Sarassin:


Jesus of Nazareth was a Pharisaical Jew, of that there is no doubt, he observed the Torah. Jesus quotes from the Septuagint, I believe Isaiah 29:13 in an age when only the Pharisee's, Saduccee's and Zadokites who had been taught had access to the Tanakh. Historically speaking Jesus' apocalyptic message was the transposed message of John the Baptist, his teachings on forbearance, forgiveness and humility were the teachings of Hillel almost word for word, I gave examples in a prior post, the communal doctrines i.e, communal meals, common purser e.t.c were those of the Essene community.

It is a hundred times harder to make the case that Jesus had no Pharisaical training. The Book of John concerns itself only with the business of attributing divinity to Jesus, it is very much a latecomer to the party.

This is Isaiah 29:13
The Lord said, “These people claim to worship me, but their words are meaningless, and their hearts are somewhere else. Their religion is nothing but human rules and traditions, which they have simply memorized.

Here the Holy Spirit through Prophet Isaiah aptly described none committal folk both in the time of Isaiah, the time of Jesus and even today. I don't see it stating anything close to Jesus being Pharisaical Jew.

Jesus of Nazareth stood against everything the Pharisees stood for, how could he be one of them yet still opposed them?

Jesus was in a class of His own. He revolutionised all their ideologies, which is why he was killed.

Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.


And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
John:11:47-50

The Pharisees were threatened that if they did nothing, Jesus of Nazareth will turn away everyone who shd be agitating for independence from the Romans, hence the Chief Priest moved the motion that One man (Jesus) shd die (be killed) to save guard the nation from collapse.


Saul of Tasius was a Pharisee, but when he embraced the teachings of Christ, he completely dropped everything he ever knew about the Pharisaical doctrines of his day, Why?

If you insist Jesus of Nazareth was a Pharisaical Jew, then we'll need to know why Saul of Tasius turned away and opposed the same sec he was formally thriving in. Why didn't he just assimilate the two? the teachings of Christ and the doctrines of the pharisees.

I hope you know how much the Pharisees, his former buddies, tried to kill him for standing for another doctrines?

Jesus was Just Jesus, nothing less.
He came to fulfill what was written about him, that he did and left the stage clean and straight.




I see us assuming here instead sticking with the Bible says about him.

Sarassin:


Jesus of Nazareth was a Pharisaical Jew, of that there is no doubt, he observed the Torah. Jesus quotes from the Septuagint, I believe Isaiah 29:13 in an age when only the Pharisee's, Saduccee's and Zadokites who had been taught had access to the Tanakh. Historically speaking Jesus' apocalyptic message was the transposed message of John the Baptist, his teachings on forbearance, forgiveness and humility were the teachings of Hillel almost word for word, I gave examples in a prior post, the communal doctrines i.e, communal meals, common purser e.t.c were those of the Essene community.

It is a hundred times harder to make the case that Jesus had no Pharisaical training. The Book of John concerns itself only with the business of attributing divinity to Jesus, it is very much a latecomer to the party.

Am not trying to make any case, but presenting Scriptures for that's all am taught to look at.

Jesus was of course a Jew so should read the religious books of his people.
The case here is not whether Jesus read or didn't read from The Torah or the Septuagint, but whether he formally studied.

Am not sure it wd've been a big deal to those who knew him to admit he was lettered', but, instead they were perplexed that the common Carpenter who fixed their wares could read with such accuracy.

Here is what happened;

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?

Why were his own kin folk amazed as to how he could read so fluently haven been in their midst all along Carpentering?

Sarassin dear, i know you as one of the smartest minds in this forum, why should i be amazed if i sit somewhere and listen to you deliver a talk? The amazement will be when i know you to be a neighbourhood illiterate whom i know well, yet i see you delivering a public speech, very succinct and accurate, it's only then, i'd have questions as to the possibility of that.

This is exactly what happened in a small town of Nazareth, Jesus' own village, where everyone knew everyone else, their vocation and vises.

You insist Jesus was a Pharisaical Jew, and you and i know that, the Pharisees were lawyers, the highest intellectuals in his time, so, if we are to agree that Jesus was a Pharisaical Jew, just because he read from the Torah and Septuagint, we must of necessity believe that Jesus was a Lawyer and not a Carpenter.

Sarassin:

Even if we allow for the fact that Jesus’ ministry was short-lived, and it was, lasting no more than a year or two at the most, and the fact that his ministry was mostly subsumed within the Messianic movement of John the Baptist, it is not unreasonable to expect that contemporary secular historians would have made extraordinary attempts to place on record an historical account of a man who’s teachings were to so irretrievably change the world.

Those who doubt the existence of Jesus point to this paucity of historical accounts as evidence that Jesus never lived, those who believe in him point to the gospel accounts and the few extant secular sources such as Josephus, as evidence that Jesus did indeed live. Surely the view of a disinterested observer cannot be anything other than that, verifiable evidence provided so far, for or against the historicity of Jesus is simply insufficient. Personally, I accept that the Messiah lived and died but I do not agree with either side that the secular evidence provided so far is sufficient enough to substantiate a conclusion either way.

The question therefore remains to be asked; Apart from Gospel writers and early Church leaders who had an inherent bias (not necessarily a bad thing) in presenting Jesus of Nazareth in a particular light, what exactly do we know for a fact, about Jesus?

Jesus' Ministry lasted for three and half years, not one or two years.

Sarassin:
In order to make sense of it all, a different perspective is required, we turn the premise on its head and I give you my first proposition;

That there was once a rich cache of historical traditions about Jesus of Nazareth among both the Jews and non-Christian Greeks and Romans.

My second proposition being that;

The material above was deliberately destroyed, or falsified, by a system of rigid censorship officially authorized ever since the time of Constantine I and reinstituted in the reigns of Theodosius II and Valentinian III.

A third proposition being that;
In spite of the tireless efforts of ecclesiastical censorship, enough information was preserved in certain corners of the world, among Jews and others as well as in quotations occurring in Christian polemic and apologetic literature, and that this information allows us to reconstruct with sufficient clarity and plausibility the fundamental features of Jesus' personality and his mission, particularly as they appeared to his enemies.

My fourth proposition being;
The life and historicity of Jesus the Messiah is linked intrinsically with that of his supposed relative, known as the “hidden One”, John the Baptist who undoubtedly according to historical sources outlived Jesus of Nazareth by at least fourteen years, as well as the Nazarean Messianist movement of which John and his followers were key members and that the history of this movement coincides with the history of the Jewish people and the Romans from the first appearance of John the Baptist.

You believe John outlived Jesus of Nazareth by 14 years?

How accurate are these historical sources? because we know why and how John the Baptist died.

Herod Antipas who had had John beheaded latter heard about Jesus of Nazareth and was afraid that John had be raised from the dead, and sort to meet Jesus, but Jesus would not honour his invitation.

And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.

Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets.

But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.


For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.
Mark:6:14-16

Lol@ your historical sources.

Sarassin:
"For Jesus, son of Sapphias, the leader of the "Galilean Boatmen" and the "party of the poor", who poured out their blood until the sea of Galilee ran red"

And so we begin in relation to my first proposition; Is it even possible that events as momentous such as those recorded in the Gospels took place completely unnoticed by the Roman government and its officials?

Is it even conceivable that a man should be proclaimed king of the Jews by the people at Jerusalem and then crucified for political reasons by a Roman governor, without any report being sent to the Emperor giving a full account of the entire matter? If, indeed such a report ought to, and would have been sent, why is there hardly an echo of it in the annals of Roman history?

This was no ordinary carpenter executed for just any crime. On the contrary, the execution in question was a political act of the highest importance, as were the events leading up to it, for that carpenter, Jesus had been hailed as the "Liberator of the Jews", as a saviour-king, and at a time, when the capital was filled with pilgrims from all over the known world. There was no reason to suppose that the Roman governor was not aware of his own actions ; the inscription of the cross, Jesus Nazoraeus Rex Judaeorum, is in fact the earliest of all non-Christian and anti-Christian documents, and it leaves no room for doubt whatsoever as regards the political character of the events. This document was the clearest possible expression of Roman official opinion of the case.

We know very well that Roman officials consistently declined to meddle with Jewish religious quarrels therefore there was no doubt as to the political aspect of the case. We know also that the Christian author Tertullian (155CE-240CE) took it for granted that a report of the case existed in the public records, how then is it that such a dramatic story was not repeated by a single contemporary historian ?

Jesus was never crowned or hailed King of the Jews by anyone. The Jews in a bit to bring viable accusations against him before Pilate accused Him of saying he was the King of the Jews. Neither Jesus or his followers ever declared him as King of the Jews.

When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
John:6:15

The execution of Jesus was of the highest political importance to who?
To the Jews or to the Romans?

The inscription on Jesus' cross (Jesus, king of the Jews) meant different things to different people.

The Jews sort to use it as an allegation to nailed Jesus before Pilate. They intended to present Christ as a seditious character hence nailed down good, but Pilate found intriguing why an accusation like that will be brought against a man who was not ready to put up a defence for himself at trial.

He didn't find Jesus defiant, hence, he sort to spare his life, but was blackmailed into giving a sentence.

When he was to pass the sentence, he asked them, 'Do you want me to kill your king?', that doesn't sound like a man who was threatened by Jesus and him inciting the people against the crown.

Him placing the insignia above Jesus was a mockery to the Jews not becos he perceived Jesus as indeed a King.

To Jesus' followers, He was a king indeed, not just of the Jews, but of the whole earth.

analice107:

Am not trying to make any case, but presenting Scriptures for that's all am taught to look at.

Jesus was of course a Jew so should read the religious books of his people.
The case here is not whether Jesus read or didn't read from The Torah or the Septuagint, but whether he formally studied.

Am not sure it wd've been a big deal to those who knew him to admit he was lettered', but, instead they were perplexed that the common Carpenter who fixed their wares could read with such accuracy.

Here is what happened;

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?

Why were his own kin folk amazed as to how he could read so fluently haven been in their midst all along Carpentering?

Sarassin dear, i know you as one of the smartest minds in this forum, why should i be amazed if i sit somewhere and listen to you deliver a talk? The amazement will be when i know you to be a neighbourhood illiterate whom i know well, yet i see you delivering a public speech, very succinct and accurate, it's only then, i'd have questions as to the possibility of that.

This is exactly what happened in a small town of Nazareth, Jesus' own village, where everyone knew everyone else, their vocation and vises.

You insist Jesus was a Pharisaical Jew, and you and i know that, the Pharisees were lawyers, the highest intellectuals in his time, so, if we are to agree that Jesus was a Pharisaical Jew, just because he read from the Torah and Septuagint, we must of necessity believe that Jesus was a Lawyer and not a Carpenter.

There is a difference between taking an historical view of Jesus and simply quoting what the Bible has said. We can all quote the Bible, I am looking at what historically viable accounts tell us.

Now we can agree at least that Jesus was Jewish. In first century Palestine, if you were Jewish, you would be either a Sadducee Jew (of the ruling Herodian class) or a Pharisaical Jew, there were also the minority of the more extreme Essenic Jews, but even though Jesus did assimilate certain Essenic practices he was not an Essene, he was definitely not a Sadducee, his father Joseph would have been a Pharisaical Jew, and even though Pharisaical Judaism paid close attention to the letter of the law of the Torah, not all Pharisee's were lawyers as you state, that is a common misconception. Being a Pharisee in the true sense simply meant that you strove to be in good standing with God by observing his laws and refraining from sin. Pretty much it was a sect much as we would say today, a Catholic, a Protestant or a revivalist, that was just the nature of things.

Ordinary citizens of first century Palestine would not have access to the Tanakh nor could they read it. Scripture would be read aloud at gatherings in the synagogues by the priests. You have kindly provided the verse and chapter of Jesus reading from the Septuagint in the bible, I have also demonstrated that Jesus had intricate knowledge of the main Pharisaical teachings of his time. It is not a bad thing to say that Jesus learned his craft, it is quite evident.

The teachings of Jesus were not that revolutionary. He had an inherent dislike for the observance of the letter of the law in favour of observing the spirit of the law, he taught apocalypticism he learned these teachings from John the Baptist. He taught forgiveness and humility, again this had been taught by Hillel before him and we know he was familiar with the teachings of Hillel. Jesus also taught fellowship and communalism, these were Essenic teachings.

In effect Jesus offended orthodoxy by teaching a mixture of all these ideas which was why the Pharisee’s came to test him, to see which way his wind blew, and what he stood for.

Were his teachings alone sufficient enough to have him killed? Decidedly not, itinerant preachers with competing apocalyptic messages were a pound a penny in first century Palestine and curiously a lot of them were named Jesus It is quite clear that there were more cogent reasons why the High priest thought it expedient to have Jesus of Nazareth killed, as I will show later.

analice107:

You believe John outlived Jesus of Nazareth by 14 years?

How accurate are these historical sources? because we know why and how John the Baptist died.

For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.
Mark:6:14-16

Lol@ your historical sources.

Yes, I believe John the Baptist outlived Jesus. I will show you why, first we shall establish the year that the Baptist died looking at historical sources available and then we shall look at the death of Jesus.

First of all, the idea that John the Baptist and Jesus were of approximately the same age is proven at the outset to be an invention and historically untenable. Christian sources either did not exactly know, or deliberately falsified, the chronological order of the births of Jesus and the Baptist. We know this because we have the historical writings of Josephus that puts the first arrest of John the Baptist by order of Archelaus as the first appearance by the Baptist which is best placed in the period immediately after Herod's death and before the journey of Archelaus to Rome in 4CE.

Now if we are to trust the Christian tradition that Jesus outlived the Baptist, then the death of Jesus must be placed in the year 36CE at the earliest, in accordance with Luke's idea of the course of affairs after the death of John the Baptist.

This of course would be a nonsense because it places Jesus much too close to Paul, whose conversion on the road to Damascus must have happened in one of the years between 28CE and 36CE and in fact closer to the earlier date. We should keep in mind that Paul is at this time busily trying to murder James (brother of Jesus), and escaping from King Aretas before the outbreak of the war.

John the Baptist is murdered by Herod Antipas in 36CE.

We know this because Herod Antipas goes to war with the Arabian king Aretas in 37CE and is defeated. His defeat is attributed as retribution by the Jewish God for Herod’s unjustified killing of a godly man i.e John the Baptist.

The trial of Herod Antipas before Agrippa is fully documented. Herod gives the justification of the murder of John the Baptist as the fear of a popular uprising orchestrated by John the Baptist. Agrippa's letter and the protocol of the trial of Antipas were naturally preserved in the commentarii principis of Caligula, where they were consulted by Josephus and other historians.
We have the name of the bearer of the letter, the time of his arrival, the place where Caesar held the trial, undoubtedly we are dealing here with documentary evidence of primary importance.

As further historical evidence for the timeline of the death of John the Baptist; We know that Philip the tetrarch died on the evening of the day on which John the Baptist had interpreted to him his dream about an eagle. And we know from the Antiquities that Philip died in the spring or summer of 34CE.

Therefore we can establish that John the Baptist died no later than 36CE, but that he was alive in the summer of 34CE

Sarassin:


Yes, I believe John the Baptist outlived Jesus. I will show you why, first we shall establish the year that the Baptist died looking at historical sources available and then we shall look at the death of Jesus.

First of all, the idea that John the Baptist and Jesus were of approximately the same age is proven at the outset to be an invention and historically untenable. Christian sources either did not exactly know, or deliberately falsified, the chronological order of the births of Jesus and the Baptist. We know this because we have the historical writings of Josephus that puts the first arrest of John the Baptist by order of Archelaus as the first appearance by the Baptist which is best placed in the period immediately after Herod's death and before the journey of Archelaus to Rome in 4CE.

The highlighted would be true if the Christian sources were nairalanders! Pray, what purpose is achieved by such acclaimed falsification?

Now if we are to trust the Christian tradition that Jesus outlived the Baptist, then the death of Jesus must be placed in the year 36CE at the earliest, in accordance with Luke's idea of the course of affairs after the death of John the Baptist.

Sure Jesus did outlive John the baptist. History looks back feebly too; but prophecy looks forward, Omnisciently. The latter reveals that Jesus will have a forerunner and that was John. Jesus affirmed this too. I wonder how the forerunner would outlive He Who he was to announce!

This of course would be a nonsense because it places Jesus much too close to Paul, whose conversion on the road to Damascus must have happened in one of the years between 28CE and 36CE and in fact closer to the earlier date.

Why not!

We should keep in mind that Paul is at this time busily trying to murder James (brother of Jesus), and escaping from King Aretas before the outbreak of the war.

An assumption that!!! It lacks proof from any source whatsoever! Another problem is: Paul had NEVER met ANY of the brothers of Jesus for who they were before his conversion. Paul was 3 years into his ministry AFTER his conversion before he met the Apostles and the Lord's brother:

Galatians 1:18,19

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.


So how did Paul go after a man he had never met till 3 years after his conversion?

John the Baptist is murdered by Herod Antipas in 36CE.

We know this because Herod Antipas goes to war with the Arabian king Aretas in 37CE and is defeated. His defeat is attributed as retribution by the Jewish God for Herod’s unjustified killing of a godly man i.e John the Baptist.

The trial of Herod Antipas before Agrippa is fully documented. Herod gives the justification of the murder of John the Baptist as the fear of a popular uprising orchestrated by John the Baptist. Agrippa's letter and the protocol of the trial of Antipas were naturally preserved in the commentarii principis of Caligula, where they were consulted by Josephus and other historians.
We have the name of the bearer of the letter, the time of his arrival, the place where Caesar held the trial, undoubtedly we are dealing here with documentary evidence of primary importance.

As further historical evidence for the timeline of the death of John the Baptist; We know that Philip the tetrarch died on the evening of the day on which John the Baptist had interpreted to him his dream about an eagle. And we know from the Antiquities that Philip died in the spring or summer of 34CE.

Therefore we can establish that John the Baptist died no later than 36CE, but that he was alive in the summer of 34CE

no verifiable source! Based on the glaring inconsistencies discovered so far, this section is summarily dispensed with pending the time the op comes forward with verifiable sources.

analice107:

You believe John outlived Jesus of Nazareth by 14 years?

Lol@ your historical sources.

In examining the circumstances surrounding the death of Jesus we can be sure that the Jewish authorities laid their information against Jesus before the Roman governor while the accused was still at liberty; the Gospels, on the contrary, represent him as being arrested by the Jews and dragged to Pilate, who is totally ignorant of the charge brought against the prisoner. Obviously, the political situation forced the high priests to take this action against one of their own nation, they had obviously done this before.

Whether the charges against Jesus were written or oral, the charges would have contained not only the name and the charge (libellous) but also, in order to facilitate arrest, an iconismus (Likeness) of the accused. The name, the charge together with an offer of a reward would constitute the arrest warrant. John 11:57 essentially confirms the issue of a warrant. More importantly the genuine writ or warrant necessarily bore a precise date, showing the day and month of issue. This writ would also have been pasted all over the countryside and given to a public town crier for the proclamation, that is simply how the Romans did things. We can be sure the affair was fully documented.

In establishing the date of the death of Jesus, the Gospels, Luke in particular provides through various convolutions the implied dates 29CE, 32CE or 34CE none of which are historically viable. What is agreed upon by biblical sources and historical sources is that Jesus was crucified during the reign of Tiberius, but we can go one step further.

We have the story of Mundus and Paulina by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 3. 4-5) which is corroborated by the Governor Tacitus. Tacitus dates this story in the year 19CE, in the chapter dealing with the administration of Pilate in Judaea, therefore we can be sure that Pilate arrived in Palestine roughly in the fall of 18CE. The Acts of Pilate, published by the Emperor Maximinus Daia in 311CE being the extracts of the trial of Jesus, and which Eusebius declared as a forgery (Eusebius eccl ix 5,7) bears the date Tiberio iv cons.

We are able also to determine the date of the Passover, therefore it is possible to indicate with preciseness independently of biblical sources, the day of the passion of Christ as 16th April 21CE

Scholar8200:
The highlighted would be true if the Christian sources were nairalanders! Pray, what purpose is achieved by such acclaimed falsification?

I wrote that either Christian sources were unaware of the chronology or it was falsified, in light of what we now know, it has to be one or the other.

Sure Jesus did outlive John the baptist. History looks back feebly too; but prophecy looks forward, Omnisciently. The latter reveals that Jesus will have a forerunner and that was John. Jesus affirmed this too. I wonder how the forerunner would outlive He Who he was to announce!

The historicity says otherwise. And how does John the Baptist outliving Jesus detract from him being a ‘forerunner’ of Jesus if indeed he was. Clearly he preceded Jesus. If you dispute that John the Baptist outlived Jesus in light of the information I posted, kindly highlight where you think I got it wrong.

Why not!

You know full well that Paul would not make such a ridiculous claim to have received an epiphany of Christ in the years that Jesus was alive.

An assumption that!!! It lacks proof from any source whatsoever! Another problem is: Paul had NEVER met ANY of the brothers of Jesus for who they were before his conversion. Paul was 3 years into his ministry AFTER his conversion before he met the Apostles and the Lord's brother:

Galatians 1:18,19

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.


So how did Paul go after a man he had never met till 3 years after his conversion?

Not an assumption at all. In the quasi-historical Book of Acts we are acquainted with Paul’s attack on Stephen, this attack is in fact against James, it is attested in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and by Josephus, two independent sources. His attack on James takes place before his conversion.

no verifiable source! Based on the glaring inconsistencies discovered so far, this section is summarily dispensed with pending the time the op comes forward with verifiable sources.

Are you serious? did you actually read what I posted? I think you're throwing a hissy fit!

Sarassin:


I wrote that either Christian sources were unaware of the chronology or it was falsified, in light of what we now know, it has to be one or the other.


The historicity says otherwise. And how does John the Baptist outliving Jesus detract from him being a ‘forerunner’ of Jesus if indeed he was. Clearly he preceded Jesus. If you dispute that John the Baptist outlived Jesus in light of the information I posted, kindly highlight where you think I got it wrong.


You know full well that Paul would not make such a ridiculous claim to have received an epiphany of Christ in the years that Jesus was alive.



Not an assumption at all. In the quasi-historical Book of Acts we are acquainted with Paul’s attack on Stephen, this attack is in fact against James, it is attested in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and by Josephus, two independent sources. His attack on James takes place before his conversion.

and the same Paul affirmed that he met James 3 years after his conversion? ?? So you infer that Stephen = James? And the former was stoned to death while the latter (his alter ego according to your claims) was alive after Paul's conversion?

Are you serious? did you actually read what I posted? I think you're throwing a hissy fit!

My source is the Bible; anyone hear can go to verify that you are forcing a distorted 'history' on Jesus and Paul. Present links to your source(s)!

analice107:

Jesus was never crowned or hailed King of the Jews by anyone. The Jews in a bit to bring viable accusations against him before Pilate accused Him of saying he was the King of the Jews. Neither Jesus or his followers ever declared him as King of the Jews.

When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
John:6:15

The execution of Jesus was of the highest political importance to who?
To the Jews or to the Romans?

The inscription on Jesus' cross (Jesus, king of the Jews) meant different things to different people.

The Jews sort to use it as an allegation to nailed Jesus before Pilate. They intended to present Christ as a seditious character hence nailed down good, but Pilate found intriguing why an accusation like that will be brought against a man who was not ready to put up a defence for himself at trial.

He didn't find Jesus defiant, hence, he sort to spare his life, but was blackmailed into giving a sentence.

When he was to pass the sentence, he asked them, 'Do you want me to kill your king?', that doesn't sound like a man who was threatened by Jesus and him inciting the people against the crown.

Him placing the insignia above Jesus was a mockery to the Jews not becos he perceived Jesus as indeed a King.

To Jesus' followers, He was a king indeed, not just of the Jews, but of the whole earth.

None of this is true. The Romans simply didn’t work like that. We know what the charges against Jesus were, and we know who brought the charges against him, it was the Roman State, yes, the Jews handed him over but basically to save their own skins.

By the time the Jews handed him over it was because the Romans had issued an arrest warrant, this was standard. He was executed as a criminal and the founder of a band of a criminal gang, according to Roman documents, Herocleus Sossianus and others made the allegations that Jesus headed a band of 900 men, these allegations were consistent. Be mindful that I am not saying that the allegations were true, but even if we allow for exaggeration and say it was just a figure of half of that band of men it was still significant, and we know that many among Jesus’ followers carried weapons.

The issue of Pilate finding anything intriguing is untenable, the idea that Pilate was blackmailed into passing a sentence is laughable. It was sedition against the Roman Empire as far as Pilate was concerned and he had issued the arrest warrant in the first place.

The insignia placed above Jesus’ head at his crucifixion was not a mockery, it was the charges against him, it was common Roman practice for the charges of those found guilty of capital crimes to be hung on their heads.

Scholar8200:
and the same Paul affirmed that he met James 3 years after his conversion? ?? So you infer that Stephen = James? And the former was stoned to death while the latter (his alter ego according to your claims) was alive after Paul's conversion?

Paul affirmed a lot of things. There is no doubt that it was James as the head of the Jerusalem church who was attacked by the henchmen of Saulos with him standing by, James was removed by his followers and taken to Qumran where he remained until he recovered. The biblical account is simply masking the actions of Paul in attacking the leader of the Jerusalem church.

My source is the Bible; anyone hear can go to verify that you are forcing a distorted 'history' on Jesus and Paul. Present links to your source(s)!

It might come as a huge shock to you but the Bible is not an historical document. You have asked me for my sources, go and read the Recognitions and read the Antiquities, read up about the antecedents of the religion you profess and when you have done so come back and lets have a proper discussion.

Sarassin:


Paul affirmed a lot of things. There is no doubt that it was James as the head of the Jerusalem church

James (brother of Jesus for that matter) head of Jerusalem church!? It is pathetic when personal assumptions are recorded as historical facts! Sir, you mock yourself here.

who was attacked by the henchmen of Saulos with him standing by, James was removed by his followers and taken to Qumran where he remained until he recovered. The biblical account is simply masking the actions of Paul in attacking the leader of the Jerusalem church.

what followers! Masking Paul's actions yet his persecution and wasting of the Church(b4 conversion) were recorded both by Luke and Paul himself.

It might come as a huge shock to you but the Bible is not an historical document. You have asked me for my sources, go and read the Recognitions and read the Antiquities, read up about the antecedents of the religion you profess and when you have done so come back and lets have a proper discussion.

highlight the places you have quoted and give links to where they can be found. Till then your claims here are the huge shocks.

Scholar8200:


James (brother of Jesus for that matter) head of Jerusalem church!? It is pathetic when personal assumptions are recorded as historical facts! Sir, you mock yourself here.

There are no personal assumptions here. In the immediate years after the death of Jesus, James nicknamed “the Just” was the acknowledged head of the Jerusalem church, that set of believers who sought to practice the teachings of Jesus as he taught. You are singularly uninformed if you did not know this, it is divinity 101.

what followers! Masking Paul's actions yet his persecution and wasting of the Church(b4 conversion) were recorded both by Luke and Paul himself.

James as the head of the church had a following. Yes we are all aware of Paul’s persecution of the Church. How many would accept Paul's doctrine's if it had been apparent from the outset that he had tried his hardest to murder the brother of Jesus, the Christ from whom he claimed he received his epiphany?

highlight the places you have quoted and give links to where they can be found. Till then your claims here are the huge shocks

I don't have to highlight anything for you. Do the research, both books are widely available.

Sarassin:


There are no personal assumptions here. In the immediate years after the death of Jesus, James nicknamed “the Just” was the acknowledged head of the Jerusalem church, that set of believers who sought to practice the teachings of Jesus as he taught. You are singularly uninformed if you did not know this, it is divinity 101.

in the upper room, His brothers were there but they had no say Acts 1:14. Before His death, they neither believed Him John 7:5 nor were His disciples. When Jesus said the 12 that were with Him from the beginning will testify, His brothers were not part of the 12 , what then! Overnight one of them became head of the Jerusalem church. and this claim of headship is strange to the NT early church thus revealing the anachronism of your elusive sources.

James as the head of the church had a following. Yes we are all aware of Paul’s persecution of the Church. How many would accept Paul's doctrine's if it had been apparent from the outset that he had tried his hardest to murder the brother of Jesus, the Christ from whom he claimed he received his epiphany?

and why did Paul not conceal his past afterwards? And how come Paul never met this James till after 3years in Christ?

I don't have to highlight anything for you. Do the research, both books are widely available.

alright Josephus, sorry Sarrasin.

Scholar8200:
in the upper room, His brothers were there but they had no say Acts 1:14. Before His death, they neither believed Him John 7:5 nor were His disciples. When Jesus said the 12 that were with Him from the beginning will testify, His brothers were not part of the 12 , what then! Overnight one of them became head of the Jerusalem church. and this claim of headship is strange to the NT early church thus revealing the anachronism of your elusive sources.

and why did Paul not conceal his past afterwards? And how come Paul never met this James till after 3years in Christ?

alright Josephus, sorry Sarrasin.

maybe it was 'Saul' that met James... Lol.

sonofthunder:

maybe it was 'Saul' that met James... Lol.

Scholar8200:
in the upper room, His brothers were there but they had no say Acts 1:14. Before His death, they neither believed Him John 7:5 nor were His disciples. When Jesus said the 12 that were with Him from the beginning will testify, His brothers were not part of the 12 , what then! Overnight one of them became head of the Jerusalem church. and this claim of headship is strange to the NT early church thus revealing the anachronism of your elusive sources.

alright Josephus, sorry Sarrasin.

And Jesus wept.

Hegesippus, in the fifth book of his Commentaries, mentions that James was made a bishop of Jerusalem he states: "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem”

Clement of Alexandria wrote in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes that James the Just was chosen as a bishop of Jerusalem by Peter, James (the Greater) and John.

According to Eusebius, James was named a bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles: "James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. Ecc Bk II Chap 23:1

Jerome wrote the same: "James... after our Lord's passion…... ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem..." and that James "ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years (on illustrious men Chap 2)

James is a principal author of the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15 if you even know what that is.

The dead sea scrolls identify James as “the righteous teacher”

Josephus attests that James headed the Jerusalem Church.

I am staggered at the breadth of your lack of knowledge, I made a clear statement that James had been the head of the Jerusalem church and you are wittering on about 12 men in a room. Did you think I made it up? You are here casting sly aspersions on me but you cannot refute even the slightest information I have presented. I should remove the “Scholar” from your moniker if I were you!

Sarassin:


And Jesus wept.

Hegesippus, in the fifth book of his Commentaries, mentions that James was made a bishop of Jerusalem he states: "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem”
Clement of Alexandria wrote in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes that James the Just was chosen as a bishop of Jerusalem by Peter, James (the Greater) and John.

The highlighted implies that any position occupied by James was subject to the authority of the apostles (of which James was not one). Hence stop painting it as though he was the GO.

According to Eusebius, James was named a bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles: "James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. Ecc Bk II Chap 23:1

Meaning he was selected just as Paul selected Timothy.

Jerome wrote the same: "James... after our Lord's passion…... [b]ordained by the apostles [/b]bishop of Jerusalem..." and that James "ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years (on illustrious men Chap 2)
James is a principal author of the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15 if you even know what that is.

Just as Stephen and the other 6 were appointed by the Apostles!

Now how come Stephen = James = Head of the Church? And that Before Paul's conversion? And supposing that was true, why would someone leave the Apostles and go after a protege appointed by the apostles? Is that reasonable? Up to Acts 14 James was more or less a new convert(he was not a believer when Jesus was here) Therein, it was the apostles that were the object of persecution hence the killing of James bro of John and imprisonment of Peter for the same purpose! Peter was called to the circumcision and he was an Apostle thereto (Acts 8 showed that they remained in Jerusalem after others had left.) Besides, if James was sth then, why did Herod take Peter after killing James?

I am staggered at the breadth of your lack of knowledge, I made a clear statement that James had been the head of the Jerusalem church and you are wittering on about 12 men in a room.

There lies the problem! You stray at a gnat when it comes to the Bible but swallow camels when it comes to 'history'!

Did you think I made it up? You are here casting sly aspersions on me but you cannot refute even the slightest information I have presented. I should remove the “Scholar” from your moniker if I were you!

Apologies if that is how you see it. Meanwhile, how do we reconcile:



1. claims that Stephen = James?
2. James was the head of the church but was appointed by the Apostles?!( hence subordinate to them)
3. James was actually Stephen but he did not die when stoned? (I wonder who invented Acts 7! I wonder which Stephen Paul referred to when he gave his testimony)
4. James was Stephen and did not die but is known today as the first martyr in the Early Church!!!
5. The same tradition that exaggerates James' position in the early Church bows to the Bible Truth that Stephen was actually martyred!!
6. Herod caught Peter with ease but needed a young man Paul to run after James a convert?!
7. According to your sources, Jesus died around 36CE and Paul was converted around 28CE & 36 CE (funny & contestable since Jesus died and arose and ascended before Paul's conversion) meaning there was a period of a few months between Jesus' death and Paul's conversion. Then:
Since James (Jesus brother) was converted after his Passion, how did James become head of the church being chased around by Paul (!) just after a few months after he believed


These remain unsettled and calls to question your sources.

Scholar8200:
The highlighted implies that any position occupied by James was subject to the authority of the apostles (of which James was not one). Hence stop painting it as though he was the GO.

Scholar8200:
Meaning he was selected just as Paul selected Timothy.

With the greatest respect sir, this is a nonsense. Subject to what authority? He was made head!

First you said my assertion that James was head of the early church was a pathetic claim. Now, I have provided 5 or 6 referenceable historical sources who have confirmed that James did indeed head the early church, in fact In the Nag Hammadi documents Jesus himself designates James as the head over all of the disciples and affirms that “for James’ sake heavens and the earth came into existence” (Logion 12)
The best you can come up with is that James was not “daddy G.O”
Do you now accept my earlier statement that James was the acknowledged head of the early Jerusalem church? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Scholar8200:


Just as Stephen and the other 6 were appointed by the Apostles!
Now how come Stephen = James = Head of the Church? And that Before Paul's conversion? And supposing that was true, why would someone leave the Apostles and go after a protege appointed by the apostles? Is that reasonable? Up to Acts 14 James was more or less a new convert(he was not a believer when Jesus was here) Therein, it was the apostles that were the object of persecution hence the killing of James bro of John and imprisonment of Peter for the same purpose! Peter was called to the circumcision and he was an Apostle thereto (Acts 8 showed that they remained in Jerusalem after others had left.) Besides, if James was sth then, why did Herod take Peter after killing James

And where have I stated that Stephen =James? That is just a red-herring with which you are tying yourself up in knots trying to deflect from the main issue.

Pre-conversion Saul of Tarsus was responsible for the deaths and imprisonment on many Christians. Historical accounts place him at the scene of the attack on James on the steps of the temple at Jerusalem, we can actually date the account. The author of Acts places the chronology of his account of the killing of Stephen in the exact same timeline that James was attacked. Luke's account of the killing of Stephen may have taken place, but it was definitely not in the chronological order and context in which he placed it

Scholar8200:

Apologies if that is how you see it. Meanwhile, how do we reconcile claims that Stephen = James?

1. James was the head of the church but was appointed by the Apostles?!( hence subordinate to them)
2. James was actually Stephen but he did not die when stoned? (I wonder who invented Acts 7! I wonder which Stephen Paul referred to when he gave his testimony)
3. James was Stephen and did not die but is known today as the first martyr in the Early Church!!!
4. The same tradition that exaggerates James' position in the early Church bows to the Bible Truth that Stephen was actually martyred!!
5. Herod caught Peter with ease but needed a young man Paul to run after James a convert?!

This remains unsettled and calls to question your sources.

Therein lies the problem, the constant desire to merge historical facts with biblical stories. There's nothing to reconcile. I am merely presenting historical facts as they are available in a bid to present biblical characters as they might have been seen in a historical context, particularly Jesus of Nazareth. I am not obliged to fit historical analysis into your biblical worldview.

Sarassin:


None of this is true. The Romans simply didn’t work like that. We know what the charges against Jesus were, and we know who brought the charges against him, it was the Roman State, yes, the Jews handed him over but basically to save their own skins.

By the time the Jews handed him over it was because the Romans had issued an arrest warrant, this was standard. He was executed as a criminal and the founder of a band of a criminal gang, according to Roman documents, Herocleus Sossianus and others made the allegations that Jesus headed a band of 900 men, these allegations were consistent. Be mindful that I am not saying that the allegations were true, but even if we allow for exaggeration and say it was just a figure of half of that band of men it was still significant, and we know that many among Jesus’ followers carried weapons.

The issue of Pilate finding anything intriguing is untenable, the idea that Pilate was blackmailed into passing a sentence is laughable. It was sedition against the Roman Empire as far as Pilate was concerned and he had issued the arrest warrant in the first place.

The insignia placed above Jesus’ head at his crucifixion was not a mockery, it was the charges against him, it was common Roman practice for the charges of those found guilty of capital crimes to be hung on their heads.

You have decided to take the stance against the Biblical account, so i will leave it at that.

Sarassin:


In examining the circumstances surrounding the death of Jesus we can be sure that the Jewish authorities laid their information against Jesus before the Roman governor while the accused was still at liberty; the Gospels, on the contrary, represent him as being arrested by the Jews and dragged to Pilate, who is totally ignorant of the charge brought against the prisoner. Obviously, the political situation forced the high priests to take this action against one of their own nation, they had obviously done this before.

Whether the charges against Jesus were written or oral, the charges would have contained not only the name and the charge (libellous) but also, in order to facilitate arrest, an iconismus (Likeness) of the accused. The name, the charge together with an offer of a reward would constitute the arrest warrant. John 11:57 essentially confirms the issue of a warrant. More importantly the genuine writ or warrant necessarily bore a precise date, showing the day and month of issue. This writ would also have been pasted all over the countryside and given to a public town crier for the proclamation, that is simply how the Romans did things. We can be sure the affair was fully documented.

In establishing the date of the death of Jesus, the Gospels, Luke in particular provides through various convolutions the implied dates 29CE, 32CE or 34CE none of which are historically viable. What is agreed upon by biblical sources and historical sources is that Jesus was crucified during the reign of Tiberius, but we can go one step further.

We have the story of Mundus and Paulina by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 3. 4-5) which is corroborated by the Governor Tacitus. Tacitus dates this story in the year 19CE, in the chapter dealing with the administration of Pilate in Judaea, therefore we can be sure that Pilate arrived in Palestine roughly in the fall of 18CE. The Acts of Pilate, published by the Emperor Maximinus Daia in 311CE being the extracts of the trial of Jesus, and which Eusebius declared as a forgery (Eusebius eccl ix 5,7) bears the date Tiberio iv cons.

We are able also to determine the date of the Passover, therefore it is possible to indicate with preciseness independently of biblical sources, the day of the passion of Christ as 16th April 21CE

Like i said before, you have decided to go with historical accounts as opposed to the Bible's, but would you say Herod Antipas made the following comment about John after Jesus had died?

And Herod said, John have I beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him.
Luke:9:9

He Herod Antipas desired to See Jesus after he had killed John.

Pls help me to understand this.

Sarassin:


Yes, I believe John the Baptist outlived Jesus. I will show you why, first we shall establish the year that the Baptist died looking at historical sources available and then we shall look at the death of Jesus.

First of all, the idea that John the Baptist and Jesus were of approximately the same age is proven at the outset to be an invention and historically untenable. Christian sources either did not exactly know, or deliberately falsified, the chronological order of the births of Jesus and the Baptist. We know this because we have the historical writings of Josephus that puts the first arrest of John the Baptist by order of Archelaus as the first appearance by the Baptist which is best placed in the period immediately after Herod's death and before the journey of Archelaus to Rome in 4CE.

Now if we are to trust the Christian tradition that Jesus outlived the Baptist, then the death of Jesus must be placed in the year 36CE at the earliest, in accordance with Luke's idea of the course of affairs after the death of John the Baptist.

This of course would be a nonsense because it places Jesus much too close to Paul, whose conversion on the road to Damascus must have happened in one of the years between 28CE and 36CE and in fact closer to the earlier date. We should keep in mind that Paul is at this time busily trying to murder James (brother of Jesus), and escaping from King Aretas before the outbreak of the war.

John the Baptist is murdered by Herod Antipas in 36CE.

We know this because Herod Antipas goes to war with the Arabian king Aretas in 37CE and is defeated. His defeat is attributed as retribution by the Jewish God for Herod’s unjustified killing of a godly man i.e John the Baptist.

The trial of Herod Antipas before Agrippa is fully documented. Herod gives the justification of the murder of John the Baptist as the fear of a popular uprising orchestrated by John the Baptist. Agrippa's letter and the protocol of the trial of Antipas were naturally preserved in the commentarii principis of Caligula, where they were consulted by Josephus and other historians.
We have the name of the bearer of the letter, the time of his arrival, the place where Caesar held the trial, undoubtedly we are dealing here with documentary evidence of primary importance.

As further historical evidence for the timeline of the death of John the Baptist; We know that Philip the tetrarch died on the evening of the day on which John the Baptist had interpreted to him his dream about an eagle. And we know from the Antiquities that Philip died in the spring or summer of 34CE.

Therefore we can establish that John the Baptist died no later than 36CE, but that he was alive in the summer of 34CE

This is how we shall do it, you shall present your historical sources while i present the Biblical sources and leave the audience to make up their minds.
Luke:7:19
And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?

This came while John was already in Herod's prison. He didn't understand why Jesus wouldn't do anything about his arrest. He sent his messengers to enquire from Jesus, probably he (John) had made a mistake in believing that Jesus was the saviour of the world, if he were, then he shd have done something about his arrest and impending death.


Sometime later, Herod hears the exploits of Jesus and was threatened, he said;

"John have I beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him."
Luke:9:9

Would you have us believe that Herod made this statement after Jesus had died? Would Herod had desired to see a dead Jesus?

Sarassin:


There is a difference between taking an historical view of Jesus and simply quoting what the Bible has said. We can all quote the Bible, I am looking at what historically viable accounts tell us.

Now we can agree at least that Jesus was Jewish. In first century Palestine, if you were Jewish, you would be either a Sadducee Jew (of the ruling Herodian class) or a Pharisaical Jew, there were also the minority of the more extreme Essenic Jews, but even though Jesus did assimilate certain Essenic practices he was not an Essene, he was definitely not a Sadducee, his father Joseph would have been a Pharisaical Jew, and even though Pharisaical Judaism paid close attention to the letter of the law of the Torah, not all Pharisee's were lawyers as you state, that is a common misconception. Being a Pharisee in the true sense simply meant that you strove to be in good standing with God by observing his laws and refraining from sin. Pretty much it was a sect much as we would say today, a Catholic, a Protestant or a revivalist, that was just the nature of things.

Ordinary citizens of first century Palestine would not have access to the Tanakh nor could they read it. Scripture would be read aloud at gatherings in the synagogues by the priests. You have kindly provided the verse and chapter of Jesus reading from the Septuagint in the bible, I have also demonstrated that Jesus had intricate knowledge of the main Pharisaical teachings of his time. It is not a bad thing to say that Jesus learned his craft, it is quite evident.

The teachings of Jesus were not that revolutionary. He had an inherent dislike for the observance of the letter of the law in favour of observing the spirit of the law, he taught apocalypticism he learned these teachings from John the Baptist. He taught forgiveness and humility, again this had been taught by Hillel before him and we know he was familiar with the teachings of Hillel. Jesus also taught fellowship and communalism, these were Essenic teachings.

In effect Jesus offended orthodoxy by teaching a mixture of all these ideas which was why the Pharisee’s came to test him, to see which way his wind blew, and what he stood for.

Were his teachings alone sufficient enough to have him killed? Decidedly not, itinerant preachers with competing apocalyptic messages were a pound a penny in first century Palestine and curiously a lot of them were named Jesus It is quite clear that there were more cogent reasons why the High priest thought it expedient to have Jesus of Nazareth killed, as I will show later.

I have just one question to ask you here, If Jesus was a Pharisaical Jew, why was he opposed to them from start to finish?

Sarassin:


There are no personal assumptions here. In the immediate years after the death of Jesus, James nicknamed “the Just” was the acknowledged head of the Jerusalem church, that set of believers who sought to practice the teachings of Jesus as he taught. You are singularly uninformed if you did not know this, it is divinity 101.



James as the head of the church had a following. Yes we are all aware of Paul’s persecution of the Church. How many would accept Paul's doctrine's if it had been apparent from the outset that he had tried his hardest to murder the brother of Jesus, the Christ from whom he claimed he received his epiphany?



I don't have to highlight anything for you. Do the research, both books are widely available.

I really will like links to these sources sir.

analice107:

Like i said before, you have decided to go with historical accounts as opposed to the Bible's, but would you say Herod Antipas made the following comment about John after Jesus had died?

And Herod said, John have I beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him.
Luke:9:9

He Herod Antipas desired to See Jesus after he had killed John.

Pls help me to understand this.

It is simply not possible that Herod Antipas made that statement. By Herod’s own admission he had killed John the Baptist. Now we know for a fact that he killed the Baptist sometime in the year 36CE before he went to war with Aretas and lost in 37CE.

Now unless the deaths of the Baptist and Jesus took place in the same year (of which there is no evidence) if you say Jesus outlived John then it means the earliest Jesus died is 37CE in the middle of the Bar Kochba war which is impossible.

We know also that Paul had experienced his epiphany of Christ before 37CE and headed to Arabia, we know this because he was escaping down walls in baskets from Aretas before, the war broke out. Would Paul have an epiphany of Christ whilst Jesus was still alive?

So, you tell me how Antipas could have ever uttered those words.

analice107:


I have just one question to ask you here, If Jesus was a Pharisaical Jew, why was he opposed to them from start to finish?

Jesus was first and foremost a Jew, he observed the Torah. That is a fact. He opposed the legalistic nature of Pharisaical Judaism which is why the Pharisee's declared him unorthodox. Jesus taught a more moderate version of Judaism that was more in keeping with the spirit of being right with God as opposed to a system of practice. This was the crux of the matter.

Sarassin:


Jesus was first and foremost a Jew, he observed the Torah. That is a fact. He opposed the legalistic nature of Pharisaical Judaism which is why the Pharisee's declared him unorthodox. Jesus taught a more moderate version of Judaism that was more in keeping with the spirit of being right with God as opposed to a system of practice. This was the crux of the matter.

I see.

Sarassin:


It is simply not possible that Herod Antipas made that statement. By Herod’s own admission he had killed John the Baptist. Now we know for a fact that he killed the Baptist sometime in the year 36CE before he went to war with Aretas and lost in 37CE.

Now unless the deaths of the Baptist and Jesus took place in the same year (of which there is no evidence) if you say Jesus outlived John then it means the earliest Jesus died is 37CE in the middle of the Bar Kochba war which is impossible.

We know also that Paul had experienced his epiphany of Christ before 37CE and headed to Arabia, we know this because he was escaping down walls in baskets from Aretas before, the war broke out. Would Paul have an epiphany of Christ whilst Jesus was still alive?

So, you tell me how Antipas could have ever uttered those words.

Cc: Scholar8200, pls answer this.

Sarassin:



With the greatest respect sir, this is a nonsense. Subject to what authority? He was made head!

and was subject to the apostles who appointed him like they did others.

,First you said my assertion that James was head of the early church was a pathetic claim. Now, I have provided 5 or 6 referenceable historical sources who have confirmed that James did indeed head the early church,

James was not an apostle hence he did not head the early church but was appointed like Stephen and the other 6 were. I would have expected you reconcile your claims here with the timeline you gave earlier viz Jesus died around 36 CE, Paul was converted around 28 - 36 CE! and James was head of the Church (why!) before then because Paul chased him!!? Straighten this pls.

in fact In the Nag Hammadi documents Jesus himself designates James as the head over all of the disciples and affirms that “for James’ sake heavens and the earth came into existence” (Logion 12)

While the same Jesus discouraged this among His disciples. What? This one you quote even deifies a James that did not believe Jesus till after His Passion!

The best you can come up with is that James was not “daddy G.O”
Do you now accept my earlier statement that James was the acknowledged head of the early Jerusalem church? A simple yes or no will suffice.
[quote] confusion, sarrasin, is when you quote in five places that the Apostles made James head and quote in another place that Jesus made James head when clearly James did not believe Him till after His Passion!

[quote]


And where have I stated that Stephen =James? That is just a red-herring with which you are tying yourself up in knots trying to deflect from the main issue.

Red-herring? Did you not claim Stephen was a nom de guerre for James in protecting Paul's ministry!? Yet history tells us Stephen was the first martyr!?

Pre-conversion Saul of Tarsus was responsible for the deaths and imprisonment on many Christians. Historical accounts place him at the scene of the attack on James on the steps of the temple at Jerusalem, we can actually date the account. The author of Acts places the chronology of his account of the killing of Stephen in the exact same timeline that James was attacked. Luke's account of the killing of Stephen may have taken place, but it was definitely not in the chronological order and context in which he placed it

show this from the book of Acts. Besides, explain how Stephen was actually James and why Stephen remains the first martyr.

Therein lies the problem, the constant desire to merge historical facts with biblical stories. There's nothing to reconcile. I am merely presenting historical facts as they are available in a bid to present biblical characters as they might have been seen in a historical context, particularly Jesus of Nazareth. I am not obliged to fit historical analysis into your biblical worldview.

its your thread anyway.

Scholar8200:
and was subject to the apostles who appointed him like they did others.

Now you are simply being obdurate. I gave you a number of impeccable historical sources who made it clear that James led the early church. Whether he was appointed to the position or inherited it or whatever, the point is validly made and properly attested that he led the Church in Jerusalem. It is not in doubt.

Scholar8200:

James was not an apostle hence he did not head the early church but was appointed like Stephen and the other 6 were. I would have expected you reconcile your claims here with the timeline you gave earlier viz Jesus died around 36 CE, Paul was converted around 28 - 36 CE! and James was head of the Church (why!) before then because Paul chased him!!? Straighten this pls.

Where have I stated that Jesus died in 36CE? What reconciliation do you seek? I stated that the Baptist outlived Jesus and I gave my reasons.
Pre-conversion Paul incarcerated a lot of Christians that is not in dispute. I stated that Paul must have converted during the years 28CE to 36CE probably sooner, clearly this implies that Jesus had died prior and that James had assumed leadership of the Church in Jerusalem in the interim.

Scholar8200:

While the same Jesus discouraged this among His disciples. What? This one you quote even deifies a James that did not believe Jesus till after His Passion!

The author of Acts is alone in his claim that James did not believe in Jesus. Contemporary sources state otherwise as I have shown. Luke’s claim is clearly mendacious.

Scholar8200:
Red-herring? Did you not claim Stephen was a nom de guerre for James in protecting Paul's ministry!?

Where did I claim that Stephen was a “nom de guerre” for Paul? You’re putting words into my mouth. I wrote that Luke masked the true event of Saulus attacking James by claiming it was Stephen who was attacked.

Scholar8200:
Yet history tells us Stephen was the first martyr!?

History tells us no such thing. It is only Luke who makes this claim, he is not a witness to the event and it is not attested in any other gospel, sorry, biblical accounts are not historical.

Scholar8200:
show this from the book of Acts. Besides, explain how Stephen was actually James and why Stephen remains the first martyr.

I have already done so. Do you suppose that even the murderous Saulus was brave enough to attempt the murder of Two prominent Christian figures on the steps of the same temple?