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.

"the actual Greek word and various other correct renderings that are possible besides the ones presented in the verse."You have apparently mistaken "possible" definitions with "correct renderings." Here is the LITERAL translation of the subject verse, AND the definitions, with how each word was used (in the New Testament).

I hope this will clarify your thoughts regarding this verse.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Philippians 2:6 oV <3739> {WHO,}

en <1722> {IN [THE]} morfh <3444> {FORM} qeou <2316> {OF GOD}

uparcwn <5225> (5723) {SUBSISTING,} ouc <3756> {NOT} arpagmon

<725> {RAPINE} hghsato <2233> (5662) to <3588> {ESTEEMED IT}

einai <1511> (5750) {TO BE} isa <2470> {EQUAL} qew <2316> {WITH

GOD;}

3444 morphe {mor-fay'}

perhaps from the base of 3313 (through the idea of adjustment of

parts); TDNT - 4:742,607; n f

AV - form 3; 3

1) the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision

2) external appearance

2316 theos {theh'-os}

of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the

supreme Divinity; TDNT - 3:65,322; n m

AV - God 1320, god 13, godly 3, God-ward + 4214 2, misc 5; 1343

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2) the Godhead, trinity

2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity

2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity

2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

3) spoken of the only and true God

3a) refers to the things of God

3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in

any way

4a) God's representative or viceregent (???)

4a1) of magistrates and judges

5225 huparcho {hoop-ar'-kho}

from 5259 and 756;; v

AV - be 42, have 2, live 1, after 1, not tr 2; 48

1) to begin below, to make a beginning

1a) to begin

2) to come forth, hence to be there, be ready, be at hand

3) to be

2470 isos {ee'-sos}

probably from 1492 (through the idea of seeming); TDNT - 3:343,370; adj

AV - equal 4, agree together + 2258 2, as much 1, like 1; 8

1) equal, in quantity or quality

725 harpagmos {har-pag-mos'}

from 726; TDNT - 1:473,80; n m

AV - robbery 1; 1

1) the act of seizing, robbery

2) a thing seized or to be seized

2a) booty to deem anything a prize

2b) a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained

__________________________________________________

"that Yahshua, the perfect servant and representative of YHWH, was - as YHWH's perfect representative or viceregent - of the same nature or character as the one He represented."

Are you aware that this describes the "demiurge" (assistant god) from Plato, by way of Gnosticism? Is that your basic starting point--the foundation of your beliefs?

It is painfully obvoius that you have no knowlege of either the Greek language or church history. You should not make comments about matters of which you have no understanding what-so-ever. Lets do it from the top.

Get ready with your Colossians because your John 1 is about to bite the dust.

Yeah, heard that one, probably more than you've heard puns about your screen name. This particular truth has been around far longer than your "teachers" have, and hasn't been refuted as of yet.

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.

More revisionist history i see. The Eastern Empire used Greek as the Official language. Those manuscripts were Obviously available to Jerome, else he could not have compiled the Latin Vulgate. Until 1054, the Eastern Orthodox Church (using and speaking Greek) and the Roman Church (using and speaking Latin) were united. At any rate, none of this is germaine to the present issue, which is the interpretation of the first chapter of John in the Greek Manuscripts.

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).

A-priori assumption that the Vulgate, and by derivation, the English of the Wycliffe's version is erronious. You are in a round about manner, begging the question on this particular point. This is still not germaine to the subject of what the Greek Manuscripts actually say.

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.

This is worthy of further comment. So, now just why would you think that "the hand of the Almighty" was upon Tyndale, and not say, Jerome? Could it possibly be that Tyndale had a rendering of a certain part of a passage that fit your preconceptions? Incidentally, the First Edition of Erasmus' New Testament was actually published in 1516, not 1526, although i conceed that this looks as if it could be a typo on your part, so i'm not going to get overly excited about it except to point it out to you.

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.

Ah yes, now we're getting somewhere. Because you think that this particular rendering supports your a-priori presupposition above, you believe this to be a "correct" rendering. Well, if you think about the matter, the gender of the pronoun is completely irrelevant for your particular purposes, but we will discuss that particular rendering below.

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.

You forgot to mention the sections that were based on the German Martin Luther bible that Coverdale borrowed heavily from. Luther's Greek text was the second edition of Stephanous (Estienne), which is in turn a revision of the text of Erasmus. It probably reads "him" because that is the correct rendering for reasons that we will go into below.

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.

Ok, so he "borrowed" the neuter pronoun from Tyndale, doesn't mean it was right.

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.

Still proves nothing. Rogers had no training in Hebrew, and one cannot tell who worked on what. To say that Coverdale decided anything about the translation of John 1:3-4 is at best speculative.

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."

Still proves nothing about the Greek text.

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."

Your point being...What?

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.

You still have yet to demonstrate that the Vulgate was/is in error on this particular point

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;

A rather presumptious statement if you consider the times that you are speaking of. You really think that Protestant scholars were going to endourse anything Catholic, especially if it was in error? This still has not proven that the masculine pronoun is incorrect.

"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."

Verse 2 begins as follows ou|to" [houtos] is a demonstrative pronoun, and it is in the masculine gender. There is no debate on this matter. Look it up in any lexicon you wish. The rendering is as follows: "This one (male person) was (imperfect tense, denoting continous and/or repeated action in past time) in the origin with God."

Verse 3 pavnta di` aujtou' ejgevneto, [panta, dia autou egeneto]

The first word, "panta" is neuter and is correctly translated "all things". The phrase "dia autou" is a prepositional phrase. The case of the personal pronoun, "autou" is genative, which defines the translation of the preposition. The phrase translates as "through him". While the neuter has exactly the same form in the genative case as the masculine, context determines the gender. Egeneto is the aorist indicative of ginomai, which means became, or came to be.

If you render autou as "it" you beg the question "what does 'it' refer to?" It doesn't refer to origin, that is a feminine noun, requiring a feminine pronoun. It doesn't refer to panta, which is plural. You are left to conclude that 'autou' must refer to either God, or the masculine pronoun 'houtos' in verse 2. In either case, the masculine pronoun "him" is correct.

"and apart from him [autou], {same form as above, and connected by 'kai' to the other clause) not even one thing (neuter gender for the number one) that (neuter indefinite pronoun) was made. If you persist in rendering 'autou' as a neuter (it) you must be consistent. You must do it in verse 7, where the passage would be rendered This man came or a witness in order that he might bear witness concerning the light, so that all might believe through it. Doesn't work does it? You would have to do so in verse 10 as well...in the world it was and the world through it came to be, and the world did not know him (the pronoun is accusative masculine there, can't make 'it' work). It is absolutely clear that the pronoun is masculine.

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.

Absolute nonsense. Once again, you do not know Greek and you have been taken in by people who do not know Greek. First off, the general term for "the spoken word is rJh'ma [rhema], not lovgo" [logos]. i refer you to Vines expository dictionary, Moulton's anayltical Greek Lexicon, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker's Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Lexicon.

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.

Nice try, but not this time. We are discussing John 1, not Psalm 33. The passage reads as follows:

In the origin [arxee] was (imperfect tense, continuous action in past time) the Word. And the Word was (imperfect tense again) with God (pros, indicating intimate presence), and the Word was (imperfect tense) God.

The use of the imperfect tense is defined as follows:

"Like the present tense, the imperfect displays an internal aspect. That is, it portrays the action from within the event, without regard for begining or end. This contrasts with the aorist, which portrays the action in summary fashion. For the most part, the aorist takes a snapshot of the action while the imperfect (like the present) takes a motion picture, portraying the action as it unfolds. As such, the imperfect is often incomplete and focuses on the process of the action.

Wallace,D.B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p.541

So then, one could easily say In the origin, the Word already was, and the Word already was with God, and the Word Already was God. There is your proof of Preexistence in eternity of the Messiah. Enough of this nonsense of Him being a created being. The Language of the New Testament does not support such a foolish assertion, but you didn't know this because you cannot read Greek.

John 1:14 states that the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. The word for became, is egeneto, the aorist indicative of ginomai, which means became. While passive in form, the verb is actually deponent (one or more of it's three forms missing, in this case, the active), and the passive form is actually active in meaning. The subject ~Word~ is doing the action. Note that the KJV has the passive form "was made", but the passive shows up in only three places, John 1:3 (two aorists, and one perfect passive participle), John 1:10 (aorist), and John 8:33 (future), John 1:14 is active voice in meaning.

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.

On the contrary, the Greek text DEMONSTRATES CONCLUSIVELY that 1) the Word is eternal, and preexisted with God, and indeed, IS GOD; 2)The word became flesh, and the Messiah. At no time did he ever cease to be God. You should do more research before you presume to drop a bunch of Horse Manure about matters that you don't know the first thing about.

Bring on Colossians.

In light of the total fiasco that John 1 has become for you, you probably want to think twice about that.

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.