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.
YHWH has always know His plan for Messiah. This scripture, again, doesn't prove Messiah is YHWH. Another retroactive reading. Why do you think the doctrine of the trinity wasn't required for salvation until 425 ad
Except the scripture says HE was from everlasting not a thought from everlasting .Your savior had a beginning as such he is not from everlasting
Steve of course we look retroactively at the Old Testament . Jesus used it to prove who he is and His purpose. It was prophetic.
As a historian wrote it does not matter what it says it matters what it means. The Jews did not and do not know what it means .
Ignorant would never allow it. There's no "trio" in the Torah. He works strictly mono.
Just someone that wants to work his way to salvation to make the death of Christ of no account.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
'twern't nothin' but the right application of the Socramedic Axion:
Comedian, Amuse Thyself.
No. I could already read. lol.
Well, at least you prove you've earned your screen name here. The Jews used the Hebrew plural name Adonai to refer to God, as synonymous with Jehovah. Its used some 431 times that way in the Tanakh. The technical term is "semantic domain," viz., that a word can mean many different things. Yes, it could refer to a woman's husband, but it also could refer to Deity. Context helps us determine which is which. Word translations are not just one-to-one.
You forget that grand-daddy of all Trinitarian texts, John 1.
1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.It doesn't get any simpler than that. The Logos existed with God uncreated, and indeed it was God. That Logos became flesh and lived among men. I fail to see any other conclusion than Jesus Christ was God and was man.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being....
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
- John 1:1-3, 14
You accuse Christians of being polytheists; that is a gross misrepresentation of Christianity. It's no different than the accusation that Jehovah is a cruel, vidictively petty fiend in the Tanakh -- both rely upon an understanding of reality unsuitable for all but the most unquestioning of children, and makes that the focus of one's attack. The Trinity, in short, is this, and nothing more: there is one God in all of heaven and Earth. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Its simple, yet profoundly mysterious.
Its simple, yet profoundly mysterious.
Always comes down to this when you can't explain satisfactorily. "Its a mystery". What's simple is that its eject from the argument crap.
Except I have.
You just can't answer John 1.
I still have in my reserve Colossians.
I would praise my Lord and my God as well, as a matter of fact I did when I realized YHWH raised Yeshua from the dead. Why do people always think this is some kind of proof of trinity scripture?
And do you claim that the saints in heaven worship a mere creature rather than their creator?:
Yes I do. People fell down before Moses and Abraham and worshipped as well. "Received Divinity"? Which Catholic translation are you using? I thought he pre-existed with power and divinity. What's this about Him receiving it?
Or maybe you believe that the Johannine corpus has been corrupted as well?
Yawn. Try again.
Our English Bible gradually developed over the last six hundred years. John Wycliffe is credited with the first English translation of the New Testament which was completed about 1380 C.E. Until that time the Word of YHWH was locked up in the Latin tongue which was unknown to the common people. The Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome about 400 C.E. was the standard Bible used in the Catholic Church.
Wycliffe's translation is based upon the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. It is therefore a "version of a version." In Wycliffe's version, John 1:3-4 use the word "him" in reference to the "Word" of verse 1 and is a translation of the Latin "ipsum" and "ipso" (he, she, or it).
The next great English translator was William Tyndale. He was an excellent Greek scholar who had access to the Greek text of Erasmus which Wycliffe did not have. The hand of the Almighty was upon Tyndale as He used him to give us our first English translation based upon the Hebrew and Greek. His New Testament was published in 1526 and revised to its final state in 1534.
Tyndale's translation of John 1:3-4 reads,
John 1:3,4 - All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men. As you can see, Tyndale used "it" instead of "him." "It" is a translation of the Greek "autou" meaning he, she, or it. What this tells us is that Tyndale did not read Messiah into the "logos" or "word" of verse 1 and he was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate or Wycliffe.
Miles Coverdale, a friend of Tyndale, gave us the first complete Bible printed in English in 1535. It was not a firsthand translation from the Hebrew and Greek, but was based on the Latin Vulgate and Tyndale's translation. Coverdale used "him" in John 1:3-4.
In 1537, John Rogers, using the pseudonym "Thomas Matthew," published a translation based largely on Tyndale and Coverdale which became known as Matthew's Bible. He uses "it" in John 1:3-4.
The Great Bible followed in 1539 and was a revision of Matthew's Bible. The first edition was prepared by Miles Coverdale. For some reason Coverdale decided "it" was more correct than "him" which appeared in his 1535 version based on the Latin Vulgate and left John 1:3-4 as it was in Matthew's translation, "it" instead of "him." The Great Bible was the first authorized English version and was ordered to be placed in every church.
Under Queen Mary the printing of the English Bible ended and its use in the churches was forbidden. This gave rise to a version completed in Geneva. The Geneva Bible of 1560 was the first Bible to have numbered verses, each set off as a separate paragraph. This Bible became the "household Bible of the English-speaking nations." It held that position for about 75 years. It was Shakespeare's Bible and that of the Puritans who settled New England. Once again, the translation of John 1:3-4 follows Tyndale's example, "it" instead of "him."
Queen Elizabeth eventually reinstated the order that a copy of the Bible be placed in every church and she encouraged its reading. Since there were not enough copies of the Great Bible, the bishops themselves made a new revision known as the Bishop's Bible. It was published in 1568. It was used mostly by the clergy, not being very popular with the common people. It, too, renders John 1:3-4 using "it," not "him."
In 1582, the Roman Catholic version of the New Testament was completed and known as the Rheims New Testament. It was the result of a battle between Papists and Protestants, the former believing the Latin Vulgate to be the standard upon which all translations should be made. It was the work of Roman Catholic scholars based on the Latin. They chose to render John 1:3-4 using "him" as did the previous versions based on the Vulgate.
From that point on, all future versions, beginning with the King James version of 1611, used "him" instead of "it" in their translation of John 1:3-4. As you can see, the following translation of John 1:3-4 is not without historic and linguistic foundation;
"All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men."
The "logos" (Word) of John 1:1 means "the spoken word" or "something said (including the thought)." In that sense the word is an "it," not a person but a thing. In other words, YHWH spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Gen.1:3,6,9,11,14,20, and 24, all of which begin, "And Elohim said." YHWH spoke and it was done.
Ps.33:6,9 - By the word of YHWH were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast. Not only did YHWH speak creation into existence, but He also spoke His Son Yahshua into existence; "And the word (YHWH's spoken word) was made flesh" (Jn.1:14). Yahshua did not become the "Word of YHWH" until his birth as a flesh and blood male child.
To say the "logos" of John 1:1 is a reference to Messiah is to read him into the text. Roman Catholic scholars had to do this in order to support their unscriptural trinity doctrine. If Messiah did not pre-exist, the trinity doctrine would collapse, it being based upon the belief that all three members of the "godhead" were co-eternal. Since Messiah only pre-existed in YHWH's plan of salvation and not literally, the trinity doctrine is without foundation.
Bring on Colossians.
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.