In light of discussion above —
As you have insisted throughout — Jesus was a Jew — but from the very beginning, His teachings were viewed by many Jews as utterly blasphemous, Saul of Tarsus being one of them — not for being pagan, or foreign, but for a blasphemous expression of His native faith.
The Gospels continually reference the Hebrew Scriptures as the foundation and validation of everything Christ did and said. His whole teaching is presented in the context of Judaism.
Apart from Irenaeus, the Early Fathers were almost to a man schooled in Platonic philosophy, yet in all their writings they reference the Hebrew Scriptures, not pagan texts, as underpinning and affirming their arguments.
Origen Adamantius, 'the man of iron', even learnt Hebrew so he could read the Jewish texts in the original, and not in the Septuagint translation. All his commentaries on doctrine reference the Hebrew Scriptures.
He, one of the most influential and prolific Christian theologians of his day, master of the School of Catechetics in Alexandria, was nevertheless accused, and condemned, for perceived pagan beliefs, and the 'Origenist ideas' were refuted and the doctrine declared anathema.
Even today, any doctrinal document issued by Rome stands by the authority of Scripture first, the teaching of the Fathers second, and the faith of the community third ... the declaration of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin is one of the few not founded on a direct Scripture reference, but because of that the case is argued long and hard in the dogmatic documents.
So I suppose I am saying that the doctrine and dogmas of the Church relate back to Scripture as their source and principle ... and have always been argued on that basis ... and the Church seems very ready to refute in no uncertain terms the influence of paganism, no matter how persuasive and pervasive it might be — notably in the rebuttal of Arius who, although believing himself to be the orthodox and injured party, was, under the influence of an Hellenised Christianity importing Platonic and neo-gnostic ideas into Christianity, something totally alien to its Jewish heritage.
But what you must understand is, right from the outset, the practice of Christianity was not 'neo-Judaism', it was a new Covenant that was seen to supersede all that had gobe before.
It was also seen as not alien to Judaism, as the one true God is the same in both, therefore there is no harm in continuing Jewish practice, but these were optional to the essentially Christian practice of baptism, prayer and the Eucharistic Meal — and a Jew had to be baptised, recreated in the Spirit, to enter the fellowship of the Church.
As the community grew in numbers, there appeared house-churches, and, where there was relative security, churches. Here they architecture was Christian, and the rites celebrated were Christian.
So really the Christian Church was moving in a tangentially different direction to the Jewish religion from day one of its foundation to establish its own identity as the One Bread — the koinonia in the Mystical Body of Christ.
I suppose if one assumes the core content of Christianity is false and therefore a fabrication, then one must ask, where does it come from?
But if one assumes it's not, and that it flows from Christ, then it all makes sense.
I would suggest that the Apostles and Fathers believed it — it cost nearly all of them their lives.
Thomas
As you have insisted throughout — Jesus was a Jew — but from the very beginning, His teachings were viewed by many Jews as utterly blasphemous, Saul of Tarsus being one of them — not for being pagan, or foreign, but for a blasphemous expression of His native faith.
The Gospels continually reference the Hebrew Scriptures as the foundation and validation of everything Christ did and said. His whole teaching is presented in the context of Judaism.
Apart from Irenaeus, the Early Fathers were almost to a man schooled in Platonic philosophy, yet in all their writings they reference the Hebrew Scriptures, not pagan texts, as underpinning and affirming their arguments.
Origen Adamantius, 'the man of iron', even learnt Hebrew so he could read the Jewish texts in the original, and not in the Septuagint translation. All his commentaries on doctrine reference the Hebrew Scriptures.
He, one of the most influential and prolific Christian theologians of his day, master of the School of Catechetics in Alexandria, was nevertheless accused, and condemned, for perceived pagan beliefs, and the 'Origenist ideas' were refuted and the doctrine declared anathema.
Even today, any doctrinal document issued by Rome stands by the authority of Scripture first, the teaching of the Fathers second, and the faith of the community third ... the declaration of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin is one of the few not founded on a direct Scripture reference, but because of that the case is argued long and hard in the dogmatic documents.
So I suppose I am saying that the doctrine and dogmas of the Church relate back to Scripture as their source and principle ... and have always been argued on that basis ... and the Church seems very ready to refute in no uncertain terms the influence of paganism, no matter how persuasive and pervasive it might be — notably in the rebuttal of Arius who, although believing himself to be the orthodox and injured party, was, under the influence of an Hellenised Christianity importing Platonic and neo-gnostic ideas into Christianity, something totally alien to its Jewish heritage.
But what you must understand is, right from the outset, the practice of Christianity was not 'neo-Judaism', it was a new Covenant that was seen to supersede all that had gobe before.
It was also seen as not alien to Judaism, as the one true God is the same in both, therefore there is no harm in continuing Jewish practice, but these were optional to the essentially Christian practice of baptism, prayer and the Eucharistic Meal — and a Jew had to be baptised, recreated in the Spirit, to enter the fellowship of the Church.
As the community grew in numbers, there appeared house-churches, and, where there was relative security, churches. Here they architecture was Christian, and the rites celebrated were Christian.
So really the Christian Church was moving in a tangentially different direction to the Jewish religion from day one of its foundation to establish its own identity as the One Bread — the koinonia in the Mystical Body of Christ.
I suppose if one assumes the core content of Christianity is false and therefore a fabrication, then one must ask, where does it come from?
But if one assumes it's not, and that it flows from Christ, then it all makes sense.
I would suggest that the Apostles and Fathers believed it — it cost nearly all of them their lives.
Thomas
