The Metamorphose of Apollos

[Ben_Masada]

.

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?

As I can see, you didn’t read Acts 15:5. The Nazarene Council in Jerusalem had converted Pharisees in the Commitee.

Yes sir, James was the head of the Nazarene headquarters in Jerusalem. He was never a Christian and much less a Bishop. He was one of the brothers of Jesus. Although he was not one of the
Apostles, he had to succeed Jesus as the head of the Movement,
according to the tradition of the time, albeit as a figure head.

Ben:

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t know. What’s the difference?

Ben:

Not too many Jewish Patriarchs (or is there a better term for them) converted to Syrian Dictatorship.

Was it the Jewish Bishop of Rome (or was it Jerusalem) who converted to Catholicism around 1950 after witnessing the efforts of the Catholic Church to save Jews from Nazi death camps?

 

[NotWorthy]

"Notworthy:

b) How many of them said, “I shall die and on the third day rise again”?

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:

So, you’ve re-written Matthew, Luke, and Mark? From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

 

[NotWorthy]

As I can see, you didn’t read Acts 15:5. The Nazarene Council in Jerusalem had converted Pharisees in the Commitee.

Yes sir, James was the head of the Nazarene headquarters in Jerusalem. He was never a Christian and much less a Bishop. He was one of the brothers of Jesus. Although he was not one of the
Apostles, he had to succeed Jesus as the head of the Movement,
according to the tradition of the time, albeit as a figure head.

Ben:

Ben, as I can see, you are not reading my post. I concede that you claim there were two churches. But I’m showing you that they spoke as one voice at the Jerusalem Council. Now read my question again with this in mind:

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?

Paul, who you claim was Christian and not Nazarene, takes the Circumcision issue to James, who you claim is Nazarene. And they resolve the issue leaving James to dictate to the church (Nazarene and Christian alike, in your eyes) that circumcision no longer applies.

So is that it? Is James a Nazarene who has authority over the Christian sect as well? How can there be two sects when one figurehead can control and make laws for both sects?

 

[patrick457]

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:

You’ve never considered the possibility that he misused his source by trying to twist it to agree with him. Or that he parroted a misconception on purpose to further his agenda.

Last time I checked, the New Testament does not, despite centuries of misreading and misinterpretation by many people, EXPLICITLY say “ONLY the Jews killed Jesus, and ALL their descendants shall henceforth take the blame and we are free to do whatever we want with them for they killed our Lord” (Matthew 27:25 does not count here; while it does say “upon our children” – which implies a generation – that’s a far cry from “forever and ever unto the ending of the ages”).

What are the Antisemitic portions of the NT, pray tell?

 

[NotWorthy]

Ben, I know you are busy with other threads, but I don’t think you’ve answered this post yet. Can I get your thoughts on this?

Ben, as I can see, you are not reading my post. I concede that you claim there were two churches. But I’m showing you that they spoke as one voice at the Jerusalem Council. Now read my question again with this in mind:
Paul, who you claim was Christian and not Nazarene, takes the Circumcision issue to James, who you claim is Nazarene. And they resolve the issue leaving James to dictate to the church (Nazarene and Christian alike, in your eyes) that circumcision no longer applies.

So is that it? Is James a Nazarene who has authority over the Christian sect as well? How can there be two sects when one figurehead can control and make laws for both sects?

 

[adrift]

=Ben Masada;4773654]

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.

Ben: And you don’t know the ABC of anything about him.
Prove that he didn’t. Your game begins again. You know nothing about him either. We come back that he proved from scriptures that he was the Messiah. Obviously he found that the scriptures were fulfilled by Jesus.

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:

Jews for Jesus agree with him

It is important to begin by saying that for one who has already made up his or her mind that Jesus is not the Messiah, no amount of evidence will be convincing. But for those who are honest in asking, the evidence speaks for itself…
What, then, are some of the credentials of the Messiah? Only a few can be listed below; there are many others. All of these passages were recognized by the early rabbis as referring to the Messiah:

* Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem: Micah 5:1
* Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10
* Messiah would present himself by riding on an ***: Zechariah 9:9
* Messiah would be tortured to death: Psalm 22
* Messiah would arrive before the destruction of the Second Temple: Daniel 9:24-27
* Messiah's life would match a particular description, including suffering, silence at his arrest and trial, death and burial in a rich man's tomb, and resurrection: Isaiah 52:13-53:12

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.
Just because you don’t know what you are talking about, I don’t think I am wasting my time:shrug: but thank you for your concern.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You’ve never considered the possibility that he misused his source by trying to twist it to agree with him. Or that he parroted a misconception on purpose to further his agenda.

Last time I checked, the New Testament does not, despite centuries of misreading and misinterpretation by many people, EXPLICITLY say “ONLY the Jews killed Jesus, and ALL their descendants shall henceforth take the blame and we are free to do whatever we want with them for they killed our Lord” (Matthew 27:25 does not count here; while it does say “upon our children” – which implies a generation – that’s a far cry from “forever and ever unto the ending of the ages”).

What are the Antisemitic portions of the NT, pray tell?

The main one, and pivotal to all kinds of antisemitic acts throughout History is the false accusation that the Jews killed Jesus. This is absolutely false because, from the same point of view, I cannot say that the Americans killed John Kennedy and Martin Luther King because an American did it.

Then, throughout the NT, beginning with Paul in Galatians 4:21-31
we have many instances of Replacement Theology, which has been considered an aspect of Antisemintism. That’s is, that God has rejected the Jewish People and substituted them for Christianity.

As a result of the false accusation that we have killed Jesus, a chain of antisemitic development has caused the death of millions of the Jewish People throughout History.

Ben:

 

[thistle]

The main one, and pivotal to all kinds of antisemitic acts throughout History is the false accusation that the Jews killed Jesus. This is absolutely false because, from the same point of view, I cannot say that the Americans killed John Kennedy and Martin Luther King because an American did it.

Then, throughout the NT, beginning with Paul in Galatians 4:21-31
we have many instances of Replacement Theology, which has been considered an aspect of Antisemintism. That’s is, that God has rejected the Jewish People and substituted them for Christianity.

As a result of the false accusation that we have killed Jesus, a chain of antisemitic development has caused the death of millions of the Jewish People throughout History.

Ben:

It was the Romans who actually crucified Jesus but it was the Sanhedrin behind the push to have him executed.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, as I can see, you are not reading my post. I concede that you claim there were two churches. But I’m showing you that they spoke as one voice at the Jerusalem Council. Now read my question again with this in mind:
Paul, who you claim was Christian and not Nazarene, takes the Circumcision issue to James, who you claim is Nazarene. And they resolve the issue leaving James to dictate to the church (Nazarene and Christian alike, in your eyes) that circumcision no longer applies.

So is that it? Is James a Nazarene who has authority over the Christian sect as well? How can there be two sects when one figurehead can control and make laws for both sects?

Okay NotWorthy, let’s go back to Acts 15 once more. Do you know why those men had come from Judea to preach circumcision in Antioch? I’ll tell you if you don’t. That was a time when Paul had already finished his work to overturn the Nazarene Synagogue of Antioch into a Christian church. (Acts 15:1) Paul happened to be in Antioch, and a not-small contention was raised between the party of Paul and the one from Judea. Paul was the highest authority in his church; but the group that had come from Judea had higher authority to report to in Jerusalem. So, instead of dealing with the small people, Paul decided to go to those who had sent them to Antioch. They had been sent with the purpose to recover their Synagogue that Paul had robbed by converting the members.

What seems to you that James was showing some kind of control, that’s not the point. He just agreed somehow to lose their Nazarene Synagogue by recommending that Paul let them continue committed to at least the Noahite laws, as we have from Acts 15:29. In other words, those converts by the Nazarenes had returned to the state of Gentiles because of Paul’s Christian teachings, since all Gentiles were supposed to be bound by the Noahite laws anyways.

Antioch was not the only place or the only Synagogue the Nazarenes had lost to Paul. Everywhere throughout Asia Minor, wherever there was a Nazarene Synagogue, Paul would work his way through and turn it into a Christian church.Take a look at Galatians chapter one. There was also a blooming Nazarene Synagogue of Galatians. Paul turned it into a Christian church and the same group from Judea was succeeding to get a few of them back when Paul threatened them by saying that even if an angel came from Heaven with a different gospel from his, he would be cursed. Read it. It’s interesting.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

So, you’ve re-written Matthew, Luke, and Mark? From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

No, I have not re-written anything. I have just added logic to a very badly written text.

Now, that Jesus went to Jerusalem, was arrested and crucified, it’s a fact. But there was absolutely no eyewitnes that he ever resurrected.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Not too many Jewish Patriarchs (or is there a better term for them) converted to Syrian Dictatorship.

Was it the Jewish Bishop of Rome (or was it Jerusalem) who converted to Catholicism around 1950 after witnessing the efforts of the Catholic Church to save Jews from Nazi death camps?

I do recognize that there were some isolated cases of individuals who put their lives in danger to save some Jews. I am not that calous to deny. But even so, many of them were being well paid for doing so. Many others simulated a charitable behaviour but as soon as they had no longer anything to get in return, they would guide the Nazis to the Jews’ own hiding places. I don’t know about this Bishop you are talking about. But one thing I say, he was not Jewish. There are no Jewish Bishops.

Ben:

 

[adrift]

I do recognize that there were some isolated cases of individuals who put their lives in danger to save some Jews. I am not that calous to deny. But even so, many of them were being well paid for doing so. Many others simulated a charitable behaviour but as soon as they had no longer anything to get in return, they would guide the Nazis to the Jews’ own hiding places. I don’t know about this Bishop you are talking about. But one thing I say, he was not Jewish. There are no Jewish Bishops.

Ben:

What he was speaking of was The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, who converted to Catholicism because of the help the Pope had given. I believe what you have printed is vile and unsupportable and against known facts.

 

[NotWorthy]

What he was speaking of was The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, who converted to Catholicism because of the help the Pope had given. I believe what you have printed is vile and unsupportable and against known facts.

Although I can put up with what you call “vile” (it simply reveals the leopard’s spots), the “unsupportable and against known facts” is at least consistent with the way he has documented his Bible theories!

And thanks for the correction of the Rabbi of Rome.

 

[adrift]

Although I can put up with what you call “vile” (it simply reveals the leopard’s spots), the “unsupportable and against known facts” is at least consistent with the way he has documented his Bible theories!

And thanks for the correction of the Rabbi of Rome.

I wasn’t meaning to correct you just supply the name you didn’t know

I normally can put up with ignorance but he is very quick to bring up antisemitism without acknowledging his own bigotry and anti catholicism. I am just calling him on his hypocrisy.

 

[FionnMacCumhail]

I normally can put up with ignorance but he is very quick to bring up antisemitism without acknowledging his own bigotry and anti catholicism. I am just calling him on his hypocrisy.

Indeed. Anything that proves him wrong is “anti-Semitic” in his eyes.

 

[thistle]

I do recognize that there were some isolated cases of individuals who put their lives in danger to save some Jews. I am not that calous to deny. But even so, many of them were being well paid for doing so. Many others simulated a charitable behaviour but as soon as they had no longer anything to get in return, they would guide the Nazis to the Jews’ own hiding places. I don’t know about this Bishop you are talking about. But one thing I say, he was not Jewish. There are no Jewish Bishops.

Ben:

Frankly, from reading all your posts it is clear that you are the bigot!

 

[NotWorthy]

I wasn’t meaning to correct you just supply the name you didn’t know

No, you did well, young Skywalker. The Force is strong in you!

I normally can put up with ignorance but he is very quick to bring up antisemitism without acknowledging his own bigotry and anti catholicism. I am just calling him on his hypocrisy.

And I reiterate, the leopard is simply showing his spots.

 

[NotWorthy]

Okay NotWorthy, let’s go back to Acts 15 once more. Do you know why those men had come from Judea to preach circumcision in Antioch? I’ll tell you if you don’t. That was a time when Paul had already finished his work to overturn the Nazarene Synagogue of Antioch into a Christian church. (Acts 15:1) Paul happened to be in Antioch, and a not-small contention was raised between the party of Paul and the one from Judea. Paul was the highest authority in his church; but the group that had come from Judea had higher authority to report to in Jerusalem. So, instead of dealing with the small people, Paul decided to go to those who had sent them to Antioch. They had been sent with the purpose to recover their Synagogue that Paul had robbed by converting the members.

What seems to you that James was showing some kind of control, that’s not the point. He just agreed somehow to lose their Nazarene Synagogue by recommending that Paul let them continue committed to at least the Noahite laws, as we have from Acts 15:29. In other words, those converts by the Nazarenes had returned to the state of Gentiles because of Paul’s Christian teachings, since all Gentiles were supposed to be bound by the Noahite laws anyways.

Antioch was not the only place or the only Synagogue the Nazarenes had lost to Paul. Everywhere throughout Asia Minor, wherever there was a Nazarene Synagogue, Paul would work his way through and turn it into a Christian church.Take a look at Galatians chapter one. There was also a blooming Nazarene Synagogue of Galatians. Paul turned it into a Christian church and the same group from Judea was succeeding to get a few of them back when Paul threatened them by saying that even if an angel came from Heaven with a different gospel from his, he would be cursed. Read it. It’s interesting.

Ben:

Ben, this is not only interesting. It’s BRILLIANT!!! So, Paul made it a 'Christian Church after Acts 15!

It belongs in the fiction section. But it IS Brilliant.

But, you see. If you read Ephesians, you’ll see that Paul professed One Faith, One Baptism, etc. etc. He didn’t hijack a church and convert it into a different one.

 

[Spirithound]

Ben, this is not only interesting. It’s BRILLIANT!!! So, Paul made it a 'Christian Church after Acts 15!

It belongs in the fiction section. But it IS Brilliant.

But, you see. If you read Ephesians, you’ll see that Paul professed One Faith, One Baptism, etc. etc. He didn’t hijack a church and convert it into a different one.

Yep, and then the gates of Hell prevailed