Author Topic: Jerusalem, after Jesus, prior to the war with Rome.  (Read 632 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rzzzzz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6274
  • Karma: +41/-1055
  • Location: Purgatory
    • View Profile
Jerusalem, after Jesus, prior to the war with Rome.
« on: June 04, 2020, 07:07:45 pm »
Acts 2

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.

46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Acts 4

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid [them] down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, [and] of the country of Cyprus,

37 Having land, sold [it], and brought the money, and laid [it] at the apostles' feet.

so, no one can be too surprised after the emphasis of "loving thy neighbor as thyself",  plus the underlying message of the Sermon on the Mount and the Epistle of James that the original Apostles and devoted followers of Jesus would choose to share and share alike.  The shout out to Barnabas is important, as he will later be described, both in Acts and the Letters of Paul, as designated by the Jerusalem community's leadership to monitor Saul's activities in Antioch, etc., and upon finding hims, joined him in missionary work.  And it was Barnabas who brought Saul, who had earlier harassed, and worse, Jesus' followers until converting on his way to Damascus, back to Jerusalem to talk to both Peter and James.  And who would later return to Jerusalem to gain acceptance of gentile converts without the need for circumcision, which was granted by James.  And then the renamed Paul and Barnabas shook hands with James, Peter and John, pledging to "remember the poor".  Eventually, Paul, after a dietary conflict parted ways with Barnabas and Peter, returned to Jerusalem with a collection for the poor.  James suggested he get back on the good side with the local Jews by attending ritual cleansing.  Paul chose to show up with a large, uncircumcised Greek, which enraged mostly members of the Sadducee sect, whose high priests were involved with the prior execution of Jesus and the subsequent execution of James. 

Outside of Paul actual Letters and probably James' Epistle, most of the New Testament was likely written after the Romans had destroyed the Jerusalem Temple along with most of the city, as they slaughtered as many Jews as they could.  While there is a tradition that many of Jesus' original Jewish followers escaped to Pelle, the assumption must be that much of this group was destroyed just like the rest of Jerusalem.  And that writers immediately after the Jerusalem War were not prone to highlight the Jerusalem Church heritage as the nascent existence of Gentile denominations depended on not antagonizing more Roman animus. 

So we don't know that much about those original followers, they're beliefs, and how they implemented Jesus' teachings.  There is no doubt that Jesus' brother, James the Just, was the leader.  What is most amazing is that much early non-canonized material, including reports from the earliest remembered Christian historians, is that James was one of the few priests who was allowed in pray in the Jerusalem Temple's "Holy of Holies".  This would indicate great stature within the City, as well as an ongoing irritation with the Sadducees who ran the place, and who had been collecting much coin for performing the ritualized sacrifices of animals in the Temple until Jesus, John the Baptist and probably the apostles somehow put an end to the foul practice and replaced it with baptism.  (In fact, the priests who prayed in the Holy of Holies had long cleansed their own sins by bathing in a mitzvah, which was a bath that was filled with flowing water.  Which must have required quite some construction to get flowing to and from the Temple, as opposed to John the Baptist, who found the flowing waters of the Jordan River quite efficient.)
And all those who had faith were at the same place and owned all things communally.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


krukster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49852
  • Karma: +71/-5936
    • View Profile
Acts 2

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.

46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Acts 4

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid [them] down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, [and] of the country of Cyprus,

37 Having land, sold [it], and brought the money, and laid [it] at the apostles' feet.

so, no one can be too surprised after the emphasis of "loving thy neighbor as thyself",  plus the underlying message of the Sermon on the Mount and the Epistle of James that the original Apostles and devoted followers of Jesus would choose to share and share alike.  The shout out to Barnabas is important, as he will later be described, both in Acts and the Letters of Paul, as designated by the Jerusalem community's leadership to monitor Saul's activities in Antioch, etc., and upon finding hims, joined him in missionary work.  And it was Barnabas who brought Saul, who had earlier harassed, and worse, Jesus' followers until converting on his way to Damascus, back to Jerusalem to talk to both Peter and James.  And who would later return to Jerusalem to gain acceptance of gentile converts without the need for circumcision, which was granted by James.  And then the renamed Paul and Barnabas shook hands with James, Peter and John, pledging to "remember the poor".  Eventually, Paul, after a dietary conflict parted ways with Barnabas and Peter, returned to Jerusalem with a collection for the poor.  James suggested he get back on the good side with the local Jews by attending ritual cleansing.  Paul chose to show up with a large, uncircumcised Greek, which enraged mostly members of the Sadducee sect, whose high priests were involved with the prior execution of Jesus and the subsequent execution of James. 

Outside of Paul actual Letters and probably James' Epistle, most of the New Testament was likely written after the Romans had destroyed the Jerusalem Temple along with most of the city, as they slaughtered as many Jews as they could.  While there is a tradition that many of Jesus' original Jewish followers escaped to Pelle, the assumption must be that much of this group was destroyed just like the rest of Jerusalem.  And that writers immediately after the Jerusalem War were not prone to highlight the Jerusalem Church heritage as the nascent existence of Gentile denominations depended on not antagonizing more Roman animus. 

So we don't know that much about those original followers, they're beliefs, and how they implemented Jesus' teachings.  There is no doubt that Jesus' brother, James the Just, was the leader.  What is most amazing is that much early non-canonized material, including reports from the earliest remembered Christian historians, is that James was one of the few priests who was allowed in pray in the Jerusalem Temple's "Holy of Holies".  This would indicate great stature within the City, as well as an ongoing irritation with the Sadducees who ran the place, and who had been collecting much coin for performing the ritualized sacrifices of animals in the Temple until Jesus, John the Baptist and probably the apostles somehow put an end to the foul practice and replaced it with baptism.  (In fact, the priests who prayed in the Holy of Holies had long cleansed their own sins by bathing in a mitzvah, which was a bath that was filled with flowing water.  Which must have required quite some construction to get flowing to and from the Temple, as opposed to John the Baptist, who found the flowing waters of the Jordan River quite efficient.)

According to historians, 1.5-2 million Jews from Judea were killed during the two revolts against Rome.

In some ways, that's an even more horrific thing than what the Germans did many centuries later.  The Romans didn't have gas chambers.  Everything had to be done via the sword.

But history always paints "winners" in positive lights, even when said winners are genocidal maniacs.

rzzzzz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6274
  • Karma: +41/-1055
  • Location: Purgatory
    • View Profile
According to historians, 1.5-2 million Jews from Judea were killed during the two revolts against Rome.
In some ways, that's an even more horrific thing than what the Germans did many centuries later.  The Romans didn't have gas chambers.  Everything had to be done via the sword.
But history always paints "winners" in positive lights, even when said winners are genocidal maniacs.

Yeah, the Roman's were as hard core as you get.  Their biggest rivals probably were the Phoenicians (Hannibal and his elephants, and all that), who are barely remembered, because after Rome won that war, they salted their enemy's land to starve them into extinction. 

in talking to various ministers at the church drop-ins i covered back when, i heard that many seminaries taught that when that crazy book of Revelations keeps talking about Babylon (like the 7 hills of Babylon?) it was code for Rome, but the early Christians were way too wary to call them out directly. 
funny thing about Revelations.  it talks about defeating "Babylon" followed by the coronation of Jesus and 1000 years' rule.  when talking to visiting Jehovah's Witnesses (and RBI a while back) I mentioned that Rome, and Constantinople, became officially Christian around 425 AD and, give and take expanses of Islam, some aspect of strict Christianity did rule much of the world for about 1000 years, until variations appeared around the Renaissance, leading to the "Age of Reason" and secular democracy.  so the folks waiting for the 2nd coming?  maybe it already came and went.  maybe time to re-examine original intent, as the conservatives say.  (in which case, i go along with Joe Campbell that there is a lot of commonality among the founders of most major religions, particularly around charity and tolerance.)
And all those who had faith were at the same place and owned all things communally.

krukster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49852
  • Karma: +71/-5936
    • View Profile
Yeah, the Roman's were as hard core as you get.  Their biggest rivals probably were the Phoenicians (Hannibal and his elephants, and all that), who are barely remembered, because after Rome won that war, they salted their enemy's land to starve them into extinction. 

in talking to various ministers at the church drop-ins i covered back when, i heard that many seminaries taught that when that crazy book of Revelations keeps talking about Babylon (like the 7 hills of Babylon?) it was code for Rome, but the early Christians were way too wary to call them out directly. 
funny thing about Revelations.  it talks about defeating "Babylon" followed by the coronation of Jesus and 1000 years' rule.  when talking to visiting Jehovah's Witnesses (and RBI a while back) I mentioned that Rome, and Constantinople, became officially Christian around 425 AD and, give and take expanses of Islam, some aspect of strict Christianity did rule much of the world for about 1000 years, until variations appeared around the Renaissance, leading to the "Age of Reason" and secular democracy.  so the folks waiting for the 2nd coming?  maybe it already came and went.  maybe time to re-examine original intent, as the conservatives say.  (in which case, i go along with Joe Campbell that there is a lot of commonality among the founders of most major religions, particularly around charity and tolerance.)

If the real Jesus were alive today, he'd be stunned at the Greco-Roman version of his life that exists in the Bible today.  And amused by all the magic tricks he's been credited with.


« Last Edit: June 08, 2020, 04:15:37 pm by krukster »

rzzzzz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6274
  • Karma: +41/-1055
  • Location: Purgatory
    • View Profile
If the real Jesus were alive today, he'd be stunned at the Greco-Roman version of that exists in the Bible today.  And amused by all the magic trick he's been credited with.

reminds me of the routine Robin Williams did about the televangelist fleeing the set when he hears Jesus is back.

no surprise the way Islam describes Him, given that Waraqa ibn Nawfal (uncle? 3rd cousin once removed?) was an Ebionite.  ie., possible descendant of original Jerusalem Church members who fled the Romans.   i don't mean to trample on anybody's miracles.  they're pretty ubiquitous throughout the history of spiritual belief.  but it's the merit of the unvarnished message that's the true measure at the end of the day.  my faith is that good parts of the original preaching survived whatever degree of whispering down the lane.  'cause those words are enough. 
And all those who had faith were at the same place and owned all things communally.

krukster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49852
  • Karma: +71/-5936
    • View Profile
reminds me of the routine Robin Williams did about the televangelist fleeing the set when he hears Jesus is back.

no surprise the way Islam describes Him, given that Waraqa ibn Nawfal (uncle? 3rd cousin once removed?) was an Ebionite.  ie., possible descendant of original Jerusalem Church members who fled the Romans.   i don't mean to trample on anybody's miracles.  they're pretty ubiquitous throughout the history of spiritual belief.  but it's the merit of the unvarnished message that's the true measure at the end of the day.  my faith is that good parts of the original preaching survived whatever degree of whispering down the lane.  'cause those words are enough.

Gnosticism was very much alive and well in the deserts of Arabia when Mohammed was alive.  Though I'm sure Islam did a little of it's own creative editing on Jesus's life.

Reza Aslan's take on Jesus is pretty simplistic, but hard to dispute.  He points out the pretty obvious fact that the Romans didn't crucify you unless you were a major league trouble maker.

Or one can go the Dan Brown route and believe Jesus and Mary escaped to Paris and did the whole kids+white picket fence thing.

Jesus is who we want him to be.