What Was Jesus Teaching His Disciples?

[Cow Poke]

...Final note, Pentecost.

Preceded, of course, by the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
Compare and contrast Peter pre and post Resurrection.

[tabibito]

James wasn't with Jesus during His ministry.

Certainly seems that way, and he definitely wasn't on board during the earlier portion of Jesus' ministry.

[tabibito]

Preceded, of course, by the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
Compare and contrast Peter pre and post Resurrection.

I do get the impression that Peter's failure in Corinth occurred post resurrection. It could be said that his failures pre resurrection were so spectacular because he ventured more than the others.
While they stayed in the boat, he got out.
While they scattered and went to ground, he followed to the high-priest's house.

[rogue06]

Certainly seems that way, and he definitely wasn't on board during the earlier portion of Jesus' ministry.

Traditionally, the explanation has been found in I Corinthians 15:7.

I suspect running into your recently deceased brother and having a talk could result in some profound changes in what you believe.

[tabibito]

Traditionally, the explanation has been found in I Corinthians 15:7.

Thankee. I've spent the last two days looking for that pericope, which for reasons unknown has been brought to rather compelling focus in memory: Paul's reference to scriptures that don't exist in the Old Testament ... now to find out why it has been such an annoying itch.

I suspect running into your recently deceased brother and having a talk could result in some profound changes in what you believe.

Would be for me, assuredly - I never did have a brother.

[whag]

Traditionally, the explanation has been found in I Corinthians 15:7.

I suspect running into your recently deceased brother and having a talk could result in some profound changes in what you believe.

Strange that verified miracles didn’t have the same effect on his belief system. I always wondered why his other siblings didn’t undergo profound changes at seeing their brother come back to life.

[whag]

Preceded, of course, by the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
Compare and contrast Peter pre and post Resurrection.

What do you suppose rogue meant by Pentecost? I’m still trying to figure it out, but he seems shy to divulge.

[Cow Poke]

Strange that verified miracles didn’t have the same effect on his belief system. I always wondered why his other siblings didn’t undergo profound changes at seeing their brother come back to life.

How do you know they didn't?

[Cow Poke]

I do get the impression that Peter's failure in Corinth occurred post resurrection. It could be said that his failures pre resurrection were so spectacular because he ventured more than the others.
While they stayed in the boat, he got out.
While they scattered and went to ground, he followed to the high-priest's house.

He was still a fallible human, no doubt, but his faith in Christ was so much stronger after seeing the Risen Lord.

[whag]

How do you know they didn't?

If you mean the miracles, I would think James wouldn’t wait for the resurrection to commit. If you mean Jesus’ other siblings, I would think that would be something worth mentioning. I’d take that report over insignificant details like Judas’ intestines spilling out.

[tabibito]

If you mean the miracles, I would think James wouldn’t wait for the resurrection to commit.

James probably didn't wait so long, but the record does show that he was hard to convince.

If you mean Jesus’ other siblings, I would think that would be something worth mentioning.

Not notable from Luke's perspective, and therefore not noted. Luke wasn't catering to sensibilities of an audience 2000 years removed, with different cultural perspectives.

I’d take that report over insignificant details like Judas’ intestines spilling out.

"Spill out" from . The standard interpretation is good for a grimace. A periphrastic description indicating that either Luke or Theophilus was squeamish about an explicit reference to suicide by hanging.

[Judas,] coming to be (γενομενος) capsized (πρηνης; adj), the interior (μεσος; subj) broke with an audible snap (ελακησεν) and got [all his intestines] poured out (εξεχυθη; vt. vi).

So - Judas went belly up, his neck snapped, his intestines were evacuated. What can be expected to happen when a person is hanged?

[tabibito]

Maybe - certainly of the same class as the men from John (1John 2:19), whom John identifies as a splinter group originating from his coterie.

¹¹ When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹² For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.¹³ The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

Ah. Well - at least the gives me something to work with. Right now I'm inclined to think that it is people [separated] from James (either kicked out of or voluntarily splintered from his group). However, further checking will be needed before I could assert that to be the case.

I was hoping that the sentence would provide internal cues, but that isn't the case. On its own merits, "men from James" doesn't provide any indication of whether the people concerned were acting as representatives of James or were a splinter group. However, there are external cues where Paul has shown that there was no dispute with James. That being the case, I will assume that the story about James disputing with Paul about the law (of Moses) arises with people who object to James' explicit declarations that expose their misinterpretations of Paul's teachings.

[whag]

Maybe - certainly of the same class as the men from John (1John 2:19), whom John identifies as a splinter group originating from his coterie.

That’s a useful cross reference:

¹⁸ Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. ¹⁹ They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

In other words, James’ emphasis on keeping the law created a splinter group that threatened to undo Paul’s work. This was 14 years after the resurrection, and James still didn’t understand his brother’s purpose.

¹¹ When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹² For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.¹³ The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

Ah. Well - at least the gives me something to work with. Right now I'm inclined to think that it is people [separated] from James (either kicked out of or voluntarily splintered from his group). However, further checking will be needed before I could assert that to be the case. As for Peter and Barnabas - a matter of yielding to nonsense instead of standing against it. It seems that they were aware that they were in the wrong.

[added from your follow-up response]

I was hoping that the sentence would provide internal cues, but that isn't the case. On its own merits, "men from James" doesn't provide any indication of whether the people concerned were acting as representatives of James or were a splinter group. However, there are external cues where Paul has shown that there was no dispute with James. That being the case, I will assume that the story about James disputing with Paul about the law (of Moses) arises with people who object to James' explicit declarations that expose their misinterpretations of Paul's teachings.

Just to reiterate, I’m not arguing Paul’s schism with Peter and James wasn’t resolved, only that James and Peter had received an incomplete revelation. Paul is claiming he got the complete revelation 14 years prior . Over that period of time, James and Peter were disseminating dangerous information. They were the source of the splintering.

Checked long ago and eliminated. "They had nothing to add" simply shows that nothing in Paul's teaching gave them cause to complain: they did not find his teaching deficient. "Unimpressed by their perceived authority" (or reputation) is a reasonable assessment. Reputation and authority only count when a person is right. If Paul had not viewed them favourably, he would not have (so to speak) called them as witnesses. The inclusion of "we" in "if we or [even an angel from heaven" indicates an advisory to his audience that they should not regard Paul's authority or reputation as persuasive - as also his criticism of his audience in 1Corinthians 3:4-5; see also 2Corinthians 11:4. That said, the wording is, at least in the translation, undiplomatic - whether that holds true in Koine Greek is a matter for conjecture.

I acknowledge the resolution between the men was resolved, but it was serious enough to warrant Paul’s public rebuke of Peter and his deliberately associating the splinter group with James’ leadership.

It’s an enigma that Peter and James were spared the same precise revelation that Paul got. The various solutions to 14 years of James’ misinformation spreading—which caused needless division, frustration, and apostasy—seem quite simple:

• Have Peter convey his dream to James.
• Give James the same dream.
• Deliver the same revelation to all of them equally.

The last solution makes the most sense and is the most elegant.

[whag]

James probably didn't wait so long, but the record does show that he was hard to convince.

Weirdly hard to convince. Supernatural movement was either everywhere or rare then. He was either bored with miracles or blind to them.

Not notable from Luke's perspective, and therefore not noted. Luke wasn't catering to sensibilities of an audience 2000 years removed, with different cultural perspectives.

That’s too easy. You know full well had Luke mentioned his siblings’ faith in their brother, no Christian would deem it out of place or anachronistic.

"Spill out" from . The standard interpretation is good for a grimace. A periphrastic description indicating that either Luke or Theophilus was squeamish about an explicit reference to suicide by hanging.

[Judas,] coming to be (γενομενος) capsized (πρηνης; adj), the interior (μεσος; subj) broke with an audible snap (ελακησεν) and got [all his intestines] poured out (εξεχυθη; vt. vi).

So - Judas went belly up, his neck snapped, his intestines were evacuated. What can be expected to happen when a person is hanged?

I used that detail to represent any needless detail from Luke and Acts, of which there are many.

And you’ll have to support the scribe’s alleged squeamishness on suicide but easy description of rotten bowels.

[tabibito]

Weirdly hard to convince. Supernatural movement was either everywhere or rare then. He was either bored with miracles or blind to them.

If I remember rightly, Jesus performed scant few miracles in his home territory. Ah yes, here tis - Matthew 13:57.

That’s too easy. You know full well had Luke mentioned his siblings’ faith in their brother, no Christian would deem it out of place or anachronistic.

I used that detail to represent any needless detail from Luke and Acts, of which there are many.

What one culture regards as tautological another regards as essential, and in another context the reverse may attain. That is readily apparent even when the Byzantine Majority is compared with the NA28 texts - Byzantine includes a pronoun where the NA28 doesn't in some places; in others, the pronoun is missing in the Byzantine but present in the NA28. At least half a dozen occurrences in Luke`22 alone. The same applies across a broad range of circumstances. The author will consider whether a detail might serve the direction he wants his narrative to take. If it doesn't, it will most likely be omitted.

And you’ll have to support the scribe’s alleged squeamishness on suicide but easy description of rotten bowels.

James 1:21 So put away all filth and evil excess and humbly24 welcome the message implanted within you, which is able to save your souls.
22 But be sure you live out the message and do not merely listen to it and so deceive yourselves.

Does that contradict or support Colossians 3:8? Or if that does not satisfy, maybe a comparison with Romans 8:13 will suffice.