what religion that god brings all this time, before Jesus come
- Thread starter lightMe
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S
This was a subject debated by the first century church in Acts 15. The question really was "Is this a new religion?" .. So it broke into "Can you NOT be Jewish and still follow the Messiah of Israel?" Which is why there was much confusion over circumcision and should Gentiles be circumcised, etc.
Today the two religions Christianity and traditional Judaism are very, very, very different. However, if you were to live in the first century I don't believe this would be the case. I believe first century Judaism and the first Messianic Jews and Messianic Gentiles (or Christians) were a lot closer in similarities than we are today. (we: being Christians and traditional Jews)
The answer is this though, Yeshua said "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick...For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."
I recommend you do a study on the lives of the disciples and specifically the 12 apostles. Matthew for example was a tax collector. Also we have another follower named Nicodemus, a Pharisee. Anyone who recognized they were sinners, anyone who understood they were "sick", those are the ones who followed our King Messiah. It wasn't about religion, although Yeshua was a first century Rabbi. But I suppose many will answer "Judaism". I guess I have to disagree based on the followers of our Messiah. It really wasn't about your former religion, but the fact you embrace the Messiah! Once again, like I said in your other thread "the just shall live by faith".
Today the two religions Christianity and traditional Judaism are very, very, very different. However, if you were to live in the first century I don't believe this would be the case. I believe first century Judaism and the first Messianic Jews and Messianic Gentiles (or Christians) were a lot closer in similarities than we are today. (we: being Christians and traditional Jews)
The answer is this though, Yeshua said "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick...For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."
I recommend you do a study on the lives of the disciples and specifically the 12 apostles. Matthew for example was a tax collector. Also we have another follower named Nicodemus, a Pharisee. Anyone who recognized they were sinners, anyone who understood they were "sick", those are the ones who followed our King Messiah. It wasn't about religion, although Yeshua was a first century Rabbi. But I suppose many will answer "Judaism". I guess I have to disagree based on the followers of our Messiah. It really wasn't about your former religion, but the fact you embrace the Messiah! Once again, like I said in your other thread "the just shall live by faith".
Last edited:
Hi Swagga,
Your points, with which I am in full agreement, are well thought out - and verified by several outstanding sources. The first of these would, of course, be found in Acts, written by Luke (in the latter half of the first century) and dealing primarily with the ministry of Paul among Jews, Gentiles, and Christians.
To supplement the study of Acts, I can recommend the book, "What Paul Meant" written by the Pulitzer Prize winning author, Gary Wills. Wills' book deals primarily with the themes addressed in your post.
Perhaps you would also appreciate similar perspectives of the late Krister Stendahl, New Testament theologian, authority on St. Paul, Emeritus Bishop of Stockholm, and Dean of the Harvard Divinity School. Stendahl is perhaps most famous for his publication of the article "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West." This article, along with the later publication of the book Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, conveys a new idea in Pauline studies suggesting that scholarship dating all way back to Augustine may miss the context and thesis of Paul.
Stendahl's main point revolves around the early tension in Christianity between Jewish Christians and Gentile converts. He specifically argues that later interpreters of Paul have assumed a hyper-active conscience when they have begun exegesis of his works. As a result, they have suggested an overly psychological interpretation of the apostle Paul, that Paul himself would most likely not have understood at all for himself.
Swagga, my brother, I enjoyed reading your post. Keep up the good work!
- KayCee
Your points, with which I am in full agreement, are well thought out - and verified by several outstanding sources. The first of these would, of course, be found in Acts, written by Luke (in the latter half of the first century) and dealing primarily with the ministry of Paul among Jews, Gentiles, and Christians.
To supplement the study of Acts, I can recommend the book, "What Paul Meant" written by the Pulitzer Prize winning author, Gary Wills. Wills' book deals primarily with the themes addressed in your post.
Perhaps you would also appreciate similar perspectives of the late Krister Stendahl, New Testament theologian, authority on St. Paul, Emeritus Bishop of Stockholm, and Dean of the Harvard Divinity School. Stendahl is perhaps most famous for his publication of the article "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West." This article, along with the later publication of the book Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, conveys a new idea in Pauline studies suggesting that scholarship dating all way back to Augustine may miss the context and thesis of Paul.
Stendahl's main point revolves around the early tension in Christianity between Jewish Christians and Gentile converts. He specifically argues that later interpreters of Paul have assumed a hyper-active conscience when they have begun exegesis of his works. As a result, they have suggested an overly psychological interpretation of the apostle Paul, that Paul himself would most likely not have understood at all for himself.
Swagga, my brother, I enjoyed reading your post. Keep up the good work!
- KayCee
M
The 'religion' of RELATIONSIHP with the Creator has ALWAYS been the ONLY thing that God has ever wanted or created us for. In the OT, there were
Covenents between His people and Him. It ALL centered on Christ comiing and paying the price for us. In the NT, it is the SAME God and people, but a new...NEW Covenent that overrides those of the old.
It is not much different from two business revising their contracts of agreement after a time of using the first contrart. Later, a new and better contract is presented. Those involved can choose to enter into this new and better contract, OR....not. But of course then they lose out on all the benefits that the new contract provides. It is still the same two entities of 'business', but the relationsihp has improved.
Simple, isn't it?
Maggie
Covenents between His people and Him. It ALL centered on Christ comiing and paying the price for us. In the NT, it is the SAME God and people, but a new...NEW Covenent that overrides those of the old.
It is not much different from two business revising their contracts of agreement after a time of using the first contrart. Later, a new and better contract is presented. Those involved can choose to enter into this new and better contract, OR....not. But of course then they lose out on all the benefits that the new contract provides. It is still the same two entities of 'business', but the relationsihp has improved.
Simple, isn't it?
Maggie
For more on Acts 15, just read Galatians. If you take the view that I do and. Galatians was written after Paul's first missionary journey (not the second) then Galatians would have been written in the time frame of the first few verses of Acts 15, just after the Antioch incident. However, although most of the first followers where Jewish by physical decent, you see The command of Jesus coming into fruition (The spread of the gospel).
Jesus came to His own and His own rejected Him. The Jewish religion had went wrong, badly wrong! Jesus came to reconcile to Himself all that was His, and this included the gentiles (as prophesy). The Physical Jewish nature where meant to be a light to the nations, however they failed at this also. the blessings to the physical Jews where only temporal (see all the blessings and cursing stipulations at the Sinai covenant).
Jesus came to fulfil the promise to Abraham, He would be his seed, he would be a blessing to all nations and also thee King, Abraham is told Kings will come from him. all those now in Christ are one in Christ, there is neither Jew nor greek nor slave nor free but all ONE in Christ. to say otherwise is going against Scripture.
I am no more a '''Messianic Celt''' than a Jew is a '''Messianic Jew''' for we are both one in Christ, hence we are what is called Christian. not sub groups or superior groups???
Abraham looked forward in Faith in Christ as did Moses and all Israel, they maybe were'nt to sure how or the in's and out's, but they believed it. the redemption of God by Faith. The birth of the nation of Hebrews where chosen to God to be His people to be His and to be a shining light for the world, However due to their failure they felt the curses of the Siniatic Covenant. but the true son (Israel) achieved what was necessary for the world (Jews and non Jews)!
So redemption was always going to be through Christ. In Genesis 3 we see the first hint of the gospel (Eve's seed). I think we get far to sentimental when it comes to these things.. You are either in Christ or not. If you need rituals and cultic ceremonys then Christs work on the cross is not all sufficient, it lacks something? do we honestly think Christs work was lacking?
Phil
1st Judaism was certainly not Godly, especially Pharisaic Judaism, from the hasmonean time.
Jesus came to His own and His own rejected Him. The Jewish religion had went wrong, badly wrong! Jesus came to reconcile to Himself all that was His, and this included the gentiles (as prophesy). The Physical Jewish nature where meant to be a light to the nations, however they failed at this also. the blessings to the physical Jews where only temporal (see all the blessings and cursing stipulations at the Sinai covenant).
Jesus came to fulfil the promise to Abraham, He would be his seed, he would be a blessing to all nations and also thee King, Abraham is told Kings will come from him. all those now in Christ are one in Christ, there is neither Jew nor greek nor slave nor free but all ONE in Christ. to say otherwise is going against Scripture.
I am no more a '''Messianic Celt''' than a Jew is a '''Messianic Jew''' for we are both one in Christ, hence we are what is called Christian. not sub groups or superior groups???
Abraham looked forward in Faith in Christ as did Moses and all Israel, they maybe were'nt to sure how or the in's and out's, but they believed it. the redemption of God by Faith. The birth of the nation of Hebrews where chosen to God to be His people to be His and to be a shining light for the world, However due to their failure they felt the curses of the Siniatic Covenant. but the true son (Israel) achieved what was necessary for the world (Jews and non Jews)!
So redemption was always going to be through Christ. In Genesis 3 we see the first hint of the gospel (Eve's seed). I think we get far to sentimental when it comes to these things.. You are either in Christ or not. If you need rituals and cultic ceremonys then Christs work on the cross is not all sufficient, it lacks something? do we honestly think Christs work was lacking?
Phil
1st Judaism was certainly not Godly, especially Pharisaic Judaism, from the hasmonean time.
Hi Kaycee,
The studies that you suggest are far from new, they have been raging since the seventies. I don't know about the professor you have mentioned but I can assure you is well read in the works of 'Saunders' Dunn' and NT Wright''.
Tom (NT) Wright, is a great New Testament Scholar. However His view on Paul, are not exactly correct. NT is sliding into RC territory. Tom is Anglican so that is not suprising.
Anyone writing on the 'New Perspective' on Paul will have been influenced by these three gents. What we must remember is, even these three guys can't really agree on what the 'New Perspective' is. But no one could fault NT's defense of Christ, and the attack on the church by modern standards and the effect of homosexuality in society.
These studies on Paul are very interesting indeed, however, we must be carefull about being led astray by eloquently written works.. that seem to be true? NT Wright, although being a renowned Scholar, has great skill in writing at a popular level, (easily accessible to all, without airs or graces) which some educated people lack severely!
Phil
The studies that you suggest are far from new, they have been raging since the seventies. I don't know about the professor you have mentioned but I can assure you is well read in the works of 'Saunders' Dunn' and NT Wright''.
Tom (NT) Wright, is a great New Testament Scholar. However His view on Paul, are not exactly correct. NT is sliding into RC territory. Tom is Anglican so that is not suprising.
Anyone writing on the 'New Perspective' on Paul will have been influenced by these three gents. What we must remember is, even these three guys can't really agree on what the 'New Perspective' is. But no one could fault NT's defense of Christ, and the attack on the church by modern standards and the effect of homosexuality in society.
These studies on Paul are very interesting indeed, however, we must be carefull about being led astray by eloquently written works.. that seem to be true? NT Wright, although being a renowned Scholar, has great skill in writing at a popular level, (easily accessible to all, without airs or graces) which some educated people lack severely!
Phil
