ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Early Church Jewish Beliefs

To what extend did the early Jewish Church understand the New Covenant initiated by Christ? Or did they simply believe the Christain faith was only an extension of the Old Covenant belief and practices?

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Early Church Quiz
 ---lee1538 on 12/31/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (5)

Post a New Blog



The early Jewish Church was the Apostolic Church. They were the ones who wrote the New Testament. They consistentently upheld the tenets of the Old Testament, and understood that the New Covenant was an Old Testament prophecy of the new birth experience. They kept all ten of God's Commandments, including the Seventh Day Sabbath. They did not demean the Jewish nation - they were Jews. They believed in a literal 6-day creation, a universal flood, and a bodily resurrection of the dead.

Therefore, only those of us who believe and teach these fundamental truths can honestly call himself ORTHODOX.


---jerry6593 on 1/15/12


Samuel: But SDA doctrine claims that foot washing is washing away sin hence Christians don't have to be re-baptized (full emersion) again.
This suggests Jesus did not completely deal with sin on the cross. In other words, SDA doctrine suggests Jesus's sacrifice was no different to the OT sacrifices that had to be done every year. Can you see the SDA's error?
---Haz27

No it does not mean that at all. We are baptized for remission of sin by immersion. Does that symbolize that JESUS has to die again? This is a reminder of our baptism and a reminder symbols of what JESUS did on the cross. It is not a mass.
---Samuel on 1/15/12


---Haz27 on 1/12/12
Jesus teaching states that those who have been baptized, need not be rebaptized except to wash their feet.
John 13:10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet,
THIS IS NOT SDA TEACHING this is plain BIBLE teaching. SDA accept the bible and OBEY.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Why is it not enough to just BELIEVE that Jesus dealt with the sin issue on the croos, why "ADD" to it by being baptized for the remmission of sin?
---francis on 1/13/12


Francis, You miss and/or forget what was said.

Why would I ask why SDA do foot washing? You told me several blogs ago. And I challenge it as error.

Your reference to Acts 2:38 "repent and be baptised for remission of sin", is not a problem. Christians did this when we came to Christ. And we were cleansed of sin THEN.
But SDA's go through foot washing to be cleansed again, and again, and again...just like OT sacrifices had to be done year, after year, after year...

Why teach Christ's sacrifice cleanses us of sin temporarily and we need repeat cleansing just like the temporary cleansing of the OT sacrifices? Once purged of sin we should have NO MORE conscience of sins anyway Heb 10:2



---Haz27 on 1/14/12


francis, by giving (Acts 2:38) implying that if they repent and be baptized they will be saved. That would mean that by their works they would be forgiven. You missed the whole context. Peter had just spoken the gospel to them, and when they heard this they were cut to the heart. Convicted by the Holy Spirit. The faith to believe had just been given to them. And faith comes through regeneration. So they ask Peter "what shall we do?" If they had faith in the gospel they would repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins. If they had no faith, they would never repent or get baptized. The baptizing and repenting was the evidence of their calling. "As many as the Lord will call" (v.39).
---Mark_V. on 1/14/12




What did they understand?

What about the Sabbath day? In one section it is a commandment. In another the Lord of the Sabbath supersedes it. Yet on another we are not to let anyone judge us about it. (Exo 20:10, Mat 12:2, Col 2:16)
---michael_e on 1/14/12


//This is the crux of your problem. You believe Bible Commentators and not the Bible!

Unlike you who would believe a woman who was had a medical condition that caused visions, I would trust more in the teachers that Lord has given to His church.

And they are, in part, the reason I could never be an Adventists as they present the truth concerning Christ and what the Christian life entails.

Sorry Jerry but you have been misled and are stuck under the smelly skirks of a crazy olde woman.
---lee1538 on 1/14/12


//the bible says "Acts 2:38 Repent, and be baptized every one of you...for the remission of sins"// ---francis on 1/13/12

sort of. let me fill in the ellipses: "...in the name of Jesus Christ...".

you can totally immerse:

in water, in jello, in dirt, in sin, in denial, in fire and spirit, which is to say in the name of Jesus Christ (or in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit).

i know that this part of the verse presents problems, but Jesus Christ says in Acts 1:5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
---aka on 1/15/12


Francis:..why accuse me of unintelligent conversation?
---Haz27 on 1/12/12

This is an unintellegent statement:
"SDA doctrine on foot washing for sin is error. It suggests Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient."

It would have been better to ask " Why do SDA continue with foot washing?"

What makes it unintellegent is that the bible says "Acts 2:38 Repent, and be baptized every one of you...for the remission of sins"

So we know that although Jesus died on the cross for our sin, yet we have to repent and BE BAPTIZED for the remission of sins

Does SDA doctrine on BAPTISM FOR REMMISION for sin suggests Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient?
---francis on 1/13/12


Lee: "No credible Bible commentary supports your viewpoint."

This is the crux of your problem. You believe Bible Commentators and not the Bible!

Do you realize that your entire belief system is predicated on the belief that Jesus and the Apostles (Jews all) were stupid, and it wasn't until over 100 years later that the brilliant (and pagan leaning) Church Fathers got it right. And the sad part is that you really believe this indefensible rot.

You continue to confuse the LAW with the Covenant to keep the LAW. If the LAW were done away with as you insist (rather than written in the heart), then it would contradict Jesus' own words that the LAW remains unchanged while heaven and earth remain.

---jerry6593 on 1/13/12




Samuel: But SDA doctrine claims that foot washing is washing away sin hence Christians don't have to be re-baptized (full emersion) again.
This suggests Jesus did not completely deal with sin on the cross. In other words, SDA doctrine suggests Jesus's sacrifice was no different to the OT sacrifices that had to be done every year. Can you see the SDA's error?
---Haz27 on 1/12/12


The Literal is used as a symbol to be a reminder. Real water used in baptism does do the washing otherwise everyone who takes a bath is cleansed from sin. Grace saves us through faith as a gift of GOD. But he left us rites that are to remind us.

There are Baptists churches that practice foot washing. Even the Roman Catholics do it once a year but just for the Pope.

The topic was about how Jewish was the early first church. Many forget it was all jews alone for awhile.
---Samuel on 1/12/12


Francis: Forums are difficult places to get a message across as you know. So why accuse me of unintelligent conversation when I disagree with you?

You quote Acts 2:38. But see it's context. Repent (of dead works, Heb 6:1), and be baptized. This is not speaking to Christians who did wrong. It's a salvation call to unsaved.

And John 13:10 the foot washing was a type (NOT literal). Note Eph 5:26. Christ gave himself (crucified) to cleanse us with the WASHING of water BY THE WORD.

Note how Eph 6:15 and Rom 10:15 speak of feet in terms of the gospel. Washing others feet is done by sharing the gospel so that others who accept it will be washed by the word (NOT literal water as SDA doctrine claims).
---Haz27 on 1/12/12


Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
--Some would take this verse and imply that love is written in sinners' hearts. I beg to differ.
--Jesus called the Pharisees *white washed sepulchres*, clean and pretty on the outside, but full of death on the inside.
--Such is the case with sinners that show love only to whom they wish, rather than to all--an outward action hiding an inward vacuum.
2Cr 3:2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
--This is the context for 2Cr 3:3. God did not write us on tables of stone either.
--Some may well not use verses out of context to try to push false doctrines.
---micha9344 on 1/12/12


SDA doctrine on foot washing for sin is error. It suggests Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient.
---Haz27 on 1/11/12
I do not get much intellegent conversation from you.

FOOT WASHING:
Acts 2:38 Repent, and be BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the REMISSION OF SIN,

John 13:10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet,

Those who have been baptized need not be rebaptized everytime they sin, they need only wash their feet instead of always beingrebaptized.

SECRET SIN: Romans 2:16 God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ

At least STUDY a little before you accuse or ask questions
---francis on 1/12/12


Francis. SDA doctrine on foot washing for sin is error. It suggests Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient. SDA doctrine suggests Christ's sacrifice was similar to the OT sacrifices which had to be done every year.

But Heb 10:10 "we are sanctiifed through the offering of the body of Christ ONCE and for all".

Francis, the fact you admitted the Bible does not address what happens if someone forgets to confess sins or harbours secret sins, shows how scripture does not support this SDA doctrine.

Also can you explain why it is SDA's fail to obey the commandments when, as you said,"Love is demonstrated by keeping what was written in tabels of stone".

---Haz27 on 1/11/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


But SDA doctrine suggests this is not sufficient. Likewise they consider Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient to deal with sin, hence the foot washing.
---Haz27 on 1/11/12

I did expect more intellegent conversation from you, but i will have to settle for what you give

John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

It is an example set by Jesus that his disciples should follow. The fact the SDA follow this example shows that SDA's are indeed disciples of Jesus
---francis on 1/11/12


Francis said: "Love is demonstrated by keeping what was written in tabels of stone"

Then why do SDA's fail to obey? Do they not love God?

Instead we see "by one Mans obedience many will be made righteous" Rom 5:19.
God sees Christ (with his obedience) in us. But SDA doctrine suggests this is not sufficient. Likewise they consider Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient to deal with sin, hence the foot washing.

But believers do"keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. And THIS IS HIS COMMANDMENT: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment." 1John3:23






---Haz27 on 1/11/12


LOVE is in the hearts of even the rePUBLICANS

Matthew 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

2 Corinthians 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Proverbs 7:2 Keep my commandments, and live, and my law as the apple of thine eye.

Proverbs 7:3 Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart.

and all the commandmenst are sumed up in LOVE

God did not write LOVE on tables of stone. Love is demonstrated by keeping what was written in tabels of stone
---francis on 1/10/12


Francis. You quote Hebrews "saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them,"

BUT, the SDA's fail to obey the law. They even do foot washing to deal with this disobedience. And if that wasn't incriminating enough, SDA's then condemn non-SDA's for not obeying the law.

Instead, it's our inner man, Christ, (Rom 7:22) who delights after the law. It is his obedience that God recognizes in Christians.
Believe on Jesus and submit to God's righteousness.

---Haz27 on 1/10/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


What are the *laws* that God will write on our hearts?
I submit to you now that God will NOT write words like *adultry*, *kill*, *steal*, *idol*, nor *covet* on our hearts.
He would, however, write the word *love* on our hearts, as in *Love God and Love your neighbor.*
Pushing legalism will be judged at the ressurection of the saints.
Woe to you, Pharisees and hypocrites.
---micha9344 on 1/10/12


Hebrew 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.
---lee1538 on 1/10/12

why do you avoid this part of the new covenant:

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Hebrews 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them,

OH yes i see, THE LAW
you avoid all scripture which has to do with God's people keeping THE LAW
---francis on 1/10/12


Jerry//This is the crux of your problem. You believe Bible Commentators and not the Bible!

I believe the Bible tells us that God created a New Covanant with Israel making the Old Covenant, obsolete.

While all the commentaries agree with that, so does the Scripture.

Hebrew 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

In forcing the tenets of an obsolete covenant onto the church, you are trying to force laws given only the nation of Israel onto the church.
---lee1538 on 1/10/12


In fact, Romans 14 gives us freedom from such a law.
---lee1538 on 1/9/12
Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
does not give permission to trangress the ten commandments. That would be permission to sin. This is by no means a reference to the sabbath which if not observed is a sin.

It is a reference to days such as Pentecost, day of atonement,feast of ubnleaven bread, feast of trunpets,
which we are not obligated to keep, since they have their funfilment in Jesus and time. But if i choose to observe day of atonement it is OK. No sin no harm
---francis on 1/10/12


Send a Free Special Occasion Ecard


Lee: "No credible Bible commentary supports your viewpoint."

This is the crux of your problem. You believe Bible Commentators and not the Bible!

Do you realize that your entire belief system is predicated on the belief that Jesus and the Apostles (Jews all) were stupid, and it wasn't until over 100 years later that the brilliant (and pagan leaning) Church Fathers got it right. And the sad part is that you really believe this indefensible rot.


---jerry6593 on 1/10/12


Francis //there are many by EXAMPLE and by COMMAND for SABBATH...

The command to observe the Sabbath was to the Jews only under the Old Covenant dispensation.

There is nothing in the New Covenant that even hints of a command to observe the Jewish sabbath.

In fact, Romans 14 gives us freedom from such a law.

The Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath presented an ideal forum for the Apostles to present the gospel messsage that Jesus was the promised Messiah. The events on the Sabbath in Acts does not support the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath.

No credible Bible commentary supports your viewpoint.
---lee1538 on 1/9/12


the Sabbath was no longer observed and Sunday worship became the norm as early as 135 A.D. (see Bacchiocchi)
---lee1538 on 1/9/12
Again, anyone with wisdom would know that for 100 years ALL christians kept the sabbath. That means that it was only AFTER the death of all the apostles that this apostacy entered the church

furthermore, there have ALWAYS been christians keeping the sabbath.
In 364 AD the church ordered death to all who would not keep sunday.

This tells us that christians were still keeping sabbath in 364 AD
---francis on 1/9/12


--lee1538 on 1/9/12
While theer are NO COMMANDS for holy convocation on sunday, there are many by EXAMPLE and by COMMAND for SABBATH

Leviticus 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation

Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me,

Ezekiel 46:3 Likewise the people of the land shall worship at the door of this gate before the LORD in the sabbaths and in the new moons.

Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Acts 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made,
---francis on 1/9/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


francis //In other words sunday worship did not become the norm until AFTER THE DEATH OF ALL THE APOSTLES
---
Yes, the earliest church was all Jewish and they continued in the Mosaic traditions by observing the tenets of the Old Covenant such as the Levitical dietary laws, the sabbath, and CIRCUMCISION, etc.

However, when Gentiles became Christians as evidence by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit,

(And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith Acts 15:8-9)

the early Jewish church had to deal with what was required of Gentile believers.
---lee1538 on 1/9/12


Francis //church historians will agree that the early churches were largely established by the Apostles and their close disciples. After a church was established, they ordained elders to care for the churches they founded. Acts 14:23

The last Apostle, John died around 110 A.D. however, by then the leadership had passed to the Gentile believers who continued in the teachings of the Apostles. But observing the Sabbath was not one of those teachings. That much is too easy to see from the writings of the early church.

It is reasonable to believe that those who were immediate successors of the Apostles would teach Sabbath observance only if the Apostles has taught it to them.
---lee1538 on 1/9/12


However, Christians who follow the Bible are to have commual worship on Sundays, the Lord's Day, the day of His resurrection.

And that obviously established by the Apostles & their immediate successors.
---lee1538 on 1/9/12
We can easily conclude that from the fact church historians have found Sunday worship was the norm by 135 A.D.
---lee1538 on 1/3/12

Anyone who has any wisdom would know that if it was the norm by 135 AD then it was not the norm in 35 AD and not the norm in 100 AD.

In other words sunday worship did not become the norm until AFTER THE DEATH OF ALL THE APOSTLES

Which meant that during the lifetime fo the apostles ALL CHRISTIANS kept the sabbath
---francis on 1/9/12


//The apostles did teach truth of the gospel.

While true (the Gospel is about Jesus), Jewish Christians as a whole simply continued in the Jewish traditions, and "to a great extent, merely ran on in the well-worn grooves of Jewish piety".(p. 121,From Sabbath to Lord's day,DA Carson).

As to Sabbath observance, Jewish converts would usually have stayed within the synagogues system until forced out.... As late as 85-90 AD, Jewish leaders took action "to flush Christians out of the synagogues". (Ibid, p. 125)

And we can say that as the leadership passed onward to the Gentiles, the Sabbath was no longer observed and Sunday worship became the norm as early as 135 A.D. (see Bacchiocchi)
---lee1538 on 1/9/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


They did teach truth of the gospel. ... Why do you think they had to meet in Jerusalem? Why do you think there was many quarrels? ---Mark_V. on 1/9/12
The two statement are contrary and support my view.

The apostles did teach truth of the gospel.

Quarrels did NOT arise from the teachings of the apostles, but rather from others seeking their own advancement

So then the early church did have perfect understanding as the teachers of the church was THE APOSTLES and not the APOSTATES
---francis on 1/9/12


Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

As to the requirements of the law, there is no requirement to observe any day as holy.
Romans 14.

However, Christians who follow the Bible are to have commual worship on Sundays, the Lord's Day, the day of His resurrection.

And that obviously established by the Apostles & their immediate successors.
---lee1538 on 1/9/12


Lee: "only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law."

Do you have enough faith to OBEY the law and thus FULFILL its requirements?

Jesus commands that we keep His commandments, and not one jot or tittle be removed from that Law. Your theology contradicts Jesus, and makes sin of no consequence, and hence Jesus' sacrifice of no importance. And why? Just so that you can adhere to your man-made traditions? Sad.


---jerry6593 on 1/9/12


francis, you said,
"My point is that the early church had perfect knowledge of what was in the new covenant since the apostles taught perfectly"

They did teach truth of the gospel. But the Jews believed salvation was just for them. Israel was always bias against the Gentiles. We can see why, all through history they were the chosen nation. And God dealed with all others differently. Those people were under the Old Covenant, with laws, traditions, and customs. Everything been taught now was different to what they were use to. All that changed under the New covenant. Why do you think they had to meet in Jerusalem? Why do you think there was many quarrels? You refuse to see the Truth by rejecting Scripture context.
---Mark_V. on 1/9/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


Jerry //Fulfillment is not distruction!

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

you really need to understand what is meant by 'we establish the law'.

Perhaps the New Living Translation would be of help to you.


Romans 8:31NLT Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

The righteous live by faith,(Romans 1,17, Gal. 3,11) jerry, not by the law, as it is then that they are declared righteous in God's sight.

---lee1538 on 1/8/12


francis, the apostles did not teach error. Have no clue why you would say that. They taught the New Testament. They quote many passages from the Old T. to make their point how it was different now. ---Mark_V. on 1/8/12

Now look at the blog question.

If they did not teach error, then they taught TRUTH concerning the new covenant.

My point is that the early church had perfect knowledge of what was in the new covenant since the apostles taught perfectly.

It was later INTENTIONAL pervision that led to any missunderstanding. NOT the apostles teacahing

So to suggest that "they simply believe the Christain faith was only an extension of the Old Covenant belief and practices?" would be wrong
---francis on 1/8/12


Lee: Fulfillment is not distruction!

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

How else could Jesus possibly fulfill "Thou shalt not kill"? Is murder now acceptable to you? God forbid!
---jerry6593 on 1/8/12


francis, the apostles did not teach error. Have no clue why you would say that. They taught the New Testament. They quote many passages from the Old T. to make their point how it was different now. Through the Law there was no salvation, but now through Christ there was. They were just beginning to hear the New Testament and what Jesus brought. Salvation through His death. A sinless sacrifice, who never sinned. Something no one could do of themselves, to keep the whole law. Jesus did it for us now. They could not phathom that, and you cannot either. You are still trying to earn favor with God in order to get saved.
---Mark_V. on 1/8/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


Jerry //The Old Covenant was not the Ten Commandments,

Disagree!

Ex 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights, ... And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

De 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

See also 2 Cor. 3:6f

//Fulfillment is not distruction!

While true, Hebrews 8:13 says that Old Covenant became obsolete and if obsolete then no longer applicable.

What is not in the New Covenant is not applicable.
---lee1538 on 1/7/12


Lee: "Since Christ came to fulfill the law (Mt. 5:17), the Old Covenant became obsolete"

You live in a world of your own imagination. The Old Covenant was not the Ten Commandments, but an agreement to keep them. They were the object of the Covenant, since they collectively define sin, and
the fulfillment of the law then was Jesus sacrifice to pay the penalty for our sins.

Fulfillment is not distruction!

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

How else could Jesus possibly fulfill "Thou shalt not kill"? Is murder now acceptable to you? God forbid!


---jerry6593 on 1/7/12


Acts 15 teaches all to observe DIETARY LAWS and SABBATH
Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled 9 DIETARY LAW), and [from] blood 9 DIETARY LAW).

Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
NEVER on 1st day but EVERY SABBATH

example: Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Why not NEXT DAY where is the sunday church in the early church?
---francis on 1/6/12


Samuel - but you believe also that the New Covenant is but a re-hash of the Old Covenant, that the Cross did not change anything, that laws that are strictly Jewish in nature = circumcision, sabbath, and the Levitical dietary laws were imposed onto the church. Acts 15 is very clear that such demands were not asked of His church and the Epistles make that clear.

And then there is the testimony of the early church, that Sunday was the day the church gathered for communal worship by the early 2sd century.

And the only way that could have happened is that the Apostles & their immediate successors did not teach Jewish laws.
---lee1538 on 1/6/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


But the SDA do understand what the difference is between the Old and New. We also understand the difference between working our way to heaven by what we do and following JESUS and obeying in his will.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

We simply also agree the Whole bible is for Christians like Paul taught. 2Tim 3:16
---Samuel on 1/5/12


---Mark_V. on 1/5/12
OK let me put in in a simple way.

Everything in the Old testement sanctuary ( lamb passover, light, bread) pointed to Jesus as correctly stated in scripture. SO the writers of the New testement book, knew this and tauight ot perfectly to the church.

If we say that they did not understand the new covenant, then we are saying that the apostles taught errors, and had to correct their erronous teaching. This is not found in scripture.

This missunderstand of which people speak was not the missunderstanding of the teachers, it was wickedness on part of some people

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us,
---francis on 1/5/12


francis, you write a lot of passages with no context. Are we suppose to read you mind? Second, you say,
"So what exactly did they not understand about the new covenant"
Everything that you yourself don't understand. They couldn't either. It has been explained to you over and over, just like it was explained to them, but they had so much pride and didn't want to change many of the things they were so use to doing. Suddenly you also are been told, and you just reject the truth. No different then they. In time the indwelling Spirit of God give you that understanding, or maybe not. Only God knows that.
---Mark_V. on 1/5/12


Genesis 22:7 where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
Genesis 22:8 God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:

John 1:29 John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

1 Corinthians 5:7 Christ our passover
Hebrews 4:14 great high priest, Jesus the Son of God
Hebrews 10:20 the veil, that is to say, his flesh,
Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood
Hebrews 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
John 6:35 I am the bread of life:
John 9:5 I am the light of the world.

So what exactly did they not understand about the new covenant?
---francis on 1/5/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


Mark E, your explanation was right on. It was a big problem with the Jewish people, more then with the Gentiles. The Jews had customs and traditions they valued a lot. It was hard for them to just change in an instant. Paul tried to keep unity, even suggesting to the Gentiles not quarrel with the Jewish believers concerning Sabbaths, food and even other customs for they would be causing strife. It would take some time before the Jewish believers really understood the new state they were in. They had always been trying to be save by keeping the whole Law but never could. Now through the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, they had gotten what they could not get through the Law.
---Mark_V. on 1/5/12


//You want the Law of the New Covenant to mean the abolishment of the 10 Commandments-

Since Christ came to fulfill the law (Mt. 5:17), the Old Covenant became obsolete (Hebr. 8:13) and was replaced by the New Covenant - a covenant unlike, not according to, the one He made with Israel when they came from Egypt. (8:9)

If the New covenant was UNLIKE the Sinaitic covenant, then what basically was the difference?

Was only the change to the believers heart?

Or was it simply the principles behind the OT tenets were written onto the hearts of believers?

Certainly not written onto believers hearts, that which found their fulfillment in the ministry of Christ such as was the rest depicted by the Sabbath.
---lee1538 on 1/5/12


To what extend did the early Jewish Church understand the New Covenant initiated by Christ?

I think they had difficulty understanding the New Covenant.

In reading the Books of Hebrews and James, books primarily to early Jewish believers, they needed to "unlearn" the ways of the old covenant. They had a hard time accepting that God's plan now considered all people the same, and that the temple and sacrifices no longer applied to their lives.

In addition, they would have been ostracised from their Jewish families for their belief in Christ and they would have been constantly influenced by their Jewish customs.
---Mark_Eaton on 1/5/12


The idea of preaching to the Gentiles was new. The idea that circumsion was not a requirement. Jesus was the fullfillment of the Old Covenant. However, many wanted to stay in power and control like the Pharisees who could not accept the deregulation of the old rules.
---Scott1 on 1/5/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


The Jewish church followed the old testament laws of Moses, and for the most part they were antiChrist, and were responsible for having their Messiah slain on the cross: "He came to his own, and his own received him not. But they have done to him whatsoever they desired, and have violated, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain the King of glory."
---Eloy on 1/5/12


To what extend did the early Jewish Church understand the New Covenant initiated by Christ? Or did they simply believe the Christain faith was only an extension of the Old Covenant belief and practices?
---lee1538 on 12/31/11
The answer is VERY SIMPLE
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine

the apostles taght perfectly.
It was only later that evil men corrupted the gospel
---francis on 1/5/12


"To what extend did the early Jewish Church understand the New Covenant initiated by Christ?"

Apparently, they understood it a lot better than you do. You want the Law of the New Covenant to mean the abolishment of the Ten Commandments - but it doesn't. There is no scripture that couples the "New Covenant" with a "new Law" - only that "the Law" would be written in the heart rather than stone. Same Law - different location. In fact, Jesus Himself states that not even the minutest change to the Law will occur while heaven and earth remain.

Face it Lee, you're just looking for justification for your sins.

---jerry6593 on 1/5/12


Now the world seeing the power of THE GODHEAD by creation must now seek after God

What would they have learned about the creator God?

Exodus 20:11 in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

No one would have taught them that the death of Jesus on the corss reversed the power of God as creator. Jesus death did not remove Gods vlessing of the 7th day not stop God crom being THE CREATOR!!!

What they would have also learned would be:
Revelation 14:7 Fear God, and give glory to him,..and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
---francis on 1/4/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

The CREATION of God is seen ALL OVER THE WORLD so that it is evident to everyone that there is a CREATOR to which they have a MORAL obligation

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead, SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE:
---francis on 1/4/12


Samuel//Dying to self and living to JESUS results in keeping the law due to sanctification by the HOLY SPRIT not us.
---
Keeping which laws? The ones Jesus fulfilled such as is the Jewish Sabbath which only prefigured the rest of God at Creation for those who would believe? Hebrews 4.

The sabbath cannot be a moral law since Scripture states that the Gentiles who did not have the law fulfilled the law by obeying their conscience.

What has the Sabbath to do with conscience? If you answered nothing, you got the right answer.
---lee1538 on 1/4/12


"The Galatians error had 2 forms, both of which are refuted. the 1st is the teaching that obedience to the law is mingled with faith as the ground of the sinner's justification, the 2sd, that the justified believer is made perfect by keeping the law." (Scofield Study Bible)

Now you know why some view Adventism as being another Galatians heresy.
---lee1538

Since the law is the result of being saved it is not mingled to bring salvation so we are not guilty of that. Dying to self and living to JESUS results in keeping the law due to sanctification by the HOLY SPRIT not us.
---Samuel on 1/4/12


yes Francis we can see that Galatians dealt with not only circumcision, but also the Judaizing of the church.

"The Galatians error had 2 forms, both of which are refuted. the 1st is the teaching that obedience to the law is mingled with faith as the ground of the sinner's justification, the 2sd, that the justified believer is made perfect by keeping the law." (Scofield Study Bible)

Now you know why some view Adventism as being another Galatians heresy.
---lee1538 on 1/3/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


The schoolmaster had already pointed the mission of Jesus

Jesus is the lamb of God
Genesis 22:7 where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
Genesis 22:8 God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

The ENTIRE Gospel was already explain in Genesis:

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Revelation 13:8 the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
---francis on 1/3/12


---lee1538 on 1/3/12
If you are trying t use Galations, which deals ONLY with gentiles having to be circumcised, This was NOT a missunderstanding or lack of understanding of what Jesus had done

1: Paul had raised that church and taught them NOTHING of circumcision

2: Paul in galations tells why people were asked to be circumcised:
Galatians 4:17(Those heretical teachers go to great lengths to flatter you, but their motives are rotten. They want to shut you out of the free world of God's grace so that you will always depend on them for approval and direction, making them feel important.

This was not a missunderstanding, it was intentional missguiding
---francis on 1/3/12


//Those who say that they did not understand fully, tell us what it is that they did not understand.
---francis

What Christ accomplished by going to the Cross.

Did Gentile believers have to convert to Judaism to be legit?

The difference between what is called that ministry of death & condemnation written on letters of stone (2 cor. 3:7,9) and that of the ministry of the Spirit which is more glorious.(Gal. 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.)

Were believers to continue in the Mosaic traditions or were they to be redeemed from the law (Galatians 4:4-5)?

Was the New Covenant merely a rehash of the Old with possibly a few exceptions?
---lee1538 on 1/3/12


Those who say that they did not understand fully, tell us what it is that they did not understand
---francis on 1/3/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


francis //they understood PERFECTLY

Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had PERFECT UNDERSTANDING of all things from the very first,..
---
Again you have a problem with interpretation. Perhaps a better translation would be from the ESV -

it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, ...

If there was perfect understanding of the New covenant, there certainly would have been no need to call the Jerusalem council Acts 15 that decided Gentile believers did not have to become proselytes of Judaism to be legit.

There was much friction between Jewish and Gentile Christians as the former were still practicing the tenets of the Old covenant
---lee1538 on 1/3/12


The first big argument in the church was on circuscion and what about new converts.

Paul covers this topic and the relationship between the old and new briefly in Galations with a Pastorial letter and then more in depth in Romans which ic a indepth discussion.

In both he stresses that we are not saved by the law but by grace. That motive is also inportant.

I have books by the early church fathers they are few. They do not cover everything. We have very little on the first century church. Yes Lee the church had large arguments. One of the main was the nature of JESUS and the trinity.

Also who was in charge and how much power they had.
---Samuel on 1/3/12


They understood very little

luke 18:31Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
32For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
33And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
34And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.
---mlchael_e on 1/3/12


they understood PERFECTLY

Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had PERFECT UNDERSTANDING of all things from the very first,..

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

The leaders of the church were taught by Jesus himself BEFORE and AFTER the resurrection, THEN after the resurrection by The Holy Ghost
---francis on 1/2/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


//New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant.//

Mat_5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

it is not one or the other...or bits and pieces.

it is a continuation ... a revelation.

since we in this human body cannot fulfill all the law, we better submit to the one who has.

"for these are the days of vengeance, to fulfill ALL that is written."
---aka on 1/2/12


"According to Luke, the church at first has not worked out the full implications of its Easter experience, and to a great extent, merely ran on in the well-worn grooves of Jewish piety." DA Carson, From Sabbath to Lord's Day, p. 121

Yes, history does reveal to us that the transition from the Old Covenant to the New was indeed slow.

Those that advocate we should go back to the early church really have no understanding of the various theological problems / controversies found in the early church.

Even today there are problems with some wanting to go backwards to the Old Covenant instead of forward to the New Covenant.
---lee1538 on 1/2/12


Such a difficult question. I believe they understood it was much more.
I think it is fair to say that most early Christian Jews were rejected by the main stream Jewish people who did not see Jesus as the Messiah and still don't. Therefore that fundamental but tremendous difference separates the religions.
We cannot even begin to realise how hard it must have been for the early Christians.
By the time Nero started his persecution of the Christians, there were many in Rome and other places. The Bible tells us after the ascension they went out to spread the word. We are led to believe the first to be martyred was James Son of Zebedee 44ad.
---chris on 1/2/12


The Biblically correct Jewish Christians understood that the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant. But Jesus has recycled things from the earlier scriptures, to now have New Testament meanings and application.
---Bill_willa6989 on 1/2/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


Well,

Paul was an early Jewish Christian, so reading his writings should tell you what he believed.

There was no difference between Jew and Greek in Paul's mind, Christ died for all. And with his emphasis on a unity of the faith, his writings would have been "orthodox".

But, considering that every city had a church leader (Bishop e.g.), and that most congregants followed closely what that leader espoused, one would have to read the church fathers to know what everyone believed.
---James_L on 1/2/12


Jesus came to Fulfill the law & He did. The God given salvation message Acts 2 v 38 was delivered to the Jewish people First by Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost. From Apostle Peter, Andrew, to the other Apostles, they All taught The Very Same Gospel.
---Lawrence_Nemeth on 1/2/12


Wow, good question. I think they understood well what Jesus taught. But they didn't understand well Paul's take on Jesus, and kept sending people to Paul's disciples to get them to change their minds. It was a bit messy. :)
---John.usa on 1/1/12


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.