How did Jesus fulfil the law and the prophets?

FireDragon76 said:

The book of Acts betrays the reality that early Christians did not agree on what was, and wasn't orthodox. James basically set up Paul for his arrest, because James didn't believe Paul was faithful to his religion. Yet James never even really followed Jesus during his life. This suggests a disorganized movement with a variety of interpretations of who Jesus was, what his mission was, and so on.

Click to expand...

Huh?

Verses please that James set up Paul for prison and that James never followed Jesus, he was Jesus brother literally

ToBeLoved said:

Huh?

Verses please that James set up Paul for prison and that James never followed Jesus, he was Jesus brother literally

Click to expand...

Read Acts 21:17 and onward to the end of the chapter. It's fairly clear that James set Paul up by asking him to go to a public place to prove his loyalty, despite the fact Jewish authorities would be looking for him.

A series of Yale lectures on the New Testament:

FireDragon76 said:

Read Acts 21:17 and onward to the end of the chapter. It's fairly clear that James set Paul up by asking him to go to a public place to prove his loyalty, despite the fact Jewish authorities would be looking for him.

A series of Yale lectures on the New Testament:

Click to expand...

I've not yet come across this scholar, Dale Martin, so I'm familiarizing myself with him. I've quickly run through 20 to 30 points in the video to see where he talks about "James setting Paul up." Do you know at what minute mark he makes this statement?

2PhiloVoid said:

I've not yet come across this scholar, Dale Martin, so I'm familiarizing myself with him. I've quickly run through 20 to 30 points in the video to see where he talks about "James setting Paul up." Do you know at what minute mark he makes this statement?

Click to expand...

It's a complete course, so it may not be in that particular video. That is the first place I found on Youtube when I wanted to see a scholarly presentation of early Christianity from the standpoint of secular academia.

yale courses new testament - YouTube

Dale Martin is an Episcopalian, FWIW. I don't much about him, other than he's a Yale professor of religion . He's entertaining to watch, and his exposition helped make sense of early Christianity and understanding its evolution.

I use that as an example of mainstream academic scholarship of the New Testament.

I watched the Yale Courses several months ago. What really got me questioning was watching Search for God with Morgan Freeman (which is available on Netflix), particularly Freeman's interview with the Lakota medicine man, Arvol Looking Horse (who recounted how he was miraculously healed of a rodeo injury by his deceased mother who had entrusted him with the Sacred Bundle of his people). That lead me to want to seek deeper answers than what my religion was telling me. Because I realized people at my church, as well meaning as they are, have no particular access to transcendent truth, and I could no longer rely upon creedal faith. Watching the Yale Lecture's only deepened that.

I could see how Dale Martin as an Episcopalian might reconcile himself with his knowledge of biblical scholarship, since Episcopalians now days define themselves by worship rather than creedal belief. However, being an Episcopalian is not a practical alternative for me. Lutheranism seems out of the question at this point.

If I have a perspective on how I understand Jesus/God, its primarily through Karl Jung. I believe God as Christians understand him is akin to an achetype, but is not the same as absolute reality. I believe Jesus was a wise teacher, perhaps one of the greatest human beings ever to walk the planet, but he taught within his own Jewish cultural context and I'm not going to stop my critical thinking or change my life to be part of his fan club.

FireDragon76 said:

I watched the Yale Courses several months ago. What really got me questioning was watching Search for God with Morgan Freeman (which is available on Netflix), particularly Freeman's interview with the Lakota medicine man, Arvol Looking Horse (who recounted how he was miraculously healed of a rodeo injury by his deceased mother who had entrusted him with the Sacred Bundle of his people). That lead me to want to seek deeper answers than what my religion was telling me. Because I realized people at my church, as well meaning as they are, have no particular access to transcendent truth, and I could no longer rely upon creedal faith. Watching the Yale Lecture's only deepened that.

Click to expand...

We've watched that Morgan Freeman series, but I may have to watch it again to refresh my ailing memory.

I think BOTH you and I are interested in seeking, as you said, "deeper answers." The different perhaps between you and me, and maybe the typical American Christian (not that this makes be 'better' somehow any means) is that you want to plumb the depths of the Spiritual Abyss....and I simply want to get out of the cloister and explore God's Million Acre Ranch, so to speak.

I could see how Dale Martin as an Episcopalian might reconcile himself with his knowledge of biblical scholarship, since Episcopalians now days define themselves by worship rather than creedal belief. However, being an Episcopalian is not a practical alternative for me. Lutheranism seems out of the question at this point.

Click to expand...

Oh, I can sympathize. Oh how I can sympathize!

At the same time, I think you've heard me tell others that while I'm wanting to get rid of dirty bath-water, I don't want to throw the Christ-child out too. No, He has a permanent place in my heart and life. And I will have to stay with Him, unwaveringly so.

If I have a perspective on how I understand Jesus/God, its primarily through Karl Jung. I believe God as Christians understand him is akin to an achetype, but is not the same as absolute reality. I believe Jesus was a wise teacher, perhaps one of the greatest human beings ever to walk the planet, but he taught within his own Jewish cultural context and I'm not going to stop my critical thinking or change my life to be part of his fan club.

Click to expand...

Well. That's a different way of defining the dreaded 'A' word. I'm sorry to hear you feel that way, but then again, the way some Christians try to short-circuit a more Historical, Philosophically Reflective, even Ecumenical form of FAITH in Christ can easily be seen by me as a reason to want to jump ship.

It's just that you might be careful as you jump into the Wide, Wide Ocean: There Be Sharks!!!

2PhiloVoid said:

Well. That's a different way of defining the dreaded 'A' word. I'm sorry to hear you feel that way, but then again, the way some Christians try to short-circuit a more Historical, Philosophically Reflective, even Ecumenical form of FAITH in Christ can easily be seen by me as a reason to want to jump ship.

Click to expand...

I prefer to define myself as a non-theist. I am not, however, a materialist, nor do I think science has the final answers for my life. I do accept there is some kind of a first cause or ground to reality, it seems logical to me. However, I believe the Christian understanding of this concept is full of erroneous ideas and mythology, and/or is highly incomplete.

FireDragon76 said:

I prefer to define myself as a non-theist. I am not, however, a materialist. I do accept there is some kind of a first cause or ground to reality, it seems logical to me. However, I believe the Christian understanding of this concept is full of erroneous ideas and mythology, and/or is highly incomplete.

Click to expand...

"THE" Christian understanding? What is that specifically?

FireDragon76 said:

Read Acts 21:17 and onward to the end of the chapter. It's fairly clear that James set Paul up by asking him to go to a public place to prove his loyalty, despite the fact Jewish authorities would be looking for him.

A series of Yale lectures on the New Testament:

Click to expand...

I don’t think so.

It was recommended that Paul take part with the 4 men in the purification ritual. Which Paul did as a Jewish follower of Christ and Apostle to the Gentiles.

I’d stop watching whatever odd videos you watch, although since you wanted a secular view of a spiritual journey, maybe you found exactly what you hoped to find.

On the internet anyone can find any type of information they like to agree w whatever opinion they may have.

Doesn’t make that viewpoint true.

2PhiloVoid said:

"THE" Christian understanding? What is that specifically?

Click to expand...

That's sort of my point. Christianity is now a hodge podge of confusing ideas and often lacks the clarity that a humanistic and scientific education can bring.

The fact that people can sit here with a straight face and tell me that Yale's scholarship is no good is sort of the problem. That kind of anti-intellectualism is toxic.

FireDragon76 said:

That's sort of my point. Christianity is now a hodge podge of confusing ideas and often lacks the clarity that a humanistic and scientific education can bring.

The fact that people can sit here with a straight face and tell me that Yale's scholarship is no good is sort of the problem. That kind of anti-intellectualism is toxic.

Click to expand...

Who is saying that? The thing in this is that since you're admitting that today it can seem that Christianity is a hodge-podge would seem to preclude the choice any one of us might have to just "settle" for merely one scholar's viewpoint. It's probably better (and often is) to get multiple points of view on various topics or biblical subject matter.........like thinking that James "sold out" Paul.

Do you have any reference to any other scholars besides Dale Martin who thinks this?

2PhiloVoid said:

Who is saying that? The thing in this is that since you're admitting that today it can seem that Christianity is a hodge-podge would seem to preclude the choice any one of us might have to just "settle" for merely one scholar's viewpoint. It's probably better (and often is) to get multiple points of view on various topics or biblical subject matter.........like thinking that James "sold out" Paul.

Do you have any reference to any other scholars besides Dale Martin who thinks this?

Click to expand...

No, I don't have one off the top of my head. But it makes sense to me, more than the facile account we have in Acts (see below). James also was not a follower of Jesus during Jesus' earthly life. So we don't necessarily have a portrait of a great Christian saint that the tradition ascribes to him.

When I read the book of Acts, I see in it an ancient historiography that plays fast and loose with what probably were the facts, to tell a good story. Mainstream scholars do not take Acts at face value, and they do attempt to "read between the lines" to figure out what really was going on. It's clear that Paul and James were not necessarily on the same page religiously, and that Acts is revisionist and attempts, to a certain extent, to gloss over those differences. But sometimes it betrays the actual history, and Acts 21 is one such example. If James actually cared about Paul and his mission, he'ld never have asked him to risk his life in that manner.

FireDragon76 said:

.
The fact that people can sit here with a straight face and tell me that Yale's scholarship is no good is sort of the problem. That kind of anti-intellectualism is toxic.

Click to expand...

I think it’s anti-intellectual to pick one video from Yale and insist that because it’s from Yale it’s the truth.

What would Harvard, Columbia and MIT do if there was one source, Yale of all truth?

ToBeLoved said:

I think it’s anti-intellectual to pick one video from Yale and insist that because it’s from Yale it’s the truth.

What would Harvard, Columbia and MIT do if there was one source, Yale of all truth?

Click to expand...

That would be fair criticism, except Harvard or Columbia's scholarship is more or less on the same page.

FireDragon76 said:

No, I don't have one off the top of my head. But it makes sense to me, more than the facile account we have in Acts (see below). James also was not a follower of Jesus during Jesus' earthly life. So we don't necessarily have a portrait of a great Christian saint that the tradition ascribes to him.

When I read the book of Acts, I see in it an ancient historiography that plays fast and loose with what probably were the facts, to tell a good story. Mainstream scholars do not take Acts at face value, and they do attempt to "read between the lines" to figure out what really was going on. It's clear that Paul and James were not necessarily on the same page religiously, and that Acts is revisionist and attempts, to a certain extent, to gloss over those differences. But sometimes it betrays the actual history, and Acts 21 is one such example. If James actually cared about Paul and his mission, he'ld never have asked him to risk his life in that manner.

Click to expand...

James was an apostle to the Jews.

Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.

Maybe take into account that the Jewish believers had the Old Covenant and were familiar with Yahweh.

Gentiles lives in communities where lots of idols were worshipped and with little or no understanding of the Old Covenant.

Maybe that why when you read it it seems hodgepodge.

Because each apostle has a specific community of people they were preaching to, yet they were figuring out how to keep practices unified.

FireDragon76 said:

That would be fair criticism, except Harvard or Columbia's scholarship is more or less on the same page.

Click to expand...

But wasn’t it your point that if we don’t agree with Yale that we are anti-intellectual?

ToBeLoved said:

But wasn’t it your point that if we don’t agree with Yale that we are anti-intellectual?

Click to expand...

Evangelical views of the Bible do not agree with the consensus of mainstream scholarship of the text. Yale is just one example.

FireDragon76 said:

When I read the book of Acts, I see in it an ancient historiography that plays fast and loose with what probably were the facts, to tell a good story. Mainstream scholars do not take Acts at face value, and they do attempt to "read between the lines" to figure out what really was going on. It's clear that Paul and James were not necessarily on the same page religiously, and that Acts is revisionist and attempts, to a certain extent, to gloss over those differences. But sometimes it betrays the actual history, and Acts 21 is one such example. If James actually cared about Paul and his mission, he'ld never have asked him to risk his life in that manner.

Click to expand...

You really can’t pick out James and say they believed different things.

You would really have to make the statement that all the apostles to the Jews were different than Paul.

But then, that argument would fall flat with the words of Peter, who was the head of the Jewish church with James, when he recognized Paul as an apostle and his ministry.

What do you think think about the apostles to the Jewish believers in Christ, recognizing and being part of Paul’s ministry?

FireDragon76 said:

Evangelical views of the Bible do not agree with the consensus of mainstream scholarship of the text. Yale is just one example.

Click to expand...

I’m sure you have the facts and figures that support that.

I’d be interested in seeing that.

ToBeLoved said:

You really can’t pick out James and say they believed different things.

You would really have to make the statement that all the apostles to the Jews were different than Paul.

But then, that argument would fall flat with the words of Peter, who was the head of the Jewish church with James, when he recognized Paul as an apostle and his ministry.

What do you think think about the apostles to the Jewish believers in Christ, recognizing and being part of Paul’s ministry?

Click to expand...

I'd rather go with mainstream scholarship than accepting Acts' account as objective history. Acts was written many decades after the events it describes.

Remember, I do not accept the Bible as divinely inspired or uniquely authoritative.