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

[Lulav]

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.

And when one book contradicts another, which do you choose? Is there a hierarchy of books?

 

[Temptinfates]

I am assuimng you are addressing this to me?

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.

Thanks for clearing it up. I read part of the article to get a good gist of it. I think I may have read it 3-4 years ago is all.

You know, Lulav, I was building an internal doctrinal questioning/stance 20 years ago. Maybe more than that. Churches that I attended were really lame when questioned by my hungry mind-especially things contradictory at all. I went to so many churches, I don't think I could count them, lol. At the age of 14 I read the bible when I got out of school till about 11 each night, most nights. I was pretty much a messianic jew then. Later on, I found out about MJ's. My mother died and I found out I have Jewish roots through her. Then I got enough courage to go to a MJ "Synagogue". I fit in more there than any church I had ever been in. I just find it peculiar that what they say is the time-frame for MJ is when I was developing likeminded beliefs. So, I was curious as to what other MJ's may have responded back to that article..not trying to put you on the spot

 

[ContraMundum]

And when one book contradicts another, which do you choose? Is there a hierarchy of books?

There are a couple of options here:

a) you realize that it is you, not the books, that is the problem, and you work harder at finding the reason you struggle with reconciling them. (someone once said that all the heterodox doctrines are the result of impatience and laziness)

b) you believe in a hierarchy of books, and you interpret some in the light of others, but you still believe in the inspiration of all,

c) you discard one of the books that you feel is in the contradiction, which leads to others books going and eventually authors, and then eventually families of books or entire testaments. This was Marcion's solution.

From what I have seen, many here are now adopting solution c), which is a real shame, because solution a) is the one of faith and the one that brings the most benefit. Solution b) is ok too, because it is still of faith.

 

[ContraMundum]

Are we talking of the actual scripture itself or the interpretation by men?

Scripture, and its authority. This is not immediately going to be a matter of exegetical process.

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.

True. But there does not seem to be any theological contradiction found in textual variants.

It seems that some bias ultimately creeps into translating such works-even if unintended.

Translations are like that. It's ok. Learn to read the Biblical languages and that problem begins to dissolve.

Don't you think a jew or some Jews should have been present to help translate what many call the OT?

No. Some of the Jewish translations are atrocious and insanely biased. Better to have qualified linguists in consultation regardless of their religious convictions.

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?

Uh...no. Not quite. The Jews had already defined what the word "almah" meant before Jesus walked the earth. In the LXX, a Greek translation by and for Jews, the word is "parthenos"- virgin and maiden.

Most translations of the Hebrew texts are done in consultation with Hebrew experts and with care to consider ancient Hebrew idioms and usage.

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

I'm a Jew, and I think Luther is pretty good most of the time. TJATL is one book of three written about Jews. The other two are fantastic and generously kind to us. He was accused of being a "Jew lover" when he wrote them. Much later in life, when he was ill, fed up and sick of bankers interfering with the Reformation, he wrote TJATL. It's awful and outrageous. But, in case you didn't know, his very last sermon calls for kind Christian treatment of the Jews. He died four days later.

 

[ContraMundum]

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....

Yedida, I just really don't think many of the responses here in the last few weeks have been honest in their approach to the questions. There's a lot of cheering and jeering going on but not much light on any given topic. I am more than happy to say someone is wrong when they haven't tackled the matter with anything that remotely looks like an effort.

I live in a denomination where we tolerate a vast array of opinions. I am more than happy to do that. I think your comments should keep that in consideration when you accuse me of being harsh on the positions of others. I am quite happy to live with others of differing opinions, provided they're not just talking through their hat and yelling from the stands while their pet doctrines engage in the game.

 

[Lulav]

There are a couple of options here:

a) you realize that it is you, not the books, that is the problem, and you work harder at finding the reason you struggle with reconciling them. (someone once said that all the heterodox doctrines are the result of impatience and laziness)

I have done so for years and more hours reading than I can put a number to. If only it was as easy as putting the blame on myself I would have followed that route long ago, as I am of that mindset/personality anyways.

b) you believe in a hierarchy of books, and you interpret some in the light of others, but you still believe in the inspiration of all,

When one does this from a Christian vantage point those books that hold most weight are the NT books, not the Torah. That worked until I realized that Torah was the standard to measure up to, not the reverse.

c) you discard one of the books that you feel is in the contradiction, which leads to others books going and eventually authors, and then eventually families of books or entire testaments. This was Marcion's solution.

Marcion must have seen the same conflict we have today. The problem is when you start from a certain premise and build from there thinking it is harmonious that is where you end up at the beginning of the conflict and it only goes down from there. There were two different gospels being taught and one won out.

From what I have seen, many here are now adopting solution c), which is a real shame, because solution a) is the one of faith and the one that brings the most benefit. Solution b) is ok too, because it is still of faith.

No, solution A requires more than faith, it requires thinking that G-d didn't give us his word so we could understand but we were just to believe it all and not question it. How many solutions to this equation are we willing to accept, on faith?

Basically what you are saying is the one that brings the most benefit is the one that requires you to dumb down your IQ to around 40. Is this what our G-d wants from us? If so then why did he tell us he would test us? And since he did how else would he test us?

 

[Lulav]

Thanks for clearing it up. I read part of the article to get a good gist of it. I think I may have read it 3-4 years ago is all.

You know, Lulav, I was building an internal doctrinal questioning/stance 20 years ago. Maybe more than that. Churches that I attended were really lame when questioned by my hungry mind-especially things contradictory at all. I went to so many churches, I don't think I could count them, lol. At the age of 14 I read the bible when I got out of school till about 11 each night, most nights. I was pretty much a messianic jew then. Later on, I found out about MJ's. My mother died and I found out I have Jewish roots through her. Then I got enough courage to go to a MJ "Synagogue". I fit in more there than any church I had ever been in. I just find it peculiar that what they say is the time-frame for MJ is when I was developing likeminded beliefs. So, I was curious as to what other MJ's may have responded back to that article..not trying to put you on the spot

Yes, I think there are many in my age range group that heard the 'calling' in the 70's, I was there, I experienced it so I can testify to it. But I think it was not unified enough and it was 'governed' by the church too much to really have a good chance at what it could have been.

 

[Lulav]

I'm a Jew, and I think Luther is pretty good most of the time. TJATL is one book of three written about Jews. The other two are fantastic and generously kind to us. He was accused of being a "Jew lover" when he wrote them. Much later in life, when he was ill, fed up and sick of bankers interfering with the Reformation, he wrote TJATL. It's awful and outrageous. But, in case you didn't know, his very last sermon calls for kind Christian treatment of the Jews. He died four days later.

But it is still out there and has caused tremendous repercussions ever since, that you can't deny.

Also from what I've read he rejected part of the cannon himself.

He did not believe that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with the book of Revelations, he called James' letter 'an epistle of Straw', by Yeshua's own brother and head of the mother church no less! I think he had a problem with Yeshua's other brother too, Judah (Jude).

So here's another example of a religious authority, so which part of his writings do we believe?

 

[Lulav]

Yedida, I just really don't think many of the responses here in the last few weeks have been honest in their approach to the questions. There's a lot of cheering and jeering going on but not much light on any given topic. I am more than happy to say someone is wrong when they haven't tackled the matter with anything that remotely looks like an effort.

I live in a denomination where we tolerate a vast array of opinions. I am more than happy to do that. I think your comments should keep that in consideration when you accuse me of being harsh on the positions of others. I am quite happy to live with others of differing opinions, provided they're not just talking through their hat and yelling from the stands while their pet doctrines engage in the game.

CM, dear brother, I realize that you are not trying to talk down to us, but that is how it's coming off. I have found in the last decade on these forums that those that come to this section, drawn to converse not oppose, have one thing in common (at least the ones that stay for more than a post or two)and that is they are well read. Not in just the bible, that they have read indepth to see for themselves if what they have been taught in church is really the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[ContraMundum]

When one does this from a Christian vantage point those books that hold most weight are the NT books, not the Torah. That worked until I realized that Torah was the standard to measure up to, not the reverse.

I have no idea how one could come to that conclusion.

No, solution A requires more than faith, it requires thinking that G-d didn't give us his word so we could understand but we were just to believe it all and not question it. How many solutions to this equation are we willing to accept, on faith?

Basically what you are saying is the one that brings the most benefit is the one that requires you to dumb down your IQ to around 40. Is this what our G-d wants from us? If so then why did he tell us he would test us? And since he did how else would he test us?

Actually, I think option a) takes the most work and requires the opposite of dumbing down- you have to work hard.

The issue is, what are we saying about God? Can He or can He not preserve His word?

 

[ContraMundum]

But it is still out there and has caused tremendous repercussions ever since, that you can't deny.

Agreed.

Also from what I've read he rejected part of the cannon himself.

He did not believe that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with the book of Revelations, he called James' letter 'an epistle of Straw', by Yeshua's own brother and head of the mother church no less! I think he had a problem with Yeshua's other brother too, Judah (Jude).

No, not quite. He never rejected their canonicity, and included them in his translation. He merely noted that the early church spoke against the authenticity of those books, and as such believed that they had a lesser place in the canon.

To use my earlier post: he was position b)

So here's another example of a religious authority, so which part of his writings do we believe?

As he himself noted: don't believe a word unless it lines up with scripture.

CM, dear brother, I realize that you are not trying to talk down to us, but that is how it's coming off.

I am who I am. I do try though.

I have found in the last decade on these forums that those that come to this section, drawn to converse not oppose, have one thing in common (at least the ones that stay for more than a post or two)and that is they are well read. Not in just the bible, that they have read indepth to see for themselves if what they have been taught in church is really the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I don't see it that much.

 

[ananda]

Lulav said ... When one does this from a Christian vantage point those books that hold most weight are the NT books, not the Torah. That worked until I realized that Torah was the standard to measure up to, not the reverse.

I have no idea how one could come to that conclusion.

From my experience as a former mainstream, evangelical, and baptist Christian, and with experience with many churches in those streams, I can agree with Lulav - there is not much emphasis on the teaching, preaching, or study of the Torah or Tanach compared to the NT.

Not convinced yet? Check out a Christian bookstore - you'll find either Bibles with both the OT&NT - or just the NT - for sale. Find me a Torah-only or Tanach-only Bible sold in a Christian bookstore, then we'll talk

 

[yedida]

From my experience as a former mainstream, evangelical, and baptist Christian, and with experience with many churches in those streams, I can agree with Lulav - there is not much emphasis on the teaching, preaching, or study of the Torah or Tanach compared to the NT.

Not convinced yet? Check out a Christian bookstore - you'll find either Bibles with both the OT&NT - or just the NT - for sale. Find me a Torah-only or Tanach-only Bible sold in a Christian bookstore, then we'll talk

That's non-existant. It's even hard (or was at least 2 years ago) to even find Paul Wilbur or Marty Goetz in Christian book stores. Their answer to me when I asked about those singers back then (at a Family Christian Bookstore) was, "We're Christian." (Needless to say I had numerous comebacks to that one, but common courtesy made me keep them to myself.)

Also, mainstream teaches that you cannot even understand the OT, without understanding the NT first.

 

[Lulav]

That's non-existant. It's even hard (or was at least 2 years ago) to even find Paul Wilbur or Marty Goetz in Christian book stores. Their answer to me when I asked about those singers back then (at a Family Christian Bookstore) was, "We're Christian." (Needless to say I had numerous comebacks to that one, but common courtesy made me keep them to myself.)

You're kidding! I would have had to say something, like maybe ask them if they knew that their 'Christ' was a Jew? :o

Also, mainstream teaches that you cannot even understand the OT, without understanding the NT first.

Yup, thanks for the backup, it is totally reversed, and all because of trying to get away from Judaism and what the 'Jews do'.

 

[Lulav]

Agreed.

No, not quite. He never rejected their canonicity, and included them in his translation. He merely noted that the early church spoke against the authenticity of those books, and as such believed that they had a lesser place in the canon.

To use my earlier post: he was position b)

Calling James letter an 'Epistle of Straw' was not a mere note, it was actually included in Luthers' Bible, at least in the first printing. His opinion in 1522 Preface to the New Testament and the introduction to James

It is true Luther had a contextual problem with the content on James. He saw a contradiction between Paul and James on faith and works. Some conclude Luther missed the harmonization between these two Biblical writers, but this isn't true either. Luther's great biographer Roland Bainton pointed out, "Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor's beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul.

Of course Luther was a staunch supporter of Paul and his grace only message, but I am glad that we here have someone that sees also what I see, that James (head of the church) and Paul were not preaching the same thing.

As he himself noted: don't believe a word unless it lines up with scripture.

Yes, and by whose definition of scripture? I say it should line up with Torah, and so does G-d (Deut 13)

I am who I am. I do try though.

I don't see it that much.

 

[ContraMundum]

From my experience as a former mainstream, evangelical, and baptist Christian, and with experience with many churches in those streams, I can agree with Lulav - there is not much emphasis on the teaching, preaching, or study of the Torah or Tanach compared to the NT.

Not convinced yet? Check out a Christian bookstore - you'll find either Bibles with both the OT&NT - or just the NT - for sale. Find me a Torah-only or Tanach-only Bible sold in a Christian bookstore, then we'll talk

Lulav was not making that point. She was saying that the Torah was the standard to measure up to. I said I could not see how anyone could come to such a conclusion. Simply because- no one could come to that conclusion based on the texts alone- you need to be led to and taught that conclusion by an outside source or sources.

As for more NT stuff in Christian bookstore...I really don't care, personally about any of that. I read the whole Bible systematically every day of my life and have done for almost 15 years straight.

 

[ContraMundum]

Also, mainstream teaches that you cannot even understand the OT, without understanding the NT first.

Who is this "Mainstream" you speak of? I have never heard that ever preached, formally taught, Confessionally stated, or dogmatized by any Pope, Protestant formula - or even any Messianic pastor.

Methinks you are making rash generalizations. Every single book on exegesis I have does not make such a comment.

 

[Lulav]

Lulav was not making that point. She was saying that the Torah was the standard to measure up to. I said I could not see how anyone could come to such a conclusion. Simply because- no one could come to that conclusion based on the texts alone- you need to be led to and taught that conclusion by an outside source or sources.

As for more NT stuff in Christian bookstore...I really don't care, personally about any of that. I read the whole Bible systematically every day of my life and have done for almost 15 years straight.

Yes dear, that was what I was saying. In the christian churches you are taught it is done away with. The only Torah I've ever seen taught was Adam and Eve, Joseph, Noah's Ark, the giving of the ten commandments (without an explanation of what they really were) and that's about all I can remember. Then there was about king david and goliath, Jonah and the whale and not much more. Every thing else was from Nt Writings and mostly Paul.

'OT' is only used to back up interpretation of the NT. That is not how it should be though.

 

[EyesOfKohl]

A bit late to this thread, but I accept the Tanakh and Gospel of Matthew as my scripture. I don't accept most of the NT and especially not Paul's writings as scripture.

We should be able to find all of the prophecies up until Yukhanan in the Tanakh, which Yeshua himself said. The Tanakh is far more important than mainstream Christians realise...

For this is about whom it is written that "Behold I send my messenger before your face that he might establish the way before you." From the days of Yukhanan the baptizer until now, the kingdom has suffered violence, and the violent are robbing it. For all the prophets and the Torah have prophesied until Yukhanan. And if you desire, accept that this is Elia who was to come. - Matthew 11:10-14