Does Apostle Paul Contradict Jesus?

[Punchinello]

I ask this because my Fundie friend as well as some articles I found online said that there are no contradictions. From things I have read, it sure looks like there are contradictions.

I pointed out to my friend what Jesus said to the Lawyer who asked Him what does he need to do to be saved. Jesus said basically to Love God and treat others the way you want to be treated. "Do this and you shall live.". Paul, I believe, basically says that to be saved, you need to accept Jesus as your savior. Believe that and you'll get a golden ticket to heaven. My friend tried to harmonize what Jesus said by saying nobody can do what Jesus said to the Lawyer to do. We can't even come close. We're not going to give up all of our worldly posessions. I told him he was editorializing. He said he wasn't.

Here is Jesus telling the Lawyer what he needs to do to be saved and that's not a good enough answer?. Here is the Son of God telling the Lawyer exactly what he needs to do but some people say that's not good enough. Why would the Son of God give the Lawyer a half azzed answer or an incomplete answer?

This is my second post and I hope it doesn't cause an argument like my first post.

[JehovahsWitness]

Eph. 2:8-10 [...]. Verse 5 says that God in his mercy "even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" - not because of our repentence or our faith, but while we were dead in our sin.

Hello,

While it is true we are not saved BECAUSE of our repenence (or our faith), the above comment implies that neither can change the outcome of our destiny. To use the above scripture to support PREDESTINATION, one must therefore assume that God supossedly decided beforehand who would be saved and who would not, irrespective of anything any individual could do. Is this what Paul was teaching?

#QUESTION Does Paul's failing to mention repentence or faith in Eph 2:5 indicate he was teaching that salvation is attained independent and apart from any individual's will or actions?

It's a common failure on the part of a lot of bible readers to feel that all scripures in the bible are speaking in absolutes; thus they mistakenly conclude that by failing to mention a particular elementthe writer was implying those elements are unrelated to the central point being made. This is rather like saying he who declares: " 'I love my wife' hates his dog". Indeed the implied question - "Are we saved because of grace OR repentence (OR faith) - is a false dichotomy that totally fails to reflect WHAT grace actually is and how it operates to save indivudals.

WHAT IS "GRACE"?

People think that Paul always uses the word grace interchangably with "mercy" ie "I was going to kill you - I've decided not to kill you - you are now alive because of my "grace"(mercy). However, the English the word “grace� has fourteen or more different meanings. Paul, like Jesus often used the term Greek term kha′ris (translated in many bibles as "grace") in terms of an (unmerited) kindly offered gift (See John 7:16). So saying "we are saved by grace [and not by repentence or faith] " is in fact the same as saying "we are saved by God's kindly offered gift and not by repentence or faith"... but two important points should be kept in mind in connection with this

• a) BENEFITING from the gift (or undeserved kindness) would depend on the actions of the receiver; and
  
  b) both God's kindness and the the manifestation of that kind offer, were embodied in Jesus Christ.

Therefore repentence - recognizing our need for that kindness, and faith IN that kindness - become inseperable from the kind offer itself.

• To illustrate: Imagine if a person was in terrible debt. Someone kindly offered to pay off his debt. The debtor had done nothing to merit such kindess, in fact he may well be in debt due to his own shortsightedness and selfish lifestyle. Still, the money was offered. However not only would the person have to believe that the offer was genuine, but he would have to go to the bank to collect it and use the amount in the correct manner (to pay his debts). Now, was the person saved from debt by the kindness (grace)? by the benefactors action (the offer/Jesus)? By believing the offer was genuine (faith)? but going to the bank (works)? Or indeed by the money itself (Jesus' blood sacrifice)? Surely the BASIS of all the subsequent elements was the benefactors kindness. Would the debtor's proclaiming he was "saved by kindness" mean he no longer believes in money or banks?

In a similar way, Pauls saying "we are saved through grace" ("undeserved kindness" - NWT) in no way supports the idea of predestination. Paul never teaches our salvation does not depend on our reaction to God's kindness; he never teaches this offer (of eternal salvation) was only made to a select, individually predestined few. While at Ephesians 2:5 Pauls does focus on the fact that the BASIS of salvation was provided by God ( and that that kindness is totally dependent on God's good will and good pleasure) like Jesus, he [Paul]t always taught that salvation was dependent on the continued faith and good works of individuals wishing to attain to salvation.

SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT

PHILIPIANS 2:12
Consequently, my beloved ones, in the way that YOU have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence, keep working out YOUR own salvation with fear and trembling;

1 TIM 4:16
Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Stay by these things, for by doing this you will save [...] yourself and those who listen to you.

HEBREWS 5:9
and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him [Jesus],

GALATIANS 3: 11
Moreover, that by law no one is declared righteous with God is evident, because “the righteous one will live by reason of faith.

While literalists - it's there in "black and white" ie the words can have nothing but their most basic primary meaning - no doubt find Calvinist interpretations comfortingly simplistic and therefore easier to accept, that does not make them any more scripturally logical or even or contextually acceptable to bible students with a more holistic approach. Just as Jesus found himself constantly disputing with those that refused the possibility he could use terms, expressions and even scripture in less than a conventional manner, Paul's amazing writing, his ability to layer meaning upon meaning, his impressive language and deep biblical truths may be confusing on occassion (2 Pet 3:16(a), but his work is immensely satisfying to those looking for the meatier matters of truth.

Regards
JW


Further reading
http://www.bythebible.page.tl/Grace.htm

[Shermana]

http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/clement ... essage.htm

I'd be hard-pressed to read that site if I was paid.

Good to know.

God save us from folk who think that garish colours make their information more correct or more believable.

I highly doubt they think the coloring makes their words more or less believeable.

From your quoted comments (removed above for brevity), I see two scholars I'd never previously heard of saying that the late second-century 'Clementine literature' (possibly even later) condemns Paul in a rather obscure fashion.

What's so obscure about it? They're quite clear. Even the Wikipedia article discusses the widespread notion that Simon Magus is a code word for Paul, make what you will of Wikipedia, the sources are the same.

And "the notorious F.C. Baur" of course. The theory presented by your site is that the authors of these documents believed they were "vital information" whose preservation was more important than directly condemning Pauline theology.

It's interesting to learn those views, but a link and a quote from that page aren't the same as relevant discussion. Why are those interpretations of late second-century Christian texts relevant to the question of Paul's teachings compared with Jesus' teachings?

Okay, so let's discuss it. As for Late-second century texts, why don't we begin the discussion with why we know for a fact they are late second century, and what groups and individuals considered them authentic and doctrinally correct?

I'd like to see if anyone disagrees that this quoted paragraph from the 17th Homily is flat out describing Paul.

If, then, our Yeshua appeared to you in a vision, made himself known to you, and spoke to you, It was as one who Is enraged with an adversary; and this Is the reason why It was through visions and dreams, or through revelations that were from without, that He spoke to you. But can any one be rendered fit for instruction through apparitions? And if you will say, "It is possible," then I ask, "Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those of us who were awake?" And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? But If you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, Interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For In direct opposition to me, who am Arm rock, the foundation of the church, you now stand. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. But It you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation. But If, Indeed, you really wish to work In the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow worker with us. (Homily XVII, 19)

The main issue however is whether Paul's idea that the Law is not necessary contradicts with Jesus's teaching absolute obedience to the Law of Moses as a necessary pre-requisite for righteous living. Why do you suppose James even mentioned the "faith without works is dead" thing, if there was not some rival group preaching such an idea?

[Mithrae]

Eph. 2:8-10 [...]. Verse 5 says that God in his mercy "even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" - not because of our repentence or our faith, but while we were dead in our sin.

. . . . . .

While literalists - it's there in "black and white" ie the words can have nothing but their most basic primary meaning - no doubt find Calvinist interpretations comfortingly simplistic and therefore easier to accept, that does not make them any more scripturally logical or even or contextually acceptable to bible students with a more holistic approach. Just as Jesus found himself constantly disputing with those that refused the possibility he could use terms, expressions and even scripture in less than a conventional manner, Paul's amazing writing, his ability to layer meaning upon meaning, his impressive language and deep biblical truths may be confusing on occassion (2 Pet 3:16(a), but his work is immensely satisfying to those looking for the meatier matters of truth.

Thanks JW - it was actually the Romans passage which I said spells Paul's doctrine out in black-and-white terms. I'll look forward to your response to that before replying more fully.

------------

I'd like to see if anyone disagrees that this quoted paragraph from the 17th Homily is flat out describing Paul.

If, then, our Yeshua appeared to you in a vision, made himself known to you, and spoke to you, It was as one who Is enraged with an adversary; and this Is the reason why It was through visions and dreams, or through revelations that were from without, that He spoke to you. But can any one be rendered fit for instruction through apparitions? And if you will say, "It is possible," then I ask, "Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those of us who were awake?" And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? But If you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, Interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For In direct opposition to me, who am Arm rock, the foundation of the church, you now stand. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. But It you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation. But If, Indeed, you really wish to work In the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow worker with us. (Homily XVII, 19)

It could be about Paul; but the only thing which overtly suggests that is the 'vision' aspect of it. The rest could be applied to any perceived adversary of the Petrine church, and Wikipedia also mentions possibilities suggested by other scholars of reference to Basilides, Valentinus or Marcion (link). If it was directed against gnostic adversaries, then even the 'vision' aspect might recall their mystical gnosis rather than necessarily referring to Paul. And in fact it looks like that very homily suggests through the teaching of Simon that the work is indeed directed against a gnostic adversary:

• Homily 17.4
  But that [Jesus] did not really call Him who is the framer of the world good, is plain to any one who can reflect. For the framer of the world was known to Adam whom He had made, and to Enoch who pleased Him, and to Noah who was seen to be just by Him; likewise to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; also to Moses, and the people, and the whole world. But Jesus, the teacher of Peter himself, came and said, “No one knew the Father except the Son, as no one knoweth even the Son except the Father, and those to whom the Son may wish to reveal Him.� If, then, it was the Son himself who was present, it was from the time of his appearance that he began to reveal to those to whom he wished, Him who was unknown to all. And thus the Father was unknown to all who lived before him, and could not thus be He who was known to all.

Here we see that Simon represents the view of the gnostics and of Marcion (and not of Paul) that the Creator, the Jewish God, was not the same as the Father whom Jesus revealed. I know very little on the subject, but from this brief glance at the seventeenth homily at least, it seems as though the contention is not about obedience to the law as we might expect if it was an anti-Pauline work. It seems directed instead against second-century heresies.

http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/clement ... essage.htm

I'd be hard-pressed to read that site if I was paid.

Good to know.

God save us from folk who think that garish colours make their information more correct or more believable.

I highly doubt they think the coloring makes their words more or less believeable.

From your quoted comments (removed above for brevity), I see two scholars I'd never previously heard of saying that the late second-century 'Clementine literature' (possibly even later) condemns Paul in a rather obscure fashion.

What's so obscure about it? They're quite clear. Even the Wikipedia article discusses the widespread notion that Simon Magus is a code word for Paul, make what you will of Wikipedia, the sources are the same.

And "the notorious F.C. Baur" of course. The theory presented by your site is that the authors of these documents believed they were "vital information" whose preservation was more important than directly condemning Pauline theology.

It's interesting to learn those views, but a link and a quote from that page aren't the same as relevant discussion. Why are those interpretations of late second-century Christian texts relevant to the question of Paul's teachings compared with Jesus' teachings?

Okay, so let's discuss it. As for Late-second century texts, why don't we begin the discussion with why we know for a fact they are late second century, and what groups and individuals considered them authentic and doctrinally correct?

As far as I gathered from my brief glance they were quoted by Origen, but otherwise completely unknown until the 4th century - and there's even claims that the Origen passages are not reliable. You quoted Georg Strecker earlier, who apparently shares with others the view that Kerygmata Petrou was a source for the hypothesised basic document on which the Homilies and Recognitions were based:

• http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/k ... etrou.html
  Georg Strecker writes (op. cit., p. 493):
  
  The terminus a quo for the origin of the basic document is Bardesanes' work Peri Eimarmenhs, to which the section R IX 19-29 goes back. The earliest possible time of origin is thus A.D. 220. Establishing the terminus ad quem is substantially more difficult. The use of the basic document by Epiphanius takes us back at the earliest to the middle of the 4th century. There thus remains as the most obvious clue only the time of composition of the Homilies in the first two decades of the 4th century (cf. above, p. 485), which results in a range from 220 to 300 with the year 260 A.D. as the arithmetical mean. This is also the lower limit [upper bound?] for the origin of the KP document. For the latter there is no firm foundation for establishing the terminus a quo. We may not go too far back into the 2nd century, since then we should not be able to understand why there is no evidence for the Kerygmata outside of the basic document

Thus, a scholar you cited earlier argues that Kerygmata Petrou was late or at best mid second-century, the source document for Homilies and Recognitions was written around 220-300CE, and the latter two themselves were written in the 4th century.

Like I say, I know next to nothing on the subject, but I assumed a late second-century date in light of the possible quotation by Origen. According to one of your sources, however, my assumption was far too early.

The main issue however is whether Paul's idea that the Law is not necessary contradicts with Jesus's teaching absolute obedience to the Law of Moses as a necessary pre-requisite for righteous living. Why do you suppose James even mentioned the "faith without works is dead" thing, if there was not some rival group preaching such an idea?

The epistle attributed to James speaks out on a number of subjects, including the view that salvation can accompany faith without works. It's obviously true that some Christians held that view, perhaps even using Paul's ideas to justify themselves. But as Jehovah's Witness, myself and others have pointed out, Paul himself didn't teach that view. He was quite emphatic that living in the Spirit involved holy and above all loving behaviour, and in fact he explicitly argues against early libertines on several occasions (1 Cor. 10, Galatians 5). As far as Jesus' teachings go, we're going to come up with different answers depending on which gospel we look at; I think I'll continue my thoughts on the subject in a post after this one

[Mithrae]

A brief recap of my previous post regarding Jesus...

On the Jesus side of things, my speculation centers around three not-very-controversial points:
His self-identity - Jesus considered himself Messiah. . . .

His death - . . . . according to the earliest gospel Mark Jesus declared to Pilate's face that he was king of the Jews (15:2), all but signing his own death warrant. All four gospels have Jesus arguing with and even provoking both Pharisees and Saducees (or 'the Jews' in John); the synoptics have him declaring even before the Sanhedrin that he's Christ and Son of God, while John has him openly declare "I and the Father are one." All four gospels have him causing a major disturbance in the temple during Passover, when Jerusalem was crowded with folk celebrating a prior release from captivity; in the synoptic gospels this occurs shortly before his arrest and crucifixion. From the latter in particular I have to ask: Did Jesus deliberately provoke his own fate? Or was he expecting God to come to his aid?

His teachings - To my understanding the gospel teachings of Jesus most widely regarded as most genuine are, very broadly, the agricultural parables, the teachings on the 'kingdom of God' and the moral teachings along the lines of the sermon on the mount - especially those most characteristic of Mark or the Q source. But far as I can tell, the parables and the moral teachings pretty much preclude the possibility that Jesus the so-called Messiah was planning any kind of rebellion against Roman authority; Jewish independence simply does not figure in these most genuine aspects of his views. . . . [Snip 'kingdom of God' discussion]



As far as I know, these three are not outlandish or particularly controversial points, though reading too much into any one of them without reference to the whole picture can lead to problems. For example, there's the concept of 'Messiah,' which is often assumed to refer only to a Davidic king-type figure. With her knowledge of the DSS, Catalyst has elsewhere suggested that as far as the Qumran community is concerned at least, such a simplistic view simply does not wholly match the historical evidence available. Personally, I've long considered it curious that (as far as I'm aware) in the Tanakh there are only two occasions on which 'messiah' specifically refers to a future figure; in deutero-Isaiah it refers to Cyrus, and in Daniel 9:26 we read that
"after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary..." (Judaica Press translation)

At no point since the 6th century BCE were the city and the sanctuary destroyed, but that's what Daniel predicted. As of the turn of the millenium, in other words, for all intents and purposes this was an as-yet unfulfilled prediction that "the anointed one" would die. So while it was not typical of 1st century Jewish 'messiahs,' in all honesty I find it quite remarkable that few (if any) scholarly views that I've come across in my ramblings even consider the possibility that the 'messiah' was to die. Overwhelmingly, this is presumed to be a Christian post-rationalisation rather than even a remote possibility of ancient Jewish exegesis. But, while recognising the more prevalent view of a 'messiah' at the time (who is not termed such in the Tanakh), the view that a messiah would die followed by the destruction of Jerusalem does seem to be a fairly obvious interpretation of that passage - and not yet fulfilled by the turn of the millenium, as I say.

This post is getting quite long, so I'll leave it at that for now. But these points lay the foundations, as I see them, for two areas of speculation:

- Since Jesus considered himself Messiah, since his apparently most genuine teachings don't show much in the way of advocating or anticipating a physical human kingdom, and since the accounts we have seem to all but state that he essentially provoked his own execution - we should at least consider the possibility that Jesus might have derived the concept of a dying Messiah from Daniel 9, and what that might entail

- Or even if that wasn't Jesus' own notion of Messiah, we should recognise that preserving their belief in him as Messiah after his death must surely have required his disciples to build on that foundation - in short that Paul's conception of Christ may well have expanded on the original church's, but in all probability it wasn't wholly foreign to how they already understood him

We're in the unfortunate position of having for information regarding Jesus only four gospels which were written some decades after his death. My own tentative views on the gospels, most of which have been discussed at length elsewhere, are as follows:
Mark (c 65-71 CE), probably written by Peter's interpreter
'Matthew' (c 70-74 CE), based on Mark and written for Jewish Christians
Luke/Acts (c 76-90? CE), probably written by a companion of Paul
John (c 85?-100? CE), non-historical but probably written by a disciple of Jesus

There's also the 'Q' material, which can be viewed as either material from Matthew which Luke endorsed by inclusion into his gospel or - the view which I believe is held by a slim majority of scholars - as the hypothesised source document which both Matthew and Luke used alongside Mark in forming their gospels. I favour the latter, and further speculate that this sayings source might even be identified with the "sayings of the Lord" which Papias says the disciple Matthew recorded. But either way, the dual-tradition Q material is probably a more reliable indicator of earlier Christian views on Jesus than material found only in Matthew or Luke. A handy hyper-linked parallel columns for the Q twosome can be accessed here.



So given those constraints on our knowledge, what can we say about Jesus? Was he a typical Jew? Did he uphold the Law of Moses? Did Paul distort his teachings and oppose his disciples?

Paul certainly acknowledges some tension between himself, Peter and perhaps especially Jesus' brother James regarding whether or not Jewish followers of Jesus should follow the Law. But I think it's interesting that, while acknowledging that tension and even direct conflict between himself and Peter, he writes to the Galatians that Peter wasn't strictly observant of the Law (Gal. 2:11-14). Acts 10 claims that as the movement spread beyond Judea Peter was the first of the disciples to embrace Gentile followers, without imposing Moses' law on them. Later church tradition has Peter in Rome at the time of his death - possibly speaking only to the Jews there, but more likely to Gentiles also. I'm not sure whether we'd be justified in simply dismissing Paul's claim about Peter as propaganda, though it's certainly possible that Peter was an observant Jew; but even then in all likelihood he didn't consider Jesus' teachings to be for Jews only, or that Gentiles should be obliged to follow the Law of Moses.

This is reflected in Mark's gospel, through the story in which Jesus heals a Syrian Phoenecian woman (7:24-30). In response to her pleas for help, Jesus is portrayed as saying "First let the children eat all they want, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs." But eventually he heals her daughter; the implication of course being that while Jews have privileged access to God's favour, Gentiles are certainly not excluded. Curiously, this story comes right after one in which Jesus argues with some Jews about the Law of Moses:

• Mark 7:9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.â€�
  14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.�
  17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?� he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.� (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Here Jesus, according to Mark, directly contradicted the law of Moses. Similarly in an earlier story Jesus doesn't argue that picking corn on the Sabbath was lawful (though Moses had someone executed for gathering firewood), he instead declares that "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:23-3:6).

It seems that according to Mark Jesus did indeed question the validity of the law of Moses. Another interesting passage is found amongst the Q material in Luke:

• Luke 16.16 " The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void.
  18 " Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Verse 18 is based on Mark 10:11-12 rather than Q but, since it doesn't fit the story after that, I think it gives us a good idea what Luke thought about the Q material of verse 17 (cf. Matthew 5:18). Jesus also said elsewhere that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25); but immediately after thus implying the permanence of the law, Luke inserts Mark's story of Jesus once again contradicting it by saying that it's adultery to marry a divorced woman (cf. Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

But the particularly interesting aspect of this passage is the implication in verse 16 that the law and the prophets have been replaced by the 'kingdom of God.' "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached..." Even the Jewish Christian gospel Matthew, which carefully presents Jesus as upholding, reinforcing and 'fulfilling' the law (5:17-20), rather implies the same thing as Luke (all Q material below):

• Matthew 11:7 As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken by the wind?
  8 Why then did you go out? To see a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, those who wear soft raiment are in kings' houses. 9 Why then did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10 This is he of whom it is written, 'Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.' 11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of [God] is greater than he.
  12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of [God] has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Eli'jah who is to come. 15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

---

If we suppose that the Q material (like Mark) has Jesus suggesting that the law and the prophets have been replaced by the 'kingdom of God,' I guess the question is what did Jesus mean by this kingdom of God in order for it to make sense?

Matthew uniquely changed kingdom of God into 'kingdom of heaven' on most occasions, apparently believing that the temple's destruction proved that Christ was about to return and reign on earth (Matthew 10:23, 16:28; cf Daniel 9:26-27). Writing later, Luke inserted an indefinite "times of the Gentiles" into the eschatological prophecy (21:24), and his Jesus says that "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst" (17:20-21). Luke probably believed that "the kingdom of God present with power" (Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27) was best understood as the coming of the Holy Spirit which he describes in Acts and relates to the beginning of Joel's 'day of the Lord' (Acts 2:16ff).

I believe that Mark was probably written before the temple's destruction, and his 'kingdom of God' is not an overtly eschatological concept. Rather, it seems to refer to a message, or to the transformation and growth which it produces; God's dominion in people's lives rather than over a literal government:

• Mark 4:10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. . . .
  13 And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 And these are the ones by the wayside where the word is sown. When they hear, Satan comes immediately and takes away the word that was sown in their hearts. . . . 20 But these are the ones sown on good ground, those who hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.� . . . .
  
  26 And He said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground, 27 and should sleep by night and rise by day, and the seed should sprout and grow, he himself does not know how. 28 For the earth yields crops by itself: first the blade, then the head, after that the full grain in the head. 29 But when the grain ripens, immediately he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.�
  
  30 Then He said, “To what shall we liken the kingdom of God? Or with what parable shall we picture it? 31 It is like a mustard seed which, when it is sown on the ground, is smaller than all the seeds on earth; 32 but when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all herbs, and shoots out large branches, so that the birds of the air may nest under its shade.�
  
  
  Mark 10:14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.�
  
  Mark 10:21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,� he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.�
  22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
  23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!�
  24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.�
  
  Mark 12:32 “Well said, teacher,� the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.�
  34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.�

But in what way does this, even the recognition that love for God and others is more important than offerings or sacrifices, justify supplanting the law of Moses? I think that the above (Q) quote from Matthew's gospel, about the role of John the Baptist and presence of the kingdom of God, may well provide the answer. It contains a reference to the prophet Malachi - the very same reference which begins Mark's gospel (1:2).

• Malachi 3:1 Behold, I send my messenger,
  And he will prepare the way before me.
  And the Lord, whom you seek,
  Will suddenly come to his temple,
  Even the messenger of the covenant,
  In whom you delight.
  Behold, he is coming,�
  Says the LORD of hosts.

The authors of both Mark and Q apparently believed that Jesus was the 'messenger of the covenant' spoken of by Malachi (or perhaps John was, depending on translation). In fact in Mark Jesus explicitly says "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (14:24).

- Bear in mind that Jesus considered himself Messiah
- But there's nevertheless scant suggestion that he was anticipating a Davidic kingdom
- Recall also that his actions seem essentially to have provoked his own death
- And as of Jesus' day, Daniel 9:26 was the sole future reference to 'messiah' in the Tanakh
- It seems that in both Mark and the Q material, Jesus apparently supplanted the law with his 'kingdom of God'
- And both Mark and Q relate him and John to a prophecy about the 'messenger of the covenant'

So with all this in mind, what else could the role of a dying Messiah be, except to bring in a new covenant in the manner suggested by Christian theology? We're limited by our sources regarding Jesus of course, but it does seem all but indisputable that his earliest followers did indeed believe in him as a Messiah who had nevertheless been shamefully executed. Paul's notion of a new covenant and the end of the law may well be widely regarded as un-Jewish (despite being prophecied in Jeremiah 31:31-34), but is it any more un-Jewish than believing in a crucified Messiah? Far from the question of the law representing a fundamental dichotomy between Paul and Peter, surely it's more plausible that the death of the Messiah could only make sense if his role was understood as starting something big and new?

[Shermana]

Real quick, the idea that Jesus "made all foods clean" is a mangled translation, because its not even in the past tense. It should read as "It (The stomach) purges all foods". One problem is that "It" and "he" can be interchanged, but if the translators have to resort to changing the tense from present to past, that tells you something. Also, the disciples ask him what is the meaning of this PARABLE, and he doesn't deny that it's a parable. Thus, what he was saying was not directly that you can eat whatever you want. Otherwise, Jesus was saying you can go put anything (and I mean ANYTHING) in your mouth. Also important is to look at the context of what the episode was about, the whole "You strain for gnats while swallowing camels". The concept was about ritualized handwashing that had no scriptural basis, and comparing it to another unscriptural ruling.

11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.�

If Jesus truly said one could violate the Dietary Laws, he would contradict himself in Matthew 5:17-20 and Luke 16:17 about "not one iota" of the Law being void, as well as leave a wide can of worms open to things you could eat: like worms. And worse. Much, much, much worse. In fact, one could say that this allows missionaries to accept Cannibal's meal offerings.

As for the Sabbath, picking heads of grain is hardly work. Chopping trees into firewood is work. Much work. Not only that, he was saying that it was a special instance, comparing it to when David (a special person) took the Shewbread to survive. You can't compare the situation to anything except a hungry Apostle on the run from the authorities, thus he's not giving the green light to grab an axe and start cutting trees on Sabbath. At best he's saying you can pick heads of grain if you're hungry and have no other option cause you're on being hunted. Likewise, you can also rescue your animal from a ditch if even it takes a little exertion. Even modern Rabbis say its okay for surgeons to perform life-saving work on Sabbath, which is not too far removed from the concept.

I'd also like to get into why Origen's evidence of the use of the Pseudo-Clementies is "unreliable" exactly, and assuming it was reliable, you'd have to assume that they existed for at least a little while before him, and as for the lack of evidence to their early existence, that's an ambiguous field since there's not only much speculation that many documents were destroyed after the 4th centur, we have yet to discover everything yet, and there's really not that many writers to quote from to begin with in that period. As for saying it could be Marcion, it should be noted that Marcion was one of the first strict 'Paulinists', though I don't know of any claims that he had supernatural visions or could work miracles.

[Mithrae]

Real quick, the idea that Jesus "made all foods clean" is a mangled translation, because its not even in the past tense. It should read as "It (The stomach) purges all foods". One problem is that "It" and "he" can be interchanged, but if the translators have to resort to changing the tense from present to past, that tells you something. Also, the disciples ask him what is the meaning of this PARABLE, and he doesn't deny that it's a parable. Thus, what he was saying was not directly that you can eat whatever you want. Otherwise, Jesus was saying you can go put anything (and I mean ANYTHING) in your mouth. Also important is to look at the context of what the episode was about, the whole "You strain for gnats while swallowing camels". The concept was about ritualized handwashing that had no scriptural basis, and comparing it to another unscriptural ruling.

11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.�

If Jesus truly said one could violate the Dietary Laws, he would contradict himself in Matthew 5:17-20 and Luke 16:17 about "not one iota" of the Law being void, as well as leave a wide can of worms open to things you could eat: like worms. And worse. Much, much, much worse. In fact, one could say that this allows missionaries to accept Cannibal's meal offerings.

I don't think setting aside dietary laws necessarily makes ritual sacrifice or murder acceptable, do you? And it doesn't take a genius to realise that Paul was right in saying that just because everything is permissible to eat doesn't mean that everything is beneficial (1 Cor. 10:23). A can of worms would probably be better than a lot of the junk food we consume, depending on the species

Regardless of whether you're correct about the parenthetical comment (I accidentally used the NIV for that one, which I try to avoid), the meaning of the passage seems pretty clear; what goes into a person doesn't defile them, it's what comes out that does. In fact we can get a pretty good idea of what Mark meant by the changes which Matthew (15:10-20) made to the passage, downplaying 'what goes in can't defile a man' and specifying that Matthew's version of Jesus was referring only to eating with unwashed hands. Matthew cleaned it up a little, as it were, because knew that his Jewish Christian audience wouldn't be happy with Mark's version as it stood.

So you're right that the Mark passage contradicts Matthew 5:17-20. But I've commented on Luke 16:16-18 above; Luke precedes Jesus' comment about the permanence of the law with the saying that it's been replaced by the kingdom of God, and follows it with another incidence of Jesus contradicting the law. (Incidentally ThatGirl if you're reading this, I wonder why Luke included v17 at all?) Trying to read any of the gospels as if they always agree with the others is just going to cloud our understanding of them all.

As for the Sabbath, picking heads of grain is hardly work. Chopping trees into firewood is work. Much work. Not only that, he was saying that it was a special instance, comparing it to when David (a special person) took the Shewbread to survive. You can't compare the situation to anything except a hungry Apostle on the run from the authorities, thus he's not giving the green light to grab an axe and start cutting trees on Sabbath. At best he's saying you can pick heads of grain if you're hungry and have no other option cause you're on being hunted. Likewise, you can also rescue your animal from a ditch if even it takes a little exertion. Even modern Rabbis say its okay for surgeons to perform life-saving work on Sabbath, which is not too far removed from the concept.

Aye, we've spoken on this before, and you might have noticed that I refined my comments a little Whether or not you can argue that the disciples' actions were lawful, the point is that Jesus didn't. He cited an example to show that violating the law can be acceptable, but ultimately his point was that we're not meant to be slaves to the Sabbath - "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Once again, this is something which Matthew (12:1-8) predictably censors from his version of the story, and even implies that the disciples' actions were acceptable only because Jesus was there. The disciples may or may not have been violating the Sabbath, but in Mark the story (back-to-back with the less controversial but similar healing on the Sabbath) at least implies that Jesus was calling the Sabbath law into question.

I'd also like to get into why Origen's evidence of the use of the Pseudo-Clementies is "unreliable" exactly, and assuming it was reliable, you'd have to assume that they existed for at least a little while before him, and as for the lack of evidence to their early existence, that's an ambiguous field since there's not only much speculation that many documents were destroyed after the 4th centur, we have yet to discover everything yet, and there's really not that many writers to quote from to begin with in that period. As for saying it could be Marcion, it should be noted that Marcion was one of the first strict 'Paulinists', though I don't know of any claims that he had supernatural visions or could work miracles.

Marcion believed that the teachings of Jesus (not just of Paul) contradicted the Tanakh, and used Luke's gospel as the best one for his view. His theology developed because of that contrast between Jesus' teachings and the views of the culture he taught in; why else would he even bother acknowledging Yahweh as a creator god or demiurge? His docetic view of Jesus obviously would have come from some Pauline passages, though some others he would have needed to excise or drastically re-interpret (discussion almost on that very subject here). But ultimately in viewing Christianity as separate and opposed to Judaism, rather than a new covenant from the same God, Marcion wasn't strictly following either Paul or Jesus.

In any case, I wonder whether you believe that 1 Clement is genuine late 1st century material? From what I know on the subject, it's almost certainly earlier and more likely to be genuine than the 'pseudo-Clementine' literature, and in it the Roman church commends Paul and his epistle to the Corinthians:

• 1Clem 5:4
  There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
  not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
  his appointed place of glory.
  1Clem 5:5
  By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
  prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
  bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
  the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
  reward of his faith,
  1Clem 5:6
  having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
  the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
  before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
  holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.
  1Clem 6:1
  Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the
  elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims
  of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves.
  
  1Clem 46:9
  Your division hath perverted many; it hath brought many to despair,
  many to doubting, and all of us to sorrow. And your sedition still
  continueth.
  1Clem 47:1
  Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.
  1Clem 47:2
  What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?
  1Clem 47:3
  Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas
  and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties.

Point is that from what I've learned there's very little reason to believe that the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions are genuine sub-apostolic Petrine condemnation of Paul - there's little evidence and definitely other possibilities. And even if the above aren't the words of Clement himself, it's at least stronger evidence than the pseudo-Clementines as to the views of Clement's successors.

[Shermana]

As I've said in another thread (long ago), Cannibalism isn't murder if the person is dead by some other means. Also, this would open up the idea to eating rotting, decaying, or diseased carcasses. That and the fact that the teaching is called a Parable, should demonstrate that it wasn't a flat out call to eat whatever you want. Peter's vision in Acts should also demonstrate that they still maintained the Dietary Laws, since the purpose of the vision was to metaphorically convey that gentiles are now allowed to enter the church, though Peter refused to eat the unclean things.

The parts where the Gospels don't agree I'd say are the most suspect places where interpolation occur. One of the reasons I contest John 20:28 for example is that it clashes with Matthew and Luke's ending.

I'll meet you halfway on the Sabbath thing, but I don't think Jesus called Sabbath Law itself into question, just that he was saying its okay to do certain things for emergencies.

I personally think that "Matthew" was originally an entirely different version called "Gospel to the Hebrews", and the later version of Matthew was an edited version. I also have reason to think the final result of Peter's scribe's "Mark" is the product of revisions. I also believe that the original version of Matthew was written before Mark, but this is a murky field that I hope one day future manuscript finds will shed light on. Could be Jewish bias too.

As for 1 Clement, my vote goes with the scholars like Loisy who say it comes from 130-140. I do think there's legitimate reasons for thinking the Pseudi-clementines are incorrectly named, and that Origen's reference is not so unreliable, and that they may have indeed been written during the time of the initial split between the Nazarenes and the Gentile "Pauline" church.

But the issue of whether Paul truly taught dissolution/unneccessariness of the Law is still up to debate, my vote goes to that he did as it stands, and thus in contrast to what I believe Jesus was teaching in Matthew.

[Mithrae]

Hey Shermana, sorry for the delayed reply; been distracted somewhat by WoW

As I've said in another thread (long ago), Cannibalism isn't murder if the person is dead by some other means. Also, this would open up the idea to eating rotting, decaying, or diseased carcasses. That and the fact that the teaching is called a Parable, should demonstrate that it wasn't a flat out call to eat whatever you want. Peter's vision in Acts should also demonstrate that they still maintained the Dietary Laws, since the purpose of the vision was to metaphorically convey that gentiles are now allowed to enter the church, though Peter refused to eat the unclean things.

I suspect that in most cases of death by other means there would be, as you say, a greater risk of disease or the like. But aside from the difficulty of morally obtaining safely-edible human flesh (even 'willing' victims raise the question of brainwashing or the like), personally I don't have any particular issue on that subject; but aside from necessary-for-survival cases, I can't imagine the question is likely to crop up. Like I say, there's a bit of a difference between eating anything that will stay down and merely being no longer obligated by bronze-age tribal dietary rules. Rotting-carcass hyperbole aside, and contrary to Goat's belief, I rather suspect that plenty of Jews, Jewish Christians and Muslims through the centuries have wondered whether bacon tastes as good as it smells

Peter's vision is one of three biblical cases which spring to mind where God commanded someone to do something they wouldn't normally do; he also told Ezekiel (ch4) to eat food cooked over human faeces, and he told Abraham to kill his own son as a sacrifice (Gen. 22). Abraham was willing to obey God, and was highly praised; Ezekiel refused God's command, but was permitted to use animal faeces instead; Peter refused God's command, and God commanded him a second time. The whole thrust of the vision, despite Peter's stubbornness, was that he should not be concerned about the ceremonial uncleanliness which restricted Jewish contact with Gentiles. I don't think this is a particularly sound basis on which to argue against Jesus' saying that what goes into the mouth cannot defile a person.

As for 1 Clement, my vote goes with the scholars like Loisy who say it comes from 130-140. I do think there's legitimate reasons for thinking the Pseudi-clementines are incorrectly named, and that Origen's reference is not so unreliable, and that they may have indeed been written during the time of the initial split between the Nazarenes and the Gentile "Pauline" church.

But the issue of whether Paul truly taught dissolution/unneccessariness of the Law is still up to debate, my vote goes to that he did as it stands, and thus in contrast to what I believe Jesus was teaching in Matthew.

I agree that Paul did teach that, and I agree that the author of Matthew would have disagreed.

My perspective is that a crucified Messiah on face value is absurd, and must have required an explanation. Obviously someone came up with the idea that the Messiah's life and death were concerned with ushering in the new covenant mentioned in the Tanakh. Maybe that notion started with Paul, whose zeal for the Law and efforts to earn God's favour couldn't quite see him through a crisis of faith. Or perhaps the seeds of the notion started with Peter and Jesus' other disciples, struggling to understand their Messiah's shameful death? Or maybe it started with Jesus himself, a bastard child who'd felt the cruel sting of elitism and emphasis on ritual purity among many in his culture, yet worried about the fate of their holy traditions if and when those separatist attitudes brought down the full wrath of Rome unto the prophecied destruction of their temple?

I agree that there were folk, like perhaps the author of Matthew, who may have thoroughly despised the 'good news' as Paul taught it to Gentiles. It may well have been a bit more radical and hellenized than the 'good news' which Peter believed in, and even less in line with the practices of the Jewish church under James' leadership. But, given the evidence at our disposal, I don't think we can make a case that Jesus was a typical, law-abiding Jew, since numerous stories from both Mark and the Q material (particularly in Luke) suggest quite the opposite. Maybe those impressions are misleading, distorted by decades of 'Pauline' influence; but I haven't yet come across an alternative view showing why typical, law-abiding Peter and the others could believe in a crucified Messiah.

[Shermana]

Perhaps this may be an easier way to settle it.

1. What is the criteria for a prophet according to the OT?
(Hint: Must not teach against any of the Laws)

2. Is Jesus not called a prophet?

That should square it away.

If I believed that Jesus was actually teaching to break a single "Iota" of the Law, I wouldn't be a Messianic Jew, and I'd say he got executed rightfully.

The whole thrust of the vision, despite Peter's stubbornness, was that he should not be concerned about the ceremonial uncleanliness

Absolutely incorrect, it clearly states the purpose of the vision was a metaphor saying that the gentiles are now allowed into the Church, any other interpretation is reading into something that's simply not there. This is a common point of contention, and numerous Law-abiders like the 7th day adventists and modern Messianic Jews will tell you the same. Mind you, I also consider the Book of Acts a bit dubious to begin with.

As for the cooking over burning Feces episode...surprisingly there is actually no commandment against it (as disgusting as it is), so...he wasn't really being told to violate the Law. As for sacrificing Isaac, he didn't actually do it. Can't really compare. Speaking of which, if Jesus really meant that you can put anything in your mouth...take your cat litter box and bon appetit, Jesus says its okay, right?

since numerous stories from both Mark and the Q material (particularly in Luke) suggest quite the opposite.

Not really. Like I said, it's a matter of interpretation, and the Nazarene Jews didn't interpret it to be Lawless as you and others are in this case. I don't see Jesus going against the Sabbath for example, likewise, I don't believe he was teaching that "All meats are now clean", I see those interpretations as utterly missing the entire point and context of what Jesus was trying to say.

As for "ritual purity" and "uncleanliness", these are concepts that I've noticed few outside of Orthodox Judaism tend to actually understand...at least as we do. The idea of "ritual purity" means SPIRITUAL purity, as in we have a real tangible defilement to our Soul when we indulge in such things. There's a lot of "mysticism" related to this subject. I don't think Jesus was going against the "Elitism of Ritual Purity" whatsoever, neither was James. If we want to see the story of Christ from a purely objective historical context, it's hard to not see him promoting a very hardline, strict, reactionary form of Torah obedience. Just like the Nazarenes and Ebionites followed.

Also, the "New covenant" involves the "Law being written on their hearts"...what could THAT mean? A New law? A changed law? No. The context is that the Moshiach will bring Israel (or those who accept him) back to the Law, which will be "written on their hearts".

I think you're on the right track nonetheless, in that modern interpretations of what Jesus was supposed to say has been warped and shaped by the divergent gentile church, and the Nazarenes would have likely been saying the same things I'm saying today, and there are many modern Nazarene and Ebionite groups that do.

[Mithrae]

Also, the "New covenant" involves the "Law being written on their hearts"...what could THAT mean? A New law? A changed law? No. The context is that the Moshiach will bring Israel (or those who accept him) back to the Law, which will be "written on their hearts".

I think you're on the right track nonetheless, in that modern interpretations of what Jesus was supposed to say has been warped and shaped by the divergent gentile church, and the Nazarenes would have likely been saying the same things I'm saying today, and there are many modern Nazarene and Ebionite groups that do.

That passage actually says specifically that the former covenant was broken, and that the new one will not be like it:

• Jeremiah 31:30. Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.
  31. Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.
  http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16028
  (Verses 31-32 in Christian translations)

I don't know what Jews think about all this, but I suspect most Christians with their 'old testament/covenant' don't really understand God's covenants with his people. The covenant mentioned here, when Israel left Egypt, is described in Exodus 20-23 (cf 24:5-8). No more, and no less. Another covenant was made 40 years later, on the far side of the Jordan just before Israel entered Canaan and became a true nation (Deuteronomy 29:1). God made other covenants with Abraham, before which there was no circumcision, with David, with Noah and so on. In the wider scheme of things, I don't see much value in the Christian concept of 'sin' as an actual thing by which our souls are tainted, as if things like planting two types of seed together or loving someone of the same sex were fundamentally wrong. If they're violating a covenant with God, then there's a problem, but it seems that Abraham was free to plough with an ox and donkey together to his heart's content.

God's covenant with Israel prohibited using different types of seed or cloth together (Deut. 22:9-11), the best explanation I can imagine being to reinforce the mindset of their own apartness from other nations, and prohibited the same types of gender from being together (Lev. 20:13) - possibly because that would inhibit population growth? All the laws in Deuteronomy about judges, kings, cities of refuge, rules for warfare and so on, along with the fact it was given just before Israel became a nation, suggest that it's purpose was because Israel was becoming a nation; not as universal or eternal laws. But Jeremiah's prophecy says that even the less specifically-oriented covenant made at Horeb was broken, and would be replaced by a new covenant which would not be like it.

Perhaps the only difference was to be that God's people would now have his law written on their hearts and minds (the desire and the knowledge to please him?), and that no-one would need to teach his neighbour because they would all know him. Even that, to my mind, calls into serious question the devoted Christian study and appeals to the Bible as the source for instruction on how to live. Hardly God's law written on hearts and minds, with no need to teach your neighbour!

But then how can you, if you believe this new covenant had come, be appealing to the written laws of Moses as instruction on how Jesus/Peter/Paul should have lived?

The whole thrust of the vision, despite Peter's stubbornness, was that he should not be concerned about the ceremonial uncleanliness

Absolutely incorrect, it clearly states the purpose of the vision was a metaphor saying that the gentiles are now allowed into the Church, any other interpretation is reading into something that's simply not there. This is a common point of contention, and numerous Law-abiders like the 7th day adventists and modern Messianic Jews will tell you the same. Mind you, I also consider the Book of Acts a bit dubious to begin with.

My understanding of ancient Judaism is far from perfect, but I understand that there are numerous situations given where a person who is ceremonially unclean will cause things or people they touch to be unclean also. Sometimes until the evening after washing, sometimes until ritually purified (eg. after touching a corpse) and sometimes things like clay vessels had to be destroyed entirely. Hence, such unclean people were to be kept entirely out of the Israelites' presence:

• Numbers 5:2. Command the children of Israel to banish from the camp all those afflicted with tzara'ath or with a male discharge, and all those unclean through [contact with] the dead.
  3. Both male and female you shall banish; you shall send them outside the camp, and they not defile their camps, in which I dwell among them.

This was the cause of Peter's reluctance to meet and eat with Gentiles, the reason behind the episode Paul describes in Galatians 2, and the meaning of Peter's vision: He was no longer to be concerned about this issue of ceremonial impurity in contact with Gentiles. He then went to the house of Roman soldier who almost certainly had not been purified of his corpse defilement; when he returned he was criticised for eating with unclean people (11:3), but ultimately the church decided that Gentiles were not to be obliged to obey Moses' law beyond some most important elements (15:19-21). I can see why you consider Acts dubious, because (written as it apparently was by one of his companions) it clearly supports Paul's message to the Gentiles.

It also has Peter associating with ceremonially unclean people, making himself unclean - after having been told by God not to call impure what he'd made clean! This is why I'm surprised you brought it up, since it clearly invalidates aspects of the Law of Moses.

Perhaps this may be an easier way to settle it.

1. What is the criteria for a prophet according to the OT?
(Hint: Must not teach against any of the Laws)

2. Is Jesus not called a prophet?

That should square it away.
If I believed that Jesus was actually teaching to break a single "Iota" of the Law, I wouldn't be a Messianic Jew, and I'd say he got executed rightfully.

What I'm trying to understand, as suggested by the last sentence of my former post, is what this crucified Messiah actually did or meant, if not to bring about some significant change?

Do you agree with the Christian view that this crucified Messiah took away the sins of the world, as per Isaiah 53? If so, wouldn't that invalidate the Mosaic sacrificial system (which, of course, ceased a few decades after Jesus' death)? That's a lot more than a single iota of the Law, so I'm assuming you don't believe that's what he did.

Do you believe that this crucified Messiah did indeed usher in Jeremiah's new covenant? But what is the difference between the new covenant and the old ones? At least Christians believe there was a significant change, even if they still appeal to teachings and instructions written by others, the 'letter of the law' as Paul calls it rather than the Spirit which brings life (2 Cor. 3:3-6). But a Messiah who came and was crucified in order to really change nothing? 'spose it's possible.

Do you believe that this crucified Messiah was to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6), calling them to be circumcised and abstain from pig and prawns and dilligently study their Torah to learn what else God demands of them? Of course according to the Law whose single jot or tittle shall never pass away, quite a few Gentiles will forever be excluded from among God's people (Deut. 23:1-6) - my sisters and all of their descendants unto the tenth generation, for example. Again, I guess it's possible that this is what the crucified Messiah was all about also, though since few Gentiles have heeded that call it seems even that rather selective plan of God's didn't succeed very well.


Are one of those, or all of them, how we're supposed to believe Peter and Jesus' other disciples understood their Messiah in the months after his shameful execution? To my mind it just doesn't make sense that they'd wind up believing the Messiah had come and been crucified without really accomplishing or changing anything. Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me just as likely that Peter and the others (if not Jesus himself) originated the new covenant and change of the law notions which Paul later expanded on further, proclaiming the end of the law.