How many gentiles did Jesus convert to his religion?

[IndigoChild5559]

Just to let you know. The expression "old testament" is insulting to Jews
Brother J's ideology was more in line with the Zealots

When did Jesus ever tell his followers to overthrow the Romans?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Did he tell them to wait until the passion was fulfilled. And wouldn't his message be to become Jewish since that was his religion? Your are quoting Isaiah not Jesus. Did Jesus say that he would be the light to the Gentiles. You need to be careful mixing passages.

Yes, Jesus preached Judaism. The messianic sect preached by the apostles was originally a Jewish sect. But it became most Gentile due to Paul's missionary activities, and because of its heresies it got kicked out of the synagogues, becoming its own religion, Christianity. The Jewish believers in Jerusalem further refused to fight alongside their Jewish brethren in the Jewish-Roman war, killing forever all hope of Jewish believers being considered part of Judaism.

FYI, Jesus never said he was a light to the Gentiles. That was a prophecy by Simeon when baby Jesus was taken to the Temple. It is also a statement by God about Israel (not the messiah). Jesus never ever preached to Gentiles.

 

[KingSolomon]

Sorry it was a poor attempt to remember that all of the words Jesus said were not written at the time. The new testament gospels were written years after the words were said which means they are not likely to be as accurate as they assumed by modern Christians. The four accepted gospels also were written by different views for probably different developing sects of the religion. Thus they may have the intent of what Jesus said but to accept them as absolute literal events is unlikely.

The accepted gospels were written or finally edited between 70CE and 100CE. That's at least 2 generations after the death of brother J. The overriding problem is the copying. These documents had to be copied by hand and sent out to other people to recopy. Scribal errors were bound to happen over 300 years. So we really don't know what the original documents said or what brother J actually said. A lot of his teachings such as the Sermon on the Mount are probably more or less accurate

 

[KingSolomon]

When did Jesus ever tell his followers to overthrow the Romans?

We don't know because all of his militant statements have been deleted from his story. But if we want to get an idea of what he stood for, we should look at James, his brother. James seems to be have been allied with the zealot movement

 

[KingSolomon]

Yes, Jesus preached Judaism. The messianic sect preached by the apostles was originally a Jewish sect. But it became most Gentile due to Paul's missionary activities, and because of its heresies it got kicked out of the synagogues, becoming its own religion, Christianity. The Jewish believers in Jerusalem further refused to fight alongside their Jewish brethren in the Jewish-Roman war, killing forever all hope of Jewish believers being considered part of Judaism.

FYI, Jesus never said he was a light to the Gentiles. That was a prophecy by Simeon when baby Jesus was taken to the Temple. It is also a statement by God about Israel (not the messiah). Jesus never ever preached to Gentiles.

originally a Jewish sect. But it became most Gentile due to Paul's missionary activities,

James' sect remained a Jewish sect which splintered into many Jewish sub-sects. Because these sects were set upon by Jews, Christians, and Romans, they weakened and finally disappeared sometime in the early 6th century by assimilating into other surrounding religions.
Paul created a new religion which had nothing to do with James' Nazarene sect. James' sect was Jewish. Paul's religion was gentile.

 

[Bear Wild]

The accepted gospels were written or finally edited between 70CE and 100CE. That's at least 2 generations after the death of brother J. The overriding problem is the copying. These documents had to be copied by hand and sent out to other people to recopy. Scribal errors were bound to happen over 300 years. So we really don't know what the original documents said or what brother J actually said. A lot of his teachings such as the Sermon on the Mount are probably more or less accurate

Thank you I completely agree with you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The accepted gospels were written or finally edited between 70CE and 100CE. That's at least 2 generations after the death of brother J. The overriding problem is the copying. These documents had to be copied by hand and sent out to other people to recopy. Scribal errors were bound to happen over 300 years. So we really don't know what the original documents said or what brother J actually said. A lot of his teachings such as the Sermon on the Mount are probably more or less accurate

When we compare the DSS Isaiah to the Masoretic Isaiah, there are almost no scribal differences. I think we need to take into consideration just how slowly and carefully scribes will copy when they consider a text sacred.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We don't know because all of his militant statements have been deleted from his story. But if we want to get an idea of what he stood for, we should look at James, his brother. James seems to be have been allied with the zealot movement

KingSolomon, it's good to see you here in this forum. I always enjoy your posts.

I'm not sure why you think James was a zealot. Your belief is that there is no evidence in the text because the texts have been altered. But sir, all we have are the texts!!!!! If you have nothing in the texts, then basically you have no evidence for your assertion.

I googled the list of J's apostles, and only one, Simon (not Simon Peter) is listed as a zealot. Since so much care is taken to remark that he was a zealot on both occasions, we can directly infer that the others were not.

Furthermore, there is no instruction by either Jesus or the apostles to militantly rebel against Rome. In fact, Paul taught his followers to obey the rulers, because God had placed them in authority. Jesus famously told his followers to pay their taxes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Paul created a new religion which had nothing to do with James' Nazarene sect. James' sect was Jewish. Paul's religion was gentile.

While you are roughly right, it is still true that James and Paul considered each other allies in the spread of belief inn the messiah, at least this is so if you accept the book of Acts as historical.

For example, when Paul went to Jerusalem, James supported him in not teaching Gentiles the Law, but rather the few laws agreed upon in th Council of Jerusalem.

Always wonderful to converse with another non-Christian who is as much a scholar of Christianity as I am. I always enjoy our discussions.

 

[Deeje]

When we compare the DSS Isaiah to the Masoretic Isaiah, there are almost no scribal differences. I think we need to take into consideration just how slowly and carefully scribes will copy when they consider a text sacred.

Thank you.....there are many on here who do not see the word of God as something that was so cherished in those early times that its copyists went to great lengths to preserved the text as accurately as possible, not only counting words on a page, but every letter. It was a great responsibility and one they undertook very seriously.

The other thing that if often mentioned is that the gospels and other parts of the Christian scriptures were written some time after the events that they relate....but if this is truly the word of God, then his spirit was the motivating force behind every word. If God cas inspire the writing, then he can also preserve it intact.

Furthermore, there is no instruction by either Jesus or the apostles to militantly rebel against Rome. In fact, Paul taught his followers to obey the rulers, because God had placed them in authority. Jesus famously told his followers to pay their taxes.

Absolutely correct! Jesus taught his disciples that they were to be "no part of the world" which included its political affairs. (John 15:18-21) Not once did he interfere with the political situation of his own nation even though the Roman yoke was chafing a good many of them. The Zealots were plotting against Rome, but Jesus did not have a bar of it. The only time they were to disobey the authority was when Caesar's law conflicted with God's law. e.g. when they were commanded to stop preaching....but Jesus had commanded them to keep doing it. They obeyed Jesus.

His disciples were to view themselves as "ambassadors for Christ".....representing, not an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly one. (John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 5:20)

I am curious IndigoChild....you post like a Christian (and you do it well) but you identify as a Jew.....can I ask why?

 

[KingSolomon]

When we compare the DSS Isaiah to the Masoretic Isaiah, there are almost no scribal differences. I think we need to take into consideration just how slowly and carefully scribes will copy when they consider a text sacred.

Probably true to a certain extent. Consider working for hours over a text in candlelight, looking back and forth at what you are copying, making sure that you keep the exact place for the next line. Fatigue and monotony are going to affect a person sooner or later. We've seen evidence of documents in which lines have been duplicated or inserted in the wrong place.

The copyists were dedicated, sure. But even the best intentions went astray before the invention of the printing press, electric lights, photocopying, etc

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am curious IndigoChild....you post like a Christian (and you do it well) but you identify as a Jew.....can I ask why?

I have studied all the world religions (except Bahai, Jainism, Sikhism, and a few others. I've read all the the major sacred texts except the Vedas and Upanishads (they are next on my list). So of course I've studied Christianity.

I would say that I've given special attention to Christianity--I live in a Christian culture. Jews have a 2000 year history of interaction with Christians (most of it hostility on their part). For these reasons, it is especially important for me to understand.
I have taken special care to study:
1. How Christianity moved from being a Jewish sect to a Gentile religion
2. How Christianity came to believe that Jesus is God himself (which led to the charge of deicide against the Jews)
3. Supersessionism (how the church replaces Israel, and how this is the root of Christian anti-Semitism)
4. St. Chrysostom and Martin Luther as the two greatest anti-Semites in church history
5. The modern phenomenon of Christian repudiation of Supersessionism and embrasure of Israel as still being God's covenant people, and further repudiation of historical Christian anti-Semitism.

When I discuss things with people, I try to reach them at their own level of understanding. An Evangelical cannot relate to mere reasoning or words from the Talmud. Therefore I am careful to use verses from the texts that THEY accept as authoritative.

Certainly I am not a Christian--not even close. I do not accept Jesus as the messiah and God is absolutely not a man. For me, the Christian scriptures have zero authority, although you'll find in it good old fashioned Judaism, especially the gospels and the book of James (in addition to Christian teachings of course). I see Jesus as a Torah scholar of the school of bet Hillel, who mistakenly came to believe he was the messiah--this was an error common for the times. Jesus simply did not do the things the messiah is supposed to do.

 

[Bear Wild]

I have studied all the world religions (except Bahai, Jainism, Sikhism, and a few others. I've read all the the major sacred texts except the Vedas and Upanishads (they are next on my list). So of course I've studied Christianity.

I would say that I've given special attention to Christianity--I live in a Christian culture. Jews have a 2000 year history of interaction with Christians (most of it hostility on their part). For these reasons, it is especially important for me to understand.
I have taken special care to study:
1. How Christianity moved from being a Jewish sect to a Gentile religion
2. How Christianity came to believe that Jesus is God himself (which led to the charge of deicide against the Jews)
3. Supersessionism (how the church replaces Israel, and how this is the root of Christian anti-Semitism)
4. St. Chrysostom and Martin Luther as the two greatest anti-Semites in church history
5. The modern phenomenon of Christian repudiation of Supersessionism and embrasure of Israel as still being God's covenant people, and further repudiation of historical Christian anti-Semitism.

When I discuss things with people, I try to reach them at their own level of understanding. An Evangelical cannot relate to mere reasoning or words from the Talmud. Therefore I am careful to use verses from the texts that THEY accept as authoritative.

Certainly I am not a Christian--not even close. I do not accept Jesus as the messiah and God is absolutely not a man. For me, the Christian scriptures have zero authority, although you'll find in it good old fashioned Judaism, especially the gospels and the book of James (in addition to Christian teachings of course). I see Jesus as a Torah scholar of the school of bet Hillel, who mistakenly came to believe he was the messiah--this was an error common for the times. Jesus simply did not do the things the messiah is supposed to do.

I agree with you that Jesus a Jewish scholar believing in the Jewish faith. Do you think that Paul intended the changes the occurred creating the division of the developing Christian religion from its Jewish origins?

 

[Deeje]

I have studied all the world religions (except Bahai, Jainism, Sikhism, and a few others. I've read all the the major sacred texts except the Vedas and Upanishads (they are next on my list). So of course I've studied Christianity.

I have examined the teachings of these various religions too because I like to understand what others believe as well.
I have had to rely on internet chats to interview those who belong to religions who are not represented well in my area. Jews tend to gravitate to cities and I live in a regional area of Australia, so first hand conversations have not been possible. I like to get my information from the 'horse's mouth'.

I would say that I've given special attention to Christianity--I live in a Christian culture. Jews have a 2000 year history of interaction with Christians (most of it hostility on their part). For these reasons, it is especially important for me to understand.

I am wondering what people assume "Christian culture" to be? Because Jesus was Jewish, it helps everyone to understand the culture he came from. To me the Hebrew scriptures are as important as the Greek scriptures. I see true Christianity to be what a Jew taught about the God they had in common. Did Jesus teach anything contrary to the Torah?
What I don't see in the Hebrew scriptures is the Jewish nation living up to their covenant arrangement with God. Do you?

1. How Christianity moved from being a Jewish sect to a Gentile religion

It was Jewish at its roots because all the first Christians were Jews. Every writer of the NT was Jewish. No Gentile wrote a word of it. But true to his promise to Abraham, "all the nations" were going to benefit from the one who would come through Abraham's seed. (Genesis 22:17-18) That didn't make Christianity a Gentile religion IMV, but taught Gentiles how to worship the true God by obeying him.
Why do you think the Gentiles did a bad job of that? Gentiles could become Jewish proselytes and worship Israel's God...what is the difference?

2. How Christianity came to believe that Jesus is God himself (which led to the charge of deicide against the Jews)

This is not what 'Christianity' did....that is what an apostate church system did hundreds of years after Jesus died. There is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures to even suggest that Yahweh could ever become a human in order to fill the role of the Messiah, and certainly nothing in the NT to indicate such a thing either. Please do not confuse Christendom with Christianity...IMO there is no resemblance.

3. Supersessionism (how the church replaces Israel, and how this is the root of Christian anti-Semitism)

It was Jeremiah who foretold that a new covenant would replace the old one. (Jeremiah 31:30-32)
Yirmiyahu - Jeremiah - Chapter 31

So when Jesus came, he instituted this new covenant with those of his nation who accepted him as Messiah. The Jews who were influenced by the religious leaders of the day, rejected his claim of being Messiah because they said he did not fit the criteria. But if you examine the evidence, no one has ever fulfilled it more accurately.

I have no time for anti-Semitism because Jesus was certainly not anti-Semetic. Jesus lamented over the Jewish people, telling them that he wanted to "gather them together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wing" but he said that they did not want it. (Matthew 23:37-39)

4. St. Chrysostom and Martin Luther as the two greatest anti-Semites in church history

Both were members of an apostate church system that began to manifest at the end of the first century. By the time of these men, especially Luther in the later period, "the church" had been drunk with its own power for centuries.

5. The modern phenomenon of Christian repudiation of Supersessionism and embrasure of Israel as still being God's covenant people, and further repudiation of historical Christian anti-Semitism.

I am never quite sure of some people's leanings with regard to Israel. It has been suggested to me that some "Christian" nations (I do not believe such a nation exists) will support Israel as a political entity because they misinterpret a scripture in Zechariah 8:22-23 that suggests that "going with" Israel will somehow benefit themselves, giving them some kind of 'Brownie points' with God. The motive is entirely selfish and completely insincere IMV....and not at all what that scripture means anyway.
Zechariah - Chapter 8

When I discuss things with people, I try to reach them at their own level of understanding. An Evangelical cannot relate to mere reasoning or words from the Talmud. Therefore I am careful to use verses from the texts that THEY accept as authoritative.

I understand and try to do the same. I always refer to the Tanakh when quoting scripture to a Jewish person. It is out of respect that I do this.

Certainly I am not a Christian--not even close. I do not accept Jesus as the messiah and God is absolutely not a man.

I know from the scriptures that Jesus fulfilled the role of the Messiah, but I have no belief that he was ever God come to earth as a man. He was 100% human, born of a maiden in the tribe of Judah, just as Isaiah had foretold....and like the prophets before him was able to demonstrate supernatural abilities. Unfortunately, Israel could never live up to their end of the covenant and because it was conditional, that left God with nowhere to go when they rejected his Christ, but to choose people from the nations to make up "the kingdom of priests and a holy nation" that had been promised. The Jews did not just reject Jesus as Messiah, but had orchestrated his death. That is pretty serious.

For me, the Christian scriptures have zero authority, although you'll find in it good old fashioned Judaism, especially the gospels and the book of James (in addition to Christian teachings of course).

To me the entire Bible is the word of God. Both portions are the continuation of one story....from Genesis to Revelation. One makes no sense without the other.

I see Jesus as a Torah scholar of the school of bet Hillel, who mistakenly came to believe he was the messiah--this was an error common for the times. Jesus simply did not do the things the messiah is supposed to do.

What things did the Jews expect him to do? Can we compare notes on this?

 

[metis]

We know that the early Church believed that Jesus was of God, but the evidence from the 2nd century shows that this viewpoint was not well spelled out as disagreements occurred. One can speculate all they want on what that relationship is, which is all fine & dandy as far as it goes, but speculation is just that-- speculation.

Because this debate was so divisive, the Council of Nicaea was called to try and iron it out, and whether they're right or wrong or partially right is quite subjective because there simply is no solid evidence one way or another. Even the Church admits that, which is why it's often referred to as being the "Mystery of the Trinity", thus not completely understandable for us mere mortals.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I agree with you that Jesus a Jewish scholar believing in the Jewish faith. Do you think that Paul intended the changes the occurred creating the division of the developing Christian religion from its Jewish origins?

No, I don't think Paul set about to establish a new religion, although ultimately his conversion of the Gentiles en masse did exactly that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Deeje, I can see that you are one with whom I am going to have many enjoyable conversations. It is very nice indeed to make your acquaintance.

I am wondering what people assume "Christian culture" to be? Because Jesus was Jewish, it helps everyone to understand the culture he came from. To me the Hebrew scriptures are as important as the Greek scriptures. I see true Christianity to be what a Jew taught about the God they had in common. Did Jesus teach anything contrary to the Torah?

Christian culture is different in different in different times and places. The culture among the first Christians was very different than under Constantine which was very different than during the Crusades, which was very different than during the years of the Christian wars in the 16th and 17th centuries...Evangelical culture is very different from Catholic culture which is very different from Orthodox culture... Christians in the US have a very different culture from Christians in Africa or Korea.

It does no good to say that only the Apostolic church was truly Christian and everything after that is apostate. The common usage of the word Christian is anyone who accepts Jesus as messiah and God and is baptized... the typical "orthodox" beliefs of the last two millennia such as the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, atonement, incarnation, etc. It is those who do not believe in the Trinity that are considered heterodox. You may personally believe that Jesus is not God. I would agree with you. But that just means we are both not Christians.

What I don't see in the Hebrew scriptures is the Jewish nation living up to their covenant arrangement with God. Do you?

Israel (and I am referring to us, the People of Israel, not the State of Israel) had times when it was faithful and times when it was unfaithful. We had good kings and bad kings. Our relationship with Hashem in those days was largely cyclical, especially in terms of idolatry.

The Babylonian exile finally wiped idolatry from our system. You simply never hear of Jews worshiping any idols after that, not during the reign of the Greeks, nor the Romans, and not bending to worship the man Jesus during the time of the Christians.

It was Jewish at its roots because all the first Christians were Jews. Every writer of the NT was Jewish. No Gentile wrote a word of it. But true to his promise to Abraham, "all the nations" were going to benefit from the one who would come through Abraham's seed. (Genesis 22:17-18) That didn't make Christianity a Gentile religion IMV, but taught Gentiles how to worship the true God by obeying him.
Why do you think the Gentiles did a bad job of that? Gentiles could become Jewish proselytes and worship Israel's God...what is the difference?

Yes, all the first believers in Jesus were Jews, and they continued practicing Judaism. They simply added their belief that Jesus was the messiah, that he would come again, that he physically rose from the dead, and their practices of immersion at repentance and the Lord's Supper (apparently on the first day, which writings outside the Christians Scriptures call the Lord's Day), and they ordained elders in a manner similar to the ordination of rabbis (laying on of hands). That's really very, very little addition. They were basically a Jewish sect, not a new religion.

But a QUESTION arose when GENTILES began to believe.

First, some important background information.

The Pharisees were great missionaries, going first to Jews in the diaspora, but also spreading ethical monotheism. Sometimes they would encounter Gentiles that were truly interested in following the God of Abraham. In such a case there were two options.

One was that the Gentile could get circumcised come under the 613 laws of the covenant -- in other words become a Jew. At one point in history, somewhere around 10% of the Roman Empire was Jewish.

However, this was not necessary. One can be a righteous Gentile and it is perfectly acceptable to God, and sheesh it's a lot easier than keeping 613 laws. Such a person could simply believe in the God of Abraham, act decently (obey what we call the laws of Noah), and attend the synagogue for worship and basic religious instruction. These righteous Gentiles were sometimes called God Fearers. Cornelius in the book of Acts was one, and you'll remember that God said he already knew him.

So getting back to Christians missionaries, some of them (including some Christian Pharisees) were circumcising the new believers and making them Jews, and others such as Paul were making them God Fearers.

To resolve the conflict, the Council of Jerusalem was called, and it was ruled that Gentile believers would be left as God Fearers. There is NOTHING in this council that says Jewish believers were to give up Moses and the Torah. So basically from the council on, the church during the time of the apostles had a bilateral approach: Jewish believers kept the 613 laws of the Torah, and Gentile believer did not, but followed basic moral laws as God fearers.

At first Gentiles did nothing wrong. They accepted the bilateral approach, and the Jerusalem church as the hub of the believer's world.

Later on, however, a rift between Judaism and Christianity developed. It was mutual. We can discuss that if you wish. It is an area that has been of interest to me. Eventually Christians were kicked out of the synagogues. But worse than that, Gentile Christians began to rail against their brother Jewish Christians for observing Jewish laws such as keeping the Sabbath. By the mid second century, instead of Christianity not only was no longer a sect of Judaism, it was a vigorous competitor.

It was Jeremiah who foretold that a new covenant would replace the old one. (Jeremiah 31:30-32)
Yirmiyahu - Jeremiah - Chapter 31

So when Jesus came, he instituted this new covenant with those of his nation who accepted him as Messiah. The Jews who were influenced by the religious leaders of the day, rejected his claim of being Messiah because they said he did not fit the criteria. But if you examine the evidence, no one has ever fulfilled it more accurately.

The prophecy in Jeremiah about the New Covenant describes the Messianic age. There are criteria that have not come true yet. For example, laws have not yet been written on or hearts -- we have to be taught them. And it says that everyone, EVERYONE, will know God. That's not true yet -- there are still atheists and agnostics. Jesus did not fulfill this prophecy. It will be fulfilled during the messianic age.

I am never quite sure of some people's leanings with regard to Israel.

Oh, I wasn't referring to the State of Israel, but rather the People of Israel. I almost never refer to the Nation State unless it's clear from the discussion that that's what we are talking about.

For myself, I'm an ardent Zionist, meaning that I believe in the legitimacy of the State of Israel as a homeland for Jews.

That doesn't mean that I think Israel always has a halo over its head.

As for how to find peace, I believe in a two state solution. Israel needs to stop building settlement, and the Palestinians need to recognize the Jewish state.

I know from the scriptures that Jesus fulfilled the role of the Messiah...Unfortunately, Israel could never live up to their end of the covenant and because it was conditional, that left God with nowhere to go when they rejected his Christ, but to choose people from the nations to make up "the kingdom of priests and a holy nation" that had been promised. The Jews did not just reject Jesus as Messiah, but had orchestrated his death. That is pretty serious.

The role of the messiah is to rule from Jerusalem, bring all the Jews out of diaspora back to the Promised Land, and usher in an era of world peace. Jesus did none of those things, thus he cannot possibly be the messiah. Bar Kochba is a better candidate, but even he ultimately failed.

The promise of the covenant is the Land, and this particular promise, given to Abraham, is UNCONDITIONAL. No matter how disobedient Israel is, the promised land belongs to us forever.

Now as for LIVING ON the land, THIS particular promise is conditional to our behavior. If God approves of us, we live on the land, and other nations are not able to remove us. If he does not approve, then he will use other nations to remove us from the Land (although there is always a remnant of us that stays there).

There is also a promise that he will materially bless us, conditional on his approval, that i.e. the rains will fall in their due season and we will prosper.

So for example, the fact that Israel has not only become a nation again, but has survived despite the joint attack by surrounding Arab nations, and has materially prospered, especially in tech and medicine, is all evidence that we have God's approval.

The Torah no where talks about eternal life. Salvation is to literally save us from earthly enemies such as Pharaoh in Egypt or Hezbollah.

To me the entire Bible is the word of God. Both portions are the continuation of one story....from Genesis to Revelation. One makes no sense without the other.

The Tanakh makes perfect sense on its own. It has survived just fine without the Christian scriptures for thousands of years.

The same cannot be said for the Christian Scriptures. No offense to you -- I'm not here to disuade you from your beliefws. I'm just saying that to us, the Christian scriptures come across the way the Book of Mormon or the Quran seems to you.

 

[Deeje]

Christian culture is different in different in different times and places. The culture among the first Christians was very different than under Constantine which was very different than during the Crusades, which was very different than during the years of the Christian wars in the 16th and 17th centuries...Evangelical culture is very different from Catholic culture which is very different from Orthodox culture... Christians in the US have a very different culture from Christians in Africa or Korea.

It occurs to me that "Christianity" was more influenced by Christendom than Jesus Christ. The culture created by Roman Catholicism is vastly different to anything Jesus taught.
e.g. there was no earthly priesthood in first century Christianity.... all mention of a priesthood for Christians was in heaven in the future. (Revelation 20:6)

Nor were there grand edifices adorned with idolatrous symbols....and men or women in distinctive clothing.

That was a hark back to a system that had, according to my beliefs, been superseded by the implementation of the "new covenant". Most "Christian" churches have some form of identifying garments....many of which are more elaborate than any Jewish High Priest would have worn.

Jesus did not need to identify himself with distinctive clothing....he blended in with the common people to whom he was sent.

It does no good to say that only the Apostolic church was truly Christian and everything after that is apostate. The common usage of the word Christian is anyone who accepts Jesus as messiah and God and is baptized... the typical "orthodox" beliefs of the last two millennia such as the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, atonement, incarnation, etc. It is those who do not believe in the Trinity that are considered heterodox. You may personally believe that Jesus is not God. I would agree with you. But that just means we are both not Christians.

Jesus indicated that an apostasy was to take place in the Christian church "while men were sleeping", which we believe was when the apostles had passed away. As you know, the ancient Jews did not have belief in an afterlife that involved the existence of an immaterial part of man that departed from the body at death. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; 10) So "sleeping in death" (in an unconscious state) was an original Jewish belief that apparently got lost and was replaced by the Platonic belief in an immortal soul. (Such was the religious influence of Greece) All faiths sown or corrupted by the devil will exhibit this belief as a continuation of the first lie told in Eden..."You surely will not die". God said they would...so who lied?

Israel (and I am referring to us, the People of Israel, not the State of Israel) had times when it was faithful and times when it was unfaithful. We had good kings and bad kings. Our relationship with Hashem in those days was largely cyclical, especially in terms of idolatry.

The Babylonian exile finally wiped idolatry from our system. You simply never hear of Jews worshiping any idols after that, not during the reign of the Greeks, nor the Romans, and not bending to worship the man Jesus during the time of the Christians.

Do you have any response to Jesus' words at Matthew 23:37-39 regarding the record that that the leaders of his faith had managed to accrue up until the first century? How many of the ancient prophets suffered at their hands? How often did God have to bring them to their knees before they would repent? How was this lining up to their declaration at Mt Sinai? (Exodus 24:3)

When Israel demanded a human king to rule over them like the nations had....didn't God warn them about what it would mean to have human kings and the things that they would have to do to maintain them? They didn't listen. Often bad kings led the whole nation astray, forcing God to punish them all.

They were told that the covenants he made with them were conditional, and yet the conditions were rarely met. Israel's good times were overshadowed by the bad ones...mostly due to their own choices. The state of Judaism by the time of John the Baptist and Jesus was a distorted shadow of what God had instituted with his ancient people at Mt Sinai.

With the testimony given by John, Jesus and the apostles, can this be denied? Since Jesus called the Pharisees sons of the devil....who should we believe about this situation given Israel's track record?

Yes, all the first believers in Jesus were Jews, and they continued practicing Judaism. They simply added their belief that Jesus was the messiah, that he would come again, that he physically rose from the dead, and their practices of immersion at repentance and the Lord's Supper (apparently on the first day, which writings outside the Christians Scriptures call the Lord's Day), and they ordained elders in a manner similar to the ordination of rabbis (laying on of hands). That's really very, very little addition. They were basically a Jewish sect, not a new religion.

I agree, but it didn't stop there. The "Lord's Day" spoken about by John in Revelation had nothing to do with a day of the week.
Jesus is called "Lord of the Sabbath", we believe because the Sabbath instituted as a rest day by God after his creative days were concluded, has not yet run its course. It says in Genesis that god rested on the seventh day but there is no declaration as to its completion like all the other "days". The apostle Paul said "There remains a sabbath resting for the people of God.” (Hebrews 4:9) He spoke of 'entering into God's rest' by obedience to Christ's teachings. (Hebrews 4:1-5)

But a QUESTION arose when GENTILES began to believe.

First, some important background information.

The Pharisees were great missionaries, going first to Jews in the diaspora, but also spreading ethical monotheism. Sometimes they would encounter Gentiles that were truly interested in following the God of Abraham. In such a case there were two options.

One was that the Gentile could get circumcised come under the 613 laws of the covenant -- in other words become a Jew. At one point in history, somewhere around 10% of the Roman Empire was Jewish.

However, this was not necessary. One can be a righteous Gentile and it is perfectly acceptable to God, and sheesh it's a lot easier than keeping 613 laws. Such a person could simply believe in the God of Abraham, act decently (obey what we call the laws of Noah), and attend the synagogue for worship and basic religious instruction. These righteous Gentiles were sometimes called God Fearers. Cornelius in the book of Acts was one, and you'll remember that God said he already knew him.

So getting back to Christians missionaries, some of them (including some Christian Pharisees) were circumcising the new believers and making them Jews, and others such as Paul were making them God Fearers.

To resolve the conflict, the Council of Jerusalem was called, and it was ruled that Gentile believers would be left as God Fearers. There is NOTHING in this council that says Jewish believers were to give up Moses and the Torah. So basically from the council on, the church during the time of the apostles had a bilateral approach: Jewish believers kept the 613 laws of the Torah, and Gentile believer did not, but followed basic moral laws as God fearers.

Yes, that is how I understand it. The Law was for Jews and Gentiles were not under any obligation to keep the law, including the Sabbath because they were not converting to Judaism. The Law only meant something to Jews and those who wanted to attach themselves to the Jewish nation. Gentiles had no covenant with God....but they still had to obey all the moral laws as Jesus said. They also had to "abstain from blood". (Acts 15:28-29) Love of God and neighbor had to be demonstrated as a way of life.

At first Gentiles did nothing wrong. They accepted the bilateral approach, and the Jerusalem church as the hub of the believer's world.

They still had the option of converting to Judaism though, didn't they? What was to prevent them apart from how difficult the Pharisaical interpretation of the Law had become? Jesus offered them kindness instead of judgement....a yoke that was light instead of heavy. I know which one would have attracted me.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

2. How Christianity came to believe that Jesus is God himself (which led to the charge of deicide against the Jews)

Yes, unfortunately, mainstream Christianity “came to believe”...still does....that Jesus is God.

But it didn’t start that way. We can easily see that, in Acts of the Apostles 4:24-30, in the Christians’ prayer (after the release of Peter and John). They started out saying, “Sovereign Lord” (who was that? Jesus? No), then they refer to Jesus as “Your holy servant.” Twice! They worshipped the God of the Jews / Hebrews, Yahweh. In English, Jehovah.

Another line of evidence, is that they worshipped at the Temple, which was for the worship of who? Yahweh!

The Apostle Paul, in Acts of the Apostles 20, said to the elders from Ephesus that “after my going away” — not a thousand years later — men would rise and speak twisted things in their congregation.

After the death of the Apostles, false teachings spread like wildfire!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It occurs to me that "Christianity" was more influenced by Christendom than Jesus Christ. The culture created by Roman Catholicism is vastly different to anything Jesus taught.
e.g. there was no earthly priesthood in first century Christianity.... all mention of a priesthood for Christians was in heaven in the future. (Revelation 20:6)

Nor were there grand edifices adorned with idolatrous symbols....and men or women in distinctive clothing.

That was a hark back to a system that had, according to my beliefs, been superseded by the implementation of the "new covenant". Most "Christian" churches have some form of identifying garments....many of which are more elaborate than any Jewish High Priest would have worn.

Jesus did not need to identify himself with distinctive clothing....he blended in with the common people to whom he was sent.

It's not my job to defend Catholicism -- there are Catholics in here to do that. But I would like to point out that the reason Jesus didn't wear distinctive dress was that he was not a Kohen (priest descended from Aaron).

Jesus indicated that an apostasy was to take place in the Christian church "while men were sleeping", which we believe was when the apostles had passed away. As you know, the ancient Jews did not have belief in an afterlife that involved the existence of an immaterial part of man that departed from the body at death. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; 10) So "sleeping in death" (in an unconscious state) was an original Jewish belief that apparently got lost and was replaced by the Platonic belief in an immortal soul. (Such was the religious influence of Greece) All faiths sown or corrupted by the devil will exhibit this belief as a continuation of the first lie told in Eden..."You surely will not die". God said they would...so who lied?

I'm not here to convert you away from your JW beliefs. It seems to me that you worship God and live a righteous life and that's what it's all about. But I'll comment on what you say. Your belief in a giant apostacy is esoteric to followers of Jesus, as is your belief in soul sleep.

And don't put it on ancient Jews -- it is obvious you know little about us, as you are generalizing from one single verse (always a bad idea). What would be more true would be to say that Jews were not concerned with the afterlife back in the days of the Torah. There is no mention in the Torah of heaven or the world to come or any resurrection. Such ideas came later in history with the prophets. This doesn't automatically mean that they believed in soul sleep.

Do you have any response to Jesus' words at Matthew 23:37-39 regarding the record that that the leaders of his faith had managed to accrue up until the first century? How many of the ancient prophets suffered at their hands? How often did God have to bring them to their knees before they would repent? How was this lining up to their declaration at Mt Sinai? (Exodus 24:3)

Jesus reference to Jerusalem killing the prophets is hyperbole. Jezebel killed the prophets in her court. That is the only instance.

As far as keeping our covenant, back in those days, some times we did, and some times we didn't. There were good kings and bad kings. It was pretty cyclical. Today it tends to be both, where some individuals keep the covenant and others don't. I'm sure that as someone who follows God yourself, you've noticed that he disciplines us when we fall away so that we return, that he "chastens those he loves."

You'll also not that the idolatry, with which the LORD was most irritated, completely stopped during the Babylonian captivity and has never resumed. That would include not worshiping the man Jesus.

When Israel demanded a human king to rule over them like the nations had....didn't God warn them about what it would mean to have human kings and the things that they would have to do to maintain them? They didn't listen. Often bad kings led the whole nation astray, forcing God to punish them all.

What???? God gave Israel the choice whether to have a King or not. It was because Israel chose a King that a Messiah is possible, since the Messiah is the King who reigns during the messianic era.

They were told that the covenants he made with them were conditional, and yet the conditions were rarely met. Israel's good times were overshadowed by the bad ones...mostly due to their own choices. The state of Judaism by the time of John the Baptist and Jesus was a distorted shadow of what God had instituted with his ancient people at Mt Sinai.

Wow, if I believed such disinformation and distortions, I'd have a bad feeling about Judaism too. Fortunately I the accurate facts.

1. The MAIN promise is God giving the Land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac, and its UNCONDITIONAL. There are other conditional promises, but they pale in comparison. Eternal life was never a promise or part of the covenant.

2. It is not true that Israel "rarely" followed God. You need to reread Kings and Chronicles. We went back and forth.

3. You say Judaism was a distortion by the time of John the Baptist. Which Judaism was that? The Judaism of the Sadducees? The Essenes? Bet Hillel? Bet Shammai? I don't think you are familiar enough with second temple Judaism to comment. I'm just curious. What specific part of Judaism at Sinai was not present during Jesus' day?

4. Jesus used a lot of hyperbole. If you look at someone with lust, are you suppose to literally blind yourself? So Jesus didn't literally think the Pharisees were sons of the Devil -- he was expressing his anger. One of the things the Gospels lack is the context that there were actually to very different groups of Pharisees. The School of Shammai was very, very strict and made life hard for Jews -- these ran the Sanhedrin at the time of Jesus and Jesus argued with them every chance he got. T.he School of Hillel interpreted the Law in ways that were easy on the people. I agree with Rabbi Falk that Jesus himself was a Pharisee of the School of Hillel.

I agree, but it didn't stop there. The "Lord's Day" spoken about by John in Revelation had nothing to do with a day of the week.

Again an esoteric interpretation.

Yes, that is how I understand it. The Law was for Jews and Gentiles were not under any obligation to keep the law, including the Sabbath because they were not converting to Judaism. The Law only meant something to Jews and those who wanted to attach themselves to the Jewish nation. Gentiles had no covenant with God....but they still had to obey all the moral laws as Jesus said. They also had to "abstain from blood". (Acts 15:28-29) Love of God and neighbor had to be demonstrated as a way of life.

So nice to agree on something, eh?