What exactly happened in the Christian Congregation immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem? What were the central issues being dealt with at the time? Was there a crises akin to what happened to JWs when they weren't all raptured in 1914?
What happened in the Christian Congregation immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem?
by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat 29 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
transhuman68
It’s very difficult to understand the early Christian church, as almost everybody was illiterate and relied on oral traditions; and what was written has been lost or destroyed.
While the destruction of Jerusalem was a traumatic experience for the Jews who needed the Temple for their worship, it possibly wasn’t such a big deal for the Christians; as many of them lived away from Jerusalem in the Diaspora- in places like Rome and Asia Minor (Turkey), at least, all the ones that Paul wrote to did.
Also, the destruction of Jerusalem wasn’t entirely unexpected- the Jews were regularly rebelling against Rome, and Josephus claims that 20,000 were killed in a rebellion in the 50s. The Christians were expecting the ‘kingdom of the heavens’, but Jerusalem’s destruction probably didn’t trigger a crisis of faith to the extent we might imagine today. -
mP
What proof have you got there were any xians in the first century ? Please dont tell me the Catholic Church told me.
-
transhuman68
What proof have you got that there weren't?
-
moggy lover
The issue is relevant only if one presupposes that the Christian Church was patterned along the lines of the currently structured Watchtower community of believers, in that there was a secretive, anonymous body of men controlling doctrinal probity. This would then beg the question: What happened to those guys, and how was the Christian Chruch goverened then?
Actually, from the very start, despite all the Watchtower posturings that the Early Church served as a template from which their own organizational bias was crafted, the exact opposit is true. The early congregations were free communities of free people who were united along interdependent lines with the basis of that unity being a common love for the Person of Jesus Christ, not doctrinal propriety. What did those first century believers understand of doctrine?
We know that those first century believers believed in God, but the definition that would stabilize that sense of belief had not yet occurred. The opening chapters of Acts speak of "God" in terms that defy accurate explanation, and this was intersected in some paradoxical crosshairs that involved Christ in this estimation. In the very first days of Jesus' absence, in Acts 1, we see Christians unabashedly praying to Him, and whereas Jewish believers in OT times ascribed all miraculous events to the Yahweh of the OT, the Christians had no hesitation in ascribing miracles in the first century to either "Jesus" Himself personally, or as the inspired text says to the "Lord". It is only when a detirmined effort is made to emend the text to more comfortable contours that propound a "Jehovah" into the NT text that a Watchtower template can be illegally forged.
So the early Christian community were independent churches that had their own internal and self perpetuating structures. Some had elders appointed by a local body, some were appointed personally by travelling evangelists such as Paul, and some evidently like Titus, had single leaders.
When the Church began in 30 AD it was exclusively Jewish, but within 10 years, with the opening to the Gentiles the centre of gravity was beginning to shift. By that time two cities were prominent, Jerusalem which was Jewish in ethnicity, and Antioch, which was urban, prosperous, and Gentile. By 70 AD the shift away from Judaisim was almost complete with, as is evidenced by the many incidents reported in Acts, more persecution coming from the Jews than converts.
In the post 70 AD era, this breach was final and Chritianity broke away from its primal Jewish roots and began to flex its theological sinews along those Hellenized, Gentile lines. This interdependent congregational system continued with local leaders shepherding the flock. Three major centres of Christian theological and cultural influence developed. Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. Dogma, hesitant, illdefined, and largely undeveloped would evolve along strictly scriptural lines from those three cities and issues would need resolution only with the cooperative effort of all three places.
-
moggy lover
I am sorry for the format, which seems have to shifted off the page to the right. Hope it can be read.
-
mP
@trans
What proof have you got that there weren't?
mP:
Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof. Most stories about early xians come from Catholic tradition which is itself a joke. First they tell you Peter died in the mid 60s on an upside down cross and then they also tell you that he wrote 1 & 2 Peter which they date after 90+. They both cant be right.
If one examines the famous stories of 1st century xians they are very equickly deconstructed.
-
mP
moggy:
The early congregations were free communities of free people who were united along interdependent lines with the basis of that unity being a common love for the Person of Jesus Christ, not doctrinal propriety.
mP:
Explain the runnaway slave in Philemon. How can xians be different and loving if they hold slaves who run away because life at home was bad ? How can they be loving if Paul tells the slave to return to a bad home ? Claims of love or standards of kindness like we have to day are utter trash. If anybody repeated the slave masters or even worse if they repeated Pauls recommendation they would be spat on.
-
itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat
I really appreciate the time and comments put forth here.
-
Apognophos
Yes, moggy lover's comment was very educational to me.
@mP: Far be it from me to sound like I'm defending slavery, but wasn't Paul telling the slave to return to a master who was now a Christian? Philemon and Onesimus were supposed to be spiritual brothers at this point. We also don't know if Onesimus ran away because he was being mistreated in the first place. To be more philosophical about things, one could argue that a well-treated slave is little worse off than an overworked, underappreciated employee at a modern large corporation (a "wage slave") or, heck, a Bethelite. The reason why slavery is bad is the power it gives someone to be unkind to someone else with no recourse (edit: and also that slavery carries down to the children of the slave). But Onesimus would have had recourse because he was presumably now in the same congregation as Philemon.