Replies

So for me, the lesson of the Netzer goes to something purer and older than Rome or it's Protestants. Yeshua as a Netzer must certainly be of the older root - The same root that has always been, as His Tree will be exactly what has always been, less the rot of apostasy... *NOT* something new

I’m not sure what exactly this “older and purer” something is. We have accounts in the Bible of early Christian worship. It developed from Temple and synagogue. Rather than ramble on with my own thoughts, I post this web page on early Christian liturgics.

To address your expressed contempt for all things hierarchical, I would point to the book of Acts, specifically the council that was convened to decide what to do about the Gentiles.

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

Here is an organized structure of authority. (Note the three – church, apostles and elders.) We Orthodox like to remind the Catholics that it was James, not Peter, who spoke the decision of the assembled council. Regardless, here is recognized authority, exercised under the Holy Spirit, by James’ declaration. Hierarchy.

I do not seeing evidence of a brand new shoot in early Christian worship as recorded in Scripture. The fact that the Apostles kept the hours of prayer at the temple, and later in Acts chapter 21, Paul is in the Temple for seven days performing a purification ritual…this indicates conscious continuation, a connection to what had been before.

This is important because Orthodoxy (or orthodoxy) consists of both right belief and right worship. When I went searching, I looked at who made verifiable claims to this. I narrowed it down to the Catholics and the Orthodox. My attendance at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy began the sealing of the deal. “Come and see.” In a borrowed space, not ornate in the least, I witnessed worship that was worthy of God. Grappling with the belief part took a while.

Returning to the “netzer”, I believe this is the passage – Isaiah 11:1-2.

11 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

This a referring to the person who would be Messiah. It’s quite a stretch to transfer this to the Church that our Lord said that He would build upon the rock of Peter’s confession.

[roamer_1:] So for me, the lesson of the Netzer goes to something purer and older than Rome or it's Protestants. Yeshua as a Netzer must certainly be of the older root - The same root that has always been, as His Tree will be exactly what has always been, less the rot of apostasy... *NOT* something new

Thanks for that site. My what an exhaustive treatise. I must confess, however, that I only lightly perused the stuff concerning 600AD onward, as I suspect that the great apostasy was already well under way by that time.

But I think the article, while declaring some credence in the origin of Christian liturgy within Jerusalem and in the synagogue, I think it glosses over the Faustian bargain made with Constantine. And probably to your surprise, it is not the syncretism encountered there (or perhaps shortly before or after), but rather the acceptance of Christianity without it's Jewish roots, which IMO, introduced a vacuum by which (and into which) that syncretism was inhaled.

I do understand that Judaism rejected the Nazarenes, and that played some part in the split, but from the point of Rome's acceptance onward, Christianity could not any longer claim relation to Judaism, even as a red-headed stepchild, because the symbiosis which occurred upon that occasion aimed directly at the rift between Judaism and Christianity and tore them asunder.

I come from a weird angle on this because I do believe the sacraments and liturgies of Judaism (of the Temple and synagogue), not to mention the Holy Days, are prophetic by design. Their practice was always meant as a rehearsal for something to come, even those things which were remembrances of what seemingly had gone by. Such things being rejected, there is no longer a valid purpose, and one is left with 'a form of godliness while denying His power'. Just sayin.

The article touched on that, suggesting that the things of Judaism were no longer necessary, since the coming of Yeshua fulfilled it all. I reject that explicitly, and find such an idea akin to replacement theology - Even a passing knowledge of the Old Testament will leave one knowing that it isn't all fulfilled. Not by a long shot.

To address your expressed contempt for all things hierarchical, I would point to the book of Acts, specifically the council that was convened to decide what to do about the Gentiles.

As a point of order, I do not have contempt for all things hierarchical.

[...] We Orthodox like to remind the Catholics that it was James, not Peter, who spoke the decision of the assembled council. [...]

Yeah, I've gone there a time or two myself. :D

Here is an organized structure of authority. (Note the three – church, apostles and elders.) [...] here is recognized authority, exercised under the Holy Spirit, by James’ declaration. Hierarchy.

Even the most congregational of non-denom churches have a similar structure, less the Christian 'nobility'... So it isn't hierarchy per se, but rather the interpretation of what proper hierarchy should be. My interpretation of the passage you presented is probably not the same as yours. I certainly do not see the sort of hierarchy claimed by Rome.

But be that as it may, I was speaking more toward lateral organization being more likely to shed heresy than vertical organization. That is not necessarily pointed only at Rome (or y'all)... Many Protestant organizations have too much overhead also. It is easy to see the same principle at work in corporations and governments as well - The more layers between the top and the bottom, the harder it is to turn direction... Which is to your advantage, btw, providing the direction is true. I do not think that is so. The inventions of the last 2k years stand as evidence.

Most emphatically true. But then, the synagogue should be evident within the church today, no? It is not.

Returning to the “netzer”, I believe this is the passage – Isaiah 11:1-2. [...] This a referring to the person who would be Messiah. It’s quite a stretch to transfer this to the Church that our Lord said that He would build upon the rock of Peter’s confession.

As a first point, that is not the only reference to the Branch. There are many.

And secondly, how can it be that His Church is not a reflection of Him? He is the ultimate example. And He did not 'go along to get along' with the assembly of His day. To my knowledge, every single time he got cross-threaded with the priests and scribes, it was over their inventions and novelties. It isn't even arguable that he was pointing back to Moses, and away from the Talmud... What do you suppose He would do in our day?

I do not think that His description as a netzer is limited to his bloodline, because his bloodline is only tangentially important (fulfilling the Davidic Covenant and establishing legal legitimacy as heir apparent) His primary inheritance is as the Seed of Abraham, and His true inheritance springs directly from the Father.