Gentile vs Jewish Christian Fathers after Rome/Jewish war of 325AD

[Blik]

Bar Kochhar was the head of the last Jewish rebellion in Jerusalem against Roman rule. It was a terrible war, the Jewish race nearly eliminated. It was ended in 325AD.

The councils of the Christian Church had all been of the Jewish race until that time. James, the brother of Jesus, is an example. All these fathers had a thorough knowledge of scripture, at that time scripture was the OT. They knew God intimately, and that Christ was one with God. They thought of Christ as the one who fulfilled what they had learned through scripture, with Christ’s ways fully explained. Now, all possible Christian heads could not be Jewish, Jews had been killed.

Now the men chosen as heads of the Christian church were all gentiles. Each had grown up in an idol worshipping home. They thought of Jews as those people with odd ways, people to be avoided. All ways of Jews were not accepted for these were people who killed Christ.

God had used the Jews to explain His ways to gentiles, now every one of those ways were looked at as wrong. Moses was questioned, obedience to law was questioned, God ordained celebrations were questioned, God Himself was questioned. They did not understand the need of clearing the world of evil men with the flood, or being against the nations who promoted killing babies to appease fake gods, they questioned everything and tossed out much of God’s ways saying there was a new God who disposed of the old, cranky, judgmental one for a loving God.

That is the Christian religion of today, do you think it is the one true of God, or was the prewar religion like Christ gave the right one?

 

[Locutus]

I always appreciate Readers Digest Versions of history.

 

[Blik]

I always appreciate Readers Digest Versions of history.

If you are saying this is history that cannot be verified please give documentation.

I have worked for years verifying this, even reading some of the writings of the early gentile fathers. Their ways of putting ideas makes them tough reading. Comparing their ideas to scripture makes for fascinating reading.

 

[Dino246]

Bar Kochhar was the head of the last Jewish rebellion in Jerusalem against Roman rule. It was a terrible war, the Jewish race nearly eliminated. It was ended in 325AD.

The councils of the Christian Church had all been of the Jewish race until that time. James, the brother of Jesus, is an example. All these fathers had a thorough knowledge of scripture, at that time scripture was the OT. They knew God intimately, and that Christ was one with God. They thought of Christ as the one who fulfilled what they had learned through scripture, with Christ’s ways fully explained. Now, all possible Christian heads could not be Jewish, Jews had been killed.

Now the men chosen as heads of the Christian church were all gentiles. Each had grown up in an idol worshipping home. They thought of Jews as those people with odd ways, people to be avoided. All ways of Jews were not accepted for these were people who killed Christ.

God had used the Jews to explain His ways to gentiles, now every one of those ways were looked at as wrong. Moses was questioned, obedience to law was questioned, God ordained celebrations were questioned, God Himself was questioned. They did not understand the need of clearing the world of evil men with the flood, or being against the nations who promoted killing babies to appease fake gods, they questioned everything and tossed out much of God’s ways saying there was a new God who disposed of the old, cranky, judgmental one for a loving God.

That is the Christian religion of today, do you think it is the one true of God, or was the prewar religion like Christ gave the right one?

This may (or may not) be a fair summary of history, but it is inconsistent with Scripture.

Scripture (the New Testament, written by Jewish Christians) demonstrates that the old covenant given to Moses was set aside, that it was not given to the Gentiles at all, and that Jesus fulfilled the old covenant leaving nothing owing to it.

Paul, together with Peter, James and the writer to the Hebrews, made it clear that we don't have to become Jews to become Christians. We are accepted by God in Christ by faith, not by adherence to the Jewish laws. The Christian Church didn't toss out the OT. We recognized that it is instructive rather than prescriptive.

Our relationship with God is through Christ, not through the Law. God gave the Law to Israel, not to the Church.

 

[Nehemiah6]

God had used the Jews to explain His ways to gentiles, now every one of those ways were looked at as wrong. Moses was questioned...

The focus was on Christ and the New Covenant, not Moses and the Old Covenant. You need to understand the significance of the New Covenant, since you would prefer to revive the Old Covenant. Here is the impact of the New Covenant:

THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP TO THE PHILIPPIANS
Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi: Mercy to you, and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour, be multiplied.

CHAPTER I.--PRAISE OF THE PHILIPPIANS.
I have greatly rejoiced with you in our Lord Jesus Christ, because ye have followed the example of true love [as displayed by God], and have accompanied, as became you, those who were bound in chains, the fitting ornaments of saints, and which are indeed the diadems of the true elect of God and our Lord; and because the strong root of your faith, spoken of in days long gone by, endureth even until now, and bringeth forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] "whom God raised froth the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave." "In whom, though now ye see Him not, ye believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; " into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that "by grace ye are saved, not of works," but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.

 

[Blik]

This may (or may not) be a fair summary of history, but it is inconsistent with Scripture.

Scripture (the New Testament, written by Jewish Christians) demonstrates that the old covenant given to Moses was set aside, that it was not given to the Gentiles at all, and that Jesus fulfilled the old covenant leaving nothing owing to it.

Paul, together with Peter, James and the writer to the Hebrews, made it clear that we don't have to become Jews to become Christians. We are accepted by God in Christ by faith, not by adherence to the Jewish laws. The Christian Church didn't toss out the OT. We recognized that it is instructive rather than prescriptive.

Our relationship with God is through Christ, not through the Law. God gave the Law to Israel, not to the Church.

Just where do you read that God has cancelled a covenant that God made with us? It is obsolete that we use animal blood when we have the real blood of Christ. That is not cancelling a promise, that is making what the promise was based on (animal blood) obsolete. God is true as Paul brought out in Romans, even if every person is false.

We do not have to become Jews to become Christians as the Jews of Jesus' time insisted we need do, but we (gentiles) do need to love the Lord and follow Him as is pointed out in Isaiah, not say that God is obsolete or His promises. God does NOT cancel what God promises.

Today's church keeps hammering to not go by law! That is not what scripture tells us. We can be lawless, perhaps, and be saved with only faith. James tells us we can't, because if we have faith actions follow, and no actions means no faith. But if you will turn to the book of Galatians where Paul explains salvation by faith so eloquently, Paul also explains if you read further, how law applies. By half truths you are working with Satan, for that is just how Satan works as he did with Eve. It is true that we are not saved by law, but that is a half truth. Read on in Galatians where this is explained.
Jesus fulfilled everything the OT told of Him, that doesn't mean that Christ is cancelled. It tells that Christ is now with us and real.

Paul is not telling us anything new about the law of Moses. It could always be obeyed by the letter of the law and at the same time disobeyed. Read of the Pharisee parading in costume to tell he was praying and it not be considered prayer. This was before Christ was crucified.

Israel has many different meanings in different scripture passages, some are about the physical Israel. Scripture tells us that if we accept the Lord and all the Lord tells us that we are seeds of Abraham, or spiritual Israel. God was not just exercising His gums when God gave us scripture to have us dispose of it as only for a select few of the human race. God sees us as His creation, and only especially blesses a race God created to experience Him in their life and let us know His ways. God blesses all of us who love Him.

 

[Blik]

The focus was on Christ and the New Covenant, not Moses and the Old Covenant. You need to understand the significance of the New Covenant, since you would prefer to revive the Old Covenant. Here is the impact of the New Covenant:.

It is like reading the end of a book and saying you understand all the book says. The OT explains Christ, as the NT points out as it refers us to the OT by repeating it to us in almost a third of its pages.

The New covenant is an extension of the old, to wipe out what it was based on it to wipe it out. God does not cancel His promises ever, God is true.

 

[Locutus]

It is like reading the end of a book and saying you understand all the book says. The OT explains Christ, as the NT points out as it refers us to the OT by repeating it to us in almost a third of its pages.

The New covenant is an extension of the old, to wipe out what it was based on it to wipe it out. God does not cancel His promises ever, God is true.

Not it's, the new was predicted in the prophets, but it in no way can it be considered an "extension":

Jer 31:31 Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

Jer 31:32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.

Not like is not a synonym for "extension".

Who's up for synonym buns?

 

[Blik]

Not it's, the new was predicted in the prophets, but it in no way can it be considered an "extension":

Jer 31:31 Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

Jer 31:32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.

Not like is not a synonym for "extension".

Who's up for synonym buns?

Along with interpreting the new verse the old covenant, it is said that what is of God the Father is old, now we have a new more loving God in Christ. This does not follow Scripture at all, nor does it say what Christ told us of Himself. Something just has to be wrong with this interpretation.

Christ said He is one with the Father. Christ said He did not cancel anything the Father said. We are not told what covenant God refers to by "old" but we assume it is the covenant God made on Mt Sinai. In that covenant God told of the blessing to be gained through the law. At that time Moses had chosen 70 heads of clans to help him rule, and when those 70 met at Moses return from receiving the covenant they received the Holy Spirit, in the same way that it was given after Christ but the difference was that it was only temporary with them, after Christ the Holy Spirit is given to all true Christians. This is new for us, a fulfillment of the new covenant.

God promised us blessings when we follow law. That blessing did not include salvation then or ever. I am certain that God has not cancelled that He blesses us when we follow law. Even atheist know this, they know there is no good that comes from lying, drinking excessively, murder, etc.

I understand that people today will allow Paul to tell of blessings for following law, but if any person quotes Paul in this they are scolded and told law following doesn't save. They don't even include the letter of the law that we know doesn't bless, either.

 

[Locutus]

All I see is a lot of disconnected rambling.

Maybe try some hair colouring for yer Hebrew roots.

 

[Blik]

All I see is a lot of disconnected rambling.

Maybe try some hair colouring for yer Hebrew roots.

Is recognizing God the Father called Hebrew Roots? I thought it was learning about the true God.

 

[tanakh]

Bar Kochhar was the head of the last Jewish rebellion in Jerusalem against Roman rule. It was a terrible war, the Jewish race nearly eliminated. It was ended in 325AD.

The councils of the Christian Church had all been of the Jewish race until that time. James, the brother of Jesus, is an example. All these fathers had a thorough knowledge of scripture, at that time scripture was the OT. They knew God intimately, and that Christ was one with God. They thought of Christ as the one who fulfilled what they had learned through scripture, with Christ’s ways fully explained. Now, all possible Christian heads could not be Jewish, Jews had been killed.

Now the men chosen as heads of the Christian church were all gentiles. Each had grown up in an idol worshipping home. They thought of Jews as those people with odd ways, people to be avoided. All ways of Jews were not accepted for these were people who killed Christ.

God had used the Jews to explain His ways to gentiles, now every one of those ways were looked at as wrong. Moses was questioned, obedience to law was questioned, God ordained celebrations were questioned, God Himself was questioned. They did not understand the need of clearing the world of evil men with the flood, or being against the nations who promoted killing babies to appease fake gods, they questioned everything and tossed out much of God’s ways saying there was a new God who disposed of the old, cranky, judgmental one for a loving God.

That is the Christian religion of today, do you think it is the one true of God, or was the prewar religion like Christ gave the right one?

 

[tanakh]

The Jewish revolt led by Simon Bar Kokhba lasted two and a half years and ended in 135AD not 325 as you
stated

 

[tanakh]

I always appreciate Readers Digest Versions of history.

It would be an insult to the readers Digest.

 

[Blik]

The Jewish revolt led by Simon Bar Kokhba lasted two and a half years and ended in 135AD not 325 as you stated

Thanks so much for the correction, my typing fingers are not reliable.

 

[Dino246]

Just where do you read that God has cancelled a covenant that God made with us? It is obsolete that we use animal blood when we have the real blood of Christ. That is not cancelling a promise, that is making what the promise was based on (animal blood) obsolete. God is true as Paul brought out in Romans, even if every person is false.

We do not have to become Jews to become Christians as the Jews of Jesus' time insisted we need do, but we (gentiles) do need to love the Lord and follow Him as is pointed out in Isaiah, not say that God is obsolete or His promises. God does NOT cancel what God promises.

Today's church keeps hammering to not go by law! That is not what scripture tells us. We can be lawless, perhaps, and be saved with only faith. James tells us we can't, because if we have faith actions follow, and no actions means no faith. But if you will turn to the book of Galatians where Paul explains salvation by faith so eloquently, Paul also explains if you read further, how law applies. By half truths you are working with Satan, for that is just how Satan works as he did with Eve. It is true that we are not saved by law, but that is a half truth. Read on in Galatians where this is explained.
Jesus fulfilled everything the OT told of Him, that doesn't mean that Christ is cancelled. It tells that Christ is now with us and real.

Paul is not telling us anything new about the law of Moses. It could always be obeyed by the letter of the law and at the same time disobeyed. Read of the Pharisee parading in costume to tell he was praying and it not be considered prayer. This was before Christ was crucified.

Israel has many different meanings in different scripture passages, some are about the physical Israel. Scripture tells us that if we accept the Lord and all the Lord tells us that we are seeds of Abraham, or spiritual Israel. God was not just exercising His gums when God gave us scripture to have us dispose of it as only for a select few of the human race. God sees us as His creation, and only especially blesses a race God created to experience Him in their life and let us know His ways. God blesses all of us who love Him.

Just where do you read that I said God "cancelled a covenant"? I wrote, "set aside". The two are different. Kindly don't misrepresent what I write.

Adherence to the Law as given on Sinai is not the works of which James wrote. He was writing about works that result from faith, not those that stand as a substitute for it (which adherence to the Law is). As Peter said to the leaders of the Church, "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are" (Acts 15, 10-11).

The Church (that means Christians) is not under the Law. Period. End of conversation. There is no part of the Law that we are still required to uphold, for it is a single unit... you break one ordinance, you have broken the Law.

In contrast, God has written His law on our hearts, and we fulfill it by faith. The Holy Spirit acts within us show us where we contravene His law. As Paul wrote in Galatians 3, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

As Paul wrote to the Colossians, "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

The Law (including Sabbath adherence) is a shadow... the substance belongs to Christ. In Him we don't need to adhere to the written code, which was nailed to the cross, along with its curse that stood against us. In Christ we have FULL access to the Father.

 

[Blik]

Just where do you read that I said God "cancelled a covenant"? I wrote, "set aside". The two are different. Kindly don't misrepresent what I write.

Adherence to the Law as given on Sinai is not the works of which James wrote. He was writing about works that result from faith, not those that stand as a substitute for it (which adherence to the Law is). As Peter said to the leaders of the Church, "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are" (Acts 15, 10-11).

The Church (that means Christians) is not under the Law. Period. End of conversation. There is no part of the Law that we are still required to uphold, for it is a single unit... you break one ordinance, you have broken the Law.

In contrast, God has written His law on our hearts, and we fulfill it by faith. The Holy Spirit acts within us show us where we contravene His law. As Paul wrote in Galatians 3, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

As Paul wrote to the Colossians, "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

The Law (including Sabbath adherence) is a shadow... the substance belongs to Christ. In Him we don't need to adhere to the written code, which was nailed to the cross, along with its curse that stood against us. In Christ we have FULL access to the Father.

Just where do you read that I said God "cancelled a covenant"? I wrote, "set aside". The two are different. Kindly don't misrepresent what I write.

Adherence to the Law as given on Sinai is not the works of which James wrote. He was writing about works that result from faith, not those that stand as a substitute for it (which adherence to the Law is). As Peter said to the leaders of the Church, "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are" (Acts 15, 10-11).

The Church (that means Christians) is not under the Law. Period. End of conversation. There is no part of the Law that we are still required to uphold, for it is a single unit... you break one ordinance, you have broken the Law.

In contrast, God has written His law on our hearts, and we fulfill it by faith. The Holy Spirit acts within us show us where we contravene His law. As Paul wrote in Galatians 3, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

As Paul wrote to the Colossians, "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

The Law (including Sabbath adherence) is a shadow... the substance belongs to Christ. In Him we don't need to adhere to the written code, which was nailed to the cross, along with its curse that stood against us. In Christ we have FULL access to the Father.

There is much truth in your post. Paul explained so well that we can obey the letter of the law and not obey the spirit of the law at all. I think of the man told of in the gospels parading the streets to show he was in prayer and it not being prayer at all. We are not, as you say, under the law for salvation for it is our faith God looks at, but that doesn't mean, according to Paul we can ignore the law. Paul would say "heaven forbid".

Paul spoke often about us being free of the law, but something that Christians seem to forget that every time he followed this with the necessity to have Christ within. When we are Christ's we cannot ignore the law and satisfy our flesh instead of living in the spirit. It is impossible to be in the spirit of Christ and not listen to the Holy Spirit within us that was given to lead us to the law.

Whenever anyone goes on about how God wants them to ignore the law, I notice that they never post the many passages explaining how we listen to law when we live in the spirit of God.

 

[Dino246]

There is much truth in your post. Paul explained so well that we can obey the letter of the law and not obey the spirit of the law at all. I think of the man told of in the gospels parading the streets to show he was in prayer and it not being prayer at all. We are not, as you say, under the law for salvation for it is our faith God looks at, but that doesn't mean, according to Paul we can ignore the law. Paul would say "heaven forbid".

Paul spoke often about us being free of the law, but something that Christians seem to forget that every time he followed this with the necessity to have Christ within. When we are Christ's we cannot ignore the law and satisfy our flesh instead of living in the spirit. It is impossible to be in the spirit of Christ and not listen to the Holy Spirit within us that was given to lead us to the law.

Whenever anyone goes on about how God wants them to ignore the law, I notice that they never post the many passages explaining how we listen to law when we live in the spirit of God.

I agree with most of your post. I'm not sure about the last sentence... but it's difficult to explain. Paul explains in Romans 13:8-10...

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Does that mean that we are free to murder, steal, fornicate, etc.? Of course not. But consider that statement in the middle... "whatever other command there may be". It's all-inclusive. We don't live righteously by avoiding certain things and embracing others according to the written code. Rather, we live righteously by abiding in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Blik]

I agree with most of your post. I'm not sure about the last sentence... but it's difficult to explain. Paul explains in Romans 13:8-10...

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Does that mean that we are free to murder, steal, fornicate, etc.? Of course not. But consider that statement in the middle... "whatever other command there may be". It's all-inclusive. We don't live righteously by avoiding certain things and embracing others according to the written code. Rather, we live righteously by abiding in the Holy Spirit.

There is no law of Moses that wouldn't be obeyed if we put love first, it is just that you can obey Moses and not love.