Question for conservative Christians

[spirit5er]

Would a Jewish High Priest agree with the New Testament teaching, that the covenant of Moses is done away or “fulfilled” by Jesus, yes or no?

 

[thistle]

Would a Jewish High Priest agree with the New Testament teaching, that the covenant of Moses is done away or “fulfilled” by Jesus, yes or no?

Your profile under religion states “liberal”. What is that supposed to mean? We prefer to know who we will be debating with.

 

[Ruthie]

And when you say “conservative,” are you talking about politics, or doctrine? If doctrine, whose, and what, and how do you define “conservative”?

Thanks,

Ruthie

 

[spirit5er]

Your profile under religion states “liberal”. What is that supposed to mean? We prefer to know who we will be debating with.

I’m an atheist and politically liberal. Now please answer the question.

 

[spirit5er]

And when you say “conservative,” are you talking about politics, or doctrine? If doctrine, whose, and what, and how do you define “conservative”?

Thanks,

Ruthie

I thought it was clear, by the question itself, that the question for “conservatives” was thus a question for Christians who believe apostle Paul’s New Testament teachings are always 100% true, as opposed to liberal Christians who think Paul erred here and there.

You don’t even need to be conservative, I just wanted to make sure I caught the attention of some conservatives. You should be able to answer the hypothetical question regardless of your identity or denominational affiliation.

 

[BrianH]

Would a Jewish High Priest agree with the New Testament teaching, that the covenant of Moses is done away or “fulfilled” by Jesus, yes or no?

I love a good trap
No. Although after the destruction of Jerusalem did not give us much of an opportunity to find out

 

[COPLAND_3]

Would a Jewish High Priest agree with the New Testament teaching, that the covenant of Moses is done away or “fulfilled” by Jesus, yes or no?

Actually there has been, Zachariah in Luke 1, and Simeon in Luke 2.

 

[teachccd]

I’m an atheist and politically liberal. Now please answer the question.

What prompts an atheist to pose such a question? Just curious…teachccd

 

[BrianH]

Actually there has been, Zachariah in Luke 1, and Simeon in Luke 2.

They were priests, not the High Priest…but I could be wrong:shrug:

 

[spirit5er]

I love a good trap
No. Although after the destruction of Jerusalem did not give us much of an opportunity to find out

Ok, then because Hegesisppus, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome and Epiphanius collectively testify that James became a high priest, you therefore believe it highly improbable he’d agree with Paul’s “the-law-is-done-away-in-Christ” theology, right?

A jewish high priest, who thinks the Mosaic covenent has been fulfilled and now “waxes old” (Hebrews 8)?

Most conservative Christians who answer my question, attempt to demonstrate that the patristic citations showing James became a high priest, are mistaken, but no successes yet. They have little more than 'But Paul said in Galatians that James gave him the right hand of fellowship!!!", as if they knew nothing on how to apply criteria of historicity to the patristic information:

(from Eusebius, “Church History”, Book 2, chapter 23)

(Eusebius is quoting Hegesippus…)
James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles.

He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.

He was holy from his mother’s womb;
and he drank no wine nor strong drink,
nor did he eat flesh.
No razor came upon his head;
he did not anoint himself with oil,
and he did not use the bath.
He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments.

And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people. Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias,which signifies in Greek, Bulwark of the people' and Justice’, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him…"

(from Jerome, “Lives of Illustrious Men”, chapter 2)

"Hegesippus who lived near the apostolic age, in the fifth book of his Commentaries, writing of James, says “After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed.

He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels’ knees.” He says also many other things, too numerous to mention."

(Epiphanius, Panarion 29:4:2-4)

"But we find as well that he is of David’s stock through being Joseph’s son, that he was a Nazarite (for he was Joseph’s firstborn and consecrated), and we have found furthermore that he exercised the priesthood according to the priestly order of old. Thus it was permitted him once a year to enter the holy of holies, as the law ordered the high priests according to what is written. So say many of the historians before me of him, Eusebius, Clement, and others.

He was also allowed to wear the plate on his head, as the aforementioned trustworthy men have related in their accounts ."

(Panarion 78:13:5)
“To James alone was it allowed to enter once a year into the holy of holies, because he was a Nazarite and connected to the priesthood.”

If a Christian says the bible trumps any patristic information that disagrees with it, this is certainly not apologetics.

 

[spirit5er]

Actually there has been, Zachariah in Luke 1, and Simeon in Luke 2.

First, Zachariah is described as having burned incense in the temple because the “lot” fell to him. Casting lots to determine this signifies a lower priest. If that duty would have been a duty of the High Priest, there would be no casting of lots to see who gets to do it, since there was only one High Priest at a time (usually).

The description of Simeon in Luke 2:25 could be said of any law-observant Jew with messianic expectations, and not unique enough to show him as High Priest.

Since you are wrong about Zachariah and Simeon being High Priests, why not just tell me which standard critiera of historicity
you believe the patristic information on James fails, so you have a reason to continue trusting Paul’s portrait of James in Galatians?

 

[spirit5er]

What prompts an atheist to pose such a question? Just curious…teachccd

The same thing that prompts a Christian to ask questions that Mormons would rather not answer. If you trust Paul’s description of James in Galatians 2 as having given Paul the right hand of fellowship, then I’ve got some patristic information on James which, if true, makes his giving the right of of fellowship to Paul, most improbable.

 

[annem]

A jewish high priest, who thinks the Mosaic covenent has been fulfilled and now “waxes old” (Hebrews 8)?

Most conservative Christians who answer my question, attempt to demonstrate that the patristic citations showing James became a high priest, are mistaken, but no successes yet. They have little more than 'But Paul said in Galatians that James gave him the right hand of fellowship!!!", as if they knew nothing on how to apply criteria of historicity to the patristic information:

Dear spirit5er, you are mistaken. James became a bishop, not the high priest of the Temple. And he was bishop in Jerusalem. And Peter, before you ask, was given the office of pope/first apostle by Jesus Christ. God bless, Annem, a conservative Catholic

 

[MarkBrown]

To answer your question No a Jewish High Priest would not.

1. The quotes you provided do not back up your claim that James was a High Priest. He was a Nazarite, but not of the tribe of Levi and not a direct descentant of Aaron. Therefore he could not be a Jewish High Priest. The authorities for obvious reasons would not allow him to be one as the position had by this time become also a political appointment. James would not dare to enter the Jewish temples Holy of Holies. The early Christians were mainly Jewish. Chapter 15 of Acts will give you an insight as to their beliefs regarding the law.
2. Only Eusebius quotes Hegesisppus. The other quotes are references to what Eusebius quotes, with some embleshments. Since we do not have the works of Hegesisppus to reference, quotes attributed to him can not be held as fact. but only as theory or supposition. Hegesisppus is supposed to have lived in the second century. Eusebius wrote his work after 313 AD. Jerome and Epiphanus lived in the 4th and 5th centuries. There is some documentation that the works of Hegesisppus survived until the 16th century. The quotes outside of the reference to Hegesisppus through Eusebius are given without reference and can not be verified.

3.The Holy of Holies is not necessarily limited to that part of the Jewish temple. I do believe in the Orthodox Church, the area behind the iconostaris is also called the Holy Place or Holy of Holies. Access is limited to who can enter. At the time of James Jewish terms and ideas would be transferred into Christian use as obviously Christianity has Judaism as its root. The quotes do not help us as Eusebius says Hegesisppus said The Holy Place not The Holy of Holies. Epipanius tells us that Eusebius supports his recording of Hegesisppus. The quote you provide destroys that claim.

1. James and the early Christians would not look to anyone but Jesus Christ being their High Priest. The writer of Hebrews, some think Paul or Barnabas is the author, instructs us in 4:14-5:11 that Jesus is our High Priest.
2. The quotes you provided do not support your thesis that Eusebius, Clement, Jerome, Epiphanius and Hegesisppus all testify that James was a High Priest.

This is a good question. Thanks for the mental exercise!

 

[BrianH]

As far as early historical sources, are there any Jewish sources that say that James the brother of Jesus was the High Priest? Not on any list I have found.
jewishencyclopedia.com/table.jsp?table_id=208&volid=6&title=HIGH PRIEST

 

[cazayoux]

I’m an atheist …

So you believe something you cannot prove, that God does not exist.
That’s illogical.

michel

 

[spirit5er]

Dear spirit5er, you are mistaken. James became a bishop, not the high priest of the Temple. And he was bishop in Jerusalem. And Peter, before you ask, was given the office of pope/first apostle by Jesus Christ. God bless, Annem, a conservative Catholic

The patristic information I cited shows that James was exceedingly legalistic, thus a perfect fit as a leader of the Judaizers. You have not refute this, you merely ignored it.

Apostle Paul said that Peter became a Judaizer.

Galatians 2:14 4 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?”

 

[spirit5er]

So you believe something you cannot prove, that God does not exist.
That’s illogical.

michel

It is not illogical to deny the existence of something that both

a - defies coherent definition and
b - exhibits contradictory attributes when defined.

 

[annem]

The patristic information I cited shows that James was exceedingly legalistic, thus a perfect fit as a leader of the Judaizers. You have not refute this, you merely ignored it.

Apostle Paul said that Peter became a Judaizer.

Sorry if I misunderstood your point. Yes, of course there were those who held to the ancient laws of the Jews. Whereas others, and certainly Paul, did not agree. So that’s why they held the church council in Jerusalem, likely around 50 AD, to discuss the matter. You can read about it in Acts.

Peter, as pope (although that word had not been used yet) made the crucial decision to end the circumcision and dietary laws of the ancient Jews. James, as you can read in Acts, agreed.

And we have independent proof that James kept following Christ in the testimony by Josephus that the temple priests had James killed for adhering to Christ.

Sorry again if I misunderstood you before. Does this answer your question?

God bless, Annemr

 

[spirit5er]

To answer your question No a Jewish High Priest would not.

1. The quotes you provided do not back up your claim that James was a High Priest. He was a Nazarite, but not of the tribe of Levi and not a direct descentant of Aaron. Therefore he could not be a Jewish High Priest. The authorities for obvious reasons would not allow him to be one as the position had by this time become also a political appointment.

The only thing that is obvious is your disagreeement with the Catholic Encyclopedia which says the secular powers exercised control over the High Priesthood:

“They were in the beginning chosen for life, but later removed at will by the secular power (Jos., “Ant.”, XV, iii, 1; XX, x), so that “the numbers of the high-priests from the days of Herod until the day when Titus took the Temple and the city, and burnt them, were in all twenty-eight; the time also that belonged to them was one hundred and seven years” (Jos., “Ant.”, XX, x). Thus one-third of the high-priests of fifteen centuries lived within the last century of their history: they had become the puppets of the temporal rulers.”
newadvent.org/cathen/12407b.htm

James would not dare to enter the Jewish temples Holy of Holies. The early Christians were mainly Jewish. Chapter 15 of Acts will give you an insight as to their beliefs regarding the law.

Acts 15 is very likely lying. Jesus is the ultimate author of salvation, and so it is ridiculous to think he never taught his disciples what criteria Gentiles must fulfill to be saved. As such, it is most unlikely that James would give the time of day to, let alone a theological say-so, in this doctrinal council. What more likely happened was that this was simply a debate between Paul and James, and Luke has whitewashed James’s disagreement with Paul by causing conveniently unidentifiable “brethren from Judea” to be the legalists.

1. Only Eusebius quotes Hegesisppus. The other quotes are references to what Eusebius quotes, with some embleshments.

Incorrect, Jerome specifically says he is quoting Hegesippus,

Hegesippus who lived near the apostolic age, in the fifth book of his Commentaries, writing of James, says “After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies,

and Epiphanius’ gives information that obviously isn’t from the same section of Hegesippus Eusebius quoted. Your attempt to pile it all together as a mistake that spread to several historians, fails.

Since we do not have the works of Hegesisppus to reference, quotes attributed to him can not be held as fact. but only as theory or supposition

.

You also don’t have the works of Papias, whom Eusebius quotes, so you can check to be sure his information on who authored the gospels is “fact”. Apparantly this inability to check that doesn’t make you the least bit hesitant to believe Matthew Mark Luke and John wrote the gospels with those names on them.

Technically you are correct, that second-hand information can only be theory, but so what? My theory hasn’t been injured in the least, because nobody has yet demonstrated problems with the patristic information.

Hegesisppus is supposed to have lived in the second century. Eusebius wrote his work after 313 AD. Jerome and Epiphanus lived in the 4th and 5th centuries.

Jerome and Eusebius were contemporaries, and either way, “313 a.d.” constitutes FOURTH century,

There is some documentation that the works of Hegesisppus survived until the 16th century. The quotes outside of the reference to Hegesisppus through Eusebius are given without reference and can not be verified.

3.The Holy of Holies is not necessarily limited to that part of the Jewish temple. I do believe in the Orthodox Church, the area behind the iconostaris is also called the Holy Place or Holy of Holies. Access is limited to who can enter. At the time of James Jewish terms and ideas would be transferred into Christian use as obviously Christianity has Judaism as its root.

You have asserted that “Holy of Holies” which James entered, was likely some Christian temple. It is therefore your burden to prove. The Jewish roots of Christianity are not the carte blanche to source every early Christian idea of place as a symbol of some former Jewish reality.

The quotes do not help us as Eusebius says Hegesisppus said The Holy Place not The Holy of Holies.

But Jerome said he was quoting Hegesippus and then specifies “holy of holies”. It is not difficult to believe Eusebius would refer generally to the Holy of Holies as “holy place”, but it is rather difficult to believe Jerome, quoting the same exact segment, would specifiy “Holy of Holies” for the more general “holy place”…unless:

a - Hegesippus said “holy of Holies”, and Eusebius has quoted incorrectly, or

b - Jerome felt that “holy place”, if that’s what Hegesippus said, was intended to exclude the outer court.

I cannot answer you completely because of the word limit, so I’ll post the rest later.