First Century Christian-Jewish Relations

[LittleLes]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 19 2005, 10:51 AM']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.
[right][snapback]649852[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

I disagree. What I am trying to do is interpret the evidence based on its own merits without automatically interpreting the evidence in accordance with a preconceived belief system.

I've heard the arguement that Jesus was an Essene. While it certainly has merit, there evidently are some significant conflicts.

But I disagree that the Essenes were the Herodians. This is from the webBible Encyclopedia:

Herodians
a Jewish political party who sympathized with (Mark 3:6; 12:13; Matt, 22:16; Luke 20:20) the Herodian rulers in their general policy of government, and in the social customs which they introduced from Rome

They were at one with the Sadducees in holding the duty of submission to Rome, and of supporting the Herods on the throne. (Compare Mark 8:15; Matt. 16:6.)

But. alas, I fear we are drifting off topic.






But I gather we concur that Jesus had some teachings in common with the Pharisees, but was some distance from the Sadducees.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 19 2005, 09:50 AM']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.
[right][snapback]649718[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Littleles,

If you are going to put information up here like this, you need to cite a source - book (author, edition, etc) or website (link please).

Information without sources is useless.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jul 19 2005, 11:49 AM']Littleles,

If you are going to put information up here like this, you need to cite a source - book (author, edition, etc) or website (link please).

Information without sources is useless.
[right][snapback]649945[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Actually I thouhgt that most Catholics were familiar with this information.

But, you are right, a source would be useful. Actually, a PBS website contains "A Portrait of Jesus' World." These and Acts of the Apostles contain the information (except for the aside on the possibility that Jesus was a Pharasee)

[url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/judaism.html"]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...it/judaism.html[/url].

Acts of the Apostles, New American Bible, USCC.

And on the aside about Jesus being a Pharasee and Paul a Sadduce there is: "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity" by Hyam Maccoby (who is a Talmudic scholar)

[jezic]

i think some were friends and some were enemies.

Like usual.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 19 2005, 01:53 PM']RESPONSE:

Actually I thouhgt that most Catholics were familiar with this information.

But, you are right, a source would be useful. Actually, a PBS website contains "A Portrait of Jesus' World." These and Acts of the Apostles contain the information (except for the aside on the possibility that Jesus was a Pharasee)

[url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/judaism.html"]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...it/judaism.html[/url].

Acts of the Apostles, New American Bible, USCC.

And on the aside about Jesus being a Pharasee and Paul a Sadduce there is:  "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity" by Hyam Maccoby (who is a Talmudic scholar)
[right][snapback]649977[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Ahh yes, PBS, that bastian of Catholic knowledge and overt orthodoxy....and then there is nothing better than using a Jew as a scholarly commentary on Roman Catholicism......

Nobody who is serious about being Catholic watches that "stuff."

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 19 2005, 05:01 PM']Ahh yes, PBS, that bastian of Catholic knowledge and overt orthodoxy....and then there is nothing better than using a Jew as a scholarly commentary on Roman Catholicism......

Nobody who is serious about being Catholic watches that "stuff."
[right][snapback]650201[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yeah, gotta love this stuff. Some talking head or liberal "scholar" gives his own idle speculations about what "really" happened in the life of Christ, St. Paul, etc. (as opposed to what is recorded in the scriptures), and these empty speculations are then presented by LittleLes as indisputable "facts."

For all his mocking of "True Believers," Les sure puts a lot of faith in his dissident masters, and expects us to do the same.

Expect a rehashing of his baseless "Anti-Semitism" conspiracy theories.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 19 2005, 05:01 PM']Ahh yes, PBS, that bastian of Catholic knowledge and overt orthodoxy....and then there is nothing better than using a Jew as a scholarly commentary on Roman Catholicism......

Nobody who is serious about being Catholic watches that "stuff."
[right][snapback]650201[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The only better authority on all things Catholic is the Discovery channel.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 19 2005, 05:01 PM']Ahh yes, PBS, that bastian of Catholic knowledge and overt orthodoxy....and then there is nothing better than using a Jew as a scholarly commentary on Roman Catholicism......

Nobody who is serious about being Catholic watches that "stuff."
[right][snapback]650201[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

It would take longer to read, but you can find the same information in the Bible. The New American Bible has extensive introductions and footnotes that you might profitably read.

But I suppose you are going to claim that all those bishops belonging to the US Catholic Conference and the Catholic Biblical Association don't know any better than PBS, eh?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:42 AM']RESPONSE:

It would take longer to read, but you can find the same information in the Bible. The New American Bible has extensive introductions and footnotes that you might profitably read.

But I suppose you are going to claim that all those bishops belonging to the US Catholic Conference and the Catholic Biblical Association don't know any better than PBS, eh?
[right][snapback]651052[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
LittleLes, throwing around names, and the "new american bible" does not give you any more creditability than someone who can throw around the words "reason" and "logical thinking" in a God debate.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:54 AM']LittleLes, throwing around names, and the "new american bible" does not give you any more creditability than someone who can throw around the words "reason" and "logical thinking" in a God debate.
[right][snapback]651066[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I think that most Catholics, if they study religion at all, are familiar with the following publications:

1. The (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church. (on line)
2. The New American Bible (copyrighted by the US Catholic Conference of Bishops and developed by the Catholic Biblical Association)(on line)
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia. (The old edition is on line)

Of course, if you want to claim that you don't know of these publications or attack their reliability, you might want to start a thread on that topic.

Regarding the Jewish parties and sects comprising orthodox Judaism in the first century, I would have thought that the four Jewish scholars who wrote the PBS articles would probably be in the best position to recount the Jewish history ofthat period. But apparently Kilroy and CAM don't think so, but present no specific challenge, except that it was a PBS publication.

I'm not sure how to handle these objections. On the one hand if I cite any of the three "Catholic" publications above, especially the NAB, somebody objects. If I cite non-catholic historians or biblical scholars, the implication I get is that they're never reliable.

Apparently, I'm suppose to confine my use of references to Catholic Answers or EWTN.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 02:14 PM']RESPONSE:

I think that most Catholics, if they study religion at all, are familiar with the following publications:

1. The (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church. (on line)
2. The New American Bible (copyrighted by the US Catholic Conference of Bishops and developed by the Catholic Biblical Association)(on line)
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia. (The old edition is on line)

Of course, if you want to claim that you don't know of these publications or attack their reliability, you might want to start a thread on that topic.

Regarding the Jewish parties and sects comprising orthodox Judaism in the first century, I would have thought that the four Jewish scholars who wrote the PBS articles would probably be in the best position to recount the Jewish history ofthat period. But apparently Kilroy and CAM don't think so, but present no specific challenge, except that it was a PBS publication.

I'm not sure how to handle these objections. On the one hand if I cite any of the three "Catholic" publications above, especially the NAB, somebody objects. If I cite non-catholic historians or biblical scholars, the implication I get is that they're never reliable.

Apparently, I'm suppose to confine my use of references to Catholic Answers or EWTN.
[right][snapback]651161[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes, because that is where I get all of mine.....however, you do seem to limit most of your answers to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

[LittleLes]

Apparently, I'm suppose to confine my use of references to Catholic Answers or EWTN.


CAM replied:

Yes, because that is where I get all of mine.


RESPONSE:

So that explains it!

[LittleLes]

The apostles and first disciples of Christ settled in Jerusalem where they were known as the sect called "the Way" or sometimes "Nazoreans" ( or the Hebrew " Nozerim").

Acts 9:2 ....belong to the Way

Acts 19: 9 ...some disparaged the Way

Acts 19:23 ... a serious disturbance broke out concerning the Way.

Acts 22:4 ...persecute this Way to the death.

Acts 24:5 ...and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazorean

Acts 24:14 According to the Way which they call a Sect.

Any problem here?

[peach_cube]

[img]http://www2.filmweb.no/multimedia/archive/00026/Mike_Myers_i_Wayne_s_26692a.jpg[/img]

Nooooooo Way!

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 02:54 PM']Apparently, I'm suppose to confine my use of references to Catholic Answers or EWTN.
CAM replied:

Yes, because that is where I get all of mine.
RESPONSE:

So that explains it! 
[right][snapback]651231[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And sarcasm is lost on LittleLes, like much of the Catholic Faith.