Who would have guessed that the early Christians were Jewish?????????????
Was the Christian church originally Greco-Roman-Gentile like the Greco-Roman-Protestant churches or did it more resemble what has been called Jewish-Christianity as is practiced in the ContinuingChurch of God?
Was it more ‘Jewish’ than many think or was the early Christian church led by a pontiff from Rome?
Any student in a real seminary and even one who actually knows their Bible will be able to tell you that the early Christians were Jewish or "more Jewish" as Bwana Bob calls them. But we should not expect much real Christian history from a guy who has only gathered his so-called "sought after" knowledge from COG booklets and teaching from Armstrongite ministers.
Also, let us not forget Bwana Bob's go-to source for his theological understanding...the Catholic Church.
Many would be surprised what certain Roman Catholic scholars admit and teach about early church history.
For example, did you know that it was the written position of late 20th century Cardinal Jean-Guenolé-Marie Daniélou that church history has generally been mistaught and missed many aspects of what he called Jewish Christianity? He specifically wrote that this has led to a “false picture of Christian history” (Daniélou J, Cardinal. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Translated by John A. Baker. The Westminster Press, 1964, Philadelphia, p. 2).
And while there are issues with aspects of his research, he was correct that the vast majority have not been properly taught the truth of church history and overlooked the fact that Christianity is more “Jewish” than what is accepted by most of the mainstream churches. Sadly in the 21st century, many seem to prefer the false version of history rather than the real one.
If Bwana Bob actually had a real theological education he would know that Christian historians have known this for centuries. There was also a recent book written about the Jewish Christians, but Bob was too lazy to research that, probably because a woman wrote the book and no woman is supposed to teach men, especially self-appointed COG leaders who are doubly blessed.
15 comments:
Wow, I really cannot believe that a religion that came from Jewish looked, in the early stages, Jewish! This is unreal.
I read this on Bob's blog yesterday. That has to be the stupidest thing he has written lately. How can he be that dumb?
Dayum!
More butthurt for Bob.
That boy won't be able to sit down for weeks!
What's this about women? You aren't paying attention to Bitter Butthurt Bob. One of the main proofs of his church is that a woman in New Zealand had a dream about him. He'll listen to women if they tell him he's their Overseer and the Super-Double-Blessed Prophet of Possiblys.
Those original Jewish Christians would look at how Bwana Bob observes Sukkot and conclude that he is one of those ignorant and presumptuous Greco-Roman interlopers getting so much wrong about the festival.
I wasn't aware that this was an issue in the WCG or its remnant splinters, but I am familiar with the practice of making much ado about almost nothing. Acts is clear that on Pentecost the Temple was replete with Jews and proselytes ("converted" Gentiles).
To be "Christian" initially meant "a Jew who accepted Jesus as the Messiah" - there was no "conversion" process, such as "give up being Jewish". The big issue from this point on a big issue was the inclusion of Gentiles, and whether they must go through ritual conversion ("circumcision") to be included.
An issue with the WCG et al has been post-Apostolic ecclesiastic history. HWA had his "dark curtain" and "missing century" from which two distinct "churches" emerged - the Catholic and the "true Church" described in Revelation. This theory differs from actual history, that shows there were many and varied forms of "Christianity" until most of them were absorbed by the dominant Western Church.
Thank you Booby Thiel! To think that for all this time I thought that the early Christians were all Hindu, but thanks to you, i now know better!
Aside from what is self evident in the NT, Bob seems to have the need to filter his amazing proof of a Jewish start to Christianity through his catholic obsession. He must be endeavoring to appeal to Catholic folk who never heard of him but were told by the Church that Christianity originated in a Gentile context. I can see Catholic laity having no clue where Christianity originated. Pretty true of modern Christian laity.
Of course it is the Apostle Paul who is both the hero and hijacker of the Jewish Christian origins which ultimately lost out to his Gentile easily spun into the Catholic version over time and then leading to splits and schisms throughout its 1900 year sordid history
And viola'! Fast forward... Along comes HWA who sees the Jewish Christian version of more value and then spins out his own splits, splinters and slivers on the Jewish Christian side of the coin. Then comes The Apostle Paul Tkach and reinvents the wheel. Honey I shrunk the Jewish/Christian church again prevails with only insignificant remnants and the Apostle Paul Tkach dies shortly after screaming in a sermon, "May God strike me dead if I am wrong" (I was there for that one and thought..uh oh) His heirs get to play church for a short time and then retire nicely off the previous profits, in obscurity, and rejoin the Gentile/Christian community making themselves irrelevant but well fed, rich and increased with goods for the rest of their lives.
Jesus worked a miracle! lol
Christianity is a form of Late Second Temple Judaism. Jesus stated explicitly that salvation was of (from) the Jews. But Jesus mediated grace to humanity to make this all work. Paul went through and elaborate explanation of how Gentile Christians are grafted into the Jewish olive tree. He stated that Christians were Jews in Spirit. He wrote that all Israel would be saved. In soteriology there is no separation between Jews and Gentiles. Paul was Jew and remained so all of his life.
Armstrongists make the mistake of believing that this etiology of salvation means the OT is still in force and is now written on the hearts of anyone who claims to be a Christian. When in fact there is not one Armstrongist heart inscribed with the full Mosaic litigation (absent the sacrifices and rituals). This is rooted in Hoeh's mistaken idea that the OT litigation was to be equated with God's eternal moral law.
So, Armstrongism sets the bar too high for Armstrongists to jump over. Their only hope is grace and this they have denied in its full extent. It is as if HWA decided to devise a religion that has only one outcome for everyone - perdition. But it seems that Armstrongists do not understand that this death sentence has been pronounced in Armstrongist theology and they soldier on. In fact, I believe they have a strong belief in grace - they just don't want to confront it.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Armstrongism sets the bar too high for Armstrongists to jump over
So, is it also too high for Orthodox Jews? Korban (sacrifices) and other Temple-related laws can't be kept until the Third Temple is built (or, according to Bob Thiel, an appropriate altar*) and some laws apply only in Israel (Eretz Israel, not BI Israel), to specific groups, etc.
One thing they don't have is Triple Tithing, but they are cheerful givers. So is it still too hard for Orthodox Jews?
* He may be right, there could be a loophole.
Hoss
I think the bar is too high for anyone. That is why the Law of Moses incorporated a system of sacrifices. They were the early, primitive implementation of grace. Orthodox Jews may be way ahead of everyone else in rigorous practice. Without a Temple there are no sacrifices. I am not sure what they do to atone for sins - which they undoubtedly have.
Jesus kept the Law perfectly. So he did not need a sacrifice - instead he furnished a sacrifice.
I recall, though vaguely, that the early Millerites believed in a form of eathly perfection. I haven't really looked into it. But certainly Armstrongism leads to the deduction that one must achieve this kind of perfection in life. They really need to understand the doctrie of grace.
******* Click on icon for Disclaimer
NEO - While I may be on the wrong track, it seems like you are presenting the old "I'll give them a law that is too hard so they know they need Messiah" trick, even though he tells Moses that his laws aren't too hard.
Then Jesus comes, supposedly to make things easier, and says you must be more righteous than the Pharisees, don't even think of doing wrong, etc, which sounds even harder. And then John wrote the laws weren't too hard. But then I may have been off track and read you the wrong way.
The offerings ("sacrifices") were for a number of things, none of which were to remove sin. Apart from acts of worship, and eating, they were to make temporal man acceptable in the presence of God by providing temporary atonement. The old tale that in ancient Israel if someone sinned they had to rush to the Temple to make a sacrifice to be forgiven is nonsense.
The offerings had to cease when the Temple was destroyed. It was not abolished because "it is impossible for blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" as our sparring partner, Bob Thiel, claims. That verse has to do with the Day of Atonement, where atonement was granted to Israel for one year - not to take away sin.
NEO wrote, Without a Temple there are no sacrifices. I am not sure what they do to atone for sins - which they undoubtedly have.
PRAYER and REPENTANCE
Hosea 4:1-2 Return, O Israel, to YHVH your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take with you words and return to YHVH; say to him, “Take away all iniquity; accept what is good, and we will pay with bulls the vows/sacrifices of our lips.
Ezekiel 18:4b "... the soul who sins shall die."
Ezekiel 18:21-22 “But if a wicked person TURNS AWAY from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live."
Ezekiel 18:31-32 "CAST AWAY from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares Adonai YHVH; so TURN, and LIVE.”
Blood was not the only offering that provided physical atonement
INCENSE
Numbers 16:47-48 So Aaron took it as Moses said and ran into the midst of the assembly. And behold, the plague had already begun among the people. And he put on the incense and made atonement (Heb kappar, H3722) for the people. And he stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was stopped.
JEWELRY
Numbers 31:50 And we have brought YHVH’s offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement (Heb kappar, H3722) for ourselves before YHVH.”
COAL
Isaiah 6:6-7 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned (Heb kappar, H3722) for."
FLOUR
Leviticus 5:11 “But if he cannot afford two turtledoves or two pigeons, then he shall bring as his offering for the sin that he has committed a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He shall put no oil on it and shall put no frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering."
Hoss:
I doubt that you will see this. Topics have rolled on. But I believe that God created time and space. He is not bound by time and he knew how Israel would react to the Law of Moses. Or as Luke wrote in Acts: "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." His purpose in giving Israel the Law of Moses may have included the lesson of their own inadequacy to keep the law and the need for grace. I am not sure why you consider this "a trick." Maybe Israel could keep the law, under optimal conditions, but would they?
The law was a school master intended to bring Israel to God. It also revealed a large performance gap, hence, the need for grace. Many of the Mosaic laws were abrogated under the New Covenant. Some were to be kept in the spirit but not the letter, for instance, circumcision. Some were to be kept in both the spirit and the letter, for instance, the law against adultery. The Law of Christ was made workable and the performnce gap was closed through grace and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. This does not make the Law of Christ easier than the OT litigation but it makes it workable. It does not make it easier but it focuses it on spiritual intent. The Pharisees could keep the OT litigation, as much as practicable, and never really love anybody. Focusing on the spiritual intent is what Christ meant by exceeding the righteousness of the Pharisees - not the Galatianistic idea of doubling down on the Mosaic Law. If doubling down were the strategy, we would still have circumcision and rampant OCD.
I think I am preaching to the choir here. I feel you know this already. Just clarifying my own position.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NEO wrote, Many of the Mosaic laws were abrogated under the New Covenant. Some were to be kept in the spirit but not the letter, for instance, circumcision.
Physical circumcision will still be required under the New Covenant, not only for the houses of Judah and Israel but also for non-Israelites who want to enter the Third Temple (Eze 44:9).
The Torah admonishes the Israelites to circumcise their heart (Deu 10:16 Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.)
Ezekiel 44 [Those Admitted to the Third Temple]
v5 And YHVH said to me, “Son of man, mark well, see with your eyes and hear with your ears, all that I say to you concerning all the ordinances of the house of YHVH and all its laws (Heb torah, H8451). Mark well who may enter the house and all who go out from the sanctuary.
vv6-9 Now say to the rebellious, to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says Adonai YHVH: “O house of Israel, let us have no more of all your abominations. When you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to defile it—My house—and when you offered My food, the fat and the blood, then they broke My covenant because of all your abominations. And you have not kept charge of My holy things, but you have set others to keep charge of My sanctuary for you.” Thus says Adonai YHVH: “No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner who is among the children of Israel.
Post a Comment