A theory of Christianity

GrowingSmaller said:

I like to ponder things and just wanted to share. I once read a Jewish Rabbi who said that the bible was happening now, for each of us, and all of the stories were at once part of our own lives.

Click to expand...

This is not Christian teaching.

Personally, sounds like a load of crock to me.

GrowingSmaller said:

For every moment there is a temptation, for every sin there is a fall, for every fall there is a victim, for every victim there is a cross and a Christ

Click to expand...

Every temptation does not always result in a sin.
Sin is a failure to obey God and yes there is one cross and there is one Jesus who died for All sins once.

GrowingSmaller said:

I like to ponder things and just wanted to share. I once read a Jewish Rabbi who said that the bible was happening now, for each of us, and all of the stories were at once part of our own lives.

What about this as a speculative interpretation:

For every moment there is a temptation, for every sin there is a fall, for every fall there is a victim, for every victim there is a cross and a Christ.

So in terms of the "deadly sins" for greed there may be a poverty stricken Christ, and for pride there may be a rejected Christ etc.


I am still trying to make sense of the Eucharistic service, but maybe its like a cosmogram of the fallen world and the victims of sin within it??? And aids meditation, causes distress, and therefore reforms the heart?

Cosmogram - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

I would agree that while I respect the Catholics and see them as Christians, I do not see certain practices as things which were practiced early on in the faith. Christianity at its core is Jewish, it WAS considered a sect of Judaism in the first century, that is not disputable. But, over time animosity between Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Yeshua began to grow, and as the non-Jewish Christian population began to grow and outnumber the Jewish believing population, the faith began to shift away from being nearly indistinguishable from Jewish practices (i.e. keeping the 7th day Sabbath, Passover, etc.) to being something that was really more "new" than not. Decrees were even passed to make sure Christianity and Judaism were not confused as one. Here is an article I wrote a number of years ago... it is actually a small section from a much larger article. This one deals with the details of why Christianity ceased being more Jewish in practice. I am sharing it simply to bolster the idea that in the first century, the Eucharist as understood today was not a practice at that time.

Ken Rank said:

This one deals with the details of why Christianity ceased being more Jewish in practice. I am sharing it simply to bolster the idea that in the first century, the Eucharist as understood today was not a practice at that time.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Have you read the Didache? Their approach to the Eucharist doesn't seem to be that different from our own, or from the Catholics.

FireDragon76 said:

I disagree. Have you read the Didache? Their approach to the Eucharist doesn't seem to be that different from our own, or from the Catholics.

Click to expand...

Is the Didache inspired and we KNOW it to be authentic? We place it on the level of the 66 books? And we ignore the fact that the bread and wine used by Yeshua was done during a Passover Seder and not just instituted as an addition to the faith?

I don't care what anyone does with this... if you are convinced that the bread really becomes his body, then believe that. I shared a view, Christianity in the first century was a sect of Judaism and not a new religion.

I like the Didache, but I do not believe that it tells us if they believed in a literal body and blood of Christ or not.

Ken Rank said:

Is the Didache inspired and we KNOW it to be authentic?

Click to expand...

The Didache is believed by the consensus of scholars to date to the mid to late first century. It was known by the Orthodox for centuries but it was not rediscovered in the west until the late 19th century.

We place it on the level of the 66 books?

Click to expand...

The Didache is evidence of how the early followers of Jesus practiced their faith.

And we ignore the fact that the bread and wine used by Yeshua was done during a Passover Seder and not just instituted as an addition to the faith?

Click to expand...

The Lord's Supper is not a Passover seder. It has similar elements but Jesus reconstituted them into a unique rite. That it was a central rite for early Christians that formed their identity is evident by the fact that the Jesus words of institution appear not just in the Synoptic Gospels but also in Paul's writings.

I don't care what anyone does with this... if you are convinced that the bread really becomes his body, then believe that. I shared a view, Christianity in the first century was a sect of Judaism and not a new religion.

Click to expand...

Judaism was not one thing in the first century, just as Hinduism has many different interpretations today. It is erroneous to look to rabbinic Judaism, in isolation, to try to reconstruct early Christian beliefs and practice.

Basil the Great said:

I like the Didache, but I do not believe that it tells us if they believed in a literal body and blood of Christ or not.

Click to expand...

No, but it does show they viewed it as a central rite and a sacrament that formed their identity. It was not just crackers and grape juice.

Basil the Great said:

I like the Didache, but I do not believe that it tells us if they believed in a literal body and blood of Christ or not.

Click to expand...

I agree... I like it too and don't want to be misunderstood in that regard. It is clearly one of the older NT related documents we have. But it doesn't suggest transubstantiation in any way. I also find this interesting...

9:1 But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.

Literally this reads, "as touching the thanksgiving thanksgiving." Eucharist means "thanksgiving" and if this is meant to mean "communion," then why wouldn't that be the Greek word used there? Meaning, the Greek word for communion is koinōnia, as found in 1 Corinthians 10:16 (communion/koinōnia with the body of Christ). Catholics and Catholic inspired denominations use Eucharist NOW for communion, but there is no argument that can be made that it was used that way in the first century. This verse (9:1) seems added to, in my uneducated view.

The Eucharist actually refers to the second half of the liturgy, after the Synaxis (where we get the English term "synagogue", synaxis literally means "gathering"). Communion is the act of faithfully receiving the bread and wine used in the Eucharistic rite. Over time the term "Eucharist" became associated with the elements themselves. More properly, Catholics call the bread the Host, and the wine, the cup or chalice.

FireDragon76 said:

The Didache is believed by the consensus of scholars to date to the mid to late first century. It was known by the Orthodox for centuries but it was not rediscovered in the west until the late 19th century.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know.

FireDragon76 said:

The Didache is evidence of how the early followers of Jesus practiced their faith.

Click to expand...

I can grant you that... it is full of "follow the commandments" and does not support transubstantiation.

FireDragon76 said:

The Lord's Supper is not a Passover seder. It has similar elements but Jesus reconstituted them into a unique rite. That it was a central rite for early Christians that formed their identity is evident by the fact that the Jesus words of institution appear not just in the Synoptic Gospels but also in Paul's writings.

Click to expand...

Yes it was... all the way through the singing of the Great Hallels. If you have a first century Hagaddah (order of events for a Sedar) become familiar with it and then re-read the Last Supper account. It is pretty obvious at that point that the cup he raised and said "this is my blood" was the 3rd cup of the meal known as "the cup of redemption." And the bread that was broken is known as the afikomen.

As for Paul... I will let Paul speak for Paul...

1 Cor 5:7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.
1 Cor 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

FireDragon76 said:

Judaism was not one thing in the first century, just as Hinduism has many different interpretations today. It is erroneous to look to rabbinic Judaism, in isolation, to try to reconstruct early Christian beliefs and practice.

Click to expand...

You're correct... you had Pharisaical Judaism (in two forms, one letter of the law and one spirit of the law) you had the Essenes, the Sadducees (priests and elites), and beyond a few splinter groups like the zealots... you had a sect known as "Nazarene." This was the Christians... and we find them in Acts still going to the Synagogues on Sabbath and we can follow them beyond the first century. We can then see the decrees, passed mainly through Rome... that were designed to distance what we call Christianity from it's roots. Decrees like not keeping the Jewish Sabbath or eating the food of the Jews. Why would they have to pass such decrees if those weren't being practiced? THIS is a short article on why Christianity stopped looking so Jewish... it is footnoted, perhaps weight it out, at least?

FireDragon76 said:

No, but it does show they viewed it as a central rite and a sacrament that formed their identity. It was not just crackers and grape juice.

Click to expand...

Again, you're correct but not to the point you are taking this. It was the 3rd cup in the passover meal... the cup of redemption. And it was the 3rd piece of unleavened bread, the one from the middle of the other 2 that was broken, buried (symbolically) and brought back to the headed table and then shared... that was piece he declared to be his body.

Again... do as you are convicted but at least study that out... it will add depth to your understanding.

God bless.

FireDragon76 said:

The Eucharist actually refers to the second half of the liturgy, after the Synaxis (where we get the English term "synagogue", synaxis literally means "gathering").

Click to expand...

While synaxis does mean assembly (for the purpose of liturgical purpose) it is not where we get synagogue from. That word comes from the Greek sunagōgē, which obviously we can see means that "synagogue" is simply a transliteration of the Greek sunagōgē.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

If my Lutheran faith cannot save me, then I frankly have no interest in any other Christian teaching, and I would be better living as a pagan. We have the same faith as taught by Paul in his epistles. That is what we stand on. I do not need to become more Jewish to follow Jesus.

I actually believe the Eucharist drew on Jesus practice of sharing table fellowship with sinners, that seems to be the common understanding among many mainline Protestants. It is possible he drew upon the imagery of religious meals frequent in Judaism, but I think its just as likely Jesus recognized the importance of food in creating fellowship in peoples lives when he instituted the rite.

At any rate, the Eucharist is not a Passover Seder in our religion, we do not commemorate Moses leading the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt - we commemorate Christ leading us from death to life. Confusing the two rites does a disservice to our Jewish neighbors, who have their own customs whose legitimacy stands on their own merits, and it does a disservice to my religion, which does not view being Jewish or practicing Jewish customs as essential to salvation.

FireDragon76 said:

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

If my Lutheran faith cannot save me, then I frankly have no interest in any other Christian teaching, and I would be better living as a pagan. We have the same faith as taught by Paul in his epistles. That is what we stand on. I do not need to become more Jewish to follow Jesus.

I actually believe the Eucharist drew on Jesus practice of sharing table fellowship with sinners, that seems to be the common understanding among many mainline Protestants. It is possible he drew upon the imagery of religious meals frequent in Judaism, but I think its just as likely Jesus recognized the importance of food in creating fellowship in peoples lives when he instituted the rite.

At any rate, the Eucharist is not a Passover Seder in our religion, we do not commemorate Moses leading the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt - we commemorate Christ leading us from death to life. Confusing the two rites does a disservice to our Jewish neighbors, who have their own customs whose legitimacy stands on their own merits, and it does a disservice to my religion, which does not view being Jewish or practicing Jewish customs as essential to salvation.

Click to expand...

If you think salvation is found in the Lutheran faith, you need to just remain a Lutheran and ignore me. I do not want to be a reason you stumble. Be blessed.

GrowingSmaller said:

I like to ponder things and just wanted to share. I once read a Jewish Rabbi who said that the bible was happening now, for each of us, and all of the stories were at once part of our own lives.

What about this as a speculative interpretation:

For every moment there is a temptation, for every sin there is a fall, for every fall there is a victim, for every victim there is a cross and a Christ.

So in terms of the "deadly sins" for greed there may be a poverty stricken Christ, and for pride there may be a rejected Christ etc.


I am still trying to make sense of the Eucharistic service, but maybe its like a cosmogram of the fallen world and the victims of sin within it??? And aids meditation, causes distress, and therefore reforms the heart?

Cosmogram - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Obviously that is not what Christ taught, but it is an interesting thought exercise. I heard a couple of others I liked that helped me interpret life. Neither even suggests it's the truth. Rather, they are there to make you think about how to interpret your life and/or how you treat others.

First one:

Imagine that before you were born you were allowed to choose the environment into which you were born, specifically because in this life you desired to learn specific lessons. i.e. you chose the country you live in, the parents you have, etc.

It causes you to interpret the problems in your life very differently. For starters, you see the "hard stuff" as things that are supposed to be hard, in order to teach you what you need to learn.

Second one:
Imagine there is such a thing as reincarnation and, as in the first thought exercise, you are supposed to learn certain things in this life. However, the fun twist is this: When you die, you come back as someone else that may have actually lived before you're last life's timeline. e.g. you could die as a rich man of old age in 1990, and be reincarnated a girl in 1200 north Africa.

And here is the fun part: Every single person that ever lived is you. This planet is occupied by one person, in billions of finite length linear time incarnations: you.

How does that make you feel about all the people you encounter every day? Does it motivate you to treat them any differently?

Note: I'm not saying this has anything to do with Christianity. It doesn't. But it broadens ones mind to think about stuff differently. And let me tell you, our condition and the next age are certainly far different than how we actually imagine them to be, almost certainly.

Ken Rank said:

If you think salvation is found in the Lutheran faith, you need to just remain a Lutheran and ignore me. I do not want to be a reason you stumble. Be blessed.

Click to expand...

You do not cause me to stumble, but really, having assurance of salvation is very simple. Believe in Jesus, and follow him. That does not necessarily involve becoming religious. Religion can be a beautiful thing, but it is not the one thing needful for our souls.

Everything we do to help people understand the Gospel must be centered on Jesus. George Tyrrell, over a century ago, was right to point out that the quest for the historical Jesus, divorced from what is commonly revealed to the Church, really just shows us only into our own imagination. Understanding Jesus Jewish context can be important, but it has limitations as well, if it causes us to doubt that God lives today and speaks today through tangible, visible means.

In our Lutheran faith, just as with Catholics, the Eucharist is not mere hocus pocus, a magic trick God does to impress rubes, it is a tangible way that God communicates his grace to us and imparts the life of the world to come. It's hard not to get a bit testy about it when somebody insists its just a Jewish Passover meal. Moses can't save me, only Christ does that.

FireDragon76 said:

You do not cause me to stumble, but really, having assurance of salvation is very simple. Believe in Jesus, and follow him. That does not necessarily involve becoming religious. Religion can be a beautiful thing, but it is not the one thing needful for our souls.

Everything we do to help people understand the Gospel must be centered on Jesus. Understanding Jesus Jewish context can be important, but it has limitations as well, if it causes us to doubt that God lives today and speaks today through tangible, visible means.

In our Lutheran faith, just as with Catholics, the Eucharist is not mere hocus pocus, a magic trick God does to impress rubes, it is a tangible way that God communicates his grace to us and imparts the life of the world to come. It's hard not to get a bit testy about it when somebody insists its just a Jewish Passover meal. Moses can't save me, only Christ does that.

Click to expand...

What I meant was... by me sharing any more history that conflicts with your current understanding... it seems that if you found out that any of it was true and that something you hold dear today is not, that THAT might be a cause to stumble and I don't want to be the reason that happens.

The Last Supper was a Passover Sedar. I can lay out enough information from the various gospels against the order of events as done in the first century and, again, there is enough evidence to prove Yeshua was following that order, he was doing a Passover Seder even if not on the correct night.

Doing a Passover meal has nothing to do with Moses saving you... God saves and that is all there is about that. Yet, that doesn't mean we can't do a Seder... Yeshua did... and he is our model to follow. I have always found it odd that Christians say they follow Jesus... but then demean the very things Jesus did. He was a Law abiding Jew and we have demonized the law and Jews for the most part.

I follow Jesus and imitate him by loving my neighbors as best I can, not by appropriating the religion he was raised in as my own. The religion truly pleasing to God is to care for our neighbor in their distress. This is what Jesus commanded, after all. He did not command that we gentiles keep Jewish laws. In fact never once did he suggest in his interactions with gentiles that they needed to do this.

I don't demonize Jews. At one time in my life, in my spiritual wanderings, I seriously contemplated converting to Judaism. I think that's a stereotype, that Christians now days are anti-Jewish. Go to most mainline Protestant seminaries and you will see a wealth of scholarship on Judaism. All of our pastors must study some Hebrew. We mainline Lutherans in particular have sought to better understand our Jewish neighbors in light of the tragedies of the 20th century.

I don't believe in celebrating Jewish seders because I am not Jewish and it would be potentially offensive to my Jewish neighbors to appropriate their rituals as my own (ever heard of cultural appropriation?). If I were invited to a synagogue or a Jewish Passover I would not have a problem with attending, but I do not believe it contributes in any way to my salvation. If I believe otherwise, then I am potentially desecrating the one sufficient sacrifice of Christ for my sins and the sins of the whole world.

FireDragon76 said:

I follow Jesus and imitate him by loving my neighbors as best I can, not by appropriating the religion he was raised in as my own. The religion truly pleasing to God is to care for our neighbor in their distress. This is what Jesus commanded, after all. He did not command that we gentiles keep Jewish laws. In fact never once did he suggest in his interactions with gentiles that they needed to do this.

I don't demonize Jews. At one time in my life, in my spiritual wanderings, I seriously contemplated converting to Judaism. I think that's a stereotype, that Christians now days are anti-Jewish. Go to most mainline Protestant seminaries and you will see a wealth of scholarship on Judaism. All of our pastors must study some Hebrew. We mainline Lutherans in particular have sought to better understand our Jewish neighbors in light of the tragedies of the 20th century.

I don't believe in celebrating Jewish seders because I am not Jewish and it would be potentially offensive to my Jewish neighbors to appropriate their rituals as my own (ever heard of cultural appropriation?). If I were invited to a synagogue or a Jewish Passover I would not have a problem with attending, but I do not believe it contributes in any way to my salvation. If I believe otherwise, then I am potentially desecrating the one sufficient sacrifice of Christ for my sins and the sins of the whole world.

Click to expand...

That's all fine and like I said... why you and I don't need to have this discussion. You see "Jewish Laws" and I see "God's Laws." You see "Jewish Feasts" and I see "these are my feasts, says the LORD." We just read Scripture through two entirely different paradigms and that is fine. Just keep doing what you are doing.

Be blessed.