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.

Another great cut and paste.

The apostle Peter vs. your Preacher!

Mt 16:15-20 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ (Messiah).

Parallel passages Mark 8:29 and Luke 9:20,21

Mark 8:29,30 - 29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. 30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769 Luke 9:20,21 - 20 He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God. 21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing;

The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769. Lots of stuff in these verses!

First, if there was ever a time for Yahshua to clarify exactly who and what he was this was the time! Yet he gave no hint that he is YHVH (God), neither did he chastise Peter's failure to acknowledge him as God. This is one of the clearest, most precise statements as to exactly who Yahshua is that we can find in the entire Bible! Yahshua asked a simple direct question, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter gave a simple, direct answer, "Thou art the MESSIAH, the SON OF the Living God." Yahshua then agreed with Peter and said Peter's understanding was revealed to him from YHVH. Now, IF Yahshua is YHVH, why didn't he correct Peter? This would have been the perfect time to explain the "mystery" of the Trinity. It also gave Yahshua an excellent opportunity to delve into the alleged Kabbalistic mysticism behind his "divine" nature. Why didn't Yahshua take it upon himself to "correct" Peter's failure to grasp the fact that he is YHVH or to expound upon the "mystery" of his man-God essence?

Instead of "correcting" Peter's "ignorance" Yahshua blessed him - clearly inferring Peter was exactly right in his description! Would Yahshua "bless" Peter for giving an incorrect answer? The simple and inescapable fact is Peter was correct, and there was no need for Yahshua to add anything to Peter's understanding!

I suppose Trinitarians, counterfeit Messianics, and others that promote the concept that Yahshua is God like to fancy themselves with the following spurious account of the conversation between Yahshua and Peter. I will avail myself with the use of a pet phrase ("liar, lunatic, or God") common among those that promote Yahshua is God.

"Peter, who do you say that I am, a liar, a lunatic, or God?" Peter responds, "Well, Rabbi Yahshua you certainly are not a liar, and even though some may consider you a lunatic I most certainly do not. And, since even you worship the One True God of Israel and recite the Shema daily - "Here O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is ONE!" - I absolutely do not even allow myself to think the blasphemy that you are God. No. I always figured you were the promised Messiah prophesied by our fathers."

"Peter, you poor stupid fisherman. Do you not realize you are eternally damned for not recognizing that I am God just as the creeds say? Forget what the fathers said. Don't you know it is a mystery that can only be understood through mysticism? Stop basing your faith only on the written Holy Scriptures of our fathers! Only the ignorant limit themselves to such things."

"Creeds? What creeds? Our faith has no need for creeds. We have the Holy Scriptures, and in them the Holy One teaches us we are not to add to His eternal instructions. What creeds are you talking about my lord?"

"Never mind the creeds. They won't be here for a few hundred years. Inquisitors! Take him away to be tortured and burn him if he doesn't accept the creeds of those that are not so uncultured and stupid as he! Oh! And before he dies inform him I no longer wish to be called by my actual Hebrew name of Yahshua any longer. I think I'll change my name to Iesous (jesus) so that I can be more acceptable to those that worship 'other gods'."

Well, such was not the conversation, and Yahshua praised Peter for his YHVH-given insight.

Today very few Christian pastors, theologians, or "Messianics" agree with Peter and do not really know who Yahshua is. They are proclaiming a totally unscriptural "Christ!"

One of the primary reasons for Christian ignorance of the true Messiah is a gross misunderstanding of the true "gospel of the Kingdom" which promises a literal Kingdom with Yahshua reigning as King - THUS FULFILLING THE SURE PROMISES TO ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND OTHERS THAT THEY WOULD LITERALLY INHERIT THE LAND! In order to do this they must be resurrected, which is the basis for Yahshua's answer to the Sadducees elsewhere in Matt. 22:29-32 and the ultimate basis for the hope of a resurrection.

When Christianity in the early centuries brutally and intentionally divested itself of the Hebraic mindset it lost virtually all truth, developed a largely false religion, and the anti-Messianic Beastly religion achieved dominance. THE major error that ensued was throwing out Peter's confession and creating a new "Christological creed". Anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism lie at the very core of Traditional Christian dogma. When the Hebraic foundations were (and still are) discarded, truth perished.

Secondly, regarding the Catholic teaching that Peter was the first Pope... Peter apparently didn't realize he was a "pope" since the first leader of the Messianic faith in Jerusalem was James - the brother of Yahshua. In fact, until the defeat of Israel by the Romans in 135CE, there were fifteen Jewish congregational leaders of the Jerusalem Messianic community - which was the headquarters of the Messianic faith, and Peter was not one of them! They were all relatives of Yahshua. Only after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and defeated Bar Kochva to end the war with the Jews did a non-Jewish leader arise, and he - Bishop Marcus - was "appointed" by the Roman Emperor Hadrian with a prime objective being to rid the faith of "Jewishness"! Hadrian was the same emperor than made circumcision a capital offense in 130CE; therefore, it doesn't take much imagination to figure out where he or his appointed church bishop stood with regard to Judiac truths. He even banned Jews from entering Jerusalem - a ban which lasted many years. Atop the ruins of our Holy Jerusalem, the Romans built their new pagan city of "Aelia Capitolina" - with their pagan Temple dedicated to their god Jupiter, also known as Zeus, Capitolinus.

Having crushed Israel in war, the Roman gentiles destroyed and paganized the Holy Capital, eradicated the last genealogy of the House of David (except that of Yahshua), and replaced the annual Temple tax with a higher tax to maintain their pagan temple of Jupiter (Zeus). It was then (135CE) that the true Body of Messiah was forced aside and the Beast began his expanding effort to "change times and laws". One of his first changes was to replace the One God with his pagan Trinity and to confuse the true nature and final mission of the Messiah. Oh, and of course he couldn't allow the Jewish name of the Messiah to remain; so, he changed that also into the false name "Jesus" - evidence of which exist to suggest is a name which gives honor to the pagan god, Zeus.

Peter was never the Pope of anything. The historical record proves without doubt Peter was never the leader of the "church". Thirdly, regarding the "keys to the Kingdom" and how "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth..." The "keys" are a known metaphor denoting authority to "bind and loose". I will let the following excerpt from The Jewish New Testament Commentary speak for me. This is commentary of Matthew 18:18 which also mentions "binding and loosing":

The words rendered "prohibit" and "permit" (v. 18) are, literally, "bind" and "loose." These terms were used in first century Judaism to mean "prohibit" and "permit," as is clear from the article, "Binding and Loosing," in the Jewish Encyclopedia, 3:215: "BINDING AND LOOSING" ... Rabbinical term for 'forbidding and permitting.' ... "The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra the Pharisees, says Josephus (Wars of the Jews 1:5:2), 'became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.' ... The various schools had the power 'to bind and to loose'; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Chagigah 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day ( ... Talmud: Ta'anit 12a ... ). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix; Talmud: Makkot 23b).

"In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt 16:19, 18:18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who 'bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers'; that is, 'loose them,' as they have the power to do (Matt 23:2-4)....

...a very different, non-Jewish interpretation, equating binding and loosing with remitting and retaining sins (John 20:23), was adopted by Tertullian and all the church fathers, thus investing the head of the Christian Church with the power to forgive sins, referred to on the basis of Mt 16:18 as the "key power of the Church." Needless to say, I reject this later understanding which bears no relationship to the Jewish context. The Jewish New Testament Commentary, (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications) 1996.

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.