1st century christians...........

by A Paduan 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  A Paduan

  There's seems to be much pride taken in religious purity if the practice of '1st century christians' is sought out and copied. I have also heard mention of 'early christian' practice spoken of to defend the blood issue.

  So what makes the '1st century christians' actually christians, and not largely represented by fundamentalist nuts too ?

  • so now many antichrists have come

  I'd say there were just as many (by proportion) standover fearful religious nuts full of literal rules, back when some people first literally didn't eat blood, or literally get circumcised etc.
• 

  Narkissos

  Hi Paduan,

  "Foundational myth" has a pleonastic ring, indeed.

  But when you ask "what makes the '1st century christians' (A') actually christians (A)" you are implicitly claiming one authoritative, transhistorical definition of "christians" (A) which may well be another foundational myth. Metaphysically first if not chronologically first. An archè in the sense of timeless, universal transcendental standard, or "principle," instead of "beginning".

  Ultimately, what makes "allegorical Christianity" more genuine than "literal (or fundamentalistic) Christianity," if not your own preference (which I do understand)?
• 

  gumby

  So what makes the '1st century christians' actually christians, and not largely represented by fundamentalist nuts too ?

  Just read the epistles(letters) and you will see first century christians were as diverse as they are today.

  Gumby
• 

  A Paduan

  you are implicitly claiming one authoritative, transhistorical definition of "christians"

  no, I'm saying that there wasn't some over-riding predominance of "authentic christianity" at the time, but rather - plenty that wasn't

  • so now many antichrists have come

  One identifying mark of disconcordance with scripture, now, and then, is literal fundamentalism

  • we know that the law is spiritual
  • real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal
• 

  Narkissos

  You seem to have missed my point, which was really about the circularity of your reasoning.

  As in, equating Pauline Christianity with authentic Christianity on the basis of the... Pauline epistles.

  Or, assuming that Johannine Christianity (by 1 John) was right in rejecting some Christians (which they were probably by their own standards) as antichrists.

  Why not give equal value to the not-so-veiled rejection of Paulinism in Matthew's Gospel, which consistently advocates literal observation of the Law (5:17ff; 7:21ff; 23:23)?

  It is one thing to acknowledge the diversity of early Christianity (as Gumby put it), and the measure of political tolerance and/or mutual condemnation it involved... It is another thing to side with one facet of it (conveniently, that which retrospectively seems to be the closest to later mainstream Christianity) and proclaim it "authentic Christianity".
• 

  A Paduan

  I'll just repeat - I'm saying that there was not some type of over-riding historically culturally identifiable "authentic christianity" that if followed 2000 years later provides the practitioner some type of authenticity. The wtbts and others cite various behaviours of "early christians" to boost confidence in their own authenticity - but a model of ritual is not without question on the basis of being "early christian" - Johannine or Pauline ....

  as Christ said, "many false prophets will arise and lead many astray" and "Take heed that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name..."

  He didn't say "there'll be one or two bad examples"

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I suppose at a stretch you could say I am describing "authentic christianity"..........but only like saying I'm describing a 'good person' by saying that murderers are not

  I certainly don't side with what is now mainstream christianity, but in regard to literalism, I do believe "the flesh is of no avail"

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• 

  A Paduan

  Regarding the Matthew citations

  • Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.

  Exactly - he came and said there was no need to interpret them that way, that it was simply burdensome, and being abused

  • Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

  Which is to believe his son...the law is spiritual.... indeed in the next line..."Lord, Lord, did we not.......do many mighty works in your name?'

  • Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

  If you are suggesting that tithing mint and dill and cummin may appropriately be a literal ask, then the next line is a bit tricky...... straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel

  I see nothing that calls for any support of literalism, but I do see how one could use it to convince themself of it.

  ---------------------------------------------------

  I can't help but agree with Pauline thought in this matter.........."their god is their belly"
• 

  Narkissos

  • Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.

  Exactly - he came and said there was no need to interpret them that way, that it was simply burdensome, and being abused

  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

  Compare the Pauline contrast of spirit and letter. The notion that the law itself is burdensome or impossible to fulfill is not only absent from, but antagonistic to Matthew imo.

  Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.Which is to believe his son...the law is spiritual.... indeed in the next line..."Lord, Lord, did we not.......do many mighty works in your name?'

  The "mighty works" are not erga (the "works" of the Law, ma`asoth torah)but dunameis, the "miracles" of the Spirit which Hellenistic Christianity relies on as the proof of its relationship to God. Who taught that calling upon Jesus as Lord is the only requirement for salvation already? To Matthew this makes believers in (the Pauline) "faith/confession-only" salvation ergazomenoi tèn anomian, "workers of lawlessness".

  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.If you are suggesting that tithing mint and dill and cummin may appropriately be a literal ask, then the next line is a bit tricky...... straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel

  The real target of the Matthean criticism of Pharisaism is clearly not "straining out the gnat," but "swallowing the camel":

  The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.

  these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

  This is not what Pauline and later mainstream Christianity taught about the literal observation of the Torah.

  More generally, an allegorical (or otherwise "spiritual") understanding of the Torah doesn't necessarily make its literal observation unnecessary (as per Paul) or even negative (as per Gnosticism). Philo explicitly argues for both allegorical interpretation and literal practice against similar stances.
• 

  Leolaia

  In addition to the Matthean passages already mentioned that advocate Torah observance (5:17-19, 7:21-23, 23:1-2, 23:23), one could also mention the halakhic character of 5:20-48 (which compares very well with rabbinic exegesis) and the halakhic "binding and loosing" language in 16:19 and 18:18.
• 

  proplog2

  A Paduan:

  I agree with you and I think Narkissos does too. Just a little confusion. You are basically saying that there is NO definitive Christian. Jesus didn't write anything. He simply lived a certain kind of life.