I was talking to religion teacher last week who told me all the apostles were Jew. Is this true? I know Luke was greek, but you can tell me for certain?

Thank you

Kaka Malanga Nipta, Greece

-- Kaka Malanga (peppsan343@dcom.gre), October 17, 2004

Answers

Bump to New Answers to invite comment.

-- (bump@bump.bump), October 17, 2004.

It si true, and not surprisifn since Jesus was himself Jewish and cam as the Jewish Messiah...

Peter, Paul, Mathew, Thomas, all Jewish.

Luke, by the wya, was Greek, but not an Apostle, merley a companion to Paul, and a Physisian.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 17, 2004.

Yes, they were all Jewish. In fact, for years the early church considered itself a Jewish sect. It is believed that they continued to go to the synagogue on Saturday to honor the Sabbath and meet on Sunday to honor the Lord's day of resurrection by celebrating the Eucharist. When the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, things changed dramatically with respect to how the church viewed itself and was viewed by others. The Pharisees gained power and persecuted the church. That was probably when the church began to differentiate itself from the Jews.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), October 18, 2004.

Just wanted to add a note based on something I learned this morning. As in Jewish tradition, "Sunday" was considered to start at sundown Saturday. So early Christians were thought to have visited the temple or synagogue in the morning for scriptures and teaching, and they would invite others to hear about the Messiah, then they would meet on Saturday night (actualy Sunday to them) to celebrate the Lord's supper in private with no visitors. There were probably variations and changes that occurred over time, but it was interesting to me at least, so I thought I'd pass that along.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), October 19, 2004.

“for years the early church considered itself a Jewish sect. It is believed that they continued to go to the synagogue on Saturday to honor the Sabbath and meet on Sunday to honor the Lord's day of resurrection by celebrating the Eucharist. When the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, things changed dramatically with respect to how the church viewed itself and was viewed by others. The Pharisees gained power and persecuted the church. That was probably when the church began to differentiate itself from the Jews.”

Sorry David but both religious and secular historians disagree with you. The Pharisees had been the most powerful Jewish group since before Jesus was born. Decades before the destruction of the temple, Christians had been kicked out of the synagogues (naturally, since non-Christian Jews regarded as intolerable blasphemy the Christians’ belief that Jesus is the Son of God) and the majority of Christians were non-Jews. At the Council of Jerusalem about 40 AD, St Peter the first pope infallibly confirmed that non-Jewish Christians were full and equal members of the Church and did not have to perform any Jewish practices, and that the Church was a religion distinctly separate from Judaism.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 19, 2004.

Steve,

My information comes directly from Catholic sources. In fact, I've been reading "The Mass of the Early Christians" by Mike Aquilina the past few days, which is where most of what I said comes from.

I didn't say that the Christians were able to continue meeting at the Jersulaem temple until 70 AD. I simply said that it's destruction led the church into a fuller understanding of the differences between Jews and Christians - meaning the theological issues of the Old Covenant forms of worship being a foreshadowing of the New Covenant. This is true. Christians absolutely did continue to meet in the temple and synagogues in those early years. They then met separately for the breaking of the bread. Over time, the persecutions led to them meeting in homes in secret, but I'm referring to the very early years - the primitive church, if you will.

Those first few decades were very influencial in forming the Christian forms of worship. Don't forget, Paul's ministry didn't even start for 14 years after his conversion. And Peter's outreach to the Gentiles was limited. The church fundamentally believed that they were Jewish having believed in Christ - the ultimate fulfillment in Jewish prophecy. They welcomed Gentiles and didn't require many aspects of the Law, but they didn't stop viewing themselves as Jewish for quite some time.

One not well-known aspect of the early church was the fact that the role of priesthood had not yet developed. There were Apostles, deacons and bishops to lead the Churches. Priest was a role reserved for the temple Jewish priests who presided over the Jewish sacrifices. In the church, the bishops presided over the "breaking of the bread". There was no understanding of a Christian "priesthood" at that time or that the Eucharist involved the sacrifice of the Mass. Such understanding didn't come until after the destruction of the temple when the Jewish sacrifices ceased. That's when Malachi's prophecy about a pure sacrifice being made all over the world came to shed light to the Christians about what the Eucharist was all about. After 70 AD, the role of the sacrifice of the Mass came to a better understanding as the Didache, which is most commonly dated around 90 AD or so, testifies. By that time, the understanding of the sacrifice was just beginning to form. The church realized that their Eucharistic bread was the sacrifice of the Lamb of God and that the one presiding over the Eucharist was actually standing in the role of priest. By St Ignatius's time (c 112) we know that the role of priest had finally fully come into the picture as one whom the bishop designated to be worthy to preside over the Eucharist in his absence. Prior to Ignatius's writings, there are no references to "priest".

These were the issues I was addressing, Steve. I hope that clarifies some things.

David

P.S. An interesting note for those who may read this thread. I met a CEC priest the other week who told me an interesting event that occurred in his church. 3 wiccans decided to attend one of his Masses, not sure why. But after the Mass, the wicaans introduced themselves to the priest and expressed their fascination with the Mass. They said they could "see" in the spiritual realm that something fantastic was occurring as the priest was saying the words of institution, that somehow all time seemed to stand still as if the past, present and future were all joined at that moment - something that lines up with the theology of the sacrifice of the Mass. It so awed them that they wanted to hear the gospel. The priest was able to teach them the truth, they then prayed and all 3 were delivered from their demons and they are now Christians. This all occured within the last month.

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), October 20, 2004.

You think that the priesthood was not recognized by the time the New Testament writings were completed (about 80 AD) but it had "fully come into the picture" 32 years later?? That would be a mighty fast development of something as intrinsic to the Christian faith as the priesthood! There certainly are references to "priest" in the New Testament, clear descriptions of Jesus endowing the Apostles with specifically priestly powers - the power of consecration of the Eucharist, the power to forgive mens' sins. The priesthood was an integral and essential part of Christianity from the beginning, for without it one cannot live Christianity as founded by Christ, which means a sacramental life.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 20, 2004.

Hi Paul,

Hope all is well with you, sir.

Actually, I'm not asserting this so much as relaying what I have learned from Catholic sources in my studies. In addition to Mike Aquilina's "Mass of the Early Christians" that I previously referenced, I learned much from Raymond Brown's "Priest and Bishop" book - a study in how the primitive church evolved those roles and the influences that shaped them. There are other confirming sources, but those were the two that dealt so specifically with this topic. They are fascinating reads and extremely well researched. And they provide a level of precision not found in typical online definitions and summaries of topics.

To address a few of your statements, I'd say that I agree that the work of the priest was in play from the beginning through the Apostles and the bishops they designated, but that the understanding of what was being done (functioning as a "priest") and the use of the term "priest" was something that evolved in the time period I mentioned. According to these sources, the term priest was first mentioned by the church in writing by Ignatius around 112 AD. The New Testament word "presbuteroi" was not equated as "priest", but rather "elder". Don't forget, to the primitive church, the term "priest" was one who served in the temple offering Jewish sacrifices.

Primarily, the role of priest was defined by the Eucharist and driven by the need for the bishop to delegate the role of presiding over the Eucharist to others due to the growth of the church in combination with the theological understandings of the sacrifice of the Mass and the New Covenant role of priest.

The role of forgiveness of sins, which later became the sacrament of confession, had a separate and much longer period of development. Orignally, for centuries, the church taught that ordinary sins were forgiven with simple prayers by each Christian with no priestly involvement needed. The church also defined a short list of severe sins such as adultery, murder and the like as being mortal sins requiring public confession and public penance - and during that period, it wasn't the priest who individually absolved the sin, but the act of confessing before the congregation as a whole with the priest presiding resulted in the forgiveness. Baptized Christians caught in mortal sin had to confess before the entire church and submit to a lengthy penance requiring years to complete. And the church taught that one could only have mortal sins forgiven once in a lifetime, so many people either put off baptism or confession until they were old. The church even had problems getting infants baptized because of this issue.

I'm afraid part of the problem is that I'm writing snapshots and conclusions that take an entire book to document and explain, so my primary suggestion is to read both texts for yourself. I'm been studying these issues specifically since I've returned from Pentecostalism to a church that celebrates the Eucharist and is led by a priesthood and bishops. So I've wanted to validate as much as I can for my own benefit. That's why I've never simply been content with the usual "this is the way it's been from the very beginning" which is the normal response to questions I get. I know enough about church history and early church writings to know for a fact that that response is not being intellectually honest. Much of what the Catholic Church today believes developed over time - understandably. It wasn't all passed down intact and unchanged from the Apostles. I just want to understand, as best possible, how that development occurred and why. Which is why I go digging for well-researched material and as much detail as can be acquired. I use mostly Catholic and Orthodox sources, but even there, many provide over simplified explanations of everything. So it's difficult to find good sources. When I do, I treasure them.

Have a good day, Paul, and God bless!

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), October 20, 2004.

David,

There is certainly no doubt that the Church's fuller understanding of everything Christ gave it, including the priesthood, the Papacy, the sacraments, the Church, its doctrine, and salvation itself, evolved over time, and is still evolving today. My points were two - first, that these realities, in their essence, were present in the Church from the beginning; and second, that the various points in time when current terminology was first applied is not a measure of when the realities themselves were first appreciated. For example, the term "Trinity" is not mentioned in Scripture, but the Trinity is clearly and repeatedly referred to there. So the question of when the term "priest" was first used is really irrelevant. the question is whether or not the Apostles and those they ordained were functioning as priests.

You mention that the term "priest" meant one who served in the temple offering Jewish sacrifices. Yes! That is precisely correct, for that is the definition of "priest" - one who offers sacrifice on behalf of the people. And that is why the Apostles were priests regardless of their lack of full understanding of that ministry, and regardless of the terminology used by them. They were ordained to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on behalf of the people, perpetuating the eternal sacrifice of the Lamb of God on the Cross.

You state: "The role of forgiveness of sins, which later became the sacrament of confession, had a separate and much longer period of development. Orignally, for centuries, the church taught that ordinary sins were forgiven with simple prayers by each Christian with no priestly involvement needed. The church also defined a short list of severe sins such as adultery, murder and the like as being mortal sins requiring public confession and public penance - and during that period, it wasn't the priest who individually absolved the sin, but the act of confessing before the congregation as a whole with the priest presiding resulted in the forgiveness."

Yes, and the only element of this which has changed is that confession for serious sin is allowed in private instead of being public. "ordinary" (venial) sins can still be forgiven by private prayer of contrition, and by reception of the Eucharist. That's why they are called "venial", which means "easily forgiven". And "severe" (mortal) sins still require sacramental confession and penance. And it still is not the priest who personally absolves by any innate power of his own, but Christ who absolves while the priest ministers His grace of forgiveness to the penitent.

You state: "And the church taught that one could only have mortal sins forgiven once in a lifetime, so many people either put off baptism or confession until they were old. The church even had problems getting infants baptized because of this issue."

Yes, sacramental Confession was allowed only once for a couple of centuries; but the Church wisely made the sacrament more readily available, as fuller understanding of the role of the sacrament in the Christian life evolved. This however did not effect the baptism of infants, which remained the norm from earliest days, as shown through the writings of the several Church Fathers.

You say: "Much of what the Catholic Church today believes developed over time - understandably. It wasn't all passed down intact and unchanged from the Apostles. I just want to understand, as best possible, how that development occurred and why."

A: I agree that "fuller understanding" of beliefs developed over time. How could it be otherwise? But "developed" does not mean "appeared" or "were created". The essential beliefs of Christ's Church were received from Christ, and were held, at least in their primitive form, by the Apostles.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 20, 2004.

Paul,

I can't argue with that. If I understand you correctly, just because the church may not have fully understood what it was doing in obedience to the Holy Spirit doesn't mean the spiritual reality wasn't in place. A bishop may not have called himself a priest or thought of himself a priest, but his presiding over the breaking of the bread effectively made him a priest.

If I've missed the point, please let me know. Thanks for the explanation - it helped.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), October 20, 2004.

Paul,

By the way, did you know that Pliny the Younger mentioned in his report to the emperor that the church appointed female deacons (deaconesses, if you will)? Course he mentioned it as an aside to document that he had executed/martyred 2 slave women who were appointed deaconesses in his effort to learn about the threat of Christianity.

That's probably old news to you. Does the Church still appoint deaconesses? If not, when did that practice stop? Any idea?

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), October 20, 2004.

David, Peter clearly taught that followers of Christ were a "priestly people" and a kingdom of priests... thus it's not true that the Church didn't believe in priests until after 70 AD.

Presbyters were priests... Deacons were clearly not endowed with the same authority and power as presbyters and Bishops as evidenced in Acts by the fact that while deacons could preach the Word in Samaria, they didn't have the power to give the Holy Spirit via laying on of hands whereas the Apostles and later bishops did.

So from that first generation it was clear that those with orders were differentiated between bishops, presbyters (cf. James' letter) and deacons. Paul recognized too that everyone else had special gifts while not having the hierarchical authority or gift of laying on of hands.

Only by not reading Acts and refusing to see the forest for the trees in the epistles can one conclude that the early Church wasn't hierarchical and didn't consider itself a single entity albeit present in various cities and countries.

The "church in Ephesis" in John says it all: a local congregation of the single body of Christ.

Peace

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.

David, the word you used, "appointed", is the correct word. There is no evidence that deacons, either male or female, were recipients of the sacrament of holy orders in the early church. In other words, no evidence that they were ordained. "Deacons" were simply "assistants" to the Apostles, appointed to be responsible for certain tasks, and as far as that goes were similar in function to deacons in the Church today. (From the Greek 'deakonos' meaning an attendant or assistant) But the position of ordained, clerical deacon developed later as an intermediate step toward priesthood , and never included women.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 20, 2004.

In the early centuries baptism was generally done by full immersion with the baptised person, often an adult, totally naked (they cast off their old clothes to signify casting off their old sinful ways). So deaconesses were required to assist women being baptised, to preserve their modesty. They were also required to visit women in their homes for catechesis, and for taking the Eucharist to sick and housebound women etc. If a man visited a woman’s house in those days it often became a source of scandal and calumnies against the church, and many Christian women had pagan husbands who refused to let a priest or other Christian man visit them. When these social conditions and styles of baptism changed, there was no longer any need for deaconesses.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 20, 2004.

I agree with you, Steve. Phoebe in Romans 16 is one.

Rom 16:27 To God only wise, [be] glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. [[[Written to the Romans from Corinthus, [and sent] by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea.]]]

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 21, 2004.

Italics off.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 21, 2004.