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.
What about the p.s. of spam? Hey wait, can't Doc Steve name us patron saints of things?
The luncheon meat? That would be covered in general under the PS of meat or the PS of canners.
Hey wait, can't Doc Steve name us patron saints of things?
For a nominal donation.
(See, none of you non-Catholic guys thought of this, did ya?)
SD
Careful. Not in California.
They will have to be electric.
And cost a fortune.
Nah. The state has no say in religious ceremony. We can point them to the second letter from St. Chester to the Poulanites:
Thou shalt depress the black bubbly-thingy 5 times before thou openest thy choke. Whilst engaging the throttle, pullest thou thy cord...
SD
You unwittingly raise an interesting issue. These long diatribes of Ignorant are, by his own admission, unaltered and unreferenced cut-and-paste jobs from other sources. They required no thought on his part. He just reproduces them, en masse, onto the web and expects us to read them.
That sounds like spam. And Ignorant's pro-Torah.
Something's not right here, but I can't seem to put my finger on it. This just doesn't sound kosher me.
That requires your congregation to be upfront and honest -- who can rely on that? LOL
SD, maybe you need to teach Simony 101 to the proddys.
sure, but it's not "simony." That is strictly forbidden. What we have is reimbursement for the economic "opportunity cost" of the Church's services.
After all, if the priest wasn't performing your wedding, he could use those hours to daytrade or flip burgers to make a decent living. I fail to see why he should suffer loss cause you want to get married.
SD
Quite frankly, I'd want to taste those burgers for myself before I make that decision. If he's a lousy chef, I'm actually doing him a favor by getting married.
It is illustrative, to some, that Steven's quest to find the "true" faith uncorrupted by "Roman" elements and "Constantinian" compromise has led him to reject the Trinity, Jesus' Divinity and the inspiration of the New Testament.
It's sort of flattering, in a backwards way. He is simply following a logical progression that must be followed, once one decides that "Rome" is the source of all error.
SD
We could take a cue from It's A Wonderful Life, and build our cathedral with a retracting sanctuary floor that conceals a pool below.
Then retract it during service.
Or if we were in to sprinkling, we could just equip the altar boys with telescoping candle lighters, and have them wave 'em under the fire-code-mandated sprinkler system.
All of these issues are why I'm sold on the Pope PielSM Spray-On Baptismal SystemTM . It's small, portable, and can be applied virtually anywhere - even by the baptisee him-or-herself. Plus, if you order now, we'll throw in the remarkable Pope PielSM Tupperwear Bible CoverTM . This beautiful deluxe Tupperwear Bible Cover is complete with Matthew 24:35 embossed right on the lid. Comes in your choice of day-glo orange or green. Only available to the first 100 callers. Shipping and handling charges may apply.
Supplies of the Pope Piel Tupperwear Bible Cover are limited, and should not be construed as to imply that the Pope Piel Tupperwear Bible Cover can contain the Babylonian Talmud, either in indidivual containers or via the entire production run. This offer connected with the Pope Piel Spray-On Baptismal System is limited and may be withdrawn at any time. Offer void in some states.
Hey. I meant every word of what that other guy wrote.
The Calvinists only find selective errors. It helps for people like Steve who enjoys tickling the flocks ears.
I think the orthodox follow Saint Black and Saint Decker.
Not all just most:>)))
Steve is the poster boy for a tare trying to find a field to put down roots..actually your church could be next *grin*
I'm sure you do.
Especially when you admit you don't understand how to read or write Greek (your quote="I was confronted with symbols and letters I didn't understand", a response to post 275 which quoted the greek language to you), even while you insist on lecturing us on it's anti-trinitarian application and meaning.
You've been into this stuff since around June 9th of this year, give or take a few days. You have no command of it for yourself, which is why you can only post lengthy cut-and-paste jobs from other webpages, or resort to short condescensing insults when responding to detractors. You have no "meaning" of your own to offer. You're little more than a combination of an interactive SpamTM engine and a bad Don Rickles impersonator. I could just go direct to GoogleTM, find the diatribes you're lifting, and cut out the middleman.
So, seriously, why are you still here?
Do you have the intellectual and spiritual capacity to elaborate on this? You might want to think, for once, before you do. You are in a very precarious position spiritually and if you are just being antagonistically flippant to amuse yourself, don't answer
I now nothing about this doctrine, but I wonder how 'sin' is defined here? Does the author recognize both meanings (perhaps there are more) or is this just another word game, substituting one meaning for another to set up a straw man?
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.