Paul and the Judaizers

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Hmmm...

It is true that Jesus never said the exact words, “I am God.” He did, however, make the claim to be God in many different ways, and those who heard Him knew exactly what He was saying. For example, in John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews who heard Him make that statement knew well that He was claiming to be God, as witnessed by their reaction: “His Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him” (John 10:31). When He asked them why they were attempting to stone Him, they said, “For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), and the Jews plainly accused Jesus of claiming to be God.

Jesus made another statement claiming to be God when He said, “Very truly I tell you, . . . before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58). The Jews, upon hearing Him, clearly understood that He was claiming preexistence and, more than that, to be Yahweh, the great “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. On this occasion, too, they tried to stone Him for blasphemy.

The Gospel of John begins with a statement of Jesus’ deity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1, emphasis added). In verse 14, John identifies the Word: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John is affirming that the Word (Jesus) is God, and He left heaven to come to earth in the form of a man to live with men and display the glory of God the Father.

The disciples of Jesus distinctly heard Him declare His deity. After Jesus’ resurrection, Thomas the doubting disciple finally understood Jesus’ deity, declaring Him to be “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28). If Jesus were not Lord and God, He would have corrected Thomas, but He did not; Thomas spoke the truth. After seeing Jesus walking on the water, His disciples worshipped Him (Matthew 14:33). When He appeared to them after the resurrection, they fell at His feet and worshipped Him (Matthew 28:9). The disciples were well aware of the Mosaic Law’s penalty for blasphemy, yet they worshipped Him as God, and Jesus accepted their worship. Jesus never rebuked people for worshipping Him, accepting their worship as good and proper.

Given the above, the answer is a resounding "yes."

No - absolutely not.

It is true that Jesus never said the exact words, “I am God.” He did, however, make the claim to be God in many different ways, and those who heard Him knew exactly what He was saying. For example, in John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews who heard Him make that statement knew well that He was claiming to be God, as witnessed by their reaction: “His Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him” (John 10:31). When He asked them why they were attempting to stone Him, they said, “For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), and the Jews plainly accused Jesus of claiming to be God.

The way that Jesus and the Father and one is not a matter of ontology. - the Jews (mis)understood him to be saying he was God, Jesus corrects that misunderstanding. John 10:36 for exposition. Further to that, Jesus in prayer at Gethsemane gives a full exposition of "I and the Father are one." John 17:11 - Jesus prays that the disciples be one in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one. John 17:21-23 "that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us ... that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me."

Jesus made another statement claiming to be God when He said, “Very truly I tell you, . . . before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58). The Jews, upon hearing Him, clearly understood that He was claiming preexistence and, more than that, to be Yahweh, the great “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. On this occasion, too, they tried to stone Him for blasphemy.

One of the hypotheses doing the rounds was that the messiah would be Metatron (the highest ranked of the angels) transformed to become a human - the story would have been well known to the temple hierarchy. Under that hypothesis the messiah would have existed long before Abraham, but would be a created being. No reason given for why the Jews were about to stone him, but it would not have been interpreted as a claim to be God.

The Gospel of John begins with a statement of Jesus’ deity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1, emphasis added). In verse 14, John identifies the Word: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John is affirming that the Word (Jesus) is God, and He left heaven to come to earth in the form of a man to live with men and display the glory of God the Father.

Correct.

The disciples of Jesus distinctly heard Him declare His deity. After Jesus’ resurrection, Thomas the doubting disciple finally understood Jesus’ deity, declaring Him to be “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28). If Jesus were not Lord and God, He would have corrected Thomas, but He did not; Thomas spoke the truth. After seeing Jesus walking on the water, His disciples worshipped Him (Matthew 14:33). When He appeared to them after the resurrection, they fell at His feet and worshipped Him (Matthew 28:9). The disciples were well aware of the Mosaic Law’s penalty for blasphemy, yet they worshipped Him as God, and Jesus accepted their worship. Jesus never rebuked people for worshipping Him, accepting their worship as good and proper.

That Jesus was, and claimed to be, God after the resurrection is of course correct. Also, after the resurrection, he was paid homage (worshipped) as God. Between his birth and execution, anytime that he was paid homage it was as something else [son of God, son of David, teacher/master]. (Personal Assessment) Part of the problem with the Syro-Phonoecian woman possibly was her failing to pay due homage.
<(proskuneo - worship, venerate, pay homage and other legitimate translations only means "worship" sometimes.)>

In Jesus' claims about himself, the disciples quite clearly did not detect any claim that he was God - the disciples considered him a prophet, as is apparent from the statement in Luke 24:19

[Diogenes]

That someone could write the following premised on their use of references on a Wiki article [to wit Gager''s review of The Mythmaker in the JQR] and the paper by Moore [published in the JES] My emphasis:



Suggests that the individual would appear self-evidently [i.e. in a way that is clear or obvious without needing any proof or explanation] entirely unfamiliar with the divergence of opinion on such matters within academia.

No where have I contented familiarity with the divergence of academic opinions. Christians consider Christianity the culmination of Judaism. Whether Jews like it or not, Christianity is a daughter religion. Islam is also a sibling religion to Judaism given the divergence from Abram via Ishmael. Of course, Judaism (and thus Christianity) are not without Zoroastrian influence. Christianity also has Greek influence, both during it's formation and later due to the rediscovery of the Philosopher (Aristotle) via the Commentator (Averroes). One of the most cited arguments for God in modern apologetics is named for it's Islamic scholastic (Aristotelian) heritage.

Moore also notes that her paper:

Concerning anti-Semitism she makes the following comment:

A third and enduring reason for anti-Christian polemic is the harrowing legacy of Christian Antisemitism. Some argue that the “teaching of contempt” is built into the very fabric of Christian doctrine.9 While there is debate over whether Christianity and its teachings “inevitably” led to the Holocaust, there is little controversy concerning its contributing to a climate of hatred of Jews for two millennia.

I would certainly agree that there is latent anti-Semitism in Christianity, and even not-so-latent anti-Semitism in the New Testament itself. Of course, this anti-Semitism is woefully misplaced as the Jews were not responsible for the Crucifixion but rather it was, logical, part of God's plan. The Holocaust though was dreamt by a madman who skillfully manipulated the times in which he found himself.

And one of her remarks that did make me smile.

Notably problematic are Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians, who frequently meet in evangelical churches or are sponsored by Christians and who believe themselves to be practicing Jews.

Evangelicals are very devoted to Israel and the Jewish people, so it's no surprise.

[One Bad Pig]

I'll just leave the above with you.

I note that not one of those statements avers that you get all your knowledge from Googling. Looks like Rogue struck a nerve. Do you deny that you get information from Googling?

[One Bad Pig]

No where have I contented familiarity with the divergence of academic opinions. Christians consider Christianity the culmination of Judaism.

Sort of. Judaism and Christianity are both post-Temple derivatives of first century Jewish religion.

Islam is also a sibling religion to Judaism given the divergence from Abram via Ishmael. Of course, Judaism (and thus Christianity) are not without Zoroastrian influence. Christianity also has Greek influence, both during it's formation and later due to the rediscovery of the Philosopher (Aristotle) via the Commentator (Averroes). One of the most cited arguments for God in modern apologetics is named for it's Islamic scholastic (Aristotelian) heritage.

I don't know enough about these statements to say much about them. Mohammed was quite influenced by interaction with both Jews and Christians, though given the result it seems they were not exactly orthodox representatives of either religion. One convert from Islam to Christianity avoided Syrian Orthodox churches because their praxis reminded him so much of Islam (though, of course, the borrowing was in the other direction).

Certainly, by the time of Plotinus, the influence between Greek and Christian was going both ways. While Greek terms were certainly appropriated, I'm not sure that much Greek belief was imported with them; much that was at one time attributed to Greek influence has since been found to have thoroughly Jewish antecedents.

I would certainly agree that there is latent anti-Semitism in Christianity, and even not-so-latent anti-Semitism in the New Testament itself. Of course, this anti-Semitism is woefully misplaced as the Jews were not responsible for the Crucifixion but rather it was, logical, part of God's plan.

The anti-Jewish language of the New Testament (and, in most cases, Christianity) has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with rejection of Jesus as the Messiah; a majority of the NT writers, after all, were themselves Jewish. There are occasional Jews who become Christians, and they are welcomed with open arms.

[rogue06]

I'll just leave the above with you.

Somehow not a single one supports your contention that I said you only use the interwebz for your information as you have accused.

Why am I not surprised?





I will admit that a couple of those are in response to having shown a general unfamiliarity with a topic followed soon after by posts trying to instruct others are some of the finer points of it.

[Diogenes]

The anti-Jewish language of the New Testament (and, in most cases, Christianity) has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with rejection of Jesus as the Messiah;

I can concede there. Though, there is increasing hostility, up to the point of Judas' demonic possession and Christians have historically shown animosity towards Jews for being "Christ-killers" despite that being theologically unsound.

a majority of the NT writers, after all, were themselves Jewish. There are occasional Jews who become Christians, and they are welcomed with open arms.

Obviously.

[Sparko]

I think I will snooze this thread and check back in 5 or 10 pages to see if anything has changed.

[Diogenes]

Lord spare me from fools and idiots.

Paul had the same prayer regarding his own thorn in the flesh.

[tabibito]

And from where did the resurrection originate? Our earliest source is Paul.

You appear to have confirmed my above reply.

Imagine if you will a written account of Christ's resurrection, written by a contemporary of Christ (though the author had not met Christ) within twenty years of Christ's execution. The author's name was Saul/Paul.

Nonetheless the term Christ Jesus/Jesus Christ is first employed by Paul.

It may be that Paul provides the first written account of the title. The title did not originate with Paul, as is clear from the conduct of the inquisition prior to Jesus being sentenced.

He was clearly Torah observant but what else?

Torah observant, yes. Temple observant, not so much

To whom was it referring?

It is reasonable to assume that it was referring to a group of people mentioned in 2Peter 3:16

Yet here you are telling us all:

Paul stipulates "works of the law" (of Moses) - many works do not fall under that heading.

And in the epistle of James the author uses the phrase "whole law"

The whole law is violated if any one of its provisions is violated. That is a concept that begins in Judaism and continues through the New Testament. It is at least implicit in Paul's writing.

He did in Galatians and in Philippians.

Galatians 2:16 a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith of Christ Jesus** (works of the law are stipulated). Works (of the law) assuredly do not result in justification, but justification and salvation are two different things, with salvation being reliant on more than justification alone. ** δια πιστεως ιησου χριστου - perish the thought that a translator should preserve the grammatical cases.

One final comment from Jane Heath

The question of James relationship with Paul has been much debated and raises theological, literary, and historical questions....More recently the literary relationship between James and Paul has received much s attention; a number of scholars have argued that James was familiar with Paul’s literary corpus and that he wrote in the context of reactions to Paul or to Paulinism in a post-Pauline generation; whether he misunderstood Paul or wrote to correct a misunderstanding of Paul. Others have, however, continued to argue that James had no literary access to Paul, or even did not know his letters. The historical question of who James was [the Lord’s brother, or a pseudepigraphist], and the related question of when he was writing, have some bearing on this. [see Jane Heath, “The Righteous Gentile Interjects [James 2:18-19 and Romans 2:14-15]” Novum Testamentum, Vol. 55, Fasc. 3 (2013), pp. 272-295 ]

A nice summation, but just a tad incomplete - it would have been of benefit if it had addressed the issue that James, in responding to teachings based on misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Paul's writing, would not have needed access to Paul's actual writing - he would only have needed to be aware of the teachings (just for the sake of readers who need everything explicitly spelt out). Nonetheless, it does address the issues subject to debate.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No where have I contented familiarity with the divergence of academic opinions.

Then you might be advised not to make emphatic comments premised on references in a Wiki article [Gager's review of The Mythmaker in JQR] and one academic paper.

Christians consider Christianity the culmination of Judaism.

Some Christians might think that. But it is not.

Whether Jews like it or not, Christianity is a daughter religion. Islam is also a sibling religion to Judaism given the divergence from Abram via Ishmael.

One might surmise both religions are the illegitimate children of Judaism.

Paul's own mystical concepts increasingly becoming the primary thrust of his teachings. And Paul and Mohammed share some similarities. They both received their guidance from their mystical experiences with divine sources and both men apparently suffered from psychological [or in the case of Paul possibly physical] issues. The two men were also apparently something of outsiders with Mohammed being an orphan.

Of course, Judaism (and thus Christianity) are not without Zoroastrian influence.

That is agreed with the idea of Light and Dark and two entities representing each.

Christianity also has Greek influence, both during it's formation

It's very name is Greek and Christianity could never have arisen as a religion without the events under Alexander of Macedon which introduced Greek ideas into that region. It later had to turn to Neoplatonism in order to find something that could be utilised to explain a Triune deity. And the men who followed after Paul disappeared from history, were all from the Hellenised world.

I would certainly agree that there is latent anti-Semitism in Christianity, and even not-so-latent anti-Semitism in the New Testament itself.

I would suggest that the anti-Judaism in some of those NT texts is not latent it is quite apparent.

Of course, this anti-Semitism is woefully misplaced as the Jews were not responsible for the Crucifixion but rather it was, logical, part of God's plan.

That is Paul's idea. It seems that Paul regarded the world as being subjugated by the forces of sin and evil. For Paul the immensity of this problem could only be resolved by Jesus Christ [Christ Jesus] a term designated by him to rescue the world from this enslavement by dying to save all humankind.. Unfortunately Paul never fully explained how such propitiation would actually come about.

However, the contemporary Hellenistic world was permeated with dying and risen and/or saviour gods and goddesses and while none were ever identified with a real individual who had recently lived this was probably of little importance for Paul whose Jesus figure was perceived in mystical terms rather than as a strictly historical personage.

However, the historical reality is rather less "exciting". A Jewish provincial from the humiliores was considered to be a threat to the peace [Mark tells us there had already been an uprising] and the incident in the Temple [assuming it actually took place] would have challenged the authority of the ruling Jewish group which worked in tandem with the Roman authorities. Hence Jesus was arrested and when in front of Pilate [again according to Mark] made one brief reply "You say so" and then "made no further reply". That silence for a man of Jesus' social rank was enough to convict him. In Roman law at the time all men were not equal.

The pacific Jesus with whom we are presented in all four gospels has to be considered in the light of the majority opinion concerning when those texts were first written.

Nor it seems do many appreciate the catastrophic impact of the events of 66-70 CE on fledgling Christianity as well as the Jewish people and Judaism.

The Holocaust though was dreamt by a madman who skillfully manipulated the times in which he found himself.

And the times in which he found himself had a very long history of [Christian in origin] anti-Semitism and that anti-Semitism was not confined to Germany. It existed throughout Europe as well as the USA. And its presence is still visible.

The facile remark by OBP that Jews were rejected for not accepting the Christ hardly explains the best part of 2000 years of revilement, animosity, and later direct persecution.

Nor has he provided any accredited evidence in support of his contention that:

a majority of the NT writers, after all, were themselves Jewish.

Evangelicals are very devoted to Israel and the Jewish people, so it's no surprise.

They certainly have been more obviously so since 1948 and perhaps 1967.

[tabibito]

Then you might be advised not to make emphatic comments premised on references in a Wiki article [Gager's review of The Mythmaker in JQR] and one academic paper.

Some Christians might think that. But it is not.

The content of the post merely comprises quite a potted, muddled, facile, and over-simplified account.


ETA

Then again, it does provide the basic information about who the New Testament authors were referring to when they wrote about the Jews - so it isn't a complete waste of bytes.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The content of the post merely comprises quite a potted, muddled, facile, and over-simplified account.


ETA

Then again, it does provide the basic information about who the New Testament authors were referring to when they wrote about the Jews - so it isn't a complete waste of bytes.

One might opine that if you have nothing sensible to write/say. Keep silent.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It may be that Paul provides the first written account of the title. The title did not originate with Paul, as is clear from the conduct of the inquisition prior to Jesus being sentenced.

You appear to be contending that all four gospel accounts were written prior to the 50s CE. Are you?

It is reasonable to assume that it was referring to a group of people mentioned in 2Peter 3:16

2 Peter is a later text.

The whole law is violated if any one of its provisions is violated. That is a concept that begins in Judaism and continues through the New Testament. It is at least implicit in Paul's writing.

The subject of Paul and the Law is complex. However, you might find the opening pages [available via Amazon] from Brian S Rosner's work Paul and the Law interesting.

Dr Rosner holds that all 13 epistles are authentic [somewhat going against the consensus] and he is also a practising Christian who according to his profile on the Ridley College site:

it wasn’t until his university years that the Lord took hold of his life, and his faith and trust in Christ crucified and risen took root.

So that might explain his conviction concerning the authorial authenticity of all those texts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I note that not one of those statements avers that you get all your knowledge from Googling. Looks like Rogue struck a nerve. Do you deny that you get information from Googling?

Merely an illustration of the habitual tendencies of rogue06.

[Diogenes]

Then you might be advised not to make emphatic comments premised on references in a Wiki article [Gager's review of The Mythmaker in JQR] and one academic paper.

Since I live in a relatively "free country", I'm free to do so. Freedom may work differently in "free thinking continental Europe" (despite having thought and speech crimes).

U]Some [/U]Christians might think that. But it is not.

Who am I to question how Christianity self-identifies?


[QUOTE]One might surmise both religions are the illegitimate children of Judaism.[QUOTE]

At least Christianity accepts the validity of Isaac as the child of promise to Abram while Islam follows Ishmael.

Paul's own mystical concepts increasingly becoming the primary thrust of his teachings. And Paul and Mohammed share some similarities. They both received their guidance from their mystical experiences with divine sources and both men apparently suffered from psychological [or in the case of Paul possibly physical] issues. The two men were also apparently something of outsiders with Mohammed being an orphan.

Iirc, Muhammad's first wife was older than him and a successful business-something (seeing as men can now menstruate and give birth, who knows what is the "correct" term). At least Paul self-identified as member of the Sanhedrin iirc. Paul's experience was with God, not a mere messenger.

It's very name is Greek and Christianity could never have arisen as a religion without the events under Alexander of Macedon which introduced Greek ideas into that region. It later had to turn to Neoplatonism in order to find something that could be utilised to explain a Triune deity. And the men who followed after Paul disappeared from history, were all from the Hellenised world.

Do you have any contemporary accounts of Alexander of Macedon exploits?

I would suggest that the anti-Judaism in some of those NT texts is not latent it is quite apparent.

Hence why I said "not-so-latent".

That is Paul's idea. It seems that Paul regarded the world as being subjugated by the forces of sin and evil. For Paul the immensity of this problem could only be resolved by Jesus Christ [Christ Jesus] a term designated by him to rescue the world from this enslavement by dying to save all humankind.. Unfortunately Paul never fully explained how such propitiation would actually come about.

Seeing as my comment was internal critique of Christianity, it being "Paul's idea" is assumed.

However, the contemporary Hellenistic world was permeated with dying and risen and/or saviour gods and goddesses

And the times in which he found himself had a very long history of [Christian in origin] anti-Semitism and that anti-Semitism was not confined to Germany. It existed throughout Europe as well as the USA. And its presence is still visible.

Again, a Christian failing to understand that Christianity includes the Crucifixion ad part of God's plan and blames the Jews is the individual's failure.

The facile remark by OBP that Jews were rejected for not accepting the Christ hardly explains the best part of 2000 years of revilement, animosity, and later direct persecution.

His remark was about Jews within the NT, not subsequent generations.

Nor has he provided any accredited evidence in support of his contention that:

a majority of the NT writers, after all, were themselves Jewish.

Are you suggesting the writers of the NT were Gentiles?


All of them would have been Jews.