|
|
Post by alon on Aug 19, 2019 7:28:01 GMT -8
- Sixth, as mentioned above, there seem to be two positions among observant Nazarenes. One was that they would not have meals with gentile Christians who were not
 observant, and they demanded that gentile Christians become observant. This faction was mentioned several times in the New Testament, and Paul repeatedly polemicized against them, sometimes harshly. At one point in Galatians, Paul talks about a dispute that he has with Peter and James' party. As I understand the story, Paul invited Peter to eat with gentile believers, but Peter, under pressure from James' party, left. Paul wrote that Peter was in the wrong for leaving their meal. It sounds like you were in fact really talking about just those who held to the beliefs of James' faction in that dispute when you wrote about the Nazarenes, "But the only Gentiles they would have been in religious communion with would have been God-fearers who worshiped with them. No observant Jew would have set foot willingly in a pagan place of worship (paganism being anything not Jewish)." Again, you are thinking in terms of all these people being in the early “church.” I am thinking of two separate groups. The confrontation you speak of there is a topic deserving its own thread, not just cursory mention here. Suffice to say this occurred in a Nazarene synagogue, not a Christian church.
- Seventh, the other position was that gentile Christians did not have to take observance upon themselves. My understanding is that this was Paul's position, and that the Jerusalem Church in Acts 15 came around to this position, except that it had a few demands of the gentile believers, like not eating food offered to idols. I take your interpretation to be different from mine, and that you interpret that in Acts 15 James' position continued to be an expectation that the gentile Christians must take on themselves the 's observance. Sorry if I am confusing your view with those of others, but I think you mean that gentile believers could take on the - which James' party expected them to do - gradually and that the several requirements that James put on them were only the opening stage of gradually taking on the . He said as much, and Paul agreed. And Paul NEVER spoke against observance. I showed you how and where it was said they started there and learned more as they went. But church dogma ignores this:
2 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV) And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
So now I guess we have to have the conversation. “And that the Jerusalem Church in Acts 15 came around to this position, except that it had a few demands of the gentile believers, like not eating food offered to idols.” Really? You are saying those four things are all they had to do. What about the Ten Commandments?
Eighth, nonetheless, you and I should agree that after the Council of Jerusalem, there were two groups of practices, one group was circumcised and following the in general, and the second group was of gentile Christians following at least James' enumerated requirements like not eating food sacrificed to idols. Even up to day, these enumerated requirements are still considered part of the canonical rules for the Orthodox Church. You just indicated those were the only four things they had to do. But now you say they are “part of” the canonical rules. This sounds like there are more. See, this is one of the problems I saw in Christianity before I left it. In order to believe as you do, you must compartmentalize everything. Because whenever you look at scripture as a whole your brain goes into overload. Too many contradictions.
As Messianics however we look at scripture as one organic whole which never contradicts. When it does seem to do so it is our understanding, not God’s word which is at fault. Not to say there are not translational errors, both intentional and accidental. But we go back to the original language and to Jewish thought in the time it was written as much as we can and try to get a handle on why things are presented differently. Usually we are able to resolve it.- So, finally we are coming to a fundamental question of what relation James' faction - those observant believers who held to the legacy of the Council of Jerusalem and who respected the authority of the line of circumcized bishops up to 135 AD - continued to have toward gentile Christians who also accepted the decision of the Council of Jerusalem, which said to the gentile believers: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things". That is, we are talking about the relation of the observant Nazarenes under the bishops of Jerusalem to gentile Christians who were also observing the enumerated requirements. As I said, those were the necessary requirements for a starting place. They were not the end result of salvation. And your reiterating this several times here is evidence of brainwashing by the church. It’s what a brainwashed person does when confronted with the truth; they just repeat their mantra.
My impression is that those observant bishops would, in agreement with the Council of Jerusalem, be accepting of those who obeyed their enumerated requirements and would have communion with them. Even if the gentile believers might be considered unclean under the rules for not being observant beyond James' enumerated requirements, the observant believers would commune with them anyway, perhaps in a way analogous to how Christ ate with or interacted with persons who were considered ritually unclean, and in agreement with what you said about the "God-fearers who worshiped with them." Absolutely, but only in the Nazarene synagogue. If they did those things and committed to learning and following then they were admitted into fellowship. This is what the Jerusalem Council decided. - As a result, I think that they would fall into the group of whom Justin approved when Wikipedia said, "those who observe the Law of Moses, but do not require its observance of others — with these he would hold communion". And here you fall apart. Also understand that we do not “require” of anyone that they take on all of . One of the biggest obstacles for many is circumcision. For others living in a divided household complete observance is impossible. And there may be other factors. We don’t have compliance cops, and are generally understanding of those who cannot fully comply. It’s between them and God.
We would however have a problem with someone who came into our synagogue and announced they only had to do a, b, c, … and no more. They’d be counseled, then asked to leave if they persisted in that attitude as it would bring their conversion into question.
So then my next question would be at what point, if any, the Church first put a ban on observance even for those considered Jewish Christians. Speaking only of the church now; It happened over time, with Shabbat being the first thing attacked. But if you pressed me for a date, I’d say 325 CE, the Council of Nicea. They didn’t completely ban observance, nor did they really accomplish bringing all the bishops together as most went back and kept teaching what they always had done. But this was the first sep towards a unified church which would eventually ban what they considered “Jewish observance.”
Others might date this to 330 CE when Constantine became a Christian after seeing his famous vision. Some might date it to 135 CE when Rome destroyed Jerusalem.
The Council of Trullo in 692 CE would be another good date. It included the following, indicating some level of interest at least in observance:
Canon LXX. If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the list of clergy, keeps fast or festival with the Jews, or receives from them any of the gifts of their feasts, as unleavened bread, any such things, let him be deposed. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 19, 2019 7:41:53 GMT -8
The Society of St. John of Gothia webpage "An Orthodox Christian Perspective On Circumcision" claims: As much as I looked online, I couldn't find a churchwide canon against circumcision. Saturday morning worship sometimes happens, especially on feast days. I have heard Orthodox treat Saturday as a day of special respect. The article “Why Russians used to practice circumcision” says: Since those Russians practiced circumcision at the time, there must not have been a Church rule against it in Russia or Constantinople in c. 1000 AD when Russia was still under Constantinople. You are talking about church history which has no bearing on the Nazarenes there. However I'll make a couple of observations. First, you may need to distinguish between ritual circumcision and circumcision as a custom. Also there are actually different kinds. The amount taken off may vary, and the ancient Egyptians practiced a type of circumcision where the foreskin was split but not taken off. Second is that rules or laws may be on the books, but if not enforced tend to be viewed as though they were not there. For example, do you know all the laws and the vertical standards for maintenance of your car? Probably not unless you live in a state like Texas where vehicle inspections are (or at least were when I still lived there) mandatory. If you have to buy new shocks or replace tires with what I'd consider plenty of life let in 'em (only one layer of chord showing), hen you probably are familiar with what is required. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 19, 2019 8:35:19 GMT -8
For Question 2 (Nazareth and the Nazirites), you must be right when you say: "Nazorite and Nazarene are two entirely different things." I was only able to find articles suggesting a link, but the logic in them did not make sense to me.
Nazareth comes from the Hebrew "Natsrát" נָצְרַת , which may come from נֵצֶר (nétser, “branch”) or נָצַר (natsár, “to guard”).
According to Wikipedia's article on Nazareth:
"Nazirite" comes from נזר (nazar) , meaning to consecrate or set apart. The etymology is different from Nazareth, because Nazareth (Natsrat) uses ц(ts) in the middle like netser and natsar, whereas Nazirite uses ז(z).
I am curious how well the Talmud's word "Notzri" fits with "Natsrat", BTW. I wasn't able to find a linguistic explanation. In The First Christians: The Life and Times of Those Who First Believed in Jesus, Zola Levitt suggests the possibility that Notzri better comes from netser.
Hebrew can be confusing to a non-native speaker (as we both are). And by "speaker" I mean we have to figure it out one word at a time, and sometimes one letter at a time! First off there are no vowels. The vowel points are a recent invention to help those like us figure out the words. But in actuality several words having different meanings may be spelled the same way. How it is pronounced, which indicates which word it is depends entirely on context. Nazareth in Hebrew is נָצְרַת Natzrat. Part of your confusion may be that it looks like they are using a ט tet where it says "because Nazareth (Natsrat) uses ц(ts) in the middle like netser." It'd be wrong, but if they waned to sound it out like that it would be טש tet sin. The word actually uses a צ tsadik, which hey had correct earlier and which makes the ts sound. Often we find more than one term would fit contextually, as is the case here. נצר could mean either branch (as in the prophecy) or set apart, protected. Nazareth was/is in one of the most beautiful places in Israel. It was up on a hill, a community many scholars believe which was set apart for the (for lack of a better term) "royal family." Yeshua was not a nobody, and Joseph was not a "lowly carpenter" as the church says. Yeshua was the (again, for lack of a better term) "crown prince of Israel." Had the Jews of that time overthrown Rome and reestablished the nation, Yeshua would have assumed the Davidic throne. The town was isolated, but within walking distance of several Roman building projects. It would have had at least one excelant yeshiva (school) there. And Josepf was a Τέκτων tekton, a worker in stone, metal and wood. He was probably what we'd call a general contractor. It wa also close enough to the trade routes to get all the latest news, but far enough away to not have the bawdy influences of the Gentile travelers themselves. So as you can see, there is a bit of a double meaning here. He was of the branch of Jesse, and both the town and His upbringing, as well as the man Himself were set apart. Ha'Notsri could mean either "from Nazareth" or "The Set Apart One." Either would be contextually correct as I understand it. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 19, 2019 12:52:05 GMT -8
I think that Question 1 (when did the Church decisively break with the observant believers) is an interesting question. What I found was unexpected for me. I had expected that the Orthodox Church would have had something like the Roman Catholics' "Ecumenical" "Council of Florence" (1431 to 1449), which banned all circumcision - before or after baptism. Instead, even Orthodox whom I asked replied to me that the Orthodox Church doesn't have a canon against observance or circumcision. So it looks like there was never a single moment of a decisive, final break, because a bishop could allow Jewish Christian converts to continue observance to the extent that they were compatible with Christian observances. There are even observant Orthodox Christians today, and I believe that this includes clergy who converted from Judaism.
It looks like rather there was piecemeal pressure against believers observing the over the centuries. For example, in c. 108, Ignatius of Antioch wrote in his Letter to the Magnesians in support of Jews who observed Sunday instead of the Sabbath. He wrote: His letter is not an official ban on all believers observing the Sabbath, but being the bishop of Antioch, he had major pastoral power and influence over the behavior of believers in Yeshua in the regions around Syria. And then in c. 150, Justin Martyr wrote that he would have association in everything as brethren with observant believers who would accept non- observant gentile believers like himself. So you can't point to the mid-second century as a conclusive break. And I could go through all the other events over the following centuries and say the same thing.
So it creates this kind of centuries long deep unresolved crossroads or crossflow where you can tell in the Bible that James and other leaders and pillars in the overall first century community of believers in Yeshua are -observant, but as with Ignatius' Letter quoted above, there are widespread opinions in the broader community that increase over the following several centuries that look down on observance as a general principle. So this creates a kind of unresolved crossflow that has never been resolved in a single official ecumenical decision in the Orthodox Church, a Church which identifies itself with both of those factions. There is not even a canon or rule that I know of by a single autocephalous Orthodox Church on the topic. To call it a contradiction could be misleading - we don't have someone like St Jerome saying that James was Observant and wrong to be Observant. But it seems like there were actually beliefs of people who are saints in the Church with views that in effect contradicted each other on the topic. So it looks like this ongoing longlasting unacknowledged conflict or crossflow of ideas or practices. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 20, 2019 7:35:24 GMT -8
(Question 3) The History of the Passion of the Lord, recorded in a 14th c. codex, comments in Folio 55 about Jesus' words on the cross "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do": - And note that in the gospel of the Nazaraeans it is read that at this virtuous prayer of Christ eight thousand were afterward converted to the faith. There were to be sure three thousand on the day of Pentecost.
Does this mean that later on, by being told about these words of Jesus on the Cross, a total of 8000 Jews converted to Christianity? Since we would not consider that codex to be Holy Writ, all I can tell you is what I see as problems. First off, if 8000 converted at the words (which is not biblical), they would have been Jews changing from their previous sect to the sect of the Nazarenes. There was no church, so they could not have become Christians. Dan, For Question 3, when you wrote "if 8000 converted at the words (which is not biblical)," I think you meant that the Bible does not explicitly state that at Yeshua's words "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do", afterwards 8000 Jews converted to faith in Yeshua.
You weren't saying that Yeshua's words couldn't be found in the New Testament or that 8000 Jews converted to faith in Him by the time that the Gospel of the Nazarenes was written (70-160 AD).
The verse in Luke 23:34 (KJV) about Yeshua's words on the cross runs:
Acts 2 narrates Peter's preaching to the people: In Acts 4: If you add the number of converts in those two passages, you get 8000.
So I take Folio 55 to mean that in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, it says that Jesus' words of forgiveness led to 8000 Jews converting to faith in Yeshua afterwards. I also take the author of the Folio as concluding that this meant that there must have been 8000 Jewish followers already at Pentecost. But the author's reasoning is probably wrong, because it sounds like the passage in the Gospel of the Nazarenes doesn't specify when exactly the followers converted, except that it was after and as a result of Yeshua's words. Plus, in Acts 2 and 4, the 8000 convert after Pentecost, which is narrated at the beginning of Acts 2.
You wrote: "they would have been Jews changing from their previous sect to the sect of the Nazarenes. There was no church, so they could not have become Christians." When I used the the term "Christianity" when asking about the passage that said that they "converted to the faith", I didn't mean specifically non-observant believers. I just was referring to faith in Yeshua being the "Messiah" under a broad category of "Christianity". Sorry if that was misleading. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 20, 2019 8:46:38 GMT -8
..., when you wrote "if 8000 converted at the words (which is not biblical)," I think you meant that the Bible does not explicitly state that at Yeshua's words "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do", afterwards 8000 Jews converted to faith in Yeshua. I take it the document is saying the 8000 converted all at once when Yeshua said that. Sounds very Mediaeval "Catholic" to me. I was not saying that many never converted. As I've said before,it is not only possible, but likely that over half the nation followed Yeshua. The term "Christianity" is what is misleading. Christianity as you know it did not exist then. There was no "church," nor were there any "churches." There was only the Jewish sect of the Nazarenes. They kept Shabbat and worshiped in synagogues with other Jews. There were a few Gentile proselytes and God-fearers, but no mass influx of Gentiles yet. Just Jews worshiping as Jews, not as Christians. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 20, 2019 13:00:19 GMT -8
For Question 3, it looks like there is ambiguity in Acts 4. It sounds to me like Acts 4 means that there had been only 5000 accumulated total believers at the moment of the events in Acts 4.
When I first read the passage in Folio 55, I took it as meaning that 8000 believers converted at the moment when Yeshua said those words, which is how I think that you also took it.
But now I think that it just means that in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, Yeshua gave his words on the cross, and then after he gave those words 8000 people converted. Some reasons that persuaded me: A. It seems strange to think that 8000 people were watching the crucifixion when Yeshua said those words. B. In Acts 4 it says that there were 5000 accumulated believers. This would contradict the idea that there were far more, 8000, when Yeshua gave His words on the Cross. C. In the passage in Folio 55, it says that according to the Gospel of the Nazarenes, "at this virtuous prayer of Christ eight thousand were afterward converted to the faith." In other words, the 8000 were not converted at the words at the moment, but afterwards. D. It's reasonable to think that the words "Forgive them for they know not what they do" could play a part in Evangelizing people, and so "at the words" of forgiveness, people in the various audiences who were being evangelized could become believers, even though it happened after Yeshua spoke the words.
E. It sounds like the Gospel of the Nazarenes did not specify when exactly the 8000 people came to believe, because the author noted that "for sure" there were 8000 believers by Pentecost.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 20, 2019 14:26:59 GMT -8
For Question 4 (Is (A) the Gospel of the Nazarenes' account of voices in Jerusalem's Temple at Jesus' Passion in 33 AD saying "Let us go out from these places" related to (B) Josephus' account of a sound in the Temple at Pentecost one year saying "Let us depart from here"?), what apparently happened is that the Gospel of the Nazarenes described the Temple's lintel falling at the Crucifixion, and Josephus described the voices in the Temple, and then writers centuries later confused the accounts and wrote as if the Gospel of the Nazarenes included both accounts. This is because Jerome - the earliest writer mentioning this part of the Gospel of the Nazarenes - and "The History of the Passion of the Lord" only say that it mentioned the falling lintel, and the same sources ascribe the story about the voices to Josephus. Here is Josephus' account: Jerome writes about both the falling of the Lintel and about the voices in the Temple, ascribing the stories to those two different sources: Peter Comestor (12th century) seems to write as if they were found in the same source:
Hugo de Sant Cher (13th century) ascribes the story of the voices to the Gospel of the Nazarenes instead of to Josephus:
It sounds like this is probably a mistaken attribution, since during the time narrated in the gospels, ie up until the Great Commission in c.33 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem's Temple was not "imminent", as it occurred in c. 70 AD. However, Josephus' account of the voices does occur in his description of the omenous events leading up to the Temple's destruction, so it sounds like this event would be better placed in Josephus' account, rather than in the Gospel of the Nazarenes.
"The History of the Passion of the Lord" (14th century) separates the two incidents: Whereas Peter Comestor and Hugo Sant Cher ascribed this exact wording, "Let us leave these regions" to the Gospel of the Nazarenes, "The History of the Passion of the Lord" ascribes this same wording to Josephus, even though Josephus' account actually just said more simply, "Let us remove hence". So it looks like the writers have confused the authorship of the accounts, and that the story of the voices really just belonged to Josephus. "The History of the Passion of the Lord" appears to be correcting the confusion about the story of the voices evinced in earlier accounts. "The History of the Passion of the Lord" also gives descriptions of other passages found in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, so the writer of "The History of the Passion of the Lord" must have been directly familiar with the text and therefore reliable in attributing the stories to their correct authors. Finally, whereas Peter Comestor and Hugo Sant Cher appear to describe the voices as being heard at the Crucifixion at the time of Passover in c. 33 AD, Josephus describes the voices as being heard during Pentecost, weeks after Passover. Although Josephus does not give the year for the event, it is very hard to reconcile chronologically with the one that Peter Comestor appears to ascribe to the Gospel of the Nazarenes, as they took place over a month apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 20, 2019 14:27:31 GMT -8
I welcome you to have a look at Questions 5 and 6 if you like, Dan.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 20, 2019 18:51:22 GMT -8
For Question 3, it looks like there is ambiguity in Acts 4. It sounds to me like Acts 4 means that there had been only 5000 accumulated total believers at the moment of the events in Acts 4. Agree that would be wrong. By this time over half the population of Israel may have believed.
When I first read the passage in Folio 55, I took it as meaning that 8000 believers converted at the moment when Yeshua said those words, which is how I think that you also took it. Yes. Very Cathlic.
But now I think that it just means that in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, Yeshua gave his words on the cross, and then after he gave those words 8000 people converted. It would be impossible to know how many later converted specifically because of those words. Some reasons that persuaded me: A. It seems strange to think that 8000 people were watching the crucifixion when Yeshua said those words. It is possible that more than this were watching, or at least saw part of it. This happened at Pesach, one of the shalosh regalim when every male Jew in Israel had to be present in Jerusalem. And his was the man they believed to be the Messiah, also the crown prince of Israel. Even those who didn't believe would have wanted to witness at least part of this event. But that 8000 were there and heard Him speak, I have my doubts. B. In Acts 4 it says that there were 5000 accumulated believers. This would contradict the idea that there were far more, 8000, when Yeshua gave His words on the Cross.What it says is:
Acts 4:1-4 (ESV) And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they arrested them and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.
SO this was the Sadducees again. They were upset because a.) they were the ones who turned Jesus over to the Romans, and b.) they did not believe in the resurrection. They sure didn't want Him being preached as the risen Lord! But if you read it clearly says the number of men who believed at that time "came to about 5000."
C. In the passage in Folio 55, it says that according to the Gospel of the Nazarenes, "at this virtuous prayer of Christ eight thousand were afterward converted to the faith." In other words, the 8000 were not converted at the words at the moment, but afterwards. Again, hard to nail down a number "afterwards." D. It's reasonable to think that the words "Forgive them for they know not what they do" could play a part in Evangelizing people, and so "at the words" of forgiveness, people in the various audiences who were being evangelized could become believers, even though it happened after Yeshua spoke the words. Could, but by that time I think you'd have to take into account the entire "Passion" account.
E. It sounds like the Gospel of the Nazarenes did not specify when exactly the 8000 people came to believe, because the author noted that "for sure" there were 8000 believers by Pentecost. The author is a might confused. Happens when people pretend to be something they are not. Were this really an inspired work, he'd have at least gotten HIS story straight!
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 20, 2019 19:12:48 GMT -8
I welcome you to have a look at Questions 5 and 6 if you like, Dan.
That is about as valid an interpretation as any of this work. A good theological interpretation of a false document is just a better lie. And a good theological understanding of such a document may be dangerous to our understanding of the true word. Always remember when the facts given in a document like ths do not line up with scripture, scripture rules. Studying for clues to how people thought at the time may be a valid pursuit. Studying to find more details of what went on has already been proven to be worse than a waste of time. So what's the point?
Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 21, 2019 10:03:22 GMT -8
For Question 3, it looks like there is ambiguity in Acts 4. It sounds to me like Acts 4 means that there had been only 5000 accumulated total believers at the moment of the events in Acts 4. Agree that would be wrong. By this time over half the population of Israel may have believed.
I've seen opposing interpretations of the "5000" in Acts 4.
On Hermeneutics StackExchange, someone broke down the Greek this way:
The major Russian Bible Commentator Lopuhin takes this to mean that in Acts 4:4, the number of people who heard Peter and John on that occasion and believed was 5000.
I misinterpreted the "History of the Passion of the Lord". It commented that "There were to be sure three thousand on the day of Pentecost." In Acts 2, the apostles get the Descent of the Holy Spirit with tongues of fire, people hear them talking in other languages, and then Peter preaches to them and 3000 believe. The "History of the Passion of the Lord" comments about this: The "History of the Passion of the Lord" was correctly noting the three thousand based on Acts 2.
In Acts 2, Peter says: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain". Then in v. 37 the audience was "pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?'" So you can read this passage in Acts 2 about the people's guilt and theorize that Yeshua's words "Forgive them because they know not what they do" played a role in the conversion of the audience of the apostles. So you could theorize that afterwards, ie. after Yeshusa gave the words, 8000 converted because of the words (the 3000 in Acts 2 and another 5000 in Acts 4:4, depending on your reading of Acts 4:4).
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 21, 2019 13:16:59 GMT -8
(Question 5) Jerome cites the Gospel according to the Nazarenes as having this conversation between Jesus and Simon Peter: "If your brother has sinned by a word, and repented, receive him seven times a day." Simon, his disciple, said to him, "Seven times a day?" The Lord answered, "Yes, I tell you, as much as seventy times seven times! For in the prophets also, after they were anointed by the Holy Spirit, a word of sin was found." Do you believe that Jesus meant that the prophets sometimes sinned in their personal lives, or that some of the prophets' words in the Bible were sinful?
Ben Smith on the Text Excavation page translates Jerome's quoting of the Gospel of the Nazarenes here as:
The idea is that if the brother sins in word, then you should forgive him, and the Lord replies with a justification: that even the anointed prophets sinned in their speech. It sounds to me as if there was some example in scripture that He could have pointed to as evidence for His assertion. At the least, it only means that the prophets made some sin in their speech after their anointing, and doesn't necessarily mean that prophecies that the anointed prophets gave were sinful.
You made a good point, Dan, when you said:
Can you think of any clear examples of anointed prophets making sins in their speech? One example that comes to my mind is David's arrangement of Uriah's killing, although as I understand it, some Orthodox Jews don't consider David to have sinned there.
Further, 1 Chronicles 21 has about David's order to conduct a census:
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 21, 2019 14:03:11 GMT -8
I've seen opposing interpretations of the "5000" in Acts 4.
On Hermeneutics StackExchange, someone broke down the Greek this way:
The major Russian Bible Commentator Lopuhin takes this to mean that in Acts 4:4, the number of people who heard Peter and John on that occasion and believed was 5000.
Lopuhin was wrong:
Acts 2:41 (ESV) So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Scripture says 3000, and again, that is what I go with.
I misinterpreted the "History of the Passion of the Lord". It commented that "There were to be sure three thousand on the day of Pentecost." In Acts 2, the apostles get the Descent of the Holy Spirit with tongues of fire, people hear them talking in other languages, and then Peter preaches to them and 3000 believe. The "History of the Passion of the Lord" comments about this: The "History of the Passion of the Lord" was correctly noting the three thousand based on Acts 2.
In Acts 2, Peter says: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain". Then in v. 37 the audience was "pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?'" So you can read this passage in Acts 2 about the people's guilt and theorize that Yeshua's words "Forgive them because they know not what they do" played a role in the conversion of the audience of the apostles. So you could theorize that afterwards, ie. after Yeshusa gave the words, 8000 converted because of the words (the 3000 in Acts 2 and another 5000 in Acts 4:4, depending on your reading of Acts 4:4). Let's think outside the box for a minute:
This is a much different translation than the Catholic version you use. Let’s try another one:
Acts 2:23 (Young’s Literal Translation) this one, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, being given out, having taken by lawless hands, having crucified -- ye did slay;
Catholic Bibles always try to place an anti-Semitic slant on scripture, intimating that all the Jews killed Jesus.
The people were already feeling guilt,  , and confusion. Men had come from all over the empire hoping to see this Yeshua of whom they had heard. Crown prince of Israel, Rabbi whose words held such power and knowledge, and worker of miracles, most likely to be the looked for Messiah. And now He was gone. Handed over to Rome by their own Sanhedrin (actually just the Sadducees on the Sanhedrin), and now crucified early on the day of preparation for Passover.Let’s beak Acts 2 down a bit:
Acts 2 (ESV)1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. They would have all been going to the Temple for morning prayers. …5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. This was Pesach, he first of the shalosh regalim when all Jewish males residing in Israel were required to be in Jerusalem. Provision is made in for those who live too far, however as I said earlier this was no ordinary Pesach. Yeshua HaMoshiach wold surely be there! I think many who could came hoping to see Him and hear Him speak.6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” Again, they came from all over. Jerusalem is up high on a steep mountain. Travelers on the trade routes id not bother to go up to Jerusalem these were “Jews and proselytes,” men who had come for Passover and stayed for Shavuot, which you call Pentecost. And to see this Yeshua, who was now crucified. Imagine after the disappointment of Yeshua’s death and the possible (in their minds) miracle of His resurrection and here they stood, witnessing yet another miracle of El Chai, the Living God (Deu 5:26). …
32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,“‘The Lord said to my Lord,“Sit at my right hand,35 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”Well, that would convict me! But to be clear, it was not “the Jews” who crucified Jesus, as the church always says it was. It was a faction in their governing body who had Him arrested at night, tried at night and in seclusion (only their supporters were there), and handed Him over to Rome to be scourged and beaten. It was also on the preparation day for Pesach. All of this was illegal, but the Sadducees and Pilate both knew if they did this in the day with all the multitudes present in Jerusalem at the time they’d have a riot on their hands that would be impossible to quell! So the people awoke and the men went to morning prayers and to have their sacrifice inspected at the same time He was placed on the execution stake. So it was a fait accompli by then.37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. They were not baptized as you understand the term. Baptism as you know it wasn’t practiced until a few centuries later. They underwent tevilah which is ritual immersion in a mikvah, and they were “ baptized” INTO the name of Yeshua HaMoshiach, Jesus THE Christ (it’s a title, not a name). …
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 3000 on the day of Pentecost, per SCRIPTURE; end of discussion.
There’s a lot more there, obviously, but this is what is pertinent to our discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 21, 2019 14:10:52 GMT -8
Dan,you wrote:
<<Lopuhin was wrong:
Acts 2:41 (ESV) So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Scripture says 3000, and again, that is what I go with.>>
Lopuhin was talking about Acts4:4, not Acts 2.
|
|
observance even for those considered Jewish Christians. Speaking only of the church now; It happened over time, with Shabbat being the first thing attacked. But if you pressed me for a date, I’d say 325 CE, the Council of Nicea. They didn’t completely ban 
, and confusion. Men had come from all over the empire hoping to see this Yeshua of whom they had heard. Crown prince of Israel, Rabbi whose words held such power and knowledge, and worker of miracles, most likely to be the looked for Messiah. And now He was gone. Handed over to Rome by their own Sanhedrin (actually just the Sadducees on the Sanhedrin), and now crucified early on the day of preparation for Passover.
