The Metamorphose of Apollos

[NotWorthy]

---

Let’s make a deal so that your hostility may abate a little. You show me where Apollos preached that Jesus was the Messiah before he met Aquila and Priscilla, and I’ll commit myself to become a Catholic. If you can’t, you will commit
yourself to consider that you could be mistaken about your beliefs.
Is that a deal?

Ben:

I’ll take a try at this. He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord and, with ardent spirit, spoke and taught accurately about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John.

If Apollos spoke accurately about Jesus, and he knew of the baptism of John, then it would seem that he taught what John the Baptist taught. Didn’t John teach about the Messiah coming, one whom he was not worthy of untying his shoes?

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy;4748033:

Everyone, except your Catholic brothers, my friend!

But, he wrote what had been said and preached. If Luke changed or made up this story, many knowledgeable Jews would have said “this is not how its been preached for 50 years”. There’s no record of this dispute.

Ben: No, he did not. I told you already that Peter was not an anti-Semite, and he would never falsely accuse the Jews with having crucified Jesus. He knew who had crucified Jesus, and they were not the Jews, but the Romans. Luke attributed that speech in Acts 2 to Peter with the purpose to grant
some Apostolical credibility to the Church. And regarding the interest of knowledgeable Jews in Christianity, it was only in the sense of sufocating the movement.

You’re right. He didn’t **falsely **accuse the Jews… but he did accuse them, just not falsely! The Romans would have crucified Jesus if it weren’t from the Jewish pressure. So, the Romans wouldn’t have a monopoly of the blame!

notworthy:

Quit dodging the issue, Ben. I never said “the country of Palestine”. By referring to it as this area, we all know what I am speaking of.

Ben Mesada:

Ben: I know what you mean. But why not referring to the area as Israel, its legitemate name, as it is throughout the world? I hope you are not an Arab.

I hope I’m not Arab either. Last I checked, I was still safe…

But since there was no Israel back then, it was Judea and Samaria and Galilee (and maybe a few other back-water areas) that all made up the Palestinian region, I felt I was calling a spade a spade.

Notworthy:

The fact remains, Apollos was a native Alexandrian. Alexandria had a larger Jewish population than “insert your own name to reference what I call the Palestinean area”.
Ben Masada:

Ben: Yes, Alexandria had a larger Jewish population than… why don’t you mention the name, is it hatred for Israel, the homeland of your Messiah? Only an Arab would exhibit such a nonsense. America has a larger Jewish population than in Israel. What is that supposed to mean, that Alexandria had a larger Jewish population than in Israel?

Easy Ben. Let’s keep it friendly, my brother. I am continuing my error in thinking Acts 18 took place in Alexandria and not Ephesus.

My original point still stands, even through the fog of my ignorance. Ephesian Jews would have been more open to other thoughts than Jerusalem Jews. Less Phariseical pressures and what-not.

The early Church was called “The Way”. Then it was called “Chrstian” without losing the term “The Way”. Wouldn’t people who do things “In the name of Jesus the Christ” be properly considered Christians.
Ben Masada:

Ben: “The Way” was the name used for the Sect of Nazarenes. The Sect of the Nazarenes did not become Christian. Christianity rather absorbed more than half of the Nazarenes, because of Paul’s intensive missionary work among them. The Sect of the Nazarenes was but one of the Jewish sects of the time. Christianity was never a Jewish sect. The converts of the Nazarenes would become staunch defenders of the Jewish laws. Christianity would preach against the Jewish laws and customs. Reas Acts 21:20,21.

Any extra-biblical literature to support this claim, my brother?

Notworthy:

And you have displayed a wealth of “lack of knowledge”. You didn’t address that Apollos was Alexandrian. You didn’t address that Alexandria had a larger Jewish population. You create “Chrstians” out of think air, as if they are different than "“The Way”.

Ben Masada:

Ben: Anything you say won’t affect me because I know what I know. I addressed more than twice that Apollos was from Alexandria, and here in this post that Alexandria had a larger
Jewish population than in Israel. I do not create Christians out of thin air; Paul was the one who started them in Antioch, according
to Acts 11:26. Read it, please. If you need any more light on the subject, feedback.

Ben:

No, I understand that the word “Christian” first surfaced in Antioch. According to Luke, “The Way” and “Christians” were the same group. Can you provide

 

[adrift]

---

Let’s make a deal so that your hostility may abate a little. You show me where Apollos preached that Jesus was the Messiah before he met Aquila and Priscilla, and I’ll commit myself to become a Catholic. If you can’t, you will commit
yourself to consider that you could be mistaken about your beliefs.
Is that a deal?

Ben:

Cute aren’t we Show me that he didn’t. He proved it from scripture are you saying that the scripture didn’t exist until Aquila and Priscilla talked to him. :whacky: Oh and I am not hostel just angry when you talk down. I had a right to be angry when you told me to read the scripture and I had quoted it in the post.

 

[adrift]

Ben Masada;4741240:

There is no Gospel of Paul!

The Muslims also claim that it was Paul’s Gospel. Strange bedfellows:ehh:

 

[patrick457]

The Muslims also claim that it was Paul’s Gospel. Strange bedfellows:ehh:

Which reminds me. Paul’s really infamous amongst some circles that he’s almost the Rodney Dangerfield amongst the first generations of Christians, isn’t he?

In essence, I believe that the whole “Paul might have messed up Jesus’ teachings and stuff” is just another variation in that hunch some people have which goes like, “someone might have misunderstood Jesus”. It’s just that the potential perpetrators vary (the apostles in general, the early Christian community, Constantine, the Catholic Church, Council of Nicea, etc.). Same old, same old.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Which reminds me. Paul’s really infamous amongst some circles that he’s almost the Rodney Dangerfield amongst the first generations of Christians, isn’t he?

In essence, I believe that the whole “Paul might have messed up Jesus’ teachings and stuff” is just another variation in that hunch some people have which goes like, “someone might have misunderstood Jesus”. It’s just that the potential perpetrators vary (the apostles in general, the early Christian community, Constantine, the Catholic Church, Council of Nicea, etc.). Same old, same old.

---

I am not too sure about what you mean, but Paul
was never interested in what really Jesus was but in making of him he whom Paul wanted him to be through his - Paul’s - Christology. The Pauline concern a priori was to establish Christianity. If Jesus had been alive at the time, he - Paul - would have picked up somebody else to impersonate his Christ he conceived in his Hellenistic mind of a Greek Diaspora Jew.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Cute aren’t we Show me that he didn’t. He proved it from scripture are you saying that the scripture didn’t exist until Aquila and Priscilla talked to him. :whacky: Oh and I am not hostel just angry when you talk down. I had a right to be angry when you told me to read the scripture and I had quoted it in the post.

---

As I expected, you can’t do as I suggested. Let me try from another corner. You say that he proved it from Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah. What Scriptures, the Jewish Scriptures? Obviously, because the NT didn’t exist yet. Now, go ahead and do what you think Apollos did by proving to me from those Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah, because my commitment is up. If you can’t, go back to the text in Acts 18:24-28, because the proof is right there.

Ben:

 

[patrick457]

---

I am not too sure about what you mean, but Paul
was never interested in what really Jesus was but in making of him he whom Paul wanted him to be through his - Paul’s - Christology. The Pauline concern a priori was to establish Christianity. If Jesus had been alive at the time, he - Paul - would have picked up somebody else to impersonate his Christ he conceived in his Hellenistic mind of a Greek Diaspora Jew.

Ben:

That is exactly what I’m talking about: the thinking that the so-called “Christ of Faith” is radically different from the Jesus of History. You point a finger at Paul while others may blame the apostles, the early Christian community or even Constantine (yet another oft-accused person), but even if the details vary, the essence of the accusation is the same: that the actual Jesus is different from what Christians have portrayed Him to be.

By the way, this whole thing reminds me of that scene in The Last Temptation of Christ where Paul actually says to Jesus (who was brought down from the cross by an angel – later revealed to be Satan, married and had kids):

Look around you! Look at these people. Do you see the suffering and unhappiness in this world? Their only hope is the Resurrected Jesus. I don’t care whether you’re Jesus or not. The Resurrected Jesus will save the world – that’s what matters…

…I created the truth. I make it out of longing and faith. I don’t struggle to find truth – I build it. If it’s necessary to crucify you to save the world, then I’ll crucify you. And I’ll resurrect you too, whether you like it or not.

Paul could just be about anything one fancies: a Gnostic who is either a misogynist or a feminist (depending on the opinion), a member of the family of Herod the Great, a borrower of Plato, the incarnate Antichrist or even the guy who actually “invented” Jesus (who is a mythical figure).

 

[Ben_Masada]

That is exactly what I’m talking about: the thinking that the so-called “Christ of Faith” is radically different from the Jesus of History. You point a finger at Paul while others may blame the apostles, the early Christian community or even Constantine (yet another oft-accused person), but even if the details vary, the essence of the accusation is the same: that the actual Jesus is different from what Christians have portrayed Him to be.

By the way, this whole thing reminds me of that scene in The Last Temptation of Christ where Paul actually says to Jesus (who was brought down from the cross by an angel – later revealed to be Satan, married and had kids):

Look around you! Look at these people. Do you see the suffering and unhappiness in this world? Their only hope is the Resurrected Jesus. I don’t care whether you’re Jesus or not. The Resurrected Jesus will save the world – that’s what matters…

…I created the truth. I make it out of longing and faith. I don’t struggle to find truth – I build it. If it’s necessary to crucify you to save the world, then I’ll crucify you. And I’ll resurrect you too, whether you like it or not.

Paul could just be about anything one fancies: a Gnostic who is either a misogynist or a feminist (depending on the opinion), a member of the family of Herod the Great, a borrower of Plato, the incarnate Antichrist or even the guy who actually “invented” Jesus (who is a mythical figure).

---

I agree with all you say above. I don’t know about
this scene in the “Temptation of Christ” but I see a lot of logic in what you say. I can well relate to it from my researches on the Christian NT.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;4758463:

The Romans would have crucified Jesus if it weren’t from the Jewish pressure. So, the Romans wouldn’t have a monopoly of the blame!

Ben: As I can see, you have never read Josephus, to think that Pilate was that kind of character.

But since there was no Israel back then, it was Judea and Samaria and Galilee (and maybe a few other back-water areas) that all made up the Palestinian region, I felt I was calling a spade a spade.

Ben: Israel was composed of Judea, Samaria and Galilee. And they didn’t make up any “Palestianian” area. There was no such a term then, and neither there is today. But I understand you, considering that the Catholic Church does not even recognize the State of Israel…

Easy Ben. Let’s keep it friendly, my brother. I am continuing my error in thinking Acts 18 took place in Alexandria and not Ephesus.

Ben: Why continue your error if the text is only too clear?

My original point still stands, even through the fog of my ignorance. Ephesian Jews would have been more open to other thoughts than Jerusalem Jews. Less Phariseical pressures and what-not.

Ben: Now, I don’t get it! Why stick Pharisaic pressure here when the Pharisees had nothing to do with Christianity as long as Paul never built a church in Israeli soil? Ephesus was Diaspora.

The early Church was called “The Way”. Then it was called “Chrstian” without losing the term “The Way”. Wouldn’t people who do things “In the name of Jesus the Christ” be properly considered Christians.
Any extra-biblical literature to support this claim, my brother?

Ben: You don’t need an extral-Biblical source. It would be just an opinion of another man. How about having directly out of your own Bible, which constitutes a dogma of faith to you? Read Acts 9:1,2. It says in there that Paul would take letters from Jerusalem to arrest those who followed “The New Way” in the Sinagogues of Damascus. Jews from regular Synagogues did not follow the “New Way,” and the place of worship for Christians was not called Synagogue but church, after Paul founded the Movement.

No, I understand that the word “Christian” first surfaced in Antioch. According to Luke, “The Way” and “Christians” were the same group. Can you provide a quote?

Ben: I have provided you with the quote you need in Acts 9:1,2. Now, if you read the whole chapter 11 of Acts, you will see that the Synagogue of Antioch was a Nazarene Synagogue, and the disciples followed the “New Way.” Then, the headquarters of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem sent Barnabas, a VIP
among the Nazarenes to take charge of that branch of the Movement. Instead of doing his work, he went to Tarsus after his
old friend Paul and invited him over to help with the job. The end result is that after a whole year, Paul had turned that Nazarene Synagogue into a Christian church. Evidence of it is that the disciples started being called Christians for the first time. In fact, he did this with many other Nazarene Synagogues throughout Asia Minor. I still wonder why he called himself an apostle to the Gentiles when 98 percent of his missionary activities was among the Jews and proselytes of the Nazarenes.

Ben: ,

 

[Ben_Masada]

I’ll take a try at this. He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord and, with ardent spirit, spoke and taught accurately about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John.

If Apollos spoke accurately about Jesus, and he knew of the baptism of John, then it would seem that he taught what John the Baptist taught. Didn’t John teach about the Messiah coming, one whom he was not worthy of untying his shoes?

---

No, he did not. Sorry to be that straightforward.
To believe so, it would be to dig one more contradiction in the Christian NT. Those words in the lips of John the Baptist were written 50+ years after the so-called fact with the purpose to document a claim for Jesus’ divinity.

The contradiction would reside on the fact that before Paul showed up in Jerusalem about 30 years after Jesus had been gone, preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected, the local Jews nearly killed him for preaching heresy. (Acts 9:29) If the Apostles of Jesus knew anything about what John the Baptist is claimed to have said, what were they preaching about Jesus in Jerusalem to coexist peacefully with mainstream Judaism? Think it through!

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;4758513:

Galatians 2:1-10

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage – to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel be preserved !or you. And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; but on the contrary, the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles ), and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.

---

I am not too sure what you mean with this post of yours. If I am not mistaken, you only confirmed the gospel of Paul. If it’s not so, would you make it a little more clear?

Ben:

 

[adrift]

---

As I expected, you can’t do as I suggested. Let me try from another corner. You say that he proved it from Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah. What Scriptures, the Jewish Scriptures? Obviously, because the NT didn’t exist yet. Now, go ahead and do what you think Apollos did by proving to me from those Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah, because my commitment is up. If you can’t, go back to the text in Acts 18:24-28, because the proof is right there.

Ben:

Of course you knew it couldn’t be done since there is no record of what he taught. I must remind you that it is also true that you couldn’t do what I suggested either to prove that he didn’t. It is a draw for the same reason there is nothing about what he taught. Prove to you? Come on now again you post impossibility. The saying you can lead a horse to water comes to mind.

Apollos vigorously refuted the Jews in public, establishing from the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus.

He wasn’t refuted.
What Scriptures he used of course were the Jewish Scriptures, which we call the Old Testament. I am sure that you will disagree with any that I would point out. As a recent deleted thread points out. However, I will name a few that he probably used.
.Micah 5:2 Genesis 3:15 Genesis 12:3 Genesis 12:3 Genesis 22:8 Genesis 49:10 Isaiah 9:6-7 Isaiah 9:6
Micah 5:2 Isaiah 7:14 Isaiah 7:14 Psalm 2:7 Malachi 4:5-6 Maachi 3:1 Isaiah 40:3 Deuteronomy 18:15
Hosea 11:1 Jeremiah 31:15 Judges 13:5; Amos 2:11;Lam. 4:7 Isaiah 9:1-2 Psalm 72:10 Isaiah 53:3 (especially applies to you)Psalm 118:22-23; Isaiah 28:16 Isaiah 8:14-15 I Zechariah 9:9 Psalms 41:9 Zechariah 11:12 Zechariah 11:12 Zechariah 11:13 Zechariah 13:7 Psalm 35:11 Isaiah 53:7 Isaiah 35:5-6; Isaiah 29:18 Isaiah 61:1 Micah 7:6 Isaiah 53:4 Isaiah 50:6, 53:5 Micah 5:1 Psalm 35:19 Isaiah 53:5 Isaiah 42:6; Jeremiah 31:31-34 Isaiah 42:2-3 Isaiah 6:9-10 Isaiah 29:13 Isaiah 29:13 Isaiah 42:1 Isaiah 53:5 Isaiah 53:10-12 Daniel 9:26 Isaiah 55:5, 60:3, 65:1; Malachi 1:11; II Samuel 22:44-45; Psalm 2:7-Isaiah 53:12 Zechariah 12:10; Ps. 22:16 Psalm 22:16 Psalm 69:21 Psalm 22:18 Psalm 22:7-8 Psalm 22:17 Psalm 22:1 Amos 8:9 Psalm 34:20, Numbers 9:12 Zechariah 12:10 Isaiah 53:9 Psalm 16:10-11; 49:15 Psalm 110:4 Psalm 68:18 Psalm 110:1 Malachi 3:2-3

Do you believe in a Messiah? If so, what do you believe about him? I see the Old Testament as bearing witness to Jesus. He said He was the fulfillment and that is what I believe.

I am not too sure what you mean with this post of yours. If I am not mistaken, you only confirmed the gospel of Paul. If it’s not so, would you make it a little more clear?

There you go again with that unfounded Muslim claim.

No, he did not. Sorry to be that straightforward.
To believe so, it would be to dig one more contradiction in the Christian NT. Those words in the lips of John the Baptist were written 50+ years after the so-called fact with the purpose to document a claim for Jesus’ divinity.

The contradiction would reside on the fact that before Paul showed up in Jerusalem about 30 years after Jesus had been gone, preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected, the local Jews nearly killed him for preaching heresy. (Acts 9:29) If the Apostles of Jesus knew anything about what John the Baptist is claimed to have said, what were they preaching about Jesus in Jerusalem to coexist peacefully with mainstream Judaism? Think it through!

When it was written is an on going debate. The date that historian Warren Carroll accepts is 42 A.D. But it doesn’t matter. s

 But Saul grew all the stronger and confounded (the) Jews who lived in Damascus, proving that this is the Messiah.

23
After a long time had passed, the Jews conspired to kill him,
24

I guess because they could not dispute what he said so they wanted to kill him instead of believe what he said that Jesus is the Messiah.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Of course you knew it couldn’t be done since there is no record of what he taught. I must remind you that it is also true that you couldn’t do what I suggested either to prove that he didn’t. It is a draw for the same reason there is nothing about what he taught. Prove to you? Come on now again you post impossibility. The saying you can lead a horse to water comes to mind.

Ben: What are you trying to do? Is it a game? How can one prove what another did NOT do? What Apollos did, I have proved to you with Acts 18:24-28. You haven’t proved what I asked of you because, as you recognize, there is nothing to prove.

Apollos vigorously refuted the Jews in public, establishing from the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus.

Ben: Well my friend, one thing is to blah blah blah, another much different is to prove what you blah.

He wasn’t refuted.
What Scriptures he used of course were the Jewish Scriptures, which we call the Old Testament. I am sure that you will disagree with any that I would point out. As a recent deleted thread points out. However, I will name a few that he probably used.
.Micah 5:2 Genesis 3:15 Genesis 12:3 Genesis 12:3 Genesis 22:8 Genesis 49:10 Isaiah 9:6-7 Isaiah 9:6
Micah 5:2 Isaiah 7:14 Isaiah 7:14 Psalm 2:7 Malachi 4:5-6 Maachi 3:1 Isaiah 40:3 Deuteronomy 18:15
Hosea 11:1 Jeremiah 31:15 Judges 13:5; Amos 2:11;Lam. 4:7 Isaiah 9:1-2 Psalm 72:10 Isaiah 53:3 (especially applies to you)Psalm 118:22-23; Isaiah 28:16 Isaiah 8:14-15 I Zechariah 9:9 Psalms 41:9 Zechariah 11:12 Zechariah 11:12 Zechariah 11:13 Zechariah 13:7 Psalm 35:11 Isaiah 53:7 Isaiah 35:5-6; Isaiah 29:18 Isaiah 61:1 Micah 7:6 Isaiah 53:4 Isaiah 50:6, 53:5 Micah 5:1 Psalm 35:19 Isaiah 53:5 Isaiah 42:6; Jeremiah 31:31-34 Isaiah 42:2-3 Isaiah 6:9-10 Isaiah 29:13 Isaiah 29:13 Isaiah 42:1 Isaiah 53:5 Isaiah 53:10-12 Daniel 9:26 Isaiah 55:5, 60:3, 65:1; Malachi 1:11; II Samuel 22:44-45; Psalm 2:7-Isaiah 53:12 Zechariah 12:10; Ps. 22:16 Psalm 22:16 Psalm 69:21 Psalm 22:18 Psalm 22:7-8 Psalm 22:17 Psalm 22:1 Amos 8:9 Psalm 34:20, Numbers 9:12 Zechariah 12:10 Isaiah 53:9 Psalm 16:10-11; 49:15 Psalm 110:4 Psalm 68:18 Psalm 110:1 Malachi 3:2-3

Ben: I went through all the quotations above and Jesus is not there. He is for you as a result of assumptions. Not that you have been the first to assume, but you have copied what
others have assumed. And take into account that assumptions butter no bread.

Do you believe in a Messiah? If so, what do you believe about him? I see the Old Testament as bearing witness to Jesus. He said He was the fulfillment and that is what I believe.

Ben: Yes, I do believe in a Messiah. The Messiah
I have learned from Isaiah, the Prophet, who uses of no assumptions to tell us who the Messiah is by name. According to Isaiah 53, which is one of the quotations you use above, I am sure
that you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. Very good; now, read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; and 45:4.
Isaiah identifies that Servant with being Israel. That’s what I call a statement without assumption. Then, you mention above that Jesus said he was the fulfillment. You didn’t quote but I will quote
for you. That’s in Matthew 5:17. Why didn’t you read verses 18 and 19? What he fulfilled, he warned us to do the same. So, it has nothing to do with being Messiah on an individual basis.

I guess because they could not dispute what he said so they wanted to kill him instead of believe what he said that Jesus is the Messiah.

Ben: Whom are you talking about, Jesus, Apollos or Paul? It can’t be Apollos, because they never tried to kill him. Apollos was a Nazarenes, member of a Jewish sect. It couldn’t be Jesus, because those who killed him were Romans. It must be Paul, who was preaching heresy in Jerusalem, saying that Jesus was son of God and that he had resurrected.

Ben:

 

[NotWorthy]

The Romans would have crucified Jesus if it weren’t from the Jewish pressure. So, the Romans wouldn’t have a monopoly of the blame!

Ben: As I can see, you have never read Josephus, to think that Pilate was that kind of character.

But since there was no Israel back then, it was Judea and Samaria and Galilee (and maybe a few other back-water areas) that all made up the Palestinian region, I felt I was calling a spade a spade.

Ben: Israel was composed of Judea, Samaria and Galilee. And they didn’t make up any “Palestianian” area. There was no such a term then, and neither there is today. But I understand you, considering that the Catholic Church does not even recognize the State of Israel…

Easy Ben. Let’s keep it friendly, my brother. I am continuing my error in thinking Acts 18 took place in Alexandria and not Ephesus.

Ben: Why continue your error if the text is only too clear?

My original point still stands, even through the fog of my ignorance. Ephesian Jews would have been more open to other thoughts than Jerusalem Jews. Less Phariseical pressures and what-not.

Ben: Now, I don’t get it! Why stick Pharisaic pressure here when the Pharisees had nothing to do with Christianity as long as Paul never built a church in Israeli soil? Ephesus was Diaspora.

The early Church was called “The Way”. Then it was called “Chrstian” without losing the term “The Way”. Wouldn’t people who do things “In the name of Jesus the Christ” be properly considered Christians.
Any extra-biblical literature to support this claim, my brother?

Ben: You don’t need an extral-Biblical source. It would be just an opinion of another man. How about having directly out of your own Bible, which constitutes a dogma of faith to you? Read Acts 9:1,2. It says in there that Paul would take letters from Jerusalem to arrest those who followed “The New Way” in the Sinagogues of Damascus. Jews from regular Synagogues did not follow the “New Way,” and the place of worship for Christians was not called Synagogue but church, after Paul founded the Movement.

No, I understand that the word “Christian” first surfaced in Antioch. According to Luke, “The Way” and “Christians” were the same group. Can you provide a quote?

Ben: I have provided you with the quote you need in Acts 9:1,2. Now, if you read the whole chapter 11 of Acts, you will see that the Synagogue of Antioch was a Nazarene Synagogue, and the disciples followed the “New Way.” Then, the headquarters of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem sent Barnabas, a VIP
among the Nazarenes to take charge of that branch of the Movement. Instead of doing his work, he went to Tarsus after his
old friend Paul and invited him over to help with the job. The end result is that after a whole year, Paul had turned that Nazarene Synagogue into a Christian church. Evidence of it is that the disciples started being called Christians for the first time. In fact, he did this with many other Nazarene Synagogues throughout Asia Minor. I still wonder why he called himself an apostle to the Gentiles when 98 percent of his missionary activities was among the Jews and proselytes of the Nazarenes.

Ben: ,

First of all, yes Pilate was cruel. But the texts clearly show that he didn’t want to kill Jesus. Only Jewish pressure makes him do it. Are you re-writing Scripture, Ben? If so, that’s your business.

Secondly, I was only continuing my error because I had typed all that before you showed that I was in error. I was simply trying to explain that I hadn’t realized (during the time of typing) that you would correct me the following day.

Ben, for goodness sake. I recognize the state of Israel, and don’t want to go down that rabbit hole of the Catholic Church and the State of Israel. Start a new thread if you wish to pursue that. You’ve entirely misjudged me if you think for a second I don’t appreciate the state of Israel and recognize the need to protect it at all costs. I stand by Reagan and the Bushes in their backing of Israel.

The point regarding Phariseical pressure is that Apollos would have more leniency to teach and preach the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in Ephasus than he would have in Jerusalem, due to the lesser influence the Pharisees would have in the Jewish synagogues. That was a point of contention about 1800 posts ago on this thread.

The Jewish and Christian celebration of the Liturgy separated not after Paul’s missions in Antioch. They separated after that little incident with St. Stephen - “Stone-Gate” if you will.

And regarding the name, “The Way”, I’m totally missing your point. The same disciples were called “Christians” in Antioch that were called “The Way” elsewhere. That doesn’t make them a new religion. Also, I don’t see the term “Nazarene Synagogues” anywhere.

Why did Paul call himself an apostle to the Gentiles? That’s where he did so much of his missionary work. He would go preach first to the Jews. When the Jews kicked him out, then he would go to the Gentiles. But, in the vast majority of his trips, he preached first to his brother Jews.

 

[NotWorthy]

---

No, he did not. Sorry to be that straightforward.
To believe so, it would be to dig one more contradiction in the Christian NT. Those words in the lips of John the Baptist were written 50+ years after the so-called fact with the purpose to document a claim for Jesus’ divinity. Ben, if you continue to re-write Scripture with the authority that you feel you have, you’ve got no ground to stand on. It simply makes you look ridiculous. There’s no further point in arguing if you continue this line of reasoning.

The contradiction would reside on the fact that before Paul showed up in Jerusalem about 30 years after Jesus had been gone, preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected, the local Jews nearly killed him for preaching heresy. (Acts 9:29) If the Apostles of Jesus knew anything about what John the Baptist is claimed to have said, what were they preaching about Jesus in Jerusalem to coexist peacefully with mainstream Judaism? Think it through!

Ben:

Because the first Christians felt that they were still Jews, just Jews under a new Covenant. It wasn’t until those pesky persecutions kicked in that they felt it wiser to separate. Same Church - different outlook due to ostracism.

Its sort of like the older brother in the Prodigal Son. He’s outside the banquet when he should be coming in to celebrate the feast. But don’t worry, Ben. The invitation still stands, my older brother!

 

[adrift]

adrift;4773423:

Of course you knew it couldn’t be done since there is no record of what he taught. I must remind you that it is also true that you couldn’t do what I suggested either to prove that he didn’t. It is a draw for the same reason there is nothing about what he taught. eProve to you? Come on now again you post impossibility. The saying you can lead a horse to water comes to mind.

Ben: What are you trying to do? Is it a game? How can one prove what another did NOT do? What Apollos did, I have proved to you with Acts 18:24-28. You haven’t proved what I asked of you because, as you recognize, there is nothing to prove.

But it is your game.

You show me where Apollos preached that Jesus was the Messiah before he met Aquila and Priscilla,

Since there is not record of exactly what Apollo taught you knew that you were asking an impossibility. I can’t prove either the negative or the positive and once more neither can you. So its a wash. You have proved nothing about Acts 18. You have added your own suppositions but that is not proof.

Apollos vigorously refuted the Jews in public, establishing from the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus.

Ben: Well my friend, one thing is to blah blah blah, another much different is to prove what you blah.

Well my friend you must know a lot about blah blah blah since you do it so well. Your right it is another to prove what you have invented.

He wasn’t refuted.
What Scriptures he used of course were the Jewish Scriptures, which we call the Old Testament. I am sure that you will disagree with any that I would point out. As a recent deleted thread points out. However, I will name a few that he probably used.
.Micah 5:2 Genesis 3:15 Genesis 12:3 Genesis 12:3 Genesis 22:8 Genesis 49:10 Isaiah 9:6-7 Isaiah 9:6
Micah 5:2 Isaiah 7:14 Isaiah 7:14 Psalm 2:7 Malachi 4:5-6 Maachi 3:1 Isaiah 40:3 Deuteronomy 18:15
Hosea 11:1 Jeremiah 31:15 Judges 13:5; Amos 2:11;Lam. 4:7 Isaiah 9:1-2 Psalm 72:10 Isaiah 53:3 (especially applies to you)Psalm 118:22-23; Isaiah 28:16 Isaiah 8:14-15 I Zechariah 9:9 Psalms 41:9 Zechariah 11:12 Zechariah 11:12 Zechariah 11:13 Zechariah 13:7 Psalm 35:11 Isaiah 53:7 Isaiah 35:5-6; Isaiah 29:18 Isaiah 61:1 Micah 7:6 Isaiah 53:4 Isaiah 50:6, 53:5 Micah 5:1 Psalm 35:19 Isaiah 53:5 Isaiah 42:6; Jeremiah 31:31-34 Isaiah 42:2-3 Isaiah 6:9-10 Isaiah 29:13 Isaiah 29:13 Isaiah 42:1 Isaiah 53:5 Isaiah 53:10-12 Daniel 9:26 Isaiah 55:5, 60:3, 65:1; Malachi 1:11; II Samuel 22:44-45; Psalm 2:7-Isaiah 53:12 Zechariah 12:10; Ps. 22:16 Psalm 22:16 Psalm 69:21 Psalm 22:18 Psalm 22:7-8 Psalm 22:17 Psalm 22:1 Amos 8:9 Psalm 34:20, Numbers 9:12 Zechariah 12:10 Isaiah 53:9 Psalm 16:10-11; 49:15 Psalm 110:4 Psalm 68:18 Psalm 110:1 Malachi 3:2-3

Ben: I went through all the quotations above and Jesus is not there. He is for you as a result of assumptions. Not that you have been the first to assume, but you have copied what
others have assumed. And take into account that assumptions butter no bread.

Lets not change the subject. We are not discussing if they are scriptures fulfilled by Jesus but what would have been used by Apollos.

Do you believe in a Messiah? If so, what do you believe about him? I see the Old Testament as bearing witness to Jesus. He said He was the fulfillment and that is what I believe.

Ben: Yes, I do believe in a Messiah. The Messiah
I have learned from Isaiah, the Prophet, who uses of no assumptions to tell us who the Messiah is by name. According to Isaiah 53, which is one of the quotations you use above, I am sure
that you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. Very good; now, read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; and 45:4.
Isaiah identifies that Servant with being Israel. That’s what I call a statement without assumption. Then, you mention above that Jesus said he was the fulfillment. You didn’t quote but I will quote
for you. That’s in Matthew 5:17. Why didn’t you read verses 18 and 19? What he fulfilled, he warned us to do the same. So, it has nothing to do with being Messiah on an individual basis.

There can be more than one interpretation. There can be more than one intended meaning. I didn’t quote Matthew your are bringing it up. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. I have read those versus but lets not get side tracked. It is not the subject of this thread. Is there a reason you want to depart from the subject of this thread?

I guess because they could not dispute what he said so they wanted to kill him instead of believe what he said that Jesus is the Messiah.

Ben: Whom are you talking about, Jesus, Apollos or Paul? It can’t be Apollos, because they never tried to kill him. Apollos was a Nazarenes, member of a Jewish sect. It couldn’t be Jesus, because those who killed him were Romans. It must be Paul, who was preaching heresy in Jerusalem, saying that Jesus was son of God and that he had resurrected.

Ben:

go back to what I posted. You try to make it as if it is a mystery what I am referring to. Either you aren’t a careful reader or you are deliberately playing dumb.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;4773654:

But it is your game. Since there is not record of exactly what Apollo taught you knew that you were asking an impossibility. I can’t prove either the negative or the positive and once more neither can you. So its a wash. You have proved nothing about Acts 18. You have added your own suppositions but that is not proof.

Ben: Read Acts 18:28. That’s Apollos preaching that Jesus was the Messiah after Aquila and Priscilla took him to their home to teach him about Jesus accoding to Paul. Now, prove to me that he preached about Jesus as the Messiah before that.

Lets not change the subject. We are not discussing if they are scriptures fulfilled by Jesus but what would have been used by Apollos.

Ben: And you don’t know the ABC of anything about him.

There can be more than one interpretation. There can be more than one intended meaning. I didn’t quote Matthew your are bringing it up. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Ben: Now, prove that Jesus fulfilled any of the prophecies of the Tanach. I think that’s a waste of time to discuss
with someone who does not know what he is talking about.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, if you continue to re-write Scripture with the authority that you feel you have, you’ve got no ground to stand on. It simply makes you look ridiculous. There’s no further point in arguing if you continue this line of reasoning.

Ben: I agree with you because everyone of your statements is based on assumptions.

]Because the first Christians felt that they were still Jews, just Jews under a new Covenant. It wasn’t until those pesky persecutions kicked in that they felt it wiser to separate. Same Church - different outlook due to ostracism.

Ben: Do you see what I mean? If the first Chistians were Jews, before Paul showed up in scene, how do you explain the fact that Christians were called Christians first time in Antioch with Paul? (Acts 11:36) What you are doing is digging more and more contradictions from the NT.

Its sort of like the older brother in the Prodigal Son. He’s outside the banquet when he should be coming in to celebrate the feast. But don’t worry, Ben. The invitation still stands, my older brother!

Ben: It’s doesn’t work to appeal to emotions with me. The road to my heart is through my mind. Knowledge is the word. Blind faith only brings disappointment.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

First of all, yes Pilate was cruel. But the texts clearly show that he didn’t want to kill Jesus. Only Jewish pressure makes him do it. Are you re-writing Scripture, Ben? If so, that’s your business.

Ben: No, I am trying to reveal the pernicious intention of the gospel writers to remove the blame from the Romans and falsely accuse the Jews with the death of Jesus. This is simply Antisemitism.

Ben, for goodness sake. I recognize the state of Israel, and don’t want to go down that rabbit hole of the Catholic Church and the State of Israel. Start a new thread if you wish to pursue that. You’ve entirely misjudged me if you think for a second I don’t appreciate the state of Israel and recognize the need to protect it at all costs. I stand by Reagan and the Bushes in their backing of Israel.

Ben: Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And regarding the name, “The Way”, I’m totally missing your point. The same disciples were called “Christians” in Antioch that were called “The Way” elsewhere. That doesn’t make them a new religion. Also, I don’t see the term “Nazarene Synagogues” anywhere.

Ben: Show me where else the expression “The Way” was mentioned with reference to Christians. And regarding the Sect of the Nazarenes, read Acts 24. When Paul was taken to Court by the High Priest Hananias, the Lawyer accused Paul as a ring leader of the Sect of the Nazarenes without being aware of the false llinformation. The Sect’s headquarters was in Jerusalem, and it was from there that the Eldes assigned Barnabas to go take the leadership of the Synagogue of Antioch. They would not have done so if the Synagogue of Antioch was not a Nazarene Synagogue. Sometimes it’s good to use some Logic.Read Acts 11:1-26.

Why did Paul call himself an apostle to the Gentiles? That’s where he did so much of his missionary work. He would go preach first to the Jews. When the Jews kicked him out, then he would go to the Gentiles. But, in the vast majority of his trips, he preached first to his brother Jews.

Ben: Show me when did he go to the Gentiles. One or twice does not make of one the apostle of the Gentiles.
Now, read Acts 15:7. Peter was the one assigned to deal with the
Gentiles and not Paul. Paul was like that bird that lay her eggs in other bird’s nest in order to take it over.

Ben: