Why did Jewish Christianity die out in the first few centuries of the church?

[OldWiseGuy]

We all suffer persecution, OldWise Guy, it's part of being apart of the family of Christ

Perhaps, but not continually.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Wow! Well you have a right to your Opinion!

Well, I seemed to have struck a chord, unknowingly. The weight of education in what is real persecution and what is self-pity is hard to ignore once the eyes have been opened.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Perhaps, but not continually.

Self-pity is more likely the continuous "affliction."

 

[Ronit]

Well, I seemed to have struck a chord, unknowingly. The weight of education in what is real persecution and what is self-pity is hard to ignore once the eyes have been opened.

Man I didn't know I was in a contest. Just forget it man

 

[Ronit]

Man I didn't know I was in a contest. Just forget it man

I will say no more

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Man I didn't know I was in a contest. Just forget it man

A chord is not a context. You might want to do as you promised.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

None of that answers my question. I asked where in the Bible you have quotes in the New Testament where only those of that tribe were called Jews and the others were all called "dogs.*

It's a matter of history, supported by scripture. "Dogs" is a term of derision leveled at evildoers as well as Gentiles in general.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It's a matter of history, supported by scripture. There is no direct quote.

So it is guess work. No one who actually lived there at the time called other tribes "dogs" in words nor by how they treated inhabitants who were not of Benjamin, Judah or Levi. There isn't a single reference to writings of the time that refer to other descendants of Israel as "dogs" by other descendants of Israel I gather. No distain for offspring because they were of the tribe of Rueben, et al. can be found. OK, then I can easily dismiss that idea same as many others who insist what people thought millenia ago without any references from people living millenia ago.

It is very common to hear others tell us what people long ago thought without any read reason to do so and when one finally reads what they actually thought, the difference is remarkable.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So it is guess work. No one who actually lived there at the time called other tribes "dogs" in words nor by how they treated inhabitants who were not of Benjamin, Judah or Levi. There isn't a single reference to writings of the time that refer to other descendants of Israel as "dogs" by other descendants of Israel I gather. No distain for offspring because they were of the tribe of Rueben, et al. can be found. OK, then I can easily dismiss that idea same as many others who insist what people thought millenia ago without any references from people living millenia ago.

It is very common to hear others tell us what people long ago thought without any read reason to do so and when one finally reads what they actually thought, the difference is remarkable.

Perhaps you should do a study on the topic. Lots of information from biblical and secular sources. Check out Matthew 15:22-28.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This question was prompted by reading the first part (up to Constantine) of The Cambridge History of Christianity. In a chapter on Jewish Christianity, the author defines this as Christians who observed Jewish rites such as circumcision or food laws. He gives the following possible reasons for the demise of Jewish Christianity:

1. The two abortive Jewish rebellions against the Romans
2. The consequential rise in power of the rabbis
3. The message that Gentile converts to Christianity didn't have to observe Jewish laws

The author notes that the refuter of heresy, Irenaeus, spends far more time refuting Gnosticism than "Judaizers" that figure so much in the New Testament polemics. This is evidence for the early demise of Jewish Christianity.

The author then argues this became a tragedy for the Jews (and Christians?) leading to the well known "bloody history of ecclesiastical anti-Semitism".

There are Jewish Christians today but sadly they are few in number, especially in Israel.

There is often this idea that "Jewish Christianity" faded and "Gentile Christianity" took over. But this seems like a really bad narrative.

Rather we have Apostolic Christianity, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. It's not that "Gentile Christianity" became dominant, it's that Apostolic Christianity continued to grow in spite of both external pressures (persecution) and internal pressures (heresy). There were always going to be more Gentile Christians than Jewish Christians simply on the basis of pure numbers.

At its peak (about 160 AD) the Roman Empire had a population of between 60 and 70 million people. The 13th century Jewish historian Bar Hebraeus, using ancient census data, hypothesized that there were between 6 and 7 million Jews living in the ancient Roman world, this figure is debated today as perhaps too high, but for the sake of argument let's use it. That means in the Roman Empire alone, at its peak in the mid 2nd century, there was a total population of upwards of 70 million, and a Jewish population no more than 7 million. So even within the limits of the Roman Empire it was simply going to be a matter of pure demographics that, as Christianity gained new converts, most of those converts were going to be non-Jews.

It may be valid to ask if, with time, perhaps the Church did lose some valuable insight from Jewish members of the Body; but there can be a strong temptation to think that "Jewish" means "more authentic", and that's a problematic paradigm to have. That is, that simply making something seem more Jewish translates into being more representative of the Apostolic religion; but it doesn't. We need to remember that both Jews and Gentiles are equally in the Body, that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ, and that the bishops who succeeded the Apostles were both Jewish and Gentile--and that they shared the same Apostolic faith in Jesus Christ. And this is the faith that is witnessed to in those early centuries, and, continually as history moved forward. Understanding the religious, cultural, and political context of Christianity, of what the world looked like at the time of Jesus, and during the ministry of the Apostles, that's a very good thing. And understanding the Jewish context of Christianity is a good thing.

But it's very different to understand in what ways Jesus and what He said and did fits within the mileau of first century Roman Judea; and thinking that if a Christian observes the Jewish Passover instead of the Paschal Feast of Christ's resurrection he/she is somehow being more "authentic"--because it's not. Rather, the best way to honor the Jewish context of Christianity is to recognize the inherent Jewishness of Christianity--in the Sacraments, in the Liturgy, in the traditional Christian calendar, etc. These aren't "Gentile" things which replaced "Jewish" things. These are Apostolic things that happened--and happen--at the great Shalom of God which is in Jesus between Jew and Gentile as the one new people (Ephesians 2:11-22).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

Rather we have Apostolic Christianity, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. It's not that "Gentile Christianity" became dominant, it's that Apostolic Christianity continued to grow in spite of both external pressures (persecution) and internal pressures (heresy). There were always going to be more Gentile Christians than Jewish Christians simply on the basis of pure numbers.

It appears that this is oversimplified. As I understand it, there was a spectrum. Just as we have non-Jewish Christians now who believe it's appropriate to honor the Sabbath, the same was probably true in the first few centuries.

It is very likely that the first Gentile Christians were "God fearers." These were people who were loosely part of the Jewish community, but weren't circumcised. It also appears that the definition of Jew was more flexible in the early days.

Thus the fact Gentiles outnumbered ethnic Jews doesn't produce a crisp an answer as one might expect, when the distinction was grayer than it is now.

(This is pretty vague. I'm about to read up on it so I can give more specific information.)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Perhaps you should do a study on the topic. Lots of information from biblical and secular sources. Check out Matthew 15:22-28.

Where do you get the idea that Canaanites were a tribe of Israel?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Where do you get the idea that Canaanites were a tribe of Israel?

If you read the story carefully (as well as the story of the "Samaritan woman" at the well, John 4) you will understand. Also check out Matthew 4:13-16, and follow up in Isaiah for the full story.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If you read the story carefully (as well as the story of the "Samaritan woman" at the well) you will understand.

First I know both accounts very well. Second I did some outside search of who the canaanites were and they were not of Israelite origin. They were Gentiles and the Gentiles were sometimes called “dogs” by the Israelies.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

First I know both accounts very well. Second I did some outside search of who the canaanites were and they were not of Israelite origin. They were Gentiles and the Gentiles were sometimes called “dogs” by the Israelies.

That 'woman of Canaan' was an Israelite, as was the Samaritan woman at the well. They were called Canaanite and Samaritan because that's where they lived. Many nationalities and tribal groups lived in those regions. The poorest of the people weren't taken away by the Assyrians, which was common practice. In fact the number of the final deportees was less than 30,000 Israelites, likely only high ranking people and leaders. The poor held no value for the Assyrians.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That 'woman of Canaan' was an Israelite, as was the Samaritan woman at the well.

No evidence for this. You wish it to be so, but it is not according to non-biased sources.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No evidence for this. You wish it to be so, but it is not according to non-biased sources.

The evidence is in the stories. But you have to study them carefully.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That 'woman of Canaan' was an Israelite, as was the Samaritan woman at the well. They were called Canaanite and Samaritan because that's where they lived. Many nationalities and tribal groups lived in those regions. The poorest of the people weren't taken away by the Assyrians, which was common practice. In fact the number of the final deportees was less than 30,000 Israelites, likely only high ranking people and leaders. The poor held no value for the Assyrians.

Guy, you apparently want very much to believe this and there doesn’t seem to bench point in continuing. Wishing you well!!

 

[dqhall]

Oh I have Josephus and I do look things up. But I do like to see what Judaism says about things as well. Let me give you an example of Telushkin which I wouldn't get from josephus.
Telushkin actually said that in the time of the destruction of the temple that Josephus was probably loved by the people, and Rabbi zakkai was probably hated to the point that many wanted him dead for what he did. Zakkai today is credited with saving Judaism and requesting Yavneh and it's sages from the Emperor. Not to spare Jerusalem and the temple. The kicker here is (even though he does not say it outright) it is Zakkai that supposedly escaped the city by stealth (or deceit) gained favor with the Emperor for prophesying he would be the next Emperor. He and the sages are the compilers of the Talmud and Talmudic Judaism, we see today. So basically Telushkin was admitting that he thought Josephus having done this act was the true version, and the Talmudic version a crock. I like having confirmation like that from the other side.
To me its kind of a check on any of my own biases to hear from the other side like that.

The fact the Talmudic Jews reject Jesus makes their writings suspect.

I read the Talmud for their views of what is clean and unclean. I was in a library as I did not find the Talmud Yerushalmi online in those days. There was Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai and others expounding on superstition that has been surpassed by medical science. I would rather read a medical researcher than an Orthodox rabbi’s opinion about what is clean.

 

[ralliann]

The fact the Talmudic Jews reject Jesus makes their writings suspect.

I read the Talmud for their views of what is clean and unclean. I was in a library as I did not find the Talmud Yerushalmi online in those days. There was Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai and others expounding on superstition that has been surpassed by medical science. I would rather read a medical researcher than an Orthodox rabbi’s opinion about what is clean.

I was reading it for their view of history. I had my own views and still do. Things that Maybe I would get a clearer picture on. An example is What did the Pharisees teach to do, that they themselves did not do. Just things like that also