The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by iskander »

John2 wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:24 am Rev. 2:14 and 2:20:
Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.
Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

John of Patmos
Revelation 2:14
Balaam the Seducer of Jews and an Early Christian Polemic

Jewish Apocalyptic Believes in the 1st Cent. C.E.
True, he was a first-century Jew who believed that God had just recently sent into the world the messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, who was then killed and resurrected, and would return soon to culminate history and transform the world into a new reality. Nevertheless, in terms of his belief that the world was on the brink of a dramatic transformation, John was hardly unique among Jews.
Did John of Patmos cast Paul in the role of Balaam?
Who Were John’s “Balaam and Jezebel”?
Who constituted these threatening foreign elements? Almost certainly they are Gentiles in the Jesus movement who had been swayed by the teachings of the apostle Paul. A half century earlier, in the 50s, Paul had preached about the risen Jesus in the cities of the Aegean, but his understanding of the implication of the resurrection on Jewish law
differed markedly from John’s.

Whereas John believed that the resurrection of Jesus and his imminent return meant that Jews (and Gentile proselytes) should cling with ever more zeal to Jewish observance, Paul argued that many aspects of Jewish law had become obsolete. Paul weighed in specifically on the issue of meat sacrificed to idols in a letter to the Corinthians, concluding that consumption of such meats is permissible.[19]
http://thetorah.com/balaam-the-seducer- ... n-polemic/
Edited to add quote
Last edited by iskander on Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by Ben C. Smith »

iskander wrote: Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:09 amDid John of Patmos cast Paul in the role of Balaam?
This is part of the topic of a recent thread of mine: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3221.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by iskander »

John2 wrote: Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:49 pmAnd those are just the first four chapters. So Revelation does seem very Jewish Christian to me
Rabbi Garroway writes,
For a Jew like John at the end of the first century, the continued preaching of Paul’s gospel was an abomination. It was simply contemptible to encourage Jews to become lax in their observance of the Torah. Even worse was to tell Gentiles that they can join God’s people Israel through baptism that indicated faith in a messiah, with no need for circumcision and observance of the commandments. The teachers of such sacrilege merit the epithets he throws at them and their ilk: “Balaam” and “Jezebel,” as we have seen, but also “so-called Jews,”[22] and a “synagogue of Satan.”[23]
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

iskander (and Ben),

Regarding the references to Balaam, Balak and Jezebel in Revelation, I'm inclined to see them as OT manifestations or archetypes (or avatars? Not sure what word I'm looking for here) of evil, and I suppose in that sense it could be directed at Paul. This is something Paul himself does in his attack on Jewish Christians in 2 Cor. 11:10-18:
As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine ... And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then tolerate me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting. In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast.


That this is directed at Jewish Christians seems clear enough from what he goes on to say in 2 Cor. 11:21-23:
Whatever anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more.
And note his remark that "their end will be what their actions [i.e., works] deserve," which of course is what Jewish Christians were known for emphasizing, like James 2:14-24, which seems to be directed right back at Paul:
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
So they both mention fools, works, and Satan/demons, and then James goes on to discuss what a teacher should be like in 3:1-8, with references to their "great boasts" being "evil" and "set on fire by hell":
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check.

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.
Last edited by John2 on Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:17 pm, edited 4 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by iskander »

Thank you John for such a clear and instructive response. Your thread is excellent.

My interest in religion consists in the exploration of its capacity for change while remaining the same, even though religion is said to be based on the unchanging word of god.

Rabbi Garroway considers that " Revelation is perhaps the most natively Jewish of the Christian scriptures, composed by a meticulously observant Jew who would scoff at Christianity today." and also that John " He taught them to remain faithful in advance of their impending redemption—faithful to God, to God’s Torah, and to God’s messiah Jesus."

John 's Revelation is part of the Christian canon , a religion based on the teachings of Paul who is Balaam in the mind of John.

Apparently , all what Jewish Christians needed to get their books in the Christian canon was to believe that Jesus was the Messiah , died, was resuscitated and will return in the near future. .Redemption for those Jewish believers would take place when Jesus returns..

Did the failure to return end Jewish Christianity?
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

iskander wrote:
Did the failure to return end Jewish Christianity?
They seem to have still been around up to the fifth century CE (which I intend to take a fresh look at later), but I also recall a source that suggests that they might have been around for longer than that, and I want to take a fresh look at that too.
Shlomo Pines (1966) proposed that part of this work incorporated a polemical text written by Jewish Christians of the fifth or sixth century against followers of Paul, and insisting on the necessity of Gentile believers' conversion to Judaism and adherence to Mosaic law. Pines noted that the Arabic text showed departures from the Peshitta, and may have used an alternative Syriac or Aramaic source that had been preserved by this community of Jewish Christians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Jabbar_ibn_Ahmad
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

After reading some more Revelation I see that 4:2 appears to refer to God and not Jesus.
At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.


I stopped reading at this point and assumed that this refers to Jesus, since I recalled that James says in Hegesippus that Jesus was sitting at the right hand of God. But after reading more of Revelation and looking at commentaries on 4:2 it appeared to refer to God (though there are some who do think it is Jesus), and I was going to leave it at that but some other things in Revelation make me wonder if there could be some kind of binitarianism going on here.

In the rest of chapter 4 it seems pretty "clear" that the "someone sitting" on the "throne in heaven" in 4:2 is God.
Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders ... In front of the throne, seven lamps were blazing ... Also in front of the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal.

In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back ... Day and night they never stop saying: “'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,’ who was, and is, and is to come."

Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever ... They lay their crowns before the throne and say: “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”
Fine. It means God. But the part in 4:8, "who was, and is, and is to come," seemed curious, because the one who "is to come" in other parts of Revelation seems to be Jesus.

21:5 mentions the throne and God appears to be speaking.
He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.
But then in 22:12-16 Jesus says:
Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End ... I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.
And in 22:20 it says:
He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.


This seems similar to me as the "coming of the Lord" issue in James 5:7-8 and 1 Thess. 4:15-16, which Ben and spin recently talked about in another thread. In Revelation, at least, Jesus not only appears to be the one who "is to come," he appears to be the same as God, since they both say, "I am the Alpha and Omega ... the Beginning and the End." This is how I am inclined to see James 5:7-8 and 1 Thess. 4:15-16 as well, given what Paul says about Jesus in Philp. 2:5-6:
....Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped ...
And while I gather from Ben and spin's discussion that 2:6 is a tricky verse, and all I can say about James 5:7-8 and 1 Thess. 4:15-16 is that they "feel" like they are referring to Jesus (given the expectation of Jesus "coming" in Hegesippus and Revelation), Jesus seems to be equal to God in Revelation ("I am the Alpha and Omega").

Revelation, by the way, reminds me of a scene in the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, when Cheswick says, "I want MY cigarettes!" I picture John screaming like Cheswick as he's being dragged off to Patmos, "I want MY God to come! I want MINE!"
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

Lackey has a table showing that Rev. 4 and 5 is based on Dan. 7, which mentions two thrones and is the source of the Two Powers in Heaven idea (and which Boyarin discusses in The Jewish Gospels).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yMZ2C ... el&f=false

And regarding these two thrones in Dan. 7:9, Hag. 14a says:
The Gemara poses another question: One verse states: “His throne was fiery flames” (Daniel 7:9), and another phrase in the same verse states: “Till thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat,” implying the existence of two thrones. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. One throne is for Him and one is for David, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to this issue: One throne for Him and one for David; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

https://www.sefaria.org/Chagigah.14a?lang=bi


And this reminds me of Rev. 3:7:
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Which, as I said above, reminds me of Hegesippus in EH 2.23:
Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs, asked him, ‘What is the gate of Jesus?’ and he replied that he was the Saviour. On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one’s coming to give to every man according to his works. But as many as believed did so on account of James ...

The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: ‘Thou just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.’ And he answered with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.’ And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David,’ these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, ‘We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus.
And this ties in with Rev. 22:12-16:
Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End ... I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

And I'm starting to suspect that this Danielic "two thrones" binitarianism in Christianity is the reason Jesus is said to commit blasphemy in Mk. 14:61-64 (and I want to check Boyarin on this again):
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

They all condemned him as worthy of death.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by perseusomega9 »

John2 wrote: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:50 pm And I'm starting to suspect that this Danielic "two thrones" binitarianism in Christianity is the reason Jesus is said to commit blasphemy in Mk. 14:61-64 (and I want to check Boyarin on this again):
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

They all condemned him as worthy of death.
Jesus, Stephan from Acts, and James through Hegissipus are all martyred for that proclamation. Two Powers indeed.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Post Reply