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.
OK. I don't think I'm smarter than those who went before me. I just root my authority in the New Covenant Church rather than in the Old Covenant Judaism.
SD
Those are not quite on a par as denying Jesus' blood atonement. I would argue that a saved person can mistakenly believe those doctrines but someone cannot discount the salvific effects of the blood, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and be a Christian.
Of course God has free will. However, He cannot act in such a way as to violate His nature. God is free to will whatever is in His nature, just the same as you or I are.
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.
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.
An animal blood atonement offering must be physically unblemished.
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'.
I don't believe that humans are considered to be animals by the scriptures ...
... elsewise, per your first argument, humans would be universally, constantly, consistently unclean, simply by virtue of their physical characteristics.
If such were true, then the distinctions made in the Law, as to when humans are unclean make no sense.
Ergo, those rules which governed animal sacrifices need not be applicable to the sacrifice of Jesus.
They may not be on par with the others but it seems a bit funny that someone who believes in all those Orthodox Corruptions would chastise another on the same grounds.
Guess you don't realize you "New Covenant" church and your Messiah is rooted in the "Old Covenant".
Let me re-word this. I guess you don't realize what you believe to be the "New Covenant" church has its roots in the "Old Covenant".
Of course I realie that. What you don't seem to realize is that Jesus took authority away from the scribes and Pharisees and gave it to His Apostles.
There's a new boss in town.
SD
What you don't realize is that there were many jews other than certain scribes and pharisees.
Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
And there were 13 successors and blood relatives of the Messiah as head of the Church until 135ad. I doubt the Savior ever meant his "authority" to be given to St. Constantine.
Free will. How do you know that what you 'think' is Truth, is really the Truth?
You believe (?) that God let his Truth be buried.
God is not the author of confusion.
1 John 4
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
flesh from the Greek
4561 sarx sarx probably from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specially), a human being (as such):--carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh(-ly).
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
2) the body
a) the body of a man
b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship
1) born of natural generation
c) the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature"
1) without any suggestion of depravity
2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin
3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering
3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast
4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God
There is nothing to indicate that 'flesh' is anything but, 100 percent flesh and blood, fully human
The word 'flesh' can and is translated elsewhere to indicate the carnal, or carnally minded.
Acts 2:30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
1 Peter 4
1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.
3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:
1 John 4
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
antichrist from the Greek
500 antichristos an-tee'-khris-tos from 473 and 5547; an opponent of the Messiah:--antichrist.
1) the adversary of the Messiah
anti from the Greek
473 anti an-tee' a primary particle; opposite, i.e. instead or because of (rarely in addition to):--for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.
1) over against, opposite to, before
2) for, instead of, in place of (something)
a) instead of
b) for
c) for that, because
d) wherefore, for this cause
The antichrist is an:
Messiah from the Hebrew
4899 mashiyach maw-shee'-akh from the root of 4886;
anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint);
specifically, the Messiah:--anointed, Messiah.
1) anointed, anointed one
a) of the Messiah, Messianic prince
b) of the king of Israel
c) of the high priest of Israel
d) of Cyrus
e) of the patriarchs as anointed kings
Now Christ from the Greek
5547 Christos khris-tos' from the root 5548;
anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus:--Christ.
Christ = "anointed"
1) Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God
2) anointed
Notice what IS MISSING? In the Greek, there are no other options given.
1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
The antichrist and other antichrists were already around when John wrote his epistle.
John makes perfectly clear that MANY antichrists had gone out FROM THEM (early believers) teaching false doctrine regarding Messiah Yeshua. These "antichrists," or usurpers of the true Messiah, were promoting doctrines that presented a Christ that was in place of or instead of the TRUE Messiah. They were teaching a "replacement" Messiah.
John was a Hebrew; therefore, it is probable that the "us" John refers to in 1 John 2:19 is likely His brethren that followed Yeshua the Messiah as defined from their Hebraic context.
1 John 4
6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
The "spirit of antichrist" is equated to a "spirit of error". CLEARLY, antichrist represents an error - false teaching - that was (and IS) being spread.
Antichrist = erroneous doctrine. Antichrist primarily represents a set of false teachings, not simply some future possible world religious/political figure. Those accepting the error promoted by the "spirit of error" or "spirit of antichrist" are unintentional victims of the spirit of antichrist.
So, the "antichrist" was (and is) a doctrine or set of doctrines that oppose the truth concerning Messiah (Christ). This set of doctrines was already being spread in the latter part of the first century as false teachers betrayed the truth and went out promoting teachings that were (and are) in opposition to the TRUE Messiah.
1 John 4
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (100% fully human, flesh and blood) is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (100% fully human, flesh and blood) is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (100% fully human, flesh and blood). This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
John warns us to beware of those that do not acknowledge that Yeshua Messiah (Jesus christ) is 100 percent, human flesh and blood.
As I said, God is not the author of confusion. But, the antichrist is......
Think about it.
Since when have I ever believe in Papal Authority, Apostolic Succession, the Immaculate Conception, and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?
Or were you saying something else?
Sorry. I meant to say "For someone who believes all those to be orthodox corruptions".
So? None of them were given the authority that the Apostles were. Your point is moot. New Covenant. New Leaders.
Why would I continue to follow Jewish leaders when Jesus had put the Apostles in charge?
And there were 13 successors and blood relatives of the Messiah as head of the Church until 135ad.
Go on believing that.
SD
4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God.
So, ... you believe that Yeshua was ... prone to sin and opposed to God ?
Duh. This is orthodx Christology 101. There is no confusion here. Jesus is 100 percent human.
SD
The implication being that these are a pattern of "corruptions" starting from day one. Protestants find some point or Council from which they have to part ways. Steven has just chosen an earlier time.
SD
Paul said James was an apostle.
Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Do you believe Paul?
Why would I continue to follow Jewish leaders when Jesus had put the Apostles in charge?
Gee that's funny. I thought all the apostles were jews.
And there were 13 successors and blood relatives of the Messiah as head of the Church until 135ad.
Go on believing that.
Why should I not? Did Heggisipus and Esuebius lie?
He was tempted as we are. He was human.
What he means is "you don't listen to the Catholics on these other matters (Mary, etc.), so why do you on Christology?"
The implication being that these are a pattern of "corruptions" starting from day one. Protestants find some point or Council from which they have to part ways. Steven has just chosen an earlier time.
Actually, it is more correct to say that Protestants check all doctrines against the scriptural evidence, ... keep those which are scripturally supported, ... and discard the rest.
Duh.
Gee that's funny. I thought all the apostles were jews.
But not "Jewish leaders" meaning leaders of the Jews, the priests and the scribes, etc. Don't act stupid.
You would rather behave as a Jew than accept the leadership of the Church. You don't like what became of it, so you fantasise that God failed in protecting the Church from error.
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.