The Council of Jerusalem [1]
It is obvious that Jesus himself had no intention of creating a new religion. Nor was the intention of Santiago, or the Nazarene Movement Jerusalem. The very idea would have horrified the more serious considering it blasphemy. They were, like Jesus, Jews, devout, working and preaching in the context of pure Jewish tradition. It is true that sought to renew certain observances, in addition to certain reforms and certain political changes. They wanted to further purify their religion of certain foreign elements recently acquired by the Jews, and wanted to restore its original purity. But even dreamed of creating a new form of belief that could become a rival of Judaism – or worse, their persecutor.
Between the years 35 and 36 CE, there was an uprising in Samaria, led by a Samaritan Messiah. This revolution was brutally suppressed, and many Samaritans, including leaders, were killed in the process. Meanwhile, the persecution of followers of Jesus seems to have intensified. In the year 36 CE, for example, Stephen, often honored as the first martyr of Christianity – Although he saw himself as a pious Jew – was stoned to death in Jerusalem, and many Nazarenes fled the city. But even then, barely a year and a half after the Ascension of Jesus, and should be fairly widespread and there are so many, for Paul, acting on behalf of the Sadducees and priests armed with arrest warrants for the High Priest, is dedicated hunting them down, reaching Damascus in pursuit. [2]
The Sadducees at the time of the Maccabees were, without doubt, a group of faithful followers of the Act, however, organized by Herod the Sadducees were very different. Were firmly aligned with the usurper king. Enjoyed an easy and comfortable life of prestige and privileges. Exercised a lucrative monopoly over the Temple and everything related to it. And they had no idea the ‘zeal for the law. ” Israel was then under the yoke of a corrupt and illegitimate monarchy and priesthood as corrupt and illegitimate, both, after all, were instruments of pagan Rome. [3]
Around the year 38 CE, Jesus was openly proclaimed as the Messiah – not the son of God, but the righteous king and anointed – by refugees Nazarenes, or perhaps established communities, as far as Antioch, for example. And it was there in the far north Syrian capital of Damascus, that the term ‘Christian’ was first used. Until then they were called simply ‘Nazarenes’. And called Nazarenes continued elsewhere for many years, especially in Jerusalem.
Already in the year 38 CE, are a well established central authority in Jerusalem Nazarene. The Chief would call later chroniclers’ The Early Church. ” The most famous of its members was, of course, Peter. However, the official head of this Church was James the ‘brother’ of Jesus, and this is something that later traditions maliciously disdain. James would later be known as Santiago. But what is significant is that James ‘brother’ of Jesus, not Peter, who presides over the Church of Jerusalem.
Although the book “Acts of the Apostles” not explicitly state that James was the leader of the community in Jerusalem, gives a prominent role in Acts 15:13-21 and 21:18, the latter clearly states:
“And the next day Paul went in with us unto James, and were assembled all the elders.”
This puts the elderly in a subordinate position to Santiago. . Paul in his letter to the Galatians states: “And recognizing the grace that was given unto me, James, Peter and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right …”. Later, the same letter (Gal.2 :11-12) shows clearly that Peter was subordinate to Santiago, when he says that Peter went to Antioch in order of Santiago. Some later authors of the Santiago Church explicitly called “leader of the early ‘Christians’.” [4]
Acts
Paul’s path is recorded by “Acts of the Apostles.” Paul appears on stage a year after the crucifixion. Under the name ‘Saul of Tarsus’, a fan or Sadducees Sadducees instrument [5], is actively involved in attacks on the Nazarenes in Jerusalem. As active participation that was present at the stoning death of Stephen.
Paul is quite clear, without remorse supports pursuing their victims ‘death’.
Shortly after the death of Stephen, Paul, Saul of Tarsus, yet, taken by his fanatic zeal, he goes to Damascus, Syria, to hunt the Nazarene in the city. was accompanied by a band of men, presumably armed, warrants carrying the High Priest of the Sanhedrin. As noted earlier, the High Priest’s authority did not extend to Syria. for Paul exercised authority there must be some authorization of the Romans, which indicates a special interest in eradicating Roman Nazarenes. nowhere else have tolerated ciscunstancia ‘paramilitary vigilantes “operating with immunity so far from their own domains. [6]
Road to Damascus, Paul suffers a traumatic experience, that commentators have explained in any way, from a stroke, to a seizure, then a ‘mystical experience’. Supposedly a ‘skylight’ him down from his horse and a voice out of nowhere asked, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”. Saul asked to identify the voice and the voice replied: “I am Jesus of Nazareth, and you’re chasing me,” then sends him go to Damascus where he would be told what to do next. [7] Upon completion of this experience, Saulo regains consciousness and realizes he is blind. A Nazarene in Damascus returns in sight. [8]
Saul interprets this as a manifestation of Jesus, whom he never met personally, it follows that ‘converts’. Discarded its former name to be called Paul. thereafter preached the teachings of the early church with the same fervor with which, at first, try removing them. joins the Nazarene community becomes one of his disciples or apprentices. Galatians 1:17-18, remains three years under the tutelage of these, spending much of his time in Damascus.
After his apprenticeship of three years, Paul returned to Jerusalem to meet with community leaders there. No surprise that most keep suspicion and are not convinced of his conversion. In Acts 9:27, Barnabas, his traveling companion, defended him saying he spoke boldly in the name of Jesus. However, an argument arises, and according to Acts 9:29, some members of the community of Jerusalem threaten it. To avoid a potentially unpleasant, its allies sent to Tarsus, the birthplace (now in Turkey). He was sent home, there to preach the message.
This would be the first of three journeys of Paul in Acts. inter alia, leads to Antioch, and – As Acts 11:26 says – that’s where the disciples were called Christians first. scholars date the trip to Antioch in 43 CE or so. at that time there was already a community of the early Church established and subordinated to the headquarters of the sect in Jerusalem, led by Santiago.
Five or more years later, Paul was preaching at Antioch, when a dispute arises over the content of his missionary work.
As Acts 15 explains, certain representatives of the Chief of Jerusalem come to Antioch. perhaps, as suggested by Robert Eisenman, an expert on the subject, with the specific purpose of investigating the activities of Paul [9]. He and his companion Barnabas are called back to Jerusalem, where the Jerusalem Council had to meet to discuss the revolutionary ideas of Paul. According to the instructions given to him, Paul returned to Antioch to Jerusalem – is believed to have been in 48 or 49 EC – and is facing the leadership of the community. [10]
Not surprisingly, another serious dispute arises. From this point on, there is a schism (A division) between Paul and James, and this gap is becoming deeper. The author of “Acts of the Apostles”, with respect to this dispute, is brash and definitely next to Paul. [11]
If you can believe in Acts, James, trying to make peace, agree to give a little, making it easier for pagans to join the congregation. conscious being permissive to certain aspects of the law, and this is very unlikely [12], while maintaining rigid in others. Paul accepts whatever the Council decides, at least in front of them. So far, still needs the support of the Council, not to legitimize their teachings, but to legalize and ensure the survival of communities established outside Jerusalem. However, he had already decided to go their own way.
Before the Council of Jerusalem, the apostles supported the efforts of Paul. But there is the division between this and the other disciples. Paul embarks on a mission to travel and preach, culminating with another visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21:18). most of his letters date from this period, between 50 and 58 EC. It is clear in his letters that, since at this time, was almost completely away from the leaders in Jerusalem and its adherence to the Law of Moses [13]. In his letter to the Galatians (About 57 EC), mockingly refers to “.. those who were reputed to be something, having once been nothing matters to me …”( Gal. 2:6). In Gal. 2:11-13, Paul condemned Peter and James and accuses his former traveling companion, Barnabas, of hypocrisy. [14]
His theological position had also strayed irretrievably of those who adhered strictly to the law in his Epistle to the Romans says: “… The man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3 28). This contradicts, without a doubt to James 2:24, which reads :”… a man is justified by works and not only by faith .. “[15]. The statements of Paul are the provocative comments of a renegade desafientes proclaimed. “Christianity”, by the way evolution from Paul, has now cut all connection with their origins, and we can not say it has something to do with Jesus, perhaps only with the image of Jesus that Paul had.
We note that Paul is, indeed, the first Christian ‘heretic’, and that his teachings – which later became the foundation of Christianity, are a blatant late departure from the original and pure defended by leaders of the Early Church. No matter whether James, ‘the Lord’s brother’, or not related by blood of Jesus (And everything suggests that it was), what is quite clear is that he met Jesus personally: And this is the case with most other members of the community, ‘The Early Church’ in Jerusalem, and that includes Pedro obviously. When these spoke did so with a first-hand authority [16]. Paul never came to have such close ties to the figure began to consider their ‘Saviour’. Paul only had a ‘mystical experience’ in the desert and that voice coming from nowhere. The fact that he’s himself an authority on the basis of the ‘experience’ is, at least, ‘presumptuous’. This also led him to distort the teachings of Jesus until they were unrecognizable – Arriving to create their own personal theology and traditions. For Jesus, adhered strictly to Jewish law, would have been the ultimate blasphemy to preach the worship of any mortal figure, including himself. Jesus makes this clear when he demands, in the Gospels, of his apostles, disciples and listeners, recognizing God alone. In Mark 10:17-18, for example, a man comes up to him to ask: “… Good Master what must I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus said: Why call me good? There is none good but one, God. “
Paul leaves God and set aside for the first time, the worship of Jesus – a Jesus equivalent to Adonis, Tammuz, to Attis, or any other dying and reviving gods who populated the Middle East at that time .. No wonder then, that James and those around him was quite disturbed by what Paul did.
Paul knows what he’s doing. He understood, with a surprisingly modern sophistication, the techniques of religious propaganda [17]. He knew what needed to make a man a god, and does so with more cunning than their sovereign-Roman gods. The openly acknowledges that she intended to present the real, historical Jesus, that person that James, Peter and Simon knew personally. on the contrary, it recognizes in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, that the community of Jerusalem [18] are preaching “another Jesus.” Their representatives, he says, they call themselves’ Jesus’ apostles’ and ‘servants of the Just’. Now they are in every sense, opponents of Paul.
About the year 58 CE, Paul is back in Jerusalem – despite the pleas of his followers, fearing clashes with the apostolic hierarchy, they asked him not to go. And again meets James and the leaders of the Jerusalem community. these will express the concerns they share with others ‘jealous of the Law’, that Paul in his preaching to Jews abroad, is urging atraicionar the Law of Moses [19]. It is an accusation justified, of course, as Paul himself said in his epistles. Acts does not record his response to the accusation. gives the impression that writing is the lies and denies himself, denying the charges against him. When asked to purify for seven days – in order to prove the allegations unjustified and their continued adherence to the Law – the accepted quickly.
However, a few days later, he again falls into the hands of the “zealous of the law ‘, which are much less tolerant than Santiago. When sighted in the Temple, is attacked by a mob of pious people. “This” claim “is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against the people, the law and this place ..” (Acts 21:28). Disturbances arise and Paul Temple is taken out of the running extreme danger. At the last minute is rescued by a Roman officer who, being warned of trouble appeared, surrounded by soldiers. Paul is arrested and chained – Under Suspicion, apparently, to be the leader of the Assassins, a terrorist group of Jewish zealots.
At that moment, the narrative becomes increasingly confused, and all I can assume is that there are parts of it that have been altered or removed. According to the existing text, Paul, before the Romans succeed in taking, said he was a Jew of Tarsus and asked to be allowed to speak to the crowd who wanted to lynch him. Oddly enough, the Romans permit. Then Paul tells his Pharisaic education to Gamaliel (A famous Pharisee teacher at the time), his initial hostility toward the Early Church, its role in the murder of Stephen and his subsequent conversion. All this, or maybe part – but we can not specify which – again sparked the ire of the crowd. “Take the land that man” cried “because they should live” (Acts 22:22). Ignoring calls from the crowd, the Romans took Paul to ‘strength’ – Probably the Antonia fortress, military and administrative headquarters of the Romans – and they wanted to question him under torture. “Questioning? Why? To determine what causes so much hostility among people, according to Acts. Although Paul had already clarified its position in public, there may be some elements in his speech that, so confusing in the text, were considered subversive by the Romans. Either way, torture was not practiced against someone with Roman citizenship. Paul, born of a wealthy family in Tarsus, it conveniently. Invoke this immunity, evade the torture, but remains in prison.
Meanwhile, a group of angry Jews, forty or more, gathered in secret oath not to eat or drink to kill Paul. The murderers, according to Acts, they are discovered by the timely and unexpected appearance of hitherto unnamed nephew Paul, who learns of his intentions. This family, of whom we know more, reports Paul and the Romans. That night, Paul is moved out of Jerusalem, for their own safety. Is escorted by 200 infants, with two captains at the helm, 200 spearmen and 70 cavalry. (Acts 23:23) An escort of 470 soldiers! He was taken to Caesarea, Roman capital of Judea, there appears to the Governor Roman puppet king by the Romans as Agrippa. As every Roman citizen, Paul has the right to present his case before Caesar in Rome, claiming this right. As a result, is sent to Rome, ostensibly, to be judged. There are no data as to why he was being judged. It is believed that Paul died in Rome between AD 64 and 67 EC.
According to Acts, the early church is affected by an early schism, the instigator of this division is Paul. The main enemy of Paul is the enigmatic figure of James, ‘the Lord’s brother. ” It is clear that James is the leader, recognized by all, of the Jerusalem community, later to be called ‘The Early Church’ [20]. Most of the time, Santiago is portrayed as an extremist fundamentalist, [21] but shows a willingness to be permissive at certain points of the law, if we can trust Acts. However, all evidence suggests that, until the available light is the work of the liberties taken by the author of “Acts of the Apostles” [22]. Of course, James could not be omitted in the narrative – its role and leadership, we suppose, would be too well known to remove it. Consequently, it remains to put it away in some way, and to portray it as a conciliatory figure – a figure some way, occupying a position between Paul and the extremists.
Anyway, the plot is reduced to a conflict between two strong characters, James and Paul. Eisenman shows that Santiago is emerging as the custodian of the original purity of the teachings, the exponent of the original purity and adherence to the law, neither Jesus nor the Nazarene hierarchy wanted to create a new religion. They preached a message specifically Jewish, addressed to the Jews, as Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-19:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the prophets: I came not to destroy but to fulfill. I tell you until they pass the heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle will pass from the Law until everything is accomplished. So anyone who breaks one of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven … “
For James and the Christian community in Jerusalem, what matters is the teaching of Jesus in person and that is the Messiah, the meaning of that era – a just ruler. He never tried to become an object of worship. certainly, he never intended to be considered a ‘Divine’. but in the hands of Paul, Jesus is made a god in every sense, one whose life has to compete with the rival deities, with racing to get more devotees. After all, ‘the gods are sold using the same marketing principles used to sell some gas or make any political campaign. “[23] For the principles of Santiago, and for any devout Jew, this was obviously a blasphemy and meant apostasy. Given the passions unleashed by these issues, it is unlikely that the conflict between James and Paul have been kept in a civilized debate as to suggest the author of Acts. Rather, it must have created the kind of murderous hostility that emerges toward the end of the story.
In the midst of conflict between James and Paul, the emergence and evolution of what we now call Christianity was at a crossroads. If the bulk of its development had been maintained according to the teachings of Santiago, there would be no ‘Christianity’, only a particular form of Judaism [24], which may or may not be the dominant form. As we see things, most of the new movement was gradually established, linking and coalitions over the next three centuries, around the teachings of Paul. Thus, for undoubtedly and posthumous horror of James and his people, a whole new religion was born – a religion that increasingly had less to do with its supposed founder.
[1] Baigent and Leigh, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, p.180-187.Adaptado in part.
[2] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, The Messianic Legacy, pp.70-72.
[3] Baigent and Leigh, op.cit., P.203.
[4] Ibid, p.251.
[5] N. T. : It’s quite strange that Paul appears as a fan working for priests Sadducee Sadducees in Acts 26:12, as in Acts 26:5 we are told that he lived his life as a Pharisee. Knowing the difference and enmity between Sadducees and Pharisees confront us the following questions: What group actually belonged to Paul? Was it both? At what point switched sides and joined the allies of the Romans?
[6] N.T. In his book “Paul and the alteration of Christianity” (Arabic version International Institute for Humanistic Studies, 1991) pp 35-44; Haim Maccoby suggests that Paul really had no authorization, but went on an unofficial mission to kidnap or kill some Nazarenes, this was based on problems that Paul had with the Syrian authorities and the fact that Syria was not even a Roman rule.
[7] N.T. Sk. Md. Abdul Haye, in his book “In search for the Truth” suggests that the incident itself is an invention of Paul, or Luke, because of the three different and contradictory versions of the incident show: Acts 9:7; Acts 22:9 and Acts 26:14. pp 19-20 of that book, English edition, 1992, Chowkash, Dhaka.
[8] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, op.cit., Pp74, 75. There is a possibility that Paul did not go to Damascus, but the monastery at Qumran community because there instead referred to as ‘the land of Damascus’ (Eisenman, Maccabees …, p.27 and p. 69, footnote 122) In a lecture entitled “Paul the Herodian” Professor Eisenman, exposed to an agent Paul Sadducees of Herod, and an enemy of everything that James and the defending zadoqueos. Its presence in Nazareth community, perhaps Qumran, would the purpose of espionage or provocation.
[9] Eisenman, James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesha, pp.30-32.
[10] N.T. This is clear evidence that Paul in no time belonged to the leadership of the early church formed by the apostles of Jesus.
[11] N.T. No wonder, because the author is Luke, a disciple and companion of Paul “He did a book with the gospel preached by him..” New American Bible, Pauline Ediciones, Madrid, 1989, p. 3, Introduction to the New Testament.
[12] N.T. Perhaps because the law is of God and not for any human being to give concessions to the Divine Law. James, apostle and first head of the Church, he knew very well.
[13] Eisenman, James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesha, idem.
[14] N.T. A very strange attitude coming from a “holy Apostle of the Lord” and “Father of the Church ‘, in particular because it directs its attacks against the apostles who, unlike him, if they saw him and were chosen by him. The attack is repeated elsewhere in the New Testament, would think that would discredit them to take their places at the head of the Church!
[15] N.T. It is interesting to see from 2:17 until the end of the chapter, ‘Santiago’ repeated several times that faith without works is dead, is imperfect. This coincides with the position of Islam in this regard.
[16] N.T. Something that Paul had, not even close.
[17] Eisenman refers to the psychological attitude shown by Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians, where, among other provisions, explains his strange need to ‘win’:
“Therefore, being free from all I’ve become the servant of all to win the more. I’ve done to the Jews as a Jew, to win the Jews … who are without law, as if I was without law … Do not you know that they which run in a race all the runners , but only one receives the prize? So run that ye may obtain. “(First Corinthians 9:19-27)
[18] Strangely, the people closest to Jesus during his ministry.
[19] Eisenman, op.cit., P.57 see also note 39 (where Eisenman revises the “Defamation of Paul against Jersalén hierarchy” in his letters).
[20] Eisenman, op.cit., P.3.
[21] N.T. Something that, why coincidence? , Muslims live today. Perhaps history is truly a great wheel that turns and turns, repeat the same events, but with different characters. However, it appears that more Muslims resisted the Early Church: or is that the struggle of these true followers of Moses and Jesus inherited the Muslims?. A good listener, few words.
[22] N.T. See the introduction to N. Testament of the New American Bible, 1989. How Lucas, author of Acts and the gospel with your name, it was ‘some freedom’ with the word of God. pags. 2 and 3.
[23] N.T. It is important to remember ‘The’ we can rely on commercials and other marketing and advertising. Just observe and compare policies and advertising campaigns with “campaign-preaching ‘of some modern cults and sects.
[24] N.T. Whereas Judaism was, in turn, ‘a particular way’ of Monotheism commanded by God in ancient times.
