Ok.
• Jesus believed that he was the messiah.
I agree. I would take it a step further and say that Jesus knew he was the messiah. He had the best view of all His miracles. He heard the voice out of heaven in the Jordan when baptised. He was there with Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration. He was there when he rose from the grave. :-)
• There were two types of messianic "candidates" in 1st century Judaism. One type sought to free Judea from Roman rule and to restore the earthly kingdom of David (bar Kokhba, for example). The other sought a "new heaven and new earth" -- the kingdom of God -- that would be brought about by God's intervention rather than by force of arms. Jesus was of the second type.
I think Jesus was both types. He will usher in a new heaven, new earth and new Jerusalem after the athid Lavo (messianic age) which is at the end of Olam Hazeh (present world/age). The athid lavo being the final 1,000 years of the 7,000 year redemptive plan according to the sages. This 1,000 years is the restoration of the "earthly kingdom". Referred to by Christians as the "Millineal reign".
• Jesus's disciples believed in his resurrection and imminent return.
So have his disciples throughout all generations. And when you compare these 7,000 years to eternity, there were and are right.
• The early Nazarene community contained both pacifists (who thought that all they had to do was to await the imminent return of Jesus) and the activists (who thought that they needed to continue the struggle against Rome).
Agree.
• As long as the Nazarenes believed in Jesus as a human messiah, they were not believing anything that was outside the bounds of Pharisaic Judaism. Even a belief in Jesus's resurrection and return would not have divided them from non-Nazarene Judaism.
A belief in the resurrection and return qualifies Him as the Son of God with diety. I believe your use of the term "yesh", which actually means salvation in the hebrew, would qualify as diety as well. For no human alone is able to save. This concept may perhaps seem outside the bounds of Pharisaic Judaism but not Biblical Judaism.
• The Nazarenes and the Pharisees actually got along well. The Nazarenes did have problems with the temple Sadducees and the high priest.
Agreed.
• Some of the players: pacifist and activist Nazarenes. Pacifist and activist Pharisees. The Essenes, who were an opposition group of Sadducees. The Herodians, who were of a mixed Jewish and Edomite background, and who collaborated with the Romans. And the temple Sadducees and the high priest, who were also Roman collaborators.
Just so we all know its you that insinuated the nasty word "hellenization" in the above and not me. :-)
• The gospels were written after Paul's epistles.
I assume this is correct, I haven't really looked into it.
• Galatians is the most important book in the Christian canon.
I agree in that it confuses and has been taken out of contest by most.
Calif. diocese sues Boston Archdiocese
Alleges officials hid Shanley's past
By Larry B. Stammer, Los Angeles Times, 4/2/2003
The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Bernardino, Calif., sued the Archdiocese of Boston yesterday, alleging that Boston officials hid the history of sexual molestation by former priest Paul Shanley when he moved to California.
The lawsuit, filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court, is believed to mark the first time that one US Catholic diocese has sued another in civil court, according to both dioceses. As such it is a further indication of how the sex-abuse scandal has moved through the Catholic Church, overturning long-established customs.
A spokesman for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington called the lawsuit, at the least, a historic ''rarity.''
The lawsuit accuses Catholic officials in Boston of engaging in ''misrepresentations and suppression of information'' as well as ''active misconduct and negligence'' in hiding the background of Shanley, who has been accused of molesting boys since 1967. He moved to San Bernardino in 1990 and has been accused in a civil lawsuit of assaulting at least one teenager while there.
In that lawsuit, Kevin English has sought damages from both dioceses, contending he was abused starting when he was 17. San Bernardino officials say that they have not turned up evidence to corroborate English's claims so far, but that a settlement could nonetheless cost upward of $12 million. That would be enough to push the diocese ''to the brink of bankruptcy,'' said the Rev. Howard Lincoln, spokesman for the diocese.
The lawsuit aims to ensure that whatever amount English is paid comes from Boston, not San Bernardino.
''We should not have to pay for Boston's mistake,'' Lincoln said.
Although the Roman Catholic Church is a worldwide organization with an international hierarchy, each diocese is treated as a separate entity with its own assets and income.
In Boston, Donna M. Morrissey, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said officials had not seen the lawsuit and would not comment.
Others said the case shows that internal fractures among the nation's bishops, which have until now been confined to closed-door meetings, increasingly are becoming public.
The lawsuit ''shows how deeply the church has been affected'' by the sex-abuse scandal, said the Rev. Thomas Rausch, chairman of the theology department at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.
The scandal is eroding ''the communion that unites the dioceses together as one church in the United States,'' he said.
Under the church's internal rules, known as canon law, a diocese has recourse to church courts to resolve disputes with other dioceses. Those proceedings would be private. The decision to file a lawsuit in civil court makes a public statement, said lawyer William Light, who represents English.
''I tend to think . . . the reason they chose this one [was] to put them in a better light publicly,'' Light said. The abuse English suffered was ''extremely reprehensible,'' he said.
If the case goes to trial, ''we think a jury would agree with us and award substantial sums to compensate Kevin for the things he had to endure, literally, at the hands of Father Shanley and those Father Shanley put in the way to harm Kevin,'' Light said.
Lincoln said the lawsuit was ''intended to be a serious message'' by San Bernardino Bishop Gerald R. Barnes to the Boston Archdiocese.
''We feel our position is very strong, and we hope that Boston resolves this matter and indemnifies us,'' he said.
''The church teaches us to treat each other with love, dignity, and respect,'' Lincoln said. ''That means allowing members of the church to take responsibility for their actions.''
Documents that have been released in other lawsuits against the Boston Archdiocese show that church officials there knew that Shanley had a history of sexual abuse and, at one point, he had advocated sex between men and boys. The revelation that the archdiocese withheld information about Shanley's sexual history was a key factor that led to the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law as archbishop of Boston in December. Before he resigned, Law personally apologized to the San Bernardino bishop.
The San Bernardino Diocese would not have permitted Shanley to serve had it known the truth about him, officials of the diocese said.
This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 4/2/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
I don't see this as necessarily the case. I think God could resurrect and return anyone he wanted, whether the person was God or just a man. I also think that "Son of God" does not necessarily imply deity.
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. (Romans 8:14)
Not saying that the other interpretations are not possible, only that there are alternative ways of looking at it.
For no human alone is able to save. This concept may perhaps seem outside the bounds of Pharisaic Judaism but not Biblical Judaism.
I think it depends on what you mean by "save", here.
Just so we all know its you that insinuated the nasty word "hellenization" in the above and not me. :-)
There is no question about it. Judea was occupied by the Romans. The kings/governors and the high priests served at the pleasure of the Romans. They were chosen because they were willing to collaborate. Most of the rest of the population -- the lesser priests, the Pharisees, the typical Shlomo on the street -- either endured Roman rule or in some way worked to oppose it.