Islam - Inheritor Of The True Shia Of Jesus

[Islamic Salvation]

I have long been interested in the findings of a number of scholars who have maintained that the original teachings of Jesus were authentically preserved within a long-dead strand of what can only loosely be called 'Christianity', this is because they saw themselves as thoroughly Jewish, natives of a Palestinian messianic movement, shunning Hellenistic influences, descending from the initial Jerusalem Assembly, with James the Just as their first leader (NOTE: the one whom Jesus calls the Foundation of the Earth in the Gospel of Thomas - which has the Infancy bird enlivening miracle that the Qur'an confirms, being also a blood-relative of Jesus - a fact that canon seems to obfuscate).

 

This 'sect' which has been identified as the Ebionites/Nazoreans (though whether both names refer to the exact same sect is still debated) went on to be deemed heretical by the official Church (whose authority grew under the patronage of Rome) having rejected many of the precepts central to Nicene orthodoxy.

Ironically, the only way to understand what their beliefs were is through studying what is present in refutation texts written by early church fathers inimical to them such as Iraneus, Origen etc. who recount them in their rebuttals, but this makes it difficult to ascertain real positions in any detail - which makes some of the information murky.
 
Parallels with Islam are significant, they denied the pre-existence, divinity and atoning death of Jesus, they maintained the continued necessity of the Mosaic law (with corrections introduced by Jesus - reverting back to the original spirit that was always required, even to a Noahide epoch), they were virulently anti-Pauline, required circumcision, considered Jesus a Prophet and the Messiah (under their True Prophet concept), believed in the corruption of some of the previous scriptures at the hands of the scribes, rejected animal atonement and sacrifice as contrary to the intent of the law etc.

It should be pointed out that the main difference with Islam that I have come across is that they did not believe in the Virgin birth, or the rescue of the Messiah from crucifixion, furthermore, they had higher dietary standards (vegetarianism - note that their injunction prohibiting foods ascribed to James is identical to the one in Surah al-Maida i.e. blood, carcass etc.).

Having said that it is also noteworthy that a sub-group within them did indeed consider the miracle of the virgin birth true, also, they went on to widely influence the Gnostic sects who believed that the suffering Messiah was rescued before being put to death as Isaiah and other proof texts seem to allude to - another being crucified in his place.

 

This thread is to collect material related to this which I have come across.

First, a must read is Hans-Joachim Schoeps and his seminal work on Jewish Christianity (Factional disputes within the Early Church) http://www.scribd.com/doc/134169105/Hans-Joachim-Schoeps-Jewish-Christianity

He then contends (within his secular and academic view-point) that this may be what influenced the Prophet Muhammad - who encountered such splinters who had fled to the trans-Jordan and the Arabian Desert fleeing oppression.

As he says:

The Continued Influence of the Jewish Christians

The Ebionites finally disappeared in the fifth century in eastern Syria. Many of their central doctrines, however, appear to have survived in the conglomeration of religions of that time and then, in the period of Monophysite quarrels, to have entered Arabia by means of the Nestorians. That is to say, the Arabian Christianity which Mohammed found ...

The Ebionite conception of the True Prophet must have been directly operative in the proclamation of the prophet Mohammed himself, just as it had also been taken over by the Mandeans and the Manicheans ...

Particularly important, however, is the fact that Abraham became for Islam the Imam of all believers; neither Jew nor Christian, he serves as the link joining Jewish Christianity and Islam. The covenant with Abraham unites all believers at a stage prior to Torah and gospel. It was the reconstruction of this covenant which Mohammed saw as his task.

The fifth Sura(5.48-59),especially, sounds like the extension of the Jewish Christian theology of the covenants to the population of Arabia through Mohammed, the new messenger of God. That is, behind the Islamic idea of a series of prophets is a completely universal conception related to Ebionitism: the prophets are humanity's representatives, with whom God makes a covenant. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed are in the narrowest sense the contracting parties of the divine covenant. The truth of each earlier messenger—as the Elkesaites also believed—is taken up into the proclamation of the one who follows, so that Mohammed brings together all the truth conveyed through them In addition to the conception of the True Prophet, which according to Islamic doctrine originated in the primordial heavenly book, there is the doctrine of the absolute unity of God, i.e., his monarchical character excluding any kind of Trinity, which is just as characteristic of Mohammed as of Ebionitism. In the Pseudo-Clementines (a work of Ebonite provenance) religion is defined as follows: "This is religion, to fear him alone and to believe only the Prophet of Truth" (Horn.7.8).

This definition is so constructed that Islam could find in it its own confession of faith. According to Islam, Mohammed, as the Prophet of Truth, is the legitimate successor of Moses and Jesus in the mission of illuminating mankind. This extensive similarity in structure between Jewish Christianity and Islam explains why the population of the countries bordering Arabia, areas permeated with Monophysitism and Nestorian-ism, could so quickly become Mohammedan.

In addition to these, Islam took over a number of elements of the Jewish doctrine of the law in the special form giventhem by Ebionitism. This is true of the specifically Jewish rites of baptism and purification, and of the practice of directing prayers in a specific direction, originally northward, toward Jerusalem, until the Prophet, for the purpose of distinguishing the two groups, established at Medina the new practice of directing prayer toward Mecca, i.e., toward the Kaaba. A certain dependence upon Jewish Christianity may also be seen in the Mohammedan food laws, which have their origin in the regulations of the Apostolic Decree.

The particular conception of false pericopes—Uzair (Ezra),especially, falsified the Jewish Scriptures (Sura 2.70, 154, 169, 207, etc.)— likewise played a fairly important role in Mohammed's consciousness of being sent to restore the original law. Later Islamic theologians also know a tradition of crude anti-Paulinsm which is quite in the temper of Jewish Christianity; this, too, calls for an investigation of the course of the tradition.

When all is said and done, then, Mohammed, too, reverted to the ancient law. If it was possible for Jewish Christianity to have a new law in addition to the ancient law, there was certainly "also room for something still newer after the new."

For in the understanding of Jewish Christianity,the new law is in fact identical with the oldest law of all. Like the Ebionites, Mohammed wanted to correct the falsehoods which had crept into the law and to effect a reformation which would restore the original. To be sure, a full demonstration of the relationship between Mohammed and the Ebionites is not possible, but the line of tradition has been established.

And thus we have a paradox of world-historical proportions, viz., the fact that Jewish Christianity indeed disappeared within the Christian church, but was preserved in Islam and thereby extended some of its basic ideas even to our own day ...

[Other interesting material to follow ...]

Edited July 23, 2014 by Islamic Salvation

[Islamic Salvation]

The whole book by James Tabor is interesting in this regard - esp. the role of James after Jesus, this is what he writes in his conclusion to the book - http://books.google.co.tz/books?id=CKFUFtnnffgC&pg=PA314 (esp. pg. 315) - (full book here: bookfi.org/book/1141848) - his blog posts: http://jamestabor.com/2012/07/07/ebionites-nazarenes-tracking-the-original-followers-of-jesus/

 

Chapter 2 - Islam and Judaism (a Lecture by Norman O. Brown) - available here - http://books.google.co.tz/books?id=VLMrP33JB-sC&pg=PA13 (esp. Pg. 16)

 

Butz makes many tendentious links, but this is what he says about Islam and its links to Ebionitism - http://books.google.co.tz/books?id=b7bnvXrC47AC&pg=PA233

 

Keith Akers - http://books.google.co.tz/books?id=7LfL6E50ZWgC&pg=PA203

Edited July 23, 2014 by Islamic Salvation

[Qa'im]

Robert Eisenman's [near-1000 page] book called "James the Brother of Jesus" covers the Jewish Christian movement in depth: their history, their sects, their texts, and their contentions with the Romans and the Gentile Christians. The evident connections between the Jewish Christians (Ebionites, Elchasaites, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, Gnostic Christians, Mandeans, other Irano-Semitic and Aramaic groups) and Shi`a Islam is fascinating, and inshaAllah I will be exploring more of it in my thread.

[Islamic Salvation]

http://muslimanswersfiles.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/draft-article-james-the-caliph-of-christ.pdf

[Yahya2004]

Eusebius does mention that a group of Ebionites believed in the Virgin Birth as far as I recall.

[Islamic Salvation]

Eusebius does mention that a group of Ebionites believed in the Virgin Birth as far as I recall.

 

Having said that it is also noteworthy that a sub-group within them did indeed consider the miracle of the virgin birth true

[rotten_coconut]

 

It should be pointed out that the main difference with Islam that I have come across is that they did not believe in the Virgin birth, or the rescue of the Messiah from crucifixion, furthermore, they had higher dietary standards (vegetarianism - note that their injunction prohibiting foods ascribed to James is identical to the one in Surah al-Maida i.e. blood, carcass etc.).

Having said that it is also noteworthy that a sub-group within them did indeed consider the miracle of the virgin birth true, also, they went on to widely influence the Gnostic sects who believed that the suffering Messiah was rescued before being put to death as Isaiah and other proof texts seem to allude to - another being crucified in his place.

 

1. Isn't in Shi`ah there's a hadith saying that the successor of Prophet `Isa (`a.s.) was Simon Kefa? If that's true, then it's another difference between Ebionites and (Shi`ah) Islam.

2. If there's a belief difference within Ebionites regarding virgin birth, it would mean that this was something that's not clear to them or Prophet `Isa (`a.s.) never informed this openly to them.

[andres]

1. Isn't in Shi`ah there's a hadith saying that the successor of Prophet `Isa (`a.s.) was Simon Kefa? If that's true, then it's another difference between Ebionites and (Shi`ah) Islam.

2. If there's a belief difference within Ebionites regarding virgin birth, it would mean that this was something that's not clear to them or Prophet `Isa (`a.s.) never informed this openly to them.

Some ebionites that did not believe in the Virgin birth believed that Jesus became divine when baptised, rather similar to what the Gospel of John tells us. With exception for Mathew and Luke, that represents two other traditions, nothing is to be found in NT about the virgin birth. Most certainly there were other now forgotten traditions circulating.

[placid]

Hi Coconut,

Long time no hear.

Actually Jesus commissioned the 11 Apostles to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, which they did, and as a result the Gospel was spread to the then known world.
This shows plainly that there was not just one successor to Jesus, but 11 of the original 12 that were commissioned as successors.
After that there were multitudes of believers, who continued preaching, and there are still preachers giving the same message of the Gospel today.
--- And the Scriptures were distributed widely, so anyone who wanted to believe them could read what was written in the Gospels.


--- But as always there were critics who distorted the teaching of the Virgin Birth as being unnatural, because they don’t believe God can do miracles, so they didn’t believe it themselves, and taught others the same,
Even as there are some today.


However, the Virgin Birth was prophesied some 7oo years before it happened. It says this in Isaiah 7:
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.[

And the fulfillment is recorded in Matthew 1:
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
--- That fulfills the Prophecy, and gives the heavenly name for the Messiah.

21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”
--- So His earthly name Jesus, meant Savior.

Then Luke, the Greek historian gives the details of the visit of Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:
27 The virgin’s name was Mary.
28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”
29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was.
30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS.
32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest;
34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

--- Notice in verse 32, --- He will be CALLED the Son of the Highest.
--- And in verse 35, --- He shall be CALLED the Son of God.
But Jesus was not a biological Son of God, but was CALLED the Son of God as Adam was CALLED the Son of God in Surah 3:
59 The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

And the Quran records the same, does it not? In Surah 3:
45 Behold! the angel said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;
47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!

And again in the Surah which is called Mary, 19:
34 Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.
35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
--- It is not ‘befitting’ (out of the ordinary) --- (and seemingly below the majesty of God) that He should have one who was CALLED His Son, --- but God said, “Be” and it is.

Those who dispute it or deny it are simply unbelievers, are they not?

Placid

[andres]

Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel".

We have got no indication whatsoevet that Mary or anyone else called Jesus "Immanuel". Mary and Joseph most certainly named him Yehoshua (savior). "Christ" or "Messiah" occurred after he started his mission. Isaiah does not mention the virgins name so Mathews theory does not seem very convincing.

The Quran does mention the virgins name.

[Islamic Salvation]

Below is an article by Roncaglia (1971) about the supposed links between Ebionite and Elkesaite theology and Islam. 

 

Ebionite and Elkesaite Elements.pdf

 

Another must read.

[Islamic Salvation]

From A History of Jewish Christianity (Hugh J. Schonfield):

 

"A few of the Nazarenes may have joined the standard of the Prophet; for some of the Christian references in the Koran appear to rest on Jewish Christian apocrypha: but such references as the Arab writers offer us point to the lingering on of isolated and eccentric groups.

We have a statement of the En-Nadim about the Mughtasila, or “Washers,” who in the tenth century still reverenced a prophet called Al Hasih, evidently the old Elkesai of the Ebionites and Hemerobaptists, and possibly the Nazarene-Mandaites of the Euphrates valley even today preserve vestiges of the ancient traditions.

Recently the writer has obtained evidence in Palestine which may identify with the Nazarenes another small group inhabiting the Transjordanian highlands in the little village of El-Husn.

These Arabs, as they call themselves, keep Sabbath and circumcision, are vegetarians and non-smokers, reject image worship and govern their lives by the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount. They look for Christ to return and reign for a thousand years.

With the rise of Islam, the real work of Jewish Christianity in the East had finished. It had left in possession at least a faith in which the Unity of God was a fundamental principle and in which Jesus was recognized as a great and true prophet.

The story is told of the Emperor Heraclius, that being warned in a dream that his power would be destroyed by “the circumcised” he ordered the compulsory baptism of all the Jews in his realm: he did not realize that “the circumcised” were really the Arabs."

https://www.scribd.com/doc/93727751/History-of-Jewish-Christianity-Schonfield

Edited November 25, 2014 by Islamic Salvation

[Islamic Salvation]

Two Absolute Classics

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mythmaker-Paul-Invention-Christianity/dp/0062505858

 

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Zealots-Political-Primitive-Christianity/dp/0684310104

[Islamic Salvation]

http://books.google.co.tz/books?id=-EkO1vsJ4asC&pg=PA1

Edited December 6, 2014 by Islamic Salvation

[Yoel]

I have long been interested in the findings of a number of scholars who have maintained that the original teachings of Jesus were authentically preserved within a long-dead strand of what can only loosely be called 'Christianity', this is because they saw themselves as thoroughly Jewish, natives of a Palestinian messianic movement, shunning Hellenistic influences, descending from the initial Jerusalem Assembly, with James the Just as their first leader (NOTE: the one whom Jesus calls the Foundation of the Earth in the Gospel of Thomas - which has the Infancy bird enlivening miracle that the Qur'an confirms, being also a blood-relative of Jesus - a fact that canon seems to obfuscate).

 

This 'sect' which has been identified as the Ebionites/Nazoreans (though whether both names refer to the exact same sect is still debated) went on to be deemed heretical by the official Church (whose authority grew under the patronage of Rome) having rejected many of the precepts central to Nicene orthodoxy.

Ironically, the only way to understand what their beliefs were is through studying what is present in refutation texts written by early church fathers inimical to them such as Iraneus, Origen etc. who recount them in their rebuttals, but this makes it difficult to ascertain real positions in any detail - which makes some of the information murky.

 

Parallels with Islam are significant, they denied the pre-existence, divinity and atoning death of Jesus, they maintained the continued necessity of the Mosaic law (with corrections introduced by Jesus - reverting back to the original spirit that was always required, even to a Noahide epoch), they were virulently anti-Pauline, required circumcision, considered Jesus a Prophet and the Messiah (under their True Prophet concept), believed in the corruption of some of the previous scriptures at the hands of the scribes, rejected animal atonement and sacrifice as contrary to the intent of the law etc.

It should be pointed out that the main difference with Islam that I have come across is that they did not believe in the Virgin birth, or the rescue of the Messiah from crucifixion, furthermore, they had higher dietary standards (vegetarianism - note that their injunction prohibiting foods ascribed to James is identical to the one in Surah al-Maida i.e. blood, carcass etc.).

Having said that it is also noteworthy that a sub-group within them did indeed consider the miracle of the virgin birth true, also, they went on to widely influence the Gnostic sects who believed that the suffering Messiah was rescued before being put to death as Isaiah and other proof texts seem to allude to - another being crucified in his place.

 

This thread is to collect material related to this which I have come across.

First, a must read is Hans-Joachim Schoeps and his seminal work on Jewish Christianity (Factional disputes within the Early Church) http://www.scribd.com/doc/134169105/Hans-Joachim-Schoeps-Jewish-Christianity

He then contends (within his secular and academic view-point) that this may be what influenced the Prophet Muhammad - who encountered such splinters who had fled to the trans-Jordan and the Arabian Desert fleeing oppression.

As he says:

The Continued Influence of the Jewish Christians

The Ebionites finally disappeared in the fifth century in eastern Syria. Many of their central doctrines, however, appear to have survived in the conglomeration of religions of that time and then, in the period of Monophysite quarrels, to have entered Arabia by means of the Nestorians. That is to say, the Arabian Christianity which Mohammed found ...

The Ebionite conception of the True Prophet must have been directly operative in the proclamation of the prophet Mohammed himself, just as it had also been taken over by the Mandeans and the Manicheans ...

Particularly important, however, is the fact that Abraham became for Islam the Imam of all believers; neither Jew nor Christian, he serves as the link joining Jewish Christianity and Islam. The covenant with Abraham unites all believers at a stage prior to Torah and gospel. It was the reconstruction of this covenant which Mohammed saw as his task.

The fifth Sura(5.48-59),especially, sounds like the extension of the Jewish Christian theology of the covenants to the population of Arabia through Mohammed, the new messenger of God. That is, behind the Islamic idea of a series of prophets is a completely universal conception related to Ebionitism: the prophets are humanity's representatives, with whom God makes a covenant. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed are in the narrowest sense the contracting parties of the divine covenant. The truth of each earlier messenger—as the Elkesaites also believed—is taken up into the proclamation of the one who follows, so that Mohammed brings together all the truth conveyed through them In addition to the conception of the True Prophet, which according to Islamic doctrine originated in the primordial heavenly book, there is the doctrine of the absolute unity of God, i.e., his monarchical character excluding any kind of Trinity, which is just as characteristic of Mohammed as of Ebionitism. In the Pseudo-Clementines (a work of Ebonite provenance) religion is defined as follows: "This is religion, to fear him alone and to believe only the Prophet of Truth" (Horn.7.8).

This definition is so constructed that Islam could find in it its own confession of faith. According to Islam, Mohammed, as the Prophet of Truth, is the legitimate successor of Moses and Jesus in the mission of illuminating mankind. This extensive similarity in structure between Jewish Christianity and Islam explains why the population of the countries bordering Arabia, areas permeated with Monophysitism and Nestorian-ism, could so quickly become Mohammedan.

In addition to these, Islam took over a number of elements of the Jewish doctrine of the law in the special form giventhem by Ebionitism. This is true of the specifically Jewish rites of baptism and purification, and of the practice of directing prayers in a specific direction, originally northward, toward Jerusalem, until the Prophet, for the purpose of distinguishing the two groups, established at Medina the new practice of directing prayer toward Mecca, i.e., toward the Kaaba. A certain dependence upon Jewish Christianity may also be seen in the Mohammedan food laws, which have their origin in the regulations of the Apostolic Decree.

The particular conception of false pericopes—Uzair (Ezra),especially, falsified the Jewish Scriptures (Sura 2.70, 154, 169, 207, etc.)— likewise played a fairly important role in Mohammed's consciousness of being sent to restore the original law. Later Islamic theologians also know a tradition of crude anti-Paulinsm which is quite in the temper of Jewish Christianity; this, too, calls for an investigation of the course of the tradition.

When all is said and done, then, Mohammed, too, reverted to the ancient law. If it was possible for Jewish Christianity to have a new law in addition to the ancient law, there was certainly "also room for something still newer after the new."

For in the understanding of Jewish Christianity,the new law is in fact identical with the oldest law of all. Like the Ebionites, Mohammed wanted to correct the falsehoods which had crept into the law and to effect a reformation which would restore the original. To be sure, a full demonstration of the relationship between Mohammed and the Ebionites is not possible, but the line of tradition has been established.

And thus we have a paradox of world-historical proportions, viz., the fact that Jewish Christianity indeed disappeared within the Christian church, but was preserved in Islam and thereby extended some of its basic ideas even to our own day ...

[Other interesting material to follow ...]

 

 

Incidentally, I just wrote today on Shiachat about Ebionites and Nestorians.

 

To my knowledge, the Ebionites didn't believe that the canonical Biblical scriptures were corrupt, but they could have had a somewhat different, because they seem to be connected to the Essenes. The Ebionites also rejected material wealth and private property. The name of the sects is related to the Hebrew word that means "the poor ones".

 

Note also that the Talmud provide parallels to virtually many statement that Jesus made in the NT, as opposed to the Sadducee materialistic and literalist version of Judaism. Despite anti-Talmudic bashing by the Church, closer analysis shows that rabbinical Jewish ethics is much closer to Christianity than the outdated varieties of Judaism criticized in the NT. Read my little primer about the Talmud. The Talmudic literature is very much like the Ahadith. It contains many rejected or purely theoretical statements recorded for historical reasons, and allows many different interpretation. But the conclusion on some major Talmudists, including Jacob Emden, is that there is a common ground between Judaism, Unitarian Christianity and Islam.

 

It's also worth a note that medieval Jewish philosophers and jurists in Middle East and North Africa cleared many doubts and accepted many Islamic ideas without abandoning Judaism. In a sense, Muhammad brought back to Judaism some original teachings that were buried in the enormous Talmudic corpus.

 

Regarding the disappearance of the Ebionites. Al-Shahrastani mentions that a similar group lived in the 12th century near Medina and Hejaz. A somewhat similar movement was spread by Abu Isa in the 8th century Persia. On the other hand, Al-Qazwini narrated a tradition according to which Muhammad praises a particular Jewish group (Surat Al-Araf, 7:159). Al-Qazwini writes that Muhammad during the Miraj visited this people's country, which in Qazwini's colorful depiction sounds like a SF story about space travel. But despite the fantastic account, this Jewish group sounds very much like an idealized image of the Essenes.

 

The more I read about various Jewish, Shia, Gnostic, Hermetic and Sufi groups, the more I see how ancient teachings survive underground throughout hundreds and thousands of years, mysteriously reappearing in unexpected places. In the 17th-18th century Russia there were many quasi-Christian folk movements that geared toward Judaism, Sufi dhikr and Essene-like socialist ideas. Some followers of these groups still live in Azerbaijan and elsewhere. Probably no physical connection to ancient movements, but still interesting.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Yoel

[Son of Placid]

That Ebionite PDF is really messed up. Imagine making a religion out of whatever separates you most from the main stream.

 

This "anti Paul to make Islam look good" thread kinda reminds me of the stories of Arius. The only details we have come from his enemies.

Usually, when someone bashes one thing to promote another it's because they have nothing more to offer, and the first must be abased in order for the latter to surface. Not the case with Islam, so I don't really get the importance of it.

 

Everything you posted about Paul and I'm still not convinced. It probably stems from reading Paul's letters without bias.

 

Paul speaks out against circumcision! Really?

All he really said was if you got circumcised yesterday. and sinned your butt off today, you are no more saved than the uncircumcised tomorrow. Make sense? It's pretty basic logic. 

 

The real conflict happened when the Jewish Christians wanted to force the Gentile Christians into conforming to everything Jewish. Paul didn't emerge to save the Jews but the Gentiles. James set out the rules for Gentiles, not Paul. Kinda hard to hold everything against Paul if you realize that. Paul said "If you want to follow some of the Jewish rules, follow all of them." Still won't change your nationality, but you can pretend if you like.

 

So if you boil it all down, the big complaint against Paul is he didn't teach Gentiles how to become Jews. Come to think of it, neither did Muhammad, but going there is another can of worms. It's like saying, If you want to be Muslin, you have to become Arabic.

[Yoel]

Kinda hard to hold everything against Paul if you realize that. Paul said "If you want to follow some of the Jewish rules, follow all of them." Still won't change your nationality, but you can pretend if you like.

 

First, Judaism is a religion and not a nationality. If you convert to Judaism, you become 100% Jewish.

 

Second, the Talmud records a very similar discussion whether non-Jews need to become Jewish in order to be saved. The conclusion is that other people who believe in one God and practice basic ethical precepts will be saved without converting to Judaism. This is one of the main reasons why Jews are usually not actively proselytizing. Judaism is a burden and responsibility, not privilege or exclusive path to salvation.

 

It is possible to interpret Paul in accordance to Judaism. Rabbi Jacob Emden, whom I mentioned above, believed that Paul was a firm follower of Judaism. However, many Paul's teachings suggest that he considered law a curse altogether. This can also be explained in accordance to esoteric Gnostic teachings of Judaism, which hold that Judaism is not sets of laws, but a set of meditative instruments for one's soul's perfection, kind of like yoga. But I think this is a far-fetched interpretation, because early anti-Pauline groups blamed him for abolishing Judaism altogether.

[Yoel]

 It's like saying, If you want to be Muslin, you have to become Arabic.

 

Nope. It's like saying that if you want to be Jewish, most conversion rabbis would require to study at least basic Hebrew. And you want to become yourself a rabbi, Aramaic is also a must and Yiddish too in some communities. I know several people without any Jewish ancestry who became very serious Hasidic rabbis and are now fluent in all these three languages.

 

Likewise, any serious Muslim must learn at least some Arabic. And if someone wants to become an ayatollah, Persian is probably a must and in some places Urdu or something.

 

Got it? Judaism is a religion and not a nationality. But certain languages and certain ethnic groups like the Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazim are associated with it. To a large degree, Eastern European Jews are descendants of Persians, Romans, Celtic and Germanic tribes, Khazars, Slavs and whoever else decided to become Jewish throughout the history.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Yoel

[Chaotic Muslem]

Yoel, what do you think of this in terms of the early split of Christians from Jewish community?

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/08/bar-kochba-and-christians.html?m=1

[Islamic Salvation]

'I wish that those who are upsetting you (in regards circumcision) would castrate themselves!' - Paul

 

One of the most important traits of those whom we collect under the label 'Jewish-Christian' is their Anti-Paulinism, Why was this so - you may ask?

 

Because Paul was seen to teach a 'different gospel' as he himself alludes to, this gospel was anti-nomian by nature.

 

David C. Sim The Hebrews, the Hellenists, Paul, the Historical Jesus and the Risen Christ.pdf

[Yoel]

Yoel, what do you think of this in terms of the early split of Christians from Jewish community?

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/08/bar-kochba-and-christians.html?m=1

 

Beside sharing the belief of many Jews that Bar Kokhba is a dangerous imposter, some Christians also started to support the Roman Empire. According to Neil Faulkner, a renown Biblical archaeologist and historian, Bar Kokhba was not a proto-Zionist of sorts, as some people think, but primarily an anti-imperialist revolutionary. Jesus was also organizing poor people against the Roman Empire and various early Christian sects remained staunchly anti-Roman.

 

Bar Kokhba was killing Pauline Christians, but the main reason behind it could be political treason. He was killing pro-Roman Jews as well. I don't know about Christians, but Bar Kokhba allowed poor pagans to join his movement, if they would swear to fight the Roman Empire on his side and to cut off a finger as a sign of their loyalty. Unfortunately, many things about this revolt remain unclear. I think this man meant well, but his style was very brutal and he considered any sign of pro-Roman sentiments treason worthy of death.

 

Bar Kokhba's war caused a sharp rift between Jews and pro-Roman types of Christians who created the Church in the 4th century, but various Judeo-Christian sects continued to flourish in the underground and outside the borders of Roman Empire.

'I wish that those who are upsetting you (in regards circumcision) would castrate themselves!' - Paul

 

One of the most important traits of those whom we collect under the label 'Jewish-Christian' is their Anti-Paulinism, Why was this so - you may ask?

 

Because Paul was seen to teach a 'different gospel' as he himself alludes to, this gospel was anti-nomian by nature.

 

David C. Sim The Hebrews, the Hellenists, Paul, the Historical Jesus and the Risen Christ.pdf

 

 

I would recommend to read Daniel Boyarin's books and papers on Jesus and Paul. He is well known history professor, religious Orthodox Jew, anti-Zionist activist and a great erudite in Talmudic literature, Greek NT and Christian apocrypha. Boyarin's analysis is very refreshing, because he has no Christian or Zionist bias and tends to agree with Muslim views about various things.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Yoel

[Son of Placid]

Do I got it? You've told me what they aren't, but not what they are, (and were). 

That's really cool that you can become a "Jew" now a days. Of course you'd have to learn about the religion first. Let's not confuse what happened then with what happens now.

 

How do you separate Jews from Judaism in those days? Call them Israelites? Jerusalemites?

In those days you were a Jew or you were a Gentile. Gentile meaning foreigner outside the gates, "Jew" meaning God's chosen race. Then again, during my years of living in Cote St Luc, QC. aka Cote St Jew, no matter what their original race was, they were convinced they were "Jews", and I was never so reminded of being a Gentile before or since, so maybe you can understand my confusion.

So what's a Jewish Christian sposed to be? One who practices Judaism and Christianity? 

Would that explain all the Christian Muslims...?

If you have names/titles you'd prefer go for it, I'll fix my posts accordingly. We can bicker, (is a Jew Jewish), until the cows come home, but that would only be in an attempt to sidetrack my point.

 

In those days, the Jews (God's chosen race) controlled Judaism. They controlled as much as the Romans allowed them to. Keep the peace, get their money, make em follow all the laws, get their money, and make up laws as you go along. There is a direct correlation between the "Jews" (Scribes, Pharisees, w/e) during the time of Jesus, and what the Quran says about knowing the truth, and teaching otherwise. 

 

Galatians 5:11-12 (MSG)As for the rumor that I continue to preach the ways of circumcision (as I did in those pre-Damascus Road days), that is absurd. Why would I still be persecuted, then? If I were preaching that old message, no one would be offended if I mentioned the Cross now and then—it would be so watered-down it wouldn't matter one way or the other. Why don’t these agitators, obsessive as they are about circumcision, go all the way and castrate themselves!

If they cut it all off would they be holier?

 

Which translation would you like? Pick the worst, pick the best, all depends which point you want to make.

Castration isn't new to Muslims. If only you could ask some 17 million blacks turned slaves around the 7th century. I assume they circumcised the rest.

 

Paul wasn't Jesus. Paul wasn't Muhammad. Paul was a Jew who enforced Jewish law until he saw it for what it was. Paul was never a man you could love like Jesus, nor Muhammad. He was an angry, ugly, crippled man who didn't mind using sarcasm, or good ole in your face politics. 

 

Why would Jewish Christians not like Paul? Why would I ask?

 

You can't be "chosen" unless someone isn't. Chosen is always better, right?

 

The "God's chosen race-Christians" were still struggling with their own transition,(Time to make new laws)... Now some guy comes along and wants to make Gentiles into Christians. GENTILES...imagine? Don't they have to be "God's chosen" first? They're scum. They eat the hind ends of animals! If they want to join us they have to follow all our imposed rules! It was James let them off the hook, why didn't the "Jewish-Christians" hate James too? 

[Netzari]

Yoel, what do you think of this in terms of the early split of Christians from Jewish community?

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/08/bar-kochba-and-christians.html?m=1

Here's my unsolicited opinion. The early Netzarim were a Jewish sect, centered in Jerusalem. And yes, Rabbi Akiva naming Simon Bar Kokhba as the messiah must have created some internal rift between this sect and mainstream Jewry. But what I think ultimately "split" this sect from both Judaism and what we now know as Christianity was the Roman response to the Jewish revolt. Rome brutally sacked Jerusalem and the land around it. All Jews were persecuted (no matter what ideology they believed). Hundreds of thousands of Jews perished at the hands of Rome and Emperor Hadrian. Hadrian also banned the Jewish religion, forbade Jews to enter Jerusalem (which he renamed Aelia Capitolina), renamed "Israel" to "Palestine", and killed many scholars (so many in fact, that Rabbi Yahuda haNasi eventually compiled the Mishna for fear of the Oral Torah being forgotten). The Netzarim were not exempt from the catastrophe. I think it's safe to assume that most them were killed or emigrated to safety with other Jews. Eusebius, in his church history, mentions that the first 15 bishops in Jerusalem "were of the circumcision" (ie. Jewish). The very last "bishop" was Judah, the great grandson of Jude. The Romans exiled him from Jerusalem, and then the Romans appointed the next bishop Marcus! And that is why we'll never truly know what happened to the original Netzarim. Many probably rejoined mainstream Judaism in the diaspora.

[Islamic Salvation]

Shlomo Pines argues that Abd al-Jabbar the Mu'tazili author used a long lost 'Jewish-Christian' tract in his refutation of the Pauline Christians - http://ebionite.org/member2/pines1.htm

 

Full article available for download here - http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/pines02.pdf

I would recommend to read Daniel Boyarin's books and papers on Jesus and Paul. He is well known history professor, religious Orthodox Jew, anti-Zionist activist and a great erudite in Talmudic literature, Greek NT and Christian apocrypha. Boyarin's analysis is very refreshing, because he has no Christian or Zionist bias and tends to agree with Muslim views about various things.

 

What do you make of his ideas of the germs of the Trinity being present in Ancient Judaism, two divine powers (lesser God), incarnation of the Wisdom of God, Metatron, the Son of Man being a Divine Epithet etc. 

 

Here's my unsolicited opinion. The early Netzarim were a Jewish sect, centered in Jerusalem. And yes, Rabbi Akiva naming Simon Bar Kokhba as the messiah must have created some internal rift between this sect and mainstream Jewry. But what I think ultimately "split" this sect from both Judaism and what we now know as Christianity was the Roman response to the Jewish revolt. Rome brutally sacked Jerusalem and the land around it. All Jews were persecuted (no matter what ideology they believed). Hundreds of thousands of Jews perished at the hands of Rome and Emperor Hadrian. Hadrian also banned the Jewish religion, forbade Jews to enter Jerusalem (which he renamed Aelia Capitolina), renamed "Israel" to "Palestine", and killed many scholars (so many in fact, that Rabbi Yahuda haNasi eventually compiled the Mishna for fear of the Oral Torah being forgotten). The Netzarim were not exempt from the catastrophe. I think it's safe to assume that most them were killed or emigrated to safety with other Jews. Eusebius, in his church history, mentions that the first 15 bishops in Jerusalem "were of the circumcision" (ie. Jewish). The very last "bishop" was Judah, the great grandson of Jude. The Romans exiled him from Jerusalem, and then the Romans appointed the next bishop Marcus! And that is why we'll never truly know what happened to the original Netzarim. Many probably rejoined mainstream Judaism in the diaspora.

A work that seeks to study the effect of the first war on early 'Christianity' - http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1951_brandon_fall-of-jerusalem.pdf

Edited December 11, 2014 by Islamic Salvation

[Yoel]

In those days, the Jews (God's chosen race) controlled Judaism.

 

Let me repeat myself once again: there is no such thing as God's chosen race, there never was and there never could be.

 

An apostate from Judaism is ontologically not a Jew. The only Jewish thing about such a person that he is responsible for apostasy and that Jews are not permitted to ask an ex-Jewish person to violate specifically Jewish precepts like the Sabbath. This applies to principled atheists and heretics as well. The reason why various Orthodox Jewish organizations outreach to secular Jews is because nowadays the line between apostates and ignorant confused people is very blurry. For the same very reason, we can talk nowadays about secular Shia Muslims in Iraq or elsewhere, though it may sound like an oxymoron. If you convert to Judaism and then turn back to Christianity, you would be also considered an ex-Jewish apostate.

 

The entire Book of Ruth is dedicated to a story of a women who was not born Jewish, but joined the chosen people of Israel by declaring her faith and became the ancestor of David. Most key figures in the Hebrew Bible married people from various races and backgrounds. The Book of Esther tells us that many people in Persian were becoming Jews (8:17).

 

That's because the concept of "chosen people" is very much like the Islamic Umma and had nothing to do whatsoever with race. Archaeological research suggests that most Jews had actually dark skin in Biblical times. The Song of Song also suggests, if taken literally, that Solomon praised the prefect black skin of his beloved.

 

Being "chosen by God" always meant to be a part of the religious community that chooses God. Flavius Josephus who lived in the 1st century tells that Judaism was extremely popular in the Roman Empire. Huge numbers of Romans became Jews. The Epistle to Galatians tells basically the same thing that some early Christians continued conversion to old style Judaism. The Talmud concurs and records an opinion of some Jews who believed that one must become a Jew in order to be saved. This opinion was rejected toward the universal approach of today's Judaism, according to which good people, especially Muslims who strictly believe in one God, are good as they are. And chosen as well, according to Jewish esoteric teachings and classic philosophers.

 

The concept of "chosen race" is a recent Christian invention and a very bad one. There is no such thing in Judaism, there is no way the Hebrew Bible could be read this way and there are a plenty of documents that demonstrate clearly that Jews in Antiquity were a very active proselytizing group. In some cases, they went too far. The Hasmonean king Yochanan Hurkanus (John Hyrcanus) waged a military jihad of sorts in the 2nd century BCE and forcibly turned the entire tribe of Idumeans into Jews. Herod the Great was a descendant of those forced converts.

 

And yes, Jews believed back then and still believe that circumcision is a sign of holiness. If a man wants to become a Jew, he must get circumcised, unless he has a potentially deadly medical condition like hemophilia that prevents him from doing it. Galatians correctly describes the common Jewish belief and practice.

 

In Muhammad's time, Arabia was a hotbed of conversion to Judaism. Queen Helena of Adiabene became Jewish in 1st century Iraqi Kurdistan and created a large conversion movement. The kings of Himyar, today's Yemen, became Jews in the 4th century and converted a large part of the local population. Becoming chosen, as in monotheism combined with circumcision, was quite popular in the Middle East for centuries before Muhammad.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Yoel

[Yoel]

What do you make of his ideas of the germs of the Trinity being present in Ancient Judaism, two divine powers (lesser God), incarnation of the Wisdom of God, Metatron, the Son of Man being a Divine Epithet etc. 

 

 

 

It depend how you interpret these ideas. Boyarin is a good historian, but his understanding of esoteric matters may be a bit superficial. There is a strong tradition of Logos in ancient Judaism, which seems very similar to Hiqiqah Muhammadiyyah, as much as I understand the concept from Henry Corbin's books. A prophet or the Messiah is a manifestation of the Logos.

 

There are also very complex ancient teachings of emanations and angelic hierarchies, similar to Avicenna's Neoplatonic cosmology or Suhrawardi's lights. Metatron is a major figure in esoteric Judaism. Many mystics considers him identical with the Active Intellect and identify him as the angel of prophecy. But he is certainly not a "lesser God". He is a mirror, which reflects God, but had no independent power.

 

The bottom line in all those theories is that they never imply multiplicity in the Divinity Being as it stands in itself (Deus Absconditus). Multiplicities only appear, when God manifests Himself toward the creation through different names and attributes. But it is possible to misinterpret this sorts of teachings and turn them into something like Trinity. The situation may be comparable with some Shia sects who came to the conclusion that God, Muhammad and Ali constitute a trinity.

 

By the way, Orthodox Christian esoteric tradition amended the Nicene Creed in a number of important ways. Greek and Russian mystics believe that Divinity is beyond all names and all divisions. They separate the triple dialectic of Divine personae, which appear towards the creations, from the absolutely simple apophatic Divine essence. In a sense, they undo the Trinitarian dogma while technically adhering to it.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Yoel

[Yoel]

A work that seeks to study the effect of the first war on early 'Christianity' - http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1951_brandon_fall-of-jerusalem.pdf

 

I just had another thought. Picture if Avicenna's followers would proclaim that whoever doesn't believe that the third emanation of God created the world is a heretic who will burn in hell and deserves death. Or if some Ghulat sect would proclaim the same about someone who doesn't believe that Ali is God.

 

It is possible that some radical Jewish sects developed emanation theories that seemed at odds with simple monotheism. Platonic philosophy, Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism were popular doctrines that produced myriads of interpretation. If someone would suggest the Trinity as one possible philosophical approach, it could be a matter of polite disagreement and discussion. Or if some mystics like Sufi dervishes would do something antinomian as a personal path.

 

The problem is that Pauline Christians insisted with increasing aggression that this is the only correct theology and the only correct single path to salvation. In Talmudic Judaism there is a broad plurality of opinions and approaches to things. People may selectively pick up or construct bad and crazy ideas, but there is always room for discussion. Hellenistic and Gnostic movements in Judaism, as far as we can see from ancient texts, were probably even more open to various worldviews. On the other hand, Trinitarian Christians came up with something that was understood by most Jews as outright heresy and idolatry, and insisted on imposing this particular singular dogma on the entire world.

[Son of Placid]

Yoel,

You are a wealth of information.

You teach me, and cause me to rethink a lot of them old Christian concepts, with a vocabulary that can keep me in a dictionary half the night.

 

Don't be thinking I have it all figured out yet.

 

So all that about the lineage of David means, nothing? 

 

In Canada, everybody wants to be Metis. They want to have some Aboriginal blood in them so they can live by another set of laws. What's pathetic is they are never called on to adhere to the new laws they never bothered to learn. What happens next is they live the best of both worlds ignorant and without reprieve. The actual aboriginals are kinda ticked because these new recruits are more destructive and add no value. It also skews the stats so the Aboriginals get less, and leads to people like my niece, who proved she was 1/16th Aboriginal, (worthy of a Metis card) yet 100% blonde, (in all aspects and stereotypes).

 

You're saying there isn't/wasn't an original blood line you can follow to the (ones they call) Jews/Israelites/Jerusalemites?

Who gets the promised land?

[baqar]

In Canada, everybody wants to be Metis. They want to have some Aboriginal blood in them so they can live by another set of laws. 

 

If appearances are any guide, I am at  least 1/256 Meti.  Will I get preferential treatment if I came to Canada ?  

 

Who gets the promised land?

 

Now that you mention it, I was hoping for a plot in the promised land.  Any chance my case will be accepted ?

[Yoel]

You're saying there isn't/wasn't an original blood line you can follow to the (ones they call) Jews/Israelites/Jerusalemites?

 

 

 

Of course you can! Judaism accepts converts, just like Islam. But Jews don't encourage conversion, because other good people, especially strict monotheists like Muslims or Unitarian Christians, are good as they are. The Talmud says that a non-Jew who believes in God and studies the basic universal aspects of the Torah is on the same level as the High Priest entering the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple.

 

The conversion ritual is called giyur. In traditional Orthodox Judaism, it requires acceptance of all commandments of the Written and Oral Torah (the narrations and derived laws recorded in the Talmudic literature, kind of Jewish version of Hadith), circumcision for men and immersion in a special pool called the mikveh or a natural water resource in presence of three witnesses.

 

In real life, it takes usually one to three years of serious study and commitment, because Orthodox Jewish communities want serious people. There are a plenty of Orthodox rabbis who had no Jewish ancestors at all. Several Orthodox synagogues in Brooklyn are full of Afro-American or Hispanic converts. Just a month ago, a friend of mine who is close to Neturei Karta married a black girl who converted to Hasidic Judaism.

 

You may have heard about the scandal with Lev Tahor in Quebec. It's a highly conservative Orthodox Jewish group who got into trouble with Québécois government, because the refuse to teach certain secular subjects to their children and hated by the Israeli government for their anti-Zionism. This group is also full of converts, because some newcomers to Judaism think that it's cool to be off the scale ultra-conservative.

 

Of, for example, Christian Anfinsen, a Norwegian-American guy who won Nobel Prize in chemistry became an Orthodox Jew. People who trace their blood to David or Aharon may be proud of their ancestry, but Judaism is a universal religion that has nothing to do with blood or race.

 

 

Who gets the promised land?

 

 

Typical traditional answer: When the Messiah will appear from his hidden abode, the new Temple build by angels with descend from the heavens, death, illness and sin will be defeated, all people who faithfully followed the Torah of Moses will have a portion in the Holy Land. Nowadays, who cares?

 

Heretical answer: If you volunteer to serve as a soldier in the IDF, an Israeli military court will convert you in a couple of months, even if you don't intent to follow Judaism, grant you Israeli citizenship and register you as a Jew. However, the types of Jews I usually hang out with may seriously doubt your conversion, because Zionism is a heresy and Zionist "rabbis" are arch-heretics.

 

Esoteric answer: The entire earth will become Holy Land in the messianic era and all people will eventually see God's light and become equally holy, ontologically Jewish. Because Jewish really means acute awareness of God, following God's ways and revealing Godliness in your soul.

If appearances are any guide, I am at  least 1/256 Meti.  Will I get preferential treatment if I came to Canada ? 

 

No, you need at least 1/239. And to know French, if you want to come to places where there is a large Muslim community. And, according to my Iranian friends, don't try to cross the US border, because you are likely to get very unpleasant preferential treatment.

 

 

Now that you mention it, I was hoping for a plot in the promised land.  Any chance my case will be accepted ?

 

 

Buy 1 square meter in Gaza. This city is mentioned over a dozen times in the Hebrew Bible. I can't guarantee though that your plot will not get bombed within a year...

Edited December 12, 2014 by Yoel

[Chaotic Muslem]

Typical traditional answer: When the Messiah will appear from his hidden abode, the new Temple build by angels with descend from the heavens, death, illness and sin will be defeated, all people who faithfully followed the Torah of Moses will have a portion in the Holy Land. Nowadays, who cares?

You makes me think of ahlulkitab at times of our prophet. No wonder they didn't frown at his teachings.

[Son of Placid]

Typical traditional answer: When the Messiah will appear from his hidden abode, the new Temple build by angels with descend from the heavens, death, illness and sin will be defeated, all people who faithfully followed the Torah of Moses will have a portion in the Holy Land. Nowadays, who cares?

You makes me think of ahlulkitab at times of our prophet. No wonder they didn't frown at his teachings.

 

Yeah, I don''t know who cares, but they sure are making a stink of it over there now. Everybody wants it but me.

 

Sorry Baqar, the government is trying to draw a line at 1/16th, after all...

If you want preferential treatment you will have to come this far. You tell me how well you'd fit in with Ishmaelis.

 

All this still doesn't negate what I said about Paul tho. ;)

[Son of Placid]

Way off topic, but Yes TV, (whatever that is), has a program running, asking for donations from Canadian Christians to help homeless Jews who have immigrated (from Russia) to Israel become more self sufficient. Only $150. CAD

$350. CAD will help a desperate Jew (in Russia), "return to their promised land" <----- their words, and teach them Hebrew. 

 

Turned the TV off.

[Islamic Salvation]

What do we mean when we say Jewish Christianity?

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/250301806/An-Inquiry-Into-the-Character-of-Earliest-Christianity-pdf

Edited December 16, 2014 by Islamic Salvation

[Son of Placid]

What do we mean when we say Jewish Christianity?

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/250301806/An-Inquiry-Into-the-Character-of-Earliest-Christianity-pdf

Nice work, I'll need some time to really read it, but yeah, the points I see are those I was trying to make. Don't know how we come to different conclusions. 

 

For lack of a proper name...Wiki.

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group[17] originating from the Historical Israelites of the Ancient Near East

 

So Jewish Christians are those of "Jewish" heritage who became Christians, yes? 

Pauline Christians were those of "non Jewish" heritage who became Christians, yes?

Circumcision is deep in Jewish tradition, and no big deal seeing it all happens early in their second week of life, and have no recollection, let alone choice. Same as Muslims, and most Christians. For Gentiles who find out about it for the first time as adults, well, it could be a big deal.

 

Consider hypothetically, a new discouvery of past scriptures. True circumcision is actually the first 2.58 centimeters, ( 1 inch). Everyone is to report to the Mosque to be properly circumcised. Your appointment has been scheduled for tomorrow 8 am.

How do you feel now? 

 

Paul argued on behalf of the Gentiles because he recognized that circumcision wasn't a guarantee into heaven, and knew many of the laws that came with the heritage were constraining laws, meant to keep the "Jews" in line. 

Back when the dietary laws were given to them, they were told what was clean and unclean. They were also told the unclean  could be given to the poor, or sold to the Gentiles. Obviously the unclean was not necessarily the unhealthy. When God said what was unclean, He didn't say unclean/yucky, He said "Unclean for you". Does not apply to Gentiles. 

 

So I see the whole circumcision argument as the Jewish Christians insisting the Gentile Christians catch up on the old Jewish laws before they can be new Christians. Paul convinced James, James had a meeting, made the ruling. 

 

Paul wasn't anti-Jew, he was pro Gentile.

 

What else did you have against him?