Were Christians supposed to separate themselves?

[Marsh]

In the book of Acts, Christians are not known as Christians, but as "the Way." From then until now, it seems to me that Christianity-- and hence Christians themselves-- have drifted farther and farther away from their roots in Judaism. From this separation our culture as Christians has evolved into what we know it as today: something that is not Jewish, nor ever was (to the best of most Christians' knowledge).

I'm asking this not because I think I know the answer, but because I'm looking for one: Are modern churches horribly off-track? Did Jesus really want us to separate ourselves into a new entity called Christians, or to identify more with our Jewish roots as a new "Way" of being a Jew?

I do realize that Jesus didn't want us to be religious, just as God didn't want a house built for him in Moses' time. But I'm sure that you will understand what I'm trying to get at with this question: is Christianity as we know it a false religion in the sense that the Pharisee sect of Judaism was a false religion?

 

[iBrian]

I'm not sure that the Pharisees could be called a false religion, as much as a division within Judaism - as indeed early Christianity was.

IMO the Gospels make no claim to be being aimed at the gentiles - the Epistles afterwards making the implicit distinction.

 

[Nogodnomasters]

Marsh,

In Acts the apostles sold all their goods and gave it to the poor as they expected their converts to do. This they did because it was what they believed Jesus expected us all do. As you can see this didn't last too long as it failed to convert the wealthy and powerful.

As such I never consider anyone who owns a computer a "true Chrsitian."

Do you think Christianity would have gotten very far if Jesus told his apostles to celebrate his resurrection by eating a ham?

 

[Quahom1]

I'm not sure that the Pharisees could be called a false religion, as much as a division within Judaism - as indeed early Christianity was.

IMO the Gospels make no claim to be being aimed at the gentiles - the Epistles afterwards making the implicit distinction.

But as My grandmother pointed out Brian, each Gospel was written by a person who understood a certain group of people, and was able to "reach" them by speaking in their terms.

For example: Mathew was a tax collector, Luke, a physician, Mark, a Noble, and foreigner, and John, a simple man. Mathew would appeal to the rich and the law followers, Luke, to the learned, the sophisticated, Mark, to the Officials and strangers, and John...to the simple salt of the earth (most of us).

Probably one reason why John is so easy to read...

Pharisees believed in God, and the afterlife. Sadusees belived in no Afterlife. According to them, all man had was now. Both believed the letter of the law must be upheld. Neither allowed for the inclusion of foreigners. Samarians were hybrid Jews (bastardized children), not to be even looked upon, let alone spoken to. They were "giegine" (Japanese for anyone not Japanese). Jesus broke just about every talsmudic/Tora law there was (except for sex). And even that is not certain.

Gnostic Christianity (the earliest form), appears to be as foreign to common day Christianity as Mormonism or Adventism, or Scientologists seem to be, to the rest of the current Christian mind set. But then, the Celtic Christians of Ireland circa 560 - 675 AE/ACE (AD) were just as foreign to the Church of Rome as well.

Also, let us not forget the Jewish Kabalists...or the current day Jews for Jesus, or the several dozen books that the Roman church decided not to include into the "BIBLE", for reasons other than religious.

One could actually argue that the current Roman Church follows a false religion...actually they have! ;-)

Ha, it brings me back to the adage, that "Allah, in his infinite wisdom, loves wonderous variety".

v/r

Q

 

[iBrian]

But as My grandmother pointed out Brian, each Gospel was written by a person who understood a certain group of people, and was able to "reach" them by speaking in their terms.

For example: Mathew was a tax collector, Luke, a physician, Mark, a Noble, and foreigner, and John, a simple man. Mathew would appeal to the rich and the law followers, Luke, to the learned, the sophisticated, Mark, to the Officials and strangers, and John...to the simple salt of the earth (most of us).

Are there not these people within Judaism, though?

 

[Marsh]

IMO all religions are false...

I'm not sure that the Pharisees could be called a false religion, as much as a division within Judaism - as indeed early Christianity was.

IMO the Gospels make no claim to be being aimed at the gentiles - the Epistles afterwards making the implicit distinction.

Matthew 16:15 says, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." I think that is aimed at pretty much anyone, Brian.

As for the difference between false religions and true religions, that was the main problem I had when formulating the question I asked in the beginning. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a true religion; all fall short of the mark by varying degrees. However, the Pharisees were not only false in the sense that they fell short of where God wanted them to be; they were also false in the sense that they replaced the word of God with the teaching of men.

To qualify my original question: Has Christianity substituted the teaching of men (i.e. theology) for the words of Jesus? Just as Christianity as we know it began as a sect of Judaism, should it not still be so today? There is a lot of pride in modern churches. Perhaps one reason is because we have forgotten where we came from.

 

[gluadys]

Probably one reason why John is so easy to read...

All a matter of perspective I suppose. I find the John the most difficult and theologically sophisticated of the gospels. The synoptics, especially Mark, seem a good deal simpler and straightforward, and I love them.

John is also, IMHO, the least Jewish, of the gospels, though he is probably drawing on good Jewish philosophical predecessors such as Philo of Alexandria.

I do think the original concept was a renewed Judaism, not a new faith. But a Judaism far more open to the gentiles. The apostles, for the most part, thought in traditional messianic terms and did not make any serious attempt to reach the gentiles.

It was Paul who explicitly turned to the gentiles and developed a theology that included them, without conversion to Judaism or a solid background in Jewish thinking.

There are pluses and minuses in that choice, and I think any move to restore connections with the Jewish roots of Christianity are much to be welcomed.

 

[iBrian]

Matthew 16:15 says, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." I think that is aimed at pretty much anyone, Brian.

Not really - the Jews as a people had already been scattered by the Babylonian Diaspora. The simplest reading is that Jesus is calling upon the teaching to be spread to these scattered Jews. IMO, there is really no reason at all to presume that there is any other interpretation - unless it is assumption a priori that the Gentiles are specifically addressed here. That's the part the Epistles play.

 

[okieinexile]

Christianity IS Judaism in its purest form.

 

[Marsh]

God was kidding then?

Then why did Jesus say "all creation," Brian? If you believe that Jesus was the word of God, and that the word of God is truth, then you have to believe that when Jesus said all creation, he meant all creation. I would even go so far as to say that this commission applies to the rest of the non-human world, such as the environment. Of course, the idea is not that one should find the nearest bush or rock and deliver a sermon to it, but rather to preach to it using actions-- the physical manifestation of the good news. For example, to be kind to an animal, to prune a dying tree, to not pour your waste oil onto the ground: all of these, I think, qualify as preaching the good news. After all, it would be pretty hard to truthfully say that you believe in God and then to turn around and destroy the world he created.

 

[iBrian]

Sorry, Marsh - do you mean "all creation" instead of "all the world" - as in Mt 16:15??

 

[Marsh]

Sorry, Marsh - do you mean "all creation" instead of "all the world" - as in Mt 16:15??

These citations are from the New International Version...

In Matthew Jesus says, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."

In Mark Jesus says, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."

In Luke Jesus says, "...and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his (Jesus') name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

In Acts Peter says, "Can anyone keep thse people (Gentiles) from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."

In Revelation John says, "I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: 'Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.'"

I haven't even cracked open the OT prophets like Isaiah who make statements about the spread of the word of God to the gentiles, or like Jonah who allude to it symbolically. For these reasons, even without the epistles I feel it's clear that the good news was not intended to be limited to Jews, but rather that it was to be shared to every single person, as it is written in Matthew 24:

"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

 

[iBrian]

Good call, Marsh - I'm not prepared enough to be able to make a counter argument - presuming there is one. It would be interesting to see what the word used for "nations" in the Greek was, as that could be quite pivotal to the reading.

 

[Vajradhara]

They were "giegine" (Japanese for anyone not Japanese).
Q

Namaste Quahom,

actually.. the term is Gaijin and it usually means foreigner and is considered, by some, to be a perjorative.

 

[iKwak]

I don't understand the different denominations within the christianity.

 

[gluadys]

Good call, Marsh - I'm not prepared enough to be able to make a counter argument - presuming there is one. It would be interesting to see what the word used for "nations" in the Greek was, as that could be quite pivotal to the reading.

The Greek is "ethnesin" the plural of "ethnos" from which we get the English adjective "ethnic". It is the usual NT term for non-Jewish peoples and is often translated as "Gentiles".

Another key word here is the term used for "world". Of several possible Greek terms, the one used here is "oikumene" which means specifically, "the whole inhabited world". "ecumenical" is an English derivative of "oikumene".

So there is little doubt here of the intention is that the gospel will be preached to all the nations of the whole inhabited world.

We should remember as well, that all the gospels were written AFTER the church had made the decision to include the Gentiles. And the gospels which were selected for the canon were all chosen by Gentile Christians. It would be very surprising to find any other perspective in the NT.

 

[gluadys]

I don't understand the different denominations within the christianity.

I don't blame you. Christians don't either.

Are you wanting to know something about various denominations? Or why there are so many denominations?

 

[Iacchus]

I don't understand the different denominations within the christianity.

This is because when the Bible was finally printed and made available to the masses, there was no official interpretation of it, not until the book of Revelation was finally fulfilled in 1757.

 

[iBrian]

The only "official" interpretation is an entirely denominational matter.

Isn't it?

 

[Iacchus]

The only "official" interpretation is an entirely denominational matter.

Isn't it?

Well, you have to understand that the Bible had been repressed for at least a thousand years or, how ever long the Roman Catholic Church preached to the masses in Latin which, in effect nobody understood. And then along came Martin Luther and the printing press (Gutenberg) and now the Bible had finally become accessible. However, we're talking about 1,500 years after the fact. That's a long period of time of not knowing! In which case how could it be anything but subject to interpretation? So, if in fact there was anything legitimate to the Bible in the first place and, if the Guy upstairs were to remain consistent, then at some point it should be decreed that an offical account be given. And this I would suggest to you had little to do with The Reformation.