yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/18/84)
From lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 Subject: Christianity, Torah, Ethics: Response to Brunson Christians often try to divide Torah - most Protestants distinguish moral, civil and ceremonial regulation. No 1st Century Jew would accept such an idea. Torah was totally unlike any Greek nomos (law) which merely gave moral rules or ethical guidelines. Torah was the covenant of God with his chosen people. ... I have already suggested my view that the essence of Christianity, among the first followers of Jesus, was an awareness that God's kingdom was "at hand," and that now one's covenantal standing in God's community would be determined solely by one's relationship with Christ. This concept is essentially at logger-heads with Torah's claim to mediate God's covenant. While many disciples of Jesus continued to live in Jewish society for at least another century, their understanding of Torah as something tentative and incomplete brought recurring suspicion from their Jewish neighbors. *********************** Yiri responds: I concur here that 'no 1st century Jew would accept such an idea'. You are quite correct on this point. In fact, you have also touched here upon another part of the overall problem: translating Torah into greek yields nomos which, as you note, has different connotations; and the translation itself lent impetus to misinterpretation. There is a contradiction here however between the notion that 'no 1st century Jew would accept such an idea' and 'their understanding of Torah as something tentative and incomplete ...'. You must then explain why they were willing to die at the hands of Christians rather than give up something which you claim they understood as 'tentative and incomplete'. By the way, understanding Torah as tentative and incomplete is failure to understand Torah in any meaningful Jewish sense. It is written that Torah is perfect/complete and that it was given by an immutable Creator. I reiterate that you should disprove the contentions by Bagatti that these N'tzarim were willing to die at the hands of christians rather than become apostate from Torah. ************************** For some reason (perhaps the authority of Jesus' own teachings) the early church appropriated the Jewish Scriptures for itself. As writings "inspired" by God, these Scriptures were understood to have pointed forward to Christ and to the new covenant through his death and resurrection. This prophecy/ fulfillment paradigm replaced the covenant/Torah paradigm as the essence of these writings. ************************** Yiri responds: Several scholars (I think Parkes is included though I would have to review to be positive) have noted that the reason here is that these scriptures were the only claim to legitimacy available to the church. If the Jewish Scriptures belonged to the Jews, then the Jews must be recognized as the proper interpreters (sound familiar?). The answer was to declare that it was the christians who properly understood all of these scriptures and knew the proper interpretations of the prophecies and were now, through christ, THE church... THE TRUE JEWS. This meant that the semites were now only imposters and must be discredited. This is an integral theme of christianity... like it or not; and even whether you as an individual agree with it or not. Or even whether the bulk of christians CURRENTLY agree or not. It recurs. And that is because it is an integral concept in the original formulation of the doctrines. I can't believe you read Parkes and missed ALL of this. You must have at least learned SOMETHING of this in Parkes? If the first christians (as distinguished from the N'tzarim as always) had not appropriated the Jewish scriptures for themselves, then the alternative was to acknowledge that Jewish interpretations were correct - an unacceptable alternative (even though there was a N'tzarim interpretation available which they could have accepted... but that would have entailed the observance of Torah and unconditional alignment with Judaism... an entirely unacceptable idea for the gentiles of the Roman Empire who were at war with the Jews for much of that time. Again, your view requires that you explain why and how these N'tzarim could be tentative and ambivalent or whatever about keeping Torah and still prefer to die at the hands of Christians rather than give it up (or discredit Bagatti who is ONE of the sources making such assertions). *************************** The ethical standards of the "old" covenant, the commandments of God, pointed forward to the (morally stricter) standards of the "new" covenant. Exactly what these standards are, though, was understood in different ways. Matthew writes his gospel setting forth the teachings of Jesus as the new law (and perhaps even the new Torah) for Christians. Matthew's position is reflected in the Didache, Ignatius, and Hermas (among others). In fact, the Matthean "Sermon on the Mount" early becomes the basic starting point for Christian ethics. *************************** Yiri responds: You are back to relying upon christian redacted documents to support christian assertions which is circular reasoning. At least go back to the sinaiticus and offer us a translation you think might support what you are asserting. What you say about Jesus the counterfeit is not at issue since no one has 'linked up' the christians who killed N'tzarim for not giving up Torah with Y'shua and his N'tzarim followers who kept Torah and died rather than give it up for the supposed 'fellow christians' who were wielding the sword upon them. Oy. In the sinaiticus, you cannot demonstrate that Mattiyahu set forth 'the teachings of Jesus as the new law (and perhaps even the new Torah)' because it is not so. This relies upon some combination of christian redaction and/or christian interpretation of writings by a N'tzarim who would rather have died that give up Torah. But the interpretation has been made by the christians who wielded the sword upon them. By the time of Didache, Ignatius and Hermas, Parkes notes that christianity bore little or no resemblance to the N'tzarim of the 1st century - even thought he fails to distinguish between the terms. The starting point for christian ethics is still post-110CE. Your assertions about Shaul, the Yokhanine community, etc. are frought with the same lack of insight, and will continue to be until you recognize many of these things. Until you answer these basics and prove that christianity is not a counterfeit of those N'tzarim they were killing, you have no basis in truth. And with no basis, you certainly cannot build on sand and expect it to be accepted. You are merely a counterfeit continuing to make assertions about a counterfeit religion. What you allege may be true of the counterfeit, but has no relevance to what is true. Your interpretations of modern versions of the N'tzarim writings are counterfeit and the modern version is a counterfeit admittedly redacted by christians to make it 'true' to christian dogma. You are offering counterfeit interpretations of a counterfeit document. You write glibly about a counterfeit image of Shaul and Mattiyahu and speak as if you had some concept of the spirit of holiness - a term defined by Torah. You fail to acknowledge that these words are wrongly translated to 'gentile' and are instead addressed to 'Hellenist Jews' and Jews living among the Hellenists and peoples in the Diaspora. David is indeed on the right track and I think in some instances you are also, but there is yet far to go. You are correct that all people are acceptable - but that is also dependent upon t'shuva (repentance and turning to Torah - which is what your 'repentance' originally encompassed when it was still N'tzarim). You have made many assertions which are not supported in the sinaiticus or earlier papyrii. Kindly demonstrate any legitimate 'link-up' you claim to have with the N'tzarim the christians were killing and then we can go on to examining any validity of support in the sinaiticus for these assertions. Certainly there is no reason to accept a counterfeit christian interpretation of a Jewish document over a Jewish interpretation. *************************** Are any (or all) of these three approaches to Christian ethics "antinomian" (in the sense of morally weak or deficient). Perhaps. However, in the first three centuries (i.e. before it became the official religion of the Roman Empire), Christianity seems to have had a reputation for its ethical rigor. Monks and martyrs were known for their extreme standards. Bishops were commonly trusted as mediators in complex legal negotiations, and if a relative was kidnapped, the church often footed the ransom (even for non-Christians). In a time of general decline in morality, the major attraction of Christianity seemed to be its ethical standards. It was not until the time of Augustine (late 4th Century), when the "official" church was attracting mass conversions, that the problem of morally apathetic Christians received widespread attention. *************************** Yiri responds: You forgot to mention that these christians were killing N'tzarim who would not abandon Torah. Documented in Bagatti and others. I think that qualifies as both antinomian and antisemitic. That is the true christian 'ethical rigor'... and continues to recur periodically ever since. ***************************