How Do the Mainstreams of Christianity Look MJ As?

[Avodat]

The Gospels were not written in Hebrew. They were written in Greek.

The collected sayings of the Lord may have been written in a language other than Greek, but it is unlikely, to be honest. That would presuppose a literate society with a general ability to write Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, which I think is not realistic. What is far more likely is that when wanting to provide a written record, the Gospel writers used a well established language, with a longstanding literary tradition. They went to Greek scribes, and the Greek scribes wrote the gospels to their dictation.

Why Greek and not Latin? Because Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, as Latin was of Christian Europe, and as English is for much of the world today.

St Paul was capable of writing, but even he did not write his own letters. When he adds a postscript in his own hand he remarks on how large his letters are, compared with those of the scribe. In other words, he could write, but he was not adept at it.

Because we learn to read and write at the same time we assume the two go together. They don't. It is more than possible to learn to read a language without having the ability to write it, and this would have been the case for the majority of people in the ancient world. If they could read it would not be much. And if they could read, they would not necessarily be able to write. And even if they could do both, they would use a scribe to write letters for them, and perhaps also to read and translate where necessary those they received.

Academically, that is a very highly contentious matter. Matthew, in particular, is believed to have been written, originally, in Hebrew and, possibly, John as well. I wouldn't make a categorical statement as you have

 

[Catherineanne]

There is a difference between then and now. The rabbis have had almost 2000 years to warp Judaism into an anti-christian cocoon wrapped around the Jewish people.

Oooh goody! I get to say one of my favourite quotes, from Fiddler on the Roof, so, best Topol voice and here goes:

How often does a man get a compliment like that?

 

[Catherineanne]

I’m glad you’re the one who said it, not me.

I may have to book confession for next week. I am far too wicked.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Speaking for myself, and for what small part of Anglicanism I can be regarded as being a part of, I have no problem with Messianics, and I respect their beliefs very highly. If it were possible for me to live a Messianic life, I would. I know far too little about it, however, so instead of fake Messianic I settle for authentic Anglo Catholic. If I can't even remember to remember to say the Angelus regularly, I would be hopeless trying to add appropriate Sabbath observance, let alone anything else.

I think authentic Messianic Christianity is the closest form to that of the Lord himself, his mother and the apostles. I don't know any Anglican who would regard that, or the aspiration to live a similar life, as crazy.

There are people all around the world who feel exactly as you do when it comes to respecting Messianic Judaism and seeing authentic Messianic Christianity as perhaps the best reflection of what the Lord would be walking out. There are other forms as well which many Jewish believers have felt would reflect what the apostles/Christ lived out as well, be it those who are Hebrew Catholics ( more shared here and here )/Messianic Jews within circles that are Eastern Catholic/Byzantine in nature---or Jewish believers expressing their Jewishness through Orthodox systems (more shared here, here, here, here, here, here , here , here , here , here , here, here , here , here, here , here, here, here and here at Jewish and Christian - Reocities if knowing of Fr. A. James Bernstein , who is a Jew that was a part of Orthodox Judaism but joined Orthodoxy when seeing the temple nature of Israel refelected there).

To see what happens around the world is beautiful.

Thanks for sharing as you did

 

[Catherineanne]

Academically, that is a very highly contentious matter. Matthew, in particular, is believed to have been written, originally, in Hebrew and, possibly, John as well. I wouldn't make a categorical statement as you have

I imagine there are lots of things I would say that you would not. And vice versa. However, not Hebrew.

A possible alternative for the collected sayings later found in Matthew is Aramaic. Matthew itself is thought to be 80 - 90, give or take a decade. But John was either written in Ephesus or Syria, ca 100 - 110. Bit pointless using Aramaic there, or anywhere, come to that. Few could read it, and fewer write it.

Rather like writing a political manifesto today in Welsh. No disrespect to the Welsh; it can be done, and some can read it, but it is not really the way to disseminate any given message as widely as possible.

Amazing erudition courtesy of An Introduction to the New Testament, by RE Brown (nihil obstat). Flippant bits in between all mine. In case anyone was fooled into thinking I knew all this stuff by myself; I don't.

 

[Catherineanne]

There are people all around the world who feel exactly as you do when it comes to respecting Messianic Judaism and seeing authentic Messianic Christianity as perhaps the best reflection of what the Lord would be walking out. There are other forms as well which many Jewish believers have felt would reflect what the apostles/Christ lived out as well, be it those who are Hebrew Christians/Messianic Jews within circles that are Eastern Catholic in nature---or Jewish believers expressing their Jewishness through Orthodox systems (more shared here, here, here, here, here, here , here , here , here , here , here, here , here , here, here , here, here, here and here at Jewish and Christian - Reocities if knowing of Fr. A. James Bernstein , who is a Jew that was a part of Orthodox Judaism but joined Orthodoxy when seeing the temple nature of Israel refelected there).

To see what happens around the world is beautiful.

It is indeed. I think people are much the same everywhere; we all want the same, and fear the same. People are God's most beautiful creation, imo.

Thanks for sharing as you did

You are more than welcome.

It may take me a while to look at all of those links, but many thanks for providing them.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It is indeed. I think people are much the same everywhere; we all want the same, and fear the same. People are God's most beautiful creation, imo.

People are indeed the most beautiful creation God has made...as they are a living Mosaic and reflection of the sheer extensiveness of diversity in heaven. People can often be united in the same struggle and desires but not realize it due to language or being on other sides of the street/unaware of what's happening in the world of another...

You are more than welcome.

It may take me a while to look at all of those links, but many thanks for providing them.

Oh, by no means no rush. Not a problem

 

[Catherineanne]

We can identify five gospel sources: (1) text that is common to Matthew, Mark and Luke; (2) text that is common to Matthew and Luke (taken from “Q” (3) text that is unique to Matthew; (4) text that is unique to Luke; and, (5) the gospel of John (which shares none of the stories that the other gospels have).

Postulate. Not identify. Much of that remains unproven, and some of it is contested. Not everyone accepts Q.

The most interesting, in my opinion, is where the text is shared between the three Synoptics and altered for whatever reason. For example, as Bart Ehrman discusses in Misquoting Jesus, Mark presents Jesus in anguish as he goes to the cross, while Luke removes all of the struggle and emotion from the descriptions at each point. Luke presents Jesus as resolute, knowing why he is going to the cross and certain that God will be with him in the end. Mark presents him as in such anguish that he sweats drops of blood, etc. We know that Luke used Mark as a source, so we have to ask ourselves why Luke removed these things from his record? Ehrman makes a good suggestion in his book, but I don’t want to spoil it for you.

Luke did not remove anything but he was not a disciple. He was a doctor and a companion of Paul. He writes using the source material, but from a different perspective. Tradition tells us that Luke was a very close friend of St Mary, and it is clear that his descriptions very often come from her. So he has the collection of sayings, and he has Our Lady to describe the bits in between. From her point of view, her Son was resolute. Maybe that is all that he allowed her to see. His friends may have seen his fear, but he did not show it to his mother.

Meanwhile, when addressing Greeks with their respect for Socrates and his distinctly Stoic approach to death, a wimpy Messiah really is not going to be much use. Ditto when addressing Vikings and Anglo Saxons, funnily enough. If you read the Dream of the Rood you will find a very heroic portrayal of Christ as a young warrior embracing death.

http://www.lightspill.com/poetry/oe/rood.html

Culture is an important factor, in other words; who is being addressed and what is their view of an appropriate attitude to death.

I don’t think so. I’m not sure why you think that we have received so much of it.

Simple. I would not have chucked great reams of it away, and I cannot see that the gospel writers would have done so either.

I personally have several letters and a signed book from the present Archbishop of Canterbury addressed to myself. I won't throw them away, my daughter won't throw them away, and when she has children in years to come, those children won't throw them away. That is how it works.

And the Archbishop is not even the Son of God; just an Archbishop.

The synoptics do not claim to present us with more than a single year of the life of Jesus (though, in order to complement John’s apparent three Passover meals, we have generally been told that they represent three years – even though only one Passover takes place in the Synoptics), and that can hardly be everything that Jesus taught. Perhaps he actually taught something that would clarify the theological arguments carried out today by those who follow him. What if he had laid down more specifics about whether or not his followers need to keep the Law (which Matthew answers in the affirmative, while the other gospels give no opinion on this, and Paul comes out against it)? Wouldn’t that have cleared up the question so that it wouldn’t become a debate in the church so much later? I imagine that there are a lot of things that Jesus did and said that would have been useful in a reconstruction of his life, had we heard of them.

Certainly he said and did more than was written down. But of what was written down, I think we have the majority. Some bits may have been edited out, but I think very little; having four gospels ensures that what one forgets or omits, another will include.

We have to be careful not to mistake Gospel for biography, though. The purpose of the Gospels is to encourage believers in their faith. It is not to provide a diary of the three years of the Lord's ministry.

I agree that it’s the same problem, but I would take it the other way – as reason to question the validity of the entire Bible. If people have faith in God, it needs to be for good reasons, and it should probably be separate from any claims to plenary verbal inspiration.

Did I make any such claims? The only claim I would make for the Bible as it stands is canonicity. Other than that I leave it to make its own claims.

 

[Avodat]

I imagine there are lots of things I would say that you would not. And vice versa. However, not Hebrew.

A possible alternative for the collected sayings later found in Matthew is Aramaic. Matthew itself is thought to be 80 - 90, give or take a decade. But John was either written in Ephesus or Syria, ca 100 - 110. Bit pointless using Aramaic there, or anywhere, come to that. Few could read it, and fewer write it.

Rather like writing a political manifesto today in Welsh. No disrespect to the Welsh; it can be done, and some can read it, but it is not really the way to disseminate any given message as widely as possible.

Amazing erudition courtesy of An Introduction to the New Testament, by RE Brown (nihil obstat). Flippant bits in between all mine. In case anyone was fooled into thinking I knew all this stuff by myself; I don't.

As I said, it is a highly contentious area - different academics hold to different opinions on these two gospels, both in relation to original language and in purpose.

Regarding widest possible distribution - we do not know that their aim was to spread it far and wide. Both John and Matthew could be argued to be written to/for indigenous Jews, not for everyone on earth at the time, and therefore writing in a semitic language would make more sense. The content of the two gospels is more Jew-friendly (if you see my point), as opposed to Luke who was writing for a particular purpose to a particular person. Mark is the podcast gospel - a very portable, short account of what he deemed to be the things that people really ought to know about Messiah; every section of Mark has a particular lesson for the knowing reader to discover, buried in the writing of each page. It is just like a modern podcast where you can learn the essence of a subject in a relatively short, yet deep, session of reading / hearing. That is why Mark is one of the best to start reading if people are searching into Christianity.

 

[Catherineanne]

As I said, it is a highly contentious area - different academics hold to different opinions on these two gospels, both in relation to original language and in purpose.

Regarding widest possible distribution - we do not know that their aim was to spread it far and wide. Both John and Matthew could be argued to be written to/for indigenous Jews, not for everyone on earth at the time, and therefore writing in a semitic language would make more sense. The content of the two gospels is more Jew-friendly (if you see my point), as opposed to Luke who was writing for a particular purpose to a particular person. Mark is the podcast gospel - a very portable, short account of what he deemed to be the things that people really ought to know about Messiah; every section of Mark has a particular lesson for the knowing reader to discover, buried in the writing of each page. It is just like a modern podcast where you can learn the essence of a subject in a relatively short, yet deep, session of reading / hearing. That is why Mark is one of the best to start reading if people are searching into Christianity.

Anachronism is a wonderful thing.

General individual aristocratic or higher middle class readers of the Bible are not found until way into the 16th century; lower classes far later; 19th century at best. At any time before that the Bible was read out in church, and then expounded to the congregation in homily form. And even your 'Jew-friendly' versions take pains to explain what it is that the Jews are up to; they do not assume that those listening will know. Hardly what one would expect if they were addressed to Jewish people, or even Jewish converts.

However, this is probably getting far too much off topic. Perhaps another time and another place, Av.

 

[yedida]

That’s a really awful thing to say.



Using a computer on Shabbat is a violation of doing work all in itself. This is a universal understood by all Jews. How would you define מְלָאכָה mlachah (used most commonly in the Torah to refer to craftsmanship or handiwork)? Traditionally, it is defined in 39 categories of things that were performed in the construction of the tabernacle in the wilderness. The commandment specifically says that you will do no mlachah on Shabbat. In fact, even sitting in McDonald’s is enough to violate Shabbat, since those who pass by (if they know me – not that anyone in New York knows me!) would assume that I had bought something to eat. (I didn’t of course. I was sitting there because of the free Internet, with my computer and book that I’m reading.)



What we see in the Acts of the Apostles is a letter written to forbid Gentile believers from eating three things: (1) meat offered to idols; (2) blood; and, (3) the meat of strangled animals. This is a far cry from the kosher standards of Jewish food, even assuming differences between then and now. We can actually be certain that Paul didn’t teach even these restrictions, since he stated outright in his writings that “we know an idol is nothing” and that anyone who eats the meat sacrified to idols does so “with faith” and is not guilty before God. He specifically said that those who do not eat should not judge those who do, and those who eat should not look down on those who do not eat — whom he described as “weak of faith.”

1 Corinthians 8:4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. (NIV)​

There is no reason to imagine that Paul did not teach this very thing in his congregation in Antioch, and it was the weak conscience of those who came from James that caused Peter, Barnabas and the rest of the Jews to fall into hypocrisy (in Romans 14, he does not say weak conscience but weak faith that keeps someone from eating “all things”).



The problem was very much with the food. A Jew who ate in the home of a Gentile was considered defiled because of the types of things that they brought into their homes as food – in addition to the stereotypical practices of Gentiles at the time. Your failure to acknowledge this is striking. The issue was certainly that James’ emissaries had come to see what was going on in Paul’s congregations, and when they found Peter and the others eating things that were forbidden, they called them out for it – and at their instigation, Peter withdrew from fellowship with the congregation. Paul was steamed and called him on the carpet for it, stating that he was essentially destroying the work of God. Elsewhere (in Ephesians) it is at least claimed that Paul wrote about the work of God bringing down the division between the two bodies – Jews and Gentiles – and he states that this division was brought down through the cross.

Ephesians 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two [that is, the “circumcision” (Jews) and “uncircumcision” (Gentiles) as expressed above in this chapter], thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. (New International Version)​

The fact that Peter, Barnabas and the rest withdrew from the Gentiles represented to Paul a failure to recognize the completed work of God, and it was all about their insistence on the importance of keeping Torah. Paul opposed them staunchly and vehemently, making it clear that Jesus’ death was an abolishment of the Torah and the Mitzvah (commandment) and that through the cross there was no longer any dividing barrier between Jew and Gentile, but that all would have access to God in the same way – and that was without Torah.

Romans 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (New International Version)​

The phrase “apart from the law” here in Greek is χωρὶς νόμου, “without law.” The righteousness of God that Paul preached was without the Torah. He said it so often and in so many ways that it should be clear enough.

We've either misread Paul or it is simply he is wrong. I'd rather take the stance that Paul was a liar and false apostle tham that God made a boo-boo. One of those three options has to be it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

We've either misread Paul or it is simply he is wrong. I'd rather take the stance that Paul was a liar and false apostle tham that God made a boo-boo. One of those three options has to be it.

Well, Paul's bro Peter did seem to imply that his sayings were difficult to understand

2 Peter 3:15 and the long-suffering of our Lord count ye salvation, according as also our beloved brother Paul--according to the wisdom given to him--did write to you
16 as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, among which things are certain hard to be understood, which the untaught and unstable do wrest, as also the other Writings, unto their own destruction

 

[Catherineanne]

We've either misread Paul or it is simply he is wrong. I'd rather take the stance that Paul was a liar and false apostle tham that God made a boo-boo. One of those three options has to be it.

I suspect you have misread the blessed Paul. In my view he was neither a liar nor a false apostle, and God did not make a mistake in calling him.

He was certainly a hothead, prone to speak/write without thinking through what he was saying. But he was a hothead who got things done, and without whom our faith would not be what it is today, and because he is so important to our faith I personally cannot accept him being maligned.

Certainly we can postulate the Way without St Paul. But it would have remained a minor cult related to Judaism at best, and by now probably be forgotten. Christianity is following Christ, but Our Lady, the apostles and evangelists show us how to do this by their example. We do not have to do exactly the same as any of them, but they all point to the Lord. St Paul is no exception to this.

 

[Catherineanne]

Well, Paul's bro Peter did seem to imply that his sayings were difficult to understand

2 Peter 3:15 and the long-suffering of our Lord count ye salvation, according as also our beloved brother Paul--according to the wisdom given to him--did write to you
16 as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, among which things are certain hard to be understood, which the untaught and unstable do wrest, as also the other Writings, unto their own destruction

Almost but not quite, LL.

Look again; the teachings are hard to understand if you happen to be either uneducated or unstable; they are the ones who struggle. The clear implication is that stable, educated people are not expected to have a problem.

How marvellous.

 

[yedida]

Not sure that I understand your Hebrew, ....

but zara is short for: ...Zarathustrianism
...The first monotheistic religion with a written legacy....

what is zara and Zarathustrianism in Hebrew ???

thanx for asking, ...zara

Are you zarathustrian? If so, why are you using a non-denom icon? Those are not for non-Christians to use.

 

[yedida]

Anachronism is a wonderful thing.

General individual aristocratic or higher middle class readers of the Bible are not found until way into the 16th century; lower classes far later; 19th century at best. At any time before that the Bible was read out in church, and then expounded to the congregation in homily form. And even your 'Jew-friendly' versions take pains to explain what it is that the Jews are up to; they do not assume that those listening will know. Hardly what one would expect if they were addressed to Jewish people, or even Jewish converts.

However, this is probably getting far too much off topic. Perhaps another time and another place, Av.

Just so you know, you just (I'm sure accidently) addressed Avodat as Father in Hebrew.

 

[yedida]

I suspect you have misread the blessed Paul. In my view he was neither a liar nor a false apostle, and God did not make a mistake in calling him.

He was certainly a hothead, prone to speak/write without thinking through what he was saying. But he was a hothead who got things done, and without whom our faith would not be what it is today, and because he is so important to our faith I personally cannot accept him being maligned.

Certainly we can postulate the Way without St Paul. But it would have remained a minor cult related to Judaism at best, and by now probably be forgotten. Christianity is following Christ, but Our Lady, the apostles and evangelists show us how to do this by their example. We do not have to do exactly the same as any of them, but they all point to the Lord. St Paul is no exception to this.

I wasn't talking about God making a mistake in calling Paul, that's not what I meant in my last statement. If what Yonah says is true and the Torah is void and null today then God made a major blunder, because He stated that those instructions were forever. And Yeshua continued to teach from the Torah - if is less than 3 years it was all gonna be null and void, what a waste of time! Di God make a big boo-boo and did Yeshua waste His time teaching? I don't think so. So, Paul has been misunderstood or he was a false apostle. I won't accept the other options, cos actually they're not options at all. If God made a mistake, then how could we be assured that all that Yeshua did was enough, or even necessary? So, it's down to either Paul's been misunderstood and was Torah-Observant or he missed as much as he may have gotten right.

 

[Catherineanne]

Just so you know, you just (I'm sure accidently) addressed Avodat as Father in Hebrew.

It was intended only as an abbreviation, but as long as it is not disrespectful, then I don't mind if he doesn't. Even though the chances are he is young enough to be my son, rather than the other way round.

If it is disrespectful, then I will edit it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

What we see in the Acts of the Apostles is a letter written to forbid Gentile believers from eating three things: (1) meat offered to idols; (2) blood; and, (3) the meat of strangled animals. This is a far cry from the kosher standards of Jewish food, even assuming differences between then and now. We can actually be certain that Paul didn’t teach even these restrictions, since he stated outright in his writings that “we know an idol is nothing” and that anyone who eats the meat sacrified to idols does so “with faith” and is not guilty before God. He specifically said that those who do not eat should not judge those who do, and those who eat should not look down on those who do not eat — whom he described as “weak of faith.”

1 Corinthians 8:4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords&#8221, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. (NIV)
​

There is no reason to imagine that Paul did not teach this very thing in his congregation in Antioch, and it was the weak conscience of those who came from James that caused Peter, Barnabas and the rest of the Jews to fall into hypocrisy (in Romans 14, he does not say weak conscience but weak faith that keeps someone from eating “all things&#8221.



The problem was very much with the food. A Jew who ate in the home of a Gentile was considered defiled because of the types of things that they brought into their homes as food – in addition to the stereotypical practices of Gentiles at the time.

...........The fact that Peter, Barnabas and the rest withdrew from the Gentiles represented to Paul a failure to recognize the completed work of God, and it was all about their insistence on the importance of keeping Torah. Paul opposed them staunchly and vehemently, making it clear that Jesus’ death was an abolishment of the Torah and the Mitzvah (commandment) and that through the cross there was no longer any dividing barrier between Jew and Gentile, but that all would have access to God in the same way – and that was without Torah.

Romans 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (New International Version)
​

The phrase “apart from the law” here in Greek is χωρὶς νόμου, “without law.” The righteousness of God that Paul preached was without the Torah. He said it so often and in so many ways that it should be clear enough.

Indeed..


When seeing the seriousness of Paul in his reaction toward Peter in Galatians 2, there is another context that helps to explain why he was ticked. For many scholars have noted that Galatians 2 came directly after the commands given by the apostles in Acts 15 where Peter noted the same as Paul when it came to the Gentiles being redeemed apart from the Mosaic Law and needing not to be burdened with feeling as if they had to come close to keeping all of it. Peter directly encountered this himself early on when it came to ministry

As another said best when speaking of the ministry of Cornelius and how he was saved by the Lord and helped by Peter:

In Roman culture, food is highly important in social gatherings. To be a good host, food and drink must be provided in abundance. Since non-Jews did not keep Kosher, Jewish people did not visit a Romans home. (Roast mouse was a big delicacy in Rome, but hardly Kosher). The Roman lifestyle and food made them ritually unclean, even as a Gentile according to the subset of laws for Gentiles residing in the land. So, for a Jewish person to enter the home of a Roman/Gentile meant the Jewish person was entering an unclean home and would have to snub the person culturally, not participating in the most important social convention of the society.


Acts 11:11 Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him, 3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.”


That Peter went to uncircumcised men and ate with them was the issue.
.

People often seem to focus on Acts 11 and think the meeting of Peter and Cornelius was solely about food...but the chapter coming after it doesn't indicate that it was only about eating unclean food that was an issue. To be in the home of a Gentile was to become unclean since they didn't have the same rituals (including removing pottery that had unclean animals on it and other things ). Just because one doesn't eat non-kosher food doesn't equate to them being ceremonially clean if going strictly from dietary laws (Leviticus 11 /Deuteronomy 14 )--many of those laws including animals relevant to the land and not being indicative of all types of animals on earth. The attempt at only eating kosher foods as a barometer for thinking onself to be clean doesn't add up many times since there was more to the ceremonial cleanliness code than food alone. There's also other concerns of having a clean home:

• the issue of whether or not someone had a nocturnal emission the night before ( Deuteronomy 23:9-11 , Leviticus 15:15-17 )
• was currently on their period and sitting on furniture ( Leviticus 12:4-6 /Leviticus 15:19-21 )
• had sexual relations with their spouse during the woman's period ( Leviticus 18:18-20 )
• having a skin disease, touching dead things ( Numbers 18:14 --and soldiers coming home from war would have that as a present reality...the same with Centurions as Cornelius who led others into battle )having mold in the home ( Leviticus 13:45 )

Many other things besides that could have been present.....all of that being present when it came to Jews not wanting to eat with Gentiles who had differing standards and thus were deemed to be unclean.

What Peter did with Cornelius in choosing to have lunch with a Gentile was big since it would not have mattered if Peter ate kosher food. What would be known was that Gentiles, deemed as unclean in their lifesytles, were being touched by the apostles. That's really not that different from Christ when he went to unclean places, touched unclean people and had no issue. Jesus could touch a woman with a discharge of blood (Mark 5:25-34, Matthew 9:20) who was ceremonially unclean (Leviticus 15:25-28) and not permitted to enter the temple section reserved for women nor was she permitted to be in public without making people aware that she was unclean. Her hemorrhaging would have cut her off from many social and religiopus relationships. And in seeing Jesus, she was desperate. When she touched Jesus, she technically rendered him ceremonially unclean (Leviticus 15:19-23), but Jesus is greater than ANY Purity Laws...for he makes her clean by HIS Power instead of becoming unclean Himself (Mark 1:41, Mark 5:41). Jesus made clear to the woman that her faith in Him made here both physically and spiritually healed....and the woman's faith in Jesus for physical healing at the same time becamse faith in him for salvation from sin.

If it was possible for her despite being in the times she was, how odd it is when people in our times act as if Jesus somehow has LESS power to make one clean unless they operate within the bounds of an OT Law that cannot be fulfilled anyhow due to their not being an Aaronic Priesthood set up/all of the civil aspects of the Law in place for our time...paticularly with inspection required by the priests when one was unclean. Jesus is truly superior....and as it stands, its interesting to see how that often played out in his own life. In Matthew 8:2-4, where he healed a leper, its interesting to see how when Jesus examination and treatment of those with a variety of skin diseases, generally called leprosy, many of which were highly contagious touched him he was healed and Jesus did NOT become unclean. That's striking, in light of how the OT provided specific guidelines for the (Leviticus 13-14)----for not only was leprosy a disease, but it made the leper as well as anyone who touched him ceremonially unclean (Lev 13:45-46, Numbers 5:2-4, etc). Jesus was far stronger than any of that.

What Paul noted and did alongside the other apostles was directly in line with what Christ himself advocated...

 

[Catherineanne]

I wasn't talking about God making a mistake in calling Paul, that's not what I meant in my last statement. If what Yonah says is true and the Torah is void and null today then God made a major blunder, because He stated that those instructions were forever. And Yeshua continued to teach from the Torah - if is less than 3 years it was all gonna be null and void, what a waste of time! Di God make a big boo-boo and did Yeshua waste His time teaching? I don't think so. So, Paul has been misunderstood or he was a false apostle. I won't accept the other options, cos actually they're not options at all. If God made a mistake, then how could we be assured that all that Yeshua did was enough, or even necessary? So, it's down to either Paul's been misunderstood and was Torah-Observant or he missed as much as he may have gotten right.

Oh dear, I was going to avoid getting into this particular discussion.

However, finding myself here I will go with what Paul says of himself. He was indeed Torah observant. However, in time he also learned to be tolerant of Hellenic converts to the Way, who he did not think ought to be expected to comply with the Torah. And after some discussion with other leaders, his view prevailed; what mattered most was the Lord's death and resurrection, picking up our cross and following him; rightly so.

And as a Christian, I have to conclude that his way prevailed because the Holy Spirit wanted it that way; further, that it was the view of the Holy Spirit in the first place.

This then, as you rightly say, begs the question, what about the Torah? Is it defunct? Does it matter any more? Did God change his mind or get bored or decide to do something else?

Not debating, you understand. Just my point of view:

To me, the Torah is what it always was. It is a way for people to show their love for God in every aspect of their lives, from the moment they wake to the moment they return to sleep again. It is a way to honour God. It is not defunct, but neither is it an obligation on any man in the sense that it can be forced; Torah has to be an expression of personal love for God or else it is meaningless. Each individual Jew does not follow Torah because he is told to, or because he was born into it, or because he has no choice. Imo he does it because at some point in his life he falls in love with the Torah, and it becomes part of who he (or she) is. Those who think it is about works don't have the first idea. I am sure I don't either, but there are traditions in my church too, and they are not about working my way to heaven. They are about loving God as best I can, however falteringly.

If I were forced to go to Mass every day it would not honour God, because I would rail and curse at him all the way there, and probably all the way home again. That is why I have never forced my daughter to go to church; she goes if she wants to go. She stays at home if she doesn't. The Mass is open to me, as an invitation; it calls to me. Because I am in love with it as a Jewish person is in love with the Torah, it is very compelling, and incredibly difficult to ignore. If I have a business meeting that I can't put off, then I have to miss going, but it is not easy. I spoke with Father about this, and took his advice, and he agreed that I can attend Mass every day (this is not for everyone, and it is best to check first that it is appropriate), and it is a real privilege.

I am not saying all this to try to induce anyone to become Anglican, you understand. Just to explain a parallel; that a life focussed on ritual is not a works based life, whatever others may think. It is a life lived around the love of God, and the ritual is the expression of that love.

As an expression of personal love, if any of us choose to honour God by following Torah, then God is pleased. If we choose to honour him in a different way, in accordance with a different tradition, then he is no less pleased. Catholics say that God perfects our imperfection; we offer what we have, he meets us where we are and completes it. We do not have to be good enough for him; we only have to do what we can.

It is only when people choose to dishonour God that he has a problem, imo.

All I would say is that we cannot assume that the behaviours of an orthodox Jew today would be the same as that of a Pharisee or Sadducee in the Lord's time. Rabbinical Judaism did not exist in his day as it does now; it developed after the Fall of the Temple, and the rules for kosher behaviour would not have been the same; some would, some would not. The Torah is the same, but the interpretation of it has developed over time, and much of that interpretation postdates Christ. We know he was willing to enter the house of those who were ritually unclean. We know he was willing to break the strictest Sabbath rules, and that he said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. We know he appreciated the Centurion who acknowledged and respected the constraints of Jewish ritual purity. We do not know that his mother used separate utensils for preparing dairy or meat dishes, or that his father would have avoided lighting a fire on the Sabbath.

And if anyone wants any finer points or discussion than that, then they will have to have it with someone far more knowledgable than I am.