The Didache: Doctrines That Build on the Creed

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes, I share what I have learned so far.
My main source is GW, but I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers and anonymous acquaintances—who have helped shape my beliefs, including y'all on CC. I c&p from my website, but I am not permitted to give it. (Hint: It has to do with truthseekers.)

Glad you enjoy my posts and threads. I felt my original calling was to improve the quality of Bible teaching in SBC churches,
but my opportunities to do so have been limited by my poor memory that caused me to fail the seminary oral doctoral exam,
which is a reason I write my knowledge on a website so I won't forget it, although I am not dead yet, so I hope y'all younger folks will be boosted by what I share on CC and pass it on. :love:
God bless you GWH !!
🧡
 
Yes, I share what I have learned so far.
My main source is GW, but I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers and anonymous acquaintances—who have helped shape my beliefs, including y'all on CC. I c&p from my website, but I am not permitted to give it. (Hint: It has to do with truthseekers.)

Glad you enjoy my posts and threads. I felt my original calling was to improve the quality of Bible teaching in SBC churches,
but my opportunities to do so have been limited by my poor memory that caused me to fail the seminary oral doctoral exam,
which is a reason I write my knowledge on a website so I won't forget it, although I am not dead yet, so I hope y'all younger folks will be boosted by what I share on CC and pass it on. :love:
Marriage

Jesus taught about marriage in Matthew 19:4-6, saying “…at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” We see from this statement that marriage is a spiritual union of a man and woman until death.

The marital commitment is—or should be—signified by sexual union or becoming “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). There is no mention of legal matters such as licenses and traditional customs such as ceremonies, although these may be good to satisfy for the purpose of avoiding being “a stumbling block to the weak” (1Cor. 8:9), who do not understand the essence of marriage.

The phrase about leaving one’s father and mother indicates that a man (and presumably also a woman) should be ready for marriage by attaining a sufficient degree of independence from their parents, both financial and psychological. And since most methods of birth control are not completely effective, we can assume that they also should be prepared to become parents themselves, even if they hope not to have a child for awhile. Since parenting involves a lot more than procreation, readiness for parenthood implies a sufficient degree of spiritual maturity. Sex/marriage is not a natural right but rather a God-given responsibility.

Of course, readiness for marriage should be combined with willingness or the desire to get married. Although not many people desire life-long celibacy, we must assume that God enables people to remain celibate until they are married, because we know that fornication or extra-marital sexual activity is wrong. In Matt. 5:27 Jesus said “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery’. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” As Paul says in 1Cor. 7:9, “If they cannot control themselves [do not have the gift of life-long celibacy], they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion [lust].”

God intends for sexual union to express marital love and commitment. Pornography is that which encourages, recommends or promotes fornication, lust or extra-marital sexual activity. It is immoral because it subverts happy marriages and family values. Jesus sought to convey the severity of the sin of lust by saying it would be better to lose the offending part of the body (Matt. 5:29-30). However, some people including many Muslims seem to view masturbation as worse than fornication or even rape. The misery resulting from sexual immorality includes horrible illnesses, but ungodly people prefer to cure the physical disease rather than their spiritual sickness.

Jesus concluded his teaching on marriage in Matt. 19:6 by saying, “What God has joined together [made one], let man not separate.” Obviously, people are not permanently joined physically, so that which must not be separated refers to their spiritual unity. A man and woman are free to work out their marital relationship in the way that best fits their personalities, but let me point out that Eve was created from Adam’s side to be his partner rather than from his foot to be his slave (Gen. 2:20-24). Both male and female are created in God’s image (Gen. 1:27). In Christ, there is no male and female, but both are one (Gal. 3:28) or equal. And both husband and wife are commanded to submit to one another by Paul (in Eph. 5:21). God desires consensus/consensual relationships.

In the same way that the essence of marriage is spiritual union, so the reality of divorce occurs when the man and wife become spiritually separated. This realization should motivate spouses to work on the quality of their communication before serious problems develop in their relationship, because spiritual divorce is the sin (of divorce). Not only that, but allowing unrighteous anger that leads to spiritual divorce is sinful. Paul admonishes us (in Eph. 4:26-27) to “not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil [demon divorce] a foothold.” [and do not get angry again the next morning!]

IOW, a miserable marriage is akin to the sin of divorce, which refers to spiritual reality as much as to legality. Jesus taught (in Matt. 5:31-32a and 19:6-9) that the only permissible reason for legal divorce is marital unfaithfulness or when the sin of spiritual divorce signified by adultery (a form of fornication) has already occurred. This leaves only celibacy or a happy marriage as permissible alternatives.
 
Didachaic doctrines that build on the kerygmatic creed include those that inoculate Christians against reverting to atheism, committing apostasy, and believing heresy. Here are examples of each type for starters:

1. Apologetics against atheism might well begin with John 8: 42-44 & Rom. 1:20.
2. The need for perseverance might well begin with Matt. 10:22 & Heb. 6:4-6.
3. The need for not perverting the Gospel might well begin with Matt. 23:23-24 & Gal. 1:6-9.
 
There are two passages in the NT relevant to the issue of homosexuality. In Matt. 19:4-5, Jesus cited Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 in teaching that marriage is the union of a male and female as “one flesh”, and in Rom. 1:26-27, Paul condemned homosexuality as shameful lusts, unnatural relations and indecent acts. In addition to these biblical passages, the anatomical differences between male and female bodies indicate heterosexual intercourse is the natural mode. Although the cause of gender preference remains unproved per the APA, the design of gender-specific parts implies the appropriate use of those parts as normal.

Although these passages indicate that God intends for people to be heterosexual, He allows homosexuality. The key question is whether homosexuality is always due to sinful choices. Some people advocate homosexuality as a “viable alternative lifestyle”, implying that heterosexuals ought to consider freely choosing to try it, which is wrong. Christians whose homosexual orientation seems not to be freely chosen should agree with the biblical ideal regarding sexuality, and everyone should acknowledge that homosexual “civil unions” are not biblical marriages.

Hopefully, science will find a cure if the cause of homosexuality is genetic, and therapy will help if the cause is environmental during the formative years of life. We all have our cross to bear or issues that we struggle with, because this life is not heaven yet, but God wants to comfort us as we do the reasonable best we can with what we have been given. (Consider the Parable of the Talents in Matt. 25:14-30). If the homosexual orientation is genetically and/or environmentally caused rather than freely chosen, then God knows and would not condemn or blame the individual for what was not his/her fault. All sin is volitional.

Those who are concerned with the morality of sexuality should have equally loving concern for hetero-sexual wrong-doing. (See Rom. 1:24&26-27, 1Cor. 6:9&15-18, 10:8, Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:31, Col. 3:5, 1Thes. 4:3, Heb. 12:13, 13:4.) Just as God wants every heterosexual to have only platonic relationships until married, He must also desire every involuntary homosexual to have only platonic relationships. A couple may “fall in love” and express friendship physically, but the line between friendly touching and sexual expression should not be crossed until they are married. Biblical teachings do not prevent two men or two women loving each other and joining their lives together in civil unions or ways other than sexual. In fact, in heaven we will all be one big, happy family which does just that (Matt. 22:30). Although sexuality is a good thing when expressed appropriately, often people exaggerate its importance to the point of making it an idol to be worshipped. Sex is not synonymous with love.

Your thoughts?
God gave them over to a reprobate mind in Romans chapter 1.
 
Yes, "them" being all who exchange belief in God/Truth/the Creator for I-dolatry/Foolishness/materialism (Rom. 1:21-25).
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,

25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;

27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
 
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,

25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;

27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men
and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Yes, those who exchange belief in God/Truth/the Creator for I-dolatry/Foolishness/materialism (Rom. 1:21-25) often do what you highlighted in red, although they also may fornicate heterosexually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lrs68
As I indicated in the OP, teachings that are secondary or subsequent to learning the Gospel/Creed or kerygma (GRFS) may be indicated by another Greek word, didache, which means teaching. The didache may be very important and requisite for becoming spiritually mature, but it is not most important or necessary to know/believe in order to be saved. The distinction between kerygma/saving teachings and didache/secondary teachings was made by Jesus when He commissioned His original twelve disciples minus Judas (Matt. 28:19-20). This “Great Commission” speaks of both types of information.

The kerygma is indicated by verse 19, in which Jesus says, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations”, and the didache is implicit in verse 20, in which Jesus continues by saying “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” This speaks of information a disciple needs to know and believe after conversion in order to grow in Christlikeness regarding how to live the law of love. It is the “all truth” that is taught by the Spirit referred to in John 16:13. Again, it is very important following salvation for attaining complete sanctification.

The distinction between kerygma and didache can be seen also in 2Tim. 3:15-17. The scriptures “which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” refers to the Gospel or kerygma. The scriptural teaching that is useful for “training in righteousness, so that the man [or woman per Gal. 3:28] of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” refers to didache. The apostle Paul also employs the difference between kerygma and didache in 1Cor. 3:10-15. The “foundation… which is Jesus Christ” is the kerygmatic teaching regarding salvation. Paul alludes to didachaic teachings when he says that one should be careful how he/she builds upon this foundation. Again, the purpose of this thread is to do just that.
 
Some didachaic topics are not specifically addressed in Scripture, so Christians must endeavor to discern how various Biblical moral teachings might be applicable. One example is abortion. How does Biblical teaching apply to the abortion debate?

Two passages (Exo. 21:22-25 & Luke 1:41-44) seem to suggest that an unborn baby should be considered a person at least by the time of quickening (cf. Psa. 139:13-16). Perhaps Exo. 20:13 can be understood as implying, “Thou shalt not murder thy baby”. However, because believers do not dictate government policies, they need to share logical as well as biblical reasons for not aborting babies.

Logically, the crucial question is this: "When does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment?" Considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults. As a person considers two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old preemie outside the womb, he/she should understand that location and mode of breathing is not a valid basis for defining personhood.

Those who view conception to be the criterion of personhood should mourn miscarriages in the same way they would death of post-birth babies, but there is logical reason to consider personhood beginning the same way doctors use to consider a person to be dead: brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalogram (EEG). We might call this presence of crucial brain waves “sentience”, when the fetus has brain life of the type detectable in a person deemed to be alive and to have the civil right to life.

Thus, everyone should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development. In the absence of definitive Scriptural teaching, this is only a partial solution, but it is better than allowing abortion throughout pregnancy. It recognizes that people may reasonably disagree about the status of the fetus between conception and sentience. Implementing this solution requires educating people about fetal development until society develops a consensus that when a fetus becomes sentient, abortion is a type of manslaughter or murder and should be punished appropriately.
 
You raise some very good points, such as dating and redactions. Now scholars agree that the gospels were written, Mark is dated from the 40's to the 60's, very precise, just like the Didache. Matthew gets dated from the 60's to the 80's, Luke is usually late 60's at the earliest to possibly the 90's, and John gets dated to as late as the early 2nd century. Then there is the question of redactions in both Mark and John, sort of like the Didache. But since these were officially declared scripture in the late 4th century, some 300 years after Paul dictated 2 Timothy 3:15-16 to a scribe, who did the actual writing, the gospels must be accurate.

That the issues are pertinent with regards to the Didache, but immaterial with regards to the gospels says much about dedication to the truth as opposed to tradition.
Luke is before Acts and the latest historical markers is in Acts 18 (Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome around 49-50 AD),

Also the mention of Gallio as proconsul of Achaia in Acts 18:12–17. To around AD52. (Gallio (~51–52 AD) is the latest precisely dated, named official event with a direct inscriptional match akin to Acts 18:2.) GROK

If Luke is dated to as late as 90s then you really have historical silence from 52-90AD. No historical markers when there were a lot of events happening, like the murder of James, the brother of Jesus (AD62), recorded in Josephus but excluded in Acts? The killing of both Peter and Paul, and the siege and fall of Jerusalem by the Romans, which decimated the city. All omitted as historical claims? The most reasonable for Acts is from 52 to 62 at the murder of James in Jerusalem. Probably 60 and Luke before that and Mark before that.
------------------------- GROK

Later 2nd-Century and Beyond Justin Martyr (~150–160 AD, Dialogue with Trypho): Refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple as divine judgment on the Jews for rejecting and crucifying Christ. He uses it polemically to contrast with Christianity's spread.

nearemmaus.wordpress.com

Hegesippus (mid-2nd century, via Eusebius): Links events around James the Just's death (~62 AD) to the subsequent siege by Vespasian, portraying the fall as judgment. Eusebius preserves fragments tying it to broader church history.

earlychristianwritings.com

Eusebius (4th century, Ecclesiastical History): Summarizes earlier traditions, including the Christian flight to Pella before the siege (based on an "oracle" or prophecy), and explicitly interprets the fall as fulfillment of Jesus' words and judgment for crimes against Christ and the apostles.

Origen (c. 185–c. 253/254 AD) claimed that Josephus attributed the fall of Jerusalem (and the destruction of the Temple) to divine wrath over the unjust killing of James the Just, "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ." This detail does not appear in surviving manuscripts of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20.9.1), which describes James' stoning around 62 AD under High Priest Ananus but links no broader causation to Jerusalem's fall in 70 AD.
--------------------------------
 
Luke is before Acts and the latest historical markers is in Acts 18 (Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome around 49-50 AD),

Also the mention of Gallio as proconsul of Achaia in Acts 18:12–17. To around AD52. (Gallio (~51–52 AD) is the latest precisely dated, named official event with a direct inscriptional match akin to Acts 18:2.) GROK

If Luke is dated to as late as 90s then you really have historical silence from 52-90AD. No historical markers when there were a lot of events happening, like the murder of James, the brother of Jesus (AD62), recorded in Josephus but excluded in Acts? The killing of both Peter and Paul, and the siege and fall of Jerusalem by the Romans, which decimated the city. All omitted as historical claims? The most reasonable for Acts is from 52 to 62 at the murder of James in Jerusalem. Probably 60 and Luke before that and Mark before that.
------------------------- GROK

Later 2nd-Century and Beyond Justin Martyr (~150–160 AD, Dialogue with Trypho): Refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple as divine judgment on the Jews for rejecting and crucifying Christ. He uses it polemically to contrast with Christianity's spread.

nearemmaus.wordpress.com

Hegesippus (mid-2nd century, via Eusebius): Links events around James the Just's death (~62 AD) to the subsequent siege by Vespasian, portraying the fall as judgment. Eusebius preserves fragments tying it to broader church history.

earlychristianwritings.com

Eusebius (4th century, Ecclesiastical History): Summarizes earlier traditions, including the Christian flight to Pella before the siege (based on an "oracle" or prophecy), and explicitly interprets the fall as fulfillment of Jesus' words and judgment for crimes against Christ and the apostles.

Origen (c. 185–c. 253/254 AD) claimed that Josephus attributed the fall of Jerusalem (and the destruction of the Temple) to divine wrath over the unjust killing of James the Just, "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ." This detail does not appear in surviving manuscripts of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20.9.1), which describes James' stoning around 62 AD under High Priest Ananus but links no broader causation to Jerusalem's fall in 70 AD.
--------------------------------
Too add the above the murder of James in 62 is depicted as causal to the fall of Jerusalem in AD70 as judgement so they certainly considered that event important and it is not depicted in Acts if written so late?
 
Luke is before Acts and the latest historical markers is in Acts 18 (Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome around 49-50 AD),

Also the mention of Gallio as proconsul of Achaia in Acts 18:12–17. To around AD52. (Gallio (~51–52 AD) is the latest precisely dated, named official event with a direct inscriptional match akin to Acts 18:2.) GROK

If Luke is dated to as late as 90s then you really have historical silence from 52-90AD. No historical markers when there were a lot of events happening, like the murder of James, the brother of Jesus (AD62), recorded in Josephus but excluded in Acts? The killing of both Peter and Paul, and the siege and fall of Jerusalem by the Romans, which decimated the city. All omitted as historical claims? The most reasonable for Acts is from 52 to 62 at the murder of James in Jerusalem. Probably 60 and Luke before that and Mark before that.
------------------------- GROK

Later 2nd-Century and Beyond Justin Martyr (~150–160 AD, Dialogue with Trypho): Refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple as divine judgment on the Jews for rejecting and crucifying Christ. He uses it polemically to contrast with Christianity's spread.

nearemmaus.wordpress.com

Hegesippus (mid-2nd century, via Eusebius): Links events around James the Just's death (~62 AD) to the subsequent siege by Vespasian, portraying the fall as judgment. Eusebius preserves fragments tying it to broader church history.

earlychristianwritings.com

Eusebius (4th century, Ecclesiastical History): Summarizes earlier traditions, including the Christian flight to Pella before the siege (based on an "oracle" or prophecy), and explicitly interprets the fall as fulfillment of Jesus' words and judgment for crimes against Christ and the apostles.

Origen (c. 185–c. 253/254 AD) claimed that Josephus attributed the fall of Jerusalem (and the destruction of the Temple) to divine wrath over the unjust killing of James the Just, "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ." This detail does not appear in surviving manuscripts of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20.9.1), which describes James' stoning around 62 AD under High Priest Ananus but links no broader causation to Jerusalem's fall in 70 AD.
--------------------------------
Luke-Acts was a two-part work, Luke introducing some ideas and Acts filling them out. And to my point of view, Acts must date to the early 70's, regardless of our modern opinion about important events being left out. The readers would have known of these events as well as issues associated with them, some of which were best ignored so as to not remind the Romans or upset the Jews.

Regarding the death of James, the brother of Jesus, being connected to the Jewish rebellion, it does not make sense as usually presented. But if James was killed by Roman authorities in 64 it makes a lot of sense. According to Eusebius in various places, including where he cites Heqesippus, relations between official Judaism and James were at least cordial, not antagonistic, but a 64 killing of him by Romans would parallel Nero's persecution and the beginning of the Jewish rebellion in 64 would also fit better as an immediate cause for the uprising.

And there are numerous other hidden tidbits that get ignored that also suggest that something has been covered up, all of which would fit with keeping the Romans happy and hopefully off the backs of Christians. On the Jewish side there are similar hints that would help protect Jews. But all these are carefully concealed by tradition, don't look at that point, it is clearly irrelevant, don't interpret that passage in that way, such is clearly wrong, those ancient writers are clearly referring to a myth or legend, not actual history., etc
 
Luke-Acts was a two-part work, Luke introducing some ideas and Acts filling them out. And to my point of view, Acts must date to the early 70's, regardless of our modern opinion about important events being left out. The readers would have known of these events as well as issues associated with them, some of which were best ignored so as to not remind the Romans or upset the Jews.

Regarding the death of James, the brother of Jesus, being connected to the Jewish rebellion, it does not make sense as usually presented. But if James was killed by Roman authorities in 64 it makes a lot of sense. According to Eusebius in various places, including where he cites Heqesippus, relations between official Judaism and James were at least cordial, not antagonistic, but a 64 killing of him by Romans would parallel Nero's persecution and the beginning of the Jewish rebellion in 64 would also fit better as an immediate cause for the uprising.

And there are numerous other hidden tidbits that get ignored that also suggest that something has been covered up, all of which would fit with keeping the Romans happy and hopefully off the backs of Christians. On the Jewish side there are similar hints that would help protect Jews. But all these are carefully concealed by tradition, don't look at that point, it is clearly irrelevant, don't interpret that passage in that way, such is clearly wrong, those ancient writers are clearly referring to a myth or legend, not actual history., etc

The main point I glean from your post is that the inspired NT revelation/canon ended with the death of Paul and the collection of Christ's teachings in the gospels by the other apostles.

What is your opinion of Revelation?
 
The main point I glean from your post is that the inspired NT revelation/canon ended with the death of Paul and the collection of Christ's teachings in the gospels by the other apostles.

What is your opinion of Revelation?
Revelation is interesting. The letters to the seven churches only make sense before the early 60's. However, other aspects would then have to be clearly prophetic and not referencing current events, which seems unlikely in some cases such as in Revelation 9, the imagery fits well in the 1st century (especially the 80's) but is very strange by the 3rd, and the new temple sounds like expectations from the 90's CE.

But I would not argue that the canon of scripture is automatically closed. The Jews officially counted it closed by the 2nd century BCE (likely in the 3rd actually), yet the Christians added more. Now what there is to add is a far different question.
 
Luke-Acts was a two-part work, Luke introducing some ideas and Acts filling them out. And to my point of view, Acts must date to the early 70's, regardless of our modern opinion about important events being left out. The readers would have known of these events as well as issues associated with them, some of which were best ignored so as to not remind the Romans or upset the Jews.

Regarding the death of James, the brother of Jesus, being connected to the Jewish rebellion, it does not make sense as usually presented. But if James was killed by Roman authorities in 64 it makes a lot of sense. According to Eusebius in various places, including where he cites Heqesippus, relations between official Judaism and James were at least cordial, not antagonistic, but a 64 killing of him by Romans would parallel Nero's persecution and the beginning of the Jewish rebellion in 64 would also fit better as an immediate cause for the uprising.

And there are numerous other hidden tidbits that get ignored that also suggest that something has been covered up, all of which would fit with keeping the Romans happy and hopefully off the backs of Christians. On the Jewish side there are similar hints that would help protect Jews. But all these are carefully concealed by tradition, don't look at that point, it is clearly irrelevant, don't interpret that passage in that way, such is clearly wrong, those ancient writers are clearly referring to a myth or legend, not actual history., etc
James' death was 62, not 64, and his murder was done by the Jews when the Roman leaders were absent in violation of Roman law. The Romans had nothing to do with the murder of James, unlike Jesus. GROK

Regarding the killing of James in AD62 who was the Roman leader who was absent and wasn't the killing of James by Jewish authoroties illegal by Roman law?

The Roman procurator (governor) who was absent was Lucceius Albinus.

en.wikipedia.org

This event occurred in 62 AD, as described by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20.9.1). Porcius Festus (the procurator) had just died, and Albinus (his replacement, appointed by the emperor) was still traveling to Judea from Alexandria and had not yet arrived in Jerusalem.

mcarthurdrcoc.com

What Happened (per Josephus)The high priest Ananus ben Ananus (also called Ananus the Younger or Hanan ben Hanan), a Sadducee known for being bold, insolent, and rigid in judgment, took advantage of the power vacuum.
He assembled the Sanhedrin (Jewish council), accused James (the brother of Jesus, called Christ) and some others of breaking the Jewish law, and had them stoned to death.

julianspriggs.co.uk

Many prominent Jews (described as the most equitable/law-abiding citizens) were outraged. They complained to King Agrippa II and sent a delegation to meet Albinus en route, arguing that Ananus had acted improperly.

en.wikipedia.org

Was It Illegal Under Roman Law?Yes, the execution was widely viewed as illegal or at least unauthorized under Roman oversight.

en.wikipedia.org

Under Roman rule in Judea, the Jewish authorities (Sanhedrin) had limited autonomy for internal religious matters, but capital punishment (especially via the Sanhedrin) generally required the Roman procurator's approval or involvement. This was to maintain imperial control and prevent independent exercises of lethal power that could lead to unrest.
--------------------------

Was there any indication that James had problems with Roman authorities?



No, there is no clear historical indication that James (the brother of Jesus, also called James the Just) had any direct problems or conflicts with Roman authorities.

en.wikipedia.org

Primary Sources on His Death The two main ancient accounts both point to internal Jewish opposition rather than Roman involvement:

Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1, ~93–94 AD): James and others were accused by the high priest Ananus ben Ananus (a Sadducee) of being "breakers of the law" (i.e., Jewish law). They were tried by the Sanhedrin and stoned during a brief power vacuum after Procurator Porcius Festus died but before his successor Lucceius Albinus arrived in Judea (62 AD). Prominent Jews objected not primarily to the charges against James, but to Ananus acting without Roman approval. Albinus was angry about the unauthorized execution, and Ananus was quickly removed from office. No Roman charges or direct Roman action against James appear here.

earlywritings.com

Hegesippus (via Eusebius, ~2nd century AD): This later Christian tradition describes James being thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple and clubbed to death by scribes and Pharisees after he affirmed Jesus as the Messiah from the Temple parapet. Again, this is portrayed as Jewish religious leaders acting against him due to his influence and piety among the people—no Roman officials or soldiers are involved.
 
James' death was 62, not 64, and his murder was done by the Jews when the Roman leaders were absent in violation of Roman law. The Romans had nothing to do with the murder of James, unlike Jesus. GROK

Regarding the killing of James in AD62 who was the Roman leader who was absent and wasn't the killing of James by Jewish authoroties illegal by Roman law?

The Roman procurator (governor) who was absent was Lucceius Albinus.

en.wikipedia.org

This event occurred in 62 AD, as described by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20.9.1). Porcius Festus (the procurator) had just died, and Albinus (his replacement, appointed by the emperor) was still traveling to Judea from Alexandria and had not yet arrived in Jerusalem.

mcarthurdrcoc.com

What Happened (per Josephus)The high priest Ananus ben Ananus (also called Ananus the Younger or Hanan ben Hanan), a Sadducee known for being bold, insolent, and rigid in judgment, took advantage of the power vacuum.
He assembled the Sanhedrin (Jewish council), accused James (the brother of Jesus, called Christ) and some others of breaking the Jewish law, and had them stoned to death.

julianspriggs.co.uk

Many prominent Jews (described as the most equitable/law-abiding citizens) were outraged. They complained to King Agrippa II and sent a delegation to meet Albinus en route, arguing that Ananus had acted improperly.

en.wikipedia.org

Was It Illegal Under Roman Law?Yes, the execution was widely viewed as illegal or at least unauthorized under Roman oversight.

en.wikipedia.org

Under Roman rule in Judea, the Jewish authorities (Sanhedrin) had limited autonomy for internal religious matters, but capital punishment (especially via the Sanhedrin) generally required the Roman procurator's approval or involvement. This was to maintain imperial control and prevent independent exercises of lethal power that could lead to unrest.
--------------------------

Was there any indication that James had problems with Roman authorities?



No, there is no clear historical indication that James (the brother of Jesus, also called James the Just) had any direct problems or conflicts with Roman authorities.

en.wikipedia.org

Primary Sources on His Death The two main ancient accounts both point to internal Jewish opposition rather than Roman involvement:

Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1, ~93–94 AD): James and others were accused by the high priest Ananus ben Ananus (a Sadducee) of being "breakers of the law" (i.e., Jewish law). They were tried by the Sanhedrin and stoned during a brief power vacuum after Procurator Porcius Festus died but before his successor Lucceius Albinus arrived in Judea (62 AD). Prominent Jews objected not primarily to the charges against James, but to Ananus acting without Roman approval. Albinus was angry about the unauthorized execution, and Ananus was quickly removed from office. No Roman charges or direct Roman action against James appear here.

earlywritings.com

Hegesippus (via Eusebius, ~2nd century AD): This later Christian tradition describes James being thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple and clubbed to death by scribes and Pharisees after he affirmed Jesus as the Messiah from the Temple parapet. Again, this is portrayed as Jewish religious leaders acting against him due to his influence and piety among the people—no Roman officials or soldiers are involved.
And of course, Jopsephus always told the truth, and recent discoveries that clearly indicate that Josephus was willing to lie in his histories must be wrong. Otherwise, Josephus was playing political games when he claimed a revelation from God that Vespasian was the prophesied deliverer for the Jews.

Now if Josephus was known to play political games with the Romans, then exonerating them from the death of James, which supposedly occurred with the procurator unavailable, even though the Jerusalem based garrison commander would have been present and in charge in his absence if no other Roman official had been appointed would have been just across the temple compound is immaterial.

But a simple question for you, most riots caused by some unjust action occur in the immediate aftermath, so why did the Jews wait two years before rioting, especially if there was no Roman authority present? Or was this another case of divine intervention to disrupt what would be expected under normal circumstances, direct divine intervention always provides a way out of difficult situations.
 
Revelation is interesting. The letters to the seven churches only make sense before the early 60's. However, other aspects would then have to be clearly prophetic and not referencing current events, which seems unlikely in some cases such as in Revelation 9, the imagery fits well in the 1st century (especially the 80's) but is very strange by the 3rd, and the new temple sounds like expectations from the 90's CE.

But I would not argue that the canon of scripture is automatically closed. The Jews officially counted it closed by the 2nd century BCE (likely in the 3rd actually), yet the Christians added more. Now what there is to add is a far different question.

I guess the only writing that might be added to the canon is something that was almost certainly by an Apostle, such as a lost epistle of Paul.

My view of Revelation is that it seems to be in the Johannine vein, and it is mainly a collection of OT prophecies applied to the Second Coming/Judgment Day, which might explain why the language sometimes seems more oriented toward good works than right faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rewriter
And of course, Jopsephus always told the truth, and recent discoveries that clearly indicate that Josephus was willing to lie in his histories must be wrong.
None named or cited. Plenty of the seculars reject historical claims like flood of Noah and Josephus wrote these as historical so it would not be surprising if He was accused by the fashionable moderns as a liar ofr not credible. To the Jews, Josephus was a collaborator with the Romans, so they did not like him at all.



Otherwise, Josephus was playing political games when he claimed a revelation from God that Vespasian was the prophesied deliverer for the Jews.
Looks like you are right about that. GROK


Summary: Josephus explicitly claimed personal divine revelation (via dreams and God's prophetic selection) that positioned him as God’s messenger announcing Vespasian’s destiny. He also reinterpreted Jewish messianic-style prophecies as pointing to Vespasian rather than a Jewish deliverer. This self-presentation helped save his life and secure his role as a historian under the Flavians. Note that this is Josephus’ own account; ancient sources like Suetonius confirm the prophecy story but without the same divine framing.
--------------------------

Your earlier claim about late dating for Acts to after 70 is nothing more than speculation without supporting evidence which i do not find compelling.