Question for conservative Christians

[spirit5er]

Epipanius tells us that Eusebius supports his recording of Hegesisppus. The quote you provide destroys that claim.

First, incorrect: Epiphanius does not specify that he is quoting Eusebius. He only says his information on James being a high priest,

“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.”

He did not say he was quoting each of those historians directly, he was simply making a general statement that his information on James is corroborated by things said in earlier historian’s works.

As such, you don’t need to read about James wearing the gold plate on his head in Eusebius, to know that Epiphanius was correct.

Second, there is also a problem of textual corruption and paucity of Eusebius’ work, so that it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the extant text has deleted or changed much in his Church History, see “Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism” by Harold W. Attridge, pp 481-482.

Or, Epiphanius, like Jerome, understands Eusebius’ less specific “holy place” to mean “holy of Holies” just like I do.

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.

.

Only because you assume that James believed in accord with the view set forth in Paul’s theology and in the book of Hebrews, which begs the the very question at issue, which is whether James, as described in history and tradition, is the sort of Christian to likely have agreed with Paul’s theology and other Pauline texts in the New Testament.

1. 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!

I’ve now shown your attacks on the reliability of that patristic information, fail.

 

[spirit5er]

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

I’m sorry you put such inerrant faith in first-century records, and records produced and held by dogmatic Christians for centuries to boot.

Any dummy knows the early Catholic Church made great efforts to stamp out and burn everything or change many things they disagreed with. With such a history, they do not deserve to be trusted implicitly when the absence of information benefits their cause.

I’ve already argued that my patristic citations pass certain standard tests of historicity, nobody seems interested in showing how they actually fail those criteria.

If it is obvious to you that James would never take up some office or work that made him look especially atagonisitic toward Paul, then the patristic Pauline authors who gave us this information on James would have known this even more, and would have classified such statements about James as historically inaccurate and would never have admitted them.

When an ancient author admits to something that doesn’t benefit his cause, and has the potential to hurt it, it is not very likely that they are either mistaken or lying. that’s been my consistent argument and nobody has challenged it.

 

[spirit5er]

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.

Maybe you didn’t notice my argument elsewhere here, namely, that Acts 15 is most certainly a lie, since Jesus made it perfectly obvious what Gentiles needed to do to get saved, before he died. On top of that, Paul cursed the Judaizers (Galatians 1:8-9).

With all this, it is absurd to think James and Peter would have given the time of day to the Judaizers whose errors was ‘obvious’, still more absurd is the idea that he would give heretics a theological say-so. Did James also hold a council to debate the gnostics on whether Jesus became flesh? Acts 15 is little more than Pauline propaganda to make the Jerusalem pillar-apostles appear to agree more with Paul’s point of view, nothing more.

The only thing more unbelievable than Acts 15, is Acts 10, where your first pope needed a divine vision to be told something Jesus had already made clear to him for the last three years: that Gentiles recieve salvation just as much as Jews.

Peter needed a vision to know that Gentiles can get saved too? Yeah right! This too sounds like a false story created by the pro-Paul author of Acts to make Peter appear to more in agreement with Paul’s thoroughly Gentile ministry.

No, you cannot cite Peter’s stupidity in the gospels to give credibility to the Acts 10 story: By the time of Acts 10, Peter has undergone a transformation from bumbling idiot to spirit-filled wonder working preacher who has the gift of knowing truth before it is revealed (he knew Annnias and Saphira were lying without natural means to know this).

As such, the Peter of Acts 10 is least likely to commit such theological error. The reason the author says he had the vision, is understood by it’s obvious tendancy to make Peter agree with Paul more.

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.

Wrong, James is the person who decided what to do in Acts 15, Peter’s specific authority is nowhere stated or implied here.

Another problem with believing Acts 15 as honest history, is the failure of everybody to quote the most authoriative resource for answering the Gentile-salvation question: Jesus. They quoted the Old Testament, at a time when God had already become man and made it very clear what Gentiles must do to be saved? Yeah right!

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.

So? The Judaizers also testified to Christ. Josephus doesn’t say enough in that section to determine whether James agreed with Paul’s theology.

 

[annem]

Any dummy knows the early Catholic Church made great efforts to stamp out and burn everything or change many things they disagreed with. With such a history, they do not deserve to be trusted implicitly when the absence of information benefits their cause.

Sorry, but that is totally untrue. What scholar are you quoting? Brown silly “Da Vinci Code”? Let me assure you, the brightest and best of the atheist biblical scholars have been trying to prove just that for hundreds and hundreds of years.

And have coughed up nothing.

I’m sorry you put such inerrant faith in first-century records, and records produced and held by dogmatic Christians for centuries to boot.

I can assure you, Josephus was not a Christian. And the passage in Josephus about James is considered reliable by the vast, vast majority of biblical scholars. Would you like me to go through the reasons why?

May God bless you, Annem

 

[Teflon93]

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?

If he were a Messianic Jew, yes.

 

[spirit5er]

Any dummy knows the early Catholic Church made great efforts to stamp out and burn everything or change many things they disagreed with. With such a history, they do not deserve to be trusted implicitly when the absence of information benefits their cause.

If I said Sesame Street was a tv program that aired in the 1970’s, I wouldn’t feel the need to “cough up” proof for that either.

Did Constantine banish Arius, yes or no?

Does “Index of Prohibited books” ring any bells?

Do these two items demonstrate the tendancy of the early Catholic Church to suppress or destroy Christian opinions that differed with the official version?

I can assure you, Josephus was not a Christian. And the passage in Josephus about James is considered reliable by the vast, vast majority of biblical scholars. Would you like me to go through the reasons why?

May God bless you, Annem

No need, I never saw any evidence that Josephus’ comment on James being killed was sufficiently detailed to justify those who cite it to prove James and Paul agreed on theology. Nothing in that quote says enough about James to show he either agreed or disagreed with Paul’s theology, so why quote this extract?

In fact, the Jews request of James hurts the Paulists. In Eusebius’ expanded account:

“Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore in a body to James they said, 'We entreat thee, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ.”
Eusebius, Church History, Book 2, chapter 23)

It is rather difficult to believe that the Jews could ask James, an acknowledged Christian, to restrain a crowd whose expressed belief that Jesus was the Christ, was working to convert many Jews. That’s like asking the pope to “restrain” a bishops, expressed Roman Catholic testimony to the inspiration of the apocrypha. Nobody is that stupid.

The only way to make sense of the passage is to assume the Pharisees realized that while James may have held Christian views, he did NOT agree with this crowd on the matter of Jesus being the Christ, and therefore, the Pharisee’s figured his general Christian standing would motivate the crowd to listen to him, and his failure to agree that Jesus was Christ would be the rebuke toward this crowd.

If James held the same exact belief as the crowd, then the Pharisees’ choice to use James to restrain their Christian claims or expressions is the height of absurdity.

 

[spirit5er]

If he were a Messianic Jew, yes.

Really? How do you figure James the Christian would perform animal blood atonement in the Holy of Holies, if he believed that Jesus’ crucifixion brought the Mosaic covenant to an end?

And if he truly believed Jesus fulfilled and ended the Mosaic Coveveant, and if we further assume he expressed his honest beliefs as part of his gospel preaching ministry, how do you figure the Jews would want such a denier of animal blood atonement and it’s continued divine significance, into their most sacred spot on earth?

Nah, your answer doesn’t wash, and is insulting to Jews who would know better.

 

[annem]

If I said Sesame Street was a tv program that aired in the 1970’s, I wouldn’t feel the need to “cough up” proof for that either.

Did Constantine banish Arius, yes or no?

Does “Index of Prohibited books” ring any bells?

Do these two items demonstrate the tendancy of the early Catholic Church to suppress or destroy Christian opinions that differed with the official version?V

You are clearly upset. I am sorry. However, you need to look clearly at the evidence regarding the gospels and Paul’s epistles. On one hand, you clearly believe Luke/Acts has been tampered with and is now full of lies about James. Apparently you believe this on the basis of some insight you have. Would you please tell me exactly why someone in the church would have wanted to change the information? And when did they do it? Have you ever read a book of biblical scholarship that examined the issue? Will you give me the name of the scholars you have read? I have an extensive library of biblical scholarship and so could look things up for you if you want.

Here are a few of the problems you have with your thesis: people began citing Luke/Acts very early, and there is no instance of any of the citations being different from the Luke/Act that we have now. So how or when could the passage been changed?

The majority of scholars agree that the passage of Josephus regarding James is reliable. These are the reasons: 1) It is neutral–it is not positive regards Christianity. Indeed, the entire point of the passage appears to be explaining why Ananus was deposed. 2) It is similar in tone to the rest of the negative comments Josephus makes about the priesthood for the temple. 3) The name given James. Christians never called James 'the brother of the Jesus" but rather ‘the brother of the Lord’. 4. Josephus does not elaborate on the killing of James, as does Acts. He merely mentions the stoning.

And then, of course, there is the mention by Origen about James.

On the whole, the majority of scholars feel the mention in Josephus is quite reliable. Why don’t you? What scholars can you cite who have different arguments?

God bless, Annem

 

[Teflon93]

Really? How do you figure James the Christian would perform animal blood atonement in the Holy of Holies, if he believed that Jesus’ crucifixion brought the Mosaic covenant to an end?

And if he truly believed Jesus fulfilled and ended the Mosaic Coveveant, and if we further assume he expressed his honest beliefs as part of his gospel preaching ministry, how do you figure the Jews would want such a denier of animal blood atonement and it’s continued divine significance, into their most sacred spot on earth?

Nah, your answer doesn’t wash, and is insulting to Jews who would know better.

You’ll have to explain it to the Messianic Jews.

There was a good article in the most recent First Things from one.

Why don’t you look it up and get informed rather than sputtering at the wrong people?

In the meantime, read something:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jews

 

[BrianH]

I’m sorry you put such inerrant faith in first-century records, and records produced and held by dogmatic Christians for centuries to boot.

Any dummy knows the early Catholic Church made great efforts to stamp out and burn everything or change many things they disagreed with. With such a history, they do not deserve to be trusted implicitly when the absence of information benefits their cause.

I’ve already argued that my patristic citations pass certain standard tests of historicity, nobody seems interested in showing how they actually fail those criteria.

If it is obvious to you that James would never take up some office or work that made him look especially atagonisitic toward Paul, then the patristic Pauline authors who gave us this information on James would have known this even more, and would have classified such statements about James as historically inaccurate and would never have admitted them.

When an ancient author admits to something that doesn’t benefit his cause, and has the potential to hurt it, it is not very likely that they are either mistaken or lying. that’s been my consistent argument and nobody has challenged it.

You never addressed my point. There were not major conflicts between James and Paul. That is the old Ebionite line that has no real patristic or historical support.

 

[RedSoxFan]

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.

LOL. God bless you little one.

 

[spirit5er]

You are clearly upset. I am sorry. However, you need to look clearly at the evidence regarding the gospels and Paul’s epistles. On one hand, you clearly believe Luke/Acts has been tampered with and is now full of lies about James. Apparently you believe this on the basis of some insight you have. Would you please tell me exactly why someone in the church would have wanted to change the information?

First, please do not overstate my opinion. I do not believe Acts is “full of lies”, I simply find the particular stories of Acts 10 and Acts 15 to be unbelievable, for the reasons I stated. On the other hand, I think Acts 21 sets forth some truth about James, because he appears there with tens of thousands of Jews who converted to Christ, yet who all remain “zealous for the Law”. Whatever gospel James preached them, must have allowed them to both confess Christ and still view the temple and it’s Mosaic rituals as continuing to have divine significance…which is known as the legalist/Judaizer gospel.

Second, my previous arguments already demonstrate why the author of Acts would wish to spin-doctor church history in favor of Paul’s theology. Outside Paul and statements of his friends, the historical information on James paints him every bit as legalistic as any Judaizer. There is no possible way James could be this way and yet still agree with Paul that Jesus brought an end to the divine significance of temple sacrifices and rituals.

And when did they do it?

whenever Luke wrote Acts, obviously.

Have you ever read a book of biblical scholarship that examined the issue?

Yes, plenty.

Will you give me the name of the scholars you have read? I have an extensive library of biblical scholarship and so could look things up for you if you want.

Jesus himself should be the first scholar you consult. He’d know whether or not keeping the law was necessary to be saved:

Matthew 19:16-17
16 And behold, one came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?”
17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Nothing in the “context” of that passage negates Jesus’ emphasis on obedience as key to eternal life.

In Matthew 25, the sheep on the right, the goats on the left on judgement day. Why are the sheep given eternal life? Jesus’ expressed reason was to name their good works they did for others. Again, Jesus taught eternal life was the reward for doing good works.

As far as normal scholars, there are plenty who argue that original Christianity was far more Jewish and restricted than is allowed for in Paul’s gospel. See Eisenman, Butz, Chilton, etc, for works on James himself.

The classic commentaries from Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, etc, also sometimes express difficulty in handling biblical texts that appear to describe James as holding theology that Paul would disagree with.

The conservative Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on why Paul said legalistic men come from James in Galatians 2:12:

1. certain-men: perhaps James’ view (in which he was not infallible, any more than Peter) was that the Jewish converts were still to observe Jewish ordinances, from which he had decided with the council the Gentiles should be free (Ac 15:19). Neander, however, may be right in thinking these self-styled delegates from James were not really from him. Ac 15:24 favors this. “Certain from James,” may mean merely that they came from the Church at Jerusalem under James’ bishopric. Still James’ leanings were to legalism, and this gave him his influence with the Jewish party (Ac 21:18-26).

Here are a few of the problems you have with your thesis: people began citing Luke/Acts very early, and there is no instance of any of the citations being different from the Luke/Act that we have now. So how or when could the passage been changed?

Textual scholars have stated plenty of times that the text of Acts is often fluid and originated in at least two early forms. Metzger is the most highly regarded Christian textual scholar.

The majority of scholars agree that the passage of Josephus regarding James is reliable. These are the reasons: 1) It is neutral–it is not positive regards Christianity.

If you accept this, then you therefore accept that when a Josephusian passage is NOT neutral, such as the Testimonium, it’s reliability IS called into question to some degree.

Indeed, the entire point of the passage appears to be explaining why Ananus was deposed. 2) It is similar in tone to the rest of the negative comments Josephus makes about the priesthood for the temple. 3) The name given James. Christians never called James 'the brother of the Jesus" but rather ‘the brother of the Lord’. 4. Josephus does not elaborate on the killing of James, as does Acts. He merely mentions the stoning.

Fine.

And then, of course, there is the mention by Origen about James.

So?

On the whole, the majority of scholars feel the mention in Josephus is quite reliable. Why don’t you? What scholars can you cite who have different arguments?

You haven’t been paying attention, I defended my position from this quote of Josephus. I even used the expanded version in Eusebius to demonstrate problems for the Paulists, not me.

the word limit imposed in these forums prevents me from answering each question as substantively as I want. You can privately email me for extended discussion then, I guess

 

[spirit5er]

Originally Posted by spirit5er
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.

What’s the “lol” for? For how tragic it is that an atheist should have to teach Christians their own history?

Did Paul say Peter was telling Gentiles to live as Jews, yes or no?

If a Christian is telling gentiles to live as Jews, that sounds like a Judaizer. Those who agree with Paul do NOT say Gentiles need to become as Jews.

Galatians 2:13
13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

Barnabas was Paul’s right-hand man in the Gentile ministry. *Even Barnabas *was motivated to act more legalistically?

The idea that the Judaizers had better arguments than Paul and carried higher authority is not arguable, if even somebody as closely aligned with Paul’s theology as Barnabas, became convinced to start acting legalistically as Peter.

SO I really don’t know what you are “lol” ing about.

Oh, by the way, Galatians 2:12 says that the legalistic men who started the problem “came from James”. There’s James again, leader of the Judaizers.

Peter knew James personally. it is ridiculous to think that Peter and Barnabas would give in to the false theology of the Judaizers, if they felt these Judaizers were falsely representing James. The fact that they DID so give in, testifies that Peter, who would have known the difference, was satisified that their legalistic view was learned straight from James.

Peter is not just a bumbling idiot in the gospels…you can’t use that to explain the anamolies I bring up, because Peter also had already experienced Pentecost by this time, and had shown himself endowed with divine gifts of knowledge in Acts.

The Peter who gives in to the legalists in Galatians 2, is a smart divine fellow who knows the difference between orthodoxy and heresy. So his choice to become a Judaizer strongly argues that he knew the Judaizer gospel was closer to what Jesus preached than Paul’s theology was.

 

[BrianH]

So you take the parts of Acts that disagree with your hypothesis, ie Acts 15, but use the parts that agree with you?
1st Clement is a first century document and it shows no conflict between Peter and Paul.
You are spouting the same old Ebionite lines and mixing selective scholarship. You search the scriptures and history for items that confirm your hypothesis and ignore the texts that do not.

 

[BrianH]

Ebionites for those interested
qumran.com/Paul/jpdeadsea.htm
members.tripod.com/~ebionite/jojames.htm

 

[spirit5er]

So you take the parts of Acts that disagree with your hypothesis, ie Acts 15, but use the parts that agree with you?

my hypothesis depends on information in Acts that the original author must have known would have the potential to embarrass his position. In the rules of historiography, its called the criteria of embarassment. An ancient author is not likely to lie in a way that would embarrass him. So yes, I think the stuff that supports my “embarrass Paul” hypothesis are more likely true, while the stuff that promotes his agenda (like James agreeing with his gospel) is less likely true.

historiography was never a concrete science, so it doesn’t matter if bias doesn’t “prove” something.

1st Clement is a first century document and it shows no conflict between Peter and Paul.

But Galatians 2 DOES, and it is of course, earlier than Clement.

You are spouting the same old Ebionite lines and mixing selective scholarship.

Aligning myself with an Ebionite position against Paul does nothing to accomplish your goal of refuting me. If I labled your theological views as “the same old lines of the Catholic church”, would that sneer prove anything whatever? Then neither does your sneer.

Selective scholarship? Excuse me, but I’ve opened myself up to deal with the best rebuttals you can possibly come up with, that’s hardly “selective”. and I never quoted a scholar on my side of the debate as a reason to believe me anyway.

You search the scriptures and history for items that confirm your hypothesis and ignore the texts that do not.

Strawman, I have explained why I accept certain texts and reject others. For example, I’ve already explained more than once why I think Acts 15 is more lies than truth. Now that’s supposed to be a biblical chapter that refutes Judaizers. I think the Judaizer gospel is closer to what Jesus taught than Paul’s gospel was, and I’ve now directly dealt with Acts 15.

Paul says James gave him the right hand of fellowship in Galatians 2, therefore the strongest statement against me in all the bible. Yet most of the defense for the Judaizer position comes from Peter’s Judaizing activities and even Barnabas (a min intimately familar with Paul’s theological defenses) accepting such practices, which also appear in Galatians 2.

If you paid more attention to what I say, you wouldn’t assume I just ignore stuff in the bible that disagrees with me.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

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)?

His info was gotten (possibly) from here:

geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesjew.html

Yet another rabid anti-Christian.

Since the ONLY High Priest is Jesus, after His becoming High Priest, the “High Priestliness” of James is a nonsensical point.

More nonsense here: geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html

:shamrock2:

 

[BrianH]

]my hypothesis depends on information in Acts that the original author must have known would have the potential to embarrass his position. In the rules of historiography, its called the criteria of embarassment. An ancient author is not likely to lie in a way that would embarrass him. So yes, I think the stuff that supports my “embarrass Paul” hypothesis are more likely true, while the stuff that promotes his agenda (like James agreeing with his gospel) is less likely true.

Based upon your existing presupposition. Luke was under no compulsion to cover any particular event. In fact, it is interesting in looking the chronology, particularly the “we” passages, to examine what is covered and what is not. It starts with the presupposition that James, Peter, and John (ie the pillars) had different views than Paul.

But Galatians 2 DOES, and it is of course, earlier than Clement.

Not at all. Galatians certainly does not. What exactly are you contending it proves?

Aligning myself with an Ebionite position against Paul does nothing to accomplish your goal of refuting me. If I labled your theological views as “the same old lines of the Catholic church”, would that sneer prove anything whatever? Then neither does your sneer.

No. I just think the arguments are so familiar and I believe that is the source. Ebionites love to fixate on those few things and ignore the secular evidence. For example, you said nothing about the Jewish source I used.
I am not a Catholic. You do not even offer people the respect of reading their profiles. But since your arguments are almost cut and paste from the sites I linked, I suppose you fancy yourself a historical argument based upon the few sources you accept and all the others you discount… Kind of like…a Ebionite.

Selective scholarship? Excuse me, but I’ve opened myself up to deal with the best rebuttals you can possibly come up with, that’s hardly “selective”. and I never quoted a scholar on my side of the debate as a reason to believe me anyway.

I am assuming you did your own research, based upon the links I provided, I was being generous.

Strawman, I have explained why I accept certain texts and reject others. For example, I’ve already explained more than once why I think Acts 15 is more lies than truth. Now that’s supposed to be a biblical chapter that refutes Judaizers. I think the Judaizer gospel is closer to what Jesus taught than Paul’s gospel was, and I’ve now directly dealt with Acts 15.

Yes, because you disagree with them. You probably even know that new paradigm on Paul clearly shows the old paradigm you are trying to rehash, sells books possibly, gets attention.

Paul says James gave him the right hand of fellowship in Galatians 2, therefore the strongest statement against me in all the bible. Yet most of the defense for the Judaizer position comes from Peter’s Judaizing activities and even Barnabas (a min intimately familar with Paul’s theological defenses) accepting such practices, which also appear in Galatians 2.

Where do I even begin with this? You create differences and gloss over the fact that Paul and Peter and James were on the same page, a few lines aside.

If you paid more attention to what I say, you wouldn’t assume I just ignore stuff in the bible that disagrees with me.

You do ignore it. You claim it is not historical and create additonal differences were there are not any.
Oh yeah, drop the atheist stuff.

 

[brigid12]

Since I am not Jewish, culturally or by religious belief, I will answer only the way I think a Jewish High Priest would answer. I imagine you are speaking of an orthodox Jew. I would guess that a Jewish High Priest would deny Jesus as the Messiah and the question would be moot.

 

[Spirithound]

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?

No. Jews don’t believe in Jesus.