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.
Give attention to would be work. I think the language is a problem for you. Poor flock.
A sheep to the slaughter. There was no defending in front of High Priest or Pilate. Pay attention to detail.
Lie.
I think it is interesting that the on the scene hearers understood exactly what Jesus said (no greek interpretaion needed for them). But now we are to believe that the Jewish scholars hearing the words first hand did not understand what Steves mentor does. There is a disconnect here somewhere.
I agree.
Certainly the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' day didn't accept what Jesus claimed for himself.
But they clearly understood what he was claiming (messiahship and equality with God) ... and these claims Jesus never denied, ... despite the fact that it cost him his life.
Your whole premise, and the reason why I think that Luther was wrong, opens a pandora's box for a cafeteria style canon. i.e. one guy accepts all while another denies James, Jude and Hebrews.
This situation of cafetria style is what we are saddled with, whether we like it or not. God has not told us which books belong and which don't. The group that put the origional so-called NT together was not necessarily inspired. Well, I just thought of something. Perhaps it was inspired, but how do we decide whether it was or not? We have to examine the books one by one, just like they did, and we are thus unable to escape the cafeteria. In fact, I don't see how you can say the cafeteria is bad, granting that the origional assemblers of the NT were forced to go to that exact same cafeteria.
These are either the word of God, carrying all the weight that implies, or they are not. This is not just simple logic but basic to the faith.
I agree with you on individual books. Cutting out certain verses and not others is irrational and destroys faith. However, I am sure that one can (and must) make descisions at the book by book level: for example, War and Peace is NOT scripture.
By your standards, the same thing could be said about the Letter to Philemon!
Philemon was written by Paul, and hence, by virtue of being written by Paul, it is golden. So, no, by my standards it clearly makes the cut, since "everything written by Paul" is one of my standards. :)
BTW, how do you know the Apostle John wrote the gospel with his name on it? Or for that matter, how do you know Mark or Matthew wrote the gospels with their names on them. Who are you trusting to get this information?
I trust that the church has correctly attributed these works to the correct authors, from the earliest times to the present day. Moreover, skeptical researchers have tried very hard to debunk them, and have failed. This makes the attributions very strong.
A sheep to the slaughter. There was no defending in front of High Priest or Pilate. Pay attention to detail.
The accusation (that Jesus claimed to be God) came up well before JESUS was before the High Priest or Pilate (i.e. John 10).
Though Jesus (non-silently) addressed the issue here (John 10), once again, ... he didn't deny it.
The gospel of Luke and Acts are believed written 60-62 AD. The Letter(gospel) having been written first.
Paul wrote Timothy and Titus after his realease from prison 62-64AD
The letter written by Luke would have had wide circulation.
There are some that believe that Pauls use of the word "scripture" in that passage is meant for both the OT quote and Luke...But that is not as important a point as the fact he quoted it with authority
Does this mean you are unable to articulate exactly what you believe? At least I can tell you what I believe.
How are you saved by a man like your self?
Every book has to give the plan of salvation, has to be self-contained? Where did this principle come from?
No, salvation plan is just an indicator. It makes me go "Hmmmm". I do not argue the point strongly. And "self-contained" has nothing to do with it (as far as I can tell).
It sounds to me like you have a pre-conceived notion of exactly what Scripture should tell you, and that you reject that which doesn't fit your notion. Perhaps James is there for a reason after all.
I do have a notion of generally what Scripture should tell me, pre-concieved with respect to the book of James, since I take the 24 besides James, Hebrews, Jude as my basis for figuring what Scirpture should generally tell me. In other words, James does not quite appear completely of a piece with the rest of what is clearly and definitively Scripture. It is certainly not a pre-conceived notion with respect to the 24, however, since the 24 is the basis for the notion in the first place. And, incidenally, Hebrews and Jude pass with flying colors. They are without any doubt of the same warp and weave, the same "stuff" as the others.
You responded
Lie.
Here is your response to Alex's earlier question. I remember being impressed you could turn out such lengthy posts in a short time
Your answer
Gee. If it bothered you that much I'd expect not to see my name in "ping" format. The material in question however is my own. So thank you for confirming you're too busy responding in your little world of non-negotiable theologies to pay much attention. Lol. Wake me up when you actually have anything worthwhile to contribute.
SD
No it actually doesn't. It just means that I'm actually tired of your "comfort of Calvinism" and talking to you.
At least I can tell you what I believe.
Lol. How are you saved by a man like your self?
By YHWH. Adonai Echad. Cya later busybody.
The point is what follows ...John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.The point is ... Jesus never denies this accusation.
10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Wouldn't you think that, as a Torah-observant Jewish rabbi, ... he would have been obligated to do so ?
You did say:
It is unlikely that the book of James alone could give a man a proper understanding of Redemption, which is criticle for salvation.
This seemed, to me, to be arguing that a book must, alone, be capable of giving "a proper understanding of Redemption." This seems to be your main basis for rejecting it.
I do have a notion of generally what Scripture should tell me, pre-concieved with respect to the book of James, since I take the 24 besides James, Hebrews, Jude as my basis for figuring what Scirpture should generally tell me.
So you have this idea of what "a proper understanding of Redemption" is, based on 24 books. Rather than make that "understanding" jibe with the remaining canon, you reject the canon and hold onto your "understanding" as the rule.
SD
It is not MY theory *grin* it a point of scholarship, I am not that smart.
We accept the canon because we believe the Holy Spirit worked in that group of men to preserve the books that were inspired. One thing does not negate the other. It is simply a point of interest that Paul would comfirm Luke's Book as scripture.
So what? They were going to listen to him if he did? Take off those trinity glasses and try to read objectivly. by the way. you're no longer a breath of fresh air. The true colors are showing.
Same group of men that gave you Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Papacy & apostolic succession. Oh to be consistent.
You would like to pretend that you will not state what you believe because you do not like me. But that has nothing to do with you explaining how you see salvation.
It is my guess you have not worked that out just yet. Because part of you believes you are saved by grace , but the doctrine you are moving toward demands works.
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.