Posted on 07/01/2003 10:22:12 AM PDT by ksen
RECOVERING THE TRUTH & A COMING TO A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF JESUS
Jesus and all his followers were Jews who were faithful to Biblical Judaism and never intended to separate from or start a new religion; after their deaths the Gentile Christian church will condemn the Jewish Christians as heretics...in time fruit of the Jewish Church (Gentile Christianity) will destroy it's mother
We have a unique paradox in Biblical history; one which touches every follower of Jesus yet today and which reaches to the very core of our own culture and time. It is impossible to understand Jesus or his message until we come to a correct understanding of the events that fashioned such persecution of the Jews by the Gentile believers and which contributed to the alteration of the faith of Jesus as can be found to have existed in the first century of Second Temple Judaism. As stated earlier the first and greatest division in the early church concerned the relationship of the followers of Jesus to Judaism; it shaped everything that was to follow. One of the greatest problems facing Christianity today is how to reconcile what it has become with G-d's intended vision for the Gentile nations of the world whereby they become part of the Israel of G-d and not "replace" it with a religion of their own creation. The answers for such a problem come only when one personally acquaints himself with an unbiased presentation of the facts of the tragic events of this part of Biblical history and traces the repercussions of such events down through the corridors of history and ultimately seeing the shock waves from them that are present in our own religious beliefs systems and cultures of today.
Today many scholars tell us the truth today about the early church and courageously break from "church traditions" and "mind control" to present the facts concerning these "events" and the corruption of the early faith of the historical Jesus by the Gentile "converts" who would later steer the direction of this "faith" throughout recorded history. It is so simple today to find this information, but sadly few look or even know the need to see if "they be in the faith." That being the case, we accept the "spin" of religious leaders down through history and the real message of Jesus is never heard, or at best, is overlooked for more "orthodox teachings" espoused which have taken it's place. Keith Akers, in his The Lost Religion of Jesus, states the case as well as any. Jewish Christianity consisted of those early Christians who followed the teachings of Jesus, as they understood him, and also remained loyal to the Jewish law of Moses as they understood it. Messianic Judaism was not to replace Judaism with a new faith; it was the goal and zenith for which the prophets wrote and hoped. This simple statement is of profound importance, because the Jewish Christians were eventually rejected both by orthodox Judaism and by orthodox Gentile Christianity. The understanding of the Jewish follower of Jesus was not that of orthodox Christianity (as it came to be where Jesus is seen more like the sun-g-dmen of the Gentile nations than a human messiah). Likewise the Jewish follower of Jesus possessed an understanding of the law of Moses that was the same as orthodox Judaism, but yet this view would later be rejected under the influence of Paul and his churches. Jerome's celebrated comment in the fourth century summarizes this dual rejection: "As long as they seek to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians" [Letter 112] (Akers, The Lost Religion of Jesus, p. 7).
The Jewish Christians considered Jesus to be the "true prophet" who would lead the people back to the eternal law that commanded simple living and nonviolence. They saw in Jesus their hopes for physical redemption and the fulfillment of the prophets. It was their hope that the Law would go forth from Zion with Jesus at its head as the long awaited Messiah and King of Israel. It was their hope that the enemies of Israel would be vanquished by the word of this anointed one of the LORD as taught in the Psalms of Solomon (no not the psalms you are familiar with but a separate Jewish books that was recognized by Jews as authoritative in the first century). The law, which was cherished by all G-dfearing Jews, had been given to Moses; indeed, it had existed from the beginning of the world, and was intended to be cherished and observed by both Jew and non-Jew alike because in the Commandments one finds the unique Covenant stipulations of his Covenant before G-d. In sharp contrast with the gentile Christian movement, which emerged in the wake of Paul's teaching, Jewish Christianity strove to make the Jewish law stricter than the Jewish tradition seemed to teach ("you have heard it said but I say unto you...'much more'"). Such was the Jesus' love for G-d and His Word. But this cannot be said for the Gentile churches which strove to find ways to lay aside the law for the laxity that was taught under the disguise of "grace." In other words, the non-Jews loved the large "gray areas" that came from the teaching of Paul and others who negated the Law through their own personal "revelations" and their own personal "gospels" (Paul is found saying in Rom 2:16 16: In the day when G-d shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel and again in 2 Tim 2:8 8: Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel). It is a little early in this article to address this concept but if you study continues you will reach a point in your understanding and knowledge where you will see beyond any doubt that the "gospel of Paul" replaced the "gospel of Jesus and Judaism."
Jewish Christianity is the blind spot in virtually all accounts of Jesus. Everyone agrees that Jesus was a Jew and that his initial followers were Jews. Yet of the thousands of books written about Jesus, almost none acknowledge the central importance of Jewish Christianity; at least until the end of the previous century and the beginning of the present one. That was true up until the latter part of the last century when Jewish, as well as European scholars began to reevaluate the Jewish Jesus and contrast the Historical Jesus with the Christ of Faith. There are many who are eager to focus specifically on the Jewishness of Jesus, until they get to the point of examining those of his followers who, like their teacher, were also Jewish, and in doing so see for themselves that actually nothing really changed within this community of the closest followers of Jesus until the early fourth century when Rome would effectively destroy the Jewish "followers of Jesus" by declaring them official heretics. The power of Rome would propagate a Gentile understanding and not a Jewish understanding of Jesus (see Constantine's Easter letter if you have any doubts).
The "Jewishness" of these early Christians does not refer to their ethnic group or nationality, but rather to their beliefs. Paul was a convert to Judaism (H. Maccoby, The Mythmaker, Paul And The Invention Of Christianity) and only later converted to Judaism; first a Sadducee, and after rejection by the Chief Priest he turned to the Pharisees, again only to be rejected by them for his prior cruelty to them as an agent of the Temple police who routed them out and killed them (the Messianic believing strict branch of the Pharisees called Nazarenes/Essenes). Paul also preaches freedom from the law and therefore explicitly rejects Jewish beliefs. Paul, and some of the other Jews who became Christians, renounced the law of Moses and, therefore, were not part of Jewish Christianity. The churches of Paul today (vast majority of Christianity as it exists today) lay outside the true faith of Jesus and will continue to do so unless they encounter the truth about this man of Galilee and the truth about their own religious history.
Without understanding Jewish Messianic Judaism or "intended Christianity", we cannot understand the historical Jesus let alone the earliest church nor the corruption of it within the New Testament correctly. Lacking this knowledge we are doomed to misinterpret most of what we read in the New Testament and our worship let alone our conduct will be in error...much of which is defined as sin in the Torah.
C'mon, man. You can do better than that. You introduced Jerome's quote into the conversation. What did you think it meant and how was it relevant?
You usually make sense, but I don't understand this behavior. IF anything, the quote supports my position, but you presented it to me as if it refuted it. So what's up?
SD
I certainly didn't mean to say that there were never further controversies in the west before the situation died down.
SD
There is an indirect reference:
Acts 2:29,34
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens ...
In other words, David was not resurrected with the others, because of the murder of Uriah. However, he did obtain a promise that his soul would not be left in hell:
Psalms 16:10
10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
>> why didn't Mark, Luke, John, Peter, or Paul write about the dead bodies of the saints marching through Jerusalem, appearing unto many? Also, how come Matthew doesn't tells us any of the names of the saints that rose from their graves? Why doesn't he tell us with whom the bodies of the saints met, and what they said; they said anything, and where they went after their appearance unto the many? Did the bodies of the saints dutifully return to their graves after a polite little visit, or did they remain for years among the residents of Jerusalem?
This wasn't "dead bodies ... marching". This wasn't like the 'undead' of the old Dracula movies. They did not "return to their graves".
This was the beginning of the first resurrection, with Christ the firstfruits. The spirits of the ancient saints, who had waited so long (Abel, the first martyr, waited about 4000 years) were reunited with their physical bodies. Everything was restored to its proper and perfect frame. Not a hair of their heads was lost. Their bodies "lived again", immortal and incorruptible, never to die anymore. After "appearing unto many", bearing witness of the reality of the resurrection, they "ascended into the heavens" to live with God in eternity and a fullness of joy.
>> Is there proof of veracity for this event that has so many unanswerable questions?
Yes, click on the link and read the full account of what happened just prior to that event:
D&C 138:17
17 Their sleeping dust was to be restored unto its perfect frame, bone to his bone, and the sinews and the flesh upon them, the spirit and the body to be united never again to be divided, that they might receive a fulness of joy.
And further on the topic of the resurrection, read the following in context:
Book of Mormon, Alma 11:44
44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.
Book of Mormon, Alma 40:23
23 The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.
I bear witness that the resurrection is a reality, a free gift to all through the atonement of Christ, who saves us all from physical death, and from our individual sins on conditions of repentance.
1 Corinthians 15:22-23
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
(Yes, Paul did have something to say about it.)
Leviticus 11
26 The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.
According to the Hebrew Scriptures, the only animals permitted for sacrificial purposes are those that have split hooves and chew their cud. ;On these grounds alone, human beings are disqualified for sacrificial purposes. Jesus, as a human being, was unfit for sacrificial purposes.
Leviticus 16
18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.
19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
Jesus (unclean human species and blemished) did not die within the Temple precinct, at the hands of an Aaronic priest, or through the shedding of blood. Jesus' blood was not sprinkled on the altar by the Aaronic high priest.
Leviticus 17
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
The Gospels indicate Jesus' blood was not shed to a degree that would make blood loss from the body the exclusive cause of death. Death solely by blood loss is the only biblical cause acceptable for an animal's sacrificial death.
An animal blood atonement offering must be physically unblemished.
Leviticus 22 24 Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land.
Matthew 27 (as well as Mark 15:15, John 19:1)
26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
Jesus' humanity, the physical state of his body, (Jesus was physically abused prior to his execution), and the manner of his death (crucifixion) do not satisfy any blood atonement provisions found in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the death did not occur in the geographic location of the Temple.
So, no, it looks like Jesus' death didn't have anything to do with 'atonement'.
And this 'appearing unto many', bearing witness is not recorded by, Mark, Luke, John.... or Josephus. Why?
As for the other Gospels, there is no rule that they all have to be identical. Sorry. There are unique things mentioned by each author.
SD
You made an earlier claim that the western church did not have an Arian controversy. I simply pointed out that 34 years after Nicea, the vast majority of western bishops (all but five, if I recall correctly) signed on to a form of Arian belief. Of course those who were "orthodox" fought back. Eventually they carried the day (because the winds of power shifted back to their direction). And they wrote the subsequent history.
Had Arianism prevailed, today we would read about the early Trinitarian heresy which actually taught that the Son was equal to the Father.
Ok, fair enough!
Don't you think we should be consistent in method of evaluating?
Not identical. Just seems odd that such a spectacular event gets mentioned by or in one gospel.
.
Jesus (unclean human species and blemished) did not die within the Temple precinct, at the hands of an Aaronic priest, or through the shedding of blood. Jesus' blood was not sprinkled on the altar by the Aaronic high priest.
.
The Gospels indicate Jesus' blood was not shed to a degree that would make blood loss from the body the exclusive cause of death. Death solely by blood loss is the only biblical cause acceptable for an animal's sacrificial death.
.
Jesus' humanity, the physical state of his body, (Jesus was physically abused prior to his execution), and the manner of his death (crucifixion) do not satisfy any blood atonement provisions found in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the death did not occur in the geographic location of the Temple.
So, no, it looks like Jesus' death didn't have anything to do with 'atonement'.
Then you need to deal with the following verses which contradict what your statement that "Jesus' death didn't have anything to do with 'atonement'.
Ro 3:25a Whom(Jesus) God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood....Ro 5:9a Much more then, being now justified by his blood....
Eph 1:7a In whom we have redemption through his blood....
Col 1:14a In whom we have redemption through his blood....
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
I Pet 1:19a But with the precious blood of Christ...
Ga 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
I Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures:
He 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
He 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
He 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
He 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
He 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Are all the above verses part of the Orthodox conspiracy?
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
They had resurrected bodies of Flesh and Bone and would not remain here. I have heard it said the Bible is like a book of ANSWERS to QUESTIONS!
Enoch was trnaslated and we are left with many loose ends, like so many times in this book!
I am thankful for what we do have.
Granted. But then again, this theory works only if you accept that God plays dice with the universe.
With the risk of sounding too Calvinist, God gets what He wants. His Truth is marching on, etc.
SD
All written for different purposes to different audiences. Only John mentions the Bread of Life discurse, yet look what Truth is in there.
Paul mentions "rightly dividing" the Scriptures one time and a whole dispensationalist theory emerges.
Man does not live by bread alone but by every word from God.
SD
Although I disagree with ET on blood atonement I still have to ask. Are Papal authority, apostolic succession, Pepetual virginity, and Immaculate conception of Mary all orthodox conspiracys? I believe you'd have to answer yes.
Was He playing dice with the universe when he wiped out the world and saved 8 people? Or when he came down and confused languages and dispersed peoples?
No, it would seem He was directly intervening. Which was my point. The Trinitarians didn't just "happen" to win out over the Arians. God didn't start a Church and then watch its message fall to outside forces. He wasn't "hoping" that the true message would overcome.
No. He guides His Church.
SD
Lol. That's pretty arogant to say that if you and yours have it wrong it must be God's fault.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.