1st Century Jews and the Christian Churches today

[ConstantineTG]

I’ve been pondering on something lately. The Jewish faith was fragmented at the time of Christ. We have at least the Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees. Yet Christ did not make any attempt at reuniting them. If the Jews were fragmented at the time of the First Coming, will the Christian Church remain fragmented by the time of the Second Coming? Is this by design?

 

[Nicea325]

I’ve been pondering on something lately. The Jewish faith was fragmented at the time of Christ. We have at least the Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees. Yet Christ did not make any attempt at reuniting them. If the Jews were fragmented at the time of the First Coming, will the Christian Church remain fragmented by the time of the Second Coming? Is this by design?

Good question. It most certainly is fragmented now…sadly. I am truly hoping East and West re-unite in my life time. I am certain our differences can be worked out.

BTW: I have never felt superior to any Eastern Orthodox or that we are right and you are wrong. I just want our leaders to work it out so we can all be ONE as Christ deemed it.

God Bless

 

[ConstantineTG]

Good question. It most certainly is fragmented now…sadly. I am truly hoping East and West re-unite in my life time. I am certain our differences can be worked out.

BTW: I have never felt superior to any Eastern Orthodox or that we are right and you are wrong. I just want our leaders to work it out so we can all be ONE as Christ deemed it.

God Bless

What strikes me, at least form the commentaries I’ve listened to, is how Christianity is a conglomeration of these different Jewish sects. Why didn’t Christ try to unite them? And they were very different from one another, the Saduccees have the temple but didn’t believe in the resurrection. The Pharisees were extremely legalistic and believers in the temple and resurrection. The Essenes didn’t see the temple as necessary, they were ascetics and have set themselves apart from the rest of society. Christians resemble the Essenes the most but we still have certain elements from the other sects. I wonder if for the same purpose the Christian Churches are fragmented and have differences.

 

[Nine_Two]

The divisions within Judaism, at the time, were nothing like the divides in Christianity though.

At the heart of it all, they all acknowledged each other to be completely and fully Jewish, children of Israel.

There were doctrinal disputes with the Sadducees, but the difference between the Essenes and the Pharisees seems to have been completely one of practice and culture. The Essenes and the Pharisees seem to have had the same moral outlook, the Essenes just didn’t think the Pharisees lived it.

Whether or not Christ will unite us all, is an interesting question though.

 

[Nicea325]

What strikes me, at least form the commentaries I’ve listened to, is how Christianity is a conglomeration of these different Jewish sects. Why didn’t Christ try to unite them? And they were very different from one another, the Saduccees have the temple but didn’t believe in the resurrection. The Pharisees were extremely legalistic and believers in the temple and resurrection. The Essenes didn’t see the temple as necessary, they were ascetics and have set themselves apart from the rest of society. Christians resemble the Essenes the most but we still have certain elements from the other sects. I wonder if for the same purpose the Christian Churches are fragmented and have differences.

Like I said, you bring up a very good point. To be honest, I have no good or legit answer? I can only guess Christ (God) allows us humans to have free-will just as his 12 Apostles did. Perhaps Christ would hope we could pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit more? I am really lost for words to be honest.

 

[Nicea325]

The divisions within Judaism, at the time, were nothing like the divides in Christianity though.

At the heart of it all, they all acknowledged each other to be completely and fully Jewish, children of Israel.

There were doctrinal disputes with the Sadducees, but the difference between the Essenes and the Pharisees seems to have been completely one of practice and culture. The Essenes and the Pharisees seem to have had the same moral outlook, the Essenes just didn’t think the Pharisees lived it.

Whether or not Christ will unite us all, is an interesting question though.

Good take.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Like I said, you bring up a very good point. To be honest, I have no good or legit answer? I can only guess Christ (God) allows us humans to have free-will just as his 12 Apostles did. Perhaps Christ would hope we could pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit more? I am really lost for words to be honest.

I don’t think there is an answer to this question, we can just collectively ponder on it and guess. Also maybe the best way is what Nine_Two said about the Jews back then, we recognize each other as full and legit Christians whilst keeping our distinctions from one another. Someone told me of an Orthodox saint who prohesized that there will be a partial union by the Second Coming, but not a full one. Perhaps this is the model of unity that we realistically can achieve.

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t think there is an answer to this question, we can just collectively ponder on it and guess. Also maybe the best way is what Nine_Two said about the Jews back then, we recognize each other as full and legit Christians whilst keeping our distinctions from one another. Someone told me of an Orthodox saint who prohesized that there will be a partial union by the Second Coming, but not a full one. Perhaps this is the model of unity that we realistically can achieve.

Only Almighty God knows. I’ll continue to pray as usual and hope our perspective faiths can be as one- just Jesus and th Father are one. Amen

God Bless

 

[Monergistic]

The divisions within Judaism, at the time, were nothing like the divides in Christianity though.

At the heart of it all, they all acknowledged each other to be completely and fully Jewish, children of Israel.

From what I’ve heard, though, Essenes weren’t permitted in the Temple in the event that they wanted to participate in some type of Temple rite for whatever reason. So that does seem more similar to some of these Christian divisions, unless I’m completely mistaken about that.

 

[Nine_Two]

From what I’ve heard, though, Essenes weren’t permitted in the Temple in the event that they wanted to participate in some type of Temple rite for whatever reason. So that does seem more similar to some of these Christian divisions, unless I’m completely mistaken about that.

Given how they lived that may have been for purity reasons. I’m not familiar with that aspect.

Like the Pharisees, however, one of their beliefs was that the Temple was not central to the faith, so I doubt that was a big deal for them.

 

[Nicea325]

Given how they lived that may have been for purity reasons. I’m not familiar with that aspect.

Like the Pharisees, however, one of their beliefs was that **the Temple was not central to the faith, **so I doubt that was a big deal for them.

hmmm? Sounds a lot like many modern day non-denoms I personally know.

 

[ConstantineTG]

hmmm? Sounds a lot like many modern day non-denoms I personally know.

Remember that St. Stephen rebuked the Jews for idolizing the temple.

 

[danokeefe]

I’ve been pondering on something lately. The Jewish faith was fragmented at the time of Christ. We have at least the Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees. Yet Christ did not make any attempt at reuniting them. If the Jews were fragmented at the time of the First Coming, will the Christian Church remain fragmented by the time of the Second Coming? Is this by design?

i believe that tradition has it that there was “400” years of silence or no prophets that guided the Israelis of that time. so each was guided by their understand of the TORAH,

now today-- i we are to follow saint paul’s instructions we would avoid those churches that have a “form” of godliness- but lack the actual power of god"

and this is have we left jewersalm without being endowed with power from on high ?

who many church’s have just a form of religion-- gee that all seem to have “sign language” ministry application-- and wheel chairs are common-- and wakers-- so there you have it

you have not because you ask not?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I would view this question as a particular application of the problem of evil. Christian disunity is an evil and we should not deny that, but it is an evil which God has chosen to permit for some good reason.

Any comparison to first century Judaism is bound to fail if we look too closely, because the situation was so different from our own. The biggest difference is that Israel was laregly defined on the basis of ethnicity. Its unity was laregely natural rather than supernatural and so divisions like these ones were of a different nature than divisions in Christianity.

Regarding those Jewish divisions, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes all had aspects of the truth but also suffered from serious errors.

The Pharisees had an almost-correct pre-Christian theology (at least from what we see in the Bible; the writings of Josephus suggest they may have had more contamination from pagan philosophies than we usually assume). However some of their interpretations were wrong and they failed to sufficiently distinguish man-made “fences” from the actual law of God. Also of course they were often hypocritically prideful.

The Essenes had an intense and almost monastic spirituality and a communal love reminiscent of that of the early Church. However they had the schismatic policy of rejecting the Temple, plus some bizarre customs and a possibly excessive association of God with the sun.

The Sadducees, though probably the most morally repugnant and doctrinally darkened of the lot, were legitimately skeptical of some of the Pharisees notions, rightly (for that time) emphasized Temple worship, and were not as guilty of pridefully excessive social isolation from the Gentiles and “sinners” as were the Pharisees and Essenes. Also they had a certain claim to historical continuity with Judaism’s past (including most of the Hasmonian kings) which gave at least a credible appearance of legitimacy.

Probably Christianity’s continuity with Judaism can best be connected not to any of these groups but to the average poor Jew in the street or the field, who belonged to none of the schools though his beliefs were most influenced by the Pharisees.

Christianity did not need to unite these schools because it transcended them. It formed a community as close-knit and spiritual as that of the Essenes, with a doctrinal authority and historical legitimacy far beyond that of the Pharisees or Sadducees. The Church itself was founded by God in a way analogous only to that of the Israelite nation as a whole (obviously transcending even that), rather than any of the schools or sects that later arose within Judaism.

With regard to Christian unity, this is something for which we should all earnestly hope and pray. Such a unity of course should not be at the expense of legitimate traditions of other apostolic Churches. But we should not give in to temptations to indifferentism. Christ instituted one Church, and it is to this that all people are in some sense called. We may (now that I see you, ConstantineTG, have joined the Orthodox Church as I thought you might) disagree on which Church visible in the modern world is that one Church founded by Christ, but let us not give up our honest search for truth and our fidelity to whatever we honestly believe Christ’s Church to be.

 

[Nicea325]

Remember that St. Stephen rebuked the Jews for idolizing the temple.

Yes…indeed…true…true.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Given how they lived that may have been for purity reasons. I’m not familiar with that aspect.

Like the Pharisees, however, one of their beliefs was that the Temple was not central to the faith, so I doubt that was a big deal for them.

The Temple was a big deal to the Pharisees as well as to the Sadducees, though perhaps it was a less singular focus for them.

In the case of the Essenes you are right, they rejected the Temple of their time and so presumably being banned from it was nothing to them but further confirmation of the error of those who had banned them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would view this question as a particular application of the problem of evil. Christian disunity is an evil and we should not deny that, but it is an evil which God has chosen to permit for some good reason.

Any comparison to first century Judaism is bound to fail if we look too closely, because the situation was so different from our own. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes all had aspects of the truth but also suffered from serious errors.

The Pharisees had an almost-correct pre-Christian theology (at least from what we see in the Bible; the writings of Josephus suggest they may have had more contamination from pagan philosophies than we usually assume). However some of their interpretations were wrong and they failed to sufficiently distinguish man-made “fences” from the actual law of God. Also of course were often hypocritically prideful.

The Essenes had an intense and almost monastic spirituality and a communal love reminiscent of that of the early Church. However they had the schismatic policy of rejecting the Temple, plus some bizarre customs and a possibly excessive association of God with the sun.

The Sadducees, though probably the most morally repugnant and doctrinally darkened of the lot, were legitimately skeptical of some of the Pharisees notions, rightly (for that time) emphasized Temple worship, and were not as guilty of pridefully excessive social isolation from the Gentiles and “sinners” as were the Pharisees and Essenes. Also they had a certain claim to historical continuity with Judaism’s past (including most of the Hasmonian kings) which gave at least a credible appearance of legitimacy.

Probably Christianity’s continuity with Judaism can best be connected not to any of these groups but to the average poor Jew in the street or the field, who belonged to none of the schools though his beliefs were most influenced by the Pharisees.

Christianity did not need to unite these schools because it transcended them. It formed a community as close-knit and spiritual as that of the Essenes, with a doctrinal authority and historical legitimacy far beyond that of the Pharisees or Sadducees. The Church itself was founded by God in a way analogous only to that of the Israelite nation as a whole (obviously transcending even that), rather than any of the schools or sects that later arose within Judaism.

With regard to Christian unity, this is something for which we should all earnestly hope and pray. Such a unity of course should not be at the expense of legitimate traditions of other apostolic Churches. But we should not give in to temptations to indifferentism. Christ instituted one Church, and it is to this that all people are in some sense called. We may (now that I see you, ConstantineTG, have joined the Orthodox Church as I thought you might) disagree on which Church visible in the modern world is that one Church founded by Christ, but let us not give up our honest search for truth and our fidelity to whatever we honestly believe Christ’s Church to be.

I’m not saying we are a continuation of Jewish sect, but that their own fragmentation reflects our own fragmentation. Your description can fit right in to any number of Christian Churches and/or denominations/sects. We have legalists, we have institutionalists, we have those who reject everything the other groups have, etc. We even have those who deny the Resurrection and believe that heaven is eternal bliss for the soul without the body.

I’m not saying this to promote indifferntism, but rather as a way to try to understand ourselves based on another group. I have accepted the Orthodox faith and I can’t really see myself saying that there is more truth or just as much truth elsewhere. But somehow, perhaps we have to deal with this issue as it is, that we are fragmented, rather than trying to force everyone into our own groups. Is being right more important than loving one another? Not to say that being right is not important, but we should seek to love first before trying to debate with one another on who is right.

 

[Monergistic]

Given how they lived that may have been for purity reasons. I’m not familiar with that aspect.

Like the Pharisees, however, one of their beliefs was that the Temple was not central to the faith, so I doubt that was a big deal for them.

One of my beliefs is that the Eucharist is (comparatively) not that central to the faith, so to me it’s a relatively little deal that I can’t participate in that rite with you. Someone like you would find that it’s a much bigger deal if they were cut off from it somehow. Me, not as big a deal.

On the whole, the exclusion of Essenes from participation in bloody sacrifices- through and through, I think it really was pretty much like the exclusion of certain non-Catholics from the unbloody sacrifice. Roughly the same type of division after the fact if not in the breach itself, rather similar issues with authority, and also not a big deal to certain people for similar reasons.

 

[ConstantineTG]

One of my beliefs is that the Eucharist is (comparatively) not that central to the faith, so to me it’s a relatively little deal that I can’t participate in that rite with you. Someone like you would find that it’s a much bigger deal if they were cut off from it somehow. Me, not as big a deal.

On the whole, the exclusion of Essenes from participation in bloody sacrifices- through and through, I think it really was pretty much like the exclusion of certain non-Catholics from the unbloody sacrifice. Roughly the same type of division after the fact if not in the breach itself, rather similar issues with authority, and also not a big deal to certain people for similar reasons.

Actually, Communion is the very definition of the Church.

 

[Monergistic]

Actually, Communion is the very definition of the Church.

Depends who’s defining it. I’m sure I would define the Church differently than you. And if I were to do so, you would probably say “Well of course we do that, of course that’s who we are, and I would expect that the most holy Catholic sacraments are the best possible means to that end.” But this is something that I would privately have doubts about, while wondering at the same time why it is that the things in my very definition of the Church don’t get mentioned in your very definition of the Church.

Hypothetically, if we did have that discussion.