First Century Christian-Jewish Relations

[LittleLes]

It is commonly but mistakenly held that from the very beginning of Christianity, Christians and Jews were foes. But this is not the case.

The Acts of the Apostles, traditionally thought to have been written by Luke, and Paul's and the Pauline Epistles paint somewhat of a different picture of Christian-Jewish relations following the Ascension.

Using these two sets of documents, particularly Acts, and later some Jewish writings, I propose to trace the evolution of this relationship.

Any initial thoughts (documented hopefully )

LittleLes

[peach_cube]

I propose you don't.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I think you are missing the distinction between the Jews that believed (and thus Christians) and the Jews that did not believe.

Edited July 19, 2005 by thedude

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 18 2005, 08:50 PM']It is commonly but mistakenly held that from the very beginning of Christianity, Christians and Jews were foes. But this is not the case.

The Acts of the Apostles, traditionally thought to have been written by Luke,  and Paul's and the Pauline Epistles paint somewhat of a different picture of Christian-Jewish relations following the Ascension.

Using these two sets of documents, particularly Acts,  and later some Jewish writings, I propose to trace the evolution of this relationship.

Any initial thoughts (documented hopefully )

LittleLes
[right][snapback]648849[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
you remind me of dairygirl.. is it you? just curious.

[StColette]

What ? explain this further please

[Fidei Defensor]

I suspect you are just setting up some strawman so you can somehow argue illogically that Jesus wasnt God or that he wasnt the literal Son of God.. the usual.

[Aloysius]

some jews were friends... because they were also Christians.

some jews were enemies... because they continued to side with the Pharisees... like Saul of Tarsus who, according to the only evidence in existence about him, became St. Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles.

St. Paul brought the gentiles in. There were a few disputes, at some points even Peter was being too Jew-exclusive... but that's why we neded Paul. The Christian Church was formed, some Jews were enemies (which really manifested at the Council of Jamnia which shouldn't have been authoritative even by Jewish standards) and other Jews were Christians and some Gentiles were Christians. And there was one Church. At least according to all known accounts from as early into the time period as we can get.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 19 2005, 01:11 AM']some jews were friends... because they were also Christians.

some jews were enemies... because they continued to side with the Pharisees... like Saul of Tarsus who, according to the only evidence in existence about him, became St. Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles.

St. Paul brought the gentiles in.  There were a few disputes, at some points even Peter was being too Jew-exclusive... but that's why we neded Paul.  The Christian Church was formed, some Jews were enemies (which really manifested at the Council of Jamnia which shouldn't have been authoritative even by Jewish standards) and other Jews were Christians and some Gentiles were Christians.  And there was one Church.  At least according to all known accounts from as early into the time period as we can get.
[right][snapback]649326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

We may be getting off the topic I originally intended, but lets take a look at what you are saying.

Might I suggest that Jesus himself was probably a Pharisee and, Paul, despite his protestations to the contrary, was probably a Saducee.

Ask yourself this question. Would a Pharisee agree to be an agent of the Chief Priest, a Saducee put in power by the Romans, and help route out the early Christians who were probably Pharisees?

[Quietfire]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 19 2005, 07:18 AM']RESPONSE:

Might I suggest that Jesus himself was probably a Pharisee and, Paul, despite his protestations to the contrary, was probably a Saducee.

[right][snapback]649469[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No you may not. Since it is not even remotely true, then why even allow it in your mind to be a possiblility.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 18 2005, 08:33 PM']you remind me of dairygirl.. is it you? just curious.
[right][snapback]649014[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jul 19 2005, 08:41 AM']No you may not.  Since it is not even remotely true, then why even allow it in your mind to be a possiblility.
[right][snapback]649559[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Compare and contrast what Jesus taught and the teaching of the two greatest figures of Pharisaism: Hillel and Rabbi Akiba.

Don't allow yourself to buy into the anti-Pharisee bias found particularly in John's gospel. Why this developed is understandable. We should be covering the reasons.

[Quietfire]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 19 2005, 10:38 AM']RESPONSE:

Compare and contrast what Jesus taught and the teaching of the two greatest figures of Pharisaism: Hillel and Rabbi Akiba.

Don't allow yourself to buy into the anti-Pharisee bias found  particularly in John's gospel. Why this developed is understandable. We should be covering the reasons.
[right][snapback]649688[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Response: I wont allow myself to buy into your carp. You need help bro.

Pax

[LittleLes]

In the first century, Judaism was composed of two principle parties or schools of thought, and a number of smaller sects. All had in common a belief in strict monotheism, belief in the inspired nature of the Torah, and reverence for the Temple in Jerusalem. Beyond that they held a number of divergent views.

Aside from the many pious but uncommitted Jews, the majority party was that of the Pharisees who were meticulous observers of the ancestral laws, particularly those contained in the Torah of Moses.

The second largest party was that of the Sadducees, who did not believe in all the authoritative laws, did not believe in a general resurrection of the dead, controlled the Temple and the priesthood, had wealthy support, and were kept in power by the Roman authorities.

Among the various sects were the Essenes; the revolutionary groups,
the Zealots and the Sicarii; the Way (early Christians), followers of John the Baptist, etc.

From a political standpoint, the real friction existed between the Pharisees, religious purists, and the Sadducees, the rather worldly. The later really had control because they were supported by Rome and were anxious to put down any threats to this power.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 19 2005, 06:18 AM']RESPONSE:

We may be getting off the topic I originally intended, but lets take a look at what you are saying.

Might I suggest that Jesus himself was probably a Pharisee and, Paul, despite his protestations to the contrary, was probably a Saducee.

Ask yourself this question.  Would a Pharisee agree to be an agent of the Chief Priest, a Saducee put in power by the Romans, and help route out the early Christians who were probably Pharisees?
[right][snapback]649469[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, most historians think that Jesus was seperate from the pharisees from the start. Certainly he had more in common with the Pharisees than, say, the Sadducees, but if Jesus were to be named a member of any already existing sect, it would probably be the Essenes, from whom John the Precurser probably learned, and who, some scholars think, were also called the Herodians.

Les, no offense, but all of your posts really do reek of someone taking what he learned in New Testament 201 completely out of context.

Edited July 19, 2005 by JeffCR07

[Jaime]

[quote]Les, no offense, but all of your posts really do reek of someone taking what he learned in New Testament 201 completely out of context.
[/quote]

That would mean he passed introductory Theo.


You are so much nicer than me Jeff!