The Metamorphose of Apollos

[Ben_Masada]

If you’ll pardon me, I’ll answer this post in reverse:

Luke may have had his own political or personal motives for not including the two main incidents that Matthew relates:

If you are right, Luke lied by saying that he had reported to Theophilus everything about Jesus from his birth till the end of his life.

• One of Luke’s aims in his Gospel is to convince Roman and Gentile readers (represented by Theophilus) that Christianity is no threat to the Roman order.

**In that case, he did a slopy job because the Romans of before Constantine killed a lot of Christians in the Colliseum. **

The last thing that Luke needs is to record an incident in which the Founder of the Christians received gifts from magoi who probably came from outside of the Roman Empire, and were perhaps associated with the Parthians, then one of Rome’s chief rivals. He also does not need an account of a Roman client-king being stirred up by these “enemies” - he already has the crucifixion as a hot potato to deal with!

You didn’t have to remark that Jesus was the founder of the Christians, because that’s absolutely untrue and you know it. Paul was the one who founded Christianity. You can read it for yourself in Acts 11:26.

-Another problem that Luke may have had in his hands is Egypt itself. In antiquity, Egypt was viewed as an “exotic” land of magic and superstition par excellence - it had this aura of mystery that fascinated many a Greek or Roman. Luke would not have wanted ‘Theophilus’ to think that Jesus got His powers in Egypt by learning magic there - a view which some ancient detractors, such as Celsus, may have got by reading Matthew’s account. It is no surprise that Luke chose instead to highlight incidents later in Jesus’ childhood that stressed Jesus within the paradigms of ‘Judean customs’.

Nice try in terms of empty specualtions because a child up to two years of age, could not learn Egyptian magic. But if you mentioned that with the purpose to make me laugh, you got it. According to Matthew, Jesus returned from Egypt in the same year that Archelaus succeeded Herod in Judea. Since Herod was the one who ordered the slaughter of the children, Jesus must have been less than a year old when he got back from Egypt.

All that Luke says is that the family went back to Nazareth “when they had completed everything according to the Law of the LORD”. He does not say they left immediately - only being content by saying that they went back sometime after they had done the requirements. Since he does not say anything about magis or Herod or infants it would make no sense if he inserted “Egypt” somewhere in the sentence - it would be bad storytelling and a minus for Luke’s agenda.

And what is it to be a good storytelling, to report that he had written ALL that happened to Jesus, when it was not true? According to Luke 2:39 he said that soon after those requirements of the Law, which he was talking about as the presentation in the Temple, they returned to Nazareth. Jesus was 40 days old. Don’t you think you have painted yourself at the corner? Why keep fighting against the Truth? Are you afraid to be excommunicated? Have no fear. The Faith of Jesus was Judaism.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I’m very sorry; can you elaborate a bit?

I am talking about the New American version of the Bible, Saint Joseph’s edition, which gives in the preface of every gospel the date for its writing. Then, some Catholics here deny credibility to an edition of the Bible sponsored by a conclave of Catholic Bishops and even brings the signature of the Pope.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I’m just trying to point out the inconsistency of your arguments. I’m sure you are aware that there has been numerous debates about the dating of the bibles, and the argument that you choose to prove your point is certainly in the vast minority. It just happens to most support what you are trying to say.

The “fact” that any of the synoptics was written after the destruction of the Temple is not highly supported.

In that case, you are clouding the credibility of the Church.

 

[Ben_Masada]

And with this, you are proving my point. You’ve put the cart (your beliefs) before the horse (how you choose to interpret Sacred Scriptures). You follow the same path as those at the so-called Council of Jamnia.

I will borrow the title of one of your threads - “History repeats itself”

What would you expect, that a Jew should compromise Judaism when dealing about Judaism with a Christian? The reaction of a 4,000 years old Faith before another half that old, is only natural. I don’t think our aims here is to compare our religions but to persuade each other about the place where the Truth resides.

 

[Eucharisted]

What would you expect, that a Jew should compromise Judaism when dealing about Judaism with a Christian? The reaction of a 4,000 years old Faith before another half that old, is only natural. I don’t think our aims here is to compare our religions but to persuade each other about the place where the Truth resides.

It’s a good idea to not speak out about things you don’t understand - for example, Christianity and Jesus Christ. If you really want to learn, than do what disciples do when their teachers teach: Sit and listen, and ask questions if you don’t understand something. Do not accuse, do not spew out preconceived notions (“Paul founded Christianity,” “Jesus never said He was God”), do not attack the teachers. But since you have done exactly what you shouldn’t do when learning, than it seems you’re not here to learn about Catholicism. So you must either be here to argue for argument’s sake, to attempt to show Catholics they are wrong, or to attack Catholicism. Which is it?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Acts 18
24 A Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, an eloquent speaker, arrived in Ephesus. He was an authority on the scriptures.

Only the Apostles could have made Apollos an authority on the Scriptures, as they were understood by the Apostles.

25 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.

The expression “The Way” was the same as the Sect of the Nazarenes, because when Paul went for letters from the High Priest in Jerusalem, it was to arrest those who followed “The Way” in the synagogues of Damascus. It means, they were not Christians. Apollos did teach accurately about Jesus but according to the Apostles of Jesus and not according to Paul. By “knowing only the baptism of John,” this is opposite to the method used by Paul in Acts 19:5. To baptize in the name of Jesus.

26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the Way (of God) more accurately.

**It means that Jesus was not preached by Apollos according to the Pauline accuracy. Who were Priscilla and Aquila? A couple of Christians personally converted by Paul. (Acts 18:1-5) Since Christ means Messiah in Greek, and the idea of Jesus being Christ started with Paul, nothing can be more obvious that Apollos did not know that Jesus was the Messiah. And neither did the Apostles. Otherwise, they would have told him. **

27 And when he wanted to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. After his arrival he gave great assistance to those who had come to believe through grace.
28 He vigorously refuted the Jews in public, establishing from the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus.

**Have you got the picture now? I only hope so! **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben,

I’m just curious, what are your thoughts on John the Baptist?

Just another ambulant Rabbi like Jesus trying to cause a rebirth of Torah Judaism; also Master of the mystical number of twelve disciples, as it was a Jewish custom of the time. There were many such groups then. It was a facsimile of the school of Prophets of the time of Samuel and Elijah.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): “After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn’t provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.

However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peter’s speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, “beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached.” Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.

from: earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

**Randy, you either discard anything that anyone else says about being Mark a disciple of Peter or you will be dealing with a lot of contradictions in the NT. Peter was a Nazarene and not a Hellenistic Jew to have taught Mark so much Hellenistic stuff. This Iranaeus or Papias must either be talking about someone else or being pons in a conspiracy to stablish the Church. This guy who wrote the gospel of Mark could have never been a disciple of Peter’s. I don’t go by what people say but by what is written. A loyal Jew would not write against Judaism. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben-

May we now have your long-awaited answer to my question in post #116? Your previous attempt does not really explain why the Jews asked the Romans to guard the tomb.

Thanks.

**To tell you the thruth, they didn’t. That was a Shabbaton, which was the Festival of Passover on the Sabbath. The Jewish leaders would never use the hours of that Sabbath to bargain with Pilate for a guard of soldiers, then get into the graveyard to seal a tombstone which they thought was occupied by a dead man. The guys who wrote about that had no clue of what being Jewish is.

Besides, if there was a guard of soldiers watching at the tomb area, the women would know it. How could they bring perfumes to anoint Jesus’ body? What makes you think the soldiers would allow anyone approach that tomb? Sealed tombstone! Poppycock! How would the soldiers allow the women to break that seal to get to Jesus’ body? When Mary Magdalene went to see the tomb at the end of that Sabbath, the stone was not in place and the tomb was empty. That stone had been rolled asside and the tomb was empty since Friday night when Joseph of Arimathea had removed Jesus from there.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

It’s a good idea to not speak out about things you don’t understand - for example, Christianity and Jesus Christ. If you really want to learn, than do what disciples do when their teachers teach: Sit and listen, and ask questions if you don’t understand something. Do not accuse, do not spew out preconceived notions (“Paul founded Christianity,” “Jesus never said He was God”), do not attack the teachers. But since you have done exactly what you shouldn’t do when learning, than it seems you’re not here to learn about Catholicism. So you must either be here to argue for argument’s sake, to attempt to show Catholics they are wrong, or to attack Catholicism. Which is it?

**Listen Eucharisted, do you believe that Jesus was a religious Jewish man? I hope so. Therefore, you are using a member of my Faith to distort the image of Judaism before the world. What I am doing is defending my Faith which was the Faith of Jesus. How does it sound for my purpose here?

Of course, that by doing this, I have to listen or read your posts. But don’t blame me if you don’t have what it takes to convince a man who has a mind of his own.

I am neither attacking the Church nor just attempting to prove that you are wrong. You are using this excuse because you have run out of what to say. If you can’t enlighten me, at least, be big enough to let me enlighten you.

Read Isaiah 2:2,3. It says in there that when Gentiles want instructions in the Word of God, the address must be Zion, the Jewish People. I am not here only to learn about Catholicism, but also to teach you the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

That’s not what Luke wrote.

Acts 1:1-2
1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

That’s the same as ALL that happened to Jesus from birth to death.

Luke does not say that he captured every sentence that Jesus ever uttered; he is saying that his previous work covered the life of Jesus. There is no expectation that Luke captured 33 years of biography in a short work containing just 24 chapters.

So, what’s the use for the statement that he had reported everything concerned Jesus’ life? Something is wrong here.

Moving on, Matthew reports that Herod killed the infants in Bethlehem; but Jesus wasn’t in Bethlehem. Joseph was from Nazareth, and had only gone to Bethlehem in response to the Roman census. Here is the account:

**And where was the Joseph of Matthew from? Because when they returned from Egypt, they could not return to Judea because Archaelaus, Herod’s son had succeeded him in Judea. It was then that Joseph decided to head to Galilee. **

Luke 2
1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.

This is closed to impossible that Rome, famous for its sense of organization would allow a census in Israel such a pouder-kag ready to explode at any moment. But anyways, how come Matthew ignores such a census? Is it payback for Luke to ignore his slaughter of the children and the trip to Egypt?

4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Aha! So, Mary gave birth to her FIRSTBORN. Why don’t you acknowledge that Jesus’ brothers were progeny of Mary’s? If Jesus was her firstborn, it stands the reason that she had other children.

Sometime during the two years that followed, Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt, but there is no reason to believe that Herod’s slaughter of the innocents occurred immediately after Jesus’ birth. Herod gave the order to kill all the male children two years old and younger for a reason: as much as two years had passed since the magi had informed him of the birth of the messiah.

Now, hold your horses! Herod was the one who ordered the slaughter of the children, and he died soon after. Joseph left Egypt as soon as he was told that Herod had died. Archaelaus took over Judea in the same year, because he was the reason why Joseph could not return to Judea and decided to go to Galilee. Jesus was perhaps even less than a year old. And during all this time, the Jesus of Luke was in Nazareth since his age of 40 days old. Sorry, but the more you struggle in the spider’s web the more and more you get stuck to it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Aha! So, Mary gave birth to her FIRSTBORN. Why don’t you acknowledge that Jesus’ brothers were progeny of Mary’s? If Jesus was her firstborn, it stands the reason that she had other children.**Ben-

Most of your responses are so twisted that I’m no longer going to spend any time addresssing them. Go ahead and claim victory if you like. Arguing with you is time wasted.

However, this one claim is so absurd coming from a Jew, that I cannot help myself.

You claim that Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

Out.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Ben Masada:

Read Isaiah 2:2,3. It says in there that when Gentiles want instructions in the Word of God, the address must be Zion, the Jewish People. I am not here only to learn about Catholicism, but also to teach you the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism.

Funny, someone who denies whole books of the Bible as not being authentic (both old and new testament) should lecture Catholics on what being Jewish means. Jews don’t even agree on what being Jewish means; so I doubt you can “teach” anyone here what the “Faith” of Jesus was. But then you are no different then the Jews who hated Paul, and persecuted him in his own time. So that at least is a sort of glimpse at the old Biblical antagonisms for Catholics today.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

How would a Jew know the Messiah when he saw him?
Not an impostor, nor innocent bystander.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben-

Most of your responses are so twisted that I’m no longer going to spend any time addresssing them. Go ahead and claim victory if you like. Arguing with you is time wasted.

However, this one claim is so absurd coming from a Jew, that I cannot help myself.

You claim that Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

Out.

**Congratultions! I take off my hat to your insight. Sorry if I can’t say I have learned something new today, but you have indeed reminded me of something I had lapsed. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Funny, someone who denies whole books of the Bible as not being authentic (both old and new testament) should lecture Catholics on what being Jewish means. Jews don’t even agree on what being Jewish means; so I doubt you can “teach” anyone here what the “Faith” of Jesus was. But then you are no different then the Jews who hated Paul, and persecuted him in his own time. So that at least is a sort of glimpse at the old Biblical antagonisms for Catholics today.

Well, at least, it’s much more logical than to have Catholics lecturing Jews on Judaism.

 

[Ben_Masada]

How would a Jew know the Messiah when he saw him?
Not an impostor, nor innocent bystander.

Sorry to have taken your question as I see now it was not meant to me, since I don’t believe in an individual Messiah. I believe that the Messiah is collective. I mean, Israel the Jewish People, according to Isaiah the Prophet.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Sorry to have taken your question as I see now it was not meant to me, since I don’t believe in an individual Messiah. I believe that the Messiah is collective. I mean, Israel the Jewish People, according to Isaiah the Prophet.

So,
The Messiah is a body of people (The Jewish People)?
Could you give me some specific scriptures that reflect this?

 

[Ben_Masada]

So,
The Messiah is a body of people (The Jewish People)?
Could you give me some specific scriptures that reflect this?

**My pleasure. I am sure you are familiar with Isaiah 53. That’s about the Suffering Servant, who is the Messiah. Now, if you read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; and 45:4, you will see that Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name,
so that no one will need to assume that he was Jesus.

Here is another one. I am sure also that you are familiar with the expression “The Anointed of the Lord.” This is what Messiah means. Now, if you read Habakkuk 3:13,
you will see that, “The Lord comes to save His People; His anointed one.” It means that
the People, rather than the individual, is the Anointed of the Lord.

And if you have heard that the Messiah is also to be known as the son of God, there
will be no problem. If you read Exodus 4:22,23, you will see that “Israel is My son; so,
let My son go, so that he may serve Me,” says the Lord.

There are many other indications of being the People the Suffering Servant of the Lord, especially if you read Psalms 44:11-26. And here, the Psalmist uses no symbolism of the pronoun in the singular. He uses the plural to avoid any confusion that he is talking about the People and not the individual.

For now, I think it’s enough, because for the one who is easy to understand, half word suffices.**

 

[AmbroseSJ]

**My pleasure. I am sure you are familiar with Isaiah 53. That’s about the Suffering Servant, who is the Messiah. Now, if you read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; and 45:4, you will see that Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name,
so that no one will need to assume that he was Jesus.

Here is another one. I am sure also that you are familiar with the expression “The Anointed of the Lord.” This is what Messiah means. Now, if you read Habakkuk 3:13,
you will see that, “The Lord comes to save His People; His anointed one.” It means that
the People, rather than the individual, is the Anointed of the Lord.

And if you have heard that the Messiah is also to be known as the son of God, there
will be no problem. If you read Exodus 4:22,23, you will see that “Israel is My son; so,
let My son go, so that he may serve Me,” says the Lord.

There are many other indications of being the People the Suffering Servant of the Lord, especially if you read Psalms 44:11-26. And here, the Psalmist uses no symbolism of the pronoun in the singular. He uses the plural to avoid any confusion that he is talking about the People and not the individual.

For now, I think it’s enough, because for the one who is easy to understand, half word suffices.**

I’m curious, is this your own interpretation, or are you sharing the teachings of some “school of thought” and if so, which one.