| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Question for Dewey, IT, and other Biblical Scholars | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 19 2009, 06:29 PM (820 Views) | |
| Luke's Dad | Apr 19 2009, 06:29 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
I've been reading up on the Incident at Antioch as well as the decision by James regarding Gentiles and hether they had to follow the laws of the Torah, and it got me wondering; do those Christians of Jewish descent (particularly those descended directly from the Church of Jerusalem) still strictly adhere to the Laws as set out in the Torah, or are they more similar to the gentile traditions? |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 19 2009, 08:00 PM Post #2 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It's a good question. As you probably know through your reading, the early church in Syrian Antioch included many Gentiles. At that time, the church leadership was still in Jerusalem, and consisted of some of the original apostles and others who had come into the faith from their Jewish roots. As the Antiochan church was growing, there was debate about whether the Gentiles who wished to become Christians first had to become Jews, following all of the Jewish Law regarding dietary concerns, ritual purity, and circumcision for the male converts. At some point, a group of Christians came to Antioch from Jerusalem, who at least claimed to speak for the Jerusalem leadership, and taught that the Gentiles had to do precisely that. This was contrary to what Paul, Barnabas, and others were teaching in Antioch, and it caused a big argument. The 15th chapter of Acts details a meeting attended by Paul and Barnabas (and apparently Titus, a half Greek/half Jewish Christian) in Jerusalem to reach a decision about the matter. Luke details in Acts that the meeting included the apostles, the elders, and the whole church. After much debate, James, the brother of Jesus, who had become the leader of the Jerusalem church, decided that the Gentiles did not have to become Jews and obey the entire Law in order to become Christians. But James did stipulate that the Gentile Christians would still have to observe a sort of "Law Lite;" a shortlist of things that generally reflected the requrements for resident aliens living among the Israelites found in Leviticus 17 & 18. In Acts, Luke mentions that the Jerusalem leaders sent a letter to the Antioch Christians, denouncing those who had stirred up all the trouble earlier, and detailing this shortlist - that they did not have to be circumcized or adhere to the entire Law, but at minimum, they were to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, or meat still containing blood, or meat that had been killed by strangulation, and to abstain from fornication. Paul tells the story of this meeting a little bit differently, in his letter to the Galatians, which was likely written as this debate was playing out. He doesn't mention anything about such a letter, or those particular prohibitions (although he himself discusses the meat sacrificed to idols issue later, in a somewhat different take than detailed in Acts; and he certainly speaks against fornication). But at the time of writing Galatians, the "Judaizers" (i.e., Christians who were either ethnic Jews, or Gentile converts, who held that Gentile believers had to be circumcized, become Jewish, and adhere to the entirety of the Law) were still a force to battle against. In this letter, he points out that even at the Jerussalem conference, he had brought Titus - an uncircumcized Gentile believer - along, and the Jerusalem church didn't require him to become circumcized. Further, Paul's version of the meeting was that he didn't meet with the whole church, but only the actual leadership, and in private - and that they agreed completely with his take on things, with the only provision being that the Gentiles needed to "remember the poor" (i.e., the poor of the Jerusalem church) - something that Luke doesn't mention in his version at all. In any case, the compromise didn't hold for very long, with the meat requirement being gone even by the time of the writing of Mark's gospel, probably no longer than a decade or so after Paul's letters were written. Look at Mark 7:1-23 - is this an accurate account of something Jesus actually said, or is it Mark's later interpolation of something Jesus "would" have said, based on other things he said, in order to address a debate going on within the church at the time Mark was written? It's hard to imagine that if Jesus actually spoke that definitively about this matter, that it would have become such a matter of debate in the years immediately after his ascension. As the "old guard" in Jerusalem - the original apostles and earliest believers - began to die, or be killed, and while the church was growing rapidly in Gentile areas, the influence of the Jerusalem church declined, in favor of Syrian Antioch, and before long, Alexandria, Rome, and later, Constantinople. Given all that, at the same time that the entry into the faith by Jews dropped off prrecipitously, it isn't surprising that the "Gentile version" of entering the faith became the dominant view. To your ultimate question, I'm not sure that there even is a "remnant church" consisting entirely of Christians of Jewish descent, who would trace all the way back to Biblical times, and who would practice Christianity in a more Jewish mode. I'm by no means an expert on that matter, so I could be completely wrong about that. Of course, there are modern Christian congregations of Jewish Christians which have been established, which have attempted to worship Jesus in just that manner. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 19 2009, 11:46 PM Post #3 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
With the huge caveat that we know very little about the actual practices of the early Church in the first 200 years or so, there were a couple of groups that seem to have continued the Jewish traditions. St Justin Martyr in the Dialogue with Trypho (chap 46) writes about Christians who keep the law, though he states it does not count toward their righteousness (chap 45). They are however, not considered heretical and he seems to be in communion with them. These might be Ebionites, though Justin is writing around 140 and the Ebionites are first named about 35 years later. Also, the Alexandrian Church of St Mark -- the Copts -- hold to a lot of Jewish temple imagery and understanding in the their literature and liturgy. We can tend to read a lot into what is said about obvious changes from the Jewish practices -- Peter abolishing the food laws in Acts 10, the shift to meeting on the first day of the week as Sunday in Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2, Rev 1:10 and confirmed by many of the Church fathers such as the Didache, Ignatius and the Epistle of Barnabas, the ineffectiveness of circumcision etc, -- but how widely and uniformly these practices were implemented is a matter of conjecture. The question of Jewish descent is complicated by the fact that Christianity first seems to have spread through diasoporic Jewish communities throughout the Mediterranean basin (there were supposedly more Jews outside of Palestine than in Palestine in the first couple of centuries) and many of the traditions and references seem to have continued long after Jerusalem was razed (for instance, the liturgical ordering of the early Church seems to have closely been modeled on the Jewish temple as evinced by Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch (both around the year 100). To answer your question about contemporary practice, none of the ancient Churches adhere to the Law as understood without reference to the New Covenant, but the "Gentile traditions" are not necessarily unmoored from the Jewish traditions and in fact the liturgical traditions of all of the Apostolic Churches cannot be understood as apart from the Jewish temple liturgies. This is more evident in seeing a Syro Malabar liturgy or a Coptic or Mar Thoma liturgy than the Roman or Byzantine liturgy, due to the ancient liturgy of St James. The Church of Jerusalem for the first 100 years or so had only Jewish bishops -- 16 per Eusebius -- so if one were looking for continued Jewish influences if not strict adherence to the Old Law, that is where I would first look. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Apr 20 2009, 11:25 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
Dewey-Didin't Barnabus speak in favor of gentiles needing to convert to Judaism and it's laws? IT-Not to open a can of worms regarding early authority in the church, but wasn't James responsible for the decision at the council regarding circumcision and the dietary rules for gentiles? In fact, I had thought that was the whole issue at the incident at Antioch. Peter had been living amongst the Gentiles, and in some ways as a Gentile (likely following the events in Acts 10), when the group from Jerusalem arrived, and he switched positions (or at least seperated himself from the Gentiles) and this lead to the confrontation with Paul? Which then led to the discussion of the issue and resolution at the Council by James. I do have to say that I find Paul/Saul incredibly fascinating. This guy had been the terror of early Christianity, travelling around to discover sects and eliminate them with prejudice, only to convert and become one of the most influential church leaders... |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 20 2009, 12:47 PM Post #5 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
The account in Acts 15 and the account in Gal 2 seem to vary about who is holding what understanding. In Acts 15 Barnabas is a good guy, in Gal 2 he's a hypocrite. In Act Peter is saying the same thing Paul is saying in Gal 2. In Acts James is saying that the dietary laws should not apply, in Gal it seems James' emissaries are telling them to uphold the dietary laws. This presents some timeline issues or accuracy issues. Some scholars think these are two different occasions. Also, it is strange that James in Acts makes a personal judgment -- this to me is more his stating an opinion ("It is my judgment..." ) and then in Acts 21 changes his mind about conformance with the Law. I am not sure this is as strong a case of some authority claim for James as some would make it out to be. It could simply be that after Peter and Paul spoke, James gave his opinion which supported their views. This makes sense in the follow up letter written by all the apostles and elders which says "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us ..." It is also strange that in Gal 2 Paul supposedly rebukes Peter for following the Law, but then he circumcises Timothy because of the Jews (Act 16), and that in Acts 21 he is doing the ritual Temple purifications at the insistence of James. I don't know how these two accounts get reconciled, or how James' and Paul's changes are explained, or what is going on with Paul rebuking Peter. Some say that James and Paul are saying one thing to the Jews and another to the Gentiles, but this of course poses its own problems. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Apr 20 2009, 04:43 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
A good question, and a nice read. Thanks, guys... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 21 2009, 04:43 PM Post #7 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
LD - I'd have to go back and review whether Barnabas advocated the position of Gentiles becoming Jews first (and I don't have time to do that at the moment). I don't recall that off the top of my head, but he certainly, along with Peter, removed himself from the practice of sitting at table with Gentiles after the arrival of the Jerusalem contingent in Syrian Antioch. But what you've said may very well be true. Of the tag team of Barnabas and Paul, Barnabas was originally the "senior partner" and Paul was the second banana. That seemed to change rather quickly, and of course, at one point they got into such a large dispute that the two men went their separate ways. The argument was at least primarily over whether John Mark - who had turned back from their first missionary trip - should be permitted to be part of the second trip. But human beings then are no different than human beings are today, and it would be entirely believable to imagine that some animosity over Paul's eclipsing of Barnabas in importance, as well as the dustup over eating with Gentiles, was at least an intensifier to that dispute. There is some debate about precisely how many Jerusalem trips Paul made, and what happened during each one. The answer isn't completely clear, and there are a couple of scripturally supportable scenarios. But even given that, there isn't much dispute that the Acts 15 and Galatians 2 passages refer to the same meeting, but two very different versions of its outcome. One possible explanation for the discrepancy is that Paul is exaggerating the simplicity of the Jerusalem council's decision. James, as leader of the church in Jerusalem, had clearly decided that neither circumcision nor full compliance with dietary or purity regulations were necessary for Gentile Christians, opting only for the shortlist mentioned earlier. However, Paul's opponents in Galatia were the hardcore Judaizers, who were apparently claiming that they had to do just that - requirements well beyond the Jerusalem Council's shortlist. Typical to his sometimes bombastic writing style, Paul may have understated the Jerusalem church's decision strictly to emphasize how wrong the Judaizers were. As a practical matter, as mentioned earlier, there wasn't anything in the Jerusalem shortlist that Paul himself didn't teach or advocate, to the Galatians and elsewhere (even while tweaking the interpretation of them somewhat). Paul's writings are full of injunctions regarding the eating of meat sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality, the two cornerstones of the Jerusalem letter. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Pianolicious | Apr 21 2009, 05:45 PM Post #8 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Why was the Sabbath changed from Saturday to Sunday? |
| Sit tibi vita longa et omnia bona!!! -- Dr. Spock | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 21 2009, 05:49 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
It's a Mithraism thing, I suspect. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Pianolicious | Apr 21 2009, 05:54 PM Post #10 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Why is the Vatican associated with "666"? |
| Sit tibi vita longa et omnia bona!!! -- Dr. Spock | |
![]() |
|
| musicasacra | Apr 21 2009, 06:08 PM Post #11 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
What? Is that from page 4 of "We hate Catholics"? |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 21 2009, 06:34 PM Post #12 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Technically, the Sabbath has not moved from Saturday to Sunday. Saturday remains the Sabbath day, as established with the Israelites, and it continues to be observed as such. For that matter, look at how many languages base their name of the day on the word "sabbath" (Sabado, etc.) Saturday is the "Sabbath;" the seventh day of the week. Sunday is "the Lord's Day;" the first day of the week. Observance of worship and sabbath-like rest obviously has ties to that being the day of Jesus' resurrection (even though the earliest Christians continued to observe the Saturday Sabbath). As Christianity expanded, it had to compete with the Roman pagan religions, which had established Sunday as their worship-days. Also, it was beneficial for Christians to distinguish themselves from Jews, who underwent periodic persecution, and this shift became more set as friction arose between the two faiths. But even today, not all Christians observe the "Sunday Sabbath" - obviously, as their name suggests, the Seventh-Day Adventist church observes a Saturday Sabbath. And for many Christians who live in overwhelmingly Muslim areas, Friday, the Muslim day of rest, is often the day for Christian worship as well. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Apr 21 2009, 06:35 PM Post #13 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Probably not, although Martin Luther considered the mark of the beast to be the tonsured haircut worn by Roman Catholic clergy and that 666 was a Greek code that referred to a pope named Benedict. From the perspective examining the history of the Reformation it is therefore a perfectly legitimate question. |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 21 2009, 06:39 PM Post #14 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Well, he WAS hanging around with Sister Cindy, or whoever that Phlepsoid was...
|
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| musicasacra | Apr 21 2009, 06:44 PM Post #15 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
If that was the context of his question. He didn't say he was speaking contextually of the history of the Reformation, I thought it sounded more like something picked out of a pamphlet. I'm curious what he did mean. I really don't know anything about his background to give his comments a frame of reference. |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 21 2009, 06:55 PM Post #16 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Hebrew, Greek, and Latin did not have separate number systems. They used letters to represent numbers. The practice of calculating the numerical value of words, and placing significance on those numerical values, was known as "gematria" in Hebrew, or "isopsephism" in Greek. In the Hellenistic world, the title of emperor Nero - notorious for persecuting Christians - was "Neron Caesar." The equivalent Hebrew spelling of this would have been NRON CSR. The numerical values of these letters are: N=50 R=200 O=6 N=50 C=100 S=60 R=200 Total=666 But wait, you may say, some ancient manuscripts say the number isn't 666, but actually 616 (a few ancient manuscripts indicate it so). Looking at Nero's name not in the Greek language universally used throughout the region, but the actual Latin version of his name and title, it would be "Nero Caesar," with the equivalent Hebrew of NRO CSR, for a total, oddly enough of: N=50 R=200 O=6 C=100 S=60 R=200 Total 616 Further, the Greek word for "beast" (therion), transliterated into Hebrew, also adds up to 666. Revelation was first and foremost written to give hope and assurance to a Christian community who was being terribly persecuted by the power of the Roman Empire. Much of the symbols used in the book that seem odd to us were quite well understood by the first-century Christians as references to that Empire and its leadership, coded in a way that wouldn't get its writer killed for treason to the Empire. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Apr 21 2009, 07:07 PM Post #17 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I rather doubt it
Or from an inflamatory bible thumping literalist TV or radio harangue.
The ball's in his court - I was just hoping to give him the benefit of the doubt. |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 21 2009, 07:35 PM Post #18 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Dewey, that's what I long suspected about the book of Revelation. Thank you for confirming that.
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| bachophile | Apr 22 2009, 12:02 AM Post #19 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
first step in the creation of the... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_weekend |
| "I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 22 2009, 01:07 AM Post #20 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Dewey: I really don't buy much of that gematria argument -- you probably know that the Gothic cathedrals were supposedly ordered proportionally that way with certain dimensions equaling the name of Jesus, etc. I think it says everything about the ingenuity of the human mind to read back into something what they want to see. The other concern is that unless you want to date Revelation to the time of Nero, you have to make Domitian into the figure for 666 (assuming you follow the accounting of Irenaeus, Eusebius and Jerome). Nero was 30 years prior, and so I can't see that as being very plausible. Either that, or follow Epiphanius placing the writing at the time of Claudius, a decade or so before Nero. I really think that is all shoe horning in the facts to fit some preconception. Is there any real serious argument that Revelation was from the time of Nero, apart from thinking that 666 = Nero? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Phlebas | Apr 22 2009, 02:27 AM Post #21 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Then why jump to conclusions? |
|
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 22 2009, 03:55 AM Post #22 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
IT, I didn't say that Rev. was written during Nero's reign - some minority of scholars suggest that, but like you, I don't think they're right. I think that the external and internal evidence points more to a late first century dating, possibly during Domitian's reign. Rather, I said that the 666 was merely a reference to him. The author is trying to emphasize the perceived/relative nearness of the eschatological end for his readers: the "beast" he's describing has come and gone (even, interestingly, in the comments about the beast dying and coming back to life; there were those exact claims about Nero after his death), making the eschatological fulfilment all the more near to his readers. As you know, Biblical prophecy and apocalyptic often has a primary and (at least) a secondary meaning. I think that a significant number of scholars have now reached the poiint where they understand the 666/Nero/beast symbolism of the primary meaning. The question is whether it has a secondary, and/or ultimate, meaning as well. As far as that's concerned, I think that much biblical prophecy is fulfilled in ways that can't really be understood in advance, and can only be understood for what it is/was after the fact. I believe that any literal, immediately-pre-eschaton meaning of the 666 reference will also be like that. I think that the most important purpose of Revelation for believers is not that it serves as a road map to predict the end of the age. Rather, its original purpose was that of encouragement of believers facing difficulties - that whever the problems, they are only fleeting and minor, relative to the greatness and glory of the coming of the Kingdom, and to encourage steadfastness and hope. I think that the secondary meaning of the book is to do the same thing to believers of all ages who are suffering from trials, oppression, persecution, etc. In fact, just as people have tried to see "the beast" as so many historical characters, in an important way, they've been correct. The hope found in the writing of Revelation is meant for believers across time and circumstance. That's a message that's of far more value than trying to use it to pinpoint that Jesus is coming back at 3:45 next Tuesday afternoon, and I really wish more Christians would stop obsessing on the latter, which they have no control over, and really focus on the former. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Pianolicious | Apr 22 2009, 04:05 AM Post #23 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Thanks. I was referring to the Reformation, not a pamphlet. I have strong feelings regarding the importance of faith in attaining useful answers. Do academics study the concept of faith and use of it in interpreting life questions? |
| Sit tibi vita longa et omnia bona!!! -- Dr. Spock | |
![]() |
|
| musicasacra | Apr 22 2009, 10:10 AM Post #24 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I didn't pronounce him a Catholic basher, I asked where he got that as it sounded like a line out of an anti-Catholic pamphlet. I was hoping he might offer an explanation. As I said, I don't know his background so I have no frame of reference for his comments. |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 22 2009, 10:26 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
No bashing of the bishop allowed.
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |












No bashing of the bishop allowed.

6:04 AM Jul 11