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.

Jesus, being the foremost of all God's prophets, has spoken in the Holy Gospels, and God did, does, and will preserve Jesus' words for all generations. "The word of the Lord is precious, like silver, tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. You will keep them O Lord! You will preserve them from this generation forever!"

Peter and Paul, being prophets and apostles of the Lord, as the Holy Gospel of Luke testifies, we can also trust, for just as God was able to work miracles through them, He is also able to speak. John, likewise, proves his own trustworthiness by the Gospel he wrote, and his other writings also testify that he is one of God's prophets. These all saw Jesus, and were spoken to by him, and their reputations are without blemish, being approved both by God and the church.

As for the remaining titles: Hebrews, Jude, and James, we can only apply the rule that John wrote: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God"

Accordingly, I personally am inclined to put a question mark next to James. I don't completely discount it, but I think all the other books are secure in a way that it is not.

I think this constitutes a reasonable approach to the NT. However, it is clear that if a man accepts the whole of what is called the NT, he will not go far wrong.

Peter and Paul, being prophets and apostles of the Lord, as the Holy Gospel of Luke testifies, we can also trust, for just as God was able to work miracles through them, He is also able to speak. John, likewise, proves his own trustworthiness by the Gospel he wrote, and his other writings also testify that he is one of God's prophets.

If Luke testifies to Peter and Paul, who testifies to Luke? Who told you that John is the author of the Gospel bearing his name, or Matthew, or Mark?

Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken from the beginning: from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Isaiah 48:17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way thou shouldest go. Three distinct people are mentioned in this passage. Who are they? I submit that they are: 1. The LORD, thy Redeemer - Jesus, God the Son 2. The Lord GOD - God the Father 3. His Spirit - God, the Holy Spirit.

No offense but its another attempt to read Trinitarian theology retroactively back into the scriptures. The Lord was in the business of redeeming before the Messiah's appointed time. Do a search of the word "redeemer" and you'll see.

As far as God the Father is concerned. Paul said:

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

One God, the Father pretty much explains it.

The Spirit is "Ruach", The breath of God. The presense of God in the earth. No reason to get the heeby jeeby's because the Comforter was refferred to as a "He" once in the entire NT.

Two questions ...
1. What does it mean (to you) that Yeshua is God's only begotten son?

2. Why do you believe that the begetting of Yeshua occurred at his baptism (i.e. what supports this belief for you) ?

Before I answer these and since I've already answered a couple of your previous questions. What are your views concerning pre-existence of Messiah?

Okay, ... but, while I pull this together, ... may I present, ... for your consideration, the following question as well ?

How do you interpret the following passage ?
Matthew 12:1-13

1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple

7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
When Yeshua says that “ … in this place is one greater than the temple,” … who do you believe that he is referring to ?

When Yeshua says that “ … the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day,” … who do you believe that he is referring to ?

When Yeshua says that “ … in this place is one greater than the temple,” … who do you believe that he is referring to ?

I agree. My beloved Messiah is greater than the temple. Does that make Him God? No.

When Yeshua says that “ … the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day,” … who do you believe that he is referring to ?

To himself. The Son of man. Lord is equivilant to master. This verse does nothing to make Him God either.

Steve your heresy is nothing new to the church. It is not some grand "discovery" .

Mom, you are more right than you may know.

Rediscovering the "historical Jesus" isn't unique to the 20th century post-modern era, but has been attempted by many differnt sects who diverged from mainstream Christianity. Anti-trinitarians existed from the dawn of Christianity.

This is nothing more than the same old Arian bullcrap repeated ad nauseum.

In the I Corinthians 8:6 passage, what is the "all things" that are "by him?"

I don't take any offense at your post. However, you didn't tell me who the three different personages in that passage were.

Or were you saying that it was just God the Father talking to Himself? If that is your contention then the passage becomes meaningless saying, "...there am I (the Father): and now the Lord GOD (the Father) hath sent me (the Father)."

1 ¶ In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

-- Heb. 1:1-3 [NIV]

Game, set, match.

When Yeshua says that “ … in this place is one greater than the temple,” … who do you believe that he is referring to ?

I agree. My beloved Messiah is greater than the temple. Does that make Him God? No.

When Yeshua says that “ … the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day,” … who do you believe that he is referring to ?

To himself. The Son of man. Lord is equivilant to master. This verse does nothing to make Him God either.

I agree, as well.

There is not enough evidence here to conclude that Yeshua is God.

But, ... may we conclude ... that he was someone greater than an ordinary man (like you or me) ?

1 ¶ In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Same ol' tired Trinitarian verses used by anti-Messiah polythiests for 2,000 years. Big deal. God had the concept of Messiah planned when he created the Universe. Yawn!

Or were you saying that it was just God the Father talking to Himself? If that is your contention then the passage becomes meaningless saying, "...there am I (the Father): and now the Lord GOD (the Father) hath sent me (the Father)."

But, it IS the Father/God/Yahweh

Isa 49:26
And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD (3068) [am] thy Saviour and thy Redeemer , the mighty One (46) of Jacob.

from the Hebrew
46 'abiyr aw-beer' from 82; mighty (spoken of God):--mighty (one).
1) strong, mighty - used only to describe God
2) the Strong - old name for God (poetic) AV - might (One) 6; 6

from the Hebrew
3068 Yhovah yeh-ho-vaw' from 1961; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:--Jehovah, the Lord. Compare 3050, 3069.
Jehovah = "the existing One"
1) the proper name of the one true God
a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136

3050 Yahh yaw contraction for 3068, and meaning the same; Jah, the sacred name:--Jah, the Lord, most vehement. Compare names in "-iah," "- jah."
1) Jah (Jehovah in the shortened form)
a) the proper name of the one true God
b) used in many compounds
1) names beginning with the letters 'Je'
2) names ending with 'iah' or 'jah'

There is nothing within those definitions that indicate any trinity.

Isa 49:26
And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD [am] thy Saviour and thy Redeemer , the mighty One of Jacob.

Words have meanings. Yahweh could have said 'trinity' in that verse, but He DIDN'T, He said ONE.

Why do there have to be 3 personages......The Lord God and his spirit.....same thing.....(ruach/breath).....The Lord God redeemer is same as well. Again, retroactive trinitarianism.

Ok, I'll lay off the Spirit personage for now since it's not germane to the larger point I'm trying to make.

In the Isaiah passage someone is sending someone else. The someone being sent is the "LORD (Jehovah) the Redeemer", the some one doing the sending is "the Lord (Adonai) GOD (Jehovah)."

Is Jehovah sending Himself? Who is Adonai Jehovah sending and who is this Jehovah that is being sent?

Same ol' tired Trinitarian verses used by anti-Messiah polythiests for 2,000 years. Big deal.

They're classics because the are definitive. Reject them, and you reject Christianity. Reject Christianity, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

God had the concept of Messiah planned when he created the Universe. Yawn!

Agreed. But what is the Messiah?

41 ¶ While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied.
43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
44 "‘The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ‘
45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?" 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.
-- Mat. 22:41-46
Remember: the Jews sought to stone Jesus Christ because, "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (Jn 6:33). They didn't want to kill him for claiming to be sent from God -- many before had made that claim, gathered a following, and died a violent death leading his blind acolytes into battle. No, Jesus claimed to be God.
Don't believe it? Fine. But don't go around with this patronising bullcrap about Jesus being Messiah but not God.

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.