L Ray Smith and Death

[legoman]

(I just tho't you'd like to know the above quoted reply #41 is post #60,666 on tentmaker.)

Seems my judgement is done.
I have the mark 666.
See you in all 1000 years.
Gonna enjoy the filth while I still can. Doesn't matter anymore.
:drummer:

Hey at least you'll be unconscious.  Or maybe not  :winkgrin:

[WhiteWings]

Just a thought.

Do the "dead know nothing" verses only occur in the OT?
If so I might have a 'solution'.

The wages of sin is dead.
Sinners simply are dead. Really dead without knowing anying. All are sinners. So that goes for everyone....

.... before Jesus died.

Jesus paid the price for our sins.
So perhaps 'the wages of sin is death' cancelled?

Romans 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Dead know nothing
Father was only able to hand out the gift of life after His Son died on the cross. -> dead know something.

:dontknow:
:dontknow: :dontknow: :dontknow:
:dontknow:
:dontknow:
:dontknow:

[Doc]

Just a thought.

Do the "dead know nothing" verses only occur in the OT?
If so I might have a 'solution'.

The wages of sin is dead.
Sinners simply are dead. Really dead without knowing anying. All are sinners. So that goes for everyone....

.... before Jesus died.

Jesus paid the price for our sins.
So perhaps 'the wages of sin is death' cancelled?

Romans 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Dead know nothing
Father was only able to hand out the gift of life after His Son died on the cross. -> dead know something.

:dontknow:
:dontknow: :dontknow: :dontknow:
:dontknow:
:dontknow:
:dontknow:

That's kind of what I was getting at.

[legoman]

Perhaps the GWT is merely the "passing of sentence", the actual judgment having already occured?

Part of the GWT is still the judgment of works.

Back to WW's comment about the 2 resurrections - yes it seems like Matt 25:41-46 would indicate all are raised at the same time and then the goats go one way and the sheep the other.

But the judgment is not just the separation into 2 groups (believers/unbelievers).  More importantly it is a judgment of works - each person gives an account of all they did.  They will be shamed and corrected for some of the things they did.  This is the refining, purging, purifying process.

Legoman,

While you posted this I was typing my previous post. So I didn't ignore you...
The 'works' judgment is the 2nd judgement?
Bit weird.
The saints are raised in the first judgement to rule a 1000 years. If works are not judged at this time then only the faith is judged?
Are they judged with the wicked for their works? And possibly end up in LoF after being rulers for 1000 years?
(rulers over who?)

Ok I figured out what you (and I) missed (took me a minute).

Remember the saints (the elect) are judged first IN THIS LIFE.  Trial by fire and all that - Judgment begins with the house of God NOW (1 Peter 4:12-19).  So the elect are judged for their works in a kind of "as it happens" fashion in this life now, through their trials and experiences. 

Everyone else is judged for their works at the LoF.

Maybe part of the misunderstanding is calling the separating of goats & sheep in Matt 25:41-46 "judgement".  That is not the judgement of works.  That is only separating to determine who will go into the LoF.  Anyone who is not elect wil go into the LoF.  Remember the elect were already judged for their works in this life.

The elect are judged in the same way as the LoF, but in this life.  See 1 Cor 13:12-15.  Judged, purified, purged BY FIRE that saves them NOW.  Repeating myself but this is the key point: THE ELECT are judged BEFORE THEY DIE.

Everyone else is judged AFTER they die in the LoF.

Judgment is really referring to judging an individual's works, and the purifying/purging/correcting process that follows.

Part of the problem is the word "judgment" still carries connotations from our former ET beliefs.  Judgment in effect is a process of learning.  Some learn now, others later.

[Zeek]

Perhaps the GWT is merely the "passing of sentence", the actual judgment having already occured?

Part of the GWT is still the judgment of works.

Back to WW's comment about the 2 resurrections - yes it seems like Matt 25:41-46 would indicate all are raised at the same time and then the goats go one way and the sheep the other.

But the judgment is not just the separation into 2 groups (believers/unbelievers).  More importantly it is a judgment of works - each person gives an account of all they did.  They will be shamed and corrected for some of the things they did.  This is the refining, purging, purifying process.

Legoman,

While you posted this I was typing my previous post. So I didn't ignore you...
The 'works' judgment is the 2nd judgement?
Bit weird.
The saints are raised in the first judgement to rule a 1000 years. If works are not judged at this time then only the faith is judged?
Are they judged with the wicked for their works? And possibly end up in LoF after being rulers for 1000 years?
(rulers over who?)

Ok I figured out what you (and I) missed (took me a minute).

Remember the saints (the elect) are judged first IN THIS LIFE.  Trial by fire and all that - Judgment begins with the house of God NOW (1 Peter 4:12-19).  So the elect are judged for their works in a kind of "as it happens" fashion in this life now, through their trials and experiences. 

Everyone else is judged for their works at the LoF.

Maybe part of the misunderstanding is calling the separating of goats & sheep in Matt 25:41-46 "judgement".  That is not the judgement of works.  That is only separating to determine who will go into the LoF.  Anyone who is not elect wil go into the LoF.  Remember the elect were already judged for their works in this life.

The elect are judged in the same way as the LoF, but in this life.  See 1 Cor 13:12-15.  Judged, purified, purged BY FIRE that saves them NOW.  Repeating myself but this is the key point: THE ELECT are judged BEFORE THEY DIE.

Everyone else is judged AFTER they die in the LoF.

Judgment is really referring to judging an individual's works, and the purifying/purging/correcting process that follows.

Part of the problem is the word "judgment" still carries connotations from our former ET beliefs.  Judgment in effect is a process of learning.  Some learn now, others later.

but again, if u look at what happened in AD 70, the dead were judged "in this life too".  They were "physically alive" when the judgment came upon them. 

In the Noah story, those alive who didn't get on the ark, were judged while being alive.  They didn't have to die physically first, the judgment came upon them while they were physically alive. 

I think that "die first then judgment, is not talking about physical death.

this forum, is a good place to ask questions re: the events of AD70, like what about the GWT, what about the 1000 years, etc.   www.talk-grace.com

again, even if the events in AD70 are only a shadow, they imo; lay out the timeline. 

[WhiteWings]

IMO, if one studies the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (whether one sees it as fulfillment of scripture, or an example of the coming "real judgment (either physical or spiritual), it will lead to seeing what the timing is.    

The first century church was judged (their faith was tried in fire prior to the coming wrath/Day of the LORD), and if faithful; just like Noah were saved from the coming destruction/wrath of God.  Those who refused to live by faith; were "shamed" by the fire.  They did not receive reward.  They were left desolate.  But the beauty was they were saved through fire (end of the old, and reconciled through the new).  

In my huge religious career of 9 months I've learned one thing. If it's of importance it repeats itself in the Bible.
A verse needs a witness. Perhaps a event also needs a witness???

Quick question about a verse needs a witness.
Does that mean we are not allowed to use a verse until we found it's companion verse?
For us it doesn't matter because the Bible is complete.
But what about the early Jews? They often had only one verse to go by. I doubt they ignored the single verses...

[Cardinal]

IMO, if one studies the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (whether one sees it as fulfillment of scripture, or an example of the coming "real judgment (either physical or spiritual), it will lead to seeing what the timing is.    

The first century church was judged (their faith was tried in fire prior to the coming wrath/Day of the LORD), and if faithful; just like Noah were saved from the coming destruction/wrath of God.  Those who refused to live by faith; were "shamed" by the fire.  They did not receive reward.  They were left desolate.  But the beauty was they were saved through fire (end of the old, and reconciled through the new).  

In my huge religious career of 9 months I've learned one thing. If it's of importance it repeats itself in the Bible.
A verse needs a witness. Perhaps a event also needs a witness???

Quick question about a verse needs a witness.
Does that mean we are not allowed to use a verse until we found it's companion verse?
For us it doesn't matter because the Bible is complete.
But what about the early Jews? They often had only one verse to go by. I doubt they ignored the single verses...

:cloud9: WW, I gotta tell you, you are really blessing me, by seeing you expand in your "huge religious career of 9 months"  :winkgrin:.....

Anyway, the letters themselves have meanings, the words have meanings, even if it's not the word you looked up, the words made out of that triplicate code in there (3 letters in a word, not constantants), have meanings that point to things, so even if you don't see a verse that says exactly the same thing, there is a witness in there SOMEWHERE, to whatever it is. Blessings....

[WhiteWings]

IMO, if one studies the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (whether one sees it as fulfillment of scripture, or an example of the coming "real judgment (either physical or spiritual), it will lead to seeing what the timing is.    

The first century church was judged (their faith was tried in fire prior to the coming wrath/Day of the LORD), and if faithful; just like Noah were saved from the coming destruction/wrath of God.  Those who refused to live by faith; were "shamed" by the fire.  They did not receive reward.  They were left desolate.  But the beauty was they were saved through fire (end of the old, and reconciled through the new).  

In my huge religious career of 9 months I've learned one thing. If it's of importance it repeats itself in the Bible.
A verse needs a witness. Perhaps a event also needs a witness???

Quick question about a verse needs a witness.
Does that mean we are not allowed to use a verse until we found it's companion verse?
For us it doesn't matter because the Bible is complete.
But what about the early Jews? They often had only one verse to go by. I doubt they ignored the single verses...

:cloud9: WW, I gotta tell you, you are really blessing me, by seeing you expand in your "huge religious career of 9 months"  :winkgrin:.....

Anyway, the letters themselves have meanings, the words have meanings, even if it's not the word you looked up, the words made out of that triplicate code in there (3 letters in a word, not constantants), have meanings that point to things, so even if you don't see a verse that says exactly the same thing, there is a witness in there SOMEWHERE, to whatever it is. Blessings....

You mean like my other post: Convenant = Son named to cross
In Hebrew symbols.
Father don't be so sadistic. Handing out peanut brains and writing coconut brain puzzles  :sigh:
:laughing7:

[legoman]

but again, if u look at what happened in AD 70, the dead were judged "in this life too".  They were "physically alive" when the judgment came upon them. 

In the Noah story, those alive who didn't get on the ark, were judged while being alive.  They didn't have to die physically first, the judgment came upon them while they were physically alive. 

I think that "die first then judgment, is not talking about physical death.

this forum, is a good place to ask questions re: the events of AD70, like what about the GWT, what about the 1000 years, etc.   www.talk-grace.com

again, even if the events in AD70 are only a shadow, they imo; lay out the timeline. 

Hi Zeek,

In general I get what you are saying - and I don't mean to imply that the elect will get all the judgments in this life and the non-elect will live the easy life.  Clearly some of God's judgments end up on everyone in this life - ie. the flood wiping out almost everyone except one righteous family.

I agree Hebrews 9:27 is most likely talking about spiritual death.  The elect spiritually die in this life and then face judgment and are then reborn - all in this life.  The non-elect spiritually die in the lake of fire and face their judgment and are then reborn.

JMHO,
Legoman

[Pierac]

But you're still not addressing the passages of Hebrews 11 and 12 . . .or the transfiguration of Jesus with Moses and Elijah . . .they are definitely not unconscious there . . .some argued that the transfiguration wasn't really happening that it was more of a vision . . .which I disagree with, but for the sake of the argument, even if it was a vision, why would Jesus show them a vision of dead men being conscious if that were not to be true?

And why would Paul long to be with Christ is he's just going to be unconscious through it all anyway?  It just feels like we're trying to force a round peg in a square hole with this belief.  It's not fitting with what Scripture is implying is all.

Here we read Enoch was taken from this life:

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

He did not experience death... what does that mean?  Does that imply He did not have to physically die?  Or that He just didn't know he had died?  He was "taken" and couldn't be found.  Not too sure here.

But later in verse 13 its cleared up:
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.

All the above mentioned people (including Enoch), died!  And more specifically they DID NOT receive the things promised.

39These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

Same in verse 39.  Verse 40 clarifies further - something better is planned so that those in faith TOGETHER WITH US will be made perfect.

So they haven't been made perfect yet.  How would they be in heaven if they weren't perfect?  The refining process will be done all at the same time - us together with those who died with faith in the past.

I don't disagree with that . . .what I disagree with is . . they were unconsious .  .they're not, they're aware, their just not fully perfected until the entire body is perfected. . . which includes us.

Then we are back to the problem of what does it mean when it says "they died."

I thought the point you were making was that Enoch didn't die, he just went to heaven.  But it doesn't say he went to heaven, or that he is even conscious.  It says he was "taken from this life" and then later on it says "he died" (just like the rest).

So IMHO its hard from that to say that Enoch is in heaven when all its saying is he died.

Peace...

The problem with Enoch is two-fold. The first is in Genesis 5:24, it states:
"Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him."

In order to understand this verse you will have to read all of chapter five. People claim that since of everyone else it is said, "then he died" and of Enoch it is not, but instead it says that he "walked with God, for God took him," then that means that Enoch went to heaven with God. If you read the paragraph that talks about Enoch without this preconceived idea, you will come to the conclusion that Enoch died.

It says in verse 23:
"That the whole lifetime of Enoch was three hundred and sixty-five years."

To me that implies that Enoch's whole lifetime was three hundred and sixty-five years and then he died. I do not see any hint that Enoch did not die. It says that "Enoch walked with God,"  but so did Noah in Genesis 6:10:
"Noah, a good man and blameless in that age, for he walked with God."

"Walked with God,"  means that the person follows God's will. "God took him," means that God took his breath of life and that person died. We still use this saying today, we commonly say that God took a family member or a friend when we mean that someone died. The word translated as "took"  is the Hebrew word laqah. It means:
laqah[/i] – of removal by death (The Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon).

An excellent example of the usage of this word is in Ezekiel 33:6:
"But if the watchman sees the sword coming and fails to blow the warning trumpet, so that the sword comes and takes (laqah) anyone, I will hold the watchman responsible for that person's death, even though that person is taken (laqah) because of their own sin."

Notice how it is used, the sword comes and takes someone, in other words, kills someone. This is why the watchman will be held responsible for that person's death.
So why is there a difference between the phrases of all the other people mentioned and Enoch? There is no clear-cut answer, but my opinion is that something happened to Enoch that cut his life short. Either an accident or illness, but something that prevented him from dying of old age like the others. Everyone mentioned lived to over nine hundred years old, except Lamech who lived to almost eight hundred years old. However, Enoch only lived to be three hundred and sixty-five years old. Something happened to Enoch that cut his life short; this is why it is said, "God took him."

The second verse is in Hebrews 11:5 where Paul is speaking about the faith of the ancients. It says:
"By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was found no more because God had taken him."

The problem that we arrive at if we say that because of this verse Enoch did not die, is that the same author in the same chapter in verse 13 says that all the ancients that he was talking about (which Enoch was one of) have died:
"All these died in faith."

So Abraham and Noah and Enoch and all the others mentioned died. So how do we explain verse 5? The clue is in knowing what the author meant when he said "That he should not see death."  Obviously he does not mean that he did not die because he writes a few verses later that he did die.

In John 8:51 Jesus says:
"I say to you, whoever keeps my word will never see death."
This is identical to Hebrews 11:5. I do not think that Jesus meant that whoever keeps his word will be taken to heaven without ever experiencing death. It is more likely that Jesus means that whoever keeps his word will not experience eternal death. That they will be resurrected on the last day. Hebrews 11:5 meaning is probably along these lines.

For me, I am convinced that Enoch did die. I cannot let one verse that I cannot explain fully counter all the evidence in the massive amount of verses that are very specific on death.

Paul who wrote Hebrews says in Romans 5:12:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned."

Death came to all men, that includes Enoch. This statement of Paul also strengthens the position of Hebrews 11:13 "They all died in faith."

If we isolate Enoch from all the evidence on death, the preponderance of the evidence is about 75% in favor that Enoch died, and 25% that he did not see death. If we do not isolate Enoch from all the other Scriptures on death Enoch is really not a factor.  If Enoch went to heaven, then again, we have to assume that Jesus was wrong in John 3:13: "No one has gone up to heaven."

:2c:
Paul

[sparrow]

Father don't be so sadistic. Handing out peanut brains and writing coconut brain puzzles  :sigh:
:laughing7:

nahh...
the coconut brains just need something to keep their minds occupied while the peanut brains are basking in the simplicity and loveliness of the simple truth that "God is love".  :Sparkletooth:

It's like discovering the answer to a million riddles....and then going back and trying to create more riddles to see if the answer is still the same. This peanut head has decided that YES the answer is still going to be the same, so I'm not bothering with any more riddles. Just gonna bask in it.

:icon_flower:  <----that's my head. (actual size.)

:laughing7:

:HeartThrob:

[AJ]

.
Post #10 wrote:
The idea of stepping right into Heaven has 2 other problems.
a] People in Heaven are not dead. And I bet they know more than all of us combined.
b] If people step right into Heaven the word dead should be removed from the Bible because it simply doesn't exist.


There are TWO rival NATURES that dwells within us..... which will then be followed by TWO RESURRECTIONS - for these two opposing natures.
The Holy Writ speaks of - TWO 'men' with dissimilar natures that are dwelling in us....... 
First, is the NATURAL man.... followed by the SPIRITUAL man.

And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.   However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.  The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.  As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.  And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.  Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Cor 15:45-50)

We are two vessels in one person. One is the vessel of destruction speaks to me of that part of us (mankind) that is destroyed .(Rom 9:21) The other is a vessel of honor.
We are spoken of as two lumps of clay.  For dishonorable use and for honorable use. (2 Tim 2:20-21)


Post #15 wrote:
The spirit by itself is nothing.  A soul needs both body + spirit to be alive.
The spirit by itself does not contain our consciousness.

I disagree that a spirit by itself is not alive...and can not contain a consciousness.
BECAUSE angels are spirits...and they are conscious and can communicate and do all kinds of things ....also God is a spirit....and He ain't unconscious. 


Post #24 wrote:
I didn't see the one called pre-mortal life on the first link above. Which article is it?

Doc, - all 30 links at that page is about pre-mortal life.


Post #59 wrote:
If Enoch went to heaven, then again, we have to assume that Jesus was wrong in John 3:13: "No one has gone up to heaven."

Let's remember that Jesus was the only one died and who rose from the grave, bodily,....he is the only one gone to heaven with a resurrected body.
The resurrection of everyone else has NOT occurred yet....it's still future.

This leaves room for our spirit's to return to God, without our resurrected bodies.
This leaves room for spirits to be conscious in God's presence after our physical death,... before returning at some point in the future, to our physical bodies at which time we will be transformed from MORTALS to IMMORTALLITY our corruption, it is raised in incorruption.

So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.  It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory.   It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (1 Cor. 15: 42-44)


At least that how I see it today.
Peace, AJ

[reFORMer]

I saw this big shambling hulk of "me" with the spine and brain stem sticking up instead of the rest of the head.  No cerebellum, didn't seem like any face either; but, there were teeth and jaws to eat with.  Funny thing to see that today.  I feel like the way I write seems like I'm trying to impress somebody; but, I'm not.  I only try to do my duty...most of the time.  Then sometimes I get tired.  I try to look up the addresses to the Biblical quotes I make, make all the citations and copy the text; but it takes so much time and effort that I don't always feel like doing it.  I wonder how much of our "pin-head" status is due to laziness and lack of time management...

J. Preston Eby, probably, though second thoughts make me think Pink, was the author that I read years ago that demonstrated how the N.T. uses the word death in 5 ways.  We are dead in trespasses and sins, Paul says "I die daily," and there is discorporation...that's 3.  What else?  Lake of fire?

I saw what looked like a transparent arm made of blue light on a guy maybe 20 feet ahead of me.  I ran up to him to see what it was I was looking at.  I saw he was missing that part of his arm and where it was gone was what was probably a "spirit" arm.  He had just gotten out of the hopital where it had been removed, three days before if I remember.  It was around 40 years ago.  I talked to him about what God could do, that he should never give up hope and prayed with him.  I mention this because I don't understand why we should think the phrase, "the dead know nothing, they go down in silence" has to mean anything more than discorporation.  We leave the earthly tent.  The corpse doesn't know anything.  It won't answer you.  This doesn't mean your spirit is in that condition.  He could still feel his arm.

Words pertaining to the functions of the human spirit are listed in the 3rd volume of The Spiritual Man by Watchman Nee.  I haven't seen my 4th or 5th copy in years.  Most of my books are still packed.  (Won't somebody please pray!)  I really don't feel like sifting through to find these references.  What I remember was how suprised I was that most any function of the soul was attributed to spirit also.

The Latent Power of the Soul by Nee, kind of an appendix of what he thought he'd neglected was written later and published as a seperate book from The Spiritual Man, which is now available under one cover.  People like to borrow it.  I'm just letting you know ahead of time.  It's probably the best work on spirit, soul and body.

"The soul that sins, it shall die." That shows the "immortality of the soul" doctrine to be false.  Jesus says, "Who destroys his soul for my sake and the gospel's, shall be obtaining it."  For you to reject thoughts and emotions of the flesh, even when you once lived in them, not accepting carnal lusts, fears, or angers, or whatever is unlike Jesus or contrary to the gospel, you obtain the soul that will not be destroyed.  This is part of entering into "the mind of Christ" which has been given to us.

[reFORMer]

I'm posting 2 paragraphs from something else I wrote.  It is about "heaven" and what we are actually being "saved" for.  It is not a better place in death!  We're headed into God, just a little ahead of the rest.  I don't know why the following doesn't seem to have much influence on other's minds.  It was a big change in understanding for me.  About 40 years ago I found the first person besides myself that noticed the same thing about how the Scripture uses the word "heaven(s)" in the book The Christ of the Mount.  It was the author E. Stanley Jones a presbyterian missionary to India earlier in the 20th Century.  That book in particular came from some days spent together with Hindu and Christian leaders examining The Sermon on the Mount in the 1930's I think.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
excerpt from:  "Heaven and Our True Near at Hand Hope"


We think Jesus on the cross promised entry to it that day to the malefactor beside him. (Lk 23:43)  Yet Paradise (from the Persian, meaning, "Garden of God") is the term used, not Heaven.  Maybe it seems an eccentric quibble to point it out.  The phrase "go to heaven" never actually occurs in the Bible in relation to anything.  Some similar wording is attached to Paul's described experience (2 Co 12:2-4) though he didn't die, there are three heavens involved and Paradise comes up again.  From this passages parallelism it is possible that the third heaven is synonymous with Paradise.  Heaven is not ever used in Scripture for a location in death, though that is it's popular meaning in contemporary English.  While something at least like that place is referred to by Jesus (Lk 23:43) as "Paradise," it isn't anywhere expressly stated that death is a prerequisite for entrance (Rv 2:7) to it.  Indeed, it seems there are testimonies like Paul's (2 Co 12:1ff) from some among us concerning this place where all saints go.

While never presented as our destination, "heaven" is our place of origin (Rev 21:9-10) and present habitation (Eph 2:6.)  The word "heaven" is slightly more than half the time plural in Scripture. The commentaries like to explain it with a Latin term to sound like they know what they're talking about. They say the plural "heavens" is majestis pluralis, meaning plural only to communicate the exceeding glory of heaven. In reality there are three (3) heavens, (2 Co 12:2) corresponding to the dimensions of spirit (where peculiarly God's presence is), soul (psychic realm,) and body (the heaven of earth's atmosphere to the distant galaxies.) Jesus has passed through all the heavens (Hb 4:14) and rests up over all in the right of The Great All-Togetherness upon High (Hb 1:3.) While we are joined to Him there in ascension, we are undergoing a process with His Spirit sharing the same body in union with Him down into death and through resurrection to come into the demonstration of ascension.

[Pierac]

And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.   However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.  The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.  As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.  And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.  Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Cor 15:45-50)

We are two vessels in one person. One is the vessel of destruction speaks to me of that part of us (mankind) that is destroyed .(Rom 9:21) The other is a vessel of honor.
We are spoken of as two lumps of clay.  For dishonorable use and for honorable use. (2 Tim 2:20-21)

Your logic is flawed... Clearly, Adam and Jesus were not two vessels in one person.    :2c:

Paul

[Zeek]

And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.   However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.  The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.  As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.  And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.  Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Cor 15:45-50)

We are two vessels in one person. One is the vessel of destruction speaks to me of that part of us (mankind) that is destroyed .(Rom 9:21) The other is a vessel of honor.
We are spoken of as two lumps of clay.  For dishonorable use and for honorable use. (2 Tim 2:20-21)

Your logic is flawed... Clearly, Adam and Jesus were not two vessels in one person.    :2c:

Paul

Yeah, cause that would mean that paul was actually just torturing himself, rather than a group of law zealot people after him.  And Galatians 4, the "ishmaels" who were persecuting the "isaacs" were just an internal battle. 

I understand the thinking, if one spiritualizes it all, but Paul wasn't spiritualizing it all.  It really happened, and yet he was blessed with the spirit.

[Pierac]

Yeah, cause that would mean that paul was actually just torturing himself, rather than a group of law zealot people after him.  And Galatians 4, the "ishmaels" who were persecuting the "isaacs" were just an internal battle. 

I understand the thinking, if one spiritualizes it all, but Paul wasn't spiritualizing it all.  It really happened, and yet he was blessed with the spirit.

What do you know of Paul?

Think of it this way, If we only had the writings of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus we would only know about John the Baptist, Jesus the Christ, and James the brother, but we would not know that, for example, Peter or Paul ever existed. And if we calculated comparative importance by amount of space, the ranking would be, first, James with 27 lines of Greek in the Jewish Antiquities 20.199-203, then John with 24 lines in 18.116-19, and finally Jesus with 13 lines in 18.63-64.  James, in other words, gets twice the space of his brother Jesus.

Around the end of the first century C.E.,  Luke records in the second volume, Acts, that the Roman appointed ruler of Palestine Herod Agrippa I, executed "James, the brother of John" (Acts 12:2).  Both James and John had been identified as "sons of Zebedee" in his gospel (Luke 5:10).  Agrippa also imprisoned Peter at that time in 41 C.E., and when he escaped, Peter said, and Acts 12:17, to "tell this to James," clearly not the just-executed James but another with the same name.  Luke never identifies this second James any further but his authority is indicated as recipient of that message and I conclude that he is the same James who later acts the most authoritatively in Acts 15:13 and 21:18.  Furthermore, the earliest gospel, Mark, identifies a James in the first place among the four brothers of Jesus (Mark 6:3), and Matthew 13:55 followed Mark in that listing, but Luke omitted it entirely.

In summary, then you would know from Luke that there was a second and very important James but you would never know from either of Luke's volumes that James was in fact the brother of Jesus.

On the other hand, none of Paul's letters in the New Testament dating to the 40s and 50s ever mentioned James, son of Zebedee, brother of John.

Note, too! James had lived in Jerusalem for at least 30 years without incurring anti-Christian persecution and his execution toppled a high priests.  James was clearly important not just to the Christian Jews but also to non-Christian Jews and presumably to Pharisaic Jews in Jerusalem, who called for the removel of the high priests Ananite for the crime of executing James "the Just".


James made it clear to Paul in   Acts 21:20  And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,

Just what point was James trying to make to Paul?

The most significant point about James, however, is not his authority within early Christianity.  Nor is it is martyrdom, which like his brother, was due to his opposition of the high priest.  The most significant point about James is his opposition to Paul.  This is already evident and Paul's letters to Galatians.  It is, on the one hand, programmatically absent from Luke's Acts and represents one of those basic locations where one should not collate and combined Paul and Luke, not collapse the distinct layers into one single layer, but separate and distinguish the earlier Paul over Luke, not collapse these distinct layers into one single layer, but separate and distinguish earlier Paul over the later Luke.  It is, on the other hand, fictionally expanded and fantastically heightened in a still later layer, the second century source within the Christian novel known as the Clementine Recongnitions. This raises a very important question for excavating Jesus textually.  What happens if you look at Jesus through his brother James rather than, or at least as well as, through his apostle Paul?

Paul and Luke. there was, Luke and Paul agree, a crucially important debate in Jerusalem around the year 50 C.E. on whether male pagan converts to Christianity would have to be circumcised before they could be excepted into full and equal membership alongside male Jewish converts who were, of course, already circumcised.  They also agreed that the source of the affirmation, or restrictive, position (yes to male pagan circumcision) came from "certain individuals," as Luke puts it an Act 15:1, or from "false believers," as Paul puts it in Galatians 2:4.  That difference is a good indication come by the way, of their divergent narrative tones: for Luke, all is irenic consensus; for Paul, all is polemical tension.  They further agreed that the final decision was in the negative (no to male pagan circumcision).  Finally, they agree that James was quite important in the entire proceedings.  Luke records that Peter, Barnabas, and Paul spoke first, and James last.  But it is James who concludes that "I have reach the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God" by demanding that their males be circumcised (Acts 15:19).  Paul again concurs "That when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised" (Galatians 2:9).  But granted those general and important agreements, everything else is specific and is in equally important disagreement.

Acts 15 vs. Galatians 2. In the later Act 15, Luke speaks of one single debate, at one time in Jerusalem, with one result, complete harmony on both that first original subject (no to circumcision traditions for pagan male converts).  In the earlier Galatians 2, Paul, on the other hand, speaks of two debates come at two times in Jerusalem (2:1-10) and Antioch (2:11-16), and with harmonious consensus on the first subject but severe discord on the second one.

On the former subject, there was, as just mentioned, agreement by all (save, presumably, Luke's "certain individuals" and Paul's "false believers"?).  That position would have been accepted to somebody like James because one strand of Jewish tradition held that God would bring the Gentiles into full committee with Jews at that ideal utopian or eschato-logical moment in the future when God finally made the earth divinely just.  Gentiles would then be converted not to Judaism, with male circumcision, for example, but to the God of the entire world.  Jews and Gentiles would then feast together with God on a pure, just, peaceful, and fruitful earth.  It was a vision of God's eventual justification and pacification of a violent earth not by the great final war at Mount Megiddo (Armageddon) in which evildoers would be finally slaughtered but by the great final banquet on Mount Zion in which the evildoers would be finally converted.  Recall, for instant, the rhapsodic images of Micah 4:1-4 and Isaiah 2:2-4 on cosmic peace:

Isa 25:6  On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. 8  He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken.

Against that background and within precisely that irenic tradition of eschatological apocalypticism, James and all the others (save for some dissident holdouts?)  agree that circumcision was not mandatory for male pagan converts to Christian Judaism.

Galatians 2: 11-17.  It was, however, on that second subject that Luke and Paul disagree both profoundly and directly.  Paul sets this second debate not at Jerusalem but at later Antioch.  What was at stake was no more and no less than the present and future unity of the new community. Would there be two separate, unequal, and maybe even inimical wings to that new Christian community, a Christian Jewish one observing kosher regulations and a Christian pagan one not doing so?  And that question was especially acute because a united community of Jews and Gentiles eating together would have to go one way or the other.  Either altogether would observe kosher, with Christian pagans conceding to Christian Jews, or altogether would avoid kosher, with Christian Jews conceding to Christian pagans.  The whole problem, of course, arose only where such joint assemblies were already taking place or might eventually do so.

That second subject was not about circumcision.  That was already conceded by James at Jerusalem and has not been retracted by James at Antioch.  And neither was it about Christian pagans observing kosher all by themselves in, say, Ephesus, Corinth, or Rome. It was precisely and accurately about and only about common meals when Jewish and pagan converts ate together in religious assembly.  Here is Paul's account of the debate, dispute, or row, at Antioch in Galatians 2:11-16:

Gal 2:11  But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12  For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13  And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14  But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" 15  We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16  yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Centuries of Christian commentary have presume that Paul was obviously right in that debate.  What if he was "possibly" not?  :dontknow:

To be continued!


Paul

[Pierac]

Part 2

First, non-circumcision for male pagan converts was worth an absolute non-negotiable position and James had agreed to that position at Jerusalem.  Without that agreement Christian paganism would have died at birth if not conception.  Second, and only as second, could a further question arise, namely, in joint (Eucharistic?) meals between Christian Jews and Christian pagans, will unity be maintained by common kosher or common nonkosher custom?  Third, read again Paul's accusation against Peter.  We interpret that says to mean that Peter, a Christian Jew, had been observing the common nonkosher solution when eating with Christian pagans.  And so, apparently, were (several, many, all?)  Other Christian Jews at Antioch.  But now that they have agreed to James demand for the common kosher solution.  Such a change from nonkosher for all to kosher for all, Paul twice condemns as hypocrisy. The assembly's response to Paul is not given but, no doubt, they would have said that, no Paul, it is not hypocrisy but simply courtesy.  Fourth, this is a pragmatic question against which Paul mounts an in this case irrelevant argument.  Had Peter and the others ever believed that kosher was still mandatory for their salvation, they could not so easily omitted it.

The question at Antioch was not fundamentally different from modern, believing Christians observing all Jewish customs while eating in a Jewish home or praying in a Jewish temple.  It would not be a question of communal hypocrisy but of ecumenical courtesy now, and it would also have been a question of communal unity then.  Finally, to this pragmatic question Paul introduces "works of the law" three times and opposes to them "faith in Christ" three times.  Paul's antithesis of base and works might be theologically justifiable in the abstract but for that pragmatic question at Antioch it was irrelevant in the concrete.  Does anyone believe that James, Peter, Barnabas, and all the others (save Paul) had opted for justification by "works of the Law" rather than "faith in Christ"?  Paul's position (at least as recorded to the Galatians) was akin to machine gunning butterflies.  James, Peter, Barnabas, and all the others who agree with him, were right at Antioch.  Paul was wrong at Antioch.

Romans 15 and Acts 21. There is one final New Testament indication of James authority in Jerusalem and here, once again, Paul and Luke differ profoundly but now indirectly.  Before, but especially after, the Jerusalem decision on circumcision, the groups unity was an obvious and fundamental problem.  And Paul was very aware of it.  That was why he agree enthusiastically and followed up conscientiously on the common decision to take up a collection from Christian pagans for those Christian Jews known as "the poor" in Jerusalem (a common-life community like at Qumran?).  After James and the Jerusalem "pillars" excepted the non-circumcision of male pagan converts, "they asked," he said in Galatians 2:10, "only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do."  But, while Paul discussed that collection repeatedly in his letters, Luke's Acts never mentions it all.  There are, however, sections and that book that makes sense only if Luke (or at least his sources) new about it and presumed its existence and operation.

Paul discusses his plans for delivering the collection to Jerusalem in Romans 15:25-27, 30-31 and he acknowledges two dangers that may well destroyed its function as a unifying process between Christian Jews and Christian pagans:

At present, however, you want to Jerusalem and Ministry to the Saints; for Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to share the resources with the poor among the Saints at Jerusalem.  They were pleased to do this, and indeed they owed it to them; for if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material things... I appealed to you, brothers and sisters, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the spirit, to join me in earnest prayer to God on my behalf, that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea, and that my ministry to Jerusalem may be acceptable to the Saints.

The external danger was opposition from non-Christian Jews and the internal danger was rejection by the Christian Jews. Both happened. And knowing they both might happen, Paul still accompanied the collection instead of sending it with community representatives.  For Paul, the unity of community's twin wings was important enough to except the task of martyrdom. But in Acts 21:17-25, although he never mentions any collection, Luke tells, in effect, how both of Paul the fears were realized at Jerusalem.  James and the Christian Jewish community place a condition on the collection's acceptance and, when Paul follow that, he was attacked by non-Christians use in the Temple.  Here is their condition:

When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us warmly. The next they all went with us to visit James; and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his Ministry.  When they heard it, they praise God.  Then they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands of believers were among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law. They had been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcised their childrenor observe the customs.  What will be done?  They will certainly hear that you have come.  So do what we tell you.  We have four man who were under a vow.  Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads.  Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law.  But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and blood and from what is strangled and from fortification."

That text is cited as one further indication of James authority in Jerusalem and of the continuing tension, carefully muted by Luke in Acts 21 as earlier in Acts 15, between James and Paul.  The latter was now in a terrible double bind.  One alternative was to refuse James's condition, except the collection's rejection, and acknowledge Christianity's split condition.  The other was to follow James condition, deliver the collection and thereby emphasize unity, but risk the charge of hypocrisy that he himself had leveled at Peter.

Epistle of James. The "James" of this New Testament epistle is not identified any further but he is almost certainly James the righteous or Just One, James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus. That "Epistle of" could mean anything from personal authorship through developed teachings to fictional attribution.  Each position is defensible but none is absolutely provable.  For here and now, we emphasized only one point.  If you try to imagine the theology of James from a careful examination of the layers imposed of Luke's Acts, Paul's Galatians, and Josephus's Jewish Antiquities, you could easily come up with something like the content of the epistle attributed to him.

Paul insisted in Galatians 2:11-17, as just seen, on justification through faith in Christ rather than in the works of the law, an argument simply irreverent to the pragmatic problem at Antioch, which was about maintaining unity rather than obtaining justification.  James does not respond, in his 2:14-19, that justification comes from works rather than from faith or from either alone (would any Jew have ever argued those positions?), but he argues that it comes from faith and works together, from faith operating through works, from faith manifested by works, from faith's inability to be separated from works.

Jam 2:14  What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?  If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,  and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?  Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.  But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.


Faith and works are like twin sides of the one coin, distinguishable but not separable, a dialectic, not a dichotomy.  It's quite possible to argue that James and Paul meant different things by their common terms, faith and works, by their common use of Abraham as a model, and by their common citation of Genesis 16:5 ("Abraham believed God, and it was reckon to him as righteousness"), James 2:23, Galatians 3:6, and Romans 4:3.

James 2:23  and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.

Gal 3:6  Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Rom 4:3  For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."

It is also quite possible, therefore, to claim that James 2:14-19  is arguing past Paul's position but, then, so was Paul arguing pass that obtains and everyone else in Galatians 2: 11-17.  We have, once again, to imagine how differently we would see the situation Antioch if we imagine that, not Paul, but James (and everyone else) had the better case.  :dontknow:

Gal 2:11  But when Cephas( Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?  "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!

We have, once again, to imagine how differently we would see the situation Antioch if we imagine that, not Paul, but James (and everyone else) had the better case.  :dontknow:   I'm not saying either way, just pointing it out!

To be continued...
Paul

[Pierac]

Part 3

In the realm of textual criticism, there is developing a consensus that the words and deeds attributed to Jesus in our New Testament gospels fall into major layers built successively one upon (that is, over, under, around, and through) another.  Think of them as, first, the original layer, coming from Jesus' own words and deeds in the 20s; next as the traditional layer coming from the tradition's adoptions, adaptation, and creation of those materials in the 30s, 40s, or even later; and, finally, as the evangelical layer in the gospels we now possess from the 70s through the 90s.  Note that, it is not just a question of being later and earlier text, but of being directly dependent upon it.  Obviously, all depend text are later, but not all later text are dependent.


The First layer:  Layer I contains material that go back to the historical Jesus in the late 20s.  It is always, of course, a scholarly reconstruction, a decision through explicit theory, discipline method, and public debate on what in the Jesus tradition goes back to Jesus himself.  In this book will concentrate not just on isolated units from that proposed first layer but on the major earliest "chunks" to see if and how they fit with the situation of the late 20s in Antipas's territories.  We emphasize that such layering presumes prior conclusions about the nature and relationship of the Gospels as good news for a community's life.

The Second layer:  Layer II contains material either adopted from that earlier layer or else created by and within the ongoing tradition.  It too involves scholarly reconstruction and include such items as the following: Paul, writing in the 50s, identify something explicitly or implicitly as pre-Pauline tradition, that pushes such material back towards the 40s or even 30s.  Also, tradition found in two independent sources, such as the Q gospel, also from the 50s, and any other independent gospel, be it inside the New Testament as with Mark, or outside the New Testament as with the Gospel of Thomas or the Didache, points back to earlier layers.  Such a double and independent vectors point back to oral or written material from the 30s or 40s and possibly from the historical Jesus himself.

The Third layer:   Layer III is crucial because it contains three internal sub-layers or levels. (In an archaeological mound these could be designated as Stratum IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc.)  The first level of layer III contains the Q gospel and Mark, spanning the late 50s to the early 70s.  The second level, most probably dependent on those two preceding gospels, contains Matthew and Luke, from the 80s.  The third level, quite possibly depended on Mark, Matthew, and Luke, is the gospel of John.  That canonical process is, by the way, our most secure evidence for layering as a gospel phenomenon.

Let's look at some examples of layering;  Paul wrote to the Corinthians from Ephesus in the early 50s C.E. but he says in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received."  The most likely source in time for his reception of that tradition would have been Jerusalem in the early 30s when, according to Galatians 1:18, he went "up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him 15 days."  That received tradition, therefore, is an example of the second layer on the resurrection of Jesus.

As we have discussed in the middle of the first century there were debates at Jerusalem over whether pagan converts to Christian Judaism needed to be circumcised (no) and at Antioch over whether meals involving Jewish and pagan converts should observe kosher (yes).

But neither in Paul's rather polemical account in Galatians 2 nor in Luke's more irenic version in Acts 15 does anyone cite the historical Jesus on either subject.  In Galatians 2:11-14, for example, the combined Antioch community shifted from nonkosher to kosher meals at James insistence.  Paul disagreed with everyone else about that move, but he never cited any command or custom of Jesus in his own defense.

In the last quarter of the same century the gospel of Mark offers guidance on this subject.

Mar 7:15  there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.

But to explain it he adds three contextual comments.  It needs to be privately explained to the disciples in 7:17-23.  It received the explicit Markan  gloss asserting, "(Thus he declared all foods clean)."  It immediately precedes a sojourn by Jesus in pagan territory, a sort of proleptic Gentile mission.  That is all clear enough, but is it the first or the third layer of gospel tradition, is it from Jesus or from Mark?

Mark 7:17  When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. And He *said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

That Markan phrase about Jesus declaring "all foods clean" is omitted at the parallel place in Matthew 15:17-18.  That is only to be expected after Jesus said earlier in Matthew 5:7-18,  "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.  "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Mark and Matthew, and other words, pull the historical Jesus in opposite directions on the subject of food purity and impurity, and that could still be done as late as the 70s and 80s.

The obvious conclusion from those three items is that the earliest layer furnished no clear attitude for or against food purity rules from historical Jesus.  He, in other words observe exactly the same rules about food purity as did other Galilean peasants of his time and place. 

Clementine Recognitions:  This is a second century source contained in the first book of a fourth century Christian novel called the Clementine Recognitions.  It is another version of that story from Hegesippus but there are two major expansions.  First, individual members of the 12 speak about Jesus before the people and Caiaphas in the Temple at Passover and James "ascends" the steps as the climactic last to bear witness.  He speaks for a week and persuaded "all the people and the high priest that they should hasten to receive baptism" (1.69.8).  Second, a murderous intervention prevents that general conversion.  "A certain hostile man" entered the Temple and "began to murder.... Much blood flowed.  There was a confused flight, during which the hostile man attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps.  As he believed him to be dead, he was not concerned to beat him further" (1.70.1, 6, 8).

That "hostile man" is never identified directly by name but he is definitely Paul himself since "the hostile man had receive authority from Caiaphas the high priest to pursue all who believed in Jesus and travel to Damascus with his letters, so that there are also by using the help of unbelievers he might bring ruin on the faithful" (1.71.4).  That, of course, is intended to recall the description of Paul from Luke's Acts 9:1-2.

You'll notice of the second century  'novel' text makes three very serious accusations against Paul.  One is that, but for his intervention, all the people and all the priests were about to convert to Christianity.  Another is that he himself murdered and incised others to murder Christians in the Temple.  A final one concerns James.  This extremely tendentious, utterly libelous, and completely fictional account knows about James's "thrown-down" martyrdom but manages both to say and not to say that Paul killed him. The novel does not tell anything about James after that point so one could easily presume that what Paul believed was correct and that James was dead, murdered by Paul.  And that is what the 'novel' text intended us to think.

Three major themes, then, appear and develop concerning James the Just of Jerusalem, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.  They move into the layers both inside and outside the New Testament.  And in both places they move from fact to fiction and from history to theology along tracks of ideological acceptance or rejection.  The first theme, James authoritative importance, appears in 1 Corinthians 15:7, the Gospel of Thomas 12, and the Gospel of be Hebrews 7.  The second theme, James martyrdom, develops from Josephus to Hegesippus.  The third theme, the opposition between James and Paul, is absent from Luke's Acts, where everyone agrees with James, but is present in Paul's Galatians, where everyone agrees with James except Paul.  Opposition continues, concerning faith and works, Abraham and Genesis, in the Epistle of James, and its climaxes as libelous fiction in the Clementine Recognitions.

Once those textual layers are carefully distinguished and their literary purpose clearly emphasize, we can see them as disputes within Christian Judaism, debates growing ever more bitter between proponents of James and of Paul, but never as Christianity against Judaism.  That is exactly the same context in which we see Jesus.

Peace,
Paul

[martincisneros]

Someone asked me about whether Pierac's posts wandered too far into textual criticism, so I read just about the whole thing trying to find the context rather than trying to make a big deal over semantics about the phrase "textual criticism" in the third post.  With the exception of the textual criticism of the Gospels, it's much of what I've said at various times.  Not saying that I'm leaving the posts on the thread because I genuinely believe them at this point.  It's actually in a gray area with me right now where I'd be tempted to pull them pretty quickly over the layering of the Gospels interpretation.  To me, this actually teeters on the subject of theonomy rather than textual criticism and I haven't fully made up my mind about that yet, though many see it as a necessary component of Postmillenialism. 

So, I'll leave the posts for someone to go back and read a few things in context either at the library or other places on the internet, but I'm going to leave the thread locked for a while.  My first instinct is to pull, particularly the third part of these three posts that Pierac posted, but the St. Paul verses the other Apostles is a subject that needs to be prayerfully looked at, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we need the argument here at these Tentmaker boards that could potentially get started, if folks that aren't normally at these boards wanted to come just for a textual criticism blow up.  I would refer folks to Robert Eisenman's "James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls" for further reading on the relationship between James and Paul. 

James would have actually been an Essene and not trying to keep the traditional ideas of koshur, but I'll refer folks to the book I just mentioned for that counter argument and leave it at that on these boards.  Robert Eisenman's actually got two or three books of the same general size about James, in the 1000+ pages range, but this food issue I'm the most sure of being handled in the particular book I've just mentioned.  A whole chapter devoted to James's veganism.  Wouldn't even wear wool, if I remember correctly.  And he's not the only scholar of that caliber saying those things based on extrabiblical evidence.  If I had to pick a final reason for locking this one is that it's in that vast massive area of teetering on the extrabiblical. 

Not saying that something being extrabiblical is necessarily wrong, because I do believe that the Holy Spirit will give extrabiblical guidance that's always in line with the Bible, but to make it's truths relevant for each person, each situation, and each generation.  But when Gary wanted the boards thinned down almost exactly one year ago and Bernie decided he was bailing as administrator, these were the very types of issues that Gary wanted really trimmed back rather than necessarily the diversity of the boards.  I personally think a couple more boards should have been pulled in order to have prevented any confusion whatsoever on Gary's wishes for the forum from then on, but each time I've looked at that issue, those wound up being the very boards where we had some currently important stuff going on, and I'm leery of more disappeared threads. 

I've debated locking all of the old threads that are on the boards not currently visible here by anyone except for moderators and admins and moving them to the back pages of the boards so that they're at least good reading, if not somewhere we can always necessarily go again because of the thinner mission statement of the forum now.  But I've periodically had a peak at those really old threads that are on the boards that got pulled and have wished that many of them weren't invisible to public view, even if they were on lockdown from further posting.  Perhaps I could just make a publicly viewable archive board that nobody could post to, but so that much or all of that old stuff would at least be viewable.  For newbies that aren't sure why things are the way that they are with a thinning of the diversity of the topics, perhaps if you could see some of the Hatfield/McCoy carrying on that had happened, it would be easier to understand, perhaps even easier to understand moderation decisions that have been made while you've been here.  I'll pray about talking to Gary about it.

[jabcat]

I got'ta go look up the definition of theonomy  :laughing7:.

[martincisneros]

Theonomy is the application of Biblical, including Mosaic law, to the governing of a country or a region by Christian leadership.  U.S. Constitution is an example of Theonomy.  David Barton at http://www.wallbuilders.com has resources that document from the personal writings of the founding fathers where they got all of the aspects of our constitution in the Bible.  A Biblically run/Theonomy run nation wouldn't be a theocracy as is often the criticism.  Modern Republicanism came out of the Bible, and I'm not certain that ancient Republicanism didn't spring board directly from Mosaic Law.  1500BC, or thereabouts.  I won't argue with anyone about 50 to 100 years on their dating preference for it.  But whatever number you agree upon, verses 500BC or 600BC with Plato and his version of a Republic. He was either influenced by the Old Testament or someone that influenced him, whether a pagan priest/mystic/somebody that had had some exposure to Israel's Law.  Theonomy is not necessarily a great topic to handle at Churches, unless they have civil leaders in their midst, but as legal and civics theory, it has a place, especially as the modern tendency is to disguard a few too many of the values of the past -- often through ignorance of what our heritage has been and the blessings that were upon us while we were that way.  There's always room for a little extra liberality on a few issues, but skeletally speaking, ya can't beat it.

As far as my comment about the old threads that are not visible to regular members and the general public, and haven't been visible since March or April of last year or so, I genuinely often forget that those threads are there 'cause of them being at a child link at the bottom of the forum in the administrative section rather than even being fully opened to us.  It'll often be my winding up following a moderator into one of those boards, from the "Who's online" that'll remind me that that stuff's even there!  It's genuinely been one of those "out of sight, out of mind" things that if nobody brought it up or if I didn't see a moderator in there, then I genuinely would never think about it.  I'm not the one that pulled those boards if anyone has wondered.  I wouldn't have done that.  I'd of just done what I'm talking about with having locked the threads and having moved 'em over to one or two boards and made decisions along the way as to whether any thread went way too far to be included on a special archive 'view only' board that would be viewable by everybody.  Not all of the stuff is objectionable material.  Some of it is stuff on faith, relationship issues, other areas of the fruit of the spirit, and a bunch of other borderline choice stuff for a lot of people around here.  Even some really wild discussions on UFOs and conspiracy theory stuff that Joyful1 would have really eaten up if that stuff had been publicly viewable at the time when she was with us. LOL!  Such a genuinely amazing diversity of topics, as I'm thinking about it right now, that something somehow has to be done of at least making all [or between much and most] of that stuff viewable!!

[Pierac]

James could have been more of a Karaite Jew too?  :dontknow:


Paul