Vridar

Others here are more up on history than I am... if I understand correctly, the film calls attention to the fact that James rejected Paul’s collection from the Gentiles (which he had undertaken to help the poor and show support for the temple in Jerusalem- not as a bribe) and that the reaction of the Judean believers against Paul led to his being severely beaten, imprisoned in Rome and finally executed. You’re saying the film shows the start of the division of Judaic and Hellenistic versions of Christianity, during Paul’s mission. The development of the institutions per se doesn’t interest me, but learning about this particular confrontation with the other apostles makes me feel more acutely the extreme conflict and danger Paul faced. He seems even more a tragic figure.

 

The one thing Orlando said that bothered me was “Jesus was profoundly pro-law and pro-Jewish”

You would think a TV station might show this documentary…maybe a less negative title would help – “Paul’s Final Journey” or something…

Yes, my recent readings indicate Jesus was promoting living more by the intent of Jewish law. There were Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Gentile and even early Jewish Christians in Jesus' time. The Sadducees were favoring Roman rule and living by more relaxed rules. The Pharisees, were attempting to follow and promote living by the law. Many here may disagree, but, some scholars believe Jesus was a Pharisee attempting to live by the laws intent. (I know the Pharisee stories questioning Jesus' relaxed law living, but some can be explained by literary license and point making).

As to Paul not bribing, I'm suggesting the movie, and other sources, say between the time Paul was sent to procure the treasure and the time he presented it, James was head of the Jewish-Christians which were essentially Messianic Jews. James wanted nothing to do with Paul and his converts. They were muddying the waters. Also, true Jews wanted nothing to do with either group as they were creating problems for the exemption the religion of Judaism enjoyed. Claudius' edict of 41 CE essentially protected Judaism under laws of antiquity. The same edict stated other start up religions were in Jeopardy. Hence, both Pauline Christianity (non-Jewish Christianity) and Jewish-Christianity (Messianic Christianity) were stirring the pot and Romans were getting jittery. The jitteriness of the Romans was a Jewish concern. The conflict hit the fan with Paul's return. Riots broke out and Paul was arrested. Again, my current references all agree on this riotous time. Tabor's book Paul and Jesus, Fiscus Judaicus and now this "A Polite Bribe."

Truly there will be no major network presentation against the grain of current popular religion thinking. It's not profitable. And, I don't disagree. Religion has it's purpose the way it is interpreted and the boat doesn't need rocking. But some of us like to think outside the box.

Again, I'm not here to tell you I know what happened. I'm trying only to present the tangential journey I've recently come across. Given time I can cite sources if needed. It's fun to discuss.

Ron

There needs to be a dialog more so than the FoxNews / Jon Stewart type. Steward last week distilled the current discussion down to lower than ridicule. It is a classic and I have it saved on DVR. It's worth viewing. It is prompted by Bob Costa's NFL halftime opinion and the debate afterwards. Comedy Central has it here. Also, for us Bishop Spong followers Bishop Gene Robinson is the guest author on the same episode. It's worth watching.

...Does this mean that Judaism and Hellenism were reconciled, by accepting the gift? that Paul and Peter’s disagreement on gentiles having to become Jews before converting to Christianity was then resolved?

Reconciled may not be my word choice. My take from the website was the movie told the story of Peter and James allowing Gentiles to ignore the Jewish requirements, circumcision, kosher diet, etc. and Paul was to return a remuneration collected to the Jerusalem Church as good faith, "A Polite Bribe." But, upon collection and return to Jerusalem, Paul was rebuked by James, not Peter this time, and Hellenistic Christianity parted from Judaism and Jewish Christianity.

We shouldn't get confused, we're interested here in the non-Jewish Christians, Jewish Christians and Jews. My take is that the proto-orthodox Christianity, e.i., Pauline Christianity, and Jewish Christianity separated at this time. Eventually Jewish Christianity and other Christians (Ebionites, Gnostics, etc?) were crushed, metaphorically, by what became Orthodox Christianity. The Jewish community rejected Messianic Christianity in all forms, Jewish or Pauline, and continued on their Rabbinic ways. I understand that Rabbinic teachings, Jewish Christianity, and Pauline Christianity separated and this is termed "The Parting of the Ways." My readings indicate this period, 56-60 CE, was the start of the parting and final partition came at the end of the century.

Thoughts?

Ron

Sorry that I was not more clear. Yea, I was thinking of book owner to another person which many of us have done extensively with hard-copy books. Although I am sure it is technically possible with e-books, I don't think Amazon or the other distributors allow it.

 

George

I have 4 devices registered on my Kindle account; my Kindle, my wife's Kindle, my Acer 10.1, and my iPad. I believe I can load each book in my library to each device. I consistently "loan" books to my wife's Kindle this way. If desired, each device could then be loaned to one of my immediate friends or family. That constricts loanability but allows some options.

I also believe a book can be transferred to another's Kindle library. The process is a deletion from your library and loaded into the transferring library. Never done this and would have to be verified, but something in the back of this old man's mind believes he's read it somewhere.

Ron

With the 'Prime' service, one can loan a purchased book to friends? Are you sure about this?

 

George

The Prime service allows certain books to be "checked out of the library." The down side is the selection and only one book per month. However, the Prime service also has very inexpensive book offers and of course the free 2-day shipment of many items.

Ron

Non-mellow extremists are asked to leave.

As Administrator warn me first. Sorry, back to book discussions.

Recent readings have sent me on a Pauline-Gentile-Christian-movement verses the James, the Just, Jewish-Christian-movement within first century Christianity tangent. One facet of the tangent is a movie titled A Polite Bribe which will never come to rural Missouri. I am interested if any of you city-dwellers are aware of it and might have even seen it.

If I understand the plot Paul's last journey to Jerusalem was to deliver a "good faith" gesture in the form of coin to the Jewish Christian faction. However, since asked to perform the gesture, the Jewish faction had either rethought the request or had pressure to distance from the Gentile Christians and that's when the final riot of Paul's journeys took place. He was then arrested and eventually sent to Rome to answer for his rabble-rousing. The Epistle Romans may have been written while awaiting trial or execution, either pseudonymously or actually.

Has any one seen the movie? It fits with my current journey; James Tabor's Paul and Jesus and Heemstra's Fiscus Judaicus being parts of my tangential journey.

Obviously, I am interested in the History of Religion as opposed to the Theology.

Ron

Just dawned on me-"Critique" instead of "Critic."

putting oneself out in public is not easy.

 

Strange, my work life revolves around evaluating uncertainty and making recomendations often in the absence of data, now having rejected the "perceived knowns of Christianity", I need to embrace uncertainty in life.

David, Again I can identify more than you'll ever know. Firstly, you're not out in "public." Here you are among friends who can help you have a soft landing. The "knowns" are the problems. There are none. There is only the journey and each has his own. My journey was coming off the hard road of knowns to the soft road of knowing no one knows (damn, I hope that doesn't sound like SoD Rumsfelt).

Welcome to a place of soft landings. Most here have been where you are and I would guess most are happy for finally getting here. Rule-there is no one fit for all. Each should practice only what will help others. I've noticed even Richard Dawkins is mellowing.

Ron

...yet I don't see what the "new christianity" is that he proposes.

 

...A difficult post...

David, welcome. I identify with the quoted comments. Bishop Spong's earlier writings captured me. His explaining scriptures and how they have been usurped by fundamentalists resonated with me. However, when he wrote of a new Christianity, I was lost.

The second phrase "A difficult post." Is that meant physically or metaphorically?

I very seldom post, mostly lurk, but recently posted on the Book Forum and saw your greeting. Appears your journey is much like others here. You are with a good group.

Ron

... This may be particularly relevant today as we in the US approach our own 'fiscus twopercentus.'

Thanks for the welcome. Heemstra made reference to this in the context that not much has changed in the last couple millennia kind of like "follow the money." And, I agree. The book harbors on how decisions are made primarily with politics and economics in mind. As you are aware my skepticisms follow these lines. One primarily reads what one agrees with.

Here's hoping others will give their take. Probably not the place to say this, but this group seems much more mellow than the one we met on.

Ron

BAR recently reviewed Marius Heemstra's book, Fiscus Judaicus and the parting of the Ways. I have the book borrowed from Trinity International Library for a few more days. I am so excited about the topic I am hoping to whet other appetites and further discussion. It was recently translated into English and is unavailable from my normal sources. And, is expensive. Hence, I have copied excerpts below more than the normal copyright probably allows. But, maybe this can get some discussion started. (I've had trouble formatting and lost a lengthy start into cyberspace. I'm sending this as is prior to another loss.)

The reform of the fiscus Judaicus by the emperor Nerva that I discussed in Chapter 3 led to the redefinition of the Jewish taxpayers: from "all members of the Jewish gens'' (as the Jewish tax had been introduced by Vespasian) to those Jews "who remained faithful to the customs of their forefathers", changing the definition of "Jew" from an ethnic one into a religious one instead. This means that those Jews who could not be captured under this definition (apostate Jews, Jewish Christians as members of mixed Christian communities) were explicitly exempted from the tax and were no longer regarded as Jews. This was probably good news for apostate Jews, but not for Jewish Christians, who remained strictly monotheistic and could face charges of atheism in the future. In Roman eyes they probably no longer followed their ancestral customs, but were actually fol lowers of a recently established religion of Jewish origin with a mission to spread their "atheism" among non Jews. This was a violation of the edict 'to the rest of the world" issued by Claudius, because the Jewish Christian mission to the nations automatically involved contempt of the religious observances of these nations, which was something Jews should refrain from. This "contempt" is found in many New Testament writings as was seen previously. pg. 154

It is not difficult to see that in the case of Jewish Christians the concerns of Jews and Romans ran parallel courses. For Jews the differences of opinion with these Jewish Christians were too large to keep them on board after the year 70, if they did not want to jeopardize their unity and their general privileged position in the Roman Empire. For mainstream Judaism the prominence of the Mosaic Law was elementary, whereas for many Jewish Christians the coming of Jesus as the Messiah had superseded this Law. Christians the coming of Jesus as the Messiah had superseded this Law. For the latter group this meant that Gentiles could become full members of the Christian communities (without first becoming Jews), If they converted to the God of Israel, whereas mainstream Judaism kept Gentile sympathizer at a greater distance. The fact that Christianity was a missionary movement, which was especially unwanted from a Roman perspective, was something non-Christian Jews would also take into account. As I concluded, this development could certainly have prompted the need for a sharper definition of an "orthodox" Jew on the part of mainstream Judaism, which then took on a more religious nature and became less ethnic, partly in contrast to the definition the fiscus Judaicus was using under Domitian. pg. 17

Ron

ParSal:

<I am, as the topic suggests, interested in your views on the afterlife.

I have many thoughts on this but will spare you most of them.

Firstly, I do not believe in the afterlife and believe we need to make the most of the life we are assured - this one. That does not mean party and indulge. It means being happy. Most often making others happy makes me happy. That is what I live for.

Secondly, my wife during re-titration of blood pressure medicine coded for at least 45 seconds. She describes it as just going to a peaceful sleep. I feel when death comes that is what is experienced - a never ending very peaceful sleep.

Thirdly, I believe it was Tom Hanks's aged character in The Green Mile who said he had been cursed with everlasting (at least extreme longevity) life and that is worse than death. Is it not the Vampires' curse that they have to live forever?

I believe Joseph Campbell was quoted as saying, "By definition one cannot have life without death." An employee once said death is more difficult on the survivors than the deceased. I agree. This appears what you are fearing as any normal person will. However, most would recommend enjoying and celebrating the life you've had with your wife rather than fearing life without her.

Ron

...I have had enough contact with local Mormon Church leaders to know that their basic philosophy is: “My way or the highway!”

 

I there anyone in this forum who has an opinion about the forthcoming relationship of the LDS church with the U.S. Government if Mr. Romney becomes President?

 

Is this going to catch us all by surprise? Should we be concerned?

Hal, A very smart man once advised me Religion is not the problem, the people within it are. This should apply to Mormonism also. I have no problem with Bishop Romney's religion, but have much concern about his policies.

BTW, I don't have a suggestion of a book on current Mormonism, but, Children of God by Vardis Fisher is another book on the development of Mormonism. Dr. Fisher was (he's deceased) a Mormon Apostate, but I think his writing is very subjective.

Ron

Pete;

...I personally do not even believe in the trinity or the OT biblical view of God and yet that does not make me an atheist. ...

Definitely not. However, most Christians would claim you"re not a Christian. Like George says one can call them selves whatever they desire. I could claim to be Superman, but most super heroes would not agree.

...I personally believe God is the spirit of love and that God resides in each of us as God did in Jesus.

This statement also precludes you from being an atheist. But, again, not believing the tenets set by Christians would preclude one from being Christian in the eyes of the Christian.

I subscribe to Barrie Wilson's hypothesis that early Original Jesus Movement was very different from Paul's Christian Movement. Elaine Pagels even suggests the movements were so contrasting John's Revelation is written against Paul and his movement. Very interesting read. There are many books currently marketed suggesting Paul's movement and James's movement were more at odds than has come down through the known Gospels. James D. Tabor has a book on this subject coming in November, about a year or more past due, I might add.

I do not like fundamentalists dictating what my Christianity should be about. In the past there were many followers from differing viewpoints such as the Ebonites, Marcionites, Gnostics, and many others and Paul was not the only voice around.

I totally agree, but the question is can an atheist be a Christian, not can we describe our own Christianity. I contend the former cannot be. I also contend by current Christian definitions the second also cannot be. Again, we can call ourselves whatever we desire, but what others call us is another point. Most people would call me an atheist because there is no other defined place to categorize me. I will call you a Christian, but most Christians probably would not.

Pete, I hope you don't think I'm argumentative. I certainly don't want that to come across. Especially since I haven't been posting for maybe 7 years(?). Just trying to answer the Christian/Atheist question best I can. Again, it is of interest to me for I contend there is a difference between the religion of Jesus and the religion about Jesus. The religion about Jesus is Pauline and is defined as Christianity. The religion of Jesus is James's and is thought to be the Ebonite heresy. Heresy being Ignatius and other's determination, not mine.

Good talking with you,

Ron

Well, you are both far more generous than I am. I don't know, I still am ashamed of it.

And, I'm ashamed I can't be as generous as others in forgiving extreme nationalism. Without the competitive enthusiasm required for nationalism, realism TV, political combativism, etc makes for a lonely quiet life - just what I enjoy ;>) !

What one thing do you feel has helped you the most to progress in your journey?

The Power of Myth

Ron

Edit - The second "one thing" helping in my journey is Kurt Vonnagut's meaning of life - "To just get through it."

Norm: You posted, "I think that as people evolve, the way we think and view things also must evolve. The seven tenets used to define Christianity, as Bishop Spong has so eloquently described, cease to be relevant in our society today."

Agreed, being Christian can be claimed with varying definitions. But, from my readings Paul defined Christianity pretty narrowly and most denominations agree with him. Paul developed Christianity based on Christ being divine. Later, Patriarchs concretized the belief in Jesus's divinity and the Trinity. He was eventually determined to be God incarnate. Would not believing any of these not preclude a non-theist from being "Christian?" (Whoa, a triple negative - I hope that gets across as intended)

More personally I believe one can be a follower of Jesus's doctrine and not a Christian. Again, Christian religion is the religion about Jesus not the religion of Jesus. Jesus was a Jew. I know that doesn't answer the Christian/Atheist question, but I do believe most Christians don't realize Jesus was never a Christian and died a Jew.

George: Thanks for the thoughts. We've had this discussion many times, haven't we? It feels good to be doing it again, but, my thoughts are not new and haven't developed from those you helped me with. So, I don't have much to offer.

Ron

Dutch,

Agreed. Love is important. As an Apatheist it is my first love (pun intended). It's interesting that the Golden Rule, or, as I like to refer to the negative Golden Rule, has been around forever. Cultures prior to Christianity quoted sayings such as, "Do not do unto others as you would have them not do unto you." So, the golden rule can even unite us Apatheists, which is not unlike uniting a herd of cats or frogs.

Ron

Neon, agreed on most all accounts. So, an atheist cannot be a Christian under any circumstance? Correct? But an atheist can follow the commandments of Jesus? Correct?

MrKatamari, The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Third Edition is excellent. For a different New Testament slant, I recommend Amy Jill Levine's The Jewish Annotated New Testament.

Ron

Edit - MrK, Bible and religious study can be lifelong pursuits. In these pursuits look at Richard Elliott Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible, Miller and Funk's The Five Gospels, and Bishop Shelby Spong's Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. These should be library available. If not, these books used can be bought essentially for the shipping from Amazon.

Norm Asks: "Is it enough to emulate the words and actions of Jesus? Do those words command a belief in the supernatural deity as an a priori position to hold in order to claim the mantle of Christianity? Should the Bible be the sole (infallible?) source of knowledge on the subject?

Can an atheist be a Christian?"

Paul Asks: "Personally I think a person can be a follower of Jesus' teachings as a humanist; and if they follow Jesus then I suppose they can call themselves Christian, if that is what they want to be known as. What is in a label anyway?"

George States: "I think that someone who sincerely identifies themself as a Christian is a Christian. This would almost certainly entail a theology or philosophy that centers on Jesus and recognition of the Bible as the primary religious text."

WaySeeker Asks: "...as Dutch has mentioned, of who or what God is,..."

Ron (Vridar) Responds: As a non-believer and mature (old) Bishop Spong Message Board poster I came back to see what my friend, fellow Spong poster, and religious mentor, GeorgeW, was up to. The switch to TCPC from Spong left me in the dark. I was aware early on this site is over my head. However, I have argued many sides of the atheist questions.

Norm asks originally if an atheist can be a Christian. As others have mentioned, and I have still to read some posts, terms need defining. I dislike the term atheist as it could mean "against" theism. Agnostic I have come to accept as it meaning not known. Personally, I prefer Apatheist which will not be found in any lexicon. Defined by me Apatheist means "I don't care." And, truly, I don't.

In the early 20th century being Christian was defined as believing 7 (I think) tenets. Accordingly, not believing one tenet disqualified one as a Christian. Using these tenets this Apatheist (Atheist, if you prefer) is not a Christian. I cannot believe in the virgin birth, nor the resurrection, nor the inerrant Bible. Nor do I believe a true Atheist can be a Christian. An Atheist can live Christian values, but cannot be a Christian as defined by most Christians.

Most Atheists do follow Christ's teachings. I believe more so, percentage wise, than Christians. We do have the 4 horseman (one deceased) of the Atheists who are quite vocal and sometimes hateful, but, I think they make these noises to get noticed, if not to sell books.

My friend, GeorgeW, helped me to evolve from a strong Atheist to my Apatheist self. He also could succinctly post in one sentence what just took me too many.

Till next time,

Ron

VinD:

Your interest in "synoptic gospels being written for use in the synagogue" makes me believe Amy-Jill Levine's The Jewish Annonotated New Testament might be of interest. It explains some previous confusion putting things into contemporary Jewish perspective. This doesn't answer your question as to the Gospels in Synagogue, but it may answer some questions how Jewish/Christian writings converged or diverged.

Ron

I have no ideal how this works. Only wanted to reply to Bishop Spong's January 5 essay re/ Matthew's Joseph in the old & new testaments. I'll need to do some

searching for assistance. Why does everything have to be so complicated? Never mind. I know the answer to that one.

You're not alone. However, we will learn. The other format was so intuitive (after one became intuitive ;>) so maybe we will get there with this one.

Keep the faith,

Ron

It appears we have a new forum. Great. A new start.