Do you wear a tallit in church?

[14messenger]

Yes, the hate word gets dragged out way too easily, especially against a person, in this case that would be me, who talks doctrine, and theology, all to never get scriptural rebuttals back.

God is a far better judge.

 

[14messenger]

The strange thing is, today, Gentiles are trying to live as Jews,

I honestly can't agree with that.

 

[14messenger]

And the real sad thing is, with all of the rich Pauline theology, that Paul, the chosen instrumnent, chosen by Jesus gave us, that he suffered for, these congregations for the most part don't want to talk that theology, instead they want to talk tallits. So we could call it serious omission, and actually rude to Paul.

Then they want to promote feast keeping,

The sad thing is trying to pretend that people for God are against Paul, when Paul clearly says that the law of God is good. I mean, who does that? It doesn't even make sense. Worshipping Paul and then lying about Paul by saying he is against God. Paul is for God and not for man made divisions against the church claiming that those doing Gods works are against God. The entire "Gods law is bad", and "worship Paul and lie about his teachings" bit isn't of God.

 

[tturt]

It's a personal choice but we have a better understanding of Scripture when we know about the Jewish way of life.

Your salvation doesn't depend on it. Since my husband and I learned about them, I strongly promote celebrating Yahweh's feasts (Lev 23).

Sometimes I wonder why some believers get upset when tongues are even mentioned. Then I apply the same question to someone wearing a tallit. Of course, I've seen one amen and one tear offend other believers. It just doesn't take that much to violate our image of how believers should behave or our image of what Yahweh does and doesn't do.

 

[turned around]

Hi,
If non Jewish believers are not trying to be Jewish, why do so many their name their children with Jewish names.

Grace to you.

 

[Tobias]

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,


We all know that when Paul wrote this passage, he was talking about Old Testament scripture. Why is it today we figure that the scripture we are supposed to follow is all in the New Testament, while following any of the old is wrong?

There are all sorts of commands to follow the "Jewish stuff" in the OT. The stuff Paul taught us is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, etc.


Paul also taught that the letter of the Law killeth. And that those who try to keep the law for righteousness sake annul the work of Christ. But what part of the Law was he talking about?

The same Law that says "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not sleep with another man in the same manner in which you would sleep with a woman", also says "Thou shalt wear a talit" (somewhat paraphrased ).

Why do we chucketh out some of the scriptures, thinking it's a sin to obey them, while insisting it's also a sin to disobey other verses right beside them?

 

[Frogster]

I agree with you Frogster. May I also add that the anointed one is Jesus Himself. And Jesus lives in each one of those who accepted Him and love Him. How much more anointing can you do than Jesus Himself inside you!

However, please also let me say that we should not fall into temptation to judge or condemn people or let ourselves be burdened with anger or annoyance. Jesus is love and His commandment is LOVE. Not that we all fit in, but that we all love our neighbor as ourselves. The people with the tallit ARE our neighbors too.

Yes, I agree with your first part, but I am not judging, I am for the most part talking doctrine, most of Paul's wiritings were in defense of good doctrine, as he fought off this very movement in the church, that which is what some call, by way of Bible translations and definition, Judaizing. But thanks for your post, much appreciated.

 

[Frogster]

[

 

[Frogster]

It's a prayer shawl and there is no push for anyone to wear one. However, if once you do some research you desire or God leads you to wear one according to scripture you have the freedom to do so. Generally women do not wear them. However, I have heard compelling argument showing they are free to wear them as well if they so choose. I'd say it's between them and God. Here's an article I found on line that might be of interest to you

The Talit and Paul
​

Where is ther NT scripture that says to wear one? In fact, Paul fought the "circumcision", those who were trying to impose what they could on the church. There is no way Paul would want his Gentiles wearing a tallit. He fought Jewish pride, and that would feed their pride if they could subjugate gentiles in any form, even unto a tallit.

 

[Frogster]

Paul made tents, the kind one sleeps in, especially needed in Corinth where he stayed for 18 months alone, where they had large gatherings where people came to see the Greek games, like the Olympics. They needed sleeping quarters. Tarsus, where Paul was from was also known for tentmaking, the kind one sleeps in. Tens in acts 18, in reference to Paul's profession, has leather goods in the definition in the Greek, there is no leather in a tallit, hence the teaching that says Paul made tallits is incorrect.

 

[Frogster]

There is a division in the MJ movement. Some say Paul mean what he said about the law, and they do not like Paul for it. The other side says Paul was always talking about the oral fence laws, not the Torah laws. They are incorrect, those that say Paul was talking oral law, this is easily proved in the text. The only reference to man made traditions, was in Col 2, but even there, he was also about the law, for the most part. Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, 1 Tim, Titus, etc, were about the law. The Torah. So at best, as least the people that dislike Paul, are correct, Paul was talking about the law, though their dislike for the chosen apostle is not warranted, he preached what Christ gave him to preach.

 

[Frogster]

It's a personal choice but we have a better understanding of Scripture when we know about the Jewish way of life.

Your salvation doesn't depend on it. Since my husband and I learned about them, I strongly promote celebrating Yahweh's feasts (Lev 23).

Sometimes I wonder why some believers get upset when tongues are even mentioned. Then I apply the same question to someone wearing a tallit. Of course, I've seen one amen and one tear offend other believers. It just doesn't take that much to violate our image of how believers should behave or our image of what Yahweh does and doesn't do.

Better understanding of scripture? Why were the Galatians doing fine, until the "better understanging" types, the Judaizers came, then the church had problems. This is as Paul used pre law Abraham, to get them back into the Spirit. They were running well, 5:7, until they came.

 

[Frogster]

Hi,
If non Jewish believers are not trying to be Jewish, why do so many their name their children with Jewish names.

Grace to you.

Good point. It is sad, it's as though they are being shamed for being a gentile, all while Paul used the uncircumcised gentile Abraham as their example to follow, as he warded off Judaism, in no uncertain terms.

 

[Frogster]

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,


We all know that when Paul wrote this passage, he was talking about Old Testament scripture. Why is it today we figure that the scripture we are supposed to follow is all in the New Testament, while following any of the old is wrong?

There are all sorts of commands to follow the "Jewish stuff" in the OT. The stuff Paul taught us is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, etc.


Paul also taught that the letter of the Law killeth. And that those who try to keep the law for righteousness sake annul the work of Christ. But what part of the Law was he talking about?

The same Law that says "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not sleep with another man in the same manner in which you would sleep with a woman", also says "Thou shalt wear a talit" (somewhat paraphrased ).

Why do we chucketh out some of the scriptures, thinking it's a sin to obey them, while insisting it's also a sin to disobey other verses right beside them?

Hi bro!...All scripture...hmmm..but you omitted what he referred to, it was faith in Christ, not law there. In fact he told the same Tim, in 1 Tim 1, to keep the law teachers out of Tim's church. Tim was also an Ephesian elder, and in Eph 2, he said the Jewish law was abolished, so we need to remember that also, and he said that the teaching of food abstience was not of God also to Tim in 1 Tim 4.

Here is the full context, as far as what the OT was to lead to, not law.



2 Tim 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

 

[tturt]

posted: Better understanding of scripture?

It doesn't make them more saved but some study Hebrew, Greek and/or Aramaic to aid them in their studies. Just one example which we all know.

 

[Frogster]

well fine, Bible study is good.

But some the MJ circles teach that God hears us better if we speak Hebrew. Also there is a clear omission of Pauline theology, in their bible study, some seem to think that God stopped with the Torah. And if they do quote Paul, it is usally just a light reference verse, nothing of weight, or certainly nothing that goes againse their doctrine.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There is a division in the MJ movement. Some say Paul mean what he said about the law, and they do not like Paul for it. The other side says Paul was always talking about the oral fence laws, not the Torah laws. They are incorrect, those that say Paul was talking oral law, this is easily proved in the text.
The only reference to man made traditions, was in Col 2, but even there, he was also about the law, for the most part. Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, 1 Tim, Titus, etc, were about the law. The Torah.

So at best, as least the people that dislike Paul, are correct, Paul was talking about the law, though their dislike for the chosen apostle is not warranted, he preached what Christ gave him to preach.

.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

..... in this case that would be me, who talks doctrine, and theology, all to never get scriptural rebuttals back.

....such a funny statement.

All of our responses (there's quite a lot) are easy (though time consuming)to pull up. If you're interested in seeing our responses you can click on our "profile", then "statistics", then "find all posts by". There you will find proof that we have indeed responded to you with "loads" of scripture (other people can see it too) but you have ignored what we've said. Please revisit those previous responses from us and respond accordingly to what we've said then, maybe, we will start responding with you again. As per the usual way you respond though (writing a lot of words but never actually saying anything about what we've said which is the real reason we no longer answer you) I doubt you'll do it.

Note: You don't have to agree with us but at least your response could be in accordance to something we've actually said

 

[Frogster]

.

yep..and we know it is so.

 

[Frogster]

....such a funny statement.

All of our responses (there's quite a lot) are easy (though time consuming)to pull up. If you're interested in seeing our responses you can click on our "profile", then "statistics", then "find all posts by". There you will find proof that we have indeed responded to you with "loads" of scripture (other people can see it too) but you have ignored what we've said. Please revisit those previous responses from us and respond accordingly to what we've said then, maybe, we will start responding with you again. As per the usual way you respond though (writing a lot of words but never actually saying anything about what we've said which is the real reason we no longer answer you) I doubt you'll do it.

Note: You don't have to agree with us but at least your response could be in accordance to something we've actually said

well..I support equal loling rights for men! (joke)

You're more than welcome to quote any one of my posts on this thread, or any other, and I will be happy to elaborate for you, just let me know if you bump and old thread so I know, thanks, your friendly factual froggy.