Your Real Roots

[Alex The Hawk]

L. Michael White:
Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin.

The one thing that does happen in the second revolt... is [that] the self-consciously apocalyptic and messianic identity of Bar Kochba forces the issue for the Christian tradition. It appears that some people in the second revolt tried to press other Jews, including Christians, into the revolt, saying, "Come join us to fight against the Romans. You believe God is going to restore the kingdom to Israel, don't you? Join us." But the Christians by this time are starting to say, "No, he can't be the Messiah -- we already have one." And at that point we really see the full-fledged separation of Jewish tradition and Christian tradition becoming clear.

Wayne A. Meeks:
Woolsey Professor of Biblical Studies Yale University

At what point did Christians start thinking of themselves as separate from Judaism?
... Christianity, in its earliest beginnings, is part of Judaism... it is a sect, among a number of varieties of Judaism in the Roman Empire. But it is also clear that at a certain point, they develop a consciousness which takes them outside of the social orb of Judaism. They're no longer part of the local Jewish community, they're a separate community, meeting in little household groups, all over the city. And, it's apparent, at least from the time of the Emperor Nero, that outsiders also view them as distinct. So that when Nero is looking for scapegoats upon whom to put blame for the fire in Rome in 64, he zeroes in on the Christians.
So, obviously they are recognized as a distinctive group. How did this happen? What is involved in their separation? The one thing I think we have to recognize is that it doesn't happen all at once. It does not happen in the same way in different places, nor does it happen at the same time. For example, as late as the 4th and 5th century, we have evidence of Christians still existing within Jewish communities, and we have evidence of members of Christian communities participating in Jewish festivals. The preacher of Antioch and later of Constantinople, John Chrysostom, complains in a series of eight sermons to his congregation, that "you must stop going to the Synagogue, you must not think that the Synagogue is a holier place than our churches are." This clearly indicates that the break between Judaism and Christianity, even as late as the 4th century ... still is not absolute, is not permanent. Yet, on the other hand, we can see even in Paul's letters, which are the earliest literature we have from the early Christians, that the social separation in the communities he founded has already taken place. They're not meeting with the Jews. They're meeting in various households. So it's a varied change. It doesn't happen all at once and it doesn't happen in the same way, everywhere.

By the same token, you can see different attitudes towards the Jewish community in various writings of the early Christians. So that for example, in the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, you have some of the most vehement statements against the Jews. [This is] very strange because all of the characters in the Fourth Gospel are Jewish. It seems to be an intra-Jewish dialogue going on, but it's obviously a very vehement dialogue, a very polemical dialogue, and clearly represents... [that] somewhere there has been a very painful separation of one group of Jews who followed the Messiah, Jesus, from other Jews, and there is great hostility as a result and tremendous feelings of persecution, which are enshrined in this piece of literature.
Paul, on the other hand is firmly convinced that the present separation between Jews and gentiles cannot be permanent in God's plan, that the promises which God has made to ancient Israel will be kept. He cannot have abandoned his people, Israel, even though, for the moment, most Jews have not accepted Paul's message, nor the message of other Christian Apostles. Paul still believes that there will come a time when God will do something else unaccepted and novel -- as novel as the notion of a crucified Messiah -- and thus, he says, all will be saved. So the attitudes within the Christian movement towards their parent religion, as we would call it, Judaism vary across a wide spectrum.

When does the church actually kind of begin to emerge as the church? When does this happen? What's the process by which it happened?
The word "church" is a tricky one. There is a Greek word, ecclesia, which we translate in all modern translations as "the church," and this is a total anachronism, because nobody in the Greek world would have had any concept which was remotely similar to what we regard as a church. This is a political term; an ecclesia is just a meeting, and preeminently the meeting of the free citizens of a city which is constitutionally organized, so that its citizens can vote on important things. And so when Paul writes to the meeting, the ecclesia of God, of the Thessalonians, this is a very strange kind of notion because ordinarily the town meeting of the Thessalonians is a political thing which couldn't be more different from a group of a dozen or so people who have converted to this community meeting in somebody's house. How does that get to be a church, in our sense of the word? How do these little household meetings come to be thought of as a universal
church or the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church? This is something which happens over a long period of time and is deeply part of that process by which this new movement works out its relationship to the larger culture, as it institutionalizes itself, to use a modern sociological bit of jargon, as every movement has to if it's going to survive.
But hidden within this development is a piece of self-identity, is a notion of who one is, which comes straight out of the history of Israel. The notion that God has made a treaty, a contract, a covenant, with a group of people, and they will be his people. So this fundamental part of the consciousness of Israel, as being the people of God put among the peoples of the world in order to bring God's intention for humanity to fruition, this is shared by, I think, all of the important groups of early Christianity. Diverse as it was, they all have the sense that, in some way, we have to embody this ancient sense of who Israel was. We either take the place of Israel or we fulfill the notion of Israel or we're a part of the Israel that wants to be a people of God. And, it is this self-concept, I think, which cannot be forgotten, as [part of the process that produces the Church].

Shaye I.D. Cohen:
Samuel Ungerleider Professor of Judaic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies Brown University

Tell me about the word "Christianity." Where does it come from? What does it mean?
An important milestone into development of Christian self-consciousness or Christian self-identity will be the emergence of the word "Christianity." This word appears for the first time in the writings of a church thinker of the early 2nd century of our era named Ignatius, who lived in Western Asia Minor, modern day Western Turkey. Ignatius in his letters is warning his flock to stay away from all sorts of theological perils out there, including Judaism and including all sorts of mistaken Christian theologies. And, in his writings, Ignatius uses the word Christianity, and he uses it ... in contrast with the word Judaism. We have here for the first time a polarity, a contrast. There is something called Judaism and there is something called Christianity, and true Christians will make sure that what they believe and what they do, is in fact Christianity and it's not Judaism. That is explicit and unambiguous for the very first time in the writings of Ignatius around the year 110 or 120 B.C....

Eric Meyers:
Professor of Religion and Archaeology Duke University

One of the awful aftermaths of the first war with Rome was that Jews and Christians - or the followers of Jesus or the Jesus movement, as you might call it - took different directions. Not all of them, of course. I believe that many followers of Jesus stayed in the land. Some went to Trans Jordan. Some went off to the Diaspora lands and made their new way, and the gentile church evolved. But for the Jewish followers of Jesus and their Jewish compatriots, many of them reestablished themselves in the Galilee, and other parts of the east. And I believe they lived side by side for several hundred years in that area with one another, and it's a story that can be told only very invisibly through archaeological inferences and through some literary sources....
You have the beginnings of a gentile church outside of Israel. But I'm not sure that the tensions that most people associate between Jews and Christians really occur before the fourth century, when Christianity becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire, under Constantine. I think all of these tensions are exaggerated. This was an internal family war between cousins and brothers and sisters and people like that. But the tensions, I think, have been grossly exaggerated, and you only need to turn to some of the great multi-religious and multi-ethnic cities of the east to see that Jews and Christians managed to get on for longer periods than most people assume....
Most of the gospel and traditions of early Christianity were written down after the first war, and they reflect a period of theological disagreement. And the new narrative history that evolved, in the form of the New Testament, tells a story of a broken relationship, and that's part of the sad story that evolves between Jews and Christians, because it is a story that has such awful repercussions in later times. But it is not necessarily reflective of all of the local situation in the first three centuries.

[Leafrivermac]

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Rom 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
Rom 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Alex, I would be interested in your thoughts on this scripture.

[Alex The Hawk]

ORIGINAL: Leafrivermac

Alex, I would be interested in your thoughts on this scripture.

Take verse 15 ,take the question mark out as it is not in the original in question form and then tell me what it says,LOL

[Rebel Hog]

Your Real Roots

[Leafrivermac]

Alex, this is from my Messianic Renewed Covenant Bible, I noticed that the question mark is still in place. The branches that were broken off is refering to the Jews that did not accept Christ? We're being taught to not exalt ourselves over the branches that were broken off , or is it the branches that are recieving their sustanance from the root? My understanding is that we should exalt ourselves over neither. Just wanting more of your perspective.

Rom 11:13 For to you I speak--to the nations. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of nations, I esteem glorious my ministry,
Rom 11:14 if somehow I might provoke to jealousy those of my own flesh and save some of them.
Rom 11:15 For if their casting way be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Rom 11:16 And if the first-piece is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are also.
Rom 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and became a fellow partaker with them in the rich root of the olive tree,
Rom 11:18 do not exalt yourself over the branches; but if you exalt yourself, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
Rom 11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in!"
Rom 11:20 Very well, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be high-minded, but fear;
Rom 11:21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you.
Rom 11:22 Consider therefore the kindness and the severity of God; severity toward those who have fallen, but to you, God"™s kindness--if you remain in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in; for God has the power to graft them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if you were cut off what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more shall those who are according to nature be grafted into their own olive tree?
Rom 11:25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be ignorant of this mystery--lest you be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Yisrael until the fullness of the nations has come in;

[Alex The Hawk]

Right, ButIn the septuagin there is no question mark and in Greek the words , what, where or who are not placed in the order the same as english.

Yes you are right the branches that were broken off being the natural branches, the wild branches are the gentiles who should not boast against the natural branches, because they having being grafted because of the natural branches having being broken off may seem lost, yet God can graft them back in any time He wishes.
As Paul say "All of Israel will be saved" and to me all means all, including the ones broken off.

They might not receive all that is promise to those who believe in Christ ,but at least the resurrection from the dead they will receive.

Let us remember when rabbis tried to trick Jesus with a question about the resurrection, posing the question of many brothers taking the same sister in law for wife everytime one died and at the resurrection who would be the legal husband ,remember that ?

Jesus didn't say ,"hey you guys are Jews, you guys are against me, you guys will kill me eventually so there will ne no resurrection for you"
No, He said," you ignore concerning the resurrection, you will be like the angels of Heaven, not marrying and not giving unto marriage".
He could very well have said there is no future for you" so why did he answer in this manner, was this a false statement he made ?
Back at you, Shalom

[Grasshopper13]

By the same token, you can see different attitudes towards the Jewish community in various writings of the early Christians. So that for example, in the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, you have some of the most vehement statements against the Jews. [This is] very strange because all of the characters in the Fourth Gospel are Jewish. It seems to be an intra-Jewish dialogue going on, but it's obviously a very vehement dialogue, a very polemical dialogue, and clearly represents... [that] somewhere there has been a very painful separation of one group of Jews who followed the Messiah, Jesus, from other Jews, and there is great hostility as a result and tremendous feelings of persecution, which are enshrined in this piece of literature.

Alex, we are talking about the Inspired word of God, right? Do you believe John wrote what he thought, or what he was moved by the Holy Spirit to write? If there is harsh language about the jews there, it seems to be because God inspired John to write it, not because he was ticked off at the Jews. Was he not also of Jewish descent?


GH

[Alex The Hawk]

Yes the word is inspired but not dictated, as a jew I think I know how he felt as I do sometimes , I get frustrated with my own Jewish bretheren, they have all the scripture in the world leading to Yeshua ,yet out of hardness in their heart they refuse it,
Paul also gave up on them and went to teach the gentiles.

I won't give up on them although I do have a gentile Church also.

I think the writter of this article is pushing a little and not realising that is they way we speak to each other in the jewish community, if someone is doing wrong , we don't beat around the bush, we comfront them and make them reason, this is what Yeshua was doing in the Book of John.

Shalom

[Leafrivermac]

Thanks Alex, we see this the same. I appreciate your perspective . .as always.

[Tazman]

Alex could you take a few moments and paraphrase all of this? I find it very interesting that the very early Christians/Messianic Jews in many cases were still attending synagoue (It does make perfect sense to me though since Christ himself was a Jew). Did they not worship in the same manner basically as Jews always had with the exception of the Sacrament? Could you describe what worship at a synagogue may have been like then amoung the Messianic Jews?