The Metamorphose of Apollos

[patrick457]

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.

I don’t think the accounts themselves are Antisemitic; but I don’t deny that they could be (unfortunately) misconstrued that way.

The Gospels, for the most part, point towards the “chief priests and the elders of the people” as being responsible; now unless all the Jews happened to be chief priests, I can’t see why this would be Antisemitic.

While the Gospel of John is a bit tricky due to its use of “Ioudaioi” (usually translated as ‘the Jews’ in many Bibles), that Gospel still makes it clear that salvation is “from the Jews” (John 4:22).

Plus, personally I think that many, if not most, instances of Ioudaioi in John should be more properly translated as “Judeans” and understood in the sense of either “the Jewish leaders” or “the people of Judea”. After all, the term was used primarily at that time to refer to persons who were inhabitants of Judea Province; plus John mostly uses the term in context to mean “the Jews in Judea” or “the Jewish leaders” or the like.

“The Jews” (or perhaps more correctly, “the Judeans”) is thus no more of a ‘slur’ than “the Texans”, “the Tel-Avivans”, “the Sicilians” or “the Tokyoites”.

This usage is not limited to the NT writers, mind you; Josephus regularly uses the phrase, “the Jews” and he uses it in much the same way: “absolutely or with modifiers which suggest a general reference in context, where the reference is clearly to specific groups of Jews.” Now is Josephus Antisemitic just because he uses “the Jews” in writing?

While the Gospels are, indeed, in some ways a polemic against the claims of Judaism against early Christianity, this does not equate with anti-Semitism. Nor are they totally pro-Roman; the accounts of Pilate the Prefect of Judea being weak-willed and ultimately releasing a known insurgent (i.e. Barabbas) could hardly be construed as a favorable account for Rome!

 

[NotWorthy]

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

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.

Then you are simply ignoring the point. What does the Bible teach, that the truth evolved from this group to another? No. These are simply names that originated in one area and stuck. If you develop a nickname in the 9th grade, does that make you a different person than you were in the 8th grade?

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:

But we aren’t blind, Ben, and you know that. The offer still stands, older brother.

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

Just keep ignoring the facts. The text says that Apollos 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. It also says that He was an authority on the scriptures.

Now, we both know that the OT Scriptures is what he was an authority on. If you recall in Luke’s Gospel, on the road to Emmaus Jesus unlocked the (OT) Scriptures to teach the two disciples about Him, so we understand that Luke felt the OT Scriptures pointed us to Jesus.

We also know that John the Baptist taught that he was sent to pave the way for the Messiah - to make straight the pathways of the Lord.

Hence if Apollos taught accurately about Jesus, even though he knew only the baptism of John, then he is still preaching that Jesus is the Messiah.

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:

Well, Ben. The Christians sure converted thousands of early Jews, even Pharisees and Scribes. I would think they were able to prove this if they were able to convert such experts.

I think the only difference is that their eyes **and their hearts **were open.

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

No, its not anti-semitism. Man, you see shadows behind every tree, don’t you Ben?

The Church, as well as the early Church, was not anti-semite. She teaches that we all killed Jesus… not the Jews, not the Romans, but all of us who sin.

Ben: Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Alas, it was my misunderstanding that led us down that path. My bad, not yours, brother.

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.

The 1st (or early 2nd) century document, The Didache, what many feel is the first Catechism of the Catholic Church, still called members of the Church, “The Way”. By this time, Ignatius was calling the Church, “The Catholic Church”. These aren’t three sects. They are all the one and the same Church.

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:

In Corinth, Athens, Thessalonica, Cypress, etc.

 

[NotWorthy]

  			Originally Posted by **Ben Masada** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4782015#post4782015) 				
  		*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.*

I don’t think the accounts themselves are Antisemitic; but I don’t deny that they could be (unfortunately) misconstrued that way.

The Gospels, for the most part, point towards the “chief priests and the elders of the people” as being responsible; now unless all the Jews happened to be chief priests, I can’t see why this would be Antisemitic.

I agree. Besides, if the Church was actively Pro-Roman and anti-Semitic, I would imagine the Acts of Peter would have found its way into the Canon. This book paints Pontius and the Romans in a much more favorable light than the Synoptics do.

 

[Ben_Masada]

No, its not anti-semitism. Man, you see shadows behind every tree, don’t you Ben?

The Church, as well as the early Church, was not anti-semite. She teaches that we all killed Jesus… not the Jews, not the Romans, but all of us who sin.

Alas, it was my misunderstanding that led us down that path. My bad, not yours, brother.

The 1st (or early 2nd) century document, The Didache, what many feel is the first Catechism of the Catholic Church, still called members of the Church, “The Way”. By this time, Ignatius was calling the Church, “The Catholic Church”. These aren’t three sects. They are all the one and the same Church.

In Corinth, Athens, Thessalonica, Cypress, etc.

Sorry my friend but this idea that “We all killed Jesus” is Pauline rhetoric short of being a cop-out, and you know very well what I mean. Jesus was an observant Jew and he knew very well that it’s anti-Biblical that a man should die for another. (Deut. 24:16; II Kings 14:6; Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:4)

If you cannot prove something to me in the NT, it’s a wasting of time to bring in extra-Biblical literature.

And by mentioning Corinth, Athens, Thessalonica, Cypress without a quotation to document the facts, it’s as if you said nothing. I am sure you don’t want me to take your word for it, do you?

Ben:

 

[NotWorthy]

Sorry my friend but this idea that "We all killed Jesus" is Pauline rhetoric short of being a cop-out, and you know very well what I mean. Jesus was an observant Jew and he knew very well that it’s anti-Biblical that a man should die for another. (Deut. 24:16; II Kings 14:6; Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:4)

If you cannot prove something to me in the NT, it’s a wasting of time to bring in extra-Biblical literature.

I’m confused by these two statements that I underlined. Am I to show you in the NT something, or am I not?

And regarding Jesus being a loyal Jew, He mentioned numerous times that He was going to Jerusalem to be handed over and Crucified. Now, once again you are trying to re-write the New Testament, claiming that Jesus couldn’t have said that since He was a loyal Jew. You’re about 1950 years late for Scriptural editing, Ben!

 

[Ben_Masada]

Just keep ignoring the facts. The text says that Apollos 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. It also says that He was an authority on the scriptures.

Ben: As usual, you are dudging the question and giving no answer. Apollos did preach accurately about Jesus, but the Jesus according to the Nazarenes, not Paul.

Now, we both know that the OT Scriptures is what he was an authority on. If you recall in Luke’s Gospel, on the road to Emmaus Jesus unlocked the (OT) Scriptures to teach the two disciples about Him, so we understand that Luke felt the OT Scriptures pointed us to Jesus.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Ben_Masada]

I’m confused by these two statements that I underlined. Am I to show you in the NT something, or am I not?

And regarding Jesus being a loyal Jew, He mentioned numerous times that He was going to Jerusalem to be handed over and Crucified. Now, once again you are trying to re-write the New Testament, claiming that Jesus couldn’t have said that since He was a loyal Jew. You’re about 1950 years late for Scriptural editing, Ben!

Yes, I expect to see quotations from the NT all right. You could be misquoting or adding your pre-conceived notions to what is written. I do accept 20 percent of the NT as legitimately coming from Jesus or about him.

Jesus was not the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans, who crucified thousands of Jews if you read Josephus. Many others had the same impression if they entered Jerusalem. It doesn’t say anything about being Jesus what you claim he was. And about being late for some editing, you are mistaken. It’s never too
late to fix the Truth.

Ben :

 

[Spirithound]

The text is in Acts 18:24-28

The Sect of the Nazarenes was blooming in Alexandria. Apollos, a Nazarene Jew from Alexandria decided to go on a trip North to Ephesus. Being well known as a charismatic and eloquent Teacher in the Scriptures, he was invited to deliver the Sabbath sermon in the local Nazarene Synagogue. The text says that he would speak about Jesus with accuracy. (Acts 18:25)

So, back at the Nazarene Synagogue of Ephesus, Aquila and Priscilla realized that there was something wrong with Apollos’ sermon. He would not mention even once that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. After the services, they invited Apollos to their home, converted him to the Pauline way they believed about Jesus, and the Apollos who returned was no longer the same who had left. He would now preach that Jesus was the Messiah. (Acts 18:28) He was still charismatic and eloquent, but the previous accuracy about Jesus was no longer the same. He had experienced complete metamorphose.

Scripture does not tell us what was missing from Apollos’ sermon.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I don’t think the accounts themselves are Antisemitic; but I don’t deny that they could be (unfortunately) misconstrued that way.

The Gospels, for the most part, point towards the “chief priests and the elders of the people” as being responsible; now unless all the Jews happened to be chief priests, I can’t see why this would be Antisemitic.

While the Gospel of John is a bit tricky due to its use of “Ioudaioi” (usually translated as ‘the Jews’ in many Bibles), that Gospel still makes it clear that salvation is “from the Jews” (John 4:22).

Plus, personally I think that many, if not most, instances of Ioudaioi in John should be more properly translated as “Judeans” and understood in the sense of either “the Jewish leaders” or “the people of Judea”. After all, the term was used primarily at that time to refer to persons who were inhabitants of Judea Province; plus John mostly uses the term in context to mean “the Jews in Judea” or “the Jewish leaders” or the like.

“The Jews” (or perhaps more correctly, “the Judeans”) is thus no more of a ‘slur’ than “the Texans”, “the Tel-Avivans”, “the Sicilians” or “the Tokyoites”.

This usage is not limited to the NT writers, mind you; Josephus regularly uses the phrase, “the Jews” and he uses it in much the same way: “absolutely or with modifiers which suggest a general reference in context, where the reference is clearly to specific groups of Jews.” Now is Josephus Antisemitic just because he uses “the Jews” in writing?

While the Gospels are, indeed, in some ways a polemic against the claims of Judaism against early Christianity, this does not equate with anti-Semitism. Nor are they totally pro-Roman; the accounts of Pilate the Prefect of Judea being weak-willed and ultimately releasing a known insurgent (i.e. Barabbas) could hardly be construed as a favorable account for Rome!

Once, Assad, the Syrian Dictator declared on the TV that he did not understand why America would support the
Jews when they had killed the Christian God. Where did he get
this idea if not from the NT? And for all the other antisemitic attempts against the Jews throughout History, the main source is the same.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Scripture does not tell us what was missing from Apollos’ sermon.

Does it have to? Can’t you read between the lines? If Apollos would speak with accuracy about Jesus before Aquila and Priscilla took him to their home for some more details and he returns preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, what else do you want, that it be written on the wall?

Ben:

 

[FionnMacCumhail]

Now, once again you are trying to re-write the New Testament, claiming that Jesus couldn’t have said that since He was a loyal Jew.

Indeed. One thing I’ve noticed about Ben Masada is that he will use the NT to support his pre-conceived notions, yet when the NT contradicts him, he’ll just say its “anti-Semitic forgeries” or “Pauline forgeries”. If there are so many “forgeries” in the New Testament, how can he be so sure that the passages he quotes for his own opinions are not “forged”?

 

[NotWorthy]

Ben: As usual, you are dudging the question and giving no answer. Apollos did preach accurately about Jesus, but the Jesus according to the Nazarenes, not Paul.

Ben: For heaven’s sake, Luke was a Gentile! What did he know about Judaism?

Ben: That’s a reference to the return of the Jews after their 70 years exile in Babylon. It doesn’t have anything to do with Jesus. The gospel writer attributed that prophecy of Isaiah
to John the Baptist saying it in order to enhance Jesus’ Messiahship. But all pure plagiarism.

Ben: You are simply assuming what is not in the text.

Now Ben, you are simply inserting your own rules right in the midst of the text. It is the same author that wrote that Apollos taught accurately about Jesus and knew the Baptism of John that also taught that John was fulfilling Isaiah in “making straight the pathways of the Lord”.

I’m not assuming what’s in the text, I’m going by what the author has assumed. Now it is your right to question the author, but in doing so, you are questioning everything that the Church teaches as Scriptural.

That’s Your Business, my brother!

Ben: Now, I agree with you. All those disciples converted by Paul to fill his churches were Jews already converted by the Nazarenes. No wonder the Nazarenes would send envoys to try to recover their converts and would only get in trouble with Paul. (Acts 15:1) And what is this of Christians converting Pharisees and Scribes? Can you give me a quote on that? Of course you can’t. Why do I keep asking? Christians never converted a single Pharisee. Some of the Pharisees were converted but by the Nazarenes. See Acts 15:5.

Ben:

Now you are the one jumping the gun. Paul was the first missionary in many of these cities. These weren’t converted Jews in Nazarene (I still don’t understand any church going by that name during this time). These were Jews and Gentiles.

And regarding Pharisees converting? James, the bishop of Jerusalem during Acts 15:1 (that you referenced above) was considered a Jewish convert and converted many Pharisees. I’ll see if I can find that information if you wish to pursue this.

Now, was James a Nazarene? Or was he a Christian? At the Council of Jerusalem, what you call two churches certainly spoke with one voice. What gives?

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, I expect to see quotations from the NT all right. You could be misquoting or adding your pre-conceived notions to what is written. I do accept 20 percent of the NT as legitimately coming from Jesus or about him.Ahhhh, and you consider this your “Ace in the Hole”. You ask for NT references, and when given them, you respond with “What does Luke know about Judaism” or “That’s just your misinterpretation”. I think you are simply trying to play people for the fool, Ben.

Jesus was not the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans, who crucified thousands of Jews if you read Josephus. Many others had the same impression if they entered Jerusalem. It doesn’t say anything about being Jesus what you claim he was. And about being late for some editing, you are mistaken. It’s never too
late to fix the Truth.

Ben :

How many of those crucified rose from the dead and ascended into heaven? How many of them said, “I shall die and on the third day rise again”? How many of them had followers who willingly went to their deaths witnessing to the truth of their Rabbi or Teacher?

 

[NotWorthy]

Once, Assad, the Syrian Dictator declared on the TV that he did not understand why America would support the
Jews when they had killed the Christian God. Where did he get
this idea if not from the NT? And for all the other antisemitic attempts against the Jews throughout History, the main source is the same.

Ben:

Why Ben, you’ve declared several times how this could happen. Assad simply mis-interpreted what was said.

Now, are you going to believe a Syrian Dictator? Or are you going to believe the history of the Church?

 

[NotWorthy]

Indeed. One thing I’ve noticed about Ben Masada is that he will use the NT to support his pre-conceived notions, yet when the NT contradicts him, he’ll just say its “anti-Semitic forgeries” or “Pauline forgeries”. If there are so many “forgeries” in the New Testament, how can he be so sure that the passages he quotes for his own opinions are not “forged”?

I think in Ben’s mind, he’s simply “playing us like a fiddle”.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Why Ben, you’ve declared several times how this could happen. Assad simply mis-interpreted what was said.

Now, are you going to believe a Syrian Dictator? Or are you going to believe the history of the Church?

I don’t know. What’s the difference?

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

a) How many of those crucified rose from the dead and ascended into heaven? b) How many of them said, “I shall die and on the third day rise again”? c) How many of them had followers who willingly went to their deaths witnessing to the truth of their Rabbi or Teacher?

Ben: a) None. All died just like Jesus. b) None. And neither said Jesus. c) A few, but it doesn’t mean anything different from many then and afterwards. Even today. Muslims do this all the time.

Ben:

 

[Spirithound]

Does it have to? Can’t you read between the lines? If Apollos would speak with accuracy about Jesus before Aquila and Priscilla took him to their home for some more details and he returns preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, what else do you want, that it be written on the wall?

Ben:

No, it doesn’t have to, but you can’t just go and tell us what you think it said, and make it the worst possible version of what could be omitted. That passage simply doesn’t tell us what was missing, and you can’t take a later mention that Apollos preached Jesus as the Messiah as an indication that he wasn’t preaching it earlier.