Have you read Reza Aslan's Zealot about Jesus of Nazareth?

[atyy]

Sorry 'bout the delay, I fear I may not be able to devote as much time to this discussion as I would like.

Yeah, me too. After all there are much more controversial things to discuss on PF, like firewalls

I think we're roughly in agreement, and it's probably fun to talk about disagreements about second or third order terms, but one can say they are within the error bars.

No doubt, but there were compromises on both sides as I understand it. For instance, I've already mentioned Paul's lustration ritual where he is basically ordered to purify himself, along with 4 others in order to allay the doubts that have developed about Paul's disregard for Jewish law (Acts 21:23-24).

It was sort of a bargain, I guess, because immediately after this is mentioned, James seems to have made his compromise about exactly how observant a gentile covert of Paul need be. (Act 21:25)

Yes, I agree. I don't want to give the impression that I necessarily agree with Acts as being correct on so many historical details. But just that if one makes an argument from Acts that Paul compromised, then the same argument would seem to imply that Peter and James compromised too on the issue of gentiles following the Jewish law.

Fair enough, I may have overstated this point. It does seem interesting to me that the Epistle of James only mentions "the Lord Jesus Christ" by name twice (at the beginnings of Chapters 1 and 2) but Paul really goes to town on this. But I don't think anything can really be inferred from this alone.

I think the key thing is that, in the early history of Christianity, there were a hodgepodge of belief systems that were continually evolving. It's almost impossible to say where a "Jew" ends and a "Christian" begins for a person from that period. Even Paul (post-Damascus vision and conversion) refers to himself as a Jew e.g. in Galatians 2:15 ("We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles").

So, it is conceivable that the "degree" of belief in Jesus's celestial nature might also have differed, even among people considering themselves to believe in Christ.

Stephen's case is an interesting one. Remember that he was a Hellenised Jew before he started believing in Christ. The disdain he holds for the strictly-observant Jews is quite clear in Acts 7:51 - "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears. If that isn't a zinger, I don't know what is. This was spoken during his speech before the crowd stoned him to death. Isn't it fair to say that James, even though he was Bishop of the first Church, was much more of a strict observer of Mosaic law than Stephen seems to be? I'm sure James would never have said such a thing to make light of the circumcision ritual (especially when you consider that this was one of the principal bones of contention between him and Paul).

There is also the weaker evidence that the Jews didn't exactly persecute the Apostles to anywhere near the same extent as they did Stephen (though they did lock them up in prison, but God jailbroke them, Acts 5:18-23). Subsequently, I guess the Jewish priests did want to do them in, but were persuaded otherwise by Gamaliel (Acts 5:34). Bottom line: the Jewish priests didn't really seem to have their hearts into killing off the Apostles (whereas the Jews killed Stephen pretty much without hesitation). I don't know if this can be attributed to James and Peter having a "less heretical" Christian outlook (with regard to the Celestial Jesus) or whether it's just a matter of the Jews being more afraid of the Apostles' popularity and following among the others in Jerusalem. I don't think it's a question of the Jews being afraid of direct Roman reprisals, since the Romans were not exactly fond of the Christian sect at this time (and it wouldn't have taken much for them to label the brother of the man they'd crucified a criminal in the same vein), whereas they did have a working relationship with the Jewish high priest.

At the end of the day, I can't find anything definitive in the NT to support the assertion that the Apostles had a different conception of the Celestial Jesus from Paul post-conversion. All I can find are weak inferences, which I mentioned above. So I'll concede the argument.

Yes, I agree. There were certainly different conceptions about the "celestial" nature of Jesus in the early church. The disciples did not have this idea while Jesus was alive, and so their understanding of the idea developed over time, and they are still developing. A fun difference between some eastern and western traditions is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son! I think the various understandings of the peculiar phrase "Son of Man" is especially intriguing. But basically at the time of Peter and Paul, the extent of the debate over this, if it existed, was minor compared to the issue about gentiles and the Jewish law.

BTW, your favourite from Galatians (5:12) - that was the "infamous" part about emasculation, wasn't it? My KJV just phrases it as "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." which is a very neutered (pardon the pun) rendition, but I'm aware there are some versions which talk about Paul telling the circumcised to go "all the way" and castrate themselves. Who says the Bible is not lurid and fun?

Will get to the rest of your post later.

 

[Curious3141]

Will get to the rest of your post later.

Thanks for the reply, and please take your time.