7 Churches - Christianity's Chastisement. What say you?

[Georges]

I have a different outlook on the Churches of Revelation. In my opinion, mainstream Christianity is way off base in it's interpretation of the purpose of Rev 2 -3.

Items to consider:

1. The Churches in Revelation are Messianic or started out as Messianic congregations.
2. Church and Synagogue are synonymous terms....they both by definition are the same.
3. The Location of the Churches. Are these not Churches (Assemblies) that Paul had intitiated?
4. Why is it that none of the of Churches started by the other Apostles are mentioned?
5. Why is it that only the "Gentile" Churches of Asia Minor are chastised?

Here is my observation (my opinion), the congregations of Revelation started out as Messianic congregations. How can this be? We see in Acts, time and time again the narrative showing Paul going to the synagogues of Asia Minor converting both Jews and Proselytes (God fearing Gentiles who attended Synagogue).

It is possible to have both Jews and Messianic believers attend synagogue at the same time. If you don't think so, check out the fact that when the Temple was still in place, the Messianic Christians (Peter, Paul, James et al) still worshipped in the Temple along side their Jewish brothers. And, throughout Acts you see Jews, Messianic Jews, and God Fearers (Christians) in the same place of worship and study (synagogue).

So, every mention of the Church in Revelation should read "Messianic Congregation" instead. (A successful attempt in early Church antisemitism at separating Christianity from Judaism)

Now, If the Churches of Revelation are in fact Messianic Congregations, that makes verses like

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.

and others easy to understand. These verses show that the Churches of Revelation were Jewish (or Messianic) synagogues.

Here is where the misinterpretation comes in. The Church (Messianic Congregation) at Ephesus, for example, was predominately (or started out that way) Jewish.

What does that mean? That means just as "James, Peter, and yes even Paul" kept their Jewish religious practices in the freedom that Jesus provides, so too did the 7 churches founded by Paul in Asia Minor. In Judaism, the love for God and the love for Torah are the two most important focal points. In the early part of the Church formation, Love of God, Love of the Torah were central to Messianic Church life.

Having said that, enter Acts 15 and 21 and the council at Jerusalem, and the reintroduction of Noahide Law. In a nutshell, Paul was accused by some of the Messianic Christians of teaching new believers to forsake the Laws of Moses. This is a charge that Paul denied and was exonerated from. However, at this council, it was decreed by James (the actual leader of Christianity) that Gentile Christians would only have to observe the Noahide Law (Acts 15:29). However, it was understood (as Paul proved out) that it was required of Jewish believer's to follow his example and continue to follow Mosaic Law. It was also understood that as Gentiles were only required to observe Noahide Law, they should strive to observe Mosaic law as a way to live righteously.

Having said all of that, here is the reason (in my opinion) for the chastisement of the churches in Revelation, that hold true to this day......

Rev 2:4 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Rev 2:5 Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

These congregations perverted (or took advantage of) Noahide Law, and forsook Mosaic Law. As the Church grew, (from AD 50 until AD 90 (penning of Revelation)), it became more Gentile dominate. With the increase of Gentile domination, Messianic Christianity (Torah observant Christians) began to diminish. Gentile Christianity (Noahide observant) being less strict than Messianic Christianity (Torah observant) began to revert (or adopted) their former pagan practices (little by little).

The love of Torah is the first love.....of the Messianic community. Jesus is chastising the Churches because they have forgotten that.....


What say you?

 

[JM]

I don't see how the assembled believers of Christ would equal a Synagogue or be used as synonymous terms.

The literal Hebrew term is beit k'nesset or House of Assembly.

E. W. Bullinger writes: Ecclesia means simply an Assembly: any assembly of people who are called out (for that is the etymological meaning of the word) from other people. Hence, it is used of the whole nation of Israel as distinct from other nations. The Greek word Ecclesia occurs seventy-five times in the Septuagint Translation of the Old Testament, and is used as the rendering of five different Hebrew words. As it is used to represent one of these, seventy times, we need not concern ourselves with the other four words.

This Hebrew word is (...) (Cahal), from which we have our English word call. It means to call together, to assemble, or gather together, and is used of any assembly gathered together for any purpose. This Hebrew word Cahal occurs 123 times, and is rendered: "congregation," 86 times; "assembly," 17; "company," 17; and "multitude," 3 times: but is never rendered "church." Its first occurrence is in Gen. 28:3 - "that thou mayest be a multitude (margin, assembly) of people," i.e., a called-out people. That is what Israel was, a people called out and assembled from all other peoples.

In Gen. 49:6 we read - "O my soul, come not thou into their secret (Council or Senate); Unto their assembly (cahal), mine honour, be not thou united."

Here the word cahal is used, not of all Israel as called out from the nations, but of the assembly of those called out of form the Tribal Assembly (or Council) of the tribes of Simeon and levi.

Then, it is used of the worshippers, or those called out from Israel, and assembled before the Tabernacle and Temple, and in this sense is usually rendered "congregation." This is the meaning of the word in Ps. 22:22: "In the midst of the congregation will I praise Thee;" and verse 25: "My praise shall be of Thee in the great congregation."

http://www.levendwater.org/boeken/revelation/03.htm

Bullinger work on Greek and Hebrew is easy to use and solid, but his conclusions often are extreme.

Peace

 

[Georges]

Like Bullinger....Like Edersheim......

Please read my post all the way through...it is important not to miss any of the definitions used.


I've posted the Strongs definitions for both Synagogue and Church. As you can see they are the same. Even the definition for Church includes a reference to a gathering of Jews.



Lexicon Results for sunagoge (Strong's 4864)
Greek for 4864

Pronunciation Guide
sunagoge {soon-ag-o-gay'}

TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 7:798,1108 from (the reduplicated form of) 4863
Part of Speech
n f
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a bringing together, gathering (as of fruits), a contracting

2) in the NT, an assembling together of men, an assembly of men

3) a synagogue

a) an assembly of Jews formally gathered together to offer prayers and listen to the reading and expositions of the scriptures; assemblies of that sort were held every sabbath and feast day, afterwards also on the second and fifth days of every week; name transferred to an assembly of Christians formally gathered together for religious purposes

b) the buildings where those solemn Jewish assemblies are held. Synagogues seem to date their origin from the Babylonian exile. In the times of Jesus and the apostles every town, not only in Palestine, but also among the Gentiles if it contained a considerable number of Jewish inhabitants, had at least one synagogue, the larger towns several or even many. These were also used for trials and inflicting punishment.


and,


Pronunciation Guide
ekklesia {ek-klay-see'-ah}

TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 3:501,394 from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564


1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

b) the assembly of the Israelites

c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

d) in a Christian sense

1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven


Both terms are the same....Christians call it the assembly a "Church" to differentiate from a Jewish assembly (for the same purpose) called a "synagogue".



I need to make another point here to emphasize the fact that the Churches of Revelation were Messianic Congregations and/or Messianic Synagogues. This is seen not only by the Rev "Jew's" references in post number 1, but by the term "Angel" as seen in Rev 2:1

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;


You can do the research on this but, the Angel of the Church is a Jewish term meaning the speaker of the Synagogue. The angel of the church of Ephesus would have been a man whose duty it would have been to perform the public ministry of the church. These duties would include such items as public prayer, reading the scriptures, and preaching if necessary. It would be this man’s job to read what John had written as dictated by Jesus to the Church at Ephesus.

My point, Even the term "Angel of the Church" is a Jewish reference to a man who had specific duties to perform in the Synagogue. This is easily researched.

 

[Vic C.]

Angels, or messengers, as church leaders is briefly mentioned here:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t005.html

 

[Geo]

Church history is one aspect you cannot really leave out here.
Revelation has a specific intended location in the Bible, it was
meant to talk to the ones that reason from their own point of view
in the days near the fulfillment of all. To remind us that no matter
what we think or say about us -- Jesus has this to say about us
what he says to the churches. It was true, and will remain true
until the end.

It's so significant that I could name countless reasons why most
of us would want to confuse it. But we don't serve Jesus if we value
our own view higher than his. It's written for us, and we see and will
see the reality of it and its conclusion. Details are according to view,
summaries are close or identical to this:

Church -- Church Period -- Meaning of Name -- Character

1. Ephesus -- 1st Century -- To let Go, Relax -- Apostolic, Loveless
2. Smyrna -- 100 - 312 A.D. -- Myrrh -- Persecuted
3. Pergamum -- 312 - 606 A.D -- Married -- Compromising, State
4. Thyatira -- 606 A.D. - End -- Continual Sacrifice -- Papal, Corrupt, Ritual
5. Sardis -- 1517 A.D. - End -- Remnant -- Protestant, Dead. Formal
6. Philadelphia -- 1750 A.D. - End -- Brotherly Love -- Great Awakening, Faithful
7. Laodicea -- 1900 A.D. - End -- People's Rights -- Apostate, Lukewarm

 

[Georges]

Good Morning all,

Geo....I'm jealous of you moniker, it is how I always sign my notes. :wink:

Thanks for the responses so far.....

Geo...I personally agree that the Church references are historical and I am aware of the traditional thought that the 7 Churches make up the Church age history, even though the Church age has experienced all 7 Church types in each age.

The points I was trying to make were:

1. The early Christian Church (Pre 130's) were actually very Messianic in nature and can actually be referenced as Messianic Synagogues.
2. Jesus' chastising of those Messianic Synagogues for leaving their "First Love", in Judaism it's love of Torah, or Mosaic Law.
3. In the early Church, Mosaic Law observance was gradually replaced by Noahide Law as the Gentile population (and antisemitism) grew.
4. In addition to Noahide Law, former pagan practices (ie Jezebel, Nicolaitans) of the Gentile Christians began to creep into Church worship.
5. Basically, Christianity was turning down the wrong path even at that early time.

This is what Jesus was chastising the Church for.....his warning....get back to the begining.....The observance of Mosaic Law in the freedom that Jesus provides. If Mosaic Law was good enough for James, Peter, Paul and the rest of the apostles to continue to observe, then it should be good enough for us to strive to observe also. This was the practice of the early Nazarene Christians.

Why?

Because Christ demands it.....He demanded it when he was walking the earth, he demanded it when addressing John in Revelation. He will demand it with the 144000. He will demand it during his Millennial Kingdom reign.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Geo...I personally agree that the Church references are historical and I am aware of the traditional thought that the 7 Churches make up the Church age history, even though the Church age has experienced all 7 Church types in each age.

Yes, the references were to churches in history, meaning the actual churches at the locations named. Any other interpretation is horrible speculation and soothsaying. Parsimony, anyone?

The points I was trying to make were:

1. The early Christian Church (Pre 130's) were actually very Messianic in nature and can actually be referenced as Messianic Synagogues.

Some were, and some were not. Certainly it is clear from Acts 15 alone that there were many Gentile congregations who were not compelled to live as Jews.

2. Jesus' chastising of those Messianic Synagogues for leaving their "First Love", in Judaism it's love of Torah, or Mosaic Law.

The Church at Ephesus was not a "Messianic" congregation.
Ephesians 2:11

Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Furthermore, the first love- protos agape- from which the Ephesians had departed was works of a sincere and loving heart performed in truth, as the context demonstrates. This is not the Torah, nor is it NOT the Torah- this is the teaching of Christ, ie the full gospel.
Of course, we know that the Gospel can be found in the Torah

3. In the early Church, Mosaic Law observance was gradually replaced by Noahide Law as the Gentile population (and antisemitism) grew.

Antisemitism- if you insist on calling it that- came into effect after the Christians were anathemized from synagogues simply because thy would not participate in Jewish military revolts or call Bar Kochbah "Messiah."
Ever read the Rabbinic pronunciations of that era? What shall we call those - Xenophobic?
What you label as anti-Semitism began as a simple conflict and competion over the hearts and minds of the Pagan world. Anti-Semitism did not truly flourish as a sentimentality until the time of Chrysostom- and even then, it was a sentiment, not the action we saw in the Medieval pogroms.

As for the early Church being Mosaic in observance, it certainly was a truncated Moses, bereft of circumcision, dietary laws, and most importantly, theocracy. In point of fact, the early Church was NOT Mosaic in nature, nor did it become based in Noahide Law. The Church was taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

4. In addition to Noahide Law, former pagan practices (ie Jezebel, Nicolaitans) of the Gentile Christians began to creep into Church worship.

Nicolaitans, those followers of Nicholas the apostate, advocated sexual immorality and antinomianism. This has never been advocated in any of the Church, Gentile or otherwise.

Just in case you missed it in the Law and Prophets, Israel has never been free of the scourge of immorality, adultery, or immorality either.

5. Basically, Christianity was turning down the wrong path even at that early time.

Really- how so?

This is what Jesus was chastising the Church for.....his warning....get back to the begining.....The observance of Mosaic Law in the freedom that Jesus provides. If Mosaic Law was good enough for James, Peter, Paul and the rest of the apostles to continue to observe, then it should be good enough for us to strive to observe also. This was the practice of the early Nazarene Christians.

Wrong, o foolish Galatian.
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if [it be] yet in vain.

Paul's admonition is not to abandon Godly living by the statutes of God. But it is NOT to the statutes to whom are love is tendered. It is not the Law that we depart from when we sin. "It is you alone who I have offended, I have done what is evil in YOUR sight."

He is our first love. He is the one that we either move toward, or depart from. Though I share you devotion to carrying out His Law, I reject your devotion to His Law. It is to Him that we are devoted- He is not remote, He is within.

Why?

Because Christ demands it.....He demanded it when he was walking the earth, he demanded it when addressing John in Revelation. He will demand it with the 144000. He will demand it during his Millennial Kingdom reign.

He demands a great many other things you either ignore or reject: "Tell it to the Church" comes to mind.

I have some friends that are messianic- or should I say they are Gentiles who are enthralled with all things Jewish. They told me "The Greeks think, the Jews obey." I responded "so what or whom have they been obeying over the last 2000 years?" What malarkey.

Make no mistake- the Christian faith is Jewish. And Greek. And Latin. And Asian. And African. The root is Semitic, from the holy Semitic mothers and fathers. But the Church- to the degree that She is the Body of Christ- is a continuation (not replacement of) Israel- and all who come to her are grafted in.

 

[Georges]

Geo...I personally agree that the Church references are historical and I am aware of the traditional thought that the 7 Churches make up the Church age history, even though the Church age has experienced all 7 Church types in each age.

Yes, the references were to churches in history, meaning the actual churches at the locations named. Any other interpretation is horrible speculation and soothsaying. Parsimony, anyone?

Cute....

The points I was trying to make were:

1. The early Christian Church (Pre 130's) were actually very Messianic in nature and can actually be referenced as Messianic Synagogues.

Some were, and some were not. Certainly it is clear from Acts 15 alone that there were many Gentile congregations who were not compelled to live as Jews.

2. Jesus' chastising of those Messianic Synagogues for leaving their "First Love", in Judaism it's love of Torah, or Mosaic Law.

The Church at Ephesus was not a "Messianic" congregation.
Ephesians 2:11

Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Come on OC you are a smart guy...at least you type like you are...you know that the early church was made up of Gentiles, Messianic Jews (Pharisaic and Saddusaic, Shammaite and Hillelite). Paul addresses each of these groups in his letters, not to mention Israeli and Hellenist Jewish Christians...the verse you quoted above is simply directed at the Gentile group of the Ephesus Church.

Sorry OC......This is the same group Gentile God fearers, Proselytes and Jews as common with all of Paul's Missionary targets mentioned in Acts ... Ephesus is no different.

Act 18:19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.
Act 18:20 When they desired [him] to tarry longer time with them, he consented not;
Act 18:21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

John's Ephesus Church in Revelation is the same group of people Paul was addressing here. Just more corrupt then they once were.

Furthermore, the first love- protos agape- from which the Ephesians had departed was works of a sincere and loving heart performed in truth, as the context demonstrates. This is not the Torah, nor is it NOT the Torah- this is the teaching of Christ, ie the full gospel.

It's both OC....Christ loved the Torah.....What were the 2 greatest commandments as given by him? It is the same as the Torah teachs? hint.....Love your neighbor as yourself.....

Of course, we know that the Gospel can be found in the Torah

3. In the early Church, Mosaic Law observance was gradually replaced by Noahide Law as the Gentile population (and antisemitism) grew.

Antisemitism- if you insist on calling it that- came into effect after the Christians were anathemized from synagogues simply because thy would not participate in Jewish military revolts or call Bar Kochbah "Messiah."
Ever read the Rabbinic pronunciations of that era? What shall we call those - Xenophobic?

Antisemitism..is Antisemitism...You can put the sugar coated spin any way you like..

What you say is true....and you, in a backdoor way, admit here that Christians were kicked out of synagogues...that means they must have been in the synagogues to be kicked out. Actually, the Jews were really upset because the Jewish Christians in the Jewish army refused to recognize Bar Kochba and refused to serve.

Yep, the Nazarene Christians (Jewish Christians in the tradition of Jesus, James, Peter et al) were between a rock and a hard place. After the Bar Kochba revolt the Jew's hated their Jewish/Christian brother's, kicking them out of kindred fellowship and not to mention the growing antisemitic Gentile Church on the other side, Nazarene Christianity had it pretty rough time of it.


What you label as anti-Semitism began as a simple conflict and competion over the hearts and minds of the Pagan world. Anti-Semitism did not truly flourish as a sentimentality until the time of Chrysostom- and even then, it was a sentiment, not the action we saw in the Medieval pogroms.

Antisemitic enough to (as proven historically through the various Councils) make a conscious split with anything Judaistic. Even the Eastern Orthodox in the beginning were more "Jew" friendly than their Western brothers. I've read the antisemitic resolutions put forth by these Councils...the list ain't short bruddah.....

As for the early Church being Mosaic in observance, it certainly was a truncated Moses, bereft of circumcision, dietary laws, and most importantly, theocracy. In point of fact, the early Church was NOT Mosaic in nature, nor did it become based in Noahide Law. The Church was taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So you are saying Acts 15:20 or, Acts 21:21 isn't Noahide Law?....Did Paul not have Timothy circumcised? I've got a colleague who is putting the finishing touches on a book that would eat your last paragraph whole proving conclusively the opposite of what you claim. I can't honestly believe a man of your perceived intellect would make a statement like the above. Send me your email address and I send you his work.

4. In addition to Noahide Law, former pagan practices (ie Jezebel, Nicolaitans) of the Gentile Christians began to creep into Church worship.

Nicolaitans, those followers of Nicholas the apostate, advocated sexual immorality and antinomianism. This has never been advocated in any of the Church, Gentile or otherwise.

OC....why is it mentioned then?...obviously they were doing it.

Just in case you missed it in the Law and Prophets, Israel has never been free of the scourge of immorality, adultery, or immorality either.

Hence the need for the Torah (Instruction)....Nope, I didn't miss it.

5. Basically, Christianity was turning down the wrong path even at that early time.

Really- how so?

Told you earlier in the posts....Turned away from Jesus' and Judaisms second love....keeping the Torah. Yes, OC even Gentile Christians should do their best to keep it. The beauty of it is they don't have the death sentence hanging over their heads becacuse Jesus provided that freedom.

This is what Jesus was chastising the Church for.....his warning....get back to the begining.....The observance of Mosaic Law in the freedom that Jesus provides. If Mosaic Law was good enough for James, Peter, Paul and the rest of the apostles to continue to observe, then it should be good enough for us to strive to observe also. This was the practice of the early Nazarene Christians.

Wrong, o foolish Galatian.
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if [it be] yet in vain.

Paul's admonition is not to abandon Godly living by the statutes of God. But it is NOT to the statutes to whom are love is tendered. It is not the Law that we depart from when we sin. "It is you alone who I have offended, I have done what is evil in YOUR sight."

OC....Galations is the most misinterpreted book in Christianity...Paul is addressing the various groups of Christians in Galatia. Paul is not preaching against Torah...he is preaching against the man made (jewish)customs surrounding the Torah...the same thing Jesus preached when dealing with the Pharisees.
He is our first love. He is the one that we either move toward, or depart from. Though I share you devotion to carrying out His Law, I reject your devotion to His Law. It is to Him that we are devoted- He is not remote, He is within.

Why?

Because Christ demands it.....He demanded it when he was walking the earth, he demanded it when addressing John in Revelation. He will demand it with the 144000. He will demand it during his Millennial Kingdom reign.

He demands a great many other things you either ignore or reject: "Tell it to the Church" comes to mind.

I have some friends that are messianic- or should I say they are Gentiles who are enthralled with all things Jewish. They told me "The Greeks think, the Jews obey." I responded "so what or whom have they been obeying over the last 2000 years?" What malarkey.

Make no mistake- the Christian faith is Jewish. And Greek. And Latin. And Asian. And African. The root is Semitic, from the holy Semitic mothers and fathers. But the Church- to the degree that She is the Body of Christ- is a continuation (not replacement of) Israel- and all who come to her are grafted in.

Agreed...

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Geo...I personally agree that the Church references are historical and I am aware of the traditional thought that the 7 Churches make up the Church age history, even though the Church age has experienced all 7 Church types in each age.

Yes, the references were to churches in history, meaning the actual churches at the locations named. Any other interpretation is horrible speculation and soothsaying. Parsimony, anyone?

Cute....

Maybe cute, maybe spot-on also.

The points I was trying to make were:

1. The early Christian Church (Pre 130's) were actually very Messianic in nature and can actually be referenced as Messianic Synagogues.

Some were, and some were not. Certainly it is clear from Acts 15 alone that there were many Gentile congregations who were not compelled to live as Jews.

2. Jesus' chastising of those Messianic Synagogues for leaving their "First Love", in Judaism it's love of Torah, or Mosaic Law.

The Church at Ephesus was not a "Messianic" congregation.
Ephesians 2:11

Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Come on OC you are a smart guy...at least you type like you are...you know that the early church was made up of Gentiles, Messianic Jews (Pharisaic and Saddusaic, Shammaite and Hillelite). Paul addresses each of these groups in his letters, not to mention Israeli and Hellenist Jewish Christians...the verse you quoted above is simply directed at the Gentile group of the Ephesus Church.

Perhaps a bit of clarification is in order: When you refer to these congregations as "Messianic" I am inclined to think you are calling them congregations of Jews. There were Jews, no doubt, but that is a different thing than a Jewish congregation.

Sorry OC......This is the same group Gentile God fearers, Proselytes and Jews as common with all of Paul's Missionary targets mentioned in Acts ... Ephesus is no different.

Act 18:19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.
Act 18:20 When they desired [him] to tarry longer time with them, he consented not;
Act 18:21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

John's Ephesus Church in Revelation is the same group of people Paul was addressing here. Just more corrupt then they once were.

Again, the distinction between congregation that contained Jews and "Messianic congregation" needs to be made clear.

Furthermore, the first love- protos agape- from which the Ephesians had departed was works of a sincere and loving heart performed in truth, as the context demonstrates. This is not the Torah, nor is it NOT the Torah- this is the teaching of Christ, ie the full gospel.

It's both OC....Christ loved the Torah.....What were the 2 greatest commandments as given by him? It is the same as the Torah teachs? hint.....Love your neighbor as yourself.....

Note that I said "nor is it NOT the Torah. We'll pick this up further along. As I stated in my prior post

Of course, we know that the Gospel can be found in the Torah

The Torah is not the Gospel, the Torah pointed to the Gospel. The Gospel is the superior revelation to the Torah, as it is written:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son,

3. In the early Church, Mosaic Law observance was gradually replaced by Noahide Law as the Gentile population (and antisemitism) grew.

Antisemitism- if you insist on calling it that- came into effect after the Christians were anathemized from synagogues simply because thy would not participate in Jewish military revolts or call Bar Kochbah "Messiah."
Ever read the Rabbinic pronunciations of that era? What shall we call those - Xenophobic?

Antisemitism..is Antisemitism...You can put the sugar coated spin any way you like..

This reminds me of when, reading back through Abraham Lincoln's writings on relations between Whites and Blacks- I was struck by how Lincoln sounded like quite a nasty racist. In the same vein, one can only understand what Justin Martyr said in context historically and culturally. It is hardly plausible for the minority underdog under heavy persecution from both Roman and Jew to be called an antiSemite

What you say is true....and you, in a backdoor way, admit here that Christians were kicked out of synagogues...that means they must have been in the synagogues to be kicked out. Actually, the Jews were really upset because the Jewish Christians in the Jewish army refused to recognize Bar Kochba and refused to serve.

Yep, the Nazarene Christians (Jewish Christians in the tradition of Jesus, James, Peter et al) were between a rock and a hard place. After the Bar Kochba revolt the Jew's hated their Jewish/Christian brother's, kicking them out of kindred fellowship and not to mention the growing antisemitic Gentile Church on the other side, Nazarene Christianity had it pretty rough time of it.

"Backdoor" indeed. Firstly, I have stated repeatedly that the early Christians were in the synagogues, including often the Gentile believers- so there is no "backdoor admission"- it's right up front as historical observation. Second, this artificial bifurcation between Nazarene Jewish Christians and so-called anti-Semitic Gentile Church is only substantive on one level: Nazarenes/Ebionites rejected the divinity of Christ. But these were only a small segment of the Jewish Christian populace.

The only accurate thing you there spoke was that the Rabbinic Jews kicked out the Christ believers from the synagogues.

Point of order: Anyone who receives Christ is grafted into the olive tree, and those who reject Him are cast off as branches. There are no "Gentile Christians," therefore, and your distinction and claims of anti-Semitism are fallacious and baseless claims.

Yes, there is an ugly legacy of anti-Rabbinic sentiment found in the annals of history. Now there is an ugly legacy of Zionism perpetrated against believers in Christ (ie, Christian Palestinians). Now who are the anti-Semites then?

What you label as anti-Semitism began as a simple conflict and competion over the hearts and minds of the Pagan world. Anti-Semitism did not truly flourish as a sentimentality until the time of Chrysostom- and even then, it was a sentiment, not the action we saw in the Medieval pogroms.

Antisemitic enough to (as proven historically through the various Councils) make a conscious split with anything Judaistic. Even the Eastern Orthodox in the beginning were more "Jew" friendly than their Western brothers. I've read the antisemitic resolutions put forth by these Councils...the list ain't short bruddah.....

We never ceased being Hebraic in our origin, sensibility, and lives. We are, yes, distinct from Christ-rejecting Rabbinic Judaism, that is clearly true. We are connected back to the Jewish mothers and fathers by many threads and branches, however. I will not exhaustively explore our 'Semitic' sensibilities, but the Orthodox liturgy should appear and sound very familiar to a conservative Jew.

As for the early Church being Mosaic in observance, it certainly was a truncated Moses, bereft of circumcision, dietary laws, and most importantly, theocracy. In point of fact, the early Church was NOT Mosaic in nature, nor did it become based in Noahide Law. The Church was taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So you are saying Acts 15:20 or, Acts 21:21 isn't Noahide Law?....Did Paul not have Timothy circumcised? I've got a colleague who is putting the finishing touches on a book that would eat your last paragraph whole proving conclusively the opposite of what you claim. I can't honestly believe a man of your perceived intellect would make a statement like the above. Send me your email address and I send you his work.

You seem to have forgotten the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I didn't say that Noahide Law wasn't present, I said referring to what the Gospel teaches as such demands the exclusion of much of Christ's teachings. Christ's teachings are the summation and exposition of all Jewish scripture.

This doesn't take either a scholar or rocket scientist to realize.

4. In addition to Noahide Law, former pagan practices (ie Jezebel, Nicolaitans) of the Gentile Christians began to creep into Church worship.

Nicolaitans, those followers of Nicholas the apostate, advocated sexual immorality and antinomianism. This has never been advocated in any of the Church, Gentile or otherwise.

OC....why is it mentioned then?...obviously they were doing it.

No, there were those among their number and those who were creeping in advocating such. There are always apsotates and workers of iniquity in every congregation.

Just in case you missed it in the Law and Prophets, Israel has never been free of the scourge of immorality, adultery, or immorality either.

Hence the need for the Torah (Instruction)....Nope, I didn't miss it.

The need is for the Gospel of Christ. "Thou shall not commit adultery" is not enough. A man must be challenged internally (if you even lust in your heart,...). The Gospel is invasive and intrusive.

5. Basically, Christianity was turning down the wrong path even at that early time.

Really- how so?

Told you earlier in the posts....Turned away from Jesus' and Judaisms second love....keeping the Torah. Yes, OC even Gentile Christians should do their best to keep it. The beauty of it is they don't have the death sentence hanging over their heads becacuse Jesus provided that freedom.

Again, this is a fallacious argument. No one has advocated antinomianism among the ancient, apostolic Christians. We do not reject the Torah, we accept the full gospel, which is tougher than Torah could hope to be. We do not believe in a faith that has no works. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Take a look at the Didache- which is later in writing than Revelation- and tell me how it is that the Church advocated or even tolerated Lawlessness.

And again- the first love is Christ.

This is what Jesus was chastising the Church for.....his warning....get back to the begining.....The observance of Mosaic Law in the freedom that Jesus provides. If Mosaic Law was good enough for James, Peter, Paul and the rest of the apostles to continue to observe, then it should be good enough for us to strive to observe also. This was the practice of the early Nazarene Christians.

Wrong, o foolish Galatian.
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if [it be] yet in vain.

Paul's admonition is not to abandon Godly living by the statutes of God. But it is NOT to the statutes to whom are love is tendered. It is not the Law that we depart from when we sin. "It is you alone who I have offended, I have done what is evil in YOUR sight."

OC....Galations is the most misinterpreted book in Christianity...Paul is addressing the various groups of Christians in Galatia. Paul is not preaching against Torah...he is preaching against the man made (jewish)customs surrounding the Torah...the same thing Jesus preached when dealing with the Pharisees.

Actually, Paul is preaching against the twin errors of lawlessness and legalism

He is our first love. He is the one that we either move toward, or depart from. Though I share you devotion to carrying out His Law, I reject your devotion to His Law. It is to Him that we are devoted- He is not remote, He is within.

Why?

Because Christ demands it.....He demanded it when he was walking the earth, he demanded it when addressing John in Revelation. He will demand it with the 144000. He will demand it during his Millennial Kingdom reign.

He demands a great many other things you either ignore or reject: "Tell it to the Church" comes to mind.

I have some friends that are messianic- or should I say they are Gentiles who are enthralled with all things Jewish. They told me "The Greeks think, the Jews obey." I responded "so what or whom have they been obeying over the last 2000 years?" What malarkey.

Make no mistake- the Christian faith is Jewish. And Greek. And Latin. And Asian. And African. The root is Semitic, from the holy Semitic mothers and fathers. But the Church- to the degree that She is the Body of Christ- is a continuation (not replacement of) Israel- and all who come to her are grafted in.

Agreed...
Well, whadyaknow.

 

[Georges]

[quote="Orthodox Christian":45d6b]

Geo...I personally agree that the Church references are historical and I am aware of the traditional thought that the 7 Churches make up the Church age history, even though the Church age has experienced all 7 Church types in each age.

Yes, the references were to churches in history, meaning the actual churches at the locations named. Any other interpretation is horrible speculation and soothsaying. Parsimony, anyone?

Cute....

Maybe cute, maybe spot-on also.

The points I was trying to make were:

1. The early Christian Church (Pre 130's) were actually very Messianic in nature and can actually be referenced as Messianic Synagogues.

Some were, and some were not. Certainly it is clear from Acts 15 alone that there were many Gentile congregations who were not compelled to live as Jews.

2. Jesus' chastising of those Messianic Synagogues for leaving their "First Love", in Judaism it's love of Torah, or Mosaic Law.

The Church at Ephesus was not a "Messianic" congregation.
Ephesians 2:11

Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Come on OC you are a smart guy...at least you type like you are...you know that the early church was made up of Gentiles, Messianic Jews (Pharisaic and Saddusaic, Shammaite and Hillelite). Paul addresses each of these groups in his letters, not to mention Israeli and Hellenist Jewish Christians...the verse you quoted above is simply directed at the Gentile group of the Ephesus Church.

Perhaps a bit of clarification is in order: When you refer to these congregations as "Messianic" I am inclined to think you are calling them congregations of Jews. There were Jews, no doubt, but that is a different thing than a Jewish congregation.

Sorry OC......This is the same group Gentile God fearers, Proselytes and Jews as common with all of Paul's Missionary targets mentioned in Acts ... Ephesus is no different.

Act 18:19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.
Act 18:20 When they desired [him] to tarry longer time with them, he consented not;
Act 18:21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

John's Ephesus Church in Revelation is the same group of people Paul was addressing here. Just more corrupt then they once were.

Again, the distinction between congregation that contained Jews and "Messianic congregation" needs to be made clear.

Furthermore, the first love- protos agape- from which the Ephesians had departed was works of a sincere and loving heart performed in truth, as the context demonstrates. This is not the Torah, nor is it NOT the Torah- this is the teaching of Christ, ie the full gospel.

It's both OC....Christ loved the Torah.....What were the 2 greatest commandments as given by him? It is the same as the Torah teachs? hint.....Love your neighbor as yourself.....

Note that I said "nor is it NOT the Torah. We'll pick this up further along. As I stated in my prior post

Of course, we know that the Gospel can be found in the Torah

The Torah is not the Gospel, the Torah pointed to the Gospel. The Gospel is the superior revelation to the Torah, as it is written:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son,

3. In the early Church, Mosaic Law observance was gradually replaced by Noahide Law as the Gentile population (and antisemitism) grew.

Antisemitism- if you insist on calling it that- came into effect after the Christians were anathemized from synagogues simply because thy would not participate in Jewish military revolts or call Bar Kochbah "Messiah."
Ever read the Rabbinic pronunciations of that era? What shall we call those - Xenophobic?

Antisemitism..is Antisemitism...You can put the sugar coated spin any way you like..

This reminds me of when, reading back through Abraham Lincoln's writings on relations between Whites and Blacks- I was struck by how Lincoln sounded like quite a nasty racist. In the same vein, one can only understand what Justin Martyr said in context historically and culturally. It is hardly plausible for the minority underdog under heavy persecution from both Roman and Jew to be called an antiSemite

What you say is true....and you, in a backdoor way, admit here that Christians were kicked out of synagogues...that means they must have been in the synagogues to be kicked out. Actually, the Jews were really upset because the Jewish Christians in the Jewish army refused to recognize Bar Kochba and refused to serve.

Yep, the Nazarene Christians (Jewish Christians in the tradition of Jesus, James, Peter et al) were between a rock and a hard place. After the Bar Kochba revolt the Jew's hated their Jewish/Christian brother's, kicking them out of kindred fellowship and not to mention the growing antisemitic Gentile Church on the other side, Nazarene Christianity had it pretty rough time of it.

"Backdoor" indeed. Firstly, I have stated repeatedly that the early Christians were in the synagogues, including often the Gentile believers- so there is no "backdoor admission"- it's right up front as historical observation. Second, this artificial bifurcation between Nazarene Jewish Christians and so-called anti-Semitic Gentile Church is only substantive on one level: Nazarenes/Ebionites rejected the divinity of Christ. But these were only a small segment of the Jewish Christian populace.

The only accurate thing you there spoke was that the Rabbinic Jews kicked out the Christ believers from the synagogues.

Point of order: Anyone who receives Christ is grafted into the olive tree, and those who reject Him are cast off as branches. There are no "Gentile Christians," therefore, and your distinction and claims of anti-Semitism are fallacious and baseless claims.

Yes, there is an ugly legacy of anti-Rabbinic sentiment found in the annals of history. Now there is an ugly legacy of Zionism perpetrated against believers in Christ (ie, Christian Palestinians). Now who are the anti-Semites then?

What you label as anti-Semitism began as a simple conflict and competion over the hearts and minds of the Pagan world. Anti-Semitism did not truly flourish as a sentimentality until the time of Chrysostom- and even then, it was a sentiment, not the action we saw in the Medieval pogroms.

Antisemitic enough to (as proven historically through the various Councils) make a conscious split with anything Judaistic. Even the Eastern Orthodox in the beginning were more "Jew" friendly than their Western brothers. I've read the antisemitic resolutions put forth by these Councils...the list ain't short bruddah.....

We never ceased being Hebraic in our origin, sensibility, and lives. We are, yes, distinct from Christ-rejecting Rabbinic Judaism, that is clearly true. We are connected back to the Jewish mothers and fathers by many threads and branches, however. I will not exhaustively explore our 'Semitic' sensibilities, but the Orthodox liturgy should appear and sound very familiar to a conservative Jew.

As for the early Church being Mosaic in observance, it certainly was a truncated Moses, bereft of circumcision, dietary laws, and most importantly, theocracy. In point of fact, the early Church was NOT Mosaic in nature, nor did it become based in Noahide Law. The Church was taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So you are saying Acts 15:20 or, Acts 21:21 isn't Noahide Law?....Did Paul not have Timothy circumcised? I've got a colleague who is putting the finishing touches on a book that would eat your last paragraph whole proving conclusively the opposite of what you claim. I can't honestly believe a man of your perceived intellect would make a statement like the above. Send me your email address and I send you his work.

You seem to have forgotten the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I didn't say that Noahide Law wasn't present, I said referring to what the Gospel teaches as such demands the exclusion of much of Christ's teachings. Christ's teachings are the summation and exposition of all Jewish scripture.

This doesn't take either a scholar or rocket scientist to realize.

4. In addition to Noahide Law, former pagan practices (ie Jezebel, Nicolaitans) of the Gentile Christians began to creep into Church worship.

Nicolaitans, those followers of Nicholas the apostate, advocated sexual immorality and antinomianism. This has never been advocated in any of the Church, Gentile or otherwise.

OC....why is it mentioned then?...obviously they were doing it.

No, there were those among their number and those who were creeping in advocating such. There are always apsotates and workers of iniquity in every congregation.

Just in case you missed it in the Law and Prophets, Israel has never been free of the scourge of immorality, adultery, or immorality either.

Hence the need for the Torah (Instruction)....Nope, I didn't miss it.

The need is for the Gospel of Christ. "Thou shall not commit adultery" is not enough. A man must be challenged internally (if you even lust in your heart,...). The Gospel is invasive and intrusive.

5. Basically, Christianity was turning down the wrong path even at that early time.

Really- how so?

Told you earlier in the posts....Turned away from Jesus' and Judaisms second love....keeping the Torah. Yes, OC even Gentile Christians should do their best to keep it. The beauty of it is they don't have the death sentence hanging over their heads becacuse Jesus provided that freedom.

Again, this is a fallacious argument. No one has advocated antinomianism among the ancient, apostolic Christians. We do not reject the Torah, we accept the full gospel, which is tougher than Torah could hope to be. We do not believe in a faith that has no works. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Take a look at the Didache- which is later in writing than Revelation- and tell me how it is that the Church advocated or even tolerated Lawlessness.

And again- the first love is Christ.

This is what Jesus was chastising the Church for.....his warning....get back to the begining.....The observance of Mosaic Law in the freedom that Jesus provides. If Mosaic Law was good enough for James, Peter, Paul and the rest of the apostles to continue to observe, then it should be good enough for us to strive to observe also. This was the practice of the early Nazarene Christians.

Wrong, o foolish Galatian.
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if [it be] yet in vain.

Paul's admonition is not to abandon Godly living by the statutes of God. But it is NOT to the statutes to whom are love is tendered. It is not the Law that we depart from when we sin. "It is you alone who I have offended, I have done what is evil in YOUR sight."

OC....Galations is the most misinterpreted book in Christianity...Paul is addressing the various groups of Christians in Galatia. Paul is not preaching against Torah...he is preaching against the man made (jewish)customs surrounding the Torah...the same thing Jesus preached when dealing with the Pharisees.

Actually, Paul is preaching against the twin errors of lawlessness and legalism

He is our first love. He is the one that we either move toward, or depart from. Though I share you devotion to carrying out His Law, I reject your devotion to His Law. It is to Him that we are devoted- He is not remote, He is within.

Why?

Because Christ demands it.....He demanded it when he was walking the earth, he demanded it when addressing John in Revelation. He will demand it with the 144000. He will demand it during his Millennial Kingdom reign.

He demands a great many other things you either ignore or reject: "Tell it to the Church" comes to mind.

I have some friends that are messianic- or should I say they are Gentiles who are enthralled with all things Jewish. They told me "The Greeks think, the Jews obey." I responded "so what or whom have they been obeying over the last 2000 years?" What malarkey.

Make no mistake- the Christian faith is Jewish. And Greek. And Latin. And Asian. And African. The root is Semitic, from the holy Semitic mothers and fathers. But the Church- to the degree that She is the Body of Christ- is a continuation (not replacement of) Israel- and all who come to her are grafted in.

Agreed...
Well, whadyaknow.[/quote:45d6b]

Hey OC...I think if we kept quoting and pasting each other.....we will eventually end up with each post being a page or two longer each....what do ya think? :D