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.

... assuming, of course, that what the Catholic church teaches about Jesus is true.

Why yes. How else would you expect a Catholic to answer the question? The idea of the possibility of Jesus refusing His role is naturally tied to His identity.

Thank you, Dave. I shall now paraphrase:

That's one way of looking at it, for sure. There's no denying they are different conceptions.

The question, already stated, is did God intend to call all nations to emulate the customs and culture of the Jews or did He intend to embrace all nations who looked to Him?

You are still fighting this same battle, wanting the Jews to seperate from the dirty Gentiles.

You really don't have an accurate understanding of this. There was nothing inherently wrong with eating with gentiles. But Jews are bound to observe the dietary laws. If you went to a gentile's home, and the food they served was not kosher, you couldn't eat with them.

#1564

Re=read that post, it explains why Yeshua's death was NOT a blood atonement. He didn't meet several criteria. In addition to those, a blood atonement was the death of the sacrifice from loss of blood. There is nothing in the scriptures that suggest that Yeshua died by bleeding to death.

Exactly. Two classes of people, one shunning the other.

Exactly wrong. It seems clear that your opinion is that the Jews should break the commandments rather than break table fellowship.

If you drop by a friend's house on Good Friday, and he offers you a cheeseburger, are you going to eat it? If you don't, are you shunning him?

You really don't have an accurate understanding of this.

I think I do.

There was nothing inherently wrong with eating with gentiles.

As long as the Gentiles follow all the dietary laws.

But Jews are bound to observe the dietary laws. If you went to a gentile's home, and the food they served was not kosher, you couldn't eat with them.

Yes, that's what I said.

So any Gentile believer, even though not technically obligated to follow the dietary laws, must do so anyway or all of the Jewish believers will refuse to eat with him.

What am I missing? The Jews are still either forcing Gentiles to do things the Jewish way or shunning them.

The question, already stated, is did God intend to call all nations to emulate the customs and culture of the Jews or did He intend to embrace all nations who looked to Him?

Israel is to be a light to the nations, and to lead them to knowledge of God. Those of the nations are not required to convert to Judaism in order to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Some will choose to do so, certainly. Those who do not are to follow the laws of the covenant of Noah. They couldn't retain their pagan practices while purporting to follow the God of Israel.

Even the mainstream Protestants disagree with you on this.

Of course they do. And as Steven has labored to point out, they are inconsistent in this.

It is this that makes this "Messianic" thing so fascinating, cause it is an essentially Protestant mindset taken to an extreme.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory (as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

Look the word 'flesh' up in your lexicon and concordance if you don't trust my post about it. If you find a discrepancy, then come back and show where I mistated the definition of FLESH!

God knows all, God created all, God knew your every thought and action long before you were born.

1 Chronicles 22
9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.
10 He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

Another son! Imagine that!

So any Gentile believer, even though not technically obligated to follow the dietary laws, must do so anyway or all of the Jewish believers will refuse to eat with him.

Any Protestant believer must accept the doctrine of the "Real Presence" and convert to Catholicism, or the Catholics will not permit them to partake of communion.

What am I missing? The Catholics are still either forcing Protestants to do things the Catholic way or shunning them.

It is this that makes this "Messianic" thing so fascinating, cause it is an essentially Protestant mindset taken to an extreme.

Extreme? No. I should fit the definition of Protestantism to a tee. The rest choose to keep a bit of Catholesism all the while denying it. :-)

It seems clear that your opinion is that the Jews should break the commandments rather than break table fellowship.

Jews should embrace the New Covenant, just like any other people.

If you drop by a friend's house on Good Friday, and he offers you a cheeseburger, are you going to eat it? If you don't, are you shunning him?

That entirely depends on the situation. But in general, no. Here's the line you wanted: "A friend will understand my religious compunctions."

But you must understand, as I have said, that this was a New Offer from God. Ethnicity was not a factor. One can accomodate the older ideas, but not if they become a hindrance to fellowship. If Jews want to keep their customs as a cultural mark, that is fine. But insisting that they are still under the terms of the Old Covenant while bringing others into the New one is confusion.

Unless, of course, you don't believe there is such a thing as a New Covenant, which is really the basic disagreement among the parties here.

Then the coming of Jesus changed nothing. Which I guess is your point.

If Jesus just came to call the people to return to the Covenant, then He is hardly much of a figure.

What are we to make of Jesus sending the Apostles out to all of the nations? This is certainly unprecedented. This is something new.

Look the word 'flesh' up in your lexicon and concordance if you don't trust my post about it. If you find a discrepancy, then come back and show where I mistated the definition of FLESH!

I posted yesterday, and you ignored, that this discourse of yours is not impressive at all because all Trinitarian Christians do confess that Jesus is truly flesh. Can you address that?

(The letter 1 John, which you cite, was against an unnamed heresy that denied the humanity of Jesus. Trinitarians do no such thing. We confess Him as truly human.)

So any Gentile believer, even though not technically obligated to follow the dietary laws, must do so anyway or all of the Jewish believers will refuse to eat with him.

Any Protestant believer must accept the doctrine of the "Real Presence" and convert to Catholicism, or the Catholics will not permit them to partake of communion.

What am I missing? The Catholics are still either forcing Protestants to do things the Catholic way or shunning them.

All Baptised Christians are obligated to partake of Communion. Gentile believers are not obligated to follow dietary laws.

The situation would be parallel, and a whole lot clearer, if the early Church had just decided that everyone, everyone, had to convert to Judaism. Then we wouldn't be having this talk.

But since they had one standard for Jews and one for Gentiles, the question of obligation comes in.

On the contrary, the Catholic Church is quite clear that all Christians are under one obligation, regardless of ethnicity, race, or previous religion.

Unless, of course, you don't believe there is such a thing as a New Covenant, which is really the basic disagreement among the parties here.

I believe there's a newer covenant. But it doesn't exclude any of the older ones. The Noadic, Abrahamic, & Mosaic are from God as well. As a matter of fact Yeshua came to elaborate on the Abrahamic. He will return at the ressurection and reign from Jerusalem. Hence, the promises to Abraham will be complete.

Genesis 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Note that the covenant is "between me and thee" as well as with "thy seed after thee". And he will receive the land of Canaan "for an everlasting possession". I don't know about all this "heaven" stuff you Catholics teach. Looks to me like those ressurected will be spending a whole lotta time on earth.

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.