|
|
Post by terraces on Jan 20, 2021 7:19:59 GMT -8
Hello - new member here. Thanks for letting me post. Long-time believer in Yeshua as Messiah, from Protestant faith & culture (my family & lineage all Protestant).
Over the past several years a cascade of revelations has pushed me into the wilderness. I smile and greet my former companions as brethren but no longer feel much in common. No longer "belong" to anything but still refuse to let go of my faith.
I'll start at the beginning. Years ago, was reading the gospel of John and suddenly had the strong sense that the author was originally a disciple of the Baptizer. The scene is in chapter 1: 35-39
The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!”
When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?”
They said, “Rabbi” (which means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?”
“Come,” he replied, “and you will see. (NIV)
One of the disciples of John the Baptizer is named: v. 40 says it is Andrew. There are a number of reasons why the un-named second disciple seems like John the so-called Beloved Disciple. First, he never names himself, yet names others. Second, he consistently gives eyewitness testimony, not hearsay. Third, he's a fisherman of the party of Peter, Andrew et al. If you read Luke 5:1-11, at the calling, it explicitly says that the four were partners (Matthew and Mark place them nearby, but not together as Luke does). So John and Andrew together makes sense. Two young men, together seeking truth, and together finding Yeshua.
So John (I presume) was a disciple of the Baptizer, who seems to be either an Essene or very Essene-flavored. Now of course we come into the relevance of various inter-testamental documents like the Qumran findings, and 1 Enoch and so forth, but my point is that the Fourth gospel has a perspective of a man from a particular cultural and religious background. Just as Peter said, "I have never eaten anything unclean" in Acts 10:14, many years after first following the Way, so was the writer of the Fourth gospel, a person very scrupulously observant of his upbringing. For him to deviate would be unquestionable. He simply became a disciple of Yeshua of Nazareth, and a proclaimer of the faith in such. And of that he never deviated, either. But to him the two things, his heritage and his revelation were neither unrelated or contradictory but rather inextricably linked. One defined the other, and one fulfilled the other. They were two halves of the same whole, two parts of the same indissolvable reality.
Now all of this significance I've slooooowly become conscious of, but my Protestant background has been an impediment. All of those unquestioned assumptions, based on what I now realize are nothing, or worse than nothing (deception, perhaps). How much of my heritage has been ignorance and how much willful covering, I haven't unpacked, but I suspect some of each.
In any event I'm an ignorant person, not a teacher. But I refuse to accept something that is not so, by my every estimation. Thank you again for your indulgence in my posting. Hopefully it doesn't seem harsh or strident. But if there is truth, then we must be brave, and declare what seems closest to reality in our views. Again, thanks. And peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jan 20, 2021 8:02:29 GMT -8
Terraces,
Welcome to the forum. Your story is not unlike most others here. Starting out in a religious setting that teaches against the word of God for the most part. But at some point we started accepting the new leaven into our lives and before we knew it the whole lump was leavened.
Jimmie
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 20, 2021 8:04:06 GMT -8
Hello! And welcome to the forum! And thank you for posting!
Interesting perspective on John; and very plausible. At any rate, it certainly seems you are on the right track. You will find many such revelations as you go, and hopefully being here can help. There is a lot of good information in the archives, and if you have further insights or questions you may revive any older threads simply by posting there. In fact, as you may notice this is not a particularly chatty forum. It is more about archival information posted in a format that allows one to search and find discussions of particular topics. That doesn't mean we are not friendly or don't just talk, and certainly we do help each other. But you won't find the endless inanities of some forums, nor wild speculations or false teachings. You'll find more thoughtful posts like the one you just shared.
Your story is a familiar one to most who come here. We tend to go through stages. Revelation, distrust of Christianity, anger at them, then a mellowing and realization that for most of us we were once them. Then sorrow most of them do not have the courage to open their eyes as you have. If you were to go back and look at my old posts, you'd see I was very angry with Christianity for a while. Now I reserve that anger for the church fathers, because most of their deception was intentional and it has infected countless generations with false doctrine.
Most of the false doctrine in Christianity is made by pulling out single verses or short passages and, out of all context misinterpreting them, then drilling that teaching home so hard the people are brainwashed. The solution: read everything in context and thinking about what you just read! You crtainly seem capable of that.
Looking forward to speaking with you here on the forum!
Dan
|
|
|
|
Post by terraces on Jan 21, 2021 7:50:11 GMT -8
at some point we started accepting the new leaven into our lives and before we knew it the whole lump was leavened. At some point I just began to see. At first it was, "I see people, but they look like trees, walking" and then things became more clear (cf Mark 8:24,25). Now, I'm still ignorant, but what little I can see, I can see. And it's become clear to me that these people, all of them, are what we'd call "observant Hebrews" or "law-keeping Jews" for lack of better terms (forgive my terminology). John's gospel cues us by using Hebrew/Aramaic terms, and translating for Greek readers...see, e.g., "They asked him, "Rabbi" (which means 'Teacher')...". This was a Hebrew writing to Greeks: using the originally-spoken word, then translating for them. By contrast, James (Ya'acov) was a Hebrew writing to Hebrews ("to the twelve tribes, scattered..."), and Paul was a Hebrew writing as herald to the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7; Rom 1:5). Even though Paul was all things to all men, to by any means gain some (1 Cor 9), at the end of his journey, before the Sanhedrin, he declared that he was still a Pharisee. He was then as he'd been, always a faithful and obedient Hebrew. What he now counted dung was a life as a Hebrew apart from discipleship to Yeshua. That aspect of his life was gone forever. All those earlier things were still essential, but as preparatory to what he now was, "in Christ". (But what I was taught was different. What I heard, Paul abhorred his background and rejected it for a bland, abstract, featureless "Christ". But was Yeshua of Nazareth abstract, featureless, impersonal?) John writes the 4th gospel as a Hebrew fully enmeshed in his time, place, and culture, yet aware of and writing to those outside his cultural milieu. Yet he writes as one who'd been and remained immersed in the experience of being a disciple of a rabbi from Galilee, the foretold Son of David, who's to restore the Kingdom back to Israel (cf Acts 1:6). But John trains his narrative to reach the nations. At some point it became useful to recognize and appreciate the person that was writing, in their time, place, and perspective. I started to see John... and then to see Ya'acov, Paul, Peter, and Jude etc. And through them I began to see Rabbi Yeshua, as they saw him. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 21, 2021 9:47:25 GMT -8
at some point we started accepting the new leaven into our lives and before we knew it the whole lump was leavened. At some point I just began to see. At first it was like, "I see people, but they look like trees, walking" and gradually things became more clear (cf Mark 8:24,25). Now, I'm still ignorant, and not a teacher. But what little I can see, I can see. And it's clear to me that these people, all of them, are what we would call "observant Hebrews" for lack of a better term. (forgive my terminology). John cues us in when he used Hebrew/Aramaic, and translated to his Greek readers. "They asked him, "Rabbi" (which means 'Teacher')". John was a Hebrew writing to Greeks - he gives the original spoken word, then translates for his audience. By contrast, James (Ya'acov) was a Hebrew writing to Hebrews ("to the twelve tribes, scattered..."), and Paul was a Hebrew writing as apostle to the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7; Rom 1:1-5). Even though Paul was all things to all men, to by any means gain some (1 Cor 9), at the end of his journey, before the Sanhedrin he declared that he was still a Pharisee. He was as he always had been, always a Hebrew. What he counted dung was a life of Hebraism apart from discipleship to Yeshua. That aspect of his life was gone. All those things, of themselves, were preparatory to what he now was, "in Christ". (But what I was taught was different. In that mindset, Paul abhorred his background and rejected it for a bland, abstract, featureless "Christ". But was Yeshua abstract, featureless?) John writes the 4th gospel as a Hebrew fully enmeshed in his time and culture, writing to those outside his cultural perspective. So both elements are present, and completely immersed in the experience of being a disciple of a rabbi from Galilee, none other than the foretold Son of David, who is to restore the Kingdom back to Israel (cf Acts 1:6). But John writes his gospel in terms to reach the nations, who his narrative aims for. But at first, it became important to me, to recognize who this man was that was writing. I started to see John. And then I began to see Ya'acov, and Paul, and Peter, and Jude etc. And through them I began to see Rabbi Yeshua.
Not in any respect was He featureless! There are so many tacks we could take here- He had the character of God, was an observant Jew, probably more a stone mason than woodworker, educated from His youth in Torah at the exact time the Jews instituted a system of education for every child ... as the saying goes, "That'll preach!" But let's look at one aspect Christianity tends to overlook, and that only a Jew of the time could have seen and explained to a Gentile. Yeshua's life was seen in parallels, or overlays- call it layers of the history of the Jewish people. Starting with exile in infancy to Egypt and return to Ha'Eretz, the land (Israel). But even before that, all through the Hebrew Bible. All four Gospels record His "baptism," actually tevilah, or immersion in a mikvah. We can surmise this occurred somewhere around the region of Jericho. It's in the area where Yochanon was active, and Yeshua immediately went from there into the wilderness. The wilderness, where the scapegoat bore away the nations sins. But what about the waters themselves- the waters at creation, where we had God's presence, His vioce, and his Spirit hovering- an exact parallel to this tevilah. Those waters parted, and dry land appeared. Move forward to Moshe at the Red Sea. The waters parted and the Hebrews passed through the waters on dry land. It was tevilah for the nation. Later the waters of the Jordan were held back for Yehoshua (Joshua) and the Hebrew people crossed on dry land again, tevilah for a new generation who were to establish the nation. And the name Yehoshua- Yeshua is a shortened form of this name, the man himself a type of Yeshua. They crossed and took Jericho, the only large fortified city on a plain and controlling a trade route that was taken in the early part of the conquest. Controlling a trade route brought wealth, or in this case provision for a new, struggling people. After this all their conquests in Joshua's time were in he hill country. The reasons for this could take up several Shabbatoth of teachings. But if we think, one of the descriptive names of God is " YHVH-Yireh, God Will See/God Will Provide" (Gen 22:14).
So we can see in this one event layer upon layer upon layer the life of Yeshua paralleling the history laid out in the Hebrew Bible, the TNK, or Tenach. But only one raised in that culture would be able to pick out these things and more and explain them to a Gentile. Or for that matter another Jew. Especially when you consider that many Jews lived among the Gentile nations in Yeshua's time, well before the formal diaspora. Some had been overly influenced by the pagan cultures where they lived. Those who wanted to return to their faith would have had many questions about how. Now especially when you are telling them the Jewish Messiah has just come and died for their sins!
Jews go through tevilah many, many times in their lives. It is not a "one and done" thing. Many of these people had already underwent the "baptism of John," which was actually tevilah into repentance. They had repented, and so underwent tevilah. But now they needed to accept Yeshua. They actually already had, but as Jews they were looking forward to ha'moshiach in faith he would come. Now they needed to accept that Ha'Moshiach had come in the person of Yeshua, and that He was God incarnate. They would then undergo tevilah once more, being "baptized" INTO the Christ, the Anointed One of God, the promised Messiah. They also joined the Sect of the Notsarim, the Nazarenes, of which Paul "was a ringleader."
So was Yeshua featureless? Only the understanding of a Gentile church is featureless. But baruch HaShem, they are starting to search, to look more to their Jewish roots. And were the Gospels written to Gentiles? Which ones? There wouldn't be a "church" for another 300 yrs. And even if there were, how would they being from disparate pagan cultures understand what they read? The Gospels were a record, meant to convince all men, Jew and Gentile. But "to the Jew first," because there is no way a pagan would understand. Might they have been slanted to convince different groups- Jews who had kept the faith, those in the diaspora who'd strayed but wanted to return, and yes even Gentiles? Sure. But that is a very different thing than being written "to" the Gentiles. Language matters, and ha'satan knows this. Many a false doctrine has slipped in past seemingly innocuous statements; and quite a few past this one, which the church is very fond of.
|
|
|
|
Post by terraces on Jan 21, 2021 16:23:15 GMT -8
And were the Gospels written to Gentiles? Which ones? There wouldn't be a "church" for another 300 yrs. And even if there were, how would they being from disparate pagan cultures understand what they read? The Gospels were a record, meant to convince all men, Jew and Gentile. But "to the Jew first," because there is no way a pagan would understand. Might they have been slanted to convince different groups- Jews who had kept the faith, those in the diaspora who'd strayed but wanted to return, and yes even Gentiles? Sure. But that is a very different thing than being written "to" the Gentiles. Language matters, and ha'satan knows this. Many a false doctrine has slipped in past seemingly innocuous statements; and quite a few past this one, which the church is very fond of. Yes - Acts 6:1 and 9:29 speak of Hellenized Jews, so the 4th gospel, with it's explanations in Greek of Hebrew words, could have been to them. I should not make assumptions. What do you make of "most excellent Theophilus" of Acts and Luke's gospel? I had always assumed him to be a gentile benefactor, thus the dedication at the start of each book. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 21, 2021 17:15:19 GMT -8
Yes - Acts 6:1 and 9:29 speak of Hellenized Jews, so the 4th gospel, with it's explanations in Greek of Hebrew words, could have been to them. I should not make assumptions. What do you make of "most excellent Theophilus" of Acts and Luke's gospel? I had always assumed him to be a gentile benefactor, thus the dedication at the start of each book.
Theophilus- he's a problem. No one really knows who or what he really was. It is thought he might be a person of some rank or importance, because this is the same greeting Paul used when addressing Felix. But even that is a problem. At least for me, since I believe in Hebrew primacy. That just means I believe the New Testament (itself not a good name for that collection of books) was written entirely in Hebrew. And Jews did not use such flowery greetings. It was basically "To: Theophilus" if indeed he was sending this to a man by that name. However probably the most influential of all the church fathers, Marcion said of Galatians that everyone else was writing their own version of that letter, so he just went and wrote his version too. And I cannot believe that Galatians was the only book this happened to, especially with over 5800 different copies of NT books and fragments, many of which disagree but which the NT translations were based on. And this is before the Qumran texts became available!
Now I am not saying we should throw out the NT. Many translators work very hard (within their own theological background) to make sure they use the best, most accurate and agreeable with scripture source documents they can. And the truth is there, despite man and the Catholic Church's best efforts to hide it at times. It is up to us to dig it out. But we have to always be mindful of changes and additions that may have been made; and if it sounds flowery and wordy, it's probably an addition by a Greek scribe or an early priest.
But that is my opinion. Many disagree with me, and that's OK. Also the Greek is what we now have, so regardless my opinions on the issue it is what we must deal with and use. I just think Theophilus is a hiccup in biblical history. No idea who he was, or if Paul was actually writing to him or if a later scribe entered the name to please his own benefactor. My opinion, take it how you like.
One of the things that got me looking outside Christianity was that even as a kid the NT just didn't sound right. Back then I still believed it was written in Greek. But the authors were still Jews, and they didn't think in that gushing, prolix manner. And if they didn't think like that, they didn't write like that, even in Greek.
|
|
|
|
Post by terraces on Jan 22, 2021 7:03:27 GMT -8
Theophilus- he's a problem. No one really knows who or what he really was. It is thought he might be a person of some rank or importance, because this is the same greeting Paul used when addressing Felix. But even that is a problem. At least for me, since I believe in Hebrew primacy... I just think Theophilus is a hiccup in biblical history. No idea who he was, or if Paul was actually writing to him or if a later scribe entered the name to please his own benefactor. My opinion, take it how you like. It does seem a bit of an outlier, I admit. And I don't hold a word or phrase too tightly if it may, of itself, distort the narrative, that was initially received by "observant Jews" (again, forgive my wording) who went to the temple and followed their fathers. Peter and John, going to the temple after Pentecost (Acts 3:1; cf 2:46) was their daily life in Jerusalem. To them, to believe into Yeshua as risen and ascended and ruler of all, was the fulfillment of all the words handed down from before. It did not divorce them from their roots, it sealed them, eternally. An apostolic adjunct, central to the narrative, and fully committed to the gospel template of Yesua's life and teaching, is seen in Ya'acov: "True religion is to visit widows and orphans in their affliction, and to keep oneself unblemished from the world" (1:27). Of such is what "first to the Hebrews, then to the Nations" is best expressed as. Back to the Greek/Hebrew aspects of the early text, I see Paul saying to the Ephesians (2:11,14,21,22) that there are two walls, one Hebrew and one gentile. Christ himself is the cornerstone. But the joining doesn't efface one of the walls. The Hebrew wall still stands, it stands forever. The "Christianity" I inherited through Protestant tradition had not only effaced and nullified that wall, but was antagonistic to any of its remains. Like the Romans with Carthage: they not only razed it, but raked it flat, and salted it so that nothing could ever grow again. But Praise the Lord! |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 22, 2021 8:54:03 GMT -8
It does seem somewhat of an outlier. I admit that. And I don't hold any word or phrase too tightly if it may, of itself, distort the narrative. And the narrative was initially received by "observant Jews" (again, forgive my wording) who went to the temple and followed their fathers. Peter and John, going to the temple after Pentecost (Acts 3:1; cf 2:46) was not an outlier, but the daily life, as it always had been. To them, to believe into Yeshua as risen and ascended and ruler of all, was the fulfillment of all the words handed down from before. It did not divorce them from their roots, it sealed them, eternally. What I see as epistolic adjunct, and central to the narrative, and fully committed to the gospel template of Yesua's life and teaching, are sections like Ya'acov: "True religion is to visit widows and orphans in their affliction, and to keep oneself unblemished from the world". Such to me is what "first to the Hebrews, then to the Nations" is expressed as, and I of the second cohort thereby find my path to Yeshua and to the Father. Back to the Greek/Hebrew aspects of the early text. I now see Paul saying, to the Ephesians (2:11,14,21,22) that there are two walls, one Hebrew and one gentile (uncircumcised, non-Hebrew, the 'nations'). Christ himself is the cornerstone. But the joining doesn't efface one of the walls. The Hebrew wall still stands, it stands forever. The "Christianity" I inherited through Protestant tradition had not only effaced and nullified that wall, but was antagonistic to any of its remains. Like the Romans with Carthage: they not only razed it, but raked it flat, and salted it so that nothing could ever grow again. But Praise the Lord!
Were it to be that they join us, we'd still be pagan and they'd become pagan. No, we become Jews. Now the problem is, what does that look like? Are we to copy Rabbinical Judaism? I see nothing wrong with borrowing some things from their walk and worship. But they are not the Judaism of the 1st cen. So no, I'd say copying one of the contemporary sects is not necessary. But I wouldn't criticize someone for doing it, as long as they hold onto Yeshua. On the other extreme do we do only those things commanded in Torah? While that is our base and we are responsible for those commandments as well as the examples and lessons, the concepts and principles taught therein, Torah is not the entire Bible, it is just our base.
It's interesting to note the Hebrew people have faced this same issue several times in their existence. Take an example from the return from Babylonian exile. They had to relearn how to live both on the land, agricultural practices and living in a different environment; but they were in effect relearning how to be God's people. Much knowledge had been lost in the exile, and pagan practices had been assimilated into their lives. But there was such a great national fear of having to return to exile, they did not want to incur God's wrath even in the smallest transgression. It was the main motivator for them to establish a universal education system wherein every boy and girl were given an education based on Torah and Hebrew culture. This occured when Salome governed after the death of her husband (one of the early Herods's- blame senility, but I forget which one and don't have time right now to look it up). Also they were only in a small part of the land. amaritans to the NE, Idumeans to the S & SE, Philistines on the coastal plain, and others put pagan pressure and influence on all sides (even though Samaritans wer "half-Jews and Idumeans had been forcibly assimilated, which never really works). Any-way, it was a mess and they had to learn to function in it as God's people all over again.
This is part of what we do here is discuss our place in the scheme of things. How do we walk holy before God in a pagan culture and where Christianity and Judaism both dislike us. Frankly I care more about what the Almighty thinks of me, but it still can be difficult. Any how, I have to go. Hope this bit of rambling made sense.
|
|
- there are 70 faces to 
