Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?
- Thread starter RJM
- Start date
It's quite likely Paul saw Jesus as ushering in the eschatological time foretold by the prophets in which the 'Gentile' nations would turn from their idols and embrace the one true God of Israel (cf Zechariah 8:20-23), and Paul saw himself called to this ministry. His objection was based on the belief that salvation was through faith in Christ. He opposed circumcison for Gentiles on the grounds that "... many peoples, and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem" (Zechariah 8:22) and worship there as Gentiles, not as Jewish converts.
Peter's vision in Acts 10 seems clear enough on that point.
It's worth noting that around this time, the Jews, too, were debating the issue of Gentile inclusion:
"It was deemed unwise to reveal their laws to the Gentiles, for such knowledge might have operated against the Jews in their opponents' courts. Hence the Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah, "the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii. 4).
...
Rabbi Emden, in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law – which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath."
The Seven Laws of Noah:
Not to worship idols.
Not to curse God.
Not to commit murder.
Not to commit adultery or sexual immorality.
Not to steal.
Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal.
To establish courts of justice.
Peter's vision in Acts 10 seems clear enough on that point.
It's worth noting that around this time, the Jews, too, were debating the issue of Gentile inclusion:
"It was deemed unwise to reveal their laws to the Gentiles, for such knowledge might have operated against the Jews in their opponents' courts. Hence the Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah, "the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii. 4).
...
Rabbi Emden, in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law – which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath."
The Seven Laws of Noah:
Not to worship idols.
Not to curse God.
Not to commit murder.
Not to commit adultery or sexual immorality.
Not to steal.
Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal.
To establish courts of justice.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
But that is not what Paul argued. It wasn't a concession if it wasn't legally required to begin with. Pertaining to the Gentiles, Kosher and circumcision were moot, irrelevant, didn't apply. This is rather the point. There was nothing to concede.
It's a Jewish thing, and most Christians don't even think to go there...that includes scholars.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Good to know, and it makes sense (and explains some experiences I've had)
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Here is my thought on this conversation.
Romans 14:5-12 One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
I have never been convicted of Sabbath worship. In my experience those that worship on the Sabbath do so in judgement of those that worship on Sunday. There is always the attitude that I am somehow wrong or in error or that I am breaking a commandment. This is wrong. I have a close walk with the Lord I have studied scripture I have spiritual discernment. I know His voice. Why in my entire long life of these things have I not been convicted of this if it's of a detriment to my Lords two commandments?
I have NO problem with anyone who is convicted of Sabbath worship.. God's ways are higher than mine and I believe that there is a reason if someone is convicted of such . Where it is wrong is to try to convict in the flesh or to impose that on someone else who is NOT convicted by the Holy Spirit who brings us into all truth.
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
Romans 14:5-12 One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
I have never been convicted of Sabbath worship. In my experience those that worship on the Sabbath do so in judgement of those that worship on Sunday. There is always the attitude that I am somehow wrong or in error or that I am breaking a commandment. This is wrong. I have a close walk with the Lord I have studied scripture I have spiritual discernment. I know His voice. Why in my entire long life of these things have I not been convicted of this if it's of a detriment to my Lords two commandments?
I have NO problem with anyone who is convicted of Sabbath worship.. God's ways are higher than mine and I believe that there is a reason if someone is convicted of such . Where it is wrong is to try to convict in the flesh or to impose that on someone else who is NOT convicted by the Holy Spirit who brings us into all truth.
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
Well, I have my own viewpoint..
I personally don't think that Jesus and his disciples ate pork, and did not teach that it was alright to eat pork.
Re. circumcision, it became optional, and not obligatory .. as many Jews saw it,
to become a"Jewish Christian" for want of a better term.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Is it a case of if scripture doesn't fit your belief then it's corrupted?
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
OK, but then you are saying the same thing I have been, regarding the Jerusalem / Israel Christians.
For the Gentile Christians, per the Bible (Old Testament), per Law, per Paul...none of that was applicable.
No .. it is a case of interpreting scripture in light of the whole.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
So if the NT contradicts the OT as far as what is allowed .. what does that say to you?
I want to know why G-d disallowed things .. I want to know why the Qur'an confirms
many of the things that were disallowed.
I am not looking for a belief that relies on Roman law, and discards that from G-d.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
If pork is unclean than why would Jesus say this?
Mark 7:15-20
There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles himI'm not even going to mention passages in Romans 1 Timothy Colossians 1 Corinthians etc.. as you suggest that is Roman law. I am not suggesting that choosing to abstain from pork is wrong if it's felt to be unclean if someone is convicted then I
support it.. what issue I have is suggesting that people that are convicted that pork is permissable by God to eat are somehow wrong or in err.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I can't do this right now. My little buddy buddy passed away tonight.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
I'm sooo sorry
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
TY
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Such as? I'm not up to it now, but might make some conversation starters when I feel up to it.
What specifically does the Qur'an confirm that was disallowed in the New Testament? Not opinion, what specific examples might you provide?
CONTEXT
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
- Mark 7 -
It doesn't mean that Jesus approved of eating dog muck, does it.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's out of context. Its pretty specific that what goes into our body does not defile us. Eating pork was believed to defile the person eating it. He didn't say that eating pork was the exception to the rule.
If you are referring to dog poo . He said that what comes out of the body is what defiles us..
Scripture says He declared ALL foods clean. I didn't add that lol
I do not think it is advisable to be a "literalist".
It is obvious that washing your hands before eating is a good idea.
Jesus was not saying "who cares .. eat filth if you like", imo.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
That's where we differ. I do take the bible literally. If we spent the whole time trying to figure out what to take literally and what WE guess is the meaning we risk way too much.
I guess my point is that He was specifically saying we are defiled by these... "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man" and not by these..."but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man..." It's negating the purity laws of the flesh as a sin and emphasizing the sins of hurting someone else. It's no longer a sin to eat without washing your hands but it's a sin to murder.
I don't know how else to explain it.