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.
Yes, but it amounts to the same. You feel certain Councils of this very visible Church were "OK" and at some point they were not. you must, at least, accept the Council which canonized the NT.
SD
SD
He was tempted as we are. He was human.
Yes he was.
But, ... was Yeshua ... prone to sin and opposed to God ?
Duh.
What does "duh" mean? He's either an apostle or he's not.
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.
Sure they are. If they're apostles and jews they're jewish leaders.
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.
In the end God, when all is said and done, God will have protected His church from error. Right now in your church its easier to count the things that are correct.
I believe that he was human. Yeshua was NOT God, in any way, shape or form. Yeshua was NOT a demi-god, in any way shape or form. He was born 'of the seed' of David, 'according to the flesh'.
Yeshua was sent (acted as an agent/emissary) by God to preach repentence, and to SHOW us how to properly follow and observe the commandments. Jonah was sent to Nineveh to preach repentence. Not all humans are opposed to God, and all humans differ in the quanity and seriousness of their sins. Some humans are genuine in their repentence (contrite heart), and strive to overcome sin. Others just pay lip service and then go right back to what they had just repented of.
... you must, at least, accept the Council which canonized the NT.
Yeah ... that's the one!
Since he showed us that fulfilling Torah is possible we don't have to be prone to sin either.
James is the one that was in charge after the crucifixtion. NOT PETER!
Duh means he is an Apostle and you are missing the point.
If they're apostles and jews they're jewish leaders.
Tthat makes the Pope a "Polish leader" and JFK was a "Catholic leader."
SD
I can deal with that.
So you say. But what happened after James, and after the next guy, and after him?
You and Steven should debate this whole Jesus thing. He still seems to be clinging to the idea that the death of Jesus somehow is efficacious for our salvation, where you have prudly proclaimed that it is not a sacrifice that is acceptable to God.
SD
Not all humans are opposed to God, and all humans differ in the quanity and seriousness of their sins. Some humans are genuine in their repentence (contrite heart), and strive to overcome sin. Others just pay lip service and then go right back to what they had just repented of.
Doesn't this contradict scripture ?Psalm 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
I think God was making an observation here. Do you think He's encouraging us not to try and obey commandments anymore cuz its impossible?
So you say.
Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History
http://biblefacts.org/ecf/cvol1/euseb_b2.html
Book II
CHAPTER I.
The Course pursued by the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ. First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, who, as has been shown was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to the apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, for the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen was one. He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been promoted for this very purpose. And thus he was the first to receive the crown, corresponding to his name, which belongs to the martyrs of Christ. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, "was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together," as the account of the holy Gospels shows. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Savior, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."
In Galatians 2:1-10, Paul gives more information about the pre-eminence of James in the confrontation in Antioch that follows his discussion of what transpired in Jerusalem in regard to 'the Gospel as he proclaimed it among the Gentiles.'
This event is also called the Jerusalem Council, and its parrallel is in Acts 15.
Acts15
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Galatians 2:6,9
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
Paul must have forgotten about this part:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
James was the successor of Jesus. James was the Leader of the Jerusalem Community (Assembly) and of the Church as a whole. James was the Head of Christianity of his day, whatever this may have been said to be. Bishop of Jerusalem is not simply one among equals, but the leader. This is why Paul resented James so much, and it is why James sent others to spy on Paul. And this is why Peter left the table at Antioch. If Peter had been 'in charge', why feel guilty about breaking table fellowship with gentiles? Answer, because James was in charge and Head of the Church
Galatians 2
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
They left because James who was in authority sent people to check up on things in Antioch, and they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar so to speak.
But what happened after James, and after the next guy, and after him?
After James was assassinated I don't who replaced him. I'm not Jewish remember? I'm a gentile that grew up with the falacies/indoctrinations of the church. Perhaps malakhi or Invincible knows.
... there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
I think God was making an observation here. Do you think He's encouraging us not to try and obey commandments anymore cuz its impossible?
I agree that God was making an observation here.
Do you think that God's observation contradicts ...Not all humans are opposed to God, and all humans differ in the quanity and seriousness of their sins. Some humans are genuine in their repentence (contrite heart), and strive to overcome sin. Others just pay lip service and then go right back to what they had just repented of.
Thank you.
And this is why Peter left the table at Antioch. If Peter had been 'in charge', why feel guilty about breaking table fellowship with gentiles? Answer, because James was in charge and Head of the Church
Huh? Can you explain what you are trying to say?
Peter had made the decision to not treat the Gentiles as "dirty," but he had not done what he said. This is why Paul rebuked him, for not doing what he said should be done.
You are still fighting this same battle, wanting the Jews to seperate from the dirty Gentiles. God loves all of us.
From the NIV, same passage:
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
James was also not living up to his "decision" at the Council. James scared all of the Jews into shunning the Gentile converts. Instead of treating all as brothers.
But what happened after James, and after the next guy, and after him?
After James was assassinated I don't who replaced him. I'm not Jewish remember? I'm a gentile that grew up with the falacies/indoctrinations of the church. Perhaps malakhi or Invincible knows.
Why would being Jewish make you an expert on the early Christian Church?
Nevermind. You took my question too literally. What you are missing is that the Apostles had successors. You refuse to follow them.
SD
It wasn't about customs. The ordeal in Antioch was about table fellowship. The Jews still had to follow the dietary kosher guidelines. Gentiles had less restrictions with their food guidelines.
The gentile could go to the home of a Jew and eat, and not have to worry about breaking any food laws. The reverse was NOT true, though.
Since gentiles didn't have to follow all the food laws, the Jew would be at risk of breaking the dietary laws, if they went to the home of a gentile to eat, the Jew wouldn't know if the food was kosher, in compliance with their stricter guidlelines.
Circumcision for gentiles was done away with, but Paul used the word to differentiate between the Jew and the Gentile. Antioch had nothing to do with circumcision per say, it was about table fellowship.
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.