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.
Here's what Pope Peter I wrote in his encyclical II Peter.
II Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
What? Just when I said you made an excellent point? :-)
I'm still speechless over this!
I fully expected you to dance around the question of whether Honorius "taught" error, whether it was a valid council, or whether it was something else. IOW the deniability built into your system.
How's the weather up there? Is the sweet corn in yet? How about that sausage beating?
It has been raining and cold since last night. It's ok though, we needed rain.
The sweet corn is just beginning to come in. Most of it is still coming from New Jersey. It's good though.
The sausage beating is a non story. More interesting than a baseball game but a non story nevertheless.
No problem.
I am an A mil so I take that in light of Rev 20 -22
I scanned through that. If I understand correctly, you are saying that this happens at the end of days?
Now, what if you said 100% woman and 100% man?
Wait a minute. You are missing the idea of what OS is -- a lack of intimacy with the divine. Having your nature joined to the divine is about as intimate as you can get. So your objection is nonsensical. When Jesus joined the human nature to the divine it became "undamaged."
SD
The fact that we or Abraham misunderstood is our problem.
The sweet corn is just beginning to come in. Most of it is still coming from New Jersey. It's good though.
Something good from New Jersey? Who'da thunk it.
They bring up Southern corn here, starting ridiculously early in the year. I would feed it to animals, but not myself.
I have a personal rule that I only buy sweet corn from the actual people who grow it.
SD
Okay, let's carry this forward and use this passage as an instruction for how God theoretically might call for such a sacrifice.
He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." (Genesis 22:2)Now, presumably Abraham is going about this the right way -- God doesn't stop him, after all, because he is messing up the procedure, but rather because He doesn't really want Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. (Genesis 22:10)
So what do we see here? If God were to command human sacrifice, the model would seem to be a burnt offering on an altar, with the victim slain with a knife (death presumably being from loss of blood).
This doesn't match the death of Jesus.
Now, what if you said 100% woman and 100% man?
Classic set theory.
Set A can be 100% quality A and 100% quality B, so long as quality A and quality B are not mutually exclusive.
See my #1829.
A hermaphrodite? ;-)
Your question is biased to your position. The "normal" response is that one is either woman or man, not both.
This does not extend to Jesus, cause nowhere is it said that a person can not be both human and divine.
Malakhi will now post the "God is not a man" verse, but that is not meant to be taken that literally.
SD
This is predicated on two points, one minor, one major.
#1, You are assuming that God has only one mode of "human sacrifice." This is not shown. He very well could have somethign else in mind for Jesus than He did for Isaac.
(#1.5, Isaac was not sacrificed, so we can't really say at all that this is God's "method" of human sacrifice, since there was no sacrifice.)
#1, Were Jesus a mere "human sacrifice" you might have a point. But the fact is that it is an infinite sacrifice, not a finite one. So God can use whatever method He chooses. It's apples and oranges.
SD
Since our Eternity is determined here than I think the time we spend on this earth is a very big deal.
The Catholic Catechism says:
2089. "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. 'HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.'
Looks like error to me. From a Pope by golly.
Okay, let's carry this forward and use this passage as an instruction for how God theoretically might call for such a sacrifice.He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." (Genesis 22:2)Now, presumably Abraham is going about this the right way --God doesn't stop him, after all, because he is messing up the procedure, but rather because He doesn't really want Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. (Genesis 22:10)
So what do we see here? If God were to command human sacrifice, the model would seem to be a burnt offering on an altar, with the victim slain with a knife (death presumably being from loss of blood).
This doesn't match the death of Jesus.
This is an event ... not part of an instruction manual.
I believe that you may be a bit too preoccupied with the details.
Jesus' death looked nothing like a classic sacrifice scenario.
It can only be considered such in that it was purposed and allowed by God.
Interestingly, it is testified, by John, that the Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas, saw/prophesied/encouraged Jesus' death as a sacrifice for the Jewish nation, as well.John 11:45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.However, to everyone not in the know (one way or another), it looked like a typical crucifixion.
46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
Anyway, I agreed with Dave (despite Steve's endorsement) that my other argument was better. ;o)
For one example, the profoundly Spina Bifada baby has what kind of eternity in store?
They continued for another 30-40 years after Jesus's death.
Zzzzzzzzzzing!!! :o)
Rupaul.
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.