Do you have to believe in every word of the NT to be considered Messianic?

[visionary]

Amen! If the spirit within is unsettled on a matter, then there is a problem somewhere. Give it to God and the Holy Spirit will settle the matter, if one is willing to hear.

Amen..

 

[Temptinfates]

Hard to debate that, lol

 

[visionary]

God is never in the debates.. He is in the conclusion..

 

[Temptinfates]

I am sure he listens to every debate. He watches every time I debate within myself one scripture with another and the side that I finally come down on. He really does pay attention. Nothing escapes his sight.

 

[Lulav]

Yeah, let's just subject the Word of God to our own opinions. Reminds of another time:

Jdg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

So then we are to swallow whose opinion on what it says? There are many vying for this option.

I do not believe in blind faith but I do believe that HaShem left it up to us to discern and determine and test those who say they speak for him. Those that have a problem with that are putting themselves above him.

 

[yedida]

So then we are to swallow whose opinion on what it says? There are many vying for this option.

I do not believe in blind faith but I do believe that HaShem left it up to us to discern and determine and test those who say they speak for him. Those that have a problem with that are putting themselves above him.

Once again

 

[Lulav]

It is also confusing to me that we are to believe that Paul upheld Torah and taught it and this is 'Messianic doctrine', but yet the founders of Messianic Judaism say quite the opposite.

Rev. Dan Juster, part of the leadership of the Union of Messianic Congregations for many years, in a letter to Boaz Michael of First Fruits of Zion states,

‘the founding fathers of Messianic Judaism intended Messianic Judaism only as an evangelical outreach to unsaved Jews.’
​

Rev. Juster goes on to say that it was never the intention of those men to walk in Torah, for themselves or for the Gentiles.

 

[Temptinfates]

Interesting, Vewry interesting

 

[Temptinfates]

I retracted my post because I typed original in haste. I think I will wait on this one..

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

subscribing

 

[Temptinfates]

I am not sure what your purpose was with posting this quote from an unlinked article.

Are you confused that Paul was a Torah observant Jew?

or just that a religious organization may have it's roots and ideologies in something other than what it claims--per that article?

That article seems to be 5-6 years old, and I would assume has been addressed before?

 

[ContraMundum]

It seems like quite a few people on this thread have not thought about the doctrine of canon itself.

Who has the authority to compile the canon of scripture, according to God? How does He ratify it?

You can't logically argue that it is discerned personally, as this merely leads to division.

Now can you logically argue that there is a such thing as "Elohim's tests", as these tests would have to come from scripture, which is impossible to define unless scripture's canon and authority is already decided. IOW, "Elohim's tests" is an appeal to circular reasoning- one would have to ask where such tests are found- and if the answer is "the scriptures", then one has defeated one's own argument, begging for proof of whether or not the appealed texts are indeed scripture...etc etc in circles.

So, when you guys know what you believe, get back to me so we can discuss the OP properly.

 

[Temptinfates]

Just to clear things up, Contra..
Concerning the canon of scriptural books....this addresses which one of the OP's questions?

 

[ContraMundum]

Amen! If the spirit within is unsettled on a matter, then there is a problem somewhere. Give it to God and the Holy Spirit will settle the matter, if one is willing to hear.

..and what if two people's "Holy Spirit" are at odds?

I don't think it is logical to appeal to God when we differ on how He is heard and what means He has ordained for us to turn to. You will never find unity in this approach you propose, and if you don't believe me, watch each thread posted.

Furthermore, to accuse others of "not hearing God" because they disagree with you would be really arrogant and futile, don't you think?

 

[ContraMundum]

Just to clear things up, Contra..
Concerning the canon of scriptural books....this addresses which one of the OP's questions?

I actually thought that was obvious. To believe in every word of the NT is to accept its canonicity. To doubt them is to doubt the canon. To believe the canon yet doubt its contents (without qualification) is to appeal to liberal criticism and darkened human reason.

The OP is ultimately about the authority of scripture and the people of God to recognize and compile the canon.

 

[Temptinfates]

Are we talking of the actual scripture itself or the interpretation by men? As far as I know, there are over 5000 pieces of actual scripture that has varying nuances and differences. Some are minor spelling errors for sure. And I do trust that they did their best to give us as accurate translations as possible from what they knew at the time.
It seems that some bias ultimately creeps into translating such works-even if unintended.
Don't you think a jew or some Jews should have been present to help translate what many call the OT?
It seems to me, that given the light of what the NT seems to declare that when they translated Isiah 7 concerning the Hebrew word Almah, that they took their "doctrinal views" into account, rather than just asking a Jew what the word meant. According to Hebrew, that word means maiden. It may mean she was a virgin, but, it may not. A Jew would have translated it as maiden or young maiden. Even if I believe she was a virgin (which I do), it was not correct to translate it as virgin. But, at the time, who wanted to consult a JEW about his own language? Don't that raise even the slightest question?

 

[Temptinfates]

And Martin Luther translated...As a Jew, do I consider him a "Godly" man? A christian may, but I cannot fully due To TJATL. As far as these other translators, I'm not sure of their backgrounds. So, what constitutes who is "Godly and qualified". Did being fluent in a language qualify one as "Godly" on that basis alone? No favoritism ? Perhaps I should research these things, but, these are just some questions I have--founded or unfounded at this time. Sorry, I brainstorm this way sometimes.

 

[yedida]

..and what if two people's "Holy Spirit" are at odds?

I don't think it is logical to appeal to God when we differ on how He is heard and what means He has ordained for us to turn to. You will never find unity in this approach you propose, and if you don't believe me, watch each thread posted.

Furthermore, to accuse others of "not hearing God" because they disagree with you would be really arrogant and futile, don't you think?

It seems to me that you accuse others of being wrong because we don't agree with you far more than I or anyone else here has done. Of course, I'm sure you don't see it this way....

 

[Lulav]

I am not sure what your purpose was with posting this quote from an unlinked article.

Are you confused that Paul was a Torah observant Jew?

or just that a religious organization may have it's roots and ideologies in something other than what it claims--per that article?

That article seems to be 5-6 years old, and I would assume has been addressed before?

I am assuimng you are addressing this to me?

If so I usually always link my quotes, this time I didn't probably because this was being discussed in another current thread here. Either way, today the search engines on the net are quite sophisticated. All you would have to do is to copy part of the quote and paste it in your search and google it. Comes up very easily.

As far as Paul and being 'confused' no I am not , not at all. He was not, plain and simple. I know Christians agree, Messianics say he was not only Torah observant but he was the great Rabbi Sh'aul. Forget about Yeshua!


What does it matter how old that article is? If you've read it (which you obviously have or else you can't say how old it is) then you know it is speaking of the beginning of the movement and that doesn't change.

 

[Lulav]

Are we talking of the actual scripture itself or the interpretation by men? As far as I know, there are over 5000 pieces of actual scripture that has varying nuances and differences. Some are minor spelling errors for sure. And I do trust that they did their best to give us as accurate translations as possible from what they knew at the time.
It seems that some bias ultimately creeps into translating such works-even if unintended.
Don't you think a jew or some Jews should have been present to help translate what many call the OT?
It seems to me, that given the light of what the NT seems to declare that when they translated Isiah 7 concerning the Hebrew word Almah, that they took their "doctrinal views" into account, rather than just asking a Jew what the word meant. According to Hebrew, that word means maiden. It may mean she was a virgin, but, it may not. A Jew would have translated it as maiden or young maiden. Even if I believe she was a virgin (which I do), it was not correct to translate it as virgin. But, at the time, who wanted to consult a JEW about his own language? Don't that raise even the slightest question?

Forget the interpretation, we must look at this in context:

And the L-RD spoke again unto Ahaz, saying:'Ask thee a sign of the L-RD thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.'

But Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, neither will I try the L-RD.'

And he said: 'Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.


Basically the L-RD tells Ahaz to ask for a sign about the problems in the land and an apparent coup about to take place. This must be taken into consideration. This child is spoken of explicitly of the child and the age when this prophecy would come to pass. I don't see this as happening during Yeshua's childhood. It was speaking to Ahaz and the two kings he was having trouble with, not somewhere in the far future.