PARTINGS - How Judaism and Christianity Became Two

by fulltimestudent 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  fulltimestudent

  Phizzy:

  It would be satisfying to have much fuller information on how things really went in the 1st and early 2nd century, as it is , scholars can only make good guesses.

  Yes. Indeed!

  And, while there is a popular view (such as we had as witnesses), its only attained by imagining the connections.

  The late Geza Vermes, in his, Christian Beginnings, From Nazareth to Nicea, AD 30-325, seems to think that there were separate, semi-independent Christian groups from the start, as first of all the Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem, then later as a result of Paul's missionary work, we find Paulinistic churches for the gentiles, and finally (at the end of the first century) we find groups following Johannine thinking. The Gospel of John (not neccessarily written by the Apostolic John) must've had a strong impact on believers when it started to circulate somewhere around 70 years after the death of Jesus. Did everyone accept it? We just do not know the impact.

  My Lecturer, Chris Forbes, the convenor of the study unit I'm enrolled in this semester, thinks that communications in the first century were good enough to keep these groups in contact with each other, and that they did not evolve as separate groupings.

  But we do get an insight into first century Christianity, through the canonical books, that suggests quite a lot of people did not agree with other groups. Think of the letters of John, as Vermes notes, "... love, peace and harmony did not always triumph in the Johannine communities."

  And, also of course, the conflict described between those who wanted to adhere to the Jewish law and the gentile followers of Paul.
• 

  ablebodiedman

  I certainly changed from Jew to Christian because of prophesy and miracles in the bible. When I was taught that Jesus was the promised Messiah and it was foretold in the book of Daniel Ch9.24-27, I thouroughly believed it, until I recalculated the prophecy with my son and realised that there was a miscalculation with regard to King Artexerxes rule.

  All the "higher critics" and the Watchtower are wrong!

  The "going forth of the word" had NOTHING to do with Artexerxes!

  The "going forth of the word to rebuild" happened in the 1st Century!

  Acts 15:13-18

  　After they quit speaking, James answered, saying: "Men, brothers, hear me. 14 　Sym´e·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. 15 　And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 　‘After these things I shall return and rebuild the booth of David that is fallen down; and I shall rebuild its ruins and erect it again, 17 　in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, 18 　known from of old.’

  I bolded it because it is black and white.

  You're an adult. Read it yourself. It's right there in the scriptures!

  There is no gray area here except to wonder what kind of BS the Watchtower is teaching people!

  abe
• 

  fulltimestudent

  A somewhat differentviewpoint is posited by Jacob Jervell**, a Norwegian Professor and theologian at the University of Oslo. He saw four stages in the history of the early church.

  Reference: http://www.amazon.com/The-Unknown-Paul-Luke-Acts-Christian/dp/0806621192

  In the first stage the Jerusalem church was very open and there was some diversity of view. Jervell, sees Stephen and also the Hellenists implicitly criticising the Temple and the Mosaic Law, and also sees the church allowing the mission to the gentiles to proceed and deciding that gentile converts did not need to be circumcised. Paul was accepted without question and Paul then regarded women as co-workers.

  In the second stage, Jervell sees the consolidation of Jewish Christianity under the leadership of James. This stage, in his view culminates in the Jerusalem Council. The proceedings indicate that the Pauline mission had become a problem to the dominant Jewish Christian church and this group imposed some restrictions on Gentile Christians (but not extendind to the need to be circumcised). Jervell thinks that the sharp tone of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and Philippians 3:2ff and the Letter to the Galatians is part of Paul's defense against the dominant Jewish-Christian party.

  I'll continue with stages 3 and 4 later.
• 

  fulltimestudent

  Jervell argues that in the third stage of the early church, Jewish Christianity, even though a minority, was influential enough to set the agenda. During the third stage, Luke-Acts, with a message that the church itself is Israel is produced, then (later) Matthew's gospel, John's Gospel and the Epistle to the Hebrews, which in Jervell's view all reflect the importance of the Jewish Christian church. Jervell also sees a number of writings that circulated widely in the early church, such as 1 Clement, The Didache, Papias, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Ignatiusand the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, as being Jewish writings that were re-worked by the early church.

  Paul himself adopts this concept of the church as Israel. Romans ch. 9-11 (but all of Romans likely) indicates Paul's acceptance of that view. It's true that Paul criticised the law, but he practise he observed the Law.

  In the fourth stage, in the second century, influential churchmen Hellenise Christian thought.

  It is not my personal argument that Jervell's ideas are correct. I doubt that there is sufficient evidence available to decide one way or the other.

  However, it is also true that the ideas of church did move, and whether or not Jervell's argument is right, we should look for evidence that explains why certain ideas became 'accepted truth.' It is much easier in the second century to identify the people who argued for the acceptance of the Hellenic ideas that eventually became part of Christian thought to this day