When did the Jewish church stop being the true church?

[Joachim]

I believe that the Jewish church stopped being the true church the day that Christ rose. Christ's crucifixition and resurrection ended the authority of Judaism as the true church.

To that end, I believe that any pronouncements or proscriptions issued by Jewish religious authorities after Christ's crucifixition do not have any bearing on Christians. We reject their authority because they rejected the authority of our Lord.

The reason that I bring this up is because there are many Christians who actually recognize a post-Pentecost Jewish religious decision as the basis for their belief concerning one of the most important elements of the faith. The Holy Scriptures.

The 73 books of the canon were undisputed until the Protestant Reformation. The smallest number of books ever included in the Bible until that time was 73. Some churches, such as the Ethiopians and certain Orthodox strains, used more. In the reformation, something amazing happened, suddenly, Christians began using a Jewish religious decision to decide what constituted the Old Testament. It was a practice first undertaken by Luther and then secondly by the church of the King of England. The result of this was that many Christians overtime came to believe that the Bible contained 66 books rather than 73 and further postulated a claim that the 7 disputed books were not the word of God but that the other 66 were.


The justification for this was based on using Jewish scripture, the idea being that the Old Testament was the word of God from when we were Jews. The problem with that logic is that the Jewish testament was not formalized until after the destruction of the Second Temple. The Council of Jamnia laid out what the Jewish Bible was. It rejected the Septuagint, rejecting the following books as not being part of the word of God: Parts of the Book of Daniel, Psalm 151, Prayer of Manesseh, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch.


Admittedly, some of these are also not part of the 73 that were widely held as the canon before the Reformation.


So, the question I want to pose is this. If Jewish religious authority ceased to exist with Christ's victory over death, then why is it appropriate for a Christian to regard the authority of a post-Christ council as the basis for deliniating what in the Bible is the word of God and what is not the word of God?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I believe that the Jewish church stopped being the true church the day that Christ rose. Christ's crucifixition and resurrection ended the authority of Judaism as the true church.

I would say it completely ended with the destruction of their Temple and Sanctuary and thus the elimination of the OC Priesthood as prophecied by JESUS and the OT Prophets.

Has anyone seen those around lately?

Luke 21:5 And certain saying about the Temple that to stones ideal and devoted-things it hath been adorned He said.......

Reve 19:3 And a second-time they have declared "allelouia and the Smoke of Her is ascending into the Ages of the Ages".

 

[Rick Otto]

It never was "the true Church".
Ro 9:6 - Show Context Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

So, the question I want to pose is this. If Jewish religious authority ceased to exist with Christ's victory over death, then why is it appropriate for a Christian to regard the authority of a post-Christ council as the basis for deliniating what in the Bible is the word of God and what is not the word of God?

It isn't appropriate to regard church authority as a basis. It is appropriate to regard scripture as the basis. Where lack of internal integrity is, scripture isn't.

 

[Joachim]

It never was "the true Church".
Ro 9:6 - Show Context Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

It isn't appropriate to regard church authority as a basis. It is appropriate to regard scripture as the basis. Where lack of internal integrity is, scripture isn't.

It actually was. Our faith is the faith of Abraham. We are "Jews" in that sense. In fact, we are the true Jews in a sense. We are the ones who accepted the Messiah and continued in the true church. By crucifying Jesus, the Sanhedrin seperated what we now consider as Judaism from the true church which was then Judaism but which of course today, is Christianity.

 

[visionary]

If "church" means the true assembly of God's people, then Judaism has never been separated. If "church" means those who proclaim they are the "true church", then it was when they decreed all Judaisms must be removed from their faith.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It actually was. Our faith is the faith of Abraham. We are "Jews" in that sense. In fact, we are the true Jews in a sense.

We are the ones who accepted the Messiah and continued in the true church. By crucifying Jesus, the Sanhedrin seperated what we now consider as Judaism from the true church which was then Judaism but which of course today, is Christianity.

Interesting you should say that. No Orthodox Jew today would go for that of course.
Ever study this parable in Luke 16?

Luke 16:24 And he sounding said "Father Abraham! be thou merciful to-me! and send Lazarus! that he should be dipping the tip of the finger of him of water and should be cooling down the tongue of me that I am being pained in the Flame this."

Matthew 3:9 "And no ye should be thinking to say in yourselves 'a father we are having, the Abraham'. For I am saying unto ye, that is able the God out of the stones, these, to raise-up children to the Abraham.

This one Messianic Jew I feel was dead-on with his interpretation of that parable

Here a little, there a little - Lazarus and the Rich Man - Commentary

The fact that the rich man has five brothers is a vital clue to his true symbolic identity. Judah, the progenitor of the Jews, was the son of Jacob through Leah (Gen. 29:35). He had five full-blooded brothers: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulun (Gen. 35:23).
While the significance of this seemingly pointless detail has been neglected by scholars throughout the centuries, you can be certain that it did not escape the notice of the Pharisees and scribes to which Yeshua was speaking.

They thoroughly knew their history and were extremely proud of their heritage. Yeshua wanted those self-righteous Pharisees to know exactly who he was referring to with this parable. This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the House of Judah, the Jews!

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Joachim;It actually was.

Not at all. The true church can't all be accounted for by any such narrow ethnic or religious orientation according to Paul.
Rom2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Our faith is the faith of Abraham. We are "Jews" in that sense. In fact, we are the true Jews in a sense.

There ya go,... you just seperated what you first called the true church into nominal members & true believers, so what started out as "the true church" suddenly has members that are not "true believers", so how could they have been a part of "the true church"?

We are the ones who accepted the Messiah and continued in the true church.

But some of us are not related to Abraham, and many that were, were not "true belivers", so the "true church" wasn't all that true.

 

[Joachim]

Not at all. The true church can't all be accounted for by any such narrow ethnic or religious orientation according to Paul.
Rom2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


There ya go,... you just seperated what you first called the true church into nominal members & true believers, so what started out as "the true church" suddenly has members that are not "true believers", so how could they have been a part of "the true church"?
But some of us are not related to Abraham, and many that were, were not "true belivers", so the "true church" wasn't all that true.

When God spoke to Abraham, God established his church on Earth. Now some populations, such as the Persians, did come to know that there was one God, but God did not have a personal and select relationship with them like he did with Israel. Israel was chosen by God to be above all nations and God chose her to be his elect above all other peoples. She was until she rejected his son and her Messiah. At that point, what we think of as Judaism became seperated from that legacy with that legacy being carried on by Christianity.

 

[Chesterton]

It isn't appropriate to regard church authority as a basis. It is appropriate to regard scripture as the basis. Where lack of internal integrity is, scripture isn't.

Which scriptures tell us which scriptures should be Scripture?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Which scriptures tell us which scriptures should be Scripture?

What does that have to do with the OP

 

[Secundulus]

It was cut off the moment that Christ said "It is finished." The old covenant came to an end and the new covenant in his blood began.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It was cut off the moment that Christ said "It is finished." The old covenant came to an end and the new covenant in his blood began.

Yes. But it was not yet ALTOGETHER finished for the Jews at that point.
There still remained their Temple and Priesthood

Hebrews 8:8 "For faulting to-them He is saying 'behold, days are coming is saying Lord and I shall-be-together-finishing/sun-telesw <4931> (5692) upon the house of Israel and upon the house of Judah a Covenant, New

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7326950
New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 Hebrew 8

 

[Joachim]

What does that have to do with the OP

Everything. I specifically brought up the discussion regarding when Judaism lost its authority because many people make the claim that the Bible has only 66 books and the roots of that claim come from a Sanhedrin council that was occurred a half century after the Glorious Passion.

 

[Secundulus]

Yes. But it was not yet ALTOGETHER finished for the Jews at that point.
There still remained their Temple and Priesthood

Hebrews 8:8 "For faulting to-them He is saying 'behold, days are coming is saying Lord and I shall-be-together-finishing/sun-telesw <4931> (5692) upon the house of Israel and upon the house of Judah a Covenant, New

New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 Hebrew 8 - Christian Forums
New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 Hebrew 8

That is a quote from Jeremiah 31:31. That is what occurred when Jesus said, "It is finished."

NASB95, Hebrews 8:13
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That is a quote from Jeremiah 31:31. That is what occurred when Jesus said, "It is finished."

NASB95, Hebrews 8:13
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

And that is exactly what happened with the destruction of the OC Jewish Temple/Sanctuary and Priesthood.

I view Revelation as the fulfillment of that

Luke 21:5 And certain saying about the Temple that to stones ideal and devoted-things it hath been adorned He said.......

Reve 19:3 And a second-time they have declared "allelouia and the Smoke of Her is ascending into the Ages of the Ages".

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That is a quote from Jeremiah 31:31. That is what occurred when Jesus said, "It is finished."

NASB95, Hebrews 8:13
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

I would also say Hebrew 8:13 corresponds rather nicely with that passage Jesus spoke in Luke 5.

Will have to study on this as the greek is rather difficult to render sometimes.

Hebrews 8:13 in the to be saying 'New', He hath made old/pepalaiwken <3822> (5758) the first.
The yet being aged/palaioumenon <3822> (5746) and being obsolete/ghraskon <1095> (5723) nigh of disappearance/a-fanismou <854>

Luke 5:37 "And no one is casting young wine into old/palaiouV <3820> vessels, if yet no surely shall be ruined the wine, the young of the vessels and it shall be being poured-out and its vessel shall be perishing/apolountai <622> .
38 but young/neon <3501> wine into New/kainouV <2537> vessels is to be cast and both are preserved together.

 

[Secundulus]

I would also say Hebrew 8:13 corresponds rather nicely with that parable/metaphor Jesus spoke in Luke 5.
Will have to study on this as the greek is rather difficult to render sometimes.

Hebrews 8:13 in the to be saying 'New', He hath made old/pepalaiwken <3822> (5758) the first.
The yet being aged/palaioumenon <3822> (5746) and being obsolete/ghraskon <1095> (5723) nigh of disappearance/a-fanismou <854>

Luke 5:37 "And no one is casting young wine into old/palaiouV <3820> vessels, if yet no surely shall be ruined the wine, the young of the vessels and it shall be being poured-out and its vessel shall be perishing/apolountai <622> .
38 but young/neon <3501> wine into New/kainouV <2537> vessels is to be cast and both are preserved together.

You're right. Luke 5-37 is saying the same thing.

NASB95, Luke 5:36-39

And He was also telling them a parable: "No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old.
"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined.
"But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.
"And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good enough.’ "​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You're right. Luke 5-37 is saying the same thing.

While harmonizing the greek texts and translating Revelation, I noticed an interlinear I use had a different greek word in Reve 18:14.
2 of the texts used the greek word #622 as used in Luke 5 but the T-R used the greek word #565.


565. aperchomai ap-erkh'-om-ahee from 575 and 2064; to go off (i.e. depart), aside (i.e. apart) or behind (i.e. follow), literally or figuratively:--come, depart, go (aside, away, back, out, ... ways), pass away, be past.

622. apollumi ap-ol'-loo-mee from 575 and the base of 3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

Luke 5:37 "And no one is casting young wine into OLD/palaiouV <3820> vessels, if yet no surely shall be ruined the wine, the young of the vessels and it shall be being poured-out and its vessel shall be perishing/apolountai <622> .

Reve 18:14 `And the fruition of the desire of the soul of thee, departed from thee. And all the sumptious-things and shinings perished/*departed/aphlqen <565> (5627) from thee. And not still not no shall be finding them.

TexRec)
Revelation 18:14 kai h opwra thV epiqumiaV thV yuchV sou aphlqen apo sou kai panta ta lipara kai ta lampra aphlqen apo sou kai ouketi ou mh eurhshV auta

W-H)
Revelation 18:14 kai h opwra sou thV epiqumiaV thV yuchV *** aphlqen apo sou kai panta ta lipara kai ta lampra apwleto apo sou kai ouketi ou mh auta eurhsousin

ByzMaj)
Revelation 18:14 kai h opwra thV epiqumiaV thV yuchV sou aphlqen apo sou kai panta ta lipara kai ta lampra apwleto apo sou kai ouketi ou mh eurhV auta

 

[Hentenza]

I believe that the Jewish church stopped being the true church the day that Christ rose. Christ's crucifixition and resurrection ended the authority of Judaism as the true church.

To that end, I believe that any pronouncements or proscriptions issued by Jewish religious authorities after Christ's crucifixition do not have any bearing on Christians. We reject their authority because they rejected the authority of our Lord.

The reason that I bring this up is because there are many Christians who actually recognize a post-Pentecost Jewish religious decision as the basis for their belief concerning one of the most important elements of the faith. The Holy Scriptures.

The 73 books of the canon were undisputed until the Protestant Reformation. The smallest number of books ever included in the Bible until that time was 73. Some churches, such as the Ethiopians and certain Orthodox strains, used more. In the reformation, something amazing happened, suddenly, Christians began using a Jewish religious decision to decide what constituted the Old Testament. It was a practice first undertaken by Luther and then secondly by the church of the King of England. The result of this was that many Christians overtime came to believe that the Bible contained 66 books rather than 73 and further postulated a claim that the 7 disputed books were not the word of God but that the other 66 were.


The justification for this was based on using Jewish scripture, the idea being that the Old Testament was the word of God from when we were Jews. The problem with that logic is that the Jewish testament was not formalized until after the destruction of the Second Temple. The Council of Jamnia laid out what the Jewish Bible was. It rejected the Septuagint, rejecting the following books as not being part of the word of God: Parts of the Book of Daniel, Psalm 151, Prayer of Manesseh, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch.


Admittedly, some of these are also not part of the 73 that were widely held as the canon before the Reformation.


So, the question I want to pose is this. If Jewish religious authority ceased to exist with Christ's victory over death, then why is it appropriate for a Christian to regard the authority of a post-Christ council as the basis for deliniating what in the Bible is the word of God and what is not the word of God?

The Jewish "church" indeed carries no "authority" over Christians because they reject the new covenant. Now, I do find a few errors in your post.

1. The church whether Jewish or Christian has no "authority" over scripture but is the servant and minister of scripture. God is the cause of scripture and the church is the mode of scripture. The Jewish church nor the Christian church caused the scriptures to be written since neither can claim to be bigger that its cause.

2. The Jewish "church" relegated the written scripture to being co-authority to oral Torah which caused its demise.

3. The books of the Apocrypha (Old Testament) were rejected by the Jews as being infallible. Likewise, most of the early ECF's like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, etc. did not support them as canonical.

4. The first council to accept the apocrypha as canonical was the council of Rome in 382ad. This was not an ecumenical council. The only other councils to accept the apocripha during the early church were only local councils with no ecumenical force. Basically, no canonical list or council pf the Christian church accepted the apocrypha as inspired for most of the first four centuries.

5. Several of the Church fathers spoke against it like the ones that I have already mentioned. Later on Jerome also spoke against it.

6. None of the apocrypal books claim to be written by a prophet including 1 Macabees which even denies it (1 Mac. 9:27).

7. None of the apocryphal books contain suprenatural confirmation like it is with the prophets that wrote the canonical books.

8. There is no predictive prophesy in any of the apocryphal books like there is in the canonical books.

9. Neither Jesus nor the new testament writters quoted from them even though they were aware of them and alluded to them (like Heb. 11:35 alludes to 2 Mac. 7 although it may be a reference to 1 Kings 17:22).

There is quite a bit more evidence pointing to the non canonicity of these books. The one good thing is that we all agree on the 27 books of the NT.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

3. The books of the Apocrypha (Old Testament) were rejected by the Jews as being infallible. Likewise, most of the early ECF's like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, etc. did not support them as canonical.

There was an interesting thread on that over here if thou art interested. I myself have never read them since they weren't included in the NIV bible I started out with ehehe.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7316153/
The Apocrypha.

Hey guys. I'm a new member here, and i've got to ask yous something. Now this has been bothering me for quite some time: How reliable is the Apocrypha? Why was it removed? And what's up with all these other texts that have been found? (Dead Sea Scrolls, DSS, Latin Vulgate, and the Septuagent) What is up with these texts? Is it okay to read them? Should i read them? I understand that the catholic bible (KJVA) has the apocrypha, i'm not catholic. Please, help me out guys. Thank you.