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 another good one for you wise and learned people in the knowledge that puffeth up.

"Before Abraham Was, I Am."

These words, spoken by our Savior in Jn.8:58, have led to much controversy and confusion. Some use this verse to prove the Messiah's pre-existence. Others use it to prove the trinity doctrine. And then there are those who use it to prove Yahshua is the great "I AM" of Ex.3:14.

The phrase "I am" is "ego eimi" in Greek. Since the Greek New Testament records Yahshua using "ego eimi" many times, Christian theologians term these sayings, "The I Am's of Jesus." It is believed that each of these occurrences implies Yahshua's identity as the "I AM" of Ex.3:14. Can this be true? Can our Savior, the Son of YHWH, actually be the "I AM"?

Ex.3:14-15 reads, "And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHWH, Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." Therefore, the "I AM" is identified as "YHWH."

And what does YHWH say in Ps.2:7? "I will declare the decree: YHWH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." YHWH is the Father of Yahshua. Yahshua is the Son of YHWH. Yahshua is not YHWH and the Son is not the Father. Therefore, Yahshua (the Son of YHWH) cannot be the I AM (YHWH). That alone should be sufficient to discredit the belief that Yahshua was claiming to be the "I AM." But let's look into the matter a little farther.

It is believed that Jn.8:59 further supports the position that Yahshua is the "I AM." Why else would the Jews try to stone him? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Jews, a stoneable offense. Or did he? Is the mere utterance of "ego eimi" a blasphemy? Does the use of "ego eimi" automatically identify the speaker as YHWH, the I AM?

Several individuals aside from Yahshua used "ego eimi" as well. In Lu.1:19, the angel Gabriel said, "Ego eimi Gabriel." In Jn.9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Yahshua said, "Ego eimi." In Acts 10:21, Peter said, "Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek." Obviously, the mere use of "ego eimi" does not equate one to the "I Am" of Ex.3:14. But perhaps the Savior's use of it was somehow different. After all, he came down from heaven.

If, in fact, Yahshua spoke Greek to the Jews (which I doubt), he used the phrase "ego eimi" at least twenty times, and yet, in only one instance did the Jews seek to stone him (Jn.8:58). Yahshua said, "I am the bread of life" to a large crowd in Jn.6:35 & 48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, "I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven." But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, "I came down from heaven" and ignored "ego eimi." The same is true of verses 51 & 52.

In Jn.8:12, 18, 24, & 28, Yahshua used "ego eimi" with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in Jn.10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Yahshua said to his disciples, "...that...ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)" in Jn.13:19 without them batting an eye.

An interesting account occurs in Jn.18 when the Jews came to arrest Yahshua in the Garden of Gethsemane. When the chief priests and Pharisees said they were seeking Yahshua of Nazareth, Yahshua said to them, "Ego eimi." At that they fell backward to the ground. It is not made clear why they fell to the ground, but what followed will make it clear that Yahshua was not claiming to be the "I AM."

After Yahshua's arrest, the Jews took him to Annas first (vs.13). Then they took him to Caiaphas (vs.24) and eventually to Pilate (vss.28,29). A parallel account is found in Mt.26:57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against Yahshua to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn't find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn't bear false witness about what Yahshua said in Jn.8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days. Where were all those witnesses from Jn.8:58?

The point about Mt.26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard Yahshua say "Ego eimi." They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn't. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn't. Why not? Because it wasn't blasphemy, nor was it a stoneable offense. He was merely identifying himself as Yahshua of Nazareth.

This brings us back to Jn.8:58. Why did the Jews seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of Jn.8 shows that Yahshua;

1) accused the Jews of "judging after the flesh" (vs.15). 2) said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24). 3) implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33). 4) said they were servants of sin (vs.34). 5) said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40). 6) implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47). 7) said their father was the devil (vs.44). 8) said they were not of Elohim (vs.47). 9) accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49). 10) accused them of not knowing YHWH (vs.55). 11) accused them of lying (vs.55). Aside from that, the Jews misunderstood Yahshua's words leading them to believe;

1) that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41). 2) Yahshua had a devil (vs.52). 3) that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53). 4) that he saw Abraham (vs.56).

Yahshua's words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Jews that they couldn't restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn't take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, "ego eimi," but because he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him illegally.

So what does Jn.8:58 really mean? Although I do not believe we can be certain what Yahshua meant due to a variety of reasons, one being the absence of this passage as it appeared in John's original writing, I offer the following explanation.

Let's look at the context of Yahshua's statement. It begins in verse 51 with the thought of eternal life; "If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." The Jews thought since Abraham and the prophets were dead, Yahshua must have a devil. The context is eternal life. Then in verse 56 Yahshua says Abraham "rejoiced to see my day." He did not say he saw Abraham as the Jews misunderstood. How did Abraham see Yahshua's day? Heb.11:13 says, "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." He saw Yahshua's day by faith.

Yahshua then resumed the context of his initial conversation by saying, "Before Abraham was, I am." "Was" is from the Greek "ginomai" meaning, "to come into being, ... to arise." What Yahshua actually meant was, "Before Abraham comes into being (at his resurrection unto eternal life), I will." Confirmation of this understanding comes to us from Figures of Speech Used in the Bible by E.W. Bullinger, pgs. 521,522. Under the heading "Heterosis (Of Tenses)," subheading "The Present for the Future," hewrites, "This is put when the design is to show that some thing will certainly come to pass, and is spoken of as though it were already present." He then lists some examples such as Mt.3:10b, "therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is [shall be] hewn down;" and Mk.9:31a, "For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is [shall be] delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day." Included among this list of examples of Heterosis is Jn.8:58. In other words, although properly written, "Before Abraham comes to be, I am," with "I am" in the simple present tense, the meaning points to the future, "Before Abraham comes to be, I will."

Some people believe this verse should be translated, "Before Abraham existed, I existed." However, neither Greek verb is in the perfect tense (past tense). "Was" is in the aorist tense and "am" is in the present tense. Let's look a little closer at "was." Concerning the aorist tense, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey says, "It has time relations only in the indicative, where it is past and hence augmented." The verb ginomai (was) is in the infinitive, not the indicative. Therefore it should not be translated in the past tense. This same reference says of the infinitive, "The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, ..." Abraham will eventually resurrect which is why the Greek uses the aorist infinitive. The meaning is, "Before Abraham comes to be" not "Before Abraham was (or existed)."

In conclusion, Yahshua was not declaring that he is the great "I AM" of Ex.3:14. Yahshua was not declaring himself to be YHWH. And Yahshua was not declaring his pre-existence. He is the Son of YHWH and the Son of the great "I Am."

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.