Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This turned into a really colorful thread.
Judaizing is introducing or requiring gentile Christians to adopt jewish holidays and rituals. For example in the early 1st century church many gentiles were asked to be circumcised before baptized because there was a belief that you were converting into a jewish sect. It is the conscience of the Church itself that determines what practises are neccesary and what are not.
So, as we know, several times in the history of the Church and Christianity in general, there have been accusations of impiously adopting Mosaic practices in the Church's life - the most famous example is the Roman Church and the Eastern Churches accusing each other of Judaizing the Eucharist, with Thomas Aquinas believing that the Eastern Churches adopted Leaven Bread due to the Jews using Leavened Bread throughout the year, while the Eastern Churches accuse the Roman Church of using unleavened bread because the Jews used unleavened bread during the Passover. Another one is the famous story of the Easter controversy, with certain Churches in Asia following the Jewish calendar for Passover.
However, my question is, when do the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics draw the lines of when Judaization is unacceptable?
Even though it is a Christian belief that these disciplinary practices "of the Law" were separate from the Covenant and specifically connected to the Nation of Israel, while the Church has allowed the Covenant to expand to include non-Jews, while those who reject Christ are outside the Covenant, nevertheless it seems that the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church have in different degrees adopted certain Jewish practices, which are based on the Torah.
For example, in Eastern Orthodoxy, there is clearly a Jewish inheritance of the treatment of women and men of "ritual uncleanliness" (as both men and women naturally do unclean things) as well as the period of time to when the soul departs. More than that, eating blood-meat is unacceptable for the Orthodox as well, which seems to have its origins in the Jewish idea that the blood is where the soul is contained (Abel's blood crying out to the Lord, for example), and even in discipline, the growing of hair and not-cutting it for monastics seems to have connections to the Nazarite vow.
In Roman Catholicism, these practices are noticeably absent - however, there are some unique Roman Catholic practices which seem to be Jewish in origin - for example, the monastic tonsure of the West seems to be connected to Judaism, with Elisha being bald, and not to mention the usage of the Zucchetto (whose connection to Judaism is debated). The Syriac Orthodox also use the Zucchetto.
However, some Oriental Orthodox go above and beyond this - mainly, the Ethiopian Orthodox, who follow Jewish Kosher law, and how they remove their shoes from their feet in connection to Moses and the burning bush during liturgy, as well as requiring circumcision for men. The Ethiopians also recognize the Saturday Sabbath (while seeing the Sunday as the New Sabbath, they still hold to the rule of relaxing on the Sabbath on Saturday).
So, it seems that in history, different cultures and the churches therein have adopted different praxis as it regards to what Jewish ideas are acceptable and what aren't in terms of the disciplinary works of the law. However, in light of all these variances, what made the Churches in Asia who adopted the Jewish Pasch unacceptable (considering it was before Nicaea)? Or what made the use of unleavened bread unacceptable? What made the controversies of the Judaizers during the time of Saint Paul, and the following centuries, unacceptable?
I'm unsure, considering that all the churches which have a historical connection to the Ancient Church, how these lines were drawn even in the Ancient Church, and that's the question I'm asking.
Thanks.
Jesus was a Jew who practiced Judaism by keeping all of it's laws, so what is the problem with following what he taught by example?
because the Law is fulfilled in Him.
In 1 Peter 2:21-22, we are told to follow Christ's example, so do you think that we should follow Christ's example or do you think that Christ fulfilled the Law so that we wouldn't have to follow what he taught by example?
we do follow His example. however, according to the Synod in Jerusalem, Gentiles don't follow the Law. to do so is the heresy of Judaizing. Christ's example is far deeper than the Law He gave.
plus that text you referenced is about His passion. context is always key.
Why would you observe the Sabbath on the Lord's Day?OK, Buzuxi02, may I ask you a question about the Sabbath? I'm a Christian, and I don't have any problem with observing the Sabbath on Sunday instead of Saturday. My question is: I still like to observe the Sabbath "a little bit" on Sunday. For example, let's say I have to do laundry. If I can avoid it, I will not do the laundry on a Sunday. Because I like to try not to work on Sunday. Because I believe that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, etching them into stone tablets, which expressly say not to work on the Sabbath; and I read in the Bible that "God is not a man, that He should change His mind." What do you think about what I am doing?
I agree that that passage describes his passion, but part of the example that we are to follow is that he committed no sin. Sin is defined as the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4), so do you think that we should follow his example of refraining from sin or do you think that the Jerusalem Council ruled against following this example? In 1 John 2:5-6, we are also told that those who are in Christ ought walk in the same way he walked.
again, context is key. John is not talking about the Law of Moses when he is writing of lawlessness, since the Synod in Jerusalem had already happened and Gentiles had already flooded into the Church. so we do refrain from sin and follow His example to be sure, but it's not bound up in the Law written on stone, but rather the law written on our hearts.
A change in medium upon which a law is written does not change its moral authority or the content of what it requires you do. In Romans 3:20, the Law of Moses was give to make us conscious of sin, in Roman 7:7, we would not even know what sin is if it weren't for the Law, the Law is how the people in the OT knew what sin is, and Jesus was sinless, so he lived in complete obedience to the Law, so I don't see a good reason to think that 1 John 3:4 refers to some other law, and I don't see a good reason to think that the Synod in Jerusalem taught against following Christ's example.
Why would you observe the Sabbath on the Lord's Day?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?