Judaeo Christianity 102

In the previous lesson I showed that nations, religions, and denominations can be related even though they have a history of conflict. There was a definite relationship between Judaism and early Christianity even though the unconverted Jews hated the early Christians and vice versa.

But in the comments to my Fisking Vox Day post some commenters made the argument that today’s Jews aren’t really Jews.

This argument came in two variants:

1. The real Jews converted to Christianity a long time ago. What we have now are utterly fake Jews, the Synagogue of Satan described in the early chapters of the book of Revelations.

2. Modern Judaism has drifted so far from the religion of the Old Testament as to be basically disconnected from the religion of the Old Testament.

The first argument is mostly iffy, but it might hold if we factor in events that happened over the centuries long after the death of St. John. The second argument is at least partly true: modern Judaism is considerably different from the Judaism of King David. It is even quite different from the Judaism of Jesus’ day. The open question is whether these differences make modern “Jews” not real Jews.

If either arguments hold, then all the arguments for Christian Zionism crumble. If either arguments hold, then quite a few Biblical prophecies are rendered invalid, including Jesus’ major end times prophecy. Keep that latter factor in mind before you steel yourself up too much against the arguments to follow.

In his letter to the seven Churches of Asia, St. John attacks factions which were corrupting the Faith: the Nicolaitians, those that hold the doctrine of Balaam, and a group of gentiles larping as Jews: the Synagogue of Satan.

With a bit of imagination and wordplay, one can play all sorts of games with these passages. Are parents who teach their young children about Santa Claus (St. Nicholaus) Nicolaitans? Santa Claus probably has pagan origins (Odin?), his gospel is very worldly and selfish, and once the kids get old enough to realize that Santa Claus isn’t real, it sets a precedent for disbelieving other articles of faith taught by parents. What think ye?

I think I made most of that up, based purely on word similarities, and a penchant for being a puritanical grinch. Watch out when somebody uses such questionable reasoning.

Anyway, these days it should be very easy to believe that there were gentiles larping as Jews back in St. John’s day. We live in a golden age of such larping. We have White women in the U.S. pretending to be Black. Australia has people who are Whiter than I am claiming to be Aborigines. And yes, there are gentiles pretending to be Jews. I have met some personally. Some people will take great pains to be exotic. They want to be special, and tend to be wacky.

But there were plenty of real Jews in John’s day. Unconverted Jews outnumbered Christians by a wide margin; that’s why they were able to persecute the early Christians. Duh! And there were enough extremist Jews to tie up a Roman legion for years during the first Jewish War in 66-73 AD. And there were enough leftover Jews to fight two more wars against the Romans with the last ending in 136 AD.

You might be able to make a case that many modern Jews aren’t truly Jewish because the Jews switched from male line to female line to determine who is genetically Jewish. This practice is in clear violation of the Torah.

Deu 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Deu 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

Deu 23:4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.

.

Deu 23:7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.

Deu 23:8 The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation.

But that was not what St. John was writing about. He was writing about contemporary heresies. It would take many generations to make most Jews into descendants of bastards under the new convention. The Jews of Jesus’ time (and thus St. John’s time) were treated as Jews by Jesus.

Back when I wrote that Jesus was a practicing Jew while incarnate, I did not mean that he looked or acted like a modern Hasidic Jew. The practice of wearing black or always wearing a hat does not come from the Torah. Neither does wearing long pants. The ancient Hebrews didn’t wear pants at all. They wore some sort of skirt or long tunic that was probably around the length of a Scottish kilt or a Roman Legionnaire’s garment.

Exo 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

Exo 20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

This explains how Kind David flashed his naughty bits while dancing much to the chagrin of one of his wives:

2Sa 6:13 And it was so, that when they that bare the ark of the LORD had gone six paces, he sacrificed oxen and fatlings.

2Sa 6:14 And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.

2Sa 6:15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.

.

2Sa 6:20 Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!

2Sa 6:21 And David said unto Michal, It was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD.

2Sa 6:22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.

2Sa 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

Jesus did most likely have a beard that was bushier than shown in most portrayals. There is a prohibition against shaving the corners of your beard in Leviticus:

Lev 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Judaism has definitely changed over the centuries. I do not dispute this at all. The question is not whether Judaism is unchanged or ideal, but whether it has changed to be no longer truly Judaism and no longer strongly connected to the Old Testament and thus Christian adjacent.

Judaism had already changed substantially between the time of Moses and the time that Jesus preached on Earth. There were accumulated court rulings heaped on the Law, much like our own common law and Supreme Court precedents. There were traditions that brought bits of Temple ritual to the family dinner table, which were added during the Babylonian Captivity due to lack of a Temple. There was a tradition of legalistic reasoning which had been handed down orally but had yet to be written into the Talmud.

Jesus was critical of such things in a big way. The gap between the black letter Law given to Moses and the law of Jesus’ day was likely comparable to difference between our written Constitution and what the Supreme Court says it means. In my fisking post I suggested imagining Jesus as a Ron Paul like figure with Constitution replaced by Torah when reading some of his disputes with the lawyers of his day. (He had other messages as well, of course!)

The notion that the pharisees were being criticized for obeying the divine Law given to their ancestors is patently absurd. Yes, Jesus did grant a bit more slack for bending the Law in extenuating circumstances, but he also called for hitting the mental brakes when merely thinking about breaking the Law.

While Judaism had drifted from Moses’ day, Jesus recognized those altered Jews as Jews. He preached to Jews, picked disciples from among the Jews, and picked fights with Jews. His earthly ministry was almost entirely aimed at the Jews and he sent disciples out to the “Lost sheep of Israel.” [The Lost Tribes?] Sometimes he would heal or talk to a gentile, but sometimes he was quite brusque:

Mat 15:21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Jesus definitely recognized the Jews of his day as Jews. But would he recognize modern Jews? This is a legitimate question, as Judaism is not the Judaism of the Old Testament. It is the Judaism of the Old Testaments plus Sanhedrin rulings, plus Talumdic arguments, plus assorted traditions, etc.

But before anyone gets cocky, let’s ask if Jesus would recognize modern Christians? Modern Christianity is not the Christianity described in the New Testament! It is Christianity based on the New Testament, plus writings of the Church Fathers, plus Council rulings, plus compromises with pagan practices, etc.

How are the writings of the Church Fathers any different from the writings of the rabbis that formed the Talmud? How are the votes of Councils all that different from the rulings of the Sanhedrin?

I will illustrate:

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

So much for a celibate priesthood! But the above quote also rules out putting a young man straight out of seminary in charge of a church. Churches were to be led by men who had some experience in life, with their leadership capabilities proven by their ability to lead their own households. Today, among those denominations which allow married preachers, naughty preachers’ sons are a common trope.

But just what was the job of these bishops/overseers? In Paul’s day, there were no fancy church buildings, professional choirs, etc. Each Christian church was a mutual aid society which also prayed together and demanded high moral standards of its members. And by mutual aid society, this could range from aid to the needy to full on communism. A fair amount of management was needed -- along with other roles.

Rom 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Rom 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Rom 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

Rom 12:7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;

Rom 12:8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

Paul wrote of multiple spiritual gifts. Different people had different gifts. The Body of Christ metaphor was not a call to be Borg (contrary to the Campus Crusade propaganda I was given as a child), but a metaphor for division of labor. Note how in the above passage that the ability to be a good ruler (manager/bishop) was separate from being a healer, prophet, teacher, or motivator. Notice that there are two different spiritual gifts that go into different types of sermons. A sermon can teach connections between various parts of scripture, or a sermon can attempt to motivate people to be less sinful or to do good works. These are separate skills! The optimal scholar is often a nerdy introvert. Exhortations are generally the job of extroverts.

See also 1 Corinthians Chapter 12 for a longer exposition on spiritual gifts and the Body of Christ metaphor. Then ask yourself how many modern churches apply this level of division of labor, vs. demanding too much from degreed professionals?

And now, let us compare some particularly Roman Catholic practices with the written words of the New Testament (I’ll get to Protestant doctrines/practices later):

Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Mat 6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

So much for praying the rosary.

Indeed, this passage might pertain to any denomination which uses a prayer book. While I must admit that I prefer following along with a written prayer than trying to echo someone winging it (especially when they pray for something I disagree with), it is also true that excess use of written prayers and scripted ceremonies can become rote and robotic. This can be particularly bad when the minister puts too many hymns and prayers in the program and speeds them up to stay within allotted time. Scripted ceremony can be awe inspiring when not rushed or overdone -- based on my experience. (This paragraph is mostly my personal ruminations, not doctrine! Take the scripture above and do your own contemplations as to its meaning.)

Let’s see what the New Testament says about the Cult of the Virgin Mary:

Luk 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

Luk 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Jesus anticipated the cult and deprecated it from the get-go. Note that this deprecation does not necessarily delegitimize the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that Jesus bothered to criticize in advance is evidence that he anticipated the rise of the Roman Church. But can said church act on this criticism after all these years of promoting the cult? Tradition is a double-edged sword.

Years ago, a Roman Catholic friend of mine claimed that Mary remained a virgin even after Jesus was born. He claimed that Joseph was significantly older than Mary and that the physical brothers of Jesus were Joseph’s sons by a different marriage. That Joseph was older does seem to fit the Gospel accounts. He is nowhere mentioned during Jesus’ ministry and crucifixion. However, he was still alive when Jesus was twelve:

Luk 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

Luk 2:42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

Luk 2:43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

And that is enough time to father some sons. Matthew reports that Joseph did consummate his marriage after Jesus was born:

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[The bold facing is mine, obviously.]

While we are on the subject of virgins and celibacy, there is a brief passage mentioning what might be St. Peter’s mother-in-law.

Luk 4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon’s house. And Simon’s wife’s mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.

Luk 4:39 And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her: and immediately she arose and ministered unto them.

Luk 4:40 Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them

Either this is a different Simon, or St. Peter had been married at some point. Whether his wife was still alive while he was a Disciple is not mentioned.

Finally, let’s look at the practice of canonizing saints and then praying to them. This is suspiciously similar to the Roman Senate’s power to elevate heroes and leaders to godhood. (Originally it applied to dead heroes and politicians. Declaring the current emperor to be a god came later.) Yes, this practice does have some scriptural basis:

Jas 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Asking for intercession by the particularly righteous was endorsed in the New Testament. But the dead righteous? There is a practical problem with this: according to the Bible, the dead sleep. The dead saints -- not necessarily just those officially canonized -- will wake up and meet with Jesus in the clouds on the day Jesus returns. They will rule with Christ here on Earth for a millennium after all the tribulations are done. Then the rest of humanity will wake up to be judged on Judgment Day.

Traditional Christianity’s (not just the Roman Catholics’!) view of the afterlife is way different from what the Bible says. This is too big a subject to cover here, but I have already covered it elsewhere in Rule 7:

An Afterlife a Nerd Can Believe In

·

June 27, 2022

If there’s one thing that Vulcans like less than emotions, it’s contradictions. Logic is the process of detecting and weeding out contradictory statements. This has produced headaches for Christendom…

Enough picking on Catholics, how about Protestants? Well, there are several modern Protestant practices and doctrines that deviate from Christianity as described in the New Testament. Here, I’m going to focus on one that has bugged my inner libertarian for decades, and it has been used to persecute Catholics and Jews here in the US: the issue of alcohol.

This country went on quite a bender after the Revolution. For farmland in the Appalachians and beyond, the only way to profitably sell crops eastwards was to turn them into whiskey. By the late 1800s, the issue of alcohol abuse became front and center, leading some states to ban alcohol, and eventually we got Prohibition -- which led to some serious ethnic gang action, which led to weakening some Constitutional protections which led to abuses to this day. This was America’s closest thing to a religious war, with Protestants pushing Prohibition and Catholics and Jews considering wine to be a blessing if not abused.

Prohibition is over, but many Protestant denominations still use unfermented grape juice for Holy Communion. Some go so far to claim that Jesus used unfermented grape juice, and that the New Testament includes a blanket prohibition on fermented beverages. Some nit picking is in order!

Now there is nothing wrong with abstaining from alcoholic beverages. If doing even small quantities of alcohol leads you into sin, than abstention is the way to go. And if self-control is limited, then living in a community of abstaining Christians and/or living in a dry county makes sense. But tinkering with the Bible narrative is a big no no.

John the Baptist did not drink alcohol.

Luk 1:13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

Luk 1:14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.

Luk 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.

And Jesus had a very high opinion of John the Baptist.

Luk 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

But Jesus did drink wine:

Luk 7:31 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?

Luk 7:32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.

Luk 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

Paul abstained during at least part of his ministry:

Act 18:18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.

The combination of getting his head shaved due to a vow appears to be an example of taking the Nazirite vow described in Numbers chapter 6. Note that this vow not only forbids alcoholic beverages, it forbids grape products of any kind.

The remaining question is whether Jesus and his Disciples drank real wine or an ancient version of Welch’s grape juice. My favorite refutation of the latter comes from the Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection:

Act 2:12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Act 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

Two things to note: “new wine” was an intoxicating substance. It wasn’t pasteurized grape juice. Second, Peter did not say that the other disciples weren’t going to drink. He basically said they weren’t buzzed yet. Pentecost and Tabernacles were times to bring tithes of the harvest to the Lord, and to party.

Deu 14:22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.

Deu 14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.

Deu 14:24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:

Deu 14:25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:

Deu 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

Some Christians of the prohibitionist variety cite St. Paul’s call to treat to treat your body like a temple:

1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

I’ve seen these versus used as a call to avoid drinking, smoking, and even eating unhealthy foods. But is that the meaning Paul was trying to get across? Think about what the Temples was: it was a place were the priest offered delicious smelling smoke to God, especially the delightful smell of carcinogenic heterocyclic amines given off when grilling meat. The Temple smelled like the outside of a Hardee’s restaurant from a half a century ago before governments started regulating the smoke from restaurants and Hardee’s was a high end fast food restaurant that served decent quality beef hamburgers grilled on gas grills, with flames from burning grease flavoring the patties. Mmmmmm, delicious but unhealthy.1

The Temple also offered incense offerings (smoking!) and yes, drink offerings.

Lev 23:37 These are the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, every thing upon his day:

So how does one defile one’s body in a manner similar to defiling the Temple? How about fornication and sodomy?

Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Enough about retconning Prohibition back to New Testament times. What about other Protestant deviations from Biblical Christianity? Well, I’m going to cop out. This post is long and I’m running out of inspiration. So I’m leaving the rest of this task to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox members of the audience. Please post your examples in the comments. But please keep in mind the purpose of this exercise:

1. Virtually all churches have practices and doctrines that deviate from the Christianity described in the New Testament. Ergo, some humility is in order.

2. These deviations are on the same order of magnitude as the changes in Judaism over the past couple of centuries. So be careful about claiming that all modern Jews are not Jews.

3. Christianity branched into assorted factions for real reasons. Maybe the way to be One is not to agree on everything but to recognize that different interpretations and emphases of scripture can still result in a doctrine/practice that is Christian. Let us argue instead of damn.

4. The deep divide today is not between Christian denominations, but between Religious and Rainbow. The latter gap is so big that Christians need to accept alliances with subsets of the Christian adjacent.