|
|
Post by rakovsky on Feb 2, 2019 22:21:04 GMT -8
St. Jerome said that Nazarene Christians gave him a copy of their gospel, describing it as: The "Nazarenes" was a name for Christians both in the New Testament, and up to today in Arabic. It was also the name of a group in the 4th century, when the Jew-Christian bishop Epiphanius listed them in his book, The Panarion, as non-heretics who both shared the theology of other Christians and followed the  's rules of ritual observance. The "Gospel of the Nazarenes" could be the same book as the "Gospel of the Hebrews", but it appears to me that they are different books because their passages on Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist differ from one another. In case you find it helpful, here are the fragments and quotes that have survived from the text: textexcavation.com/nazoraeangospel.html (Question 1) At what point did the main, institutional, Orthodox, Catholic Church as a whole first formally split with Jewish Christians who observed the 's ritual rules?I am not talking about just Church fathers like John Chrysostom or regional Councils like Laodecia making rules against adopting unique Jewish rituals too much. I remember reading that in the 6th century an ecumenical council banned Christians from attending synagogues and Jewish festivals. But I could be confusing this with the 7th century Quintisext Council of Trullo, which was accepted by Eastern Orthodox by not by the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore maybe not ecumenical if I understand correctly. (Question 2) The famous EO theologian Fr. Alexander Men writes about John the Baptist: Do you agree with Fr. Men's assessment that Nazareth and the "Nazarites" are unrelated?(Question 3) The History of the Passion of the Lord, recorded in a 14th c. codex, comments in Folio 55 about Jesus' words on the cross "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do": Does this mean that later on, by being told about these words of Jesus on the Cross, a total of 8000 Jews converted to Christianity?(Question 4) Is (A) the Gospel of the Nazarenes' account of voices in Jerusalem's Temple at Jesus' Passion in 33 AD saying "Let us go out from these places" related to (B) Josephus' account of a sound in the Temple at Pentecost one year saying "Let us depart from here"?Peter Comestor, a 12th century writer, notes: "for in the gospel of the Nazarenes it is read that a lintel of the temple of infinite magnitude was broken and voices were heard in the air: Let us go out from these places". The History of the Passion of the Lord notes in Folio 65 that the Gospel of the Nazarenes says that the temple's lintel broke at Christ's death whereas it is Josephus who says that a sound was heard saying "Let us leave these regions": Here is Josephus' story about the voices from his book "Wars of the Jews": The main challenge with equating (A) the voice in the air in the Gospel of the Nazarenes with (B) that in Josephus' "War of the Jews" is that (A) apparently occurred during Jesus' Passion in 33 AD, whereas it isn't clear what year Josephus describes the voices as being heard, but he does describe them as being heard at Pentecost, weeks after Passover. Further, if one goes by the canonical gospels, maybe the story of the signs in the sky, such as the chariots and voices better matches signs that happened years after the Passion? This is because in Luke 21, Jesus had prophesied: The prophecy in Luke 22 could be referring to persecutions like the killings of Peter and James in about 63 AD, followed by signs in the heavens that preceded the war. So at least several modern pastors like Thomas Newton, David Chilton, and others have proposed that Jesus was talking about the kinds of signs in the skies that Josephus narrated. Eusebius, in his Church History (III.5:3), perhaps talks about the same signs as happening between James' death and the 66 AD war: (Question 5) Jerome cites the Gospel according to the Nazarenes as having this conversation between Jesus and Simon Peter: Do you believe that Jesus meant that the prophets sometimes sinned in their personal lives, or that some of the prophets' words in the Bible were sinful?(Question 6) The KJV of Matthew 27:65 records: "Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can." A marginal note in some manuscripts says: By comparison, in the Gospel of Peter, another 1st-2nd century gospel, it seems that there were both Roman guards and Temple staff at the tomb. The Gospel of Peter says "And Pilate delivered to them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to guard the sepulcher. And with them went the elders and scribes to the tomb". If Pilate says "You have a watch" like in the KJV version, I can see how this might mean either "You already have a guard patrol, your temple soldiers", or else "Here, you have this Roman guard patrol that I am giving you". It seems to create some ambiguity about who owned the guards. But if Pilate "delivered armed men to the high priests" like in the "Jewish gospel", doesn't that mean the armed men were Pilate's own soldiers? |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Feb 3, 2019 11:50:03 GMT -8
St. Jerome said that Nazarene Christians gave him a copy of their gospel, describing it as: The "Nazarenes" was a name for Christians both in the New Testament, and up to today in Arabic. It was also the name of a group in the 4th century, when the Jew-Christian bishop Epiphanius listed them in his book, The Panarion, as non-heretics who both shared the theology of other Christians and followed the 's rules of ritual observance. The "Gospel of the Nazarenes" could be the same book as the "Gospel of the Hebrews", but it appears to me that they are different books because their passages on Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist differ from one another. In case you find it helpful, here are the fragments and quotes that have survived from the text: textexcavation.com/nazoraeangospel.html First off, the Nazarenes were not Christians. They were a sect of the Jews who believed Yeshua was HaMoshiach and held Him to be God as well. The church never was united with the Nazarenes in any way. It developed strictly apart from the Nazarenes. However as more Gentiles came into the Nazarene sect, I'm sure there couldn't help but be some interaction. Apparently some wished to revert to some of their former pagan ways, called Nicolaitans. I'm sure the Catholic Church would have been a big draw for them. It still happens today. So there was no split, since they were never together. However there was probably some interaction. However if you are looking for a formal time when all relations and interaction was severed I'd say 325 BCE when we had the double slam of the Council of Nicaea and official edicts of Constantine which officially set the course of Catholicism on the antinomian path it had always been on. Fr. Alexander Men is absolutely correct. Nazorite and Nazarene are two entirely different things. Since we would not consider that codex to be Holy Writ, all I can tell you is what I see as problems. First off, if 8000 converted at the words (which is not biblical), they would have been Jews changing from their previous sect to the sect of the Nazarenes. There was no church, so they could not have become Christians. Again, since we don't acknowledge the Gospel of he Nazarenes I could only speculate at what it means. If it happened, I'd say the voices were probably believers saying they needed to leave for Pella. Otherwise it sounds more like superstition. Hope that helped. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Feb 4, 2019 8:47:18 GMT -8
This is good feedback from you, Dave. I am going to think more about what you said.
I hope that you found this interesting too.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 17, 2019 15:07:39 GMT -8
(Question 1) At what point did the main, institutional, Orthodox, Catholic Church as a whole first formally split with Jewish Christians who observed the 's ritual rules? The church never was united with the Nazarenes in any way. It developed strictly apart from the Nazarenes. However as more Gentiles came into the Nazarene sect, I'm sure there couldn't help but be some interaction. Apparently some wished to revert to some of their former pagan ways, called Nicolaitans. I'm sure the Catholic Church would have been a big draw for them. It still happens today. So there was no split, since they were never together. However there was probably some interaction. However if you are looking for a formal time when all relations and interaction was severed I'd say 325 BCE when we had the double slam of the Council of Nicaea and official edicts of Constantine which officially set the course of Catholicism on the antinomian path it had always been on. I want to find out more precision on Question 1 above, and also want to reassure you that I am not trying to debate you about this. I just want to trace the chronological history of what I found below. You don't have to agree with what I wrote or whatever decisions were made below. Rather, I came to this forum to find out more information myself on this kind of thing.
As I understand it, in the New Testament, the apostles appointed "overseers" ("episcopos" or "bishops") over regions in the Church. Until the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in about 135 AD, these bishops of Jerusalem were "of the circumcision", according to Church history. Also according to the Church history, Clement was the bishop or Pope of Rome at the end of the first century and in this period the Church in Rome was -observant. These -observant groups leading and making up the pious community in those places would have been united and in communion with the rest of the world's believers in Yeshua.
The Didache says: "Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but do you fast on Wednesdays and Fridays." I don't know if this is referring to a Jewish practice of fasting on Mondays and Thursdays. I also remember you writing that the Didache is not a first or second century Christian document as it's often considered to be.
St. Ignatius (lived in 50-108 AD) was the bishop of Antioch and before his death he wrote in his "Letter to the Magnesians", Chapter 8, that
Certainly with time and due to factors like the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, the expulsion of Jews from that city, and the massive influx of gentile believers, the worldwide faithful community and its leadership over time became overwhelming gentile. In c.350, Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem said in his Catechetical Lectures 4:37: “Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean”. Still, let me clarify that neither what the Didache, Ignatius, or St Cyril wrote here is considered a Churchwide dogmatic or ecumenical declaration for all Orthodox Christians.
Followers of Yeshua in Judea were called Nazarenes, and the Bible records that in Antioch they were first called "Christians". I don't remember the Bible itself using "Christians" and "Nazarenes" as terms to distinguish the faithful based on whether they observed or not. Also, in this early period those called Christians and the Nazarenes must have been in communion and united with each other overall, instead of say, the generally -observant communities in Rome and Jerusalem and their bishops being out of communion with gentile Christians elsewhere. Writing in Latin in the fourth century, Jerome described the "Nazarenes" as a -observant group with Orthodox beliefs that could be found in the synagogues of the East. But still today, the common term in Arabic for Christians is Nasrani, which is taken from Aramaic. One of the two main historic Christian groups in India are called the "Nasrani", who have some specifically Jewish customs like covering the head while in prayer, and who have been historically aligned with the Syriac Christian community. Also, the Indian "Nasrani" trace themselves in legend to St Thomas' missionizing in India, although it isn't clear to scholars when their community began. Notzrim is a related term in Hebrew and appears to be the Jewish community's common term for theologically-orthodox Christians in general. I heard that many Arabic Christians today prefer to be called Masihi (Masih means Messiah) and that Nasrani is especially used by Muslims in Arabic.
In Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council accepted the teaching that Paul especially promoted that gentile Christians did not need to observe the rituals. Paul was critical against pharisees who demanded that gentile Christians observe the ritual rules, although Paul himself had helped Timothy make a Nazirite vow due to the Church's instruction that Paul do so. Much later, in the 5th century, St John Chrysostom was part of a campaign against gentile Christians "Judaizing" (meaning "making Judaic"), ie. he specifically opposed gentile Christians taking up observance of the rules.
Nonetheless, no Eastern Orthodox official Church rule comes to mind specifically banning Jewish Christians from observing the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 17, 2019 19:03:05 GMT -8
The church never was united with the Nazarenes in any way. It developed strictly apart from the Nazarenes. However as more Gentiles came into the Nazarene sect, I'm sure there couldn't help but be some interaction. Apparently some wished to revert to some of their former pagan ways, called Nicolaitans. I'm sure the Catholic Church would have been a big draw for them. It still happens today. So there was no split, since they were never together. However there was probably some interaction. However if you are looking for a formal time when all relations and interaction was severed I'd say 325 BCE when we had the double slam of the Council of Nicaea and official edicts of Constantine which officially set the course of Catholicism on the antinomian path it had always been on. I want to find out more precision on Question 1 above, and also want to reassure you that I am not trying to debate you about this. I just want to trace the chronological history of what I found below. You don't have to agree with what I wrote or whatever decisions were made below. Rather, I came to this forum to find out more information myself on this kind of thing.
Not a problem.
As I understand it, in the New Testament, the apostles appointed "overseers" ("episcopos" or "bishops") over regions in the Church. No, the problem here is in applying terms gleaned from the Greek translation, it is lost that they were talking about offices of the Jewish synagogues.
Luke 22:66 (KJV) And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,
elders- G4244 πρεσβυτέριον presbytérion, pres-boo-ter'-ee-on; neuter of a presumed derivative of G4245; the order of elders, i.e. (specially), Israelite Sanhedrin or Christian "presbytery":—(estate of) elder(-s), presbytery.But when you hear “presbetry” you think of the church, not the synagogue.
The apostles themselves (from the Gk apostolos, meaning the same as in Heb a shaliach tzibur, a representative of the assembly- but again the meaning is lost because you think in church terms, ‘apostles’) were the overseers. And herein we see the enemies plan coming to fruition- change the language from Hebrew to Greek, and you change the entire character and meaning of everyone, and everything that happened.
Until the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in about 135 AD, these bishops of Jerusalem were "of the circumcision", according to Church history. Also according to the Church history, Clement was the bishop or Pope of Rome at the end of the first century and in this period the Church in Rome was -observant. According to the church fathers, the church was never observant. And there was no ‘bishop of Rome’ at this time; ergo no Pope, and no apostolic succession.
From a Catholic website: (http://www.gotquestions.org/early-church-fathers.html#ixzz3Sw9Hk76z), "Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, became the bishop of Rome, and Clement took over from Linus. Both Linus and Clement of Rome, therefore, are considered apostolic fathers. However, there appear to be no writings of Linus that have survived," So there is a clear disconnect here in their quest to say their apostolic line went from Linus to Clement. Most telling, Clement himself wrote that there was no bishopric set up in Rome in his lifetime!Clement also said: All the churches were Greek religious colonies. Their language was Greek, their organization Greek, their writers Greek and their ritual Greek. Thus the church at Rome was but one of a confederation of Greek religious republics rounded by Christianity”. He said this between 150-200 AD.
So these churches were Greek, not the synagogues of the hated Jews. Which speaks to your next statement as well:
These -observant groups leading and making up the pious community in those places would have been united and in communion with the rest of the world's believers in Yeshua. Not according the Epistle to Diognetus (ca. 190?):“Christians are right to keep their distance from the common silliness and deception and fussiness and pride of the Jews.” 4.6
The Didache says: "Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but do you fast on Wednesdays and Fridays." I don't know if this is referring to a Jewish practice of fasting on Mondays and Thursdays. I also remember you writing that the Didache is not a first or second century Christian document as it's often considered to be.
Pseudepigrapha.
Jewish fasts are on specific days of the Jewish calendar- dates commemorating events in their history, not days of the week. And Yom Kippur, the day God set aside for judgement, and His only commanded fast.
St. Ignatius (lived in 50-108 AD) was the bishop of Antioch and before his death he wrote in his "Letter to the Magnesians", Chapter 8, that
Ignacios was a contemporary of Marcian’s, and shared at least somewhat in that “worthy’s” penchant for telling it like it wasn’t. The Jews were beginning to fall into 2 main camps: the Notsarim and Rabbinical Judaism. Both kept the biblical Shabbat. Neither of them had anything to do with the several forms of Christianity being formulated by various early pagan theologians.
Certainly with time and due to factors like the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, the expulsion of Jews from that city, and the massive influx of gentile believers, the worldwide faithful community and its leadership over time became overwhelming gentile.
The massive influx of Gentiles into the synagogues of the diaspora did cause some problems. But the Nazarene leadership remained Jewish. Even if a Gentile were to attain a leadership position, it would have been long after he’d converted to Judaism in their sect and gained sufficient knowledge.
The leadership of the various churches was, like their entire membership, Gentile.
In c.350, Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem said in his Catechetical Lectures 4:37: “Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean”. Still, let me clarify that neither what the Didache, Ignatius, or St Cyril wrote here is considered a Churchwide dogmatic or ecumenical declaration for all Orthodox Christians.
Who else would it be for, since this was said a full 700 yrs before the Great Schism?
Followers of Yeshua in Judea were called Nazarenes, and the Bible records that in Antioch they were first called "Christians". I don't remember the Bible itself using "Christians" and "Nazarenes" as terms to distinguish the faithful based on whether they observed or not. Nazarenes was used to describe a sect of Judaism which followed Yeshua, and of which Paul was said to be a ringleader. Christians was used as a derogatory term to describe the followers of Yeshua, probably mostly Jews but perhaps Gentile converts. It was later subsumed by the church to describe themselves.
Also, in this early period those called Christians and the Nazarenes must have been in communion and united with each other overall, instead of say, the generally -observant communities in Rome and Jerusalem and their bishops being out of communion with gentile Christians elsewhere. No, they had little if anything to do with each other. I know it can be difficult to let go of those ideas that all believers in Jesus were one happy, unified group (which of course is like saying they were all the church), but that is not the case:Ignatius (ca. 110-120 CE), the bishop of the church at Antioch, wrote that anyone caught celebrating Passover with the Jews, would be considered as partakers with the killers of Christ and the apostles.
Writing in Latin in the fourth century, Jerome described the "Nazarenes" as a -observant group with Orthodox beliefs that could be found in the synagogues of the East. But still today, the common term in Arabic for Christians is Nasrani, which is taken from Aramaic. One of the two main historic Christian groups in India are called the "Nasrani", who have some specifically Jewish customs like covering the head while in prayer, and who have been historically aligned with the Syriac Christian community. Also, the Indian "Nasrani" trace themselves in legend to St Thomas' missionizing in India, although it isn't clear to scholars when their community began. Notzrim is a related term in Hebrew and appears to be the Jewish community's common term for theologically-orthodox Christians in general. I heard that many Arabic Christians today prefer to be called Masihi (Masih means Messiah) and that Nasrani is especially used by Muslims in Arabic. Languages and the etiology of shared terms, or even terms within the same language is a specialized field. But just because terms sound the same, or even are the same doesn’t mean they mean the same. Even today, since the rise of the Messianic movement many have tried to claim to be Messianic. Ebionites in particular like to say they are Messianic so they can lead others into their heresies concerning the deity of Yeshua. Several cults, especially those claiming to be polygamists call themselves Messianic. Some are just Baptists with tallit’s, others Hebrew Roots- even that fool Michael Rood says he is Messianic! Doesn’t make any of it so.
In Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council accepted the teaching that Paul especially promoted that gentile Christians did not need to observe the rituals. Paul was critical against pharisees who demanded that gentile Christians observe the ritual rules, although Paul himself had helped Timothy make a Nazirite vow due to the Church's instruction that Paul do so. Much later, in the 5th century, St John Chrysostom was part of a campaign against gentile Christians "Judaizing" (meaning "making Judaic"), ie. he specifically opposed gentile Christians taking up observance of the rules. Oh, we Messianics LOVE Acts 15! It always gets quoted at us! Recall the topic of The Jerusalem Council:Acts 15:1 (ESV) But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
What they were saying was you had to take on the entire law of Moses in order to be saved and accepted into the fellowship. Nowhere in Judaism is this taught! In fact, Rahab was not only saved and admitted to the young nation, she was in the line of Yeshua; and all she knew when she joined Israel was that their God was mightier than hers! But she learned the rest a bit at a time, just like all other Jews do:
Acts 15:10 (ESV) Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
That is what is meant by the yoke they themselves couldn’t bear. This is all learned over time, which brings us to the main point:
Acts 15:20-21 (ESV) but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
The reference to Moses is a reference to what he is famous for, the giving of . And every week in every synagogue, including Messianic, we have a weekly reading. And there is a teaching on it as well. The reading is on a schedule so that insures the entire is read through every year. And in Hebraic thought, hearing is synonymous with doing.
Now, the typical response we get at this time is "No, it clearly says we only have to do those four things." Really? What about the Ten Commandments? "Oh, and those too, of course!" Really? And what about all the things you say Jesus said to do? "Well those are in the New Testament!" Really? But they were said before Acts 15! So the assumption that those four things were all that is required is patently false. Those were the minimum things a new believer had to do in order to undergo tevilah (baptism) and be admitted into fellowship. "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” Moses, known as the giver of the law; who was on the mountain 40 days talking with God, whose job as compiler of was so important he is the only prophet God ever talked with face to face! Any Jew, even today would recognize what is being said here. It's the same way every proselyte in every sect is taught- over time, and mostly in the weekly readings. In fact, every church is the same. People learn the EO faith over time. You couldn't teach an Einstein everything in one sitting.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 17, 2019 23:57:23 GMT -8
Most telling, Clement himself wrote that there was no bishopric set up in Rome in his lifetime!
Clement also said: All the churches were Greek religious colonies. He said this between 150-200 AD.
Where did you get the information that Clement said that there was no bishopric in Rome in his lifetime? Clement, considered to be the third Pope/bishop of Rome after Peter, died around 99-100 AD. The only writing that scholars are sure that he wrote was First Clement, which you can read here (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html) and doesn't say that Rome lacked a bishopric. It just says things like "So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe."
When I said that the first century Church in Rome was observant according to Ambrosiaster, I was referring to this 4th century Church writer's description of the Church there: The Romans in the first century who were holding the tradition of professing Christ but keeping the law ( ) would have been in communion with the rest of the Church community worldwide.
You write: "Jewish fasts are on specific days of the Jewish calendar- dates commemorating events in their history, not days of the week." This raises the question in my mind what the Didache could have been referring to when it criticized "hypocrites" fasting on Monday and Thursday. The Jewish Virtual Library entry on fasting says:
The Jewish Encyclopedia article on fasting says: The article is citing Luke xviii, in which Yeshua criticizes the self-righteous pharisee's prayer: In trying to address my own question of whether and when the Orthodox Church first made a decisive break with -observant believers, I wrote: You asked: "Who else would it be for, since this was said a full 700 yrs before the Great Schism?" Sure, Ignatius and the other two writings were directed at Christians in general. What I meant was that their writings are not considered incontrovertible "dogma" like the Pope's Ex-Cathedra pronouncements are in modern Catholicism. Nor are they the decisions or declarations of an ecumenical Council.
Sure, I agree that "Nazarenes was used to describe a sect of Judaism which followed Yeshua, and of which Paul was said to be a ringleader." And sure, like you said, "just because terms sound the same, or even are the same doesn’t mean they mean the same."
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 18, 2019 7:14:12 GMT -8
Where did you get the information that Clement said that there was no bishopric in Rome in his lifetime? Clement, considered to be the third Pope/bishop of Rome after Peter, died around 99-100 AD. The only writing that scholars are sure that he wrote was First Clement, which you can read here (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html) and doesn't say that Rome lacked a bishopric. It just says things like "So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe."
That was a statement made on a Catholic forum (which I referenced). From another Catholic website: For All the Saints
forallsaints.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/clement-bishop-of-rome-c-100/
Believed from very early on to have been a late first century bishop of the Church in Rome and disciple of the apostles Peter and Paul, Clement is known today mainly for his letter to the Church in Corinth known as the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians. Written about the year 96, the epistle is an early and significant witness to the function and authority of the ministers of the Christian Church. It also demonstrates for the first time the effective intervention of a bishop of Rome in the affairs of another Church, and it provides evidence for the residence and martyrdom of Saint Peter and Saint Paul at Rome.
The occasion of the letter was the action of a younger faction at Corinth (ever the troubled, divisive church) who had deposed the older presbyters because of dissatisfaction with their ministration. The unity of the Church was being jeopardized by a dispute over its ministry. Clement’s letter sets out a hierarchical and organic view of Church authority, insisting that God requires due order in all things, that the deposed presbyters must be reinstated, and that the legitimate authorities must be obeyed. He writes, “You, therefore, the prime movers of the schism, submit to the presbyters, and, bending the knees of your hearts, accept correction and change your minds. Learn submissiveness, and rid yourselves of your boastful and proud incorrigibility of tongue. Surely, it is better for you to be little and honorable within the flock of Christ than to be esteemed above your deserts and forfeit the hope which he holds out.”
Clement uses the terms “bishop” and “presbyter” interchangeably in the letter, and both internal and external evidence (e.g., the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans) suggests that the episcopate not only at Corinth at the time but also at Rome, was plural; i.e., that those Churches were ruled and overseen by a council of presbyter-bishops – so that Clement was probably one of the bishops of the Church in Rome at the time. It would not be until the middle of the second century that the single, or monarchical, episcopate of one bishop in a church surrounded by the presbyters and deacons, would arise at Rome.
I believe they are referencing part 44.1-2 in the letter you referenced. Note too it stats by saying "Believed from very early on to have been a late first century bishop of the Church in Rome and disciple of the apostles Peter and Paul." In actuality, we have only church tradition to say he was a bishop, and especially a "Pope!" Odd, when he describes a council, not a single Pope in his only known letter. I'll have to get to the rest later, but wanted to give you this 1st thing. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 18, 2019 7:56:16 GMT -8
Thanks for explaining.
There are lots of Orthodox churches like my own, the OCA, that have a council of bishops as well as a leading bishop.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 18, 2019 8:29:57 GMT -8
Those Jews who were professing the Christ and keeping would have been the sect of the Nazarenes. But the only Gentiles they would have been in religious communion with would have been God-fearers who worshiped with them. No observant Jew would have set foot willingly in a pagan place of worship (paganism being anything not Jewish). As I’ve said elsewhere, Judaism was not a homogenous entity in the 1st cen CE. There were many sects and even different types of Judaisms. It wasn’t until the late 2nd cen and into the 3rd that the descendants of the Pharisees gained control and started to unify most of those in the diaspora into today’s Rabbinical Judaism. But there still were and are sectarian differences. The point is you can’t compare 1st cen Judaism to 2nd and later; nor can you really point to Judaism at any time since the conquest and speak of them as a unified entity. And each sect or type of Judaism had/has its own halacha (instructions for living an observant lifestyle). So yes, the Pharisees (or at least some of them) fasted on specified days. But they don’t today, and I don’t know when this practice ended. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 18, 2019 8:48:12 GMT -8
Well, you’ll go insane trying to figure that one out, because they never split. They couldn’t, since they were never together.
Here are a few quotes from early church fathers that are seldom taught in church, but which might help your understanding. The first is from the time the church was in its very earliest stages of formation. Remember when you read these that the Nazarenes were Jews, and so these statements apply to them:
Justin Martyr (100 A.D.-165 A.D.) claimed that G-d no longer had a covenant with the Jewish People. Instead, he taught that the Gentiles had replaced the Jews, and G-d would be dealing with them only in His plan of redemption.
Tertullian (160 A.D.-220 A.D.) wrote in "Against the Jews", that as far as he was concerned, the whole Jewish race was responsible for the death of Yeshua (Jesus).
So in the 2nd cen CE, when the church was just beginning to take form anti-Semitism was rife and there was no congress between the church and Jewish believers.
Eusebius (263 A.D.-339 A.D.) wrote, "Jews are always cursed by G-d, and thus doomed to perpetual punishment."
Anti-Semitism and the separation it engendered was growing stronger in the 3rd cen. And by the 4th cen when Emperor Constantine finally made Sunday worship an official decree, and forbade worship on Shabbath. Here is what Sylvester I (314-337 A.D.) the Bishop of Rome (Pope) during Constantine’s reign said of the Biblical Sabbath and the Jews:
"If every Sunday is to be observed joyfully by the Christians on account of the resurrection, then every Sabbath on account of the burial is to be execration [loathing or cursing] of the Jews."-- S. R. E. Humbert, Adversus Graecorum calumnias 6, in Patrologie Cursus Completus, Series Latina, ed. J.P. Migne, 1844, p. 143.
And these were far from alone:
Saint John Chrysostom (344 A.D.-407 A.D.)"The Jews are the odious (hated) assassins of Christ and for killing G-d there is no expiation (atonement) possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance and the Jews must live in servitude (servants, slaves) forever! G-d always hated the Jews, so it is incumbent (as duty) upon all Christians to hate the Jews!" Furthermore, he says, "The Synagogue is worse than a brothel...It is the den of scoundrels ... the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults...a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ ... a house worse than a drinking shop... a den of thieves; a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and abyss of perdition...As for me, I hate the synagogue ... I hate the Jews for the same reason." He continues to say, "Jews are worse than wild beasts. They sacrifice their sons and daughters to devils! Not only every Synagogue, but every Jew as well, is a temple of the devil and I would say the same thing about their souls.”
Saint Augustine (354 A.D.-430 A.D.) "The true image of the Hebrew (Jew) is Judas Iscariot who sells the L-rd for silver. The Jews can never understand the Scriptures, and forever bear the guilt of the death of Yeshua (Jesus)." He further believed that they deserved death. He thought it was their destiny to always roam the world, with no hope of ever having a permanent home.
Their hatred had so blinded them they couldn't even read their own "New" scriptures:
Romans 3:1-2 (ESV) Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
The "oracles of God," the scriptures. To the Jews was entrusted understanding of scripture, including the NT. And this is why I've posited several times, if you want to understand all scripture, including the NT, you have to learn to read it with Jewish eyes. Understand it as a 1st cen Jew would.
Dan C
Addendum: there was no church in the 1st cen CE. There were only the sect of the Nazarenes and later the Ebionites who split from them over the eternal deity of Yeshua. The earliest church fathers were born in the mid to late 1st cen, so at best their views would have just begun to take form at the time. The term translated "church" in the NT was ekklesia, always translated "assembly" in the LXX. Assigning the term "church" in the translations from Gk was an arbitrary device meant to deceive readers and hijack a faith. There was no biblical church. There wereonly ekklesia, assemblies; to wit, synagogues of the Notsarim.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 18, 2019 15:44:41 GMT -8
It seems like Question 1 is so important yet hidden by time and drastic changes in the community of believers, that to hash it all out in detail would require its own thread. First, my impression from reading the scriptures is that James was the leader of the Church/Assembly of believers in Jerusalem, and he and at least a faction around him were observing . - Second, the Bible nowhere says that he gave this up, and so my impression is that he continued this observance through his life until he was martyred in c. 63-68 AD.
- Third, my impression from the Bible and Church history is that James appointed "episcopos"/"overseers"/"bishops" to succeed him in Jerusalem. I understand that you are saying that the position of "overseer" was indistinguishable from that of "presbyters", which has been translated as "priests" or "elders". The distinction, if any, between episcopos and presbyter in the early Church may deserve a thread of its own, but my basic third point is that the Church in Jerusalem had leaders designated with a title, "overseers"/"episcopos" (if not also "presbyters").
- Fourth, Eusebius' Church History said that the line or group of such "episcopos"/"overseers" over Jerusalem continued to be "of the circumcision" up until the 135 AD Roman destruction of the city. My impression was that this meant that like James, they were -observant. This would make sense since these overseers generally had Jewish names, and I would expect that James and his supporters would appoint bishops to succeed him who shared his basic views on observance. Plus, a bishop in 135 AD could be 70 years old, and thus born in 65 AD, 35 years into the spreading of Christianity among the Jews, so he could easily be born into a Jewish family, rather than an already circumcised Jewish convert. It is often theorized that this line of bishops was descended from Jesus' relatives like James.
- Fifth, Eusebius, a major Church historian, wrote approvingly of these bishops, including when he referred to them as being "of the circumcision", so my impression is that the gentile Church has looked approvingly on them as well. Eusebius wrote:
But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time... These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.Wikipedia's article on the "Judaizers" comments about this passage: "this in all likelihood is simply stating that they were Jewish Christians (as opposed to Gentile Christians), and that they observed biblical circumcision and thus likely the rest of as well." Wikipedia adds: - Sixth, as mentioned above, there seem to be two positions among observant Nazarenes. One was that they would not have meals with gentile Christians who were not observant, and they demanded that gentile Christians become observant. This faction was mentioned several times in the New Testament, and Paul repeatedly polemicized against them, sometimes harshly. At one point in Galatians, Paul talks about a dispute that he has with Peter and James' party. As I understand the story, Paul invited Peter to eat with gentile believers, but Peter, under pressure from James' party, left. Paul wrote that Peter was in the wrong for leaving their meal. It sounds like you were in fact really talking about just those who held to the beliefs of James' faction in that dispute when you wrote about the Nazarenes, "But the only Gentiles they would have been in religious communion with would have been God-fearers who worshiped with them. No observant Jew would have set foot willingly in a pagan place of worship (paganism being anything not Jewish)."
- Seventh, the other position was that gentile Christians did not have to take observance upon themselves. My understanding is that this was Paul's position, and that the Jerusalem Church in Acts 15 came around to this position, except that it had a few demands of the gentile believers, like not eating food offered to idols. I take your interpretation to be different from mine, and that you interpret that in Acts 15 James' position continued to be an expectation that the gentile Christians must take on themselves the 's observance. Sorry if I am confusing your view with those of others, but I think you mean that gentile believers could take on the - which James' party expected them to do - gradually and that the several requirements that James put on them were only the opening stage of gradually taking on the .
Eighth, nonetheless, you and I should agree that after the Council of Jerusalem, there were two groups of practices, one group was circumcised and following the in general, and the second group was of gentile Christians following at least James' enumerated requirements like not eating food sacrificed to idols. Even up to day, these enumerated requirements are still considered part of the canonical rules for the Orthodox Church. - So, finally we are coming to a fundamental question of what relation James' faction - those observant believers who held to the legacy of the Council of Jerusalem and who respected the authority of the line of circumcized bishops up to 135 AD - continued to have toward gentile Christians who also accepted the decision of the Council of Jerusalem, which said to the gentile believers: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things". That is, we are talking about the relation of the observant Nazarenes under the bishops of Jerusalem to gentile Christians who were also observing the enumerated requirements.
My impression is that those observant bishops would, in agreement with the Council of Jerusalem, be accepting of those who obeyed their enumerated requirements and would have communion with them. Even if the gentile believers might be considered unclean under the rules for not being observant beyond James' enumerated requirements, the observant believers would commune with them anyway, perhaps in a way analogous to how Christ ate with or interacted with persons who were considered ritually unclean, and in agreement with what you said about the "God-fearers who worshiped with them." As a result, I think that they would fall into the group of whom Justin approved when Wikipedia said, "those who observe the Law of Moses, but do not require its observance of others — with these he would hold communion".
So then my next question would be at what point, if any, the Church first put a ban on observance even for those considered Jewish Christians. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 18, 2019 20:33:27 GMT -8
Good discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 18, 2019 21:04:03 GMT -8
 It seems like Question 1 is so important yet hidden by time and drastic changes in the community of believers, that to hash it all out in detail would require its own thread.
Actually in the true community of believers their worship was pretty stable in the 1st cen. and into the 2nd. They sill worshiped as Jews in Jewish synagogues anywhere. They were accepted as just another sect of Judaism by all Jews. The biggest changes for them were the missionary journeys (which were primarily to synagogues of the diaspora) and the factions that developed internally. The biggest external factor was the Bar Kochba war. When Rabbi Akiva proclaimed Bar Kochba to be ha’Moshaich and required everyone to kneel and proclaim him as such, the Jewish believers could not do that. They were forced out and went to Pella. The size of the sect an be attested to in that they were blamed for the loss of that rebellion and subsequently ostracized by all Judaism. However according to the church fathers themselves these believers, both Jews and proselytes continued to worship as Jews, in synagogues, completely apart from the church.
First, my impression from reading the scriptures is that James was the leader of the Church/Assembly of believers in Jerusalem, and he and at least a faction around him were observing . Absolutely true with the corretion; and James was leader of the entire sect (but Jews had no Pope). He was leader because he was next in line after Yeshua. God established a dynasty through the lineage of King David. So as long as any of Yeshua’s brothers were alive one of them wold lead the sect.
- Second, the Bible nowhere says that he gave this up, and so my impression is that he continued this observance through his life until he was martyred in c. 63-68 Ad.
Again correct, as was the case with all the set of the Notsarim.
- Third, my impression from the Bible and Church history is that James appointed "episcopos"/"overseers"/"bishops" to succeed him in Jerusalem. I understand that you are saying that the position of "overseer" was indistinguishable from that of "presbyters", which has been translated as "priests" or "elders". The distinction, if any, between episcopos and presbyter in the early Church may deserve a thread of its own, but my basic third point is that the Church in Jerusalem had leaders designated with a title, "overseers"/"episcopos" (if not also "presbyters").
Actually, not me but a bunch of Catholics I quoted, including one church father.
The shaliachim, Gk apostolos filled that function.
- Fourth, Eusebius' Church History said that the line or group of such "episcopos"/"overseers" over Jerusalem continued to be "of the circumcision" up until the 135 AD Roman destruction of the city. My impression was that this meant that like James, they were -observant. This would make sense since these overseers generally had Jewish names, and I would expect that James and his supporters would appoint bishops to succeed him who shared his basic views on observance. Plus, a bishop in 135 AD could be 70 years old, and thus born in 65 AD, 35 years into the spreading of Christianity among the Jews, so he could easily be born into a Jewish family, rather than an already circumcised Jewish convert. It is often theorized that this line of bishops was descended from Jesus' relatives like James.
They theorize correctly, however you are still hung up on the Nazarenes being the evolution of the early church. They were not. The church hated and feared them, and according to the church fathers themselves the Notsarim existed wholly apart from the church for centuries:
2nd cen. church father Jerome, in a letter to Augustine, said:
“The adherents to this sect are known commonly as Nazarenes; they believe in Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary; and they say that He who suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again, is the same as the one in whom we believe. But while they desire to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither the one nor the other. … If, however, there is for us no alternative but to receive the Jews into the Church, along with the usages prescribed by their law; if, in short, it shall be declared lawful for them to continue in the Churches of Christ what they have been accustomed to practice in the synagogues of Satan, I will tell you my opinion of the matter: they will not become Christians, but they will make us Jews. “
This was at the time the church was taking form, however there were many “churches” teaching many things. They were as disunified as the Jews of the last cen. One of he big questions was what about those pesky Nazarene believers?
- Fifth, Eusebius, a major Church historian, wrote approvingly of these bishops, including when he referred to them as being "of the circumcision", so my impression is that the gentile Church has looked approvingly on them as well.
Not all church fathers hated the Jews, nor did all Christians. Even in WWII there were cases of Christians helping the Jews at risk of their own lives.
- Eusebius wrote:
But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time... These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.Wikipedia's article on the "Judaizers" comments about this passage: "this in all likelihood is simply stating that they were Jewish Christians (as opposed to Gentile Christians), and that they observed biblical circumcision and thus likely the rest of as well." They weren’t between the age of he apostles, they were the apostolos! The shaliachim. That is a position held in synagogues to this day! (Though in many synagogues the Cantor holds this position.) And he has the authority to speak for the assembly, just as the title implies.
Wikipedia adds: Actually, any Jew stepping into a church and taking communion with them would himself been considered a heretic by the sect and asked to leave. Mixing religious practices was the sin of Nadav and Abihu, and they were killed for it; consumed by fire from God!
I'll write more later. It's pretty late right now though. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 18, 2019 23:01:39 GMT -8
The Society of St. John of Gothia webpage "An Orthodox Christian Perspective On Circumcision" claims:
As much as I looked online, I couldn't find a churchwide canon against circumcision. Saturday morning worship sometimes happens, especially on feast days. I have heard Orthodox treat Saturday as a day of special respect.
The article “Why Russians used to practice circumcision” says:
Since those Russians practiced circumcision at the time, there must not have been a Church rule against it in Russia or Constantinople in c. 1000 AD when Russia was still under Constantinople.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 18, 2019 23:55:42 GMT -8
For Question 2 (Nazareth and the Nazirites), you must be right when you say: "Nazorite and Nazarene are two entirely different things." I was only able to find articles suggesting a link, but the logic in them did not make sense to me.
Nazareth comes from the Hebrew "Natsrát" נָצְרַת , which may come from נֵצֶר (nétser, “branch”) or נָצַר (natsár, “to guard”).
According to Wikipedia's article on Nazareth:
"Nazirite" comes from נזר (nazar) , meaning to consecrate or set apart. The etymology is different from Nazareth, because Nazareth (Natsrat) uses ц(ts) in the middle like netser and natsar, whereas Nazirite uses ז(z).
I am curious how well the Talmud's word "Notzri" fits with "Natsrat", BTW. I wasn't able to find a linguistic explanation. In The First Christians: The Life and Times of Those Who First Believed in Jesus, Zola Levitt suggests the possibility that Notzri better comes from netser.
|
|
's rules of ritual observance. The "Gospel of the Nazarenes" could be the same book as the "Gospel of the Hebrews", but it appears to me that they are different books because their passages on Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist differ from one another.
) C
