How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Who Put The Sermon on the Mount in the M   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Who Put The Sermon on the Mount in the Mouth of Jesus

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Philmont
Member
since 01-10-2004
Posts 60


0 posted 02-13-2005 02:39 PM       View Profile for Philmont   Email Philmont   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Philmont

My question is as the title says.  Someone recently told me that the sermon on the mount was in fact put in the mouth of Jesus.  The guy said this as though it were a commonly held belief.  Perhaps some authorities on the Bible can clarify how scholars have arrived at this conclusion?  Also, all you educated Christians out there, who supposedly accept as fact that the sermon was in fact put in the mouth of Jesus, can perhaps specify why you still think it's valid since it's just made up.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


1 posted 02-13-2005 06:10 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Some do say that the "Sermon on the Mount" is not a literal once-given sermon, but rather a collection of differernt sayings of Jesus passed on by oral tradition.  This may have some truth in it.  But, even so, it doesn't mean that the main body of the sermon itself wasn't delivered in actuality, literally from the hillside in one discourse.  Most teachers (good ones anyway) have repetitive themes that are taught at many different times throughout the teachers' career.  It's not at all inconceivable that such was the case with the sermon on the mount, with many of it's parts and themes being spoken throughout the teaching ministry of Jesus, as well as in that summarizing fashion on the mount.  


Others conclude (falsely in my opinion) that since the content is similar in many ways to Paul's teachings, that the influence of Paul had to do with these sayings being "put in the mouth" of Jesus.  But if you remember, Paul was first and foremost a follower of Jesus, and of his teachings.  The natural conclusion is not that Paul put these sayings in the mouth of Jesus, but the other way around.


So overall, I don't think there's sufficient evidence that it's "just made up".  Also it requires too much awkward reconstruction to try and say it all came from Paul.


Stephen
~DreamChild~
Senior Member
since 04-23-2001
Posts 544
in your dreams


2 posted 02-13-2005 06:51 PM       View Profile for ~DreamChild~   Email ~DreamChild~   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ~DreamChild~

well on stephen. i agree completely.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


3 posted 02-14-2005 10:38 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
But if you remember, Paul was first and foremost a follower of Jesus, and of his teachings.


Ah but that's not exactly true is it? Saul was first and foremost a hunter/persecutor of Christians.

quote:
Also it requires too much awkward reconstruction to try and say it all came from Paul.


Perhaps, but where Paul is concerned much is awkward. His history, his conversion, and the conflicts between his teachings and those of Jesus/James.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


4 posted 02-14-2005 11:17 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

quote:
Perhaps, but where Paul is concerned much is awkward. His history, his conversion, and the conflicts between his teachings and those of Jesus/James.


Which teachings were substantively different?  You're not dredging up the old "faith without works is dead" vs. "we are save by faith alone, not of works" argument, are you?
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


5 posted 02-14-2005 11:42 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
You're not dredging up the old "faith without works is dead" vs. "we are save by faith alone, not of works" argument, are you?


Nope, I'm dredging up the old "adherence to the Law" vs "my gentile/roman-friendly visions"

though, "faith without works is dead" always made more sense to me
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


6 posted 02-14-2005 02:28 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Paul would (and did, I think) agree with James.  The confusion doesn't lie with Pauline or Jerusalem schools of early Christian thought - the confusion lies with modern readers who confound the indicative and imperative.  I.e., We bark because we are dogs, we don't bark to become dogs.  We do good things because we are Christians - we don't do good things to become Christians.  Good works proceed from faith, they are not a means to faith.  Under this rubric, both Paul and James speak without contradiction - Paul (in Galatians): We are saved by grace alone through faith ... yet we should not be lulled into antimomianism ... so beware - don't take your salvation for granted.  James: Since works are evidence of true faith, where there are no good works, there is no faith ... so beware - don't take your salvation for granted.

Or do you think God really cares whether or not my manhood still bears its foreskin?

Jim
Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 09-10-2001
Posts 10765
United States


7 posted 02-14-2005 07:40 PM       View Profile for Larry C   Email Larry C   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Larry C's Home Page   View IP for Larry C

Philmont,
And what is your underlying desire? To be persuaded about Jesus?

If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


8 posted 02-14-2005 08:17 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I've actually been thinking about this for days, but...sigh,

the only answer I hear is

"Who put the bops in the bop shoo bop shoo bop? Who put the ram in the rama
lama ding dong?"

Meaning, I guess, it doesn't much matter to me.

*shrug*

I just dance.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


9 posted 02-14-2005 09:35 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
Paul would (and did, I think) agree with James.  The confusion doesn't lie with Pauline or Jerusalem schools of early Christian thought - the confusion lies with modern readers who confound the indicative and imperative


I disagree, its hardly an issue of 'modern readers' when schisms have existed within christianity since its creation.

Nor is it, in my opinion, a matter of confusion. I think there are clear distinctions between Pauline thought and the early christians. Instances throughout Acts clearly show Paul was at odds with the apostles/sect.

The confusion, lies instead, from the repackaging of christianity for a gentile audience.

quote:
Or do you think God really cares whether or not my manhood still bears its foreskin?


I'm personally not a believer. But if I am to believe what has been written of God through the OT, and through the sermons of Jesus, then yes, adherence to the Law should be observed.The words of the apostle/sect who actually lived/served with Jesus over those of the 'reborn' persecutor whose only contact is a brief vision in the desert.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


10 posted 02-16-2005 07:51 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Raph:
quote:
where Paul is concerned much is awkward. His history, his conversion, and the conflicts between his teachings and those of Jesus/James.



You say these things are awkward.  But can you present particulars that would cast doubt on the historicity of Paul, or of his personal conversion?  Also, exactly what teachings contradict those of Jesus and James?  


Being fairly familiar with the teachings of Jesus, Paul, and James,  I don't see any "conflict" between them.  Though there are different emphases with each respective teacher, and dialectical tensions involved, I see Paul's teaching as a natural outgrowth of what Jesus said and did.  What is seed in the Gospels, becomes a full grown tree in the epistles.  But what's important is that the seed IS readily found in the Gospels.  Unless you want to argue that whatever is in the Gospels which even hints of Paul was put there (at a later date) by Paul and his flock.  But as I am addressing in the "Religion" thread, this argument seems to have nothing substantial to back it.  There are no "earlier" Gospels with which to compare the canonical Gospels with, in order to say with authority "They have been changed".  

It's much simpler, and likely, that the Gospels are accurate, and that Paul's theology was just a direct result of Jesus' teachings ... a development rather than a perversion.


Stephen.  
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


11 posted 02-16-2005 11:41 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

"Paul's theology was just a direct result of Jesus' teachings"

We know of Paul's disagreements with the apostles and early sect. Who would have had more direct knowledge of Jesus' teachings, those of the sect that lived with Jesus or Paul who had no link before his fateful vision?

As for James, doesn't it strike you as odd, that such an important person to the early church, the leader of the sect has so little a contribution to the NT or known about him?
Probably not.

You have your faith, I have my doubts.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


12 posted 02-17-2005 09:08 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Me:  Paul's theology was just a direct result of Jesus' teachings


Raph:  We know of Paul's disagreements with the apostles and early sect. Who would have had more direct knowledge of Jesus' teachings, those of the sect that lived with Jesus or Paul who had no link before his fateful vision?



That depends on whether or not the "Christ" that Paul encountered on the Road to Damascus was really Christ or not.  


Also "indirect" knowledge does not necessarily mean incorrect knowledge.  There are many today who understand Newtonian Physics better than perhaps many who knew Isaac personally.  


Though, you do raise an interesting question.


Let me ask you one ...  Assume for a moment that the teachings of Jesus were really not just a reestablishment of Judaism.  That something more was intended than just a revival of strict adherence to the laws of Moses.  That Jesus really did claim to be more (not less) than a prophet, since all of the prophets of the OT strove to reestablish obedience to the Law.  That mission was nothing new.


Okay, assuming the above.  Let me ask:  If Peter, among other Jewish Christians, had observed Judaism all their lives, having it's tenets and assumptions hammered into them from infancy, do you really find it so incredible that they might revert back to an old and inadequate understanding of the law, as it relates to salvation?  Is it unreasonable to suppose they might vacillate in a moment of weakness?  Would this have ever been a temptation?  They were ALL Jews since birth, probably circumcised at eight days old.   While only some of them were with Jesus a mere three years.  (after all, we don't know that even most of the Judaizers "knew Jesus" personally, though some did, most notably Peter).


Also, didn't Jesus' own experience with Jewish disciples, on many occasions, illustrate that they sometimes played the part of "fools and slow of heart to believe?"  I don't say that deridingly, those were Jesus' own words who loved them more than anything.  I too know how hard it is for ME to let go of old ways of thinking, and to embrace fresh truth.


I'll return later to address your question about James.  I need to think about that one.


Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


13 posted 02-17-2005 09:15 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

I meant to answer this earlier and forgot ...


quote:
Me:  But if you remember, Paul was first and foremost a follower of Jesus, and of his teachings.


Raph:  Ah but that's not exactly true is it? Saul was first and foremost a hunter/persecutor of Christians.



When I said "first and foremost" I wasn't talking about "first" in the sense of chronology.  Of course Paul was previously a Zealous Jew who persecuted Christians.  But we were discussing about how some propose that the Christian Paul, (after he became a Christian) influenced the writing of the Sermon on The Mount.   So by "first and foremost", I meant in terms of his beliefs and allegience at that time.


Stephen.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


14 posted 02-18-2005 09:56 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
Also "indirect" knowledge does not necessarily mean incorrect knowledge.  There are many today who understand Newtonian Physics better than perhaps many who knew Isaac personally.


Are you speaking of people Newton might have associated with,friends aquantencies? Or other mathematicians/scientists working alongside or with his theories? Because I'm speaking of more than a mere association with Jesus. To be a part of his early sect, one would have had things clarified and questions answered under his tutolage.

quote:
Assume for a moment that the teachings of Jesus were really not just a reestablishment of Judaism.  That something more was intended than just a revival of strict adherence to the laws of Moses.  That Jesus really did claim to be more (not less) than a prophet, since all of the prophets of the OT strove to reestablish obedience to the Law.  That mission was nothing new.

Okay, assuming the above.  Let me ask:  If Peter, among other Jewish Christians, had observed Judaism all their lives, having it's tenets and assumptions hammered into them from infancy, do you really find it so incredible that they might revert back to an old and inadequate understanding of the law, as it relates to salvation?  Is it unreasonable to suppose they might vacillate in a moment of weakness?  Would this have ever been a temptation?  They were ALL Jews since birth, probably circumcised at eight days old.   While only some of them were with Jesus a mere three years.


I do believe Jesus had more than simply the restoration of Law in mind. As descendant of David, Jesus would have been heir to the throne. As Rabbi/King, Jesus may well have been seeking to restore power and create a secular state much like the Maccabean dynasty. As such, Jesus was, or viewed himself as the King/Saviour. Which the apostles, some hesitantly, believed and followed.

quote:
But we were discussing about how some propose that the Christian Paul, (after he became a Christian) influenced the writing of the Sermon on The Mount.   So by "first and foremost", I meant in terms of his beliefs and allegience at that time.


But those who question Paul's allegiances/beliefs, by looking at his past for example, would question whether his beliefs were in line with Jesus'

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


15 posted 02-20-2005 03:06 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

"But if you show partiality, you are commiting sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of of all

For He who sais "Do not commit adultery" also said " Do not commit murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder,you have become transgressors of the law"

James 2:9-11

Why have I quoted this? Because it's an example of the differences between Pauline thought and the early Sect. James is explicit: 'For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of of all'

It illustrates that strict adherence to the law was core to the early sects beliefs. Even the slightest deviation of the law, according to James, is a transgression.  

This chapter is also important because it warns, at least in my opinion, against showing partiality to Jesus(read James 2:1-4)over the law, which the diefication/glorification of Pauline christianity fails to do.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


16 posted 02-20-2005 09:44 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
It illustrates that strict adherence to the law was core to the early sects beliefs.

Not to me. To me, it demonstrates that strict adherence to the law is impossible and, more importantly, was recognized as impossible. That road leads only to failure.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


17 posted 02-20-2005 12:23 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

On it's own it can be interpreted that way, but placed in the context of chapter 2, and all of James really, I believe otherwise.

First we'll have to look at the full quote.

"If however, you are fulfilling the royal law, according to Scripture, "You Shall Love Your Neighbour As Yourself," you are doing well

But if you show partiality, you are commiting sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of of all

For He who sais "Do not commit adultery" also said " Do not commit murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder,you have become transgressors of the law"

James first expresses that adherence to the royal law is the correct path, he then asserts that failure to do so is a transgression offering up an example.

Second, James is equally explicit in the preceeding chapter.

"But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does."

James 1:25

It wouldn't make sense to call a law impossible to fulfill, the perfect law.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


18 posted 02-21-2005 08:58 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Aenimal:

quote:
As for James, doesn't it strike you as odd, that such an important person to the early church, the leader of the sect has so little a contribution to the NT or known about him?


Geography and history explain it.  First, Paul's missionary activity involved him with churches throughout Asia Minor, Greece and Rome, making letter-writing a necessity.  James was Bishop of the Jerusalem church, wrote well before the other NT writers, and the early Jewish Christians were far less missions minded than Paul (i.e., they focused their attention on a relatively small geographic area).  Because the Jewish Christians were not as spread out (and because other Apostles lacked Paul's educational sophistication), it is not surprising that letters from the Jerusalem apostles would be relatively rare.

Second, Paul's early education included training at the academy in Tarsus, where he was versed in rhetoric and the art of letter writing.  The sophistication of Paul's style as compared with the other writing apostles (with the exception of the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews) is easy to spot, even in English translations.  Paul relied heavily on his training and, unlike his Jerusalem-church counterparts, considered letter-writing an important and effective means of instruction while he was absent.

Third, James was brought before the Sanhedrin, condemned and stoned to death at a relatively early date in early-church history.  Jerusalem became particularly inhospitable to the church in the mid-50s A.D.. Letter writing became more important to all early Church leaders at around this time, as evidenced by the late dates of 1, 2, and 3 Peter, the Gospel of John, 1, 2, 3 John, and the Revelation to John.

James was certainly an influential person in the early church.  Clement of Rome (Peter's successor) records that Paul met with James as late as 58 A.D. (approximately 6-8 years prior to Paul's death).  Further, Acts 15 does not read as though Paul left the First Jerusalem Council dejected.

Further, 2 Peter 3 provides a different picture of Peter's attitude toward Paul than the one you put forth:

quote:
15 And remember, the Lord is waiting so that people have time to be saved. This is just as our beloved brother Paul wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him - 16 speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters around to mean something quite different from what he meant, just as they do the other parts of Scripture - and the result is disaster for them.


It is noteworthy that the earliest extant MSS of 2 Peter date from 175-225 (struggles in the early church to claim the authoritative voice of Paul didn't begin taking place until the late 4th to 5th centuries).

I don't think you conspiracy theory hold much water.  Paul's writings and theology were accepted (and defended, in Peter's case) by the other Apostles.  It is important to note that misunderstandings of Paul's letters in relation to James' epistle have plagued the church through history.  Your finding of conflict between the theology of Paul and James, where the Apostles themselves found no conflict, is simply a perpetuation of the message of "[the] ignorant and unstable [having] twisted his letters around to mean something quite different from what he meant ...".

Jim
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


19 posted 02-21-2005 10:31 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Jim

Your theory does well to explain why Paul was a prolific, and eloquent letter writer. it still doesn't explain
why there is little said about James scriptually or historically.

Whether or not you believe the site at Qumran was in fact the early christian sect, there is no disputing that
the site housed an immense amount of scrolls on sect rules, beliefs and scriptural commentary. While not as
educated or sophisticated as paul's work, it still shows that while they may not have depended on letters, they
certainly didn't shy from writing. So while your theory may challenge the quality of the work, it doesn't explain
the absence of James or the early sect's work.

Back to those scrolls for a moment. Paul would have had access to such literature in his 3 year 'probation period'
with the early sect. Again whether or not you believe the Qumran sect was on in the same, Paul's letters and ideas
show he was exposed to writing that the sects shared. Paul's theology rests on faith. In his letters to the Romans
and Galatians he states that the scriptures say: 'the upright man finds life through faith' and 'we are told: the righteous
man finds life through faith'
respectively.

Where did this idea come to Paul, what scripture is he quoting? Evidence points to the Book of Habakkuk, an apocryphal
OT text. 'The upright man will live by his faith' ~Habakkuk 2:4

Why is this important? Because the sect at Qumran repeatedly makes mention of this scripture in their Habukkuk
commentaries. The Qumran's Habukkuk commentary expands on this as such:

'Interpreted, this concerns all those who observe the Law in the house of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of
Judgement because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness.'


That quote is extremely important, because it sounds incredibly like Pauline doctrine, suffering and faith in the 'teacher of
righteousness' equal salvation or deliverance.  Yet, retains an adherence to the Law, very much like Jesus' early words
do. Its not unreasonable to say that Paul was exposed to this, or similar commentary during his time with the sect. That
said, is it unreasonable to say then,  that Paul got it wrong, preaching this passage not as it was intended by abandoning
its adherence to the Law?

There are other important features of the Habukkuk Commentary that make such a link and 'conspiracy theory' more
plausible. It deals with the leader of the Qumran sect, who, like James is called The Righteous. The Righteous has two
characters to contend with. The 'Liar', an outsider allowed to join the community who, disagreeing with their views, leaves
along with some members to preach his version of the sects doctrine. This sounds an awful lot like Paul's role as described
in the events in Acts.

The Second character is the Wicked Priest, who is determined to destroy those 'zealous for the law' and has a role in the
death of the teacher of righteousness. This would be the Temple priest (most likely Ananas) who we know was adamant
about rooting out and destroying the early christians. Something Saul of Tarsus, by his own admission was party to. What
we have of the Qumran's events of the death of their Righteous One, hold startling similarities to Eusebius & Josephus
versions of James martyrdom.

Is it merely coincedence that the Righteous leader and James have such similar histories? Perhaps, though the odds would
be astronomical. But how do you prove or disprove they are not one in the same person? History. The church dates the
people of the Qumran community and the battle spoken of in their War Scroll, to the 63BC Roman siege of Palestine. This
places the christian sect, James death and the revolt of 66AD conviently out of harms way from the events and personages
of the Qumran texts.

But for some important details in the Habukkuk Commentary and War Scroll. The 66BC attack on Palestine is clearly
Republican Rome, however, the scrolls mention practices of Roman troops making offers to their standards (which held
the likeness or initials of the emperor) after victory. Troops in the Republic would have sacrificed to their gods, sacrificing
to their standards and emperor is clearly a ritual of Imperial Rome. Josephus confirms the use of this practice in his
history. Thus the attack Qumran community, their respective characters and the revolt they speak would more accurately
by dated to 66AD.  Right smack in the middle of James, Paul and the Christian sect.


quote:
Third, James was brought before the Sanhedrin, condemned and stoned to death at a relatively early date in early-church history.  Jerusalem became particularly inhospitable to the church in the mid-50s A.D


Some historians have pushed the date up to around 62 AD, and have argued that James stoning in part prompted the revolt
of 66 AD. In fact early church historian Eusebius, Bishop of Cesarea, emphasises this in his history of James and early sect.

"'Let us stone James the Righteous', and began to stone him, as in spite of his fall he was still alive...While they pelted him
with stones.. one of them took a fuller, took the club which he used to beat clothes, and brought it down on the head of the
Righteous One. Such was his martyrdom...Immediately after this, Vespian began to besiege them."


and by quoting Josephus who referring to the revolt:

'these things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous'

This Josephus quote curiously, no longer exists in any available versions of his text. But we know the it exists because the same
quote is used by Origen, another early church father and historian, in his work.

Why is this important? Because i mentioned the Qumran community, and therefore the Righteous One mentioned in their texts, as
more logically dated to around the time of 66AD. If James the Righteous' death is more accurately dated closer to 66AD as well, it
makes the chances of coincidence  less likely.


quote:
I don't think you conspiracy theory hold much water.  Paul's writings and theology were accepted (and defended, in Peter's case) by the other Apostles.  It is important to note that misunderstandings of Paul's letters in relation to James' epistle have plagued the church through history.  Your finding of conflict between the theology of Paul and James, where the Apostles themselves found no conflict, is simply a perpetuation of the message of "[the] ignorant and unstable [having] twisted his letters around to mean something quite different from what he meant ...".


I like how the accepted Church interpretation of the the letters by the Church is fact, and any challenges are merely misinterpretations
by the ignorant and unstable. Why is it implausible that it was Paul who misunderstood the teachings of the early sect? As the Qumran
texts, or at the very least, Paul's own admissions of being at odds with some of the early sect, would show.

I've never denied that some members of the sect or apostles agreed with Paul.  I did say that Paul created a schism within the early
christian sect. Is that so absurd, considering the numerous factions and divisions of christianity that have arisen over the course of
the last 2000 years? Or is that just another ignorant and unstable assumption?


A most telling quote into the psychology of Paul read:

'And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews...though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those under
the Law'


Paul shows that he will do whatever it takes, including deceit, to win new adepts to his vision and a look at the history of the church
shows the tradition continued. A tradition of preying on the ignorant and unstable.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


20 posted 02-21-2005 10:37 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Evidence points to the Book of Habakkuk, an apocryphal
OT text. 'The upright man will live by his faith' ~Habakkuk 2:4



Raph,

Just a point of clarification...

The book of Habakkuk is not considered "apocryphal", by the Christian Church nor by the Jews.


It is part of the Jewish canon of scripture.  One of the minor prophets.


Stephen.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


21 posted 02-21-2005 10:46 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

I stand corrected Stephanos, i believed it to be part of the apocryphal texts that are now included with some bibles.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


22 posted 02-22-2005 08:47 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Aenimal:

I'll return to your other points later.  One thing I can point out now is that "essentially literal" translations from Hebrew/Greek to English tend to confuse the interpretation of "The righteous man shall live by his faith."  Contrast this with the idea that the righteous man shall live by his works, and I think the proper interpretation will unfold.  The former is Gospel, the latter is Law.  Law is not Gospel and Gospel is not Law.  I believe the beginnings of error lie in the misunderstanding of this very important distinction, and also form the root of your misunderstanding of Paul and James.

Faith is not strict adherence to the Law, but rather belief in and personal appropriation of the promise of God.  A dynamically equivalent reading of the passage would be "Those who are by faith righteous shall live" (paraphrasing the RSV, which is an essentially literal translation with some use dynamic equivalence to more clearly express the thought conveyed by the phrase).  How else do you explain Paul's writing that "No one is rightious.  No, not one."  Our righteousness isn't actual (i.e., a condition resulting from strict adherence to the Law), but rather is an alien righteousness, imputed to use by faith in Jesus Christ, our substitute.

Jim
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


23 posted 02-22-2005 02:32 PM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

who put the words in the mouth of Jesus, perhaps the same entity who gives us our words, emotions?

I believe in God...but I don't believe in all religion teaches...and the Bible, well, even though it is a good souce and set of rules for humans to live by...and it has helped me on many occassions...I have a difficult time with the content...meaning, the Book was written by men, and interrited by their own beliefs, not to mention, when released to the public by the priests, probably edited to fit their own need for power and control.  I believe there is something way more...

and I don't believe God ment for women to be surpressed....I really don't, and yet, some religions still evoke men to treat their women as slaves...without a thread of intelligence...
How insulting...and I truly believe in those days, the priests and men were strongly intimidated by women and feared them...feared their potential for success and to lead or to even offer unto the thoughts of men...

Think about it...those books were written by poets/profits, seers, people with great perception who had dreams...now I ask, you, have any of you ever had those so real dreams, where you woke up sweat from head to toe, and the dream came true...have any of you had perceptions, or been in a near death experience and heard a voice telling you, everythings going to be all right...I have...
right down to names, places, etc?  

How many times has we ourselves read a poem and taken what we needed from the poem by what we believe and how we were raised, only to find, the meaning of said poem has an entire different meaning?

Can you imagine for one moment if there is some fact to the Di Vinci Code?  Think about it...have men changed?  Has History Changed us...and look at the power the priests had in those days...when no one was allowed to read the Bible, but the priests...no, b/c men are selfish with a passion for power and greed, I cannot be a skeptic in some areas....which none of us will really know, until we journey to the other side.  

And so...I don't dispute all of your comments, whose to say...who really knows the truth...humans need so to believe in and has forever searched for meanings of the spiritual...it is a good thing to believe in, but in my case, and forgive me any insult, but man made religions/organized religion, just doesn't do it for me.  I've seen way to many religions....which have changed rules....and if you believe in the Bible, several questions I have trouble me.

It says in the Bible, we shall have no other Gods before God, nor bow down to anyone except God, nor shall we call any man Father when refering to God....He and He alone is our Father.

It also says...but what gives one human being the right/and power to say, your sins are forgiven?????  

And then theres the born again belief?  Which I've been told by these born again people that I should not keep the company of anyone who isn't born again...

And please, I'm not trying to insult anyone here, but simply stating the religions I've studied under.  

I was at one time a Sunday School Teacher and Youth Group advisor....but, could never agree with the political aspect of the Churches and their organized religions.  

Again, I stress, we will not know until the day we cross over to the other side...and to me...it's safer this way...and not listening to any human.

Although, the Church is and has been responsible for helping to keep our freedoms intact here in the States...and so they are not all bad...they do hords of good for people, and there are also many examples of which I could write....so I'm on the fence here...always wondering...always pondering...and yet, somehow I know when it comes to these questions, I should be patient, all will come in good time.

But I believe our muse is what motivated Jesus, and whose to say, that muse isn't God?

I don't mean to challenge anyone, or take away from their beliefs...

I would though, so like to believe that the seed of Jesus is walking this earth today...and to me, that's an ultimate thought?

What I believe we all need to do, is humble ourselves, because it is by our education that we are sometimes fooled into believing we know it all, and we don't, we won't ever even come close...but by humbleness and submittal to God, I believe he does speak to all of us in different ways, according to our needs....

We can recite the Bible or any other writing but does that make it written in stone...?  I don't know...just my thoughts

Just my thoughts derived from personal experience and questions

[This message has been edited by LeeJ (02-22-2005 03:11 PM).]

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


24 posted 02-22-2005 09:43 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

wait.all non-church approved views are clearly misinterpretations based on overly literal translations by the ignorant and unstable....ok,got it.

i cede
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Who Put The Sermon on the Mount in the M   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors