative explanation of the origins of the Law-free mission to the Gentiles. He described how those who had been scattered following the death of Stephen carried the different teachings as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Syrian Antioch. In Antioch he tells us that the Hellenists initially focused on the Jewish community there, with their different teachings. Soon after though, certain men of the Hellenists began teaching to the Gentiles there as well. Luke’s implication being that this was the first time that this new Law-free message was taught to the Gentiles, which clearly contradicts the whole Cornelius “conversion” episode.
If the Judaisers questioned Paul’s apostolic status and his gospel, then they probably also argued that Paul’s gospel could not bring Gentiles into the family of God. As Jewish messianics, Paul’s opponents would have noted that for males, admission to the family of God involves circumcision as an initiatory step. After all, the strongest element of Paul’s attack on the troublemakers concerns the issue of circumcision. This fact suggests that the demand for circumcision was central to his opponents platform. The evidence for this is in Paul’s closing remarks where he directly accuses his opponents of seeking to circumcise the Galatians in order to make a good showing of the flesh, avoid persecution, and boast of their achievements.



Paul earlier alluded to his opponents’ pro-circumcision message by rehearsing “a litany of dire consequences” that must follow if his Gentile converts submitted to circumcision. Paul’s purpose is to dissuade his readers from such a disastrous course of action. He warns them that to be circumcised renders Christ’s salvific sacrifice impotent, thereby obliging them to embrace the whole Mosaic Law. Paul states that in adopting Law-observance the Galatians would alienate themselves from both Christ and grace. Elaborating further on that theme, Paul characterizes the pro-circumcision putsch in Galatia as a “disturbing” influence. Paul’s aim here is to demonstrate that by adopting the practice it can only have a negative impact on their progress and complete reversal of the faith-practice first enjoined upon them by Paul.



Paul asks, “Why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision?” We should note that this questions placement here serves to draw parallels between his Law-free ministry and the Law-observant ministry of his opponents. Paul no longer preaches circumcision and consequently suffers persecution, while his opponents preach circumcision and avoid persecution.



In support of their position, Paul’s opponents appealed to the story of Abraham, in which the institution of circumcision was imposed on God’s chosen people. In Galatians, however, Paul presents an extended allegory focusing on two important women, Sarah and Hagar, from the Torah. He introduces the allegory of Hagar and Sarah as contrast between a prior covenant and the new covenant. According to Paul’s exegesis, the allegory serves to support his claim for the subordination of th old regime to a new agreement which God wrought by the death and resurrection of Christ. In doing so, Paul overturns the whole thrust of the Abrahamic cycle that Israel descended from Isaac, the son of Abraham’s wife, and equates the nation of Israel with Ishmael, the son of the bondswoman Hagar.
Paul’s inventive and arbitrary reinterpretation of the Abraham narrative indicates he is responding directly to the arguments of his opponents because nowhere can we find evidence that the descent from Abraham narrative formed a central tenet of Paul’s gospel because Paul’s Law-free gospel did not include either circumcision or adherence to dietary or purity codes of Judaism.



Another significant aspect of Paul’s use of Abraham is his introduction of the inventive adoption language to describe the status of the Gentile converts to his Law-free mission. Paul takes the Abrahamic tradition (and Torah Law) of circumcision and spiritualizes it in such a way as to make the uncircumcised, rather than the circumcised, heirs of the promise, making the cross of Christ the divine instrument of the Gentiles’ inclusion in the people of God. Accordingly, Paul is able to twist the Abraham narrative in such a way as to outline the process by which the Gentiles are adopted into the family of God, thus becoming heirs who are able to join with other Law-free converts (now Christians) in addressing God as Abba!



It is only at this point in Paul’s argument that he introduces the inventive and radical adoption language. Prior to his appeal to the Abraham story, Paul made only scant use of inclusive categories. he addressed the Galatians as “brothers” on only one occasion, in his opening against the rival gospel. However, once Paul introduces Abraham into his argument he constantly resorts to fraternal _meta_phors that are intended to mark the inclusion of gentiles. Eight times in the space of the next four chapters Paul addresses his auditors as “brothers”. A similar pattern is detected in Paul’s use of family _meta_phors, referring to the fatherhood of God on only three occasions in the salutation of the letter. The term Abba is used by Paul in the specific sense of the Law-free converts being “adopted” into the family of God -- a use that was common in the first century for slaves, employees, and orphans who were adopted into families and, thereby, given the right to call the head of that family the term “Abba”. Paul understands this because he specifically attributes this gift of divine adoption to “the spirit of God’s son”, as opposed to an inheritance by virtue of blood relationship.



Beginning with Gal 3:26, Paul makes extensive use of the familial language, recognizing his Gentile converts as “children of God”, “children of Abraham”, “children of the promise” and “children of freedom”. By bringing together the Abraham story and the Law-free theology in this manner Paul effectively radicalizes the familial _meta_phors, so deeply imbedded in the Jewish tradition, to embrace the Gentiles who were never formerly considered family members. A status that was considered the sole preserve of the circumcised elect of israel, according to Paul’s radical version of the Abraham story, becomes a new granting to the uncircumcised Gentiles. Paul’s tactic was to separate what his opponents’ gospel held together, Abraham’s faith and Law-observance. Paula agued that God’s promises were to Abraham’s seed, a singular form he reinterpreted as referring to Christ, Paul could then assert that it was through faith in the seed, not through Law-observance expressed via circumcision,that Gentiles were made the children of Abraham. Not only was this reinterpretation highly inventive and radical, it must have also been read as offensive and polemic to the Law-observant. Paul’s blatant sectarian language served to exclude the Law-observant Jews from the family of God by asserting that only the Law-free converts constituted the true Israel of God.



It seems then, that the key aspect of the opponents’ gospel was the demand for circumcision. However, this would not have been their only concern. Their motivation was not this single issue alone. Paul also accuses his opponents of failing to keep the whole Mosaic Law, but Paul never says that his opponents lacked a desire for obedience to all the Mosaic Law. In fact he says just the opposite, with the opponents bringing forth the ideal of a whole life under protection of the Law, in that the Galatians could be described as wanting to be under Law. The fact that Abraham figured strongly in the gospel of the Judaisers tells us that circumcision was not the sole aspect of the Law at stake in Galatia. R. N. Longenecker tells us to remember that Jews considered Abraham to have observed the Law despite the fact that the Law was given to Moses generations later. Moreover, there is no known ardent Jews of the Second Temple period who upheld Abraham as a central figure in Jewish self-definition while at the same time suggesting that his significance was limited to observance of only one aspect of the Law. Accordingly we must assume the Judaisers at Galatia were demanding that the Gentiles forsake their Law-free gospel and take up the original Law-observance as the original Jerusalem Jesus Followers taught according to what Jesus had taught.



Despite the variety of sectarian movements that constituted Second Temple Judaism, there are no known Jewish sects that existed in the first century that, while maintaining circumcision as a requirement for true covenant relationship, did not demand any other legal requirements of the Mosaic Law. Circumcision alone did not constitute being a Jew and circumcision as an initiatory rite for male proselytes was the end of a long process of conversion and study. Paul’s later comment that those seeking to impose circumcision do not keep the whole Law themselves, seems to be that he was unaware of the “fine print” of the circumcision deal. This however, is probably a misleading assumption on Paul’s part. Closer to Paul’s own time, the author of Maccabees (5:20-21) proclaims that transgression of the Law in either small or large things is incredibly indictable, since both demonstrate that the transgressor despises the Law. Therefore, a person or community was not at liberty to pick and choose their practices, or discriminate about which legal regulations were binding. This is a sentiment succinctly shared by many of the original members of the Jerusalem Jesus community as well. We find the author of the letter of James (2:10) decreeing that “whoever keeps the whole Law, yet stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking all of it”.



Paul makes it clear that his opponents advocated the efficacy of complete observance of the whole Mosaic Law by addressing them as “you who are under the Law” (Gal 4:21). Paul makes similar statements in 2:15-17, explicitly stating that the Judaisers are also concerned with observance of “days, months, seasons, and years” which are clear references to the Sabbath and the biblical feasts and seasons. The overall context of Paul’s attack on the pro-circumcision sensibilities of the Judaisers is clear that Paul is referencing the cultic festivals of the Jewish calendar.
It must be admitted that in referring to these Jewish practices being advocated by his opponents, Paul does not employ specific Jewish terminology. J. Sumney correctly tells us that “the point is more simple and polemical; Paul is making the keeping of these Jewish feasts by Gentiles equivalent to keeping pagan observances”. The manner in which Paul attempts to parody his opponents’ message by drawing comparisons between festivals and veneration of the elements tells us that in addition to circumcision, his opponents placed significant value on and were teaching observance of the holy days on the Jewish calendar. This tells us that the Judaisers were causing disquiet among the Galatians by advocating full Mosaic Law-observance.



Furthermore, Paul suggests that his opponents wished to compel the Gentile converts to be circumcised for fear of being persecuted for “the cross of Christ”, which tells us the opponents were followers of the Jesus movement. There is nothing to suggest that the opponents wanted to force Paul’s Gentile converts to become Jewish proselytes so as to avoid persecution from civil authorities. Moreover, Paul’s claim that the Galatian Judaisers were motivated by fear of being persecuted for Christ substantiates that his opponents were fellow followers of Jesus. Paul must have understood that his opponents shared his and his readers’ common belief of “the Christ”, or else the insult (that they wished to avoid persecution on account of Christ) would make no sense. It stands to reason that his opponents preached a “gospel” that, in addition to the proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah, entailed the necessity of circumcision and Law-observance as the only means of entry into the family of God.



Identifying the Judaisers as members of the original Jerusalem Jesus movement, and that movement’s teachings, helps us to explain why Paul claimed that his opponents did not obey the Law. This viewpoint was Paul’s and not of actual action or lack of action on part of the Judaisers. Paul was intimating that in his opinion, it was not from lack of desire to obey, but rather from the inherent inability to obey. This brings us to one of Paul’s main arguments, that Law-observance compromises the truth of the Gospel precisely because it negates the efficacy of Christ’s salvific death on the cross. No one can obey the Law by his or her own efforts. Hence, the failure of the Judaisers is not that they desire to obey the whole Law, but that they have identified themselves with a path to redemption that was not aided by God’s spirit. Therefore, they are unable to meet the demands of the Mosaic Law.
In effect, Paul argues that the Judaisers gospel demands Gentile converts revert in an anachronistic fashion to a bygone era dominated by both the Law and the concomitant inability to keep the Law. Paul equates this position as temporary custodial phase characterized by a childish and slave-like state and an enslavement to the elemental things of the world. By putting themselves under obligation to adhere to the whole Law they would thereby sever themselves from Christ. What is evident is there was a clash between two radically different understandings of the message of Jesus movement; one which focuses on the “particular”; and the other, which presents the Christ-event as universally significant.


Luke was probably drawing on sound information when he claimed that James indicted Paul on the charge of having encouraged apostasy amongst both Jewish and Gentile converts to the Jesus movement. Although somewhat a loose account, Luke’s version does accurately reflect the fact that Paul’s antinomian policy remained the fundamental point of contention between himself and the original Law-observant Jerusalem movement.



Interestingly, in Luke’s version of the final Jerusalem visit, there is no direct mentioning of Paul’s delivery of the collection. The only plausible explanation for Luke’s skillful editorial work here is that he wished to gloss over the fact that James and the elders refused to accept the collection Paul had brought from his Gentile congregations. We have shown elsewhere in dealing with other sections of Acts that Luke’s persistence, at any factual cost, is to demonstrate a basic unity between the various factions that constituted the early Jesus movement. It seem therefore incredible that Luke did not take the opportunity here to explicitly draw a connection between the collection and Paul’s financial support of the Nazirites. Given that Acts 24:17 tells us that Luke was aware that the original purpose of Paul’s visit was to deliver the collection, Luke’s failure to cite this information at an earlier juncture indicates that he wished to suppress the story of James’ rejection of Paul’s offering. In it’s place Luke supplies the story of Paul and the Nazirites; a story, that is most likely a pure Lukan invention, since the roles credited to both James and Paul seems so out of character with what we know of the historical James and Paul.



Further evidence of Paul’s failure to win approval of James and the elders is found in Luke’s subsequent record of events surrounding Paul’s arrest. Nowhere in this lengthy report is it suggested that either James or any member of the original Jerusalem community offered support to Paul; they neither attempted to rescue Paul from the angry crowd at the Temple, nor on the following day, did they appear before the Sanhedrin to defend Paul’s actions. There is here a clear parallel between Paul’s predicament and that of Stephen and the Hellenists, described earlier in Acts. Just as the Hebrews (constituents of the Jesus movement) refused to aid Stephen and his Hellenist supporters when they were persecuted, so too with Paul James and the Law-observant members of the Jerusalem community chose to ignore Paul’s invidious situation.



What makes James and the elders latter failure, to assist Paul, all the more remarkable is that we learn from the story of the martyrdom of James that James commanded broad respect and repute amongst the wider Jewish community in Jerusalem. Moreover, Luke explicitly highlights the popularity of Jerusalem’s Jesus movement amongst the Jews of the city when he has James and the elders point out to Paul the “many thousands” of zealous, Law-observant Jews who joined the movement.
From Paul, Jerusalem, and the Judaisers

[iere]

Again Paul does not preach a law free message, and there are certain Christian groups who clearly understand that. People buy that law free interpretation too easily without looking for context regarding which laws he is referring to.

[omar111]

Christians try to confuse Muslims by stating that there are two type of Law. One is the moral law and the other is the ritual law. Now they will try to deceive people by stating that both Jesus and Paul abolished the ritual Law but saved the moral law.
   But the truth is Jesus never spoke against the ritual Law. He was a practicing Jew and so were the disciples.
"...go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them." [Matthew 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:14 NIV
It was only Paul who abolished the rituals, as he wanted the religion to appear appealing to gentiles. Gentiles would never agree to follow Jewish rituals especially circumcision. So Paul abolished the need for circumcision and called them mutilated dogs. Some followers of Jesus proposed: "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." [Acts 15:5 NIV] However, this suggestion was rejected in favor of less stringent requirements on the insistence of Paul.
    The struggle between the group against preaching to gentiles and Paul is the major theme of New Testament. But my question is if preaching to gentiles was the mission of Jesus, why was he always against it? And why did he never teach his disciples to teach to gentiles. A new Prophet for gentiles, Paul appeared and made conversion possible for the gentiles. So Paul was the real prophet of Christianity while Jesus was just a lamb sent for slaughter.
According to Paul the Torah, God's primary revelation to mankind, enslaves us. How can someone be speaking for the God who inspired the Torah, and call it a method for enslavement? Either that God has changed his mind and is thus unreliable, or that man is a false prophet.
   Among many things that Paul predicted wrongly, is 1Thessalonians 4:17.He thought that rapture will be in his lifetime and `we’ will see it. So if he was wrong about that, he never received divine instruction and based his assumptions on pure conjecture. And Christians follow him like a Prophet!

[placid]

Hi Omar,

I see you are still trying to build a case between Jesus and Paul.
Your first theme is that Jesus came only to the Jews. --- He did actually, because it was God’s plan to ‘bless’ the world through the Seed of Abraham.
The Jews were the descendants of Abraham, through Isaac, and when Jesus chose His Apostles, they were all Jews. --- While Jesus did heal other people, his teaching ministry was to, and through, the Jews, --- then to the rest of the world.

I said, ‘Jesus did heal other people,’ --- notice this in Matthew 4:
23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.
24 Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them.
25 Great multitudes followed Him—from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan.

Jesus commissioned His eleven Apostles in Matthew 28:
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

And again in Acts 1:
8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me[a] in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” --- (So the Apostles were the witnesses to the world.)

And in Acts 2 it records the coming of the Holy Spirit in power:
1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.
6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.
7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans?
8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?
9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”
12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “Whatever could this mean?”

The celebration of Pentecost was the same for the Jews as the Pilgrimage is to Muslims. --- That every able bodied Jew should come from wherever they were, so this is why there were people from all the countries where the Jews lived, in Jerusalem.
The Jews had been dispersed in other countries as a result of the Assyrian captivity, and the Babylonian captivity, while others travelled and settled in Egypt and other places. --- This is why this phenomenon was so great because they heard the Apostles speaking in the languages IN WHICH THEY WERE BORN.

--- When Peter, who was now filled with the Holy Spirit, preached to them, there were some 3000 converted the first day. --- And this number continued to increase each day.
--- Notice again, that these were all Jews, so the Gospel message of salvation through Jesus Christ was going --- TO THE JEW FIRST --- as was prophesied.

--- These visitors in Jerusalem would all return to their own countries perhaps within a week or two, --- SO THEY, THE JEWS, CARRIED THE GOSPEL TO ALL THE COUNTRIES WHERE THEY WERE LIVING, --- AND THEY BECAME THE WITNESSES, OR PREACHERS OF THE GOSPEL, TO THEIR FELLOW JEWS.

Do you get the picture? The first revival was in Jerusalem and within a few weeks, the results would be heard in all of the countries listed in verses 9 – 11, above.

All of this happened a few years before Paul was converted, in Acts 9, --- and was changed from a leading persecutor, to being struck blind, and needing to be healed, --- then to becoming a disciple, whom God could use.

--- This is what he says of his time spent after his conversion, in Galatians 1:  
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.
14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace,
16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

And he records this about being sent to the Gentiles, in Acts 22
17 “Now it happened, when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I was in a trance
18 and saw Him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, for they will not receive your testimony concerning Me.’
21 Then He said to me, ‘Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.’”

If you don’t want to believe what is written, then that is up to you, but just so you know that you are out on your own limb.
(I will add more on the law next)


Placid

[placid]

Concerning your obsession with the law

First, what did Jesus teach about the law?
I believe that the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ was the basic teaching of Jesus. It was the core of the Gospel/Injil and these are really ‘The Sayings of Jesus,’ --- which was the name of the first writing by Matthew in Aramaic. They are found in Matthew 5, 6, and 7, --- and they start out with what is called “The Beatitudes.”
--- The term comes from the word, ‘beatify,’ which means, ‘to make happy,’ or ‘to be blessed.’ --- And so the word ‘blessed’ is used, beginning in 5:
1 And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him.
2 Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.
12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
--- (This was to be the ‘new attitude’ of believers.)

As someone said, these are the “BE” attitudes, that must be motivated by God’s love for, ---and in, the believer.
--- He goes on to say:
13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.
14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.
15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

--- If there was nothing more written than this, it would convey the Message of Love in attitude and action, would it not?

And here is where Jesus said:
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

And Jesus said in Luke 16:
16 “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.”
John the Baptist was the last Old Testament Prophet, and was part of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, where God would put His Laws in their hearts and minds through His Holy Spirit.

--- So Jesus brought in the New Covenant with the preaching of the Kingdom of God, being within the believer.
As Jesus said in Luke 17:
20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation;
21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

And Jesus said in John 13:
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

This is from Matthew 22:
34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together.
35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Jesus was really quoting from this ‘great’ commandment that was given to the Jews in Deuteronomy 6:
4. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!
5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart.

Are you beginning to understand what the New Covenant was?

--- This first commandment of Love was given to the Jews, but over the years they neglected to love others, and instead of compassion, they used judgment.

Jesus again brings Love back to its rightful place, as the ‘great’ commandments:
Love God first, --- and love your neighbor as yourself.

--- If people fulfill these, they will not be guilty of breaking the written laws, so, --- it is as Paul wrote in Romans 13:
8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

This puts Paul on the same page as Jesus, does it not?
Next, I want to see if Jesus mentioned Love as being the fulfilling of these same commandments that Paul mentioned.

(I am going to be away for a few days, but I want to continue later.
Because you wrote a lot in the negative, I want to write an equal amount in the positive.)


Placid

[omar111]

Hi Placid,I doubt the authenticity of Bible. And I think that the writers of Bible used Jesus to advance their personal brand of religion. Judaizers were trying to portray a Jewish Jew while Hellenists were more interested  in forming a Christianity that resembles the easygoing pagan roman religion. As a Muslim I believe that the message of Jesus was Islam, which got lost in avaricious authors.
You are trying to say that the Christianity movement was Jewish at the time of Jesus but later God allowed Gentiles to convert into it, relaxing the Law for them. There are two problems with your theory.
Firstly, Jesus must be aware that Jews would reject his message and crucify him, so he must teach his disciples to teach to gentiles his message. But we find that he prohibited them from teaching the gentiles. That is the reason the early Church was only Jewish, as it was following the teachings of Jesus and not Paul

Mat 10:5-15 KJV These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: [v. 6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [v. 7] And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. [v. 8] Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. [v. 9] Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, [v. 10] Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. [v. 11]
The second problem is this that Jesus simply abhorred Gentiles.

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Matthew 18:15-17
So tax collectors, the most hated thing in Rome, are the same as gentile! You will notice that although he healed some gentiles in Bible, he never touched or saw them. He merely said that they will heal at homeland calling the Canaanite woman a dog is too well recorded for you to ignore. So gentiles were like dogs and tax collectors to Jesus.
Matthew 15:21-28

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

So Christianity had a more pragmatic prophet like Paul.
After Jesus’s time, there came to be two sects of Christians: those who followed St. Paul (who is the real founder of modern Christianity) and those who followed the Apostles of Jesus. In course of time, the Pauline sect overshadowed the Apostles’ sect. So Paul’s own writings, as well as the Gospels written under his influence, came to be accepted by the later Christian Church as Scripture. [1]

The Gospels were written by people more interested in a living Lord present in their midst than in Jesus the historical man from Nazareth. Many scholars now hold that much of what is placed on the lips of Jesus in the Gospels was put there by Gospel writers (just as the writers of Hellenistic history placed speeches on the lips of famous persons). It is really the understanding that Gospels are faith documents that has led to what is called the “quest for the historical Jesus”. (Bonnie Thurston, Women in the New Testament, p. 63)

The Gospels, however, were religious dramas used for worship and as a form of evangelism. They were meant not to impart history but to buttress and convey belief. The editor of John’s Gospel (the least historical of them all) boldly and honestly states his aims in the text itself when he says, “But these things are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah”. The goal is to establish the faithful and to create new converts, not to create an authentic biography. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 126)

The New Testament contains unreliable surmises…Let me cite one fairly typical and significant example, from the opening page of the first chapter of Norman Perrin’s important and influential book, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. Perrin gives his reasons why teaching ascribed to Jesus is likely to be rather a teaching that stems from the early Church, not from Jesus himself. I quote the first three reasons, “The early Church made no attempt to distinguish between the words the earthly Jesus had spoken and those spoken by the risen Lord through a prophet in the community…” “The early Church absolutely and completely identified the risen Lord of her experience with the earthly Jesus of Nazareth…” “Further, the gospel form was created to serve the purposes of the early Church, but historical reminiscence was not one of those purposes”. (John C. Meagher, The Five Gospels, 1989, p. 9)


The Gospel writers were desperately trying to keep Romans innocent of killing Jesus, while they placed all the blame on Pharisees. This is understandable, given the oppressive nature of the time. But the way they twisted the gospels for this purpose, make them a mere storybook.
According to John, it was Pilate himself who brought up the so-called Passover privilege, but both evangelists agree that it was the Jews who first mentioned the name Barabbas:
But according to the custom that you have
I always set free a prisoner for you during the Passover.
Do you want me to set the king of the Jews free for you?
They answered him with a shout,
Not him, but Barabbas.
The Passover privilege, and the Barabbas incident so closely linked with it, have created endless difficulties for interpreters, for despite the most assiduous efforts, no trace of any Roman custom for releasing prisoners in honor of Passover has been found Pilate is urging clemency, patiently explaining to the Jewish leaders why Jesus should be freed. At most he will agree to have him whipped. Many interpreters have remarked that the portrayal of Pilate in the gospels is in sharp contrast to his character as it can be gleaned from the writings of Philo and Josephus. Could the Pilate of the gospel tradition, who agonizes over the fate of his prisoner and repeatedly tries to have him released, be the same man described by Philo as naturally inflexible and stubbornly relentless, responsible for acts of corruption, insults, rapine, outrages on the people, arrogance, repeated murder of innocent victims and constant and most galling savagery, Legatio ad Gaium, 301. Philo is here quoting from a letter from Agrippa I to Caligula

[Son of Placid]

Yarn

[iere]

omar111, on 30 July 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

Christians try to confuse Muslims by stating that there are two type of Law. One is the moral law and the other is the ritual law. Now they will try to deceive people by stating that both Jesus and Paul abolished the ritual Law but saved the moral law.
   But the truth is Jesus never spoke against the ritual Law. He was a practicing Jew and so were the disciples.
"...go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them." [Matthew 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:14 NIV
It was only Paul who abolished the rituals, as he wanted the religion to appear appealing to gentiles. Gentiles would never agree to follow Jewish rituals especially circumcision. So Paul abolished the need for circumcision and called them mutilated dogs. Some followers of Jesus proposed: "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." [Acts 15:5 NIV] However, this suggestion was rejected in favor of less stringent requirements on the insistence of Paul.
    The struggle between the group against preaching to gentiles and Paul is the major theme of New Testament. But my question is if preaching to gentiles was the mission of Jesus, why was he always against it? And why did he never teach his disciples to teach to gentiles. A new Prophet for gentiles, Paul appeared and made conversion possible for the gentiles. So Paul was the real prophet of Christianity while Jesus was just a lamb sent for slaughter.
According to Paul the Torah, God's primary revelation to mankind, enslaves us. How can someone be speaking for the God who inspired the Torah, and call it a method for enslavement? Either that God has changed his mind and is thus unreliable, or that man is a false prophet.
   Among many things that Paul predicted wrongly, is 1Thessalonians 4:17.He thought that rapture will be in his lifetime and `we’ will see it. So if he was wrong about that, he never received divine instruction and based his assumptions on pure conjecture. And Christians follow him like a Prophet!

1. There are multiple types of laws in the Scriptures.

2. Why would Jesus speak against the sacrificial/ceremonial laws during His lifetime?

3. Since when did Jesus not teach the disciples not to preach to the Gentiles?

"He entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons; and he would not allow any one to carry anything through the temple. And he taught, and said to them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations?'But you have made it a den of robbers." (Mark 11:15-17)

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." (Matthew 25:31,32)

The gospel came to the Jews first and then to the Genitles.

4. Additionally, could you clarify your position? First, you are stating that Paul advocates a law free existence. Then you state that Paul speaks against sacrificial/ceremonial law. Which position are you taking?

5. Rapture doctrine is not Scriptural.. I Thess 4:17 is not about any rapture.

Edited by iere, 02 August 2012 - 12:10 AM.

[placid]

Hi Omar,

I see you don't believe anything but what you write yourself.

Quote: Mat 10:5-15 KJV These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: [v. 6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [v. 7] And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. [v. 8] Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. [v. 9] Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, [v. 10] Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. [v. 11]


Response: --- After Jesus taught the twelve, He sent them out on a preaching and healing mission, two by two, without Him going with them. --- This is how you train people, you give them a particular task and send them to a particular area on their own.
--- This would naturally escape your notice, but they were given the power of the Holy Spirit for this mission, and did not continue to do miracles in the power of the Spirit till the Day of Pentecost, when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit with tongues of fire.

But this early experience helped prepare them for the work that God would do through them after Jesus was no longer with them.


--- I had written this above in Post 6, about them being a witness to the world:
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

And again in Acts 1:
8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” --- (So the Apostles were the witnesses to the world.)

The New Covenant was given to the Jews first, and it was through the Jews that Christianity spread in the first generation. --- Remeber Paul was a Jew as well as the Apostles.

Your conspiracy theory shows that both God and Jesus must have been deceived by men, and when the Holy Spirit guiding in the choosing of the Canon of Scripture, --- was He also deceived?

Then in 625 AD when the same angel Gabriel, who made announcement in the Gospels, came to Muhammad, --- he would also have been deceived because he approved of all the former Scriptures.
He criticized nothing from the writings of the NT, but only made mention of things that happened after that, including the faulty Roman Church, which I want to explain later.

Your first Post said there were two Church groups, and there were. --- The Jewish Church in Jerusalem, and later the Gentile Church from Antioch, from which the Holy Spirit sent out missionaries, Acts 13:
1 Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. --- (On the first of three missionary journeys.)

(However, I want to go back to what Jesus said about the Law.)


Placid

[omar111]

iere
'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations?'But you have made it a den of robbers." (Mark 11:15-17)

Actually it is again an attempt to twist the biblical prophecy.Maybe by a later Pauline interpolation. The reference is to Jeremiah 7.but here there is no mention that his house will be a house of prayer for all nations. It merely orders the Jews to not to oppress foreigner, but the house of prayer is an all Jewish affair.

⁵ If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, ⁶ if you do not oppress the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, ⁷ then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your ancestors for ever and ever. ⁸ But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless.
⁹ “‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, ¹⁰ and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things? ¹¹ Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the Lord.
Matthew 25:31,32 has got nothing to do with preaching to gentiles. On the contrary it teaches that Jesus will separate people because of their ethnicity and not because of their faith in them. This goes against gentiles.

Additionally, could you clarify your position? First, you are stating that Paul advocates a law free existence. Then you state that Paul speaks against sacrificial/ceremonial law

I mean that Paul totally abolished any human Endeavour for salvation. He preached a new theology that we are saved by Christ not be observing any type of law.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Ephesians 2:8-9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"
Hebrews 5:9
Romans 10:9-10, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Romans 4:5, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

Romans 5:21, "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

John 10:28, "And I give unto them eternal

Romans 5:1-2, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace..rejoice in hope of glory of God."


Rapture doctrine is not Scriptural.. I Thess 4:17 is not about any rapture

epeita hemeis oi zontes (PAP) hoi perileipomenoi (PPPMPN): (1Th 4:15; 1Co 15:52)
Does Paul really describe a "rapture"? That seems to be the question of many skeptics and scoffers. They argue that the word "rapture" is no where to be found in Scripture. In addressing their argument, it behooves us to keep in mind that the Latin Vulgate was the primary Bible translation utilized for one thousand years preceding the Reformation. In short, the Latin Vulgate "reigned" as the primary Bible translation longer than any other translation. In the Latin Vulgate the Greek word harpazo was translated "rapiemur" which is clearly related to our English terms "Rapture" or "raptured". So those detractors who argue that the term Rapture does not appear in the Bible are only expressing their ignorance and are obviously unaware of the prominence of the Latin Vulgate translation in church history. Setting aside the argument that the word rapture (which is true) is not found in modern translations, the more important question is what does the original Greek word harpazo actually mean? Clearly it is a verb in the original Greek and verbs generally convey action. What is the picture conveyed by harpazo? (Gillian Welch & David Rawlings - I'll Fly Away)

We who are alive and remain - The fact that Paul uses the first person plural (we) (see discussion of use of "we" in v15) strongly suggests that he fully expected to meet the Lord in the air. In other words the great apostle anticipated the imminent return of His Lord. The English word imminent is interesting as it is derived from the Latin verb imminere (from in = upon, towards + minere = to project) which means to overhang. One gets the picture of the return of the Bridegroom to rapture His Bride as an event which "overhangs" the Church (in a positive and motivating sense) (see Tony Garland's discussion of Marriage of the Lamb especially The Jewish Wedding Analogy). Certainly, if the Bride lived with this constant mindset, she would seek to keeThe Scriptures present six raptures. Four have already taken place. Two are still to come. This book will examine one of those raptures: a major future event foretold in the Bible, namely, the coming of Christ to take His bride, the church. Most theologians call this “the Rapture”—from the Latin verb rapto, which means to seize and carry off,—because 1 Thessalonians 4:17 states that the church will be “caught up” to meet the Lord in the air. Other theologians have called this event “the Translation,” taking that name from the Latin word translatio (transporting, transferring) because Christ will transport the church from one location to another at that time.

The four raptures that have taken place include when both Enoch and Elijah were taken up from earth to heaven without experiencing death (Ge 5:24; He 11:5 {note}; 2 Ki 2:1, 11), when the Lord Jesus ascended to heaven after His death and resurrection (Mk. 16:19; Acts 1:9, 10, 11; Re 12:5-note), and when Paul referred to the rapture of a man (probably Paul himself) to the third heaven (2Co 12:2, 3, 4). Paul used the same verb there, translated caught up, as is used in Re 12:5-note for the Lord’s ascension and in 1Thessalonians 4:17 for the church’s Rapture. The other future rapture will occur when the two witnesses of the future Tribulation period ascend to heaven after God has resurrected them from death (Re 11:3-note, Re 11:11-note; Re 11:12-note). (Showers, R. E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come! . Bellmawr, New Jersey: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc)

<sub>But this early experience helped prepare them for the work that God would do through them after Jesus was no longer with them.
This is exactly my point. Jesus prepared his disciples to continue teaching to Jews and not to teach to gentiles. He was preparing them for when he will no longer with them. So if the plan was to later teach to gentiles, Jesus would have mentioned it here. But the twelve remained deceived and continue to preach to Jews until Paul changed all of that.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
This is not the Christian baptism, as it was introduced much later.It was the jewish baptism. It is not the liturgical formula for baptism, which all got established much later in the history of the church .It was Paul who invented the meaning of baptism as an entering into the mystery of the Christ event (Rom 6:3-11; Gal 3:26-29). In this reference to baptism, Matthew was perhaps influenced by the rite of baptism, which the Jewish synagogue required from the proselytes. The presence of the Trinitarian formula for baptism has puzzled many commentators, especially because the Acts refers only to a baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48).I think the whole verse is an interpolation by a later Trinitarian writer. F. C. Conybeare made an extensive study of the verse and founded it or at least part of it an interpolation
Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: 'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.'...
In Origen's works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words 'the nations'; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, 'in my name', struck out.

And again in Acts 1:
8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” --- (So the Apostles were the witnesses to the world.)
Yes, the position of the church changed with the arrival of a New Prophet,Paul, who brought a new message.
Your conspiracy theory shows that both God and Jesus must have been deceived by men, and when the Holy Spirit guiding in the choosing of the Canon of Scripture, --- was He also deceived?
Where is the evidence that the council at nice was guided by Holy Spirit? Or was it guided by Constantine?
the Roman Empire in A.D. 306. Christian doctrine at the time was muddled and inconsistent, especially when it came to the central question of Jesus' relationship to God.
Jesus was as eternally divine as the Father, said one camp led by the Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria. Another group, named the Arians after their leader Arius the

preacher, saw Jesus as a remarkable leader, but inferior to the Father and lacking in absolute divinity.
Supporters on both sides scrawled graffiti on town walls in defiance while bishops from across the empire entered into a war of words as the controversy simmered to a head in 324.
Fearing unrest in his otherwise peaceful territory, Constantine summoned the bishops to his lake house in Nicea on June 19, 325.
In a savvy move that would put today's shrewd politicians to shame, the compromise proffered by Constantine was vague, but blandly pleasing: Jesus and God were of the same "substance," he suggested, without delving too much into the nature of that relationship. A majority of the bishops agreed on the compromise and voted to pass the language into doctrine
Their statement of compromise, which would come to be known as "The Nicene Creed," formed the basis for Christian ideology. The bishops also used the Council of Nicea to set in stone some church rules that needed clarification, and those canons were the reference point after which all future laws were modeled.
http://www.livescien...nged-world.html
Then in 625 AD when the same angel Gabriel, who made announcement in the Gospels, came to Muhammad, --- he would also have been deceived because he approved of all the former Scriptures
4 : 46

Among those who are jews, there are some who displace words from (their) right places and say: “We hear your word (O Muhammad ) and disobey,” and “Hear and let you (O Muhammad ) “hear nothing.” And Raina with a twist of their tongues and as a mockery of the religion (Islam) And if only they had said: “We hear and obey”, And “Do make us understand,” it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah has so they believe not except a few..

He criticized nothing from the writings of the NT, but only made mention of things that happened after that, including the faulty Roman Church, which I want to explain later</sub>

₃₁

_{John19
The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was a high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.}

₃₂

_{Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.}

₃₃

<sub>But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs

Quran 4:157
"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah's Messenger -- They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain, But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever mighty, wise.
Your first Post said there were two Church groups, and there were. --- The Jewish Church in Jerusalem, and later the Gentile Church from Antioch, from which the Holy Spirit sent out missionaries, Acts 13:
1 Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. --- (On the first of three missionary journeys.

Even Jesus prayers were neglected by his disciples in Antioch
"I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." John17v21to23
The fellowship between Christians in the church at Antioch was broken. The Jewish Christians from Jerusalem would not eat with uncircumcised Gentiles. This meant that separate communions existed for Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Peter would only take communion with the Judaisers. Gradually the other local Jewish Christians and Barnabas followed his example. The main reason for the split in the Antioch church was that Peter was afraid of offending the circumcision party from Jerusalem. He wanted to maintain his reputation with this powerful and influential group. Paul actually accused Peter and Barnabas of hypocrisy. Galatians2:11
Paul was so eager to admit gentiles into the church that he also destroyed the moral code for christians.Although Christians may debate all they want, but this verse proves that morality was abolished for Christians.
"righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing." v21</sub>