Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 16 17 18
BornAgain9
Registered user
Registered: 07-2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 691
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
Bookworm88 ...
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
I think he is suggesting that Paul adapted his message to better fit the beliefs of the pagans he was hoping to attract to his movement.
So the question then has to do with whether Christianity WAS adaptable to other cultures than just the Jewish culture. If James was teaching an unadaptable Christianity, then I am wondering what sources Eisenman uses to determine that James was correct and Paul was wrong.
I think Eisenman might agree that James' message was less adaptable to the gentiles than Paul's, but the point is to find how historically accurate Paul's message really was.
|
|
6/10/2011, 11:05 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to BornAgain9
Send PM to BornAgain9
ICQ
Blog
|
Bookworm88
Administrator
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 978
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
I will give you one Eisneman gave in his lecture (not sure which part). Paul writes that while in Damascus his life is threatened by the representatives of the king and that he escaped by being lowered over the wall in a basket. Contrary to his own statement Acts says that he was lowered down the wall in a basket because the Jews were trying to kill him. This is the same story but Acts does not agree with Paul over who was threatening him.
This "disagreement" is not really as great as what Eisenman may think. Paul was a Roman citizen, so the Jewish leaders could not just go kill him without getting in trouble themselves from the government authorities. So for the Jewish leaders to get Paul, they had to work through the Roman governmental authorities. This would not have been that hard to accomplish. The Romans did not want revolt or resentment from the Jews they were ruling. If arresting a troublemaker now and then would cause goodwill with the Jewish leaders, then the government officials were willing to do it. So really, BOTH accounts are correct. The Jewish leaders were wanting to kill him and the government representatives were after him.
|
|
6/10/2011, 11:06 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Bookworm88
Send PM to Bookworm88
|
gnastynate
Registered user
Registered: 05-2011
Posts: 142
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
quoting
gnastynate ...
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
I explain it by saying these things don't harmonize. I see the presumed harmony as really only existing in the minds of believers. Dan Barker and even Michael Shermer talk about this. As believers they saw this harmony everywhere. As atheists they admit they were only duping themselves. I could give examples if I had more time, but I am off to work shortly.
Awww, you're killin me 
I don't mind it if you take a break for a night or two, but you just had to drop a bomb to tease me before you do it huh? I will be wanting some examples please.
LOL! You deserve an example, I agree.
I will give you one Eisneman gave in his lecture (not sure which part). Paul writes that while in Damascus his life is threatened by the representatives of the king and that he escaped by being lowered over the wall in a basket. Contrary to his own statement Acts says that he was lowered down the wall in a basket because the Jews were trying to kill him. This is the same story but Acts does not agree with Paul over who was threatening him.
Ok, I did file that away as something that I need to look into more, but I need more details that I'm hoping are in the book. When Eisenman explained it it sounded a little shaky, but with the right details it's possibly something that bears more research. This is just my explanation from off the hip, but by all accounts (that I'm familiar with) the Jews would actually incite others, even non-Jewish types, to... let's say "do their dirty work". My explanation for that would be that the Jews somehow incited the representatives of the king to put a thumpin on Paul. If (and I'm fully aware that this is a big if, something like that were the case) then both stories are true and you can see that it might be told different ways to emphasize different points. Like I said, I'm hoping to get more details on that one.
quoting
Eisenman gives another example but I don't recall what it was at the moment. Baker's book gives many examples of this sort and Shermer, I think, also gives a few.
quoting
BA ...
Those who wrote scripture were well aware of the Old Testament. They looked to it to explain their beliefs and when they wrote their own letters, that in later years became scripture, they wrote that harmony into the text.
quoting
gnastynate ...
I'll give you the possibility of that, I mean it's clear that it's possible...
Thanks for that Nate.
Well, you're welcome. I do think it's possible, but I have to wonder if you've ever looked at the number of prophesies that had to be fulfilled, and how many of them would be out of a person's hands. Virgin birth being an example of that. You're either born with, let's just call it a chance of claiming that, or you're not. There are also several lineage prophesies that would not only have to be fulfilled, but would have to be verifiable to John Q. Public. At that time, keeping accurate lineages was a big thing, but how many people today can trace their roots back to Abraham? That he would be killed, no bones broken, with law breakers AND with his side pierced with a spear. You have to admit that just that death con alone would be really hard to engineer given that you'd have to influence so many people of power while being a condemned person. There is also at least one date related prophesy that I know of. It's fine to say that there's multiple interpretations of dates that would fulfill the prophesy, and I agree with that, but you have to admit that falling within the scope of one of those dates, being able to claim a virgin birth, being killed in such and such an elaborate way, having all of these different lineage requirements met, being a teacher yada yada yada it's just hard to imagine that all being coincidental. On top of that, while we today have a hard time saying Jesus was or wasn't actually fulfilling these things, but everybody at the time was watching and being critical of these things.
quoting
Those who later wrote the books of the NT would also be familiar with the OT scripture. We can't be sure the authors wouldn't stretch the stories about Jesus just a bit to make them fit scripture.
Yes, it's possible that it was tried, but how hard would it have been to disprove at the time? It's easier to manipulate stories when there isn't anyone alive who was there, but that wasn't the case with much of Christianity.
quoting
There are many other examples but I will have to look them up.
quoting
gnastynate ...
... but how is it possible that the writer's enemies also wrote things that proved fulfillment of prophesies and harmony with OT scriptures even when it was something that they wouldn't want known?
Sorry, I don't know what scripture you are referring to here. The enemies of Christ have written things that corroborate the biblical account of Christ?
Yes, there are Jewish histories that show what Christians were claiming and that the Jews either couldn't disprove them or could only come up with weak excuses which had no actual proof that can be found today. Again, I would advise you to read Evidence for Christianity by McDowell.
quoting
quoting
gnastynate ...
Why did the Jews make so many arguments against the virgin birth idea?
Maybe because Jesus was not born of a virgin and the Jews (ie. the Jamesians?) knew that. Maybe the notion of a virgin birth is one of the concessions Paul made to strengthen his mission to the Romans, that Eisneman was talking about?
You keep wanting to make Jamesians and Jews the same thing, why is that? Jamesians were Christian based and by prophetic design would still have been an enemy to the Jews.
quoting
What do the Pseudoclementies and other sources say of the virgin birth?
I'm not sure about the Pseudoclementies, the only other viable explanation I've read about is from the Jews. They said that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier. It was a pretty thin cover up from what I remember though, and I don't think it even caught on with all of the Jews.
quoting
quoting
gnastynate ...
Why did they repeat again and again that Jesus and the apostles were healing, performing miracles etc using the power of satan?
Because the authors of the Gospels were enemies of the Jamesians and were trying to undermine them by claiming they didn't really understand Jesus.
No, why would you acknowledge that your enemy was doing the same miracles that you were unless they were really doing it and it was so widely believed that you couldn't disprove it, only try to taint it. If the Jews were acknowledging the power of the Christians then it went beyond the possibility that the stories were the product of an active imagination.
quoting
Perhaps everytime the NT says Jews we should substitute Jamesians. Perhaps what the NT is really showing is the conflict between the Pauline Christians and the Jamesians.
First off, I still want to have some reason to do so before I entertain that idea. Second off, I'd have to say that if that were the case then there's good reason in that alone to believe that this would make the Jamesians wrong.
quoting
Eisneman would claim, I think, that the NT Gospels have been tainted by Paul's teachings. Remember Paul claims he learned about Jesus from no man; that he came up with his teachings in isolation from the apostles (ie. the Jamesians) and the fact is they were not in agreement with one another.
That would be fairly accurate with the exception of the implied belief that this makes him wrong. Either his teachings jive with the prophesies or they don't, the same for the Jamesians.
quoting
What if it works this way: The Jamesians and Paulines were at odds with one another and the Gospels in the NT are Pauline documents with Acts being the most influential Pauline document of all. The Jews that the Gospels depict as enemies are really the Jamesians. This, I think is what Eisneman is setting out to prove in James the Brother of Jesus.
Well, he's got his work cut out for him. We'll see how close he gets I guess.
|
|
6/11/2011, 7:18 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to gnastynate
Send PM to gnastynate
Blog
|
gnastynate
Registered user
Registered: 05-2011
Posts: 142
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
quoting
Bookworm88 ...
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
I think he is suggesting that Paul adapted his message to better fit the beliefs of the pagans he was hoping to attract to his movement.
So the question then has to do with whether Christianity WAS adaptable to other cultures than just the Jewish culture. If James was teaching an unadaptable Christianity, then I am wondering what sources Eisenman uses to determine that James was correct and Paul was wrong.
I think Eisenman might agree that James' message was less adaptable to the gentiles than Paul's, but the point is to find how historically accurate Paul's message really was.
But what measuring stick are you using to compare Paul's message to? Is it just the Ebionites message? What then do you compare their message to in order to "find how historically accurate" their message is?
|
|
6/11/2011, 7:37 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to gnastynate
Send PM to gnastynate
Blog
|
BornAgain9
Registered user
Registered: 07-2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 691
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
Bookworm88 ...
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
I will give you one Eisneman gave in his lecture (not sure which part). Paul writes that while in Damascus his life is threatened by the representatives of the king and that he escaped by being lowered over the wall in a basket. Contrary to his own statement Acts says that he was lowered down the wall in a basket because the Jews were trying to kill him. This is the same story but Acts does not agree with Paul over who was threatening him.
This "disagreement" is not really as great as what Eisenman may think. Paul was a Roman citizen, so the Jewish leaders could not just go kill him without getting in trouble themselves from the government authorities. So for the Jewish leaders to get Paul, they had to work through the Roman governmental authorities. This would not have been that hard to accomplish. The Romans did not want revolt or resentment from the Jews they were ruling. If arresting a troublemaker now and then would cause goodwill with the Jewish leaders, then the government officials were willing to do it. So really, BOTH accounts are correct. The Jewish leaders were wanting to kill him and the government representatives were after him.
Interesting response Bookworm. In either scenario which group of Jews is trying to kill Paul? In saying the Jews all Jews are lumped together as the enemies of Paul, and in consequence of Jesus also. We know, however, that there were a number of Jewish groups in the era Paul lived during. Surely the leaders of all of them were not trying to kill him. I think this is part of what Eisenman is calling the anti-Jewish rhetoric of Acts.
Eisenman, I think would ask which group of Jews had Paul persecuted. The answer would be those Jews who followed Jesus. Jesus was now dead and their leader was James. Likely the Jewish enemies of Paul are the same ones he persecuted earlier. In his letters he mentions that in Jerusalem he met only with the three, James, the brother of Jesus, Peter and John. He then slipped quietly from the city without making his presence known (Eisenman mentions this in his lecture). In Acts, however, he is said to stay for weeks preaching. Once again Acts is not in agreement with Paul. Eisenman says there are a number of other examples were Acts conflicts with things Paul himself says.
So maybe the generic Jews were responsible for persuading the king's representatives in Damascus to attempt to kill Paul, but why didn't Paul say that in his letter? In Acts, why didn't the author explain that the generic Jews had used the kings representatives to go after Paul? Why did Acts want to simplify the story by putting the blame on the generic Jews alone?
Eiesneman would argue that at the time of the writing of Acts (a Pauline document) the enemies of Paul's movement were the Jews who had followed Jesus during his lifetime, and who had then been led by James till his own murder. Eisenman will argue that Paul and James eventually get into a physical showdown in the temple and that Paul pushed James down the temple steps, nearly killing him. This, I think, is in the Pseudoclementines or one of those other documents the Catholic Church has downplayed. If Eisenman is correct then toward the end of their careers Paul and James hated one another and in every instance of the generic Jews being referenced in Acts, and perhaps elsewhere in the NT, one should substitute the word Jamesians.
|
|
6/11/2011, 8:07 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to BornAgain9
Send PM to BornAgain9
ICQ
Blog
|
Bookworm88
Administrator
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 978
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
gnastynate ...
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
quoting
Bookworm88 ...
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
I think he is suggesting that Paul adapted his message to better fit the beliefs of the pagans he was hoping to attract to his movement.
So the question then has to do with whether Christianity WAS adaptable to other cultures than just the Jewish culture. If James was teaching an unadaptable Christianity, then I am wondering what sources Eisenman uses to determine that James was correct and Paul was wrong.
I think Eisenman might agree that James' message was less adaptable to the gentiles than Paul's, but the point is to find how historically accurate Paul's message really was.
But what measuring stick are you using to compare Paul's message to? Is it just the Ebionites message? What then do you compare their message to in order to "find how historically accurate" their message is?
Come to think of it, I have my suspicions that James would have been the one who was adapting the Christian message. After all, James was trying to lead a church within the very heart of the Jewish capital city. The Jewish religious leaders can't have been happy with a bunch of people in their city who were following Jesus as the Messiah, so persecution took place which scattered the first believers to many other cities in the area. So how could James hold off the persecution in his own city and keep believers in Jerusalem? Perhaps in the same way that churches even today hold off persecution when they are located in countries hostile to Christianity. They start adapting. Could it be that James downplayed the message of Jesus' divinty in order to forestall persecution? I'm not sure that he even downplayed the divinity, but if he did, it wouldn't have been surprising. It also would not have been surprising if he had insisted that Jerusalem Christians follow the dietary laws in order to not offend the Jews in the city, but would that mean that all Christians everywhere also had to follow Jewish regulations in order to even be Christians? Not at all.
If James was going off the deep end in order to conform his message of Christianity to a Jewish framework, then no wonder he was marginalized. That is, if a purposeful marginalization even took place, and I'm not even sure that that accusation has validity. I'll have to see how Eisenman supports that accusation.
|
|
6/11/2011, 10:02 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Bookworm88
Send PM to Bookworm88
|
Bookworm88
Administrator
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 978
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
Interesting response Bookworm. In either scenario which group of Jews is trying to kill Paul? In saying the Jews all Jews are lumped together as the enemies of Paul, and in consequence of Jesus also. We know, however, that there were a number of Jewish groups in the era Paul lived during. Surely the leaders of all of them were not trying to kill him. I think this is part of what Eisenman is calling the anti-Jewish rhetoric of Acts.
Eisenman, I think would ask which group of Jews had Paul persecuted. The answer would be those Jews who followed Jesus. Jesus was now dead and their leader was James. Likely the Jewish enemies of Paul are the same ones he persecuted earlier. In his letters he mentions that in Jerusalem he met only with the three, James, the brother of Jesus, Peter and John. He then slipped quietly from the city without making his presence known (Eisenman mentions this in his lecture). In Acts, however, he is said to stay for weeks preaching. Once again Acts is not in agreement with Paul. Eisenman says there are a number of other examples were Acts conflicts with things Paul himself says.
So maybe the generic Jews were responsible for persuading the king's representatives in Damascus to attempt to kill Paul, but why didn't Paul say that in his letter? In Acts, why didn't the author explain that the generic Jews had used the kings representatives to go after Paul? Why did Acts want to simplify the story by putting the blame on the generic Jews alone?
Eiesneman would argue that at the time of the writing of Acts (a Pauline document) the enemies of Paul's movement were the Jews who had followed Jesus during his lifetime, and who had then been led by James till his own murder. Eisenman will argue that Paul and James eventually get into a physical showdown in the temple and that Paul pushed James down the temple steps, nearly killing him. This, I think, is in the Pseudoclementines or one of those other documents the Catholic Church has downplayed. If Eisenman is correct then toward the end of their careers Paul and James hated one another and in every instance of the generic Jews being referenced in Acts, and perhaps elsewhere in the NT, one should substitute the word Jamesians.
I lost your train of thought in regards to who you were saying were the "generic" Jews. So let's examine for a moment what I know of the life of Paul from the book of Acts, and maybe you can explain where Eisenman would say that that would disagree with that account.
Paul started out as an unbeliever with the name of Saul. That is, he was a Jew who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and he was a very observant Jew. He was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, trained by a well-known Jewish teacher of the time. As a Jew, he persecuted Christians in the city of Jerusalem, and when the Christians scattered, he traveled to other cities to persecute them. Practically all of the people who had beome Christians were Jews who had recognized Jesus as the Messiah, so it was "unbelieving Jews", Saul included, who were persecuting "believing Jews", which included James. Saul then became a believer himself, putting him and James in the same group of people, those who were being persecuted by the unbelieving Jews.
Now, within the group of "believing Jews" there developed two opposing positions. One position held that you had to become a Jewish proselyte first before you could beome a follower of Christ, and then you still had to follow Jewish laws and restrictions. The other group said that you could follow Christ without conforming to the Jewish standards. Both groups would have been persecuted by the Jewish religious leaders, but the more the first group adapted to Jewish thought, the less likely they would have been persecuted. Of course, the more the first group adapted to Jewish thought, the less likely they were to actually BE following Christianity.
So which group of Jews that I mentioned were the "generic jews" who were after Paul?
|
|
6/11/2011, 10:50 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Bookworm88
Send PM to Bookworm88
|
BornAgain9
Registered user
Registered: 07-2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 691
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
I know I haven't answered all the posts, and I do want to get back to them (so if ever I miss anything that anyone wants a response to please, by all means, copy and past to make me aware I have missed something), however, I did want to begin reading the book in question and thought I might post some information that might form some basis for discussion. I've come upon something that might bear on Bookworm's Eisenman quote regarding the Romans. (bolded for emphasis)
In the intro Eisenman writes on page xx, "There is in this period one central immovable fact, that of Roman power." On this I suppose we will all agree. The point Eisenman then makes is that this one obvious fact gets largely missed in the history presented in the Gospels.
Eisenman goes on to write, "This is the problem we have to face in this period, not only where individuals are concerned, but also in the documents.... For example, in the Gospels..., one would have difficulty recognizing that this higly charged, revolutinary situation existed in the Galilee in which Jesus wanders peacefully about, curing the sick, chasing out demons, raising the dead, and performing other 'mighty works and wonders'." (p. xx-xxi) Would we all agree that Eisenman is correct in his assessment? Is the historial context of Roman power and Jewish opposition to it in Galilee largely missed in the history presented in the NT? Or is he wrong? Does the revolutionary fervour of opposition, by some Jewish groups to the presence of the Romans, come across clearly?
Eisenman states, “... where the Gospels are concerned, we are in a peaceful, Hellenized countryside... depicting Roman officials and military officers sometimes as near saints....” He obviously takes the view that the historical frameword as presented in the Gospels whitewashes the turmoil that is brewing and which is about to erupt into open warfare. Could we say that in the Gospels the Romans are benign and the the Jews are presented as the bad guys, and if this assessment is true, is it accurate?
Eisenman then goes on to say that this slight of hand in the Gospels (my wording, not his) was designed to "please not a Jewish audience but a Roman or a Hellenistic one." (p. xxi) He then quotes Josephus "who notes that all historical works from the period suffer from two main defects, 'flattery of the Romans and vilification of the Jews....' " (p. xxii) Hmm, did Josephus have any particular writing in mind that we perhaps know from the New Testament? I wonder.
|
|
6/11/2011, 11:25 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to BornAgain9
Send PM to BornAgain9
ICQ
Blog
|
Bookworm88
Administrator
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 978
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
BornAgain9 ...
Eisenman goes on to write, "This is the problem we have to face in this period, not only where individuals are concerned, but also in the documents.... For example, in the Gospels..., one would have difficulty recognizing that this higly charged, revolutinary situation existed in the Galilee in which Jesus wanders peacefully about, curing the sick, chasing out demons, raising the dead, and performing other 'mighty works and wonders'." (p. xx-xxi) Would we all agree that Eisenman is correct in his assessment? Is the historial context of Roman power and Jewish opposition to it in Galilee largely missed in the history presented in the NT? Or is he wrong? Does the revolutionary fervour of opposition, by some Jewish groups to the presence of the Romans, come across clearly?
How highly charged was this situation anyway, especially in Galilee? The story of the Gospels, after all, is the story of Christ and of Christ's religious significance. Of course the opposition of the Jewish religious leaders is going to be more a part of that story that the charged atmosphere between the Jews and the Romans. Was "revolutionary fervour" the primary attitude of most Jews or was the primary attitude one of begrudgingly forced compliance? Besides, the Jewish understanding that the Messiah would bring in a kingdom DID make a certain number of people follow Christ with the hope that Christ would bring an end to Roman rule.
|
|
6/11/2011, 12:31 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Bookworm88
Send PM to Bookworm88
|
BornAgain9
Registered user
Registered: 07-2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 691
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
Bookworm88 ...
quoting
BA ...
Why did Acts want to simplify the story by putting the blame on the generic Jews alone?
I lost your train of thought in regards to who you were saying were the "generic" Jews.
My point was this: Acts (in Eisenman's lecture) only makes reference to the Jews. They've become the generic enemy of Paul. They are all lumped together as one. We know, however, that can't be accurate. Jews in the first century, by modern accounts, were highly sectarian, yet when Acts says the Jews wanted to kill Paul, Acts does not distinguish the different groups. Does Acts see all Jews as the enemy of Paul?
|
|
6/11/2011, 12:48 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to BornAgain9
Send PM to BornAgain9
ICQ
Blog
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 16 17 18
You are not logged in ( login)
|
