Poor poor Christianity?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No doubt his ability to connect Jesus' ministry with the OT into one coherent revelation has helped.



Since I don't know it is simply conjecture. Perhaps their teaching is precisely what we see in the gospels and acts and therefore we have no need of writings from them. Perhaps the gospels, like Luke's writings, represent a thorough summation of all their teachings.



This is the problem of being a talented member, it tends to suppress others talents. That said I feel that the gospels are very well represented in the church teachings.



The point was not about kosher food, that point was resolved earlier by Peter and his vision. The point of contention was about not eating with believers because they were not "Jews".



I don't think the Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as a Judaizer. I define a Judaizer as one who requires believers to be circumcised, to convert to Judaism, to separate themselves from believers who have not converted, and who still keep the various animal sacrifices. I fully agree with Paul's understanding that Jesus death is the real circumcision and I fully agree with Peter's vision that Jesus death cleansed all of us so that we no longer have "clean" and "unclean" peoples.

Some Palestinian Jews hoped for a prophet like Moses who would bring Salvation from their hated oppressors the Romans and those who collaborated with them as well as present the law of God. Moses had prophesied of another Prophet like himself in Deuteronomy 18: 15 to 19. In Matthew Jesus is the new Moses. He doesn't replace the the Old Law rather he's the true and final interpreter of what the earlier Moses had recorded in the Torah. The law which Jesus gives doesn't conflict with the law of Moses rather it is its fulfillment ( 5:17). The followers of Jesus must follow the law of Moses by understanding it in the way directed by the new Moses Jesus the Messiah. I join Bart Ehrman in wondering if Paul in the author of The Gospel of Matthew would have gotten along. https://ehrmanblog.org/is-paul-at-odds-with-matthew/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Some Palestinian Jews hoped for a prophet like Moses who would bring Salvation from their hated oppressors the Romans and those who collaborated with them as well as present the law of God. Moses had prophesied of another Prophet like himself in Deuteronomy 18: 15 to 19. In Matthew Jesus is the new Moses. He doesn't replace the the Old Law rather he's the true and final interpreter of what the earlier Moses had recorded in the Torah. The law which Jesus gives doesn't conflict with the law of Moses rather it is its fulfillment ( 5:17). The followers of Jesus must follow the law of Moses by understanding it in the way directed by the new Moses Jesus the Messiah. I join Bart Ehrman in wondering if Paul in the author of The Gospel of Matthew would have gotten along. https://ehrmanblog.org/is-paul-at-odds-with-matthew/

Only paying members can read from this link.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Only paying members can read from this link.

Here's the whole thing :

Is Paul at Odds with Matthew?
In yesterday’s post I indicated that I really very much wish that we could have some of the writings produced by Paul’s opponents in Galatia. They believed that in order to be a follower of Jesus, a person had to accept and follow the Law of Moses as laid out in the Jewish Scriptures. Men were to be circumcised to join the people of God; men and women were, evidently, to adopt a Jewish lifestyle. Presumably that meant keeping kosher, observing the Sabbath, and so on. Anyone who didn’t do this was not really a member of the people of God, since to be one of God’s people meant following the law that God had given.

Paul was incensed at this interpretation of the faith and insisted with extraordinary vehemence that it was completely wrong. The gentile followers of Jesus were not, absolutely not, supposed to become Jewish. Anyone who thought so rendered the death of Jesus worthless. It was only that death, and the resurrection, that made a person right with God. Nothing else. Certainly not following the Torah.

I often wonder whether Paul and the author of the Gospel of Matthew would have gotten along.

Matthew’s Gospel was probably…

Matthew’s Gospel was probably written about thirty years after Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians; Galatians is usually dated to the mid 50s, Matthew to around 80-85 CE. We don’t know who the author of Matthew was, apart from the fact that he was obviously a highly educated Greek-speaking Christian living outside of Palestine. His book is often located to Antioch Syria, but in my view that is simply a guess based on flimsy evidence. Still, it certainly *may* have been written Antioch, a city with a large Jewish population and a burgeoning Christian church.

Matthew, like the other Gospel writers, did not produce his account simply out of antiquarian interests, to inform his readers what happened 55 years earlier in the days of Jesus. His is not a disinterested biography or an objective history. It is a “Gospel.” In other words, it is intended to proclaim the “good news” about Jesus and the salvation that he brings. When Jesus teaches something in this Gospel, Matthew expects that the teaching will be relevant to his readers, that they will want to do what Jesus says.

There is no doubt that Matthew would agree with Paul that it was the death and resurrection of Jesus that brought salvation to the world. The Gospel is not *entirely* about Jesus’ death and resurrection. But it is largely about that. It is 28 chapters long, and the last 8 chapters are focused exclusively on what happened during the last week of Jesus’ life in Jerusalem, including the crucifixion and resurrection. This is clearly the climax of the story. And for Matthew, as for his predecessor Mark, the death of Jesus is seen as “a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). It is through his death that he “will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

So Matthew would agree with Paul there. But so would Paul’s opponents in Galatia. The controversy with the Galatian opposition was not over whether Jesus’ death brings salvation. It was over whether the followers of Jesus, who accept that death, need to keep the Jewish law. And it does seem to me that this is where Paul and Matthew split company. Again, remember that when Matthew decides what to present about Jesus’ life in the Gospel it is not simply so that people can know “what really happened” in the past. It is so that the life and teachings of Jesus can direct the lives of his followers in the present.

And what does Jesus say about the Jewish law in Matthew? He says that his followers have to keep it. One of the key passages is something that you will NEVER find in the writings of Paul.

Do not suppose that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy but to fulfil. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away not one iota or one stroke of a letter will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled. And so, whoever looses one of the least of these commandments and teaches others in this way will be called least in the kingdom of God, but whoever does and teaches the law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that if your righteousness does not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This is a really interesting passage. Does it contradict Paul that the followers of Jesus were *not* to keep the law? It seems to.

Now someone *could* say that here Jesus is saying simply that the entire law has to be in effect until he dies (“until all is fulfilled”). But Jesus is saying more than that. His followers must do and teach the law. None of it will pass away until the world is destroyed (“till heaven and earth pass away”). Again, Matthew is not saying this so his readers will have a good history lesson about the Savior of the world and what he taught his disciples. He is including this passage for the same reason he includes all his passages, to teach his readers how they are to believe and live. Jesus in this passage does *not* say, “Keep the law until I die.” He says he did not come to destroy the law. It is still in effect. And will be as long as the earth lasts. His followers have to keep it.

After this Jesus launches into his “antitheses,” where he indicates what the law says and explains its fuller, deeper meaning. The law says don’t kill; to fulfill it you should not engage someone with wrath. The law says not to take someone’s spouse; to fulfill it you should not want to do so. The law says to make punishments fit the crimes (an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth; not a head for an eye or a body for a tooth); to fulfill it you should show extreme mercy and not punish another for harm done to you. And so on.

I really don’t think that Matthew’s Jesus did not mean what he says. He gives no hint that following the law this closely is impossible to do. He seems to think it is possible. God gave a law. You should follow it. Scrupulously. Even more scrupulously than the righteous scribes and Pharisees. If you don’t, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

That’s a tall order. And in my judgment it seems very much opposed to Paul’s views, who insists that *his* readers not think that they must follow the law.

[awareness]

As I've come to see it so far, the early Christians were Jews, and at least the educated elite were Hellenized Christian Jews ; reading and referencing the Koine Greek Septuagint.

But there came a split in the two types of Jewish Christians. Some were called Judaizers, and some were called Hellenizers ; in Paul's terms, basically, the circumcisers, and the uncircumcisers. James, the brother of Jesus, was an example of the Judaizers. Paul an example of the Hellenizers, and prolly their leader.

That the Hellenizers won out is without question. Or rather, that the Judaizers lost out is without question. That's obvious. Maybe six of one, half a dozen of the other. I don't know.

There's power in numbers. The uncircumcisers, the Hellenists, won out. Paul proved to be the top dog apostle, over James, Peter, John, and prolly over the rest of the "silent Bob" disciples. The different gospel Paul rebuked in Galatians was that of the original Jewish Christians, the Judaizers, and they lost out.

Was that the first wrong turn in the history of the Christian movement? It is said that history is written by the victors. And they, Christians today, that aren't Jewish at all, certainly can't be trusted to offer an unbiased answer.

Was Hellenization the beginning of poor, poor, Christianity? Should Paul have won out over the original disciples?

Since they were all Hellenized Jewish Christians I guess it couldn't be helped.

I guess those pesky smarty-pants Greeks won again.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Is Paul at Odds with Matthew?

Zeek,

I think this question is misleading. It was Jesus in the gospels (including Matthew) that violated the Sabbath day based on "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath". Then it was Peter who violated the prohibition of eating with the Gentiles and baptized them into the church.

It is also clear that they were not required by Peter or by the Lord's vision, to be circumcised first. Instead the Vision said that they had already been cleansed and Peter understood that to mean that the Lord's redemptive work on the cross opened the New Covenant to them.

This was then confirmed in a council headed up by James. All of the so called "Judaizers" got to weigh in and everyone agreed that the Lord's redemptive work applied to Gentiles who were not required to be circumcised or convert to Judaism first. None of this had anything to do with Paul whose ministry came later. Since circumcision in the OT was simply the "signature of God on your flesh" that you had a covenant with God it was clearly not required when Peter baptized the gentiles.

Therefore, what is the sign in our flesh that we have a covenant with God if not circumcision? That is the question that Paul answers. He is not the one who told us Gentiles don't need to be circumcised, that was already decided. He merely explained how this decision was consistent with the Bible.

Since most agree that the Gospel of Mark is essentially the Gospel of Peter and that there is a very strong correlation between Mark and Matthew this seems to be much to do about nothing.

[awareness]

I don't know that it matters, but your response should be to zeek not me.

This :

Originally Posted by zeek

Is Paul at Odds with Matthew?

Not this:

Originally Posted by awareness

Is Paul at Odds with Matthew?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Zeek,

I think this question is misleading. It was Jesus in the gospels (including Matthew) that violated the Sabbath day based on "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath". Then it was Peter who violated the prohibition of eating with the Gentiles and baptized them into the church.

It is also clear that they were not required by Peter or by the Lord's vision, to be circumcised first. Instead the Vision said that they had already been cleansed and Peter understood that to mean that the Lord's redemptive work on the cross opened the New Covenant to them.

This was then confirmed in a council headed up by James. All of the so called "Judaizers" got to weigh in and everyone agreed that the Lord's redemptive work applied to Gentiles who were not required to be circumcised or convert to Judaism first. None of this had anything to do with Paul whose ministry came later. Since circumcision in the OT was simply the "signature of God on your flesh" that you had a covenant with God it was clearly not required when Peter baptized the gentiles.

Therefore, what is the sign in our flesh that we have a covenant with God if not circumcision? That is the question that Paul answers. He is not the one who told us Gentiles don't need to be circumcised, that was already decided. He merely explained how this decision was consistent with the Bible.

Since most agree that the Gospel of Mark is essentially the Gospel of Peter and that there is a very strong correlation between Mark and Matthew this seems to be much to do about nothing.

It isn't a leading question much less misleading one. All that is required is an up or down vote plus the evidence to back up your choice. I suppose it might lead someone to think and possibly do some research. It would only be misleading to someone who supposed that the Bible represents absolute authority that should not be questioned.

Those questions about the Sabbath seem to be matters of interpretation of law not it's abrogation. The sabbath laws were ambiguous so interpretations varied. So, for instance, according to Rabbi Akiba one should not desecrate the Sabbath for things that can be done the day before or the day after but no desecration exists when such a possibility is not offered. Like Akiba's, Jesus' interpretation fits within the context of Judaism.

In Galatians 2:16, Paul says that no flesh shall be justified by the works of the law. Matthew 16:17 says for the son of man will come in the glory of his father with his angels and then he will reward each according to his works. How do you reconcile those verses? It's not unwarranted to question whether Paul and the author of Matthew would have been at odds if they had been contemporaneous and aware of one another. See post # 163 for Ehrman's more detailed elaboration of the problem that Awareness kindly provided.

The document that we call Mark doesn't have the author's name on it. That it was written by Mark a follower of Peter is matter of tradition begun by Papias. Eusebius mentions it centuries later, but few historical scholars accept it as conclusive.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

It isn't a leading question much less misleading one. All that is required is an up or down vote plus the evidence to back up your choice. I suppose it might lead someone to think and possibly do some research. It would only be misleading to someone who supposed that the Bible represents absolute authority that should not be questioned.

In the post #163 he presents this position spelled out in Galatians as being Paul's. That is what I felt was misleading since it ignores the history of this question. It was decided in Acts, in a council that included James and Peter but not Paul that "no other burden" would be put upon the Gentiles. Hence, not requiring the Gentiles to be circumcised and not separating the Jewish believers from Gentile believers is not a result of Paul's teaching, but was decided in that council. This is what I found misleading in his post.

Originally Posted by zeek

In Galatians 2:16, Paul says that no flesh shall be justified by the works of the law. Matthew 16:17 says for the son of man will come in the glory of his father with his angels and then he will reward each according to his works.

In Galatians Paul also refers to the "works of the flesh" and the "fruit of the spirit". He says "whatever a man sows this shall he also reap". The reaping is our "reward" or our "judgement". Therefore I would compare Matt 16:17 with Galatians 6, not Galatians 2. In Matthew we are rewarded for our work, in Galatians we reap what we sow. I would also use Matt 6 to compare with Matt 16 "this is the work of God that you believe in Him whom He has sent". So then, to interpret being rewarded according to his works as being different from "believing in Him whom God has sent" is contrary to the book of Matthew. Once again, I don't think post #163 does a fair job of presenting Matthew or Galatians and is therefore misleading on that point as well.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In the post #163 he presents this position spelled out in Galatians as being Paul's. That is what I felt was misleading since it ignores the history of this question. It was decided in Acts, in a council that included James and Peter but not Paul that "no other burden" would be put upon the Gentiles. Hence, not requiring the Gentiles to be circumcised and not separating the Jewish believers from Gentile believers is not a result of Paul's teaching, but was decided in that council. This is what I found misleading in his post.




In Galatians Paul also refers to the "works of the flesh" and the "fruit of the spirit". He says "whatever a man sows this shall he also reap". The reaping is our "reward" or our "judgement". Therefore I would compare Matt 16:17 with Galatians 6, not Galatians 2. In Matthew we are rewarded for our work, in Galatians we reap what we sow. I would also use Matt 6 to compare with Matt 16 "this is the work of God that you believe in Him whom He has sent". So then, to interpret being rewarded according to his works as being different from "believing in Him whom God has sent" is contrary to the book of Matthew. Once again, I don't think post #163 does a fair job of presenting Matthew or Galatians and is therefore misleading on that point as well.

There are number of inconsistencies between Paul's account in Galatians and the account given in Acts which can only be explained speculatively since there are no other contemporaneous historical accounts of the controversy. {Acts was written decades after Paul's letter according to the estimates of most scholars and without the benefit of direct participation in the events that Paul had.} Similarly it's the task of the apologist to reconcile the differences between Paul's gospel and the one presented in the Book of Matthew. All of that goes beyond the scope of Ehrman's topic on that particular blog entry.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The document that we call Mark doesn't have the author's name on it. That it was written by Mark a follower of Peter is matter of tradition begun by Papias. Eusebius mentions it centuries later, but few historical scholars accept it as conclusive.

This impulse to link Mark to an eyewitness, is telling. I think we (the Royal Christian we) tend to see the Christian movement, so to speak, as starting out as its most perfection to as Jesus made it.

Isn't that the standard we're seeking to measure from, to determine if and when Christianity became poor?

But that state of Christianity, the earliest stage, or state, of Christianity, is hard to get at ; so it's been used by "Christian" con men time and time again -- The Recovery, for instance -- down thru the ages.

So it's just easier to believe and conclude that the gospels are speaking of eyewitness accounts, to what Jesus did and said, and we're getting the true Jesus, that founded the purest form of Christian teachings.

This leads to an effort to be that pure form of Christianity. The RCC, for example, claims to go back to Peter. The Baptists cooked up Landmarkism, that traces the Baptist Christians back thru a true ribbon down to their founder, Jesus. And we all know of The Recovery.

This idea that the Christian movement strayed from it's purest form, based upon its founder, is an easy sell. And we (the Royal we again) buy it because it sounds good. Of course we want what Jesus founded.

The problem is that that earliest model of Christianity, straight from the founder, was to be a Jewish Christian.

The Hellenist Jewish Christians fixed that. Or broke it. We haven't determined which yet.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

This impulse to link Mark to an eyewitness, is telling. I think we (the Royal Christian we) tend to see the Christian movement, so to speak, as starting out as its most perfection to as Jesus made it.

Isn't that the standard we're seeking to measure from, to determine if and when Christianity became poor?

But that state of Christianity, the earliest stage, or state, of Christianity, is hard to get at ; so it's been used by "Christian" con men time and time again -- The Recovery, for instance -- down thru the ages.

So it's just easier to believe and conclude that the gospels are speaking of eyewitness accounts, to what Jesus did and said, and we're getting the true Jesus, that founded the purest form of Christian teachings.

This leads to an effort to be that pure form of Christianity. The RCC, for example, claims to go back to Peter. The Baptists cooked up Landmarkism, that traces the Baptist Christians back thru a true ribbon down to their founder, Jesus. And we all know of The Recovery.

This idea that the Christian movement strayed from it's purest form, based upon its founder, is an easy sell. And we (the Royal we again) buy it because it sounds good. Of course we want what Jesus founded.

The problem is that that earliest model of Christianity, straight from the founder, was to be a Jewish Christian.

The Hellenist Jewish Christians fixed that. Or broke it. We haven't determined which yet.

One is free to accept the traditions that have been passed on by the historical church. But then of course one isn't going only by the scriptures. And one has to decide how much of the historical church tradition is "Christianity". The result is that different schools of thought, denominations and individuals cherry pick the parts of church history that they like. Hence the many denominations including the local church movement. I don't see any way to get around it. Obviously one is going to claim divine inspiration for their viewpoint. But as far as the Church of all believers is concerned that perpetuates the problem.