Dennis notes and recommends ...
Note:
In any class or sermon I never heard a good explanation of the implications of the conference portrayed in Acts 15. It was simply written to show that Paul was on board with Peter, James and John in all things and they all got along just fine. They actually did not and this is obvious in Galatians 1-2. Paul went on in his correspondence with the Corinthian Church to negate much of what he promised in Acts 15 to pass on to the churches.
At issue here was the simple question raised in the Book of Acts of "How does a Gentile become a Christian when Christianity seems to find it's roots in Judaism?" The answer in Acts 15 was..."The same way a Gentile becomes a Jew."
I'd also like to note that in the COGs,
21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him (Moses), being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.
was explained to mean that the Gentiles could get all else they needed to know about tithing, Sabbath, Holy Days and all other details of COG beliefs when they went to Church on the Sabbath.
Wrong!
This point is really the answer to the fears the original complainers about some (like Paul) teaching against the "Law of Moses" and simply was a reminder that they should not worry, Moses and Judaism is not in danger as it will always be taught in the synagogue every Sabbath forever. The article also gives a nice intended meaning as well and neither of these means what the COG made it to mean.
Why do I care? Because I will always want to know a better explanation for what used to clearly be a very bad one and while not attached emotionally to the Bible any longer, it's all fascinating.
Recommends....
UNDERSTANDING ACTS 15
By Robert Clanton
robert4211@tx.rr.com
In order to correctly understand Acts 15, one must first understand two terms used in the scriptures to define two different types of gentiles. The term "God Fearer" or "one who fears God" was a term that was used to describe the gentile who believed in the one true God and denied the idols and foreign gods of the gentile world. The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, "No difficulties were put in the way of those strangers who wished to settle down in the land of Israel. All strangers, the third generation of Egyptians and Edomites included, and only Ammoniites and Moabites excluded could enter "the congregation of God" without circumcision and without the obligation to keep the ceremonial law. The stranger within the gate was free to eat meat which was prohibited to the Israelite (Dt. 14:21). If, however, the stranger wished to take part in the Passover, a feast that permeated with the national ideals, he must be circumcised. The keeping of the Sabbath and other feasts was regarded rather as a privilege than as a duty (Ex 23:12, Dt. 16:11, 14) but according to Lev. 16:29 he was obliged to fast on the Day of Atonement." Page 2468. However, he did not become circumcised and neither was held to observe the entire Law of Moses. This type of gentile was one that did observe the moral aspects of the Law and was considered righteous by the Jews and God, although he was not held to be obligated the weekly or annual Sabbaths, clean and unclean meats or the other ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses. * (see note at the end of document regarding the Noahide Laws)
The other term, which is used in the scriptures, is the term, "proselyte," (which means in Greek, "to sojourn") is a term for a gentile who became circumcised and thereby bound to the Sabbaths and all of the 613 laws under the Law of Moses. Most "proselytes" became God Fearers, first and then from there they would become proselytes. Because not all gentiles could be free enough to rest on Sabbaths, clean and unclean meats and the other non-moral requirements of the Law of Moses, most of the gentiles remained "God Fearers". The term proselyte is used in the follow verse by Christ himself when he rebukes the self-righteous Pharisees, Matt 23:15 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves" Now we can proceed to the 15th Chapter of Acts.
1And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. 3And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. 4And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. 5But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.[It is impossible to emphasize how important this line is in the understanding of the council of Jerusalem. It is not just circumcision but also the COMMAND to tell the gentiles to keep the LAW OF MOSES. In order to truly understand this phrase, we must realize that any part of the law of Moses can be referred to as the law of Moses. For instance: circumcison was a part of the law of Moses as was sacrifices and the weekly and annual Sabbaths. So in attempt to corrupt the actual meaning of the Law of Moses many of the Sabbath keeping churches will go to reference that on pertains in part to the law of Moses instead of the whole. The best reference to the Law of Moses in total is Mal. 4:4. It reads, "4Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments". It is clear from this verse that the Law of Moses includes all of the Law from both Mount Sinai and the statues and judgements. Why does circumcision enter the picture ? Because the scripture says in Ex. 12: 47 "All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48And when a stranger (gentile) shall sojourn [from which we get the Greek word "proselyte"] with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 49One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.". So that if any gentile wished to observe the feast of the Passover he had first to be circumcised and by circumcision be willing to keep the entire Law of Moses. As this reference makes plain. Gal 5:3 puts it this way, "3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law" ]
6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.[this is a direct reference to the events in Acts the 10th where Peter after seeing the vision of unclean animals is told to go and preach to the gentiles, specifically, Cornelius the centurion soldier (Acts 10:21 "Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come? 22And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee." Again it is of utmost importance to recognize the importance of the use of the term "one that feareth God" because it show that Cornelius was not bound to the restriction of the weekly Sabbath nor annual Sabbaths nor clean and unclean meats when the Holy Spirit comes upon him. Please take time to read Chapter 10 and 11 of the book of Acts.). The argument here is that God purified their hearts by faith and gave them the Holy Spirit just as he had done those who were circumcised and keeping the Law of Moses. God was not purifying their hearts by Law but by faith. By faith he was giving the Holy Spirit to them and thus it was evidence that of salvation. Acts 13:47 puts it this way, "47For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. 48And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.[This verse is the crux of the entire matter. Where Sabbath keeper or not, circumcised or not, God fearer, gentile or bond or free, Jew or gentile salvation and the Holy Spirit comes by faith through grace. To add the Law of Moses to the faith tempt God because God did not require Sabbaths first upon the gentiles and THEN give them the Holy Spirit, but freely gave them the Holy Spirit. Rom.8:8 says this, "8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" IT IS NOT SABBATHS THAT MAKE YOU CHRIST'S BUT HIS HOLY SPIRIT.]
Acts 15:12Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.[This short verse is of major importance. Why? Because the scripture say that God gave his stamp of approval on a ministry buy miracles that follow the preaching. Acts 2: 22 "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know"]
13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.[James agrees with Peter, Paul and Barnabas that God was at work in giving the Holy Spirit and Salvation to the gentiles apart from the Law of Moses and so he quotes the only scripture the is used in the entire debate]
19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.[Is it so important to understand the back ground of this statement. The four things that are given to be WRITTEN to the gentiles were known as the "Noahian" or "Noahide Law". It was considered to be the moral law given orally to Noah and that if a man kept it he would be considered righteous and inherit eternal life. None of the Jews believed that the Sabbath was made "binding" to be kept until the time of Moses. Why did he want to give these commands in WRITING. THE ANSWER IS IN THE NEXT VERSE.
21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him (Moses), being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.[When the gospel was preached among the gentiles Christ had commanded that the gospel first go to the Jew and then the gentile. The Jew in the synagogues had made a 2,000 year old HABIT of trying to convert the gentile and thus make THE GENTILES become circumcised and "COMMANDING HIM TO KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES". They were preaching Moses and this is what started the entire problem. After God had given salvation and the Holy Spirit by grace through faith as Peter declares, some of the Sect of the Pharisees began PREACHING MOSES. Let me post verse five of this chapter here, "5But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION THIS LETTER WAS SENT TO THE CHURCHES SO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING. THE GENTILES WERE NOT to be made BOUND TO THE LAW OF MOSES. The whole point in verse 21 is to say that it was necessary to write to the gentiles because in every city was a synagogue where the Jews would preach Moses (not Christ, not the gospel, but MOSES AS THE WAY TO SALVATION) and the apostles wanted no misunderstanding that the gentiles were not to be circumcised and commanded to keep the law of Moses BECAUSE FAITH IN CHRIST IS THE WAY UNTO SALVATION]
22Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you NO GREATER burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. 30So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: 31Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. 32And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. 33And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. 34Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. 35Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.[Reading Acts 16:4 4 "And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. 5And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily." All of this caused considerable confusion. As Paul preached the gospel in the synagogues first to the Jews and then to the gentiles, questions came up continually. Paul stuck to his guns as did the Apostles. When he would tell the gentiles that they were not to make themselves under the Law of Moses, the Jews among the gentiles would hear and then begin to wonder, if the gentiles receive salvation and the Holy Spirit and were not under the Law of Moses, then why should they be under the Law of Moses? Hence you have the problem in Acts 21 when Paul goes back to Jerusalem. Some of the Jews among the gentiles reported that he had preached to the Jews as well as the gentiles that they should not circumcise their children nor follow the customs of the Moses. You find this in Acts 21:15"And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem. 16 There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge. 17And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest ALL OF THE JEWS which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
[It now becomes easier to understand the entire New Testament. When Paul makes statements like that of Rom 10: 12 "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
A major complaint from Sabbath Keeping churches when showing them these scriptures is to say, "well then you think it is ok to murder, steal, or commit adultery." This is to imply that the only thing that keeps them from doing such things is the law. Paul answered that when he says in 1Tim.1: 9 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" but also he answered that by faith and the use of the Holy Spirit men would walk in the following manner, Gal. 5:22 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." It is not the law which keeps us from sin but the Holy Spirit. Therefore the gentiles were not made to be under the Law of Moses.]
The Noahide Laws
2. Not to blaspheme God
3. Not to murder
4. Not to engage in incestuous, adulterous, bestial, or homosexual relationships
5. Not to steal
6. Not to eat a limb torn from a living animal
7. To set up courts to ensure obedience to the other six laws.
Since each law has extensions and interpretations (see number 4, for example) there are in fact more than seven laws that gentiles are commanded to observe.
Judaism regards any non-Jew (GENTILE) who keeps these laws as a RIGHTEOUS person who is guaranteed a place in the world-to-come." This is taken from the book; "Jewish Literacy, The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People, and Its History" Chapter 263 "THE SEVEN NOAHIDE LAWS" page 509. The author is Rabbi Joseph Telushkin and author of two of the most influential Jewish books of the past decade; "The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism" and "Why the Jews? The Reason for anti-Semitism
In the book, "EVERYMAN'S TALMUD", by Rabbi Abraham Cohen, (a summary of the teachings of the oral interpretation of the Mosaic Law), Page 65 we read, "To the Gentiles who were not prepared to enter the fold of the Judaism, a moral code, known as the seven commandments of the Sons of Noah, was offered. It consisted of the precepts: "The practice of equity, prohibitions against blaspheming the Name, idolatry, immorality, bloodshed, robbery and devouring a limb torn from a live animal" (Sanh.56a). By righteous conduct, based upon these fundamental laws they would earn the divine approval." Even the strict Jews believed that the Sabbaths were not necessary as binding on the Gentiles. Circumcision of the flesh is necessary before any person is required to observe the any Sabbath.
30 comments:
Dennis, this is excellent. Saving now so I can sent people to it in the future. Thanks for sharing.
Galatians, as I understand it, was written before Acts 15. As the church became more Gentile, the question was, “Do Gentiles have to obey the Law of Moses?”
The answer was, “No.” Gentiles become Christians without becoming “Jews” first.
Paul continued to observe many of the Jewish laws, because he chose to. He considered himself to always be a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). He was one of the Jews who did accept Jesus as the Messiah. This is one reason why he was welcomed to speak in the synagogues on the Sabbath, to reason with them from Scriptures concerning Jesus being the Messiah. But he never imposed these practices upon Gentiles.
I have written to C of G and told them that I can find only nine of the Ten Commandments given to the Church. Where is the fourth (Sabbath)? They brush my question aside and refer me to their booklets (which also ignores the question). They also fail to respond to Acts 20:7 and I Cor 16:2 which shows the church meeting on the FIRST day of the week. They also fail to respond to questions explaining Col 2:16 and Rom 14:5 which says that it doesn’t matter which day you gather together. No, the Catholic Church didn’t make Sunday the Christian “Sabbath.” Neither day is more important than any other. While I am at it, they also confuse salvation with glorification, claiming that they are begotten in this life, but not born again until the resurrection. But I Peter 1:3 and v 23 show that being born again is something that has already happened to believers. It is in the past tense. The most ridiculous answer I ever received was from the LCG’s when I asked about consciousness after death, as found in Rev. 6:9-11. He said, “Because they were slain. They were dead. Dead people do not speak (Ecc 9:5-6). Therefore, their speaking had to be a characterization of their speaking. In other words it was not real. It was imaginary speaking, not real speaking. The writers were characterizing what they felt they would be saying.” I almost fell out of my seat when I read that.
I responded by asking “By what rule of interpretation did you arrive at that understanding?” By that reasoning can I claim that the post resurrection comments of Jesus were what he would have said if he was still alive, if he had really risen from the dead?”
Thank you Martha. I found it nicely summarized the entire topic of Acts 15 . I included most of this in one of my last sermons at a FOT in Myrtle Beach in '96 as well and between this an a couple presentations on the origin and intent of the Birth Narratives of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, got a Church watch with a dead battery , a sermon I sat through in my own church by the head of of Church Ad telling my church not to listen to me and shortly thereafter, the boot, which I probably both wanted and deserved being one discouragedl depressed, anxious and confused minister who made poor choices back when my youthful naivete' and idealism was in full bloom.
It was the best of times...it was the worst of times. Theological transitions are mentally and emotionally messy and exhausting. There are many prices to be paid and assorted craziness. 19 years later, God works in time cycles you know...lol.....I am not the same person, thank myself.
"It was imaginary speaking, not real speaking. The writers were characterizing what they felt they would be saying.” I almost fell out of my seat when I read that.
I responded by asking “By what rule of interpretation did you arrive at that understanding?” By that reasoning can I claim that the post resurrection comments of Jesus were what he would have said if he was still alive, if he had really risen from the dead."
There is a style of writing where the author does indeed imagine what a character would say if they said it which they didn't. Most of the long winded speeches in Acts are written in this style. No one really took down or "recorded" word for word what Mary said or sang to Elizabeth when pregnant with Jesus in the birth story. It is taken from the Song of Hannah in the OT. No one was present with Jesus alone in the garden praying while the disciples slept or what Pilate's wife really said to Pilate about his dream . It is imagined by the author to tell the story.
The long winded speech of Stephen before stoning is another example. No one wrote it down word for word . It is what an author imagined was said. This is also true of Jesus long Passover "sermon" found only in John from chapter 13-`17,
All of Matthew's birth story is taken from the OT scriptures and not any eyewitness of events. There were none. The Gospel authors were originally anonymous and the names were added much later for credibility's sake.
Jesus words on the cross are not prophesied in Psalm 22. They are taken from it in writing the story.....and so on.
All of Matthew's 8 incidents in Jesus birth where he says "and thus it was fulfilled" were taken from the OT and not only that but badly taken out of context making the OT mean what it never meant. Luke and John correct some of Matthew's gaffes along the way or fail to mention them at all.
Even Paul's perilous missionary journey and ship wreck at taken from an experience Josephus had, not Paul. http://vridar.org/2007/04/25/the-shipwrecks-of-josephus-and-paul-part-3/
It's a huge topic but the audiences of the day would have understood the style which we have lost perspective on.
We often fail to notice that the Gospel writers don't say "and then I saw Jesus ..." do this or that, or "then I heard Jesus say..." There is no witness. It is just story telling by people not there to see anything.
Too bad Jesus couldn't or wouldn't write anything himself I suppose, that we could trust to be authentic.
PS It is why modern authors ask was Jesus "Liar, Lunatic or Lord?" I opt for the fourth "L" and that being legend and a literary construct based on OT scriptures. Yes there could have been a Jesus person but many layers have been added that even a Jesus would not have recognized. My current view is that it's all a construct to bring the Cosmic Jesus of Paul who explained Jesus, (CHRIST) as crucified in the heavens by archons or demons etc only knowing no earthly Jesus or quoting him because none of the Gospels stories bringing Christ down to earth as Jesus in human had been written in Paul's lifetime.
A HUGE understanding of the evolution of Jesus in the NT is to realize Paul wrote his views FIRST, Then comes the Gospel accounts fleshing Jesus out on earth. Paul never met any real Jesus . It is why this Pharisee of the Pharisees who hated Christians never shows up in the Gospel persecution of Jesus. He was there but the Gospel writers never heard of this Saul/Paul
The Book of Acts was written to make the transition between Gospels and Paul making it seem like first came earthly Jesus , then came Paul's Christ. Not so. Other way around. Acts also endeavors to make Paul seem like he was of the Jerusalem persuasion and again , he was not in the least.
A final example and I'll sit on my hands.... :)
In Romans 8:26 Paul gives the answer to "how should we pray?"
26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know how we ought to pray, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans too deep for words."
This would have been a great moment to remind the crowd of the "Lord's Pray" in Matthew, but alas...he never heard of it. Countless times in the NT , when it would have served Paul well to quote Jesus , he doesn't but rather gives his own answer. That is because he never heard any of the answers Jesus gave in the Gospels because they had not been written yet.
Dennis said, "The long winded speech of Stephen before stoning is another example. No one wrote it down word for word . It is what an author imagined was said. This is also true of Jesus long Passover "sermon" found only in John from chapter 13-`17," Didn't Jesus say that the Holy Spirit would come and bring into remembrance all that happened and lead them to all truth?" To say that there was no recording or stenographer there and the writing were made up, denies the inspiration of Scripture, does it not?
Thank you Dennis, I too find the mythicist argument to be increasingly persuasive. The fact is, Jesus is absent from the historical record and appears only in the bible. We really haven't got any better reason to think that Jesus existed than the patriarchs did, who biblical scholars widely agree were mythical figures, or other figures like Odysseus. The only explanation available for why many scholars still think Jesus was based on a real person and Odysseus and Abraham were not is simply the biasing of institutional inertia. There aren't evidential reasons for it.
"Didn't Jesus say that the Holy Spirit would come and bring into remembrance all that happened and lead them to all truth?" To say that there was no recording or stenographer there and the writing were made up, denies the inspiration of Scripture, does it not?"
John 14:26 " But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
Yes, of course. The author of John, which is a deeply gnostic text compared to the other Gospels and has Jesus ministry lasting three years instead of the one in Mark, Matthew and Luke did say that. That is what an author of a work which quotes so much others never heard of would want to say to give that very impression he got it all right. It is a very old question of just how did John get all this speech making when others never heard of it. That is the skeptical view I know.
The Holy Spirit in this context did not choose to remind Paul of anything Jesus, years before the Gospels, said as Paul never quotes once any thing Jesus ever said in the Gospels. One would think this would apply equally to Paul but it evidently did not. It also did not seem to make it into the writings of any other of the Gospels. So in effect, John was the only one who actually believes the Holy Spirit gave him the scoop and he only.
I don't, and this is just me based on my own study and views, believe the Bible is inspired any way special. It is men, Priestsin the OT and in the New Testament, some authentic writings of Paul and some attributed to him which he did not write along with other books with the names of Apostles on them but written either by others in their name with good intent or simply made up to seem like the person knowing full well it was not. I would recommend Bart Ehrman's "Forged" to get a good view of which books were which and whose and why.
I know it's very difficult to let go of cherished beliefs about the Bible and it can take time for those given to such pursuits. Most simply will not go there because the implications are too great and too difficult to deal with.
For example, trying to figure out the impossible logistics and story of the Exodus is the same, to me , as trying to come up with the answer to just how could a Ginger Bread House in Hansel and Gretel withstand and stay standing when it rained. It's a miracle is all one can say but that doesn't work for me personally these days.
Every preacher, evangelist, apostle and charlatan in religion claims the Holy Spirit leads them and inspires their particular view of scripture. I'm sure Dave Pack believes the Holy Spirit puts all his particular brand of stupid in his mind and it will still all happen as he has written it down to be. We know that rather than admit to being wrong, mistaken and misunderstanding scripture, these men simply finagle it all in to a new and better recipe that will shortly come to pass honest.....
Jesus is also been said to have said, "Whatever you ask in my name I will give it to you," and no one knows just exactly what that means , has ever seen it work and believes it could turn into a nightmare if it ever did work. But someone put it in the mouth of Jesus for some reason and when it actually falls short, we know that "my ways aren't your ways," "My ways are higher than your ways," "The wisdom of man is foolishness to God" and if all else fails, "but when you ask, you ask amiss..."
The inspired Paul/James/John were inspired by the HS to just know time was short, soon, behold I come quickly and the hour now is, but it wasn't. "The Holy Spirit is now leading me/us to...." is a phrase that should give critically thinking COG members who hear it from their leaders pause for thought and caution.
Stephen said...
Thank you Dennis, I too find the mythicist argument to be increasingly persuasive. The fact is, Jesus is absent from the historical record and appears only in the bible. We really haven't got any better reason to think that Jesus existed than the patriarchs did, who biblical scholars widely agree were mythical figures, or other figures like Odysseus."
That's my conclusion to date Stephen. It's all rather amazing to me but it is so that outside of the Bible , and the OT construct of what no one actually knew about Jesus, there is precious little material and Jerusalem and environs were crawling with writers of the times who ignore him or never heard of him. A stunning reality and not for the meek.
Dennis said, "I know it's very difficult to let go of cherished beliefs about the Bible and it can take time for those given to such pursuits. Most simply will not go there because the implications are too great and too difficult to deal with."
I have been and am able to give up my "cherished beliefs." I was once a member of WCG, a graduate of AC. But, I will give up a belief when there is a stronger argument for another. It is my understanding that if the life, death and resurrection were not true, the disciples, who were scared to death after his death, would not have preached and died for what they knew was a lie. Christianity would never have survived unless there was strong proof of its truthfulness early on.
Just because the WCG was in serious error does not mean that Christianity is in error (true Christianity). Much of what passes for Christianity today (such as much of what is on TBN) is not true Christianity.
on May 6, 2016 at 4:17 PM
Stephen wrote:-
"The fact is, Jesus is absent from the historical record and appears only in the bible."
Are you sure about that, Stephen? The Jews seem to admit that He existed and they have been around for quite a while. Would you care to comment on THIS LINK.
In addition to that, Bart Ehrman, historian and professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, has much to say on the matter AT THIS LINK.
Would you have any comments on that?
cheers
ralph.f
The problem with the Bible was written purely by men rather than inspired, is that God is a prayer answering God who on occasion puts certain scriptures in people's minds, as an answer to a prayer request. So Dennis can intellectualize till hell freezes over, but will not change my mind about Gods existence or the Bible being inspired by Him.
Everybody has their cliches, Ralph. It seems to be part of the human condition, and in some cases, believing these cliches is what keeps people functional. I don't have any problem with the historicity of Jesus. He is also mentioned in the holy book of the third Abrahamic religion, the Koran, only He is called Isa, and thought to be a prophet. There are also the writings of the antenicene fathers, but most ex-COG people have been conditioned to write those off, because they were falsely labeled as "Catholic" by HWA, and some recycle that label into a new working theory that the Romans invented Jesus.
In some Jewish sources, a Jesus ben Pantera is mentioned. We can know from the gospels that the Jews did not accept the virgin birth, and their theory was that Mary had been raped by a Roman soldier named Pantera.
One day, perhaps all of the mystery will be corrected and clarified, and we will all have 100% accurate knowledge. Until then, I am sure we all do the best we can. It's a human proclivity, and part of our past belief system, for each of us to believe that we have that most accurate information now. It's kind of what we as humans do.
BB
Ralph-
1) Your link regarding the Jews disbelief in Jesus' messiahship does not address the evidence for or against the historicity of Jesus. I do not understand your reasons for providing it.
2 Bart Ehrman
a) Defining the Question
When you link to Bart Ehrman, let's be clear about what you're arguing for. You're not arguing for a Son of the Gods. You're not arguing for miracles. You're not arguing for a resurrection or empty tomb. You're arguing for a mere mortal man. You're arguing for a 1st century apocalyptic false teacher who lived, and then died, possibly at the hands of the Romans, was buried, and stayed dead. Just to be absolutely clear about what's in question and what ground you've already given up. In doing this, you've already conceded all the supernatural claims.
And let me say, for you Ralph, this is already a huge step in the right direction. Congratulations!
b) The Broader Mythicist Debate
In the 70's, back when the historicist view on the patriarchs and Moses was held universally, Thomas L. Thompson advanced the position that the patriarchs and Moses were mythical figures. He experienced a lot of resistance within the field to this mythicist hypothesis which lasted for about 10 years. Some of his peers even tried to destroy his career. However, Thomson was vindicated, and the mythicist view became the mainstream view. What changed? (Hint: it wasn't the evidence.)
Now, decades later, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman have conclusively established archaeologically that the legends of the Hebrew slavery in Egypt, exodus, wandering, and Canaanite conquest could not have happened, that a glorious and powerful united monarchy did not exist in the Levant, which was at the time still a province of Egypt's empire, an empire which extended all the way to the Euphrates, and that the details of the penteteuch display a total ignorance of economic and political facts on the ground during the times in which it had once been supposed that it was written, that we can safely conclude they could not have been composed prior to the 7th century BCE, approximately 1000 years after the stories appearing in Genesis claim by the genealogies to have occurred. In fact, scholars now think that the book of Genesis is among the latest of the books included in the Hebrew canon, having been composed contemporary with the book of Daniel, 50-100 years after the breakup of Alexander's empire.
Still, isn't it possible that the patriarchs and Moses really did exist? In the words of Finkelstein, "We don't know. We'll never know. It is too late to know." However, is it probable, based upon everything we know, that that the patriarchs and Moses really did exist? No, it isn't.
c) Jesus Mythicism
The historicist view on Jesus is currently the mainstream view, however, it is so for exactly the same reasons that the historicist view on the patriarchs and Moses used to be mainstream, namely, that the historicity of Jesus has been handed down as received wisdom from the medieval mists of centuries ago, before there was any such thing as the scientific method or secular scholarship. And if you look closely at the scholarship arguing for the historicity of Jesus, the fact that the historicist position has never been tested before becomes glaringly obvious.
The only evidence for a historical Jesus is the bible. There is no getting around that. The Testamonium Flavianum found in Josephus is an interpolation, which the evidence we have points toward it having been inserted by Eusebius. Besides that, there are only mentions of christians cropping up around the early 2nd century CE. Moreover, there were several authors, some of whom lived near Galilee, who recorded paragraphs about other, much less supposedly famous apocalyptic teachers, and would certainly have said something about one whose fame had supposedly spread throughout the entire, huge province of Syria. But no. And any mention by anyone would have certainly been preserved by christian writers who would have loved to have quoted them, either because they liked what had been said about him, or else because they hated what had been said about him. But no. And this period is precisely the time in antiquity for which historians were most prolific and these works are the best preserved, and yet, the silence on Jesus is complete. What would it take to put a historical Jesus on the map? Just one, disinterested, preferrably eyewitness account, by a contemporary secular source.
Still, isn't it possible that a historical Jesus really did exist? We don't know. We'll never know. It is too late to know. However, is it probable, based upon everything we know, that that a historical Jesus, a man behind the legend, really did exist? No, it isn't.
d) The Probabilies
Bart Ehrman, as is the mainstream view today and despite his professed religious agnosticism, is a historicist on the question of Jesus existence. However, he has to go beyond the evidence to hold that view, in just the same way as scholars in the 1970's went beyond the evidence to hold the view that the patriarchs and Moses were historical figures. So, it doesn't matter what Bart Ehrman, or anyone else for that matter, may or may not argue. It doesn't change the evidence, or lack thereof, so it doesn't change the probabilities, so a historical Jesus remains improbable, despite the academic inertia, despite the received wisdom of more ignorant times, and despite all the sophisticated philosophy of religion that might try to make more out of the total silence on Jesus in the historical record than is warranted.
Now, I'd also like to say that I like Bart Ehrman. I think he's a talented and engaging scholar. Nor do I begrudge him making a case for historicity. A case for historicity needs to be made. In fact, the best possible case for historicity needs to be made. I'm not even convinced that the best possible case for historicity has been made heretofore. And perhaps new evidence will come to light, possibly in ancient preserved texts, that will change the probabilities. I'm perfectly happy to accept that the legend of Jesus was, in fact, probably based upon a mere mortal man who got crucified, however, I think that it will take new evidence to change the probabilities, and that even the best arguements based on the current evidence isn't going to be sufficient.
Barring new evidence, how long will it take until the resistance acquiesces, and Jesus goes the way of the patriarchs and Moses? 10 years? 20? 30?
Would you have any comments on that?
"...God who on occasion puts certain scriptures in people's minds,..."
why didn't God just put His morals into our hearts and minds?
DBP
"Your link regarding the Jews disbelief in Jesus' messiahship does not address the evidence for or against the historicity of Jesus."
Yes it does. Simply, because the Jews did not ask "Who is Jesus? I never heard of him." The fact is that the bible is a historical document too. What is the current news about the archeological tomb of Joseph?
"In Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman builds a technical argument and shows that one of the reasons for knowing that Jesus existed is that if someone invented Jesus, they would not have created a messiah who was so easily overcome.
"In Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman builds a technical argument and shows that one of the reasons for knowing that Jesus existed is that if someone invented Jesus, they would not have created a messiah who was so easily overcome.
The Messiah was supposed to overthrow the enemies – and so if you're going to make up a messiah, you'd make up a powerful messiah," he says. "You wouldn't make up somebody who was humiliated, tortured and the killed by the enemies." "The mythicists have some right things to say," Ehrman says. "The Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical."
DBP
You are forgetting that humans are capable of deception. The pendulum swings both ways. For example, how Stalin dealt with "enemies of the people".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t5DWcA1DLU
DBP
11.51 AM God putting thoughts into peoples minds is pure communication, nothing more. Sometimes it's like a voice inside your mind. God cannot give people morals or character because by definition, it is the freely chosen. By definition of being made in Gods image, people have unlimited mental freedom. To violate this is murder. So God never has, or never will make a decision for a human or spirit being.
The ministers don't teach this, since they disagree with God. Thousands of church members have been scarred for life, by gangster ministers tearing them down, in order to get them to make the 'right' decisions. Church culture sanctions this. This is the equivalent of Esau selling his birth right for a bowl of soup, except they are doing it to others rather than to themselves. The Ambassador College old boys club believe their ways are better than Gods. If they were forthright, they would say 'murder, we love it, it 'works,' it gives us what we want.'
It's comforting to know that such people will not be in the kingdom. Peace, finally.
DBP,
I am glad that you too have decided to jump on the bandwagon with Bart Ehrman and his arguments, thus abandoning any contention for the supernatural elements of the biblical texts. Ehrman argues only for a mortal, natural Jesus. You do realize that as long as you're relying on Ehrman, you can get no farther than this, right?
"The fact is that the bible is a historical document too."
Yes, in the same way that The Illiad and the Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Metamorphoses, Hesiod's Theogony, The Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as all the Hebrew and Greek texts that did not make it into any of the christian canons are also historical documents. Therefore, since we don't believe Odysseus was a historical figure, why should we believe Jesus was? Just because he's a character that appears in work of literature is not sufficient.
"What is the current news about the archeological tomb of Joseph?"
Which Joseph, and what tomb? Google brings up no current news.
"'Your link regarding the Jews disbelief in Jesus' messiahship does not address the evidence for or against the historicity of Jesus.' Yes it does. Simply, because the Jews did not ask 'Who is Jesus? I never heard of him"...In Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman builds a technical argument and shows that one of the reasons for knowing that Jesus existed is that if someone invented Jesus, they would not have created a messiah who was so easily overcome. The Messiah was supposed to overthrow the enemies – and so if you're going to make up a messiah, you'd make up a powerful messiah," he says. "You wouldn't make up somebody who was humiliated, tortured and the killed by the enemies.'"
The Jews also did not ask, "Who is Moses? I never heard of him." And yet, Moses was a literary character who appears to have first been invented in Babylon. So if the Jews could come to believe in the historicity of Moses, then why couldn't they come to believe in the historicity of another literary character set a minimum of 37 years prior to his being written about as though he were a human being on planet earth, and especially if he has followers? Claiming that a person existed is not an extraordinary claim, so it is accepted much more readily than the truly extraordinary claim that he was THE messiah. So simply because Jews rejected the theological claim of messiahship is no reason to expect Jews to reject the secular claim of his mere historicity. This is why assumptions made by groups of people are not evidence.
The sorts of arguments from criteria you cite Bart Ehrman using are exactly the sorts of arguments that have been used by scholars to repeatedly reach broad disagreement about what, if anything, could be said to be probably historical about Jesus. What they actually amount to is a methodology that leads scholars to feel their own biases are probable, yet without realizing that's what they've done, which is why they've led to chaos instead of clarity.
For example, in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a petty and vindictive young Jesus uses his supernatural powers to kill a playmate without good cause. If this gospel had been accepted as worthy during the canonization of the New Testament, arguably many modern Christians would find it quite embarrassing, and therefore, by the Criterion of Embarrassment, many scholars would undoubtedly find a kernel of historicity in the pericope. However, all that is likely is that some early Christians did not find this story embarrassing.
To wit:
"Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend. But attempts to ascertain the 'real' historical Jesus have ended in confusion and failure. The latest attempt to cobble together a method for teasing out the truth involved developing a set of criteria. But it has since been demonstrated that all those criteria, as well as the whole method of their employment, are fatally flawed. Every expert who has seriously examined the issue has already come to this conclusion. In the words of Gerd Theissen, 'There are no reliable criteria for separating authentic from inauthentic Jesus tradition.' ... Dale Allison likewise concludes, 'these criteria have not led to any uniformity of result, or any more uniformity than would have been the case had we never heard of them,' hence 'the criteria themselves are seriously defective' and 'cannot do what is claimed for them.' Even Porter's attempt to develop new criteria has been shot down by unveiling all the same problems ... The growing consensus now is that this entire quest for criteria has failed. The entire field of Jesus studies has thus been left without any valid method.
What went wrong? The method of criteria suffers at least three fatal flaws. The first two are failures of individual criteria. Either a given criterion is invalidly applied (e.g., the evidence actually fails to fulfill the criterion, contrary to a scholar's assertion or misapprehension), or the criterion itself is invalid (e.g., the criterion depends upon a rule of inference that is inherently fallacious, contrary to a scholar's intuition), or both. To work, a criterion must be correctly applied and its logical validity established. But meeting the latter requirement always produces such restrictions on meeting the former requirement as to make any criterion largely useless in practice, especially in the study of Jesus, where the evidence is very scarce and problematic. The third fatal flaw lies in the entire methodology. All criteria-based methods suffer this same defect, which I call the 'Threshold Problem': At what point does meeting any number of criteria warrant the conclusion that some detail is probably historical? Is meeting one enough? Or two? Or three? Do all the criteria carry the same weight? Does every instance of meeting the same criterion carry the same weight? And what do we do when there is evidence both for and against the same conclusion? In other words, even if meeting the criteria validly increases the likelihood of some detail being true, when does that likelihood increase to the point of being effectively certain, or at least probable? No discussions of these historicity criteria have made any headway in answering this question."
“The quest for the historical Jesus has failed spectacularly. Several times. Historians now even count the number of times. With the latest quest (numbered 'the third') and its introduction of criteria, the concept of Jesus we're supposed to believe existed is actually getting more confused and uncertain the more scholars study it, rather than the other way around. Progress is supposed to increase knowledge and consensus and sharpen the picture of what happened (or what we don't know), not the reverse. Instead, Jesus scholars continue multiplying contradictory pictures of Jesus, rather than narrowing them down and increasing their clarity—or at least reaching a consensus on the scale and scope of our uncertainty or ignorance. More importantly, the many contradictory versions of Jesus now confidently touted by different Jesus scholars are all so very plausible—yet not all can be true. In fact, as only one can be (and that at most), almost all must be false. So the establishment of this kind of 'strong plausibility' has been decisively proved not to be a reliable indicator of the truth."
Carrier, Richard C. (2012-04-03). Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Kindle Locations 86-120). Prometheus Books. Kindle Edition.
May 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM
"... people have unlimited mental freedom. To violate this is murder. So God never has, or never will make a decision for a human or spirit being."
I agree. I was trolling for the nuts that think they speak for god. I believe that we have freewill in the same way that a physical object has gravitational attraction.
DBP
Stephen said..."The fact is, Jesus is absent from the historical record and appears only in the bible."
Stephen said..."The only evidence for a historical Jesus is the bible."
Stephen said..."Yes, in the same way that The Illiad and the Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Metamorphoses, Hesiod's Theogony, The Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as..."
That's a given. The bible is in the group of 'all historical documents'. Your quote above is what I was implying. I never read anything by Ehrman until today. That url was the only thing I read.
I am agnostic. So, religous debate is pointless. Jesus may have existed or not. All stories have some kind of meaning. It is the underlying meaning of stories that interest me. Watch the movie "The Man from Earth" (2007) a low-budget movie that you might find interesting.
Stephen said..."I am glad that you too have decided to jump on the bandwagon"
No thanks, I have my own wagon! ;)
Stephen said..."This is why assumptions made by groups of people are not evidence."
Does this include your assumption? I konw that it includes mine.
DBP
Excellent, DPB.
Yep. Anything I might assume should not be construed as evidence for anything historical.
Seen the movie. Wasn't that interesting.
Watching it without having seen any spoilers, could have been why I found it more interesting than your opinion.
DBP
Dennis, didn't Paul, in effect, quote Jesus in Acts 20:35,, I Cor 7:10-11 & 2 Cor 12:9?
"Dennis, didn't Paul, in effect, quote Jesus in Acts 20:35,, I Cor 7:10-11 & 2 Cor 12:9?"
I'm not Dennis, but...
These are difficult questions to answer, but there are myriad doubts that this is the case. The best anyone can really do is attempt to search for the most probable hypotheses, and the epistles must be handled separately from Acts.
Many commentaries claim that I Cor 7:10-13 appears to quote Mark 10:9, Matthew 5:32, 19:9, and/or Luke 16:18. However, the consensus is that the Corinthian epistles were composed between 52 and 58, while the earliest of the synoptic gospels, Mark, could not have been written prior to 70. Since the Corinthian epistles predate the gospels, this makes it problematic to advance a hypothesis in which the author of the authentic Pauline epistles had even an early version of them in mind.
Since "Paul" was not one of the original disciples, we know he never met or learned at the feet of an earthly Jesus. In fact, the only place where we might surmise he might have even known that an earthly Jesus ever existed, as opposed to a strictly celestial one, is in Galatians 1:19 where he refers to "James, the Lord's brother," and even then, as in I Cor 7:10-13, he doesn't specify (as is specified in Acts 20:35) that this "Lord" is, in fact, supposed to be identical with Jesus. Moreover, in Galatians 1:11-17, he even claims that he never got any of his information about Jesus or his teachings from anyone who might have ever known him, by any means. So "Paul" appears to reject the hypothesis of the commentaries outright.
So, where did the Pauline author's information about "the Lord" or his "instructions" come from? One might wish to float the hypothesis that "Paul" was, in fact, quoting oral gospels or now-lost written proto-gospels, but, since he didn't say where the teachings he's citing come from, and since we don't have the hypothsized sources either, this becomes more speculative than I think most secular scholars would be comfortable championing. Believers might say he was quoting the celestial Jesus he encountered in the Arabian desert à la Galatians 1, but to do that departs the domain of scholarship and enters the theological domain in which anything and everything goes. It's also possible that "Paul" was either quoting popular doctrines here that he had heard other christians talk about, or that he was simply citing "the Lord" to claim extra authority for a doctrine in which he expected resistance. We know that it was widespread for ancient authors to write fictitious works in the name of people more authoritative than themselves in order to help their ideas gain traction.
The supposed quote of Jesus in Acts 20:35 exists within the context of the sermon at Miletus which is widely believed to be set in the year 58 AD. While it is possible that Paul is quoting Jesus, given the late date of Luke-Acts, 80-110, no earlier than approximately 20 years after these words were supposed to have been spoken by Paul, and given the propensity of ancient writers to construct lost speeches after the fact in which they insert words which merely could plausibly have been spoken, it is unlikely that Paul ever quoted Jesus, and more probable that this was simply constructed as a possible speech for Paul by the author of Luke-Acts. However, if Luke is, in fact, even quoting any Jesus tradition here, we no longer have it. But writing late, after Mark, and quite possibly also after Matthew were in circulation, Luke would have had a much more developed Jesus tradition to draw upon than the author of the Pauline gospels would have known about.
Post a Comment