Early church fathers [Archive]

View Full Version : Early church fathers

christinepro

30th December 2007, 12:52 AM

Just wondering what you think of the pre-Constantine church fathers?

cyberlizard

30th December 2007, 01:19 PM

i have read much of the writings of the early church fathers (from ccel) and it can be seen just how quickly the 'church' began to depart from its jewish roots.

the amount of anti jewish and anti semitic tone to some of the writings is quite disturbing.

Steve

Steve Petersen

30th December 2007, 01:20 PM

Most of them were anti-Torah and some were Jew haters. How much cred do you think they have here?

Iraneus, Book IV, Chapter IV:2: Since, then, the law originated with Moses, it terminated with John as a necessary consequence. Christ had come to fulfil it: wherefore "the law and the prophets were" with them "until John And therefore Jerusalem, taking its commencement from David and fulfilling its own times, must have an end of legislation when the new covenant was revealed. For God does all things by measure and in order; nothing is unmeasured with Him, because nothing is out of order. Well spake he, who said that the unmeasurable Father was Himself subjected to measure in the Son; for the Son is the measure of the Father, since He also comprehends Him. But that the administration of them (the Jews) was temporary, Esaias says: "And the daughter of Zion shall be left as a cottage in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers." And when shall these things be left behind? Is it not when the fruit shall be taken away, and the leaves alone shall be left, which now have no power of producing fruit?

The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, Chapter III.-Superstitions of the Jews.
And next, I imagine that you are most desirous of hearing something on this point, that the Christians do not observe the same forms of divine worship as do the Jews. The Jews, then, if they abstain from the kind of service above described, and deem it proper to worship one God as being Lord of all, [are right]; but if they offer Him worship in the way which we have described, they greatly err. For while the Gentiles, by offering such things to those that are destitute of sense and hearing, furnish an example of madness; they, on the other hand by thinking to offer these things to God as if He needed them, might justly reckon it rather an act of folly than of divine worship. For He that made heaven and earth, and all that is therein, and gives to us all the things of which we stand in need, certainly requires none of those things which He Himself bestows on such as think of furnishing them to Him. But those who imagine that, by means of blood, and the smoke of sacrifices and burnt-offerings, they offer sacrifices [acceptable] to Him, and that by such honours they show Him respect,-these, by supposing that they can give anything to Him who stands in need of nothing, appear to me in no respect to differ from those who studiously confer the same honour on things destitute of sense, and which therefore are unable to enjoy such honours.

Chapter IV.-The Other Observances of the Jews. But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice,-I do not think that you require to learn anything from me. For, to accept some of those things which have been formed by God for the use of men as properly formed, and to reject others as useless and redundant,-how can this be lawful? And to speak falsely of God, as if He forbade us to do what is good on the Sabbath-days,-how is not this impious? And to glory in the circumcision of the flesh as a proof of election, and as if, on account of it, they were specially beloved by God,-how is it not a subject of ridicule? And as to their observing months and days as if waiting upon the stars and the moon, and their distributing according to their own tendencies, the appointments of God, and the vicissitudes of the seasons, some for festivities and others for mourning,-who would deem this a part of divine worship, and not much rather a manifestation of folly? I suppose, then, you are sufficiently convinced that the Christians properly abstain from the vanity and error common [to both Jews and Gentiles], and from the busy-body spirit and vain boasting of the Jews; but you must not hope to learn the mystery of their peculiar mode of worshipping God from any mortal

christinepro

30th December 2007, 01:34 PM

This is good to know!! Thanks! Great ammunition!

A_Pioneer

30th December 2007, 03:47 PM

I think Messianics generally don't put much time into the Church fathers. From my understanding of Messianic Judaism, their beliefs seem to be based on interpretations of scripture through 19th Century western Rabbinical Judaism and general protestant sects found in England at the same time.

I don't think they put much thought into the Church fathers (I've never heard anyone do so) and prefer to focus their time and energy focusing on the NT and the laws and practices of the OT.

Personally, I consider the Church fathers not only to be authorative, but a good way to understand what was going on in the early Church beyond what was written in all the epistles of the NT.

Whenever the Way was perverted and no longed staunchly defended and adhered to, then the values of the Messiah brought to everyones attention became comprimised, I am afraid I can't go to that trough to feed on "Truth" because it has been contaminated!

Those folks quit imitating Yeshua and Sha'ul and did a similar move as did the Priests of Israel and did a little CYA! Both for fear of the Romans and fear of the Jews!
Comprimise is always easier than standing on "Truth"

"I am the way, the truth and the life:" Describes Torah also. Both are described as the word.

I wonder? Was Paul doing one of his supposed comprimises when he said to imitate him?

I don't think so! I think Sha'ul walked as close to, in the footsteps of Yeshua, as humanlly possible.

But, like and unlike the early Church fathers, I gave you my opinion.

Shalom

Henaynei

30th December 2007, 06:28 PM

Most of them were anti-Torah and some were Jew haters. How much cred do you think they have here? too true ....

visionary

30th December 2007, 07:30 PM

It was probably schism letters.

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 01:10 AM

Most of them were anti-Torah and some were Jew haters. How much cred do you think they have here?

Having studied the Church fathers, I really have no idea where you are making that accusation from. Many of the fathers were jews themselves.

I agree that most of them agreed with the notion that you don't have to adhere to the laws of the OT as a Christian. But the vast majority of Christians would say this idea came from the apostles themselves and is well documented in the NT. I don't think anyone would accuse a person who doesn't believe in following Mosaic as being anti-Torah. If that is what you were getting at? :confused:

The Church fathers overwhelmingly viewed the OT as a giant prophesy of Christ and what He would do. They viewed the laws of the OT as an integral part of the whole story leading up to Christ- but believed that Christians did not need to follow them.

Obviously this isn't the place to argue the merits of following OT laws- but I really don't see how you can make those charges.

The quotes you have seem to be inline with what I was talking about above- not anti-Torah. I see nothing anti-jewish about it... could you maybe explain further?

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 01:12 AM

Whenever the Way was perverted and no longed staunchly defended and adhered to, then the values of the Messiah brought to everyones attention became comprimised, I am afraid I can't go to that trough to feed on "Truth" because it has been contaminated!

Do you think the values of Christ were of salvation or adhering to the old covenant laws?

Steve Petersen

31st December 2007, 02:05 AM

Having studied the Church fathers, I really have no idea where you are making that accusation from. Many of the fathers were jews themselves.

The quotes you have seem to be inline with what I was talking about above- not anti-Torah. I see nothing anti-jewish about it... could you maybe explain further?

Ignatius to the Magnesians:

Be not deceived with strange doctrines, "nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, and things in which the Jews make their boast. "Old things are passed away: behold, all things have become new." For if we still live according to the Jewish law, and the circumcision of the flesh, we deny that we have received grace.

It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism.

He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-killing Jews

Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace.... If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny ... how shall we be able to live apart from Him? ... It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity

John Chrysostom (344-407 CE), denounced the Jews in the strongest language:

"They sacrificed their sons and daughters to devils; they outraged nature and overthrew their foundations of the laws of relationship. They are become worse than the wild beasts, and for no reason at all, with their own hands, they murder their offspring, to worship the avenging devils who are foes of our life... They know only one thing, to satisfy their gullets, get drunk, to kill and maim one another... The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, greedy, rapacious. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jews must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is incumbent upon all Christians to hate the Jews."

Here is a direct quote from Justin Martyr:

"For the law [Torah] promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this [new covenant] is for all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law—namely, Christ—has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance."

Jerome (author of the Latin Vulgate) and Augustine taught that the Jewish people were eternally accursed by God. Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch, said that "The Christian faith does not look to Judaism, but Judaism looks to Christianity."

simchat_torah

31st December 2007, 02:05 AM

Well, here's a small timeline following Constantine's era:

325: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter
from the Jewish Passover. They stated: "For it is unbecoming beyond
measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of
the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious
people..."

367 - 376: St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people
who G-d has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as brothels.

380: The bishop of Milan was responsible for the burning of a synagogue;
he referred to it as
"an act pleasing to G-d."

415: St.Augustine wrote "The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot,
who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures
and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus."

418: St.Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Bible wrote of
a synagogue:

"If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil's refuge, Satan's
fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable
disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it
deserves."

694: The 17th Church Council of Toledo, Spain defined Jews as the serfs of
the prince. This was based, in part, on the beliefs by Chrysostom, Origen,
Jerome, and other Church Fathers that G-d punished the Jews with perpetual
slavery because of their responsibility for the execution of
Jesus.

1078: The Synod of Gerona forced Jews to pay church taxes

1096: The First Crusade was launched in this year. Although the prime goal
of the crusades was to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims, Jews were a
second target.
As the soldiers passed through Europe on the way to the Holy Land, large
numbers of Jews were challenged: "Christ-killers, embrace the Cross or
die!"
12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed in the first Crusade.
This behavior continued for 8 additional crusades until the 9th in 1272.

1099: The Crusaders forced all of the Jews of Jerusalem into a central
synagogue and set it on fire. Those who tried to escape were forced back
into the burning building.

1205: Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Sens and Paris that
"the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude
because they crucified the L-rd...As slaves rejected by G-d, in whose
death they wickedly conspire,
they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the
slaves of those whom Christ's death set free..." thus began the slavery of
Jewish people to Catholics in the 13th century.

1215: The Fourth Lateran Council approved canon laws requiring that "Jews
and Muslims shall wear a special dress." They also had to wear a badge in
the form of a ring. This was to enable them to be easily distinguished
from Christians. This practice later spread to other countries
(hmmm.... sounds familiar)

1227: The Synod of Narbonne required Jews to wear an oval badge. This
requirement was reinstalled during the 1930's by Hitler, who changed the
oval badge to a Star of David.

1347 +: Ships from the Far East carried rats into Mediterranean ports. The
rats carried the Black Death. At first, fleas spread the disease from the
rats to humans.
As the plague worsened, the germs spread from human to human. In five
years, the death toll had reached 25 million. England took 2 centuries for
its population levels to recover from the plague. People looked around for
someone to blame.
They noted that a smaller percentage of Jews than Christians caught the
disease. This was undoubtedly due to the Jewish sanitary and dietary laws,
which had been preserved from Old Testament times. Rumors circulated that
Satan was protecting the Jews and that they were paying back the Devil by
poisoning wells used by Christians. The solution was to torture, murder
and burn the Jews.

In Bavaria...12,000 Jews...perished; in the small town of Erfurt...3,000;

Rue Brule...2,000 Jews; near Tours, an immense trench was dug, filled with
blazing
wood and in a single day 160 Jews were burned." In Strausberg 2,000 Jews
were burned.
In Maintz 6,000 were killed...; in Worms 400..."
12,000 Jews were executed in Toledo.
(the list goes on and on and on... sad isn't it)

This is the last one....

1543: Martin Luther, distressed by the reluctance of Jews to convert to
Christianity wrote "On the Jews and their lies, On Shem Hamphoras" :
"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?

First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire,...

Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed...
They ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like Gypsies.

Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds in
which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught.

Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach
any more...

Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden
to the Jews...

Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury. All their cash and valuables
of silver and gold ought to be taken from them and put aside for safe
keeping...

Steve Petersen

31st December 2007, 02:14 AM

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 02:19 AM

Well, here's a small timeline following Constantine's era:

Since i can't argue here, I won't address the validity of what you posted (except to say I strongly object to what it says and claims are made that are simply false and slanderous)- so I'll just ask- what does this have to do with the Church fathers? You didn't quote any :confused:

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 02:27 AM

Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho (Between 138A.D. and 161 A.D.)
We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart.
The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observence of the sabbath as a mark.

I don't see what is anti-semetic about this? This is just about not adhering to the old laws.

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) – A ecclesiastical writer and teacher who contributed to the early formation of Christian doctrines.
We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election.

I don't see a source for this, so I have no way of reading this in context. However, in principle, I see nothing wrong or anti-jewish about it. It seems to be saying three things:
- The jews killed the Messiah. While this is a touchy issue I don't see anything wrong with this- this is factual. They killed the prophets and Christ even told a parable about the master who send people to his servants and they kept killing them- not even sparing his own son. The epistles, particularily acts talk a good deal about it and the blame is put on the jewish authorities. The Gospel makes it pretty plain the Romans really had no desire to kill Jesus and did so only because of the persistance of the jews: Crucify Him!, Crucify Him! - Caesar is our only king...
- The jewish city was destroyed and they suffered. In the 8th decade, that is exactly what happened.
- Another group of people were called (the gentiles) and that is what happened.

Do you take issues with any of these and why?

simchat_torah

31st December 2007, 02:47 AM

so I'll just ask- what does this have to do with the Church fathers? From Popes to Saints to Martin Luther... and you ask... "what does this have to do with the Church fathers?"
At first, I thought you were joking. Now I realize you are serious... your words were not a joke.
Are you purposefully closing your eyes, or was I not blatant enough? I can go back and clarify if you wish, but I think its fairly obvious.

except to say I strongly object to what it says and claims are made that are simply false and slanderousI prefer specific points of debate rather than general rhetoric with nothing to stand upon. Got something a bit more solid? I'd be happy to discuss with you if you bring it to the table.

-Yafet

Henaynei

31st December 2007, 02:50 AM

I don't see what is anti-semetic about this? This is just about not adhering to the old laws. OIY!!

I don't see a source for this, so I have no way of reading this in context. However, in principle, I see nothing wrong or anti-jewish about it. It seems to be saying three things:
- The jews killed the Messiah. While this is a touchy issue I don't see anything wrong with this- this is factual. They killed the prophets and Christ even told a parable about the master who send people to his servants and they kept killing them- not even sparing his own son. The epistles, particularly acts talk a good deal about it and the blame is put on the jewish authorities. The Gospel makes it pretty plain the Romans really had no desire to kill Jesus and did so only because of the persistence of the jews: Crucify Him!, Crucify Him! - Caesar is our only king...
- The jewish city was destroyed and they suffered. In the 8th decade, that is exactly what happened.
- Another group of people were called (the gentiles) and that is what happened.

Do you take issues with any of these and why?in light of the first comment there can be no reasoning that will suffice to this or any other....

Acts 4:26-28

simchat_torah

31st December 2007, 02:52 AM

Steve Petersen

31st December 2007, 02:55 AM

Since i can't argue here, I won't address the validity of what you posted (except to say I strongly object to what it says and claims are made that are simply false and slanderous)- so I'll just ask- what does this have to do with the Church fathers? You didn't quote any :confused:

Maybe the mods can move this to the debate sub-forum so you can have your say.

christinepro

31st December 2007, 10:30 AM

Since i can't argue here, I won't address the validity of what you posted (except to say I strongly object to what it says and claims are made that are simply false and slanderous)- so I'll just ask- what does this have to do with the Church fathers? You didn't quote any :confused:

How do we allow him argue? I think this could be a great debate.

visionary

31st December 2007, 11:01 AM

Since i can't argue here, I won't address the validity of what you posted (except to say I strongly object to what it says and claims are made that are simply false and slanderous)- so I'll just ask- what does this have to do with the Church fathers? You didn't quote any :confused:We are going to move this thread to debate so that you can state your case.

visionary

31st December 2007, 11:03 AM

Having studied the Church fathers, I really have no idea where you are making that accusation from. Many of the fathers were jews themselves.

Please tell us of these jewish church fathers.

visionary

31st December 2007, 11:26 AM

The Fathers of the Church
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
Alexander of Alexandria [SAINT]
Alexander of Lycopolis
Ambrose (340-397) [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Aphrahat/Aphraates (c. 280-367)
Archelaus
Aristides the Philosopher
Arnobius
Athanasius [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Athenagoras
Augustine of Hippo [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Bardesanes (154-222)
Barnabas [SAINT]
Basil the Great [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Caius
Clement of Alexandria [SAINT]
Clement of Rome [SAINT]
Commodianus
Cyprian of Carthage [SAINT]
Cyril of Jerusalem [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Dionysius of Rome [SAINT]
Dionysius the Great
Ephraim the Syrian (306-373) [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340)
Gennadius of Marseilles
Gregory the Great, Pope (c. 540-604) [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Gregory Nazianzen [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Gregory of Nyssa [SAINT]
Gregory Thaumaturgus [SAINT]
Hermas
Hilary of Poitiers [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Hippolytus [SAINT]
Ignatius of Antioch [SAINT]
Irenaeus of Lyons [SAINT]
Jerome [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
John of Damascus [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435)
John Chrysostom [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Julius Africanus
Justin Martyr [SAINT]
Lactantius
Leo the Great, Pope (c. 395-461) [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Malchion
Mar Jacob (452-521)
Mathetes
Methodius
Minucius Felix
Moses of Chorene (c. 400-c. 490)
Movatian
Origen
Pamphilus [SAINT]
Papias [SAINT]
Peter of Alexandria [SAINT]
Polycarp [SAINT]
Rufinus
Socrates Scholasticus (c. 379-c. 450)
Sozomen (c. 375-c. 447)
Sulpitius Severus (c. 363-c. 420)
Tatian
Tertullian
Theodoret
Theodotus
Theophilus
Venantius
Victorinus [SAINT]
Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 450) [SAINT]

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 11:54 AM

Steve Petersen

31st December 2007, 12:13 PM

We should restrict this discussion to the ante-Nicene church fathers as per to OP. A discussion of Christian anti-semitism will get to large and distracted.

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 12:23 PM

1078: The Synod of Gerona forced Jews to pay church taxes

The wording seems a little strange- and it doesn't quote a canon or where in the synod it suggests it. I looked it up but I could find very little info on Gerona anyways.
It doesn't really matter anyways, the only people that would take an issue with jews having to pay all the same taxes as Christians are those that favor separation of Church and state.

1096: The First Crusade was launched in this year. Although the prime goal
of the crusades was to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims, Jews were a
second target.
As the soldiers passed through Europe on the way to the Holy Land, large
numbers of Jews were challenged: "Christ-killers, embrace the Cross or
die!"
12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed in the first Crusade.
This behavior continued for 8 additional crusades until the 9th in 1272.

Another twisting of the facts.
This was done by a German army, led by their king, that was supposed to be going to Jerusalem. The Crusades were like a UN action and this incident involve one army attacking its own people.
You'll be surprised to know that many jews were saved by their king by Church authorities who sheltered jews.

1099: The Crusaders forced all of the Jews of Jerusalem into a central
synagogue and set it on fire. Those who tried to escape were forced back
into the burning building.

What happened by the mercenary forces after the siege of Jerusalem was an atrocity, but I don't believe this incident happened or could have happened. The scene was just too chaotic. People were killed because there was no control.

1215: The Fourth Lateran Council approved canon laws requiring that "Jews
and Muslims shall wear a special dress." They also had to wear a badge in
the form of a ring. This was to enable them to be easily distinguished
from Christians. This practice later spread to other countries
(hmmm.... sounds familiar)

Canon 68 is what you are referring to and it refers to dress only. The purpose was uniformity- Muslims and Jews in some reasons wore different dress than Christians and we people moved around- there was confusion.

1227: The Synod of Narbonne required Jews to wear an oval badge. This
requirement was reinstalled during the 1930's by Hitler, who changed the
oval badge to a Star of David.

No canon mentioned.

1347 +: Ships from the Far East carried rats into Mediterranean ports. The
rats carried the Black Death. At first, fleas spread the disease from the
rats to humans.
As the plague worsened, the germs spread from human to human. In five
years, the death toll had reached 25 million. England took 2 centuries for
its population levels to recover from the plague. People looked around for
someone to blame.
They noted that a smaller percentage of Jews than Christians caught the
disease. This was undoubtedly due to the Jewish sanitary and dietary laws,
which had been preserved from Old Testament times. Rumors circulated that
Satan was protecting the Jews and that they were paying back the Devil by
poisoning wells used by Christians. The solution was to torture, murder
and burn the Jews.

And what's really bad about this source is it doesn't mention this was done by the people despite pleas from the Church not to- the pope insisted this was not the case.

1543: Martin Luther

Luther wasn't a Catholic or a church father. I agree that he didn't think highly of jews.

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 12:27 PM

From Popes to Saints to Martin Luther... and you ask... "what does this have to do with the Church fathers?"
At first, I thought you were joking. Now I realize you are serious... your words were not a joke.
Are you purposefully closing your eyes, or was I not blatant enough? I can go back and clarify if you wish, but I think its fairly obvious.

I don't think you know what a Church father is. The standard list has been quoted.

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 12:33 PM

If the Jews killed the messiah...

Then sin did not.

Which is it? Was it your sin that killed the Christ or the Jews?

Bah... nevermind, that is a rabbit trail probably best saved for another thread.

The responsibility is carried by all who sin. However, you can not deny the role of the jews in the death of Christ.

Acts 7:51-52

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 12:37 PM

OIY!!

in light of the first comment there can be no reasoning that will suffice to this or any other....

Acts 4:26-28

As the OT told: Noah's son Shem (jews) was first blessed and his second blessed son Japheth (gentiles) would come to dwell in the house of Shem.

Steve Petersen

31st December 2007, 12:50 PM

The Eipistle of Mathetes to Diognetus:

Chapter IV.--The other observances of the Jews.

But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition
as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and
their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly
ridiculous and unworthy of notice,--I do not [275] think that you
require to learn anything from me. For, to accept some of those things
which have been formed by God for the use of men as properly formed,
and to reject others as useless and redundant,--how can this be lawful?
And to speak falsely of God, as if He forbade us to do what is good on
the Sabbath-days,--how is not this impious? And to glory in the
circumcision [276] of the flesh as a proof of election, and as if, on
account of it, they were specially beloved by God,--how is it not a
subject of ridicule? And as to their observing months and days, [277]
as if waiting upon [278] the stars and the moon, and their
distributing, [279] according to their own tendencies, the appointments
of God, and the vicissitudes of the seasons, some for festivities,
[280] and others for mourning,--who would deem this a part of divine
worship, and not much rather a manifestation of folly? I suppose, then,
you are sufficiently convinced that the Christians properly abstain
from the vanity and error common [to both Jews and Gentiles], and from
the busy-body spirit and vain boasting of the Jews; but you must not
hope to learn the mystery of their peculiar mode of worshipping God
from any mortal.

Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians:

Chapter X:
Abide in Christ, that the
stranger [702] may not have dominion over you. It is absurd to speak of
Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism
which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there
cannot be Judaism

Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians:
Chapter XI:
Avoid also the children of the evil one, Theodotus
and Cleobulus, who produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one
tastes, he instantly dies, and that not a mere temporary death, but one
that shall endure for ever. These men are not the planting of the
Father, but are an accursed brood. And says the Lord, "Let every plant
which my heavenly Father has not planted be rooted up." [812] For if
they had been branches of the Father, they would not have been "enemies
of the cross of Christ," [813] but rather of those who "killed the Lord
of glory." [814] But now, by denying the cross, and being ashamed of
the passion, they cover the transgression of the Jews, those fighters
against God, those murderers of the Lord; for it were too little to
style them merely murderers of the prophets.

Ignatius to the Philedelpians:
Chapter VI:
But if any one preach the Jewish law [923] unto you, listen not to him.
For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has
been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised.

If any one says
there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord
to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten [931] God, and Wisdom, and
the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body,
such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the
destruction of men. And such a man is poor in understanding, even as by
name he is an Ebionite.

Ignatius to the Phillipians:
Chapter XIV:
If any one celebrates the passover along with the Jews, or receives the
emblems of their feast, he is a partaker with those that killed the
Lord and His apostles.

For those interested, got to ccel.org. You can read the ante-Nicene fathers there. The documents are public domain so quotes may be copied and pasted.

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 12:52 PM

I agree with what you quoted.

Just what to you object to- other than the notion that Christians ought not abide by the old jewish customs? That's not anti-jewish.

Steve Petersen

31st December 2007, 12:57 PM

I object to calling Jews who weren't even alive when Jesus was here 'Christ killers'.

Steve Petersen

31st December 2007, 01:03 PM

Ivy

31st December 2007, 01:07 PM

John Chrysostom (344-407 CE), denounced the Jews in the strongest language:

"They sacrificed their sons and daughters to devils; they outraged nature and overthrew their foundations of the laws of relationship. They are become worse than the wild beasts, and for no reason at all, with their own hands, they murder their offspring, to worship the avenging devils who are foes of our life... They know only one thing, to satisfy their gullets, get drunk, to kill and maim one another... The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, greedy, rapacious. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jews must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is incumbent upon all Christians to hate the Jews."

That's pretty awful. It's not incumbent upon THIS Christian to hate the Jews. Or any other Christian to do so, either, for that matter.

If dear John felt that the Jews were so much his enemies (and I don't feel that way, by the way,) he ought to have re-read the teachings of Jesus......which state: "Love your enemies." What he's propagating here is in blatant contradiction to the teachings of Jesus and of Scripture.

For my part, I consider that we owe an outstanding debt of love to the Jewish people and it's totally inappropriate for any Christian to be talking of "vengeance."

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 01:30 PM

I object to calling Jews who weren't even alive when Jesus was here 'Christ killers'.

Where is that done? It seems to me they are referring to the jews at the time of Christ that begged the Romans to kill Him.

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 01:42 PM

I object to calling keeping God's commandments 'superstition.'

I object to the notion that Judaism and Christianity cannot co-exist. Jesus was an observant Jew. How can we be imitators of him outside of his praxis?

I object to, and history refutes, the notion that Judaism has come to an end.

I object to the notion that keeping Passover as a Christian makes you a 'Christ killer.'

Do you really mean to defend this type of talk?

Absolutely.

Christianity and Judaism can not co-exist.

The true faith was like a seed- first planted in Abraham and carried by the jewish people. With Christ, the plant broke free and left a shell. It was the shell of the seed that carried what was at the core- Christ for thousands of years.

Judaism is dead. It is an empty shell. The temples are gone, the Levitical priests are gone. Unlike the jews of the past, the descendents of Isaac aren't awaiting Christ, He has already come. They follow an empty religion. I don't call it empty to seem mean, but to express that what made Judaism what it was wasn't the hard shell, but the life (Christ) that was within.

To adhere to the old ways, to celebrate the passover customs ignores Christ. Passover was to point to Christ, but now that Christ is here, let us focus on what He accomplished.

The old ways are the shell- to adhere to them is to place importance on the shell and not what it contained. The shell is dead. The trees and its many branches (Jew and Gentile) is the life. The people who killed Jesus couldn't see beyond the shell and killed Him because of it. To me, to celebrate the passover is to commit the same error as the high priests- to focus on the shell (laws) and not what is in it(Christ). I will celebrate Easter (new) and not Passover (old).

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 01:52 PM

btw- in case you are wondering, I don't hate jews or anything like that :) I'm a loud-mouth defender of Israel.

However, the more indepth I get into understanding the current "Jewish" faith and Christianity, the more skeptical I am of it. Having read many of the church fathers, I understand where they are coming from- and it is very easy to misunderstand.

christinepro

31st December 2007, 02:05 PM

Absolutely.

. I will celebrate Easter (new) and not Passover (old). This makes me sick!! Fertility God feast. Uttering the name makes me ill. Passover, First Fruits and Feast of Unleaven are so much more prophetic, poetic, and true. What Jew would celebrate a feast with the name of a fertility goddess? That is totally against their pricipals. Not a very good idea for conversion purposes. Yuk!!!

Steve Petersen

31st December 2007, 02:05 PM

Absolutely.

Christianity and Judaism can not co-exist.

The true faith was like a seed- first planted in Abraham and carried by the jewish people. With Christ, the plant broke free and left a shell. It was the shell of the seed that carried what was at the core- Christ for thousands of years.

Judaism is dead. It is an empty shell. The temples are gone, the Levitical priests are gone. Unlike the jews of the past, the descendents of Isaac aren't awaiting Christ, He has already come. They follow an empty religion. I don't call it empty to seem mean, but to express that what made Judaism what it was wasn't the hard shell, but the life (Christ) that was within.

To adhere to the old ways, to celebrate the passover customs ignores Christ. Passover was to point to Christ, but now that Christ is here, let us focus on what He accomplished.

The old ways are the shell- to adhere to them is to place importance on the shell and not what it contained. The shell is dead. The trees and its many branches (Jew and Gentile) is the life. The people who killed Jesus couldn't see beyond the shell and killed Him because of it. To me, to celebrate the passover is to commit the same error as the high priests- to focus on the shell (laws) and not what is in it(Christ). I will celebrate Easter (new) and not Passover (old).

And the beat goes on.:sigh:

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 02:12 PM

This makes me sick!! Fertility God feast. Uttering the name makes me ill. Passover, First Fruits and Feast of Unleaven are so much more prophetic, poetic, and true. What Jew would celebrate a feast with the name of a fertility goddess? That is totally against their pricipals. Not a very good idea for conversion purposes. Yuk!!!

Prophetic of what?

Easter.

Christ is the lamb whose blood was slain. Why are you focusing on a holiday whose purpose was to foreshadow Christ, while ignoring the holiday of Christ!

btw: the name Easter is only used by Germans and English- the name of the holiday is Pascha. For some reason, the Germanics, like through confused common usage, tacted the name of the pagan holiday unto Pascha instead.

SpiritualAntiseptic

31st December 2007, 02:14 PM

And the beat goes on.:sigh:

I think the problem is you strongly believe in following the ways of the old convenant and any attempt to explain why the old convenant is null and void is construed as anti-jewish attitudes.

Obviously, you can't understand how the old ways are dead if you believe it is necessary to follow them.

Ivy

31st December 2007, 02:20 PM

This makes me sick!! Fertility God feast. Uttering the name makes me ill.

Not a very good idea for conversion purposes. Yuk!!!

Myself, I refer to it as Resurrection Day. :)

Try not to engage in theatrics-- that's not the best witness either.

christinepro

31st December 2007, 02:22 PM

Myself, I refer to it as Resurrection Day. :)

Try not to engage in theatrics-- that's not the best witness either. I like the idea of calling Resurrection day. I don't mean to overreact but I guess I am part French. I don't mean to throw over the tables in the temple.

Ivy

31st December 2007, 02:37 PM

Yes, it's best to leave throwing tables over to Yeshua. :)

seashale76

31st December 2007, 03:03 PM

Steve Petersen

31st December 2007, 03:30 PM

I think the problem is you strongly believe in following the ways of the old convenant and any attempt to explain why the old convenant is null and void is construed as anti-jewish attitudes.

Obviously, you can't understand how the old ways are dead if you believe it is necessary to follow them.

To say that Judaism is a dead religion is anti-semitic. Paint it how you like.

It is the only religion explicity given by God, who declared His commandments ETERNAL.

If Judaism is a dead religion, who is keeping the corpse alive? Satan? God? Stubborn men?

Tonks

31st December 2007, 03:47 PM

To say that Judaism is a dead religion is anti-semitic. Paint it how you like.

Not when addressing the relative merits of Jewish theology. You're far too quick to pull the "anti-semitism" trigger here.

It is the only religion explicity given by God, who declared His commandments ETERNAL.

Who was Christ? Just some dude?

Steve Petersen

31st December 2007, 04:02 PM

Not when addressing the relative merits of Jewish theology. You're far too quick to pull the "anti-semitism" trigger here.

Perhaps if people had pulled the trigger a little sooner, the Holocaust may not have happened. The line of thinking expressed by the idea that 'Judaism is a dead religion' is an intermediate step to supressing that religion.

Who was Christ? Just some dude?

So, how was Jesus' new religion different than Judaism?

Tonks

31st December 2007, 04:07 PM

Perhaps if people had pulled the trigger a little sooner, the Holocaust may not have happened.

Why are you bringing the Holocaust into this? It has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Jesus Christ is the Messiah of God.

He is also God's ultimate king.

But Messiahs and Kings are constrained by the Torah. If they set it aside, they are false.

Christ IS God, the Living Torah. Otherwise your posts belong in the Non-Christian Religion section of the site.

simchat_torah

31st December 2007, 05:01 PM

I probably can't reply today as I'm extremely busy, but do note that I've read your replies. Also, note the vast majority of your replies were a lack of findings... which I will bring with quotes later.... and not truly an argument. Don't worry, I never state something without having the documentation to backup my statements. Most here in this subforum know this already ;)

-Yafet

simchat_torah

31st December 2007, 05:02 PM

Christ IS God, the Living Torah. Otherwise your posts belong in the Non-Christian Religion section of the site.I suggest saving the debate over the nature of the Messiah for another thread.

-Yafet

muffler dragon

31st December 2007, 05:49 PM

Just as an example of how other languages refer to the Resurrection:

Latin: Festa Paschalia or Pascha
Albanian: Pashket
Arabic: Aid ul-Fish
Bosnian: Uskrs/Vaskrs (literally 'resurrection')
Chinese: Fuhuo Jie (Resurrection Festival)
Croatian: Uskrs
Dutch: Pasen or Paasfeest
French: Paques
Greek: Paskha
Hebrew: Pascha
Italian: Pasqua
Japanese: Fukkatsu-sai (Resurrection Festival)
Persian: Pas'h
Polish: Pascha
Romanian: Paste
Russian: Paskha
Spanish: Pascua
Turkish: Paskalya
Serbian: Uskrs/Vaskrs
Slovak: Vel'ka' Noc (The Great Night)
Ukranian: Paska

AYFKM?

Pascha in Hebrew refers to the Passover; not the Resurrection. I would reckon that the same can be said for the other languages that are transliterated with a beginning "P". Thus, I would recommend that you not post this again as it's painfully wrong.

muffler dragon

31st December 2007, 05:50 PM

I suggest saving the debate over the nature of the Messiah for another thread.

-Yafet

What?! Another non-sequitur?! How could it be?!

Steve Petersen

31st December 2007, 06:05 PM

Why are you bringing the Holocaust into this? It has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Do you think the Holocaust just came out of the blue? It is the result of centuries of unchallenged Christian anti-semitism typified by the types of things we are hearing from the church fathers. It is a shame that these things are still spoken by Christians today.

In order to persecute someone, you first need to delegtimize them. That is what is going on here, the delegtimization of Jews based on the idea that they are practicing a dead religion.

Are you offended when Islam says that and worse about Christianity? You should be.

Are you offended when Mormonism says things about Jesus that you believe are false? You had better be.

seashale76

31st December 2007, 06:11 PM

AYFKM?

Pascha in Hebrew refers to the Passover; not the Resurrection. I would reckon that the same can be said for the other languages that are transliterated with a beginning "P". Thus, I would recommend that you not post this again as it's painfully wrong.

No, it isn't wrong. This is how Christians refer to the Resurrection in other languages. Christ transfigured everything. I couldn't care less about Jewish and Noahide opinions to the contrary as you deny Christ.

visionary

31st December 2007, 06:15 PM

OK.... let's cool down

christinepro

31st December 2007, 06:25 PM

Tonks

31st December 2007, 06:57 PM

I suggest saving the debate over the nature of the Messiah for another thread.

-Yafet

Jewish opinion on the nature of Christ is irrelevant to me. Messianic opinion, however, is relevant as - at least titularly it seems - they claim to be Christian.

Tonks

31st December 2007, 07:01 PM

Do you think the Holocaust just came out of the blue? It is the result of centuries of unchallenged Christian anti-semitism typified by the types of things we are hearing from the church fathers. It is a shame that these things are still spoken by Christians today.

In order to persecute someone, you first need to delegtimize them. That is what is going on here, the delegtimization of Jews based on the idea that they are practicing a dead religion.

It certainly isn't a salvific religion...so what is the point? The depths that folks go to in order to thrust every and all causes of the Holocaust at Christianity's feet is appaling. Likewise, playing it as some sort of trump card when discussing the anti-Judaic slant of early christian writers is ridiculous.

Are you offended when Islam says that and worse about Christianity? You should be.

Are you offended when Mormonism says things about Jesus that you believe are false? You had better be.

I could care less about either of those two belief systems.

christinepro

31st December 2007, 08:13 PM

Prophetic of what?

Easter.

Christ is the lamb whose blood was slain. Why are you focusing on a holiday whose purpose was to foreshadow Christ, while ignoring the holiday of Christ!

btw: the name Easter is only used by Germans and English- the name of the holiday is Pascha. For some reason, the Germanics, like through confused common usage, tacted the name of the pagan holiday unto Pascha instead.

1. Pesach (Passover) / Also known as "The Feast of Our Freedeom"
Abib/Nisan 14 (Fourteenth Day of the First Month)
A. Memorial: deliverance from the death angel
B. Traditional: deliverance from slavery, coming again of Elijah
C. Prophetic: deliverance from the wages of sin
D. Messianic: the death of Messiah Yeshua
E. Command: eat bitter herbs, eat no leaven, eat unleavened bread, tell your children what G-d has done in delivering them, bring an offering, [sacrifice]
F. Scripture: Leviticus 23:4,5
G. Gift of the Ruach: word of wisdom
H. Fruit of the Ruach: love
2. Chag Matzah (Feast of Unleavened Bread)
Abib/Nisan 15-22
A. Memorial: deliverance from slavery in Egypt
B. Traditional: removal of all leaven
C. Prophetic: cleansing from sin
D. Messianic: the burial of Messiah Yeshua
E. Command: eat no leaven for seven days, eat unleavened bread seven days, first and last day do no wage work, [sacrifice]
F. Scripture: Leviticus 23:6-8; Exodus 13:6-8
G. Gift of the Ruach: word of knowledge
H. Fruit of the Ruach: joy/calm delight
3. Yom HaBikkurim (Day of First Fruits) / Also known as "First Fruits of the Barley Harvest"
The first day of the week, which follows Passover
A. Memorial: thanksgiving for the first fruits of the land
B. Traditional: none, this day is not kept by modern Judaism
C. Prophetic: assurance of salvation
D. Messianic: the resurrection of Messiah Yeshua
E. Command: wave a barley loaf (sheaf) before the L-RD
F. Scripture: Leviticus 23:9-14
G. Gift of the Ruach: trust/faith
H. Fruit of the Ruach: peace

A_Pioneer

31st December 2007, 10:39 PM

Do you think the values of Christ were of salvation or adhering to the old covenant laws?
Both! Had he broken even one old covenant law you would die in your sins! The Father promised to send a Redeemer, He is the one. The "word" of God/Torah, the way the truth and the life. Without Torah/Yeshua no-one comes to the Father!

Shalom

simchat_torah

31st December 2007, 11:16 PM

Jewish opinion on the nature of Christ is irrelevant to me. Messianic opinion, however, is relevant as - at least titularly it seems - they claim to be ChristianYes, well... do note that I stated another thread... not another forum. I'm sure you can find many interesting discussions concerning the nature of the Messiah here in the MJ section. However, this thread can easily be sidetracked and I was merely posting a reminder that seperate threads can be created for rabbit trails ;)

no offense.

ContraMundum

25th February 2008, 03:40 AM

Just wondering what you think of the pre-Constantine church fathers?

I studied patristics in seminary- to very high level. Trust me when I tell you that the only way to understand them is to learn them outside of the internet. I'd suggest doing a course in Patristics as far away from the internet as you can go. Avoid learning about the ECF from the internet like you would avoid the plague. You have to admit, you need a pretty strong stomach to keep down the rubbish about them I've seen on threads like this. The presentation of them by selective quotations and more interpretation than fact is very deceptive, and dare I say it, disengenuous.

On the internet, you just get half-baked pop-doctors telling you almost everything about them that is half true. You need to get contextualised teaching to actually understand them, and you need to know a lot more about Judaism and Christianity than is presented here to see them as they actually were.

That's all I can say about this. Just take my word for it that they're not what those who hate them say they are. They're not perfect either, but take a look at the world and tell me who is. :)

Ivy

25th February 2008, 09:03 PM

It certainly isn't a salvific religion...so what is the point? The depths that folks go to in order to thrust every and all causes of the Holocaust at Christianity's feet is appaling. Likewise, playing it as some sort of trump card when discussing the anti-Judaic slant of early christian writers is ridiculous.

I've just finished reading a book entitled Salvation is From the Jews, which shows that the roots of Naziism and the Holocuast were not in Christianity, but squarely in the occult.

Yareach

26th February 2008, 05:24 PM

ANCF are interesting, but as a guide faith I find them lacking both in terms of approach to scripture as well as baggage/philosophy. Many of them relied heavily on analogy for dealing with the Bible (Alexandria vs. Antioch approach) and were heavily influenced by Hellenism. Take Justin Martyr as an example of strong Hellenistic influences. He claims Plato used Moses (!) and seems to be partly the logic behind his defense of Platonic Logos termonology. "God is nameless" is just another purely Hellenistic concept (and unscriptural) derived from the ineffible high god concept (in Platonic thought the highest god cannot have a name because there is no one to name him).

The parting of ways was a fast process indeed. At one point believers could be in the synagogue and even "mistaken" as Jews and kicked out of Rome (e.g. Pracilla and Aquilla) and within 100 years the divide was quite intense.

ContraMundum

27th February 2008, 04:11 AM

ANCF are interesting, but as a guide faith I find them lacking both in terms of approach to scripture as well as baggage/philosophy.

Where did you study them?

Many of them relied heavily on analogy for dealing with the Bible (Alexandria vs. Antioch approach)

...like the Jews of the time and now also?

and were heavily influenced by Hellenism.

...like the Jews of the time and now also?

I'd say most of the ECF were very much like their Jewish mentors. The myth of the "pure" Judaism of the Second Temple era has got to be put to rest. The best thing about the ECFs was the fact that they alone stood steadfastly against gnosticism, while elements of Judaism have fallen completely under its spell to this very day. Likewise, the ECF were easily far more effective apologists for monotheism against the pagans than anyone of their era.

Yareach

27th February 2008, 11:04 AM

Where did you study them?

I opened it up and read it.

Regardless of where I have studied or where I am currently studying I stand by the accuracy of my comments in regards to Justin. Where I have studies or my level of education are irrelevant to the authenticity of claims.

Many of them relied heavily on analogy for dealing with the Bible (Alexandria vs. Antioch approach)
...like the Jews of the time and now also?

There were a number of schools of thought in Judaism on interpretation. You have been following my posts, so you are aware that I do not subscribe to a monolithic Judaism of the first century. I have already demonstrated in my few posts here that a number of ideas accepted as defacto "Jewish" are not represenative of all 1st century Judaism (e.g. "was the Sabbath for Israel only?" and "have Jews ever proselytizated?" come to mind. You cannot even speak of a group like the Pharisees as homogenous, let alone such an eclectic variety of groups like the Qumran Sect, Sadducees, Hellenistic Jews, and even Samaritans.

The short of the long is, "Just because 'the Jews' did it doesn't mean it is right, correct, relevant or authoratative."

Edit: Biblical hermenuetic principles is a topic that could be spun off into its own thread as well. I don't have the time to engage every topic but could recommend a number of volumed dedicated to this topic that would be fairly represenantive of my position. Which, of course, you are probably familiar with. It is probably sufficient to say that most of us would disagree with the aproach that people like Origen brought to the text and believe it diverges from the methods typically and primarily used by Yeshua and his disciples. Notably the hermenuetic many of them used for dealing with the Hebrew Bible which spiritualized the text and didn't take it very seriously (clean and unclean is a great early example that comes to mind).

and were heavily influenced by Hellenism. [/me]
[quote=you]...like the Jews of the time and now also?

First, I find your use of "Jews" ironic in regards to your comment below about "pure" Judaism below. Twice you have used it in a monolithic sense, but you accuse me of pushing forward the idea of "pure" Judaism in the Second Temple period??

More to the point your defence of ANCF Hellenism by an appeal to Hellenistic influences on [some] of Second Temple Judaism a non sequitur. More bluntly:

"Many ANCF appeal to pagan thought and practices" - me

"So did the Jews of the time!" - you

It is irrelevant if some of the Jews of the time were guilty of the same errors! When a philosophical construct is imported into theological discussion and overrides Biblical expressions, facts, and theology there is a problem.

Yeshua was quite critical of the adhearance of traditions of men over the word of God (e.g. Mark 7:1ff). Traditions have a place, but when they nullify the word of God they need to be actively rejected.

I'd say most of the ECF were very much like their Jewish mentors.

I would say most of the ANCF were very much influenced by their Hellenistic baggage.

The myth of the "pure" Judaism of the Second Temple era has got to be put to rest.

I have never perpetuated such a myth.

The best thing about the ECFs was the fact that they alone stood steadfastly against gnosticism, while elements of Judaism have fallen completely under its spell to this very day.

1. Elements of Christianity, from the earlists of days, have been under this spell.

2. You only need read a book like, "Two Powers in Heaven" by Allen Segal to see that by and large Rabbinic Judaism was devoted against the teachings of gnosticism.

3. While I have no intention of delving into stoic, hellenistic, and gnostics practices and beliefs, even if one were to conceed that the ANCF "stood steadfastly against gnosticism" that doesn't obsolve the blatant affinity, even to the detriment to Biblical facts, for Hellenistic philosophy. One act doesn't obsolve the guilt of the other.

Likewise, the ECF were easily far more effective apologists for monotheism against the pagans than anyone of their era.

First, I would say that in terms of absolutely strict monotheism as a philosophical construct that Rabbinic Judaism, with a view of a single God that is absolute and indivisible, where all others are creatures (even most "theophanies" which are relegated to a role of a special angel, Metatron, who was created for this purpose and is seen as absolutely subordinate in function and ontology from God himself) is the most solid expression of "One God-ism" from the ancient world.

Of course the use of monotheism as a term could be a trick in that the theistic development of the concept evolved in Hellenism where there arose the problem of how does a god (ho on, the one), abiding by the principle ideas of a true god (imnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc) enter into human history and experience? Enter: Logos, Nous, etc as philosophical constructs related to Ho On. The "Creator" needed intermediaries to express himself and, in their own right, were viewed as divine "lesser gods". So do we strictly define monotheism as a "single god, one person, singular creator" or do we permit in the term "single god, expressed in many fashions even numbers, use of intermediaries in "God-only" acts like creation"?

I will let the philosophers work that one out.

But the litmus test, for the ancient world, would be, "How many gods does each religion have in the view of the non-participant?"

Christianity, more so than Judaism, was accused of having more than one god.

Now to why the Christians were more effective apologists--which I must stress is two very distinct issues!--is multifold. Some reasons I would submitt as being relevant

(a) By the time Christianity had been completely cleaved from the Jewish people and Israel (between 70CE and 134CE) Judaism had become even more retracted from missionary activity. Between the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, Selucid, and Roman occupations the tone toward missions to the nations had changed. Christian activity in apologetics was much more aggressive than that of Judaism in the timeperiod.

(b) Halakha had developed that established Torah readings in Hebrew as the norm and diminished the role of the Lxx in the synagogue.

(c) It is much easier to be an effective apologist when you can adpot language and concepts to express your ideas. Both you and I know that the term "trinity" isn't a 1st century term (or even 2nd century one) but was the result of centuries of work trying to formulate and define the doctrine the scriptures teach in these regards. As the Church worked to fight heresy and define the Biblical doctrine many different church fathers, to varying degrees of success and failure, adopted various expressions, terms, and ideas from various theological constructs. Sometimes they borrowed terms and truncated most of the excess baggage... sometimes not so much.

Either way, it is an effective tool to use termonology familiar to the audiance and put forth your own emphasis and differences but allow the listener to carry on any preconceived ideas from the former system.

Christianity has a big problem with thus: gather Christians from various disciplines and discuss sanctification, justification, law, faith, the trinity, etc and their views of those word-concepts will vary.

You will be much more effective apologist using the word "logos" to a pagan-Hellnist than the word "shekhinah".

(d) Based on the intertestimental literature dealing with intermediaries (namely the mal'akh YHWH) I would deposit that the "law of agency" doesn't do justice to Biblical concept and that the mal'akh YHWH is seen both as distinct from the one who sent him, as one as united with him, and this messenger posses divinity. This general concept was developed (and augmented) in the intertestimental period with concepts like Wisdom (Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon), the Memra YHYH, the angels Yahuel and Metatron, and even carried on over into a Hellenistic format in Philonic teachings.

While the Rabbis had a ready defense of a number of difficult passages (Gen 1:26, theophanies and divergent descriptions of God as young/old, the Son of Man texts in Daniel, mal'akh YHWH/Elohim texts, and so forth) the early Christian interpretations of these texts was more compatible, in some ways, with Platonic concepts of monotheism.

Put another way:

Jewish views of intermediaries as simply represenatives of God with special roles (law of agency, like Joseph being Pharaoh) didn't do much to explain difficult texts to Hellenists who envisions a form of monotheism with a logos represenative.

ANCF views on intermediaries, notably a special represenative, who was divine and "the radiance of [God's] glory and the representation of his essense" (Heb. 1:3) was much, much more compatible with Platonic concepts of monotheism--even though they were not always identical in approach or formulation.

So a gentile, living as a gentile, and teaching with gentile language that is more compatible with pre-concieved and popular philosophies of the time is going to be more effective. To wit, there is a reason Justin Martyr appealed to Plato and Moses!

But lets not mistake his effectiveness with absolutely approval--or we would have to conceed such human arguements to Muslims and Mormons! And dare I say that someone coming from a Biblical perspective with a very strict view of "monotheism" would be less than impressed with some of the terms Justin uses--e.g. Yeshua was "another god" and the stress on independance and cardinal distinction of the logos but unity in purpose with the creater God.

And none of this detracts from the fact that Biblical facts are obscured by these philosophies they imported. As I noted before, Justin had smear and insult those who hold to the doctrine that God has a name (YHWH), but the facts will fall as they will:

The Bible says God has a name.

Justin claimed God the Father didn't have a name.

Hellenistic thought, which Justin referred to and defended frequently, taught the namelessness of the high god.

Clearly this is an example of non-Biblical traditions formulating early Church doctrine.

As a catholic you will have an invested interest to defend the ANCF.

But Messianics in general don't. Obviously most of your posts ride the wave right back to tradition--which most of us Messianics reject--and I personally think instead of a frequent derailment of threads with an idea not shared by the majority of the movement that a single thread dedicated to, "Should Messianics follow the Church Traditions?" would be in good order.

Of course that thread would be no different than the number of threads by other various Christian groups that hold a similar position. And if the above exchange is any indication it would be fruitless:

"Some ANCF imparted non-Biblical Hellenistic/pagan beliefs contrary to the teachings of the Bible" -- us

"The Jews did the same thing!" -- you

The groundswell of the Messianic movement and Messianic congregations wouldn't approve of this argument style and I would say it is fruitless. Yes, Messianic is a very diverse term (so much so that a Jewish Christian, Hebrew Roots Christian, Torah Observant Christian, Ebonite, etc are all grouped together for odd bed fellows) with no strict limitiation. And yes, there are those who accept Jewish, Christian and "other" practices that are not found in the Bible, and even those that are vestigages of pagan practices.

But the movement, in general, is dedicated toward a different path. The general trend is to walk in the "ancient paths" (Jer. 6:16) and understand the historical, Jewish context of Yeshua and his followers. We study ancient texts, but the example of Yeshua is to reject that which is not Biblical and from God. Paul is an excellent example of such--who fought vigorously against the Oral Law in cases where it hindered the purposes of God. This is the emnity Yeshua destroyed (Eph 2:14f).

The ANCF were men, who disagreed, and made errors as well as proclaimed the glories of our Lord. This is very similar to the situation of the various Jewish sages.

But in no situation are we asked to unequivicably asked to follow them absolutely (hence Yeshua can both rebuke the Pharisees as well as say to follow them; e.g. Matt 23). We even see examples of where the Apostles errored, and were rebuked, for erroring in regards to the traditions and teachings of men.

Tradition has its place--but for you and most of us that place is quite different from your catholic view. Furthermore, our reading of history is quite different. Where the church fathers could criticize a group like the Nazarenes we see a much stronger connection between them and the Jerusalem Church than the majority of ANCF and the Jerusalem Church. Likewise while most Christians will read a modern practice like Pascha into the Passover controversy, most of us Messianics see a stronger connection between Passover and the Lord's Supper and would side with someone like Polycarp and would be outraged that he would be excommunicated, along with the bishops of Asia minor, because the continued in the 14th observance the Apostles passed on to them.

Obviously you are very well educated in the history of the church and church fathers, dare I say more so than any of us, but I would strongly deposit that you start a thread entitled:

"Why Messianics should abide in the traditions, teachings, and practices of the Church" and make your best arguement for the authority and relevance of these teachings on those in the Messianic movement (i.e. those seeking to follow the practices of Yeshua and his immediate disciples).
I don't wish to dismiss your catholic view, but I think we would agree that your view is not the norm for the movement. I would go as far to say that it is diametrically opposed to the very concept of Messianic Judaism that the hundreds, maybe thousands, of messianics I have met over the years. None I have known take your position, so I think it would be worthwhile to establish this position independantly.

Now that was a bunny trail I wanted to suggest for a while.

In regards to this topic, you have a lot to offer.

Like argueing that Justin didn't allow Hellenistic concepts pervert his view of the Bible. I already deposited that Justin adopted the namelessness of God doctrine, contrary to the Bible, from Platonic teachings which he admits to learning and using.

Am I right, or do you agree with Justin Martyr?

Yareach

27th February 2008, 11:30 AM

After re-reading my post and the original post this thread would actually suffice for ContraMundum to present his views on the ANCF.

Based on the general theme of ContraMundum's posts I would be quite interested in him developing his thoughts on a topic dear to him and something he is learned in. I am sure we all could learn something as well articulate much better dialogue with him in these regards.

I have noticed it as a point of tension and disagreement in the Messianic forums here and it would be a good time to step beyond the, "Where did you study the ANCF?" and "The Jews did this too!" rhetoric and get to the meat of the question from ContraMundum's point of view on the topic.

What do you think of the ANCF? How does this play into your view of catholic tradition? Define tradition. What is your view of non-catholic traditions and practices? (Maybe break this down to specific points + scripture references) Something systematic and robust would really help the other Messianics here dialogue more effectively with your position, especially in how you see it as relevant to the Messianic movement.

Once we know how you understand these issues we can then broach specific scriptures and texts. Right now I think we have the cart before the ox (which is pretty typical of Christian dialogue; agreeing on terms, methods, and perspective before engaging a topic can be important to a profitable dialogue).

You and I debating whether Justin Martyr, for example, used Platonic contra-Biblical teachings in his writings may produce no profitable discussion if we share no mutual grounds in regards to how the conclusion impacts our dialogue. Your position is unique in this forum and explaining it to other Messianics as a first step toward more profitable dialogue on the topic would probably bring a lot of clarity and more focused discussion IMO.

I might add that this same sort of dialogue occurs quite often in Messianic circules, but on a different topic: oral law. Until two parties have a fair understanding of how each approaches the issue there is a lot of talking past each other. If one party views them as absolutely binding, another binding unless specifically abrogated by Yeshua, another as binding in general unless directly or indirectly disagreed with by Yeshua or at ends explicitly with a peshat Torah teaching, another who views historical relevance but no binding relevance, and another who sees no benefit to it--oy vey!

I feel there is a lot of talking past ContraMundum and vice versa because most of us don't share a similar view of the role of the Bible and tradition. Addressing this topic head on would be helpful to all involved. And could be a major benefit to this thread and others like it.

visionary

27th February 2008, 10:31 PM

Yep, I agree.... thank you for articulating it so well.

ContraMundum

27th February 2008, 11:49 PM

I lack the time to deal with this. Sorry.

But it is interesting to note: The ECFs are the bashing plank of those who hate Christ's Body- the Church He founded. Makes me wonder about the motives. Hang around long enough and you will see it too.

Anyone who thinks that Hellenism was not rife many of the ancient Jewish sects of the early Christian era need to wake up and smell the coffee- and I'm sick of always being responsible for making the cappucino on this forum. You get my drift. :)

If one cares for the Church- which is His Body (and He only founded one)- then one would go and do the hard yards themselves. I spent over 8 years in formal, guided, and supervised study and specialised in the ECF and Church history in general- and I haven't stopped learning. I really don't feel like I would be taken seriously enough to spend the time and effort on this topic. If it were different, I'd make the effort, but from experience I know that nobody wants to consider the possibility that ancient, continuing traditional Christianity could contain the true "Hebrew root" of the Church- although it has been snowed under from time to time, yet it is always there.

Briefly- modern Rabbinic Judaism is rife with gnostic doctrine and Hellenism. This is easily proven. It is well known, for an obvious example, that Chasidic Judaism is based on ideas that are common with gnostic thought. Just pick up the works of Chaim Luzatto or the Tanya or anything and see for yourself. The whole premise is based on gnostic ideals about cosmology, anthropology and soteriology.

The ECF were also influenced by Hellenism- but they are also the only body in the early "common era" that actually formally spoke against and formally ruled against gnosticism and paganism. This simple fact is always overlooked on this forum. It's terribly inconvenient for some. It might just mean that the Church was given authority and a charism to make rulings- a frightening prospect to those who would hate it and wish to remain against it.

A wise comment on this thread is:

I feel there is a lot of talking past ContraMundum and vice versa because most of us don't share a similar view of the role of the Bible and tradition. Addressing this topic head on would be helpful to all involved. And could be a major benefit to this thread and others like it.

It would be nice, but it is not possible to discuss this without talking past each other and having to put out fires from the nay-sayers on the forum who chip in with their throw-away lines. It's very labourious and with the amount of junk passing by my "mod desk" here I'm pushing just to answer this thread! This is also probably why visionary can't get too involved too- we have a mutal workload that is disproportionate to our participation right now.

Maybe when things settle down for the mods I can participate more. Sorry all.

visionary

28th February 2008, 12:32 PM

For the serious students of the Common Era, I also highly recommend "THE 'AM HA-ARETZ: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period," by Aharon Oppenheimer.

christinepro

29th February 2008, 12:47 AM

For the serious students of the Common Era, I also highly recommend "THE 'AM HA-ARETZ: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period," by Aharon Oppenheimer.
Sounds interesting! Do you have a link for this book?

visionary

29th February 2008, 01:03 AM

Sounds interesting! Do you have a link for this book?http://www.ecampus.com/bk_detail.asp?isbn=9004047646

$$$ Serious$$$

christinepro

29th February 2008, 01:32 AM

http://www.ecampus.com/bk_detail.asp?isbn=9004047646

$$$ Serious$$$
Oh Boy$!! Should I buy it?

visionary

24th March 2008, 02:55 AM

Early Church fathers who kept the judaic faith are the ones we should be tracking down.

ContraMundum

24th March 2008, 10:11 AM

Early Church fathers who kept the judaic faith are the ones we should be tracking down.

Well...................... :)

...at the risk of making you bash your head on your desk in frustration.....check out the line of Bishops in Jerusalem (up until Judah) for some important Jewish fathers. After that, all Jews were kicked out of Eretz Israel. (Incidentaly, there is now finally another Jewish bishop in Jerusalem, Bp Gurion. While this wouldn't be of interest to you, I see it as a sign of coming change).

As for "keeping the Judaic faith"....that would be up to debate, depending on what one thinks is "Judaic".

Colabomb

24th March 2008, 11:24 AM

This is good to know!! Thanks! Great ammunition!

Great attitude. Jesus would be Proud.

Lets get some ammo and wipe out those ebil people.

Anyway, yes there were antisemites in the earliest Church. But does that mean all they did was wrong? does that mean they have no wisdom, and thus nothing to add to our faith?

Some of the Greatest Jewish Exammples of faith were Notorious Sinners. David, a man that God Loved, Had a man Killed so that he could sleep with his wife. Many times the Jewish Leaders led Israel into paganism and debauchery.

I'm sure i can find quotes of prominent Jews that are very hatefilled towards Gentiles. Does that mean that Their contemporaries should be ignored?

I am sick and tired of seeing my people maligned, because of the hated and actions of some. I do not Judge the entire Jewish people, by the sins of some Jews. Nor should you (and yes this is a Judgment, and I believe a righteous one) Judge your gentile brethren by the sin of some Gentiles.

Pray and ask God if seeking "ammunition" is really what he desires of his followers!