SECTION I
Chapter 6 -- The Earliest Christians in Jerusalem

   Unquestionably, the very first Christians (and therefore those who
SHOULD have understood Jesus the best) were his original apostles and
followers who had faithfully followed Jesus during his ministry in
Palestine.  Headquartered in Jerusalem, they gathered in worship, waiting
patiently for their Lord's return.

  The book of Acts gives a brief description of the activities of these
"Jewish" Christians who lived and worshiped in Jerusalem around this
time (ie around 30-40 C.E.):

     The many miracles  and  signs  worked  through the apostles
     made a deep impression on everyone.  The faithful all lived
     together and owned everything in common;  they  sold  their
     goods and  possessions  and  shared  out the proceeds among
     themselves  according to what each one needed. They went as
     a body to the Temple every day, but met in their houses for
     the breaking of bread;  they shared  their  food gladly and
     generously;   they  praised  God  and  were looked up to by
     everyone. (Acts 2:43-7)

   Here the book of Acts has preserved a snapshot picture of how the first 
Christians in Jerusalem had met together in houses for the breaking of 
bread and sharing of their possessions.

    Notice how this early Christian group went to worship in the Temple
every day as a group, while meeting separately for meals and fellowship. This
early group of Christians also believed in obeying all the laws and rituals
of Judaism. Therefore, it could be argued that these early Christians viewed
themselves as an elect sect WITHIN Judaism, as opposed to belonging to
a separate religion.

  In reviewing the beliefs of these first Christians in Jerusalem, which
included the original apostles of Jesus himself, we will start with the 
oldest writings in the New Testament--the letters from the apostle Paul. 
(For almost all scholars believe that the letters of Paul were written by
him sometime around 35-60 C.E., while the gospels and the book of Acts were 
penned sometime later--somewhere between 67-120 C.E.)

  As we shall see in the next chapter, Paul was NOT one of Jesus' original
apostles. (In fact he never even knew the historical Jesus, but had converted 
to Christianity after seeing a divine appearance by Jesus on his travels to 
Damascus.)  Paul believed God had chosen him to be His apostle to the Gentile 
community--whereas Jesus' original apostles were to minister to the Jewish 
community.

Jesus' Brother--James.

  Within his letter to the Galatians (1:19) Paul refers to the three
"pillars" of the Jerusalem church--"James, Cephas [or Peter], and John".

  Peter and John are of course important characters throughout the gospel
stories and in the book of Acts.  However James is NOT!  Only Paul identifies
him in the New Testament.  In his letter to the Galatians, Paul writes that 
James is "the Lord's brother"-i.e., the brother of Jesus.  (The relevant verses 
read: "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and 
remained with him fifteen days.  But I saw none of the other apostles except 
James the Lord's brother." (1:18-19).


  As we shall see, when Paul listed the three "pillars" of the Christian church, 
it was no accident that he mentioned James first. We know from other sources 
that James was not ONLY Jesus' brother, but ALSO the head of the Christians in 
Jerusalem following the crucifixion of Jesus. The fourth century Christian 
historian Eusebius wrote in his HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, that James was the "first 
to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem Church" (Eusebius' 
HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, Book 2 Chapter 23.  See Penguin edition, trans 
Williamson. pp 90-102). The apocryphal book of Thomas tells how Jesus named 
"James the Righteous" as the leader of the apostles after his departure from 
earth.

   That James is BOTH the brother of Jesus AND the first head of the
Christian church in Jerusalem is also seen in the writings of the historian 
Josephus. Josephus wrote in his JEWISH ANTIQUITIES, a passage calling James 
"the  brother of Jesus who was called the Christ".  (PP 151-2) James is 
described  as a strong character who led a pious religious life. Origen, a 
third century Christian scholar who read Josephus' works on the JEWISH WARS 
and ANTIQUITIES, wrote that he did not understand how Josephus had declared 
James to be a righteous man, BUT nevertheless had denied that Jesus was the 
Messiah. (Origen, CONTRA CELSUM).

    An account of James also exists by Hegesippus, a second century Christian 
who lived in  the Roman city Aelia Capitolina,(which was built upon the site 
of Jerusalem after it was destroyed by the Romans.)  In this account, James 
was known as the "Just" by the people, and frequently worshiped in the Temple. 
When the Jewish authorities approached James to calm down the people's 
expectation that Jesus' return was imminent, James instead inflamed their 
hopes by saying he believed Jesus would indeed return soon.  The Jewish 
leaders, in their anger, had him killed.

References to James in the Book of Acts

   The book of Acts (which chronicles the history of the early church
from roughly 35-55 C.E.) DOES mentions an important character named James who
was in a high position of authority within the Christian church. It just
NEVER bothers to identify who this "James" is.  This is no mere oversight,
because the book of Acts is VERY careful to identify other "James" characters
in it (such as the James who was the "brother of John").

 I have shown the references in the book of Acts to this unidentified
"James" below:

 (1)   When Peter miraculously escapes from prison (an angel freed
       him) he asks his friends to go and "Tell this to James and
       to the brethren". (Acts 12:17)

Note that James must be an important person for him to be specifically singled 
out by Peter for this message. (Some scholars refer to this speech as Peter's 
farewell speech, because he is never referred to again in Acts.  According to 
early Catholic tradition, Peter went to Rome and founded the Church there--
although there is no scriptural reference to this.) (See Section V Chapter 6)
 
(2) The author of Acts refers to James again-- this time within the setting 
of the council of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabus are
presenting their case for allowing the Gentiles to become Christians without
keeping some of the 'burdensome' Jewish rituals, such as circumcision and
kosher. After listening to them, "James answered, saying 'Men and brethren,
hearken unto me..." 

   Later, it is JAMES who makes the decision.  See Acts 15:19 where James
states "Wherefore my sentence is.." that the Gentiles are not troubled with
all the 'cumbersome' Jewish rituals. (Some translations have James say "I
rule" as opposed to "...my sentence is).  From this, it sounds as if James
is probably conducting the meeting.

(3) Paul specifically travels to Jerusalem to pay "a visit to James".
 Once in Jerusalem, Acts describes how "all the elders" of the Christian
 church were in attendance at this meeting. Paul is told he must
 worship in the Temple to prove his dedication to Judaism.  Paul brings
 some Gentiles with him, a riot ensues, and Paul is arrested.

The First Christian Leaders

    Not only was Jesus succeeded by his brother James--but their first
cousin, Simeon succeeded the Jerusalem Christian leadership after James was
assassinated. That the leadership of the Christian church in Jerusalem
reverted again to the CLOSEST blood relative of Jesus, points very strongly
to a dynastic succession of leadership. (Brandon, TRIAL OF JESUS, 57).
Since the Jewish Macccabean kings (and the Davidic kings) traditionally had
also ruled in this way, possibly the Christians were following a very
"Jewish" tradition of messianic kings. According to Josephus, when the
Romans captured Jerusalem in 70 C.E., they gave orders to round up all the
blood descendents of Jesus. Simeon, son of Jesus' uncle Cleophas, was
eventually executed under the Romans.

  Some religious scholars have attempted to downplay James' relationship
to Jesus: They point out that frequently in the Near East, the term
"brother" can also mean one's cousin.  Thus they would argue that James
was Jesus' "brethren."  Of course IF James was ONLY a "cousin" instead
of a "brother" to Jesus--the fact that he is NOT identified as the head of
the Christian church in Jerusalem, still represents a major omission from
the gospel stories!

  Also, the context of the gospels, make it sound as if Jesus did
indeed have brothers. According to the gospel of Luke, Jesus is referred to
as the "first-born" child of Mary.  And in Mark 6:3, is a passage where
residents of Nazareth first hear of Jesus' ministry, and then reply to
one another:

 "This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James,
  Joset and Jude and Simon?  His sisters too, are they not with us?
  (Mark 6:3)

Denigration of Jesus' Family in the Gospel Stories

   After the spectacular miracles surrounding Jesus birth as reported in
the gospels of Matthew and Luke, one would think that Jesus' own family
would have been strong believers in Jesus.  Instead, the gospel stories
state that they did NOT believe in him:

  * In Mark 3:21, when Jesus' "friends" heard his preaching, "they went
out to seize him, for they said 'He is beside himself'. A few verses later
in Mark 3:31, we are told that Jesus' "mother and his brothers came; and
standing outside they sent to him and called him." When Jesus was told
of this, he responded to the crowd around him: "Who are my mother and my
brothers? And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here
are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother,
and sister, and mother."

 *In Luke 14:26 Jesus is quoted as saying, Whoever "does not hate his own
father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes,
even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

 * In Mark 6:1-6, we are told that when Jesus "came to his own country",
that many were astonished after hearing him teach in the synagogue, saying:
"'Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What
mighty works are wrought by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the
son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, are
not his sisters here with us?' And they took offense at him. And Jesus
said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country,
and among his own kin, and in his own house.'" (Note: Both Matthew and
Luke dropped "among his own kin" from their versions).

  * According to John 7:5, "even his [Jesus'] brothers did not believe
in him."

  * In John 19:26-27, Jesus' brothers and sisters were implied to be
absent at his crucifixion, as Jesus' mother was given to the care of
the "beloved disciple".  Jesus speaks coldly to his mother at the scene
of the cross, "Woman, behold your son" per the gospel of John. (Mary is
not said to be present at the crucifixion scene in the other three gospels).

   According to Paul, the three pillars of the Christian church are James,
Peter, and John-- where James is the "brother of the Lord".  In the gospels,
Jesus is ALSO depicted as having an inner circle of three apostles named
Peter, James, and John--But here James and John are said to BOTH be the
sons of Zebedee. (Mark 5:37,9:2, 8:3,14:33;Matthew 17:1,26:37,Luke 8:51,9:28)
(Of course, maybe the James, son of Zebedee, was replaced by James, brother
of Jesus--but in view of the overall low respect given to Jesus' family
throughout the gospels--this seems unlikely).

    There are other discrepancies too.  Paul, in recounting the list of
people to whom Jesus appeared to after his resurrection, singles James out
as having a vision of the Risen Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:7) There is an
apocryphal work, THE GOSPELS ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS, that states James
was converted by this vision of the Risen Jesus. There is no mention of
an appearance to James, the brother of Jesus, in any of the gospels. Nor do
the gospels ever refer to Jesus as having a brother (or cousin?)  who
was active in their movement! The gospel of Luke mentions a resurrection
appearance by Jesus to Cleopas and an UNNAMED COMPANION on the road to Emmaus
(Luke 24: 13-32) Possibly, this appearance could have been referencing Jesus'
uncle Cleopas and his brother James--but if true, once against this is a
significant omission.

Why are the Gospels Silent on James' Special Relationship to Jesus?

  Some writers have argued that since Paul's writings mention that Jesus
made a resurrection appearance to his brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7),
that possibly James was converted AT THIS TIME—after which he somehow became
the leader of the Christian Jerusalem church.  The problem with this theory
is that ALL the gospel writers (including Luke in his ACTS) never mention
that Jesus' brother headed the first Christian church after his ministry.
Combined with this, Jesus' family is NOT presented (with the exception
during his early life) positively throughout the gospel stories.

   So what is going on here?  Why does there appear to be an effort to BOTH 
present Jesus' family as hostile to his ministry, plus NEVER mention Jesus' 
relationship to James?  Why (except in a few vague references in Acts), do 
the gospels never discuss the leadership of the Jerusalem Christians 
immediately following Jesus' crucifixion?

Split Between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians

   First of all, we know that a major split occurred before the gospels
were written-- between those Christians who wanted to keep Christianity
within the boundaries of the Jewish traditions, and those who wanted a
complete break with Jewish laws and customs.  The former tended to come from
religious Jewish backgrounds (and would include James, and most of the other
apostles).  The other group was primarily made up of hellenized Jews (those
Jews who had picked up a large number of Greek customs and beliefs, such as
Paul) and Gentiles who did not believe it necessary that Christian converts
should become "Jewish" too.  The historian Josephus mentions these two
groups when he states how Jesus' teachings "attracted many Jews and many of
the Greeks".

    As is common with most converts, typically adherents combine their
new beliefs, with older beliefs from their background.  As we have seen,
it is almost certain that the majority of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem
viewed Jesus as a loyal Jew who had been appointed by God to be the martyred
Messiah (or "anointed one").  In their minds, Jesus had died an honorable
death on the cross, at the hands of the hated Romans and their own corrupted
Jewish puppet rulers (who regularly cooperated with the Romans to maintain
their privileged positions.)  These Jerusalem Christians believed that
Jesus had been raised from the dead and would soon return, with supernatural
powers, to free the Holy Land from its oppressive foreign  rulers and
establish a new kingdom of Israel.

Paul's Conflict with Jewish Christians Over the Keeping of Jewish
  Laws and Covenants

   Paul rightly perceived that it would be easier to gain converts among
the Gentiles, if they were not "burdened" with all the Jewish laws and
covenants.  He specifically did not believe that they should be required to
keep the kosher food laws and to undertake a painful circumcision. The issue
exploded into a major ideological battle over how Christians perceived their
role in relationship to the Jews.

 In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul mentions that Christians were
 taking sides on this issue:

  "... there are serious  differences among you.  What I mean are all
  these slogans that you have, like 'I am for Paul', 'I am for Cephas
  [Peter]', 'I am for Christ'.  (1 Corinthians 1:12-13)

  In a letter to a group of Christians who had recently been converted in
Galatia, he referred to a group of certain others who taught " a different
version of the Good News".  Paul often seems to be cautious about naming
his opponents outright, but at one point, he becomes so exasperated he lets
it out--"As far as I can tell, these arch apostles have nothing more than
I have" (2 Corinthians 11:5).

  The author of Acts (Luke) consistently portrays a peaceful and loving meeting
between Paul and the Jerusalem church. However, Paul's OWN letters show
him to be seething with anger over this dispute, and (unlike the Acts
account) there was NO reconciliation between the two sides!

    In his letter to the Galatians, Paul recounts bitterly how Peter seemed
to initially agree to his views regarding relaxing the laws of circumcision
and kosher for the Gentiles, and had demonstrated this by sitting down
to eat with him and other Gentile converts.  But, when "certain men came from
James", Peter withdrew from the table fellowship "for fear of the group that
insisted on circumcision" (Galatians 2:12).

    Paul continues, in this same letter, how bitter he is against these
Jewish Christians:  "The other Jewish Christians showed the same lack
of principle; even Barnabas was carried away and played false like the
rest." (Galatians 2:13)

   Paul's letters are almost certainly a closer reflection to the true
situation--since they were written decades earlier than the book of Acts--
AND Paul is a first hand witness to the incident.  It has been estimated
that Paul's letter to the Galatians was written around the year 50 C.E.,
and refers to a scene that occurred some three years after his conversion,
or around 34 C.E. (Brandon, TRIAL OF JESUS, p 50)

What Happened to the Jerusalem Christians?

  As to what happened to this first community of Jerusalem Christians?--
their influence as the Mother Church of Christendom came to a halt around the
first Jewish revolt against Rome--in 66 C.E.  As we shall see in the next
chapters, there are some clues that this Christian community in Jerusalem
was sympathetic with the rebellion against pagan Rome, and possibly even
perished with their compatriot Jews during the final Roman siege that
destroyed both Jerusalem and her famous Temple.

  We have no surviving intact account of Jesus' ministry (gospel) from
the Jerusalem Christians, as the canonical gospels were all written
by GENTILE Christian communities (with the possible exception of Matthew)!
Some scholars have argued that there was no written surviving account by
this group of "Jewish" Christians, because they believed that Jesus was
returning soon. According to this theory, this group either merged later
back into Judaism or other groups of Christians.

  Some scholars believe that this group of Jewish Christians did leave
writings! However, as the gentile gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
became popular, these older Jewish texts became lost or were destroyed.
(The New Testament book of James is possibly one exception—as discussed in 
Section II, Chapter 12 this epistle is very different from the others in the New 
Testament).  In 326 C.E., the Council of Nicene voted on which religious texts 
were considered "inspired" and therefore included in the New Testament. After 
this time, all other writings were declared "heretical" and ordered destroyed. 
(See Section V, Chapter 2)

  Scholars are aware of a relatively large number of writings, some of
which are almost as old as the "official" gospel writings of Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John. Some of these were known by the very early Church
Fathers--Ignatius, Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, etc, who cite them in their
own writings, but which have become lost over the centuries.  These range
in scope from pro-Jewish writings to pro-Gnostic writings. In 1947,
there was an important discovery of early Jewish/Christian gnostic
writings at Nag Nammadi, Egypt which had been buried to escape the
religious burnings of "heretical" texts sometime during the fourth and
fifth centuries C.E. (See Section V, Chapter 1).

  However, although many early JEWISH (non-gnostic) texts are believed to have
been lost to us forever, many scholars believed that the gospel writers
did incorporate some of these older Jewish texts into some of their sayings
and events in the life of Jesus, when composing their own gospels. Below are
some examples of where some of these "older" beliefs and traditions found
themselves into the authorized canon of the New Testament:

 *  in Mark 10:17-8, a man  approaches Jesus with the question:
    "Good Master, what must I do to win eternal life"?  Jesus replies here,
    'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone'".

   *According to the gospel writers Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus predicted
     his return and the end of the world would occur during the lifetimes of
     the current generation. There are several references to this, which we
     shall look at later, here I am quoting from Matthew 16:27-28:

   "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his
   angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
   Verily I say unto you, 'There be some standing here, which shall not
   taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.'"

   *A Jewish Christian text was probably used by Luke (the author of Acts)
when he has Peter describe Jesus's resurrection to the Jews in Jerusalem:

  "Men of Israel, listen to me: I speak of Jesus of Nazareth, a man singled out
  by God and made known to you through miracles . . . When he had been given
  up to you, through the deliberate will and plan of God, you used heathen
  men to crucify and kill him.  But God raised him to life again, setting
  him free from the pangs of death, because it could not be that death
  should keep him in its grip." (Acts 2)

  Notice Jesus is NOT described as a divine god, but instead as "a man
singled out by God".  Jesus is raised to life by God, instead of by
his own inherent powers.  Nor is there any mention of Jesus being
described in terms of the "Son of God". (Maccoby, p 124-125)  Instead,
the picture portrayed here by Peter of Jesus is consistent with Jewish
views of the Messiah of Israel.

The Ebionites--or "POOR MEN" for Jesus

   Scholars know of some early groups of Jewish Christians (who survived up into 
the fourth century), who claimed to have been descended from the original
group of Christians at Jerusalem. Our main source of information on them is
from other Christians who branded them as "heretical", and accordingly, wrote
disparagingly on them. Recently, some other indirect evidence on them has
been discovered as well.

  One group of these Jewish Christians called themselves Ebionites, whose
name was derived from the Hebrew word "euyonim", meaning "poor men".  Possibly
by naming themselves 'the poor', they were referring to Jesus' sermons
which blessed the poor in spirit.  Geographically centered in the area
around Syria/Palestine, the Ebionites were declared to be a "heretical"
Christian group because they insisted Jesus was not a god, but was instead
a human being (born of normal human parentage). Through the power of the
Holy Spirit, Jesus had been designated as the messiah while he was an adult.
As  the messiah, Jesus would inaugurate a new age, as predicted by the
Jewish prophets in the old testament.

   The Ebionites believed in Jesus' resurrection and ascension into heaven,
and waited for him to return to establish a kingdom on earth, over which he
would rule for one thousand years. (Note: This belief in a thousand year
reign on earth is presented in the book of Revelations, whose author was a
Jewish Christian. One theory holds that Revelations was later edited by a
gentile Christians).

  The Ebionites faithfully observed the Jewish laws and traditions.  They
deprecated the writings of Paul (whom they claimed was no true Jew)--
considering them a perversion of Greek philosophy, replacing "TRUE" Jewish
laws and traditions.  The early Christian writer Epiphanius wrote that he
heard the Ebionites claimed that Paul "was a Greek... He went up to
Jerusalem...and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a
passion to marry the daughter of the priest." For this reason he became a
proselyte and was circumcised.  Then, when he failed to get the girl,
he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the
sabbath and the Law.  (Epiphanius, PANARION, 30.16.6-9).  Note this account
probably is heavily distorted, first due to the hatred of the Ebionites
towards Paul, and secondly due to the hostility of Epiphanius towards
these "unorthodox" Christians.

  It was recently discovered that a first hand account of these Jewish
Christian writings were ACCIDENTLY preserved because they were (erroneously)
thought to have been written by Pope Clement I--who, according to Christian
tradition had been a disciple of Peter.  Many scholars today agree that
contained in this work are writings by some Jewish Christian (possibly
Ebionite) groups who lived in Syria during the second century C.E.

  These writings attached a strong reverence to the Jewish Torah. They
also contained a passionate attack against those who were spreading lies
that Peter held anti-Torah views. The primary villain named was a certain
false prophet called "Simon Magus".  According to this writer, Simon Magus
knew nothing about the real Jesus--since he never met him and was basing
his views on delusive visions.  Some scholars believe that this "Simon
Magus" could easily have been a code name for Paul--who, as we will see,
also knew nothing about the historical Jesus, but based his entire
reputation on a vision he had of Jesus on the road to Damascus.

   During the third and fourth centuries C.E., the Ebionites found their 
doctrines under attack by both "orthodox" Christians (who had become
increasing more gentile in outlook over the centuries), and also by the
Jews (who were in the process of "purifying" themselves from all pagan,
anti-Torah influences.) Thus, before the Ebionite sect died out, its
faithful followers had the unenviable position of being hated by both sides --
i.e., by Jews AND (Orthodox) Christians!

  Beginning in the fourth century C.E., the Ebionites and other "heretical"
Christian sects were outlawed during the consolidation of power by the
Orthodox church (which in the West became the Catholic Church).

  As we shall see next, the doctrines that became incorporated by the
Catholic Church-- were largely based on Paul's views--making Paul the
most influential figure (after Jesus himself) within Christianity.