Sex, Lies and Dead Sea Scrolls - those early years surrounding Christianity (Page 3)

ghostgeek: Ask yourself one simple question. Why did Paul have nothing to do with Jerusalem until he had to make a quick exit from Damascus? Then he high-tailed it down to Cephas' house and had a chinwag with James before getting out of Dodge smartish.

ghostgeek: Yes, sometimes the truth is to be found lurking in the shadows.

Zanjan: "Why did Paul have nothing to do with Jerusalem...............?"

What are you talking about? After returning from Africa, he stopped by to visit the Jerusalem believers several times; he consulted with them on where he should go next. The apostles were assigned to go to different cities but a few stayed in Jerusalem. Paul went where he was most needed and we're not in any place to question their timing.

ghostgeek: Paul tells us that he was converted in Damascus, left that city without talking to anyone and went into Arabia. Returning to Damascus, he spent three years there before having to make a hurried exit in a basket. Only then did he take the road south and slink into Jerusalem to make Cephas' acquaintance and meet James. That suggest to me that James had him by the short and curlies.

ghostgeek: "Pay up lad," one can imagine James saying, "or I'll make sure you never use my brother's name again."

Zanjan:

edmund_carey: You are unusually suggestible.

ghostgeek: So why did Paul go running down to see James after he had to scarper from Damascus?

Zanjan: Where would you expect him to go - to London? Visiting a countryside inn, slopping down a few pints of cider would just be boring.

ghostgeek: Anywhere but Jerusalem, where he clearly didn't feel at home.

ghostgeek: After that first visit he waited another fourteen years before he could face going back. That shows you how keen he was to visit the dump.

Zanjan: Maybe you have an idea where most of the other Apostles went and why they never came back.

In my religion, if you go off pioneering you're supposed to lay your bones down at your post, unless admin calls you back. Seekers don't like it when you breeze through then leave them alone. It's a buzzkill.

ghostgeek: Paul doesn't say where those Apostles went or whether they ever came back.

ghostgeek: I guess being on the losing side meant nobody kept a track of their movements.

Zanjan: Losing side?

ghostgeek: Sure, the original followers of Jesus before Paul came along with his wacky ideas.

ghostgeek: Later centuries called them Ebionites and labelled them heretics. That's what happens when you wind up on the losing side.

Zanjan: You know, you're sounding like a conspiracy theorist.

ghostgeek: No one's ever shown that there aren't little green aliens somewhere in the universe scratching their heads and wondering why earthlings think one man, out of the whole species, rose from the dead.

Zanjan: Going out on a limb, aren't ya?

Zanjan: Seriously, the text says lots of people came out of their graves after the crucifixion. I'm sure the little green aliens have heard that some of us earthlings see things differently.

Most of that can be attributed to not skipping over the verses that don't fit into an agenda. Furthermore, the text says that when Christ returns, people will come out of their graves again - "they'll change in the twinkling of an eye"; just like the last time, not all of them.

edmund_carey: Could we know what the evidence is of what the "original followers of Jesus" believed before Paul came along with his "wacky ideas"? Ebionites hardly fill the bill. No one can even date them precisely, much less give a complete account of their beliefs. That they were at variance with what became orthodox Christian belief doesn't make them "losers", it makes them unorthodox.

What did become orthodox Christian belief is represented in the writings of St Paul, just as it is in the rest of the New Testament. Paul was writing starting in the thirties of the first century. I don't think we have any written evidence earlier that that as to what "original followers" of Jesus believed.

Zanjan: "Could we know what the evidence is of what the "original followers of Jesus" believed before Paul came along with his "wacky ideas"? "

I would say, yes, because all of them had to agree - they were united and the church was one so there was no such thing as "orthodox" teachings.

How each person understood everything is another matter due to the fact they were all newbies. Then they had to make that difficult transition from being a disciple to an Apostle. Through it all, they had to come to full agreement because the church remained one for a very long time.

Paul takes the reader through the process of consultation. Circumcision, for example. Since Jesus didn't abrogate that law, should they still practice it? They agreed that Jesus didn't command them to continue it. Believers asked why.

Undoubtedly there was much discussion over the why of it but it remains that there's no order. In that case, it could be left up to individual preference but if they do it, it's not for religious reasons.

ghostgeek: They were united? What the hell do you think Paul was writing all those letters for? His hocus pocus religion was going off the rails at a rate of knots.

ghostgeek: As I posted earlier:

Most of the features of Ebionite doctrine were anticipated in the teachings of the earlier Qumrān sect, as revealed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. They believed in one God and taught that Jesus was the Messiah and was the true “prophet” mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15. They rejected the Virgin Birth of Jesus, instead holding that he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. The Ebionites believed Jesus became the Messiah because he obeyed the Jewish Law. They themselves faithfully followed the Law, although they removed what they regarded as interpolations in order to uphold their teachings, which included vegetarianism, holy poverty, ritual ablutions, and the rejection of animal sacrifices. The Ebionites also held Jerusalem in great veneration.

[ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ebionites ]