[Open] tags-a read and respond thread for all

[Tishri1]

I spent a large part of the night and morning in prayer over this and I believe I'm being directed to hang in a little longer. There's got to be a way to make this work.

sorry Guys Im posting short stuff here cuz Ani and I are at this conference and she let me use her PC here in the room....we are wondering why we cant just use the subforums for topics that we all dont have in common....who suggested that a long time ago...Shimshon? yedida? both?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

There are two MJ's really, and this is what happened in the first century, and one won out and called the others heretics. This same thing is happening here.

There were differences in the various "sects" of Judaism before the advent of the Messiah, there were divisions in the 1st. cent., and we see from all of the Ecumenical Councils, the Great Schism, all the wars, the divergence and divisions following Luther among the Reformed protestants, and of course, the various groups that are represented here in this forum. The realism of the situation is if we went to sleep for 25 years, then returned to CF the groups and denominations could look very different than they do today. Why? Differences.

What we have here, right now, is what God has given us to work with. What we are working with here, today , at this moment is what it is.

While we must always heed the lessons which history gives us, lest we commit the same errors, we must live with the result of what the past gives us as well.

It is always interesting to consider the reality of how often history is written by the victors...and if another group ended up having a majority/winning out in establishing the "dominant" viewpoint, we'd truly be having a different discussion. Many of the groups which may be minorities within Church history/the 1st century church's development could've been the ones who came out on top---and those in the camp of Messianic Judaism that often discuss other aspects of MJ as "fringe" or "divergent" would be on the other side.

Of course, the Lord is the one who ultimately guides history in many respects when it comes to His Sovereignty and I do wonder many times if some things were simply fated----but for those things which are truly open to choice/chance, who knows. I know that there've been several MJ believers/posters over the years that have noted how it is an issue that anything/everything related to Paul has been discredited (attempted at least)--and claimed that it was "Messianic" and yet most Messianic Fellowships/Organizations vehemently disagree with that. There are others, I've noticed, that have advocated that even what Paul noted with the blood of Christ cleansing us of all sin has not really been achieved/activated yet---with the Law being the main thing that can/will redeem us fully. And some say that the only reason that their views on that aren't accepted is because those with Power kept them from having more of a voice.

Alot of it, IMHO, seems similar to what occurred with the Ebionites when it came to the early church and certain groups saying that anything of Paul was counter to Torah---and that only certain books in the NT Gospels could be trusted while Gentiles were bound to keep all of the OT laws as the Jews were. Much of what they held to was shot down by the early church--and some felt that their lack of being accepted was a sign of God's approval. IMHO, it seems to be a resurrgence of such thought...akin to Neo-Ebionites --and some of which was discussed elsewhere in places like #91 /"Nazarenes, Ebionites, and Essenes ( )

This is not to say that there's anything wrong with not having a Pauline Interpretation---but it is interesting to see how often its claimed to be the "Messianic Jewish" way toward other posters and yet most Messianic Jewish organizations are far from that. ...in light of how much Pauline Christianity has shaped so much.

Some could say that it was a Divine Accident for things to have turned out as they did---but as God is the one in control of History and guides it toward His own ends, one must consider.

It can be the case, IMHO, that the Lord will often allow for certain groups to not succedd due to something He desires. The folks over at "Archaic Christianity" did an excellent job in discussing this when considering the works of others whose intent is to focus on the "losers" of proto-orthodoxy , those whose ideas were stamped out by the proto-orthodox before the formation of much of what was considered "Orthodox" within the early church. Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today, since they eventually came to be reformed or stamped out....and some of the things that others often see today are simply the same ancient forms of thought repackaged/"remixed" for our times

For many, the question isn't so much about who came out on top/won---but instead, the question is this: Should the proto-orthodox have won? Truly, that is the question unless you just want to look at all this as a bunch of historical data. For many, seeing the alternatives that many ancient forms of Christianity offered in place of Pauline Christianity or that of the other apostles, it didn't seem as if it was truly something of the Lord...and for many, the mindset was that the groups may not have succedded due to the Lord's intervention and his allowance of them perishing.


Some of what you noted with accepting history reminded me of things that I'd say whenever I had discussions with my teachers---many of which were HYPER-Calvinists and assumed that all events in history, good or bad, were the work of God being "sovereign." To me, it always seemed odd that there could never be a consideration that the Lord caused certain events to be set up (like one would set up an stage) and let things play out...yet intervened to stop it. There was one time when someone said to me that it was God's Will for my ancestors to be born as slaves in the West Indies and the America's .with their basis being what Paul noted once when he said that the Lord chose the times/places we were born into in Acts 17:26-27 ( Isaiah 46:9-11). In their views, it could not be accident that my ancestors were placed where they were.....and it was not by chance that some were born into harsh situations/having to deal with severe situations for the glory of the Lord....seeing how the scriptures seemed to indicate to them that the Lord did so to others(Romans 3:4). (Romans 9:11-21; Daniel. 4:34-35).



Though I disagreed with MUCH of what they said (in light of how I came from a Charismatic background that didn't emphasize sovereignty to the point of all things being "fated"), I could see some of what they mentioned. In example, it's interesting seeing how the Conquistadors who destroyed civilizations when the New World was discovered are often painted as "cruel" for their actions--though the flip side is that for them, they honestly believed they were doing a service to Natives many times...."improving the savages", so to speak (just as it was with people owning slaves believing "But we're doing them a favor..."


And as many believers have noted, many of the civilizations were truly evil/corrupt---such as the Aztecs, who continually slaughtered others in their own nations and others for the sake of blood sacrifices and violence. Some have said that what the Conquistdors did was an act of Judgement from God...


And much of what was done WAS BENEFICIAL--though I'd say it was moreso in spite of things rather than because of it many times. People got educated, knew how to use technology.


If believing that all of what happens in life---as it concerns evil or good---is a matter of choice/chance, something to consider is that much of the roles could've been reversed----and the conversations/threads about the oppression of other groups would've been on how American Indians can harmed cultures outside of theirs.

​

Ecclesiastes 9:11

I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.
Ecclesiastes 9:10-12 / Ecclesiastes 9​

It could be said that much of reasons why one side was dominant was indeed based on "luck"/chance rather than a matter of God intervening to have things develop that way.


If interested, there was an excellent series on the issue:

• Guns, Germs and Steel ( )
• Guns, Germs and Steel (Part 2)
• Guns, Germs and Steel (Part 3)

It's an series from "National Geographic", but it was a trip viewing it. As an excerpt:

Why were Europeans the ones with all the cargo? Why had they taken over so much of the world, instead of the native people of New Guinea? How did Europeans end up with what Diamond terms the agents of conquest: guns, germs and steel? It was these agents of conquest that allowed 168 Spanish conquistadors to defeat an Imperial Inca army of 80,000 in 1532, and set a pattern of European conquest which would continue right up to the present day.

Diamond knew that the answer had little to do with ingenuity or individual skill. From his own experience in the jungles of New Guinea, he had observed that native hunter-gatherers were just as intelligent as people of European descent -- and far more resourceful. Their lives were tough, and it seemed a terrible paradox of history that these extraordinary people should be the conquered, and not the conquerors.

To examine the reasons for European success, Jared realized he had to peel back the layers of history and begin his search at a time of equality -- a time when all the peoples of the world lived in exactly the same way.

​

Some of it is interesting to consider when it comes to the evils of Colonialism/Imperialism and how many kingdoms or peoples have been wiped out by other dominant ones---for one could say that the Lord had nothing to do with it....and yet, its hard (IMHO) to escape from the fact that even people in their freewill could only choose to do certain things because they had access to certain resources that would never have been reached....unless God Himself had placed people there to begin with.


All of that's said with this in mind:

Psalm 22:28
for dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations.
Psalm 22:27-29 / Psalm 22





Acts 17:26
From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
Acts 17:25-27 / Acts 17



​

The same dynamics that've played themselves out in the history of nations/kingdoms with God's Sovereignty could've easily played themselves out within the early church/the Two Strands of Messianic Judaism when it came to the ways in which certain groups were not as successful in growth as others.

We can not hit the reset button and go back to day one; if we could we would give both Adam and Eve a wake up slap and a good talking to saying... "don't even think about it"; and while we were at it whack the head off of the serpent before he had the chance to utter a single word; but we can't. As much as we are the spiritual citizens of the eternal kingdom of God, we are also inhabitants of mortal bodies living within the bounds of our time, the present. Our temporal heritage is something that we all share, and therefore it's our responsibility to work within the bounds of time

May we all grow in working within the boundaries we've all been given and do it to the best of our ability.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I do not pray enough; I guess it's the "old Adam" in me. I forget who wrote it, it may have been St. Francis, but who ever it was said our whole life should be a prayer; they were right. Unfortunately the "world" often get's in the way, and our (my) pride as well. We (I) often spend so much time striving to follow God's will, that I often forget to submit to His will.

May God have mercy on me, a poor sinful being.

God bless you!

It is interesting to consider how many threads or discussions actually begin with their being created with much prayer precedding it---or posters commeting with prayer occurring as they write, as who knows how differently things would be behind the screen if that occurred and the Spirit was guiding all of the conversations.

Thank you for your observations, thoughts, and the references that you provided, both Biblical and the links as well. You have reflected many of my thoughts, and those of many here!

I thank you again for your comments, I am unworthy, it is you and the others here who are doing all the work, guided by the hand of God!

I'd say you're also being guided by the hand of the Lord as well, though thanks for the kind words/encouragement you offer..to me as well as so many others

Indeed, what's happened in the first Century, continues yet today; and not just here either!

I Corinthians 11:17-31 seems to speak to the dynamic

Believers often forget that a rigorous search for truth necessitates that "there must be also heresies among you" (I Corinthians 11:19).

There is a very real dynamic to consider when it comes to heresies and seeing the many ways in which differing views/thoughts contrasting (or conflicting) with each other is something that was designed by the Lord. And of course, those differences were not meant to be taken in the sense of allowing anything denying the nature of the Lord/His Deity or Message to be go without being examined...nor does it mean that bickering/quarreling (condemned in scripture) is to become a virtue. But differences of opinion were not something the Lord wasn't prepared for.

Jesus essentially taught the same about the reality and necessity in general of division (Matt. 10: 34 )....And as another said best:

A group united in the "same mind and the same judgment" (I Corinthians 1:10) — and only such a group — can take to the world a message of hope and peace.

This is not to say that division is good in any absolute sense. It quite obviously is not, and Jesus prayed fervently that his disciples would be one (John 17:11). He made it quite clear that Christian division would be a source of confusion to those who were not disciples. But if religious unity among all men of good will is desirable, the Bible never intimates that it is a practical end to be expected by Christians in history.

It is true that a Christian is obliged to work with both a love of the truth and a desire for unity. It is true also that Romans 14 teaches that under some circumstances two can walk together who do not agree and that a Christian is always ready to engage in dialogue about what is "essential" as a basis for doctrinal unity. There is no easy formula which answers all of the questions one must face in a lifetime. A Christian will take the issues one at a time, day by day, person by person, and weigh the respective tugs of truth and unity.
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Keeping things "in the family" may seem like an honourable thing to do; and it often is, but sometimes when things are left to fester families can become very dysfunctional, and family members can become alienated. Like with families outside CF, our spiritual families can often benefit from some "outside" help.

For those "in the family" issues can become clouded with emotion; those slightly removed can often see through the haze.

Families have tension and sometimes, things do blow up---but they don't stop being brothers or sisters because of it. The way they go about dealing with issues may make relationship with siblings feel more strained than need be, but the links are there regardless. And unless there're to be threads made where all of us come out and say directly who we may hate with a passion and deem to not be our "brother" in any way, I think all of us are a family in many ways.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Originally Posted by MarkRohfrietsch

Thank you for your observations, thoughts, and the references that you provided, both Biblical and the links as well. You have reflected many of my thoughts, and those of many here!

I thank you again for your comments, I am unworthy, it is you and the others here who are doing all the work, guided by the hand of God!
​

I'd say you're also being guided by the hand of the Lord as well, though thanks for the kind words/encouragement you offer..to me as well as so many others

Sola Deo Gloria!; To God Alone Be Glory!

Originally Posted by MarkRohfrietsch

Indeed, what's happened in the first Century, continues yet today; and not just here either!

I Corinthians 11:17-31 seems to speak to the dynamic

Believers often forget that a rigorous search for truth necessitates that "there must be also heresies among you" (I Corinthians 11:19).

There is a very real dynamic to consider when it comes to heresies and seeing the many ways in which differing views/thoughts contrasting (or conflicting) with each other is something that was designed by the Lord. And of course, those differences were not meant to be taken in the sense of allowing anything denying the nature of the Lord/His Deity or Message to be go without being examined...nor does it mean that bickering/quarreling (condemned in scripture) is to become a virtue. But differences of opinion were not something the Lord wasn't prepared for.

Jesus essentially taught the same about the reality and necessity in general of division (Matt. 10: 34 )....And as another said best:

A group united in the "same mind and the same judgment" (I Corinthians 1:10) — and only such a group — can take to the world a message of hope and peace.

This is not to say that division is good in any absolute sense. It quite obviously is not, and Jesus prayed fervently that his disciples would be one (John 17:11). He made it quite clear that Christian division would be a source of confusion to those who were not disciples. But if religious unity among all men of good will is desirable, the Bible never intimates that it is a practical end to be expected by Christians in history.

It is true that a Christian is obliged to work with both a love of the truth and a desire for unity. It is true also that Romans 14 teaches that under some circumstances two can walk together who do not agree and that a Christian is always ready to engage in dialogue about what is "essential" as a basis for doctrinal unity. There is no easy formula which answers all of the questions one must face in a lifetime. A Christian will take the issues one at a time, day by day, person by person, and weigh the respective tugs of truth and unity.
​

Excellent proof text!

Families have tension and sometimes, things do blow up---but they don't stop being brothers or sisters because of it. The way they go about dealing with issues may make relationship with siblings feel more strained than need be, but the links are there regardless. And unless there're to be threads made where all of us come out and say directly who we may hate with a passion and deem to not be our "brother" in any way, I think all of us are a family in many ways.

Indeed, we are all Children of the Father; brothers and sisters!

 

[ContraMundum]

Just so you have both sides of the equation Mark, there are Messianic Gentile 'Rabbis' in the movement as well. Many Messianic congregations are run by Gentiles. If you've been here long enough you will remember Pastor George, who is a Messianic minister, with accreditation from the CTOMC. They define themselves as such:



First Fruits of Zion which many here adhere to their teachings is run by a Messianic Gentile. T. Lancaster. I'm a Messianic Gentile

Here is one group for instance that has a completely different view of MJ

How The OMJRA Defines Messianic



This is the Messianic Judaism that those who are Hebrew Christians are fighting against, this was the Judaism of the early first century and some are trying to get back to.

As you can see if you read this and followed the few links I gave (there is much more) it is more diverse than some here are letting on.

Can't agree...

..our faith is the early Christian faith of the Jewish founders. The One Law movement is just a modern resurrection of an old heresy Rav Shaul of Tarsus and all the Jewish believers preached against. It is neither Jewish nor Messianic. I am happy to debate this with anyone in the proper debate forum.

 

[ContraMundum]

They refer to us a Hebrew Christians and Church in a kippah in a derogatory way. Implying we are not Jewish because we don't believe their interpretation of Yeshua's commands.

Yep, and we are the Messianic Jews! Born Jewish, raised Jewish...but not Jewish enough for the Gentiles, who want to "out-Jew" us. LOL

 

[visionary]

Yep, and we are the Messianic Jews! Born Jewish, raised Jewish...but not Jewish enough for the Gentiles, who want to "out-Jew" us. LOL

No argument there.. you are.. I suppose this jealousy is prophetic...

Romans 10:19
But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

and

Romans 11:11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

 

[ContraMundum]

No argument there.. you are.. I suppose this jealousy is prophetic...and

When it comes to this forum...who is jealous of whom?

 

[ContraMundum]

Deleted by the Contra

 

[visionary]

When it comes to this forum...who is jealous of whom?

God's truth is to be shared... anyone who doesn't want another to walk in the Way.. must be jealous of the other trying to.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

When it comes to this forum...who is jealous of whom?

Was wondering the same thing, as many I've seen who are Jewish aren't really concerned with Gentiles who are either "God-Fearers"/semi-converts to Judaic practices...or those who wish to convert over fully. Jealously, according to what Romans 10:19 and Romans 11:11 discuss, NEVER seemed to have any real connection with saying Jews would be jeaslous simply because Gentiles tried to emulate their culture. And sadly, it does seem many Gentiles can/do assume that making the Jews jealous is done by trying to walk in something that they themselves were never called to.

Although I've referenced it before in another thread, there's an article by one who's an Eastern Catholic Jew..and to see what she said:

• The Faithfulness of Israel | The Groom's Family
• The Faithfulness of Israel II | The Groom's Familyjavascript:void(0)
  
  
  
  

As said there in the article:

Genia wrote:

“The notion of the days of mashiach, be its interpretation what it may, don’t in any way necessitate the nations of the world becoming Jewish, or part Jewish, or Jewish-in-some-way. It’s not necessary, nor is it the point. They [the Gentiles] can seek God and find him in the seven commandments of Noah; they do not need to be ‘cleaving to the house of Israel’ in the sense of becoming Israel. That’s the beauty of it.

That’s why when you talk of this touted ‘jealousy’ I really don’t know where you are coming from. What would be the point of being jealous? Far be it from Jewish theology to try and hoard God for itself; on the contrary, it’s entirely happy to share, and requires a great deal less of non-Jews than it does of Jews to remain in God’s good graces, so to speak. Jewish theology has never been exclusive in its accessibility to God and salvation – Christian theology thinks in that way, perhaps, but Jewish theology doesn’t.”
​

We know that, both before and after God called the descendants of Jacob to be His people, there were righteous and believing Gentiles (again, Melchizedek comes to mind), and no doubt they were pleasing to God (though I would be curious to know more about what Genia means by the “salvation” they have access to). Yet God chooses for Himself a people, and they choose Him as their God. Moreover, He loves this people dearly even when they are not faithful to Him; He never gives up on them. And, as Genia points out, He asks more of the Jews than he does of all others, who are bound only by the laws of Noah – just as parents ask more of their children than of their neighbors’ children, though the latter too are expected to know how to behave.

The jealousy I wrote about earlier is not jealousy of other nations’ “accessibility to God and salvation,” as Genia put it – sure, the Gentiles, as long as they are not the idol-worshippers, can be “in God’s good graces.” The jealousy is of God’s particular, passionate love for the Jewish nation - love that goes beyond approval of their behavior or occasional chastisement, love worthy of the Song of Songs (see earlier post).


Again, this jealousy is neither wrong nor is it ever rebuked: God did promise His abiding love to Israel, and in recent times Israel has suffered much for that. In addition, God’s love of Israel says something about the way in which God wishes all men to come to Him: through a family relationship to Himself, a love that “endures forever,” even through infidelity and stubbornness and coldness of heart, as only the love of a family can, and that accordingly has both a marital and a parental character.

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Indeed, we are all Children of the Father; brothers and sisters!

It's hard for me, in reading the NT Text, to not see it where there's a dynamic of family. Shalom

 

[Lulav]

First off, Shimshon, pleas do not be offended that I snipped your post down, it's not my intend to discount what you have written; the point you made in that first paragraph speaks volumes and ties into what Lulav posted so well!

The best advice I can give to these observations is... "Get ready, this is only the beginning; and a fore-tast of things to come".

Like Lulav posted:



There were differences in the various "sects" of Judaism before the advent of the Messiah, there were divisions in the 1st. cent., and we see from all of the Ecumenical Councils, the Great Schism, all the wars, the divergence and divisions following Luther among the Reformed protestants, and of course, the various groups that are represented here in this forum. The realism of the situation is if we went to sleep for 25 years, then returned to CF the groups and denominations could look very different than they do today. Why? Differences.

What we have here, right now, is what God has given us to work with. What we are working with here, today , at this moment is what it is.

While we must always heed the lessons which history gives us, lest we commit the same errors, we must live with the result of what the past gives us as well. We can not hit the reset button and go back to day one; if we could we would give both Adam and Eve a wake up slap and a good talking to saying... "don't even think about it"; and while we were at it whack the head off of the serpent before he had the chance to utter a single word; but we can't. As much as we are the spiritual citizens of the eternal kingdom of God, we are also inhabitants of mortal bodies living within the bounds of our time, the present. Our temporal heritage is something that we all share, and therefore it's our responsibility to work within the bounds of time.

Love it!

You're an OK guy Mark, I love your insight and welcome your participation in this forum outside of our squabbling!

 

[Lulav]

Yep, and we are the Messianic Jews! Born Jewish, raised Jewish...but not Jewish enough for the Gentiles, who want to "out-Jew" us. LOL

My Maternal grandmother was a Messianic Jew or Hebrew Christian, whichever way you want to put it. She and my gentile grandfather raised my mother and her brother in the Methodist church. The Jewish traditions she retained were never spoken of, but done. Passover cleaning, Certain foods (she was from NY so you know, chopped liver, matzoh ball soup, and Jewish penicillin in the Frigidaire all year round). We were told a lie to protect what happened, as you yourself know what it's like to become a Christian and how your family treats you (imagine what it was like 70-80 years ago).

My Father (not the one I spoke of before, that was my stepfather) was also a Messianic or Hebrew Christian, both parents Jewish. He became a minister, so on fire for the L-RD that my mother divorced him because of it.

So If you don't want to consider me a Messianic Jew, but consider one who only has a Jewish father and a Catholic mother, that's fine. I don't think it's labels that get you into heaven.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

...we are the Messianic Jews! Born Jewish, raised Jewish...but not Jewish enough for the Gentiles, who want to "out-Jew" us. LOL

I think that perhaps it'd be best to note that you/others of the same mindset are indeed Messianic Jews...but specifically, as Lulav noted in #128 , Messianic Jews of one strain/ideology that has always existed within the church. I think there's alot of validity in noting how many Jews not agreeing with you may be just as "Messianic Jewish" as you/others are.

Of course, if that be the case, then the real battle is discussing what is the BEST kind of Messianic Judaism--and in that regards, the conversation (IMHO) becomes more focused if examining the claims of differing camps of the early church/1st century Judaism and seeing what they all felt about Yeshua....and how all had differing beliefs on how to express their devotion to the Messiah, yet they were all "Messianic"--and one of those camps had the best solution. As said before, alot of the differing stances that're said by others on the boards claiming to be "Messianic Jewish" do have a historical basis if examining some of the earlier camps....specifically the Ebionites when it came to the early church and certain groups saying that anything of Paul was counter to Torah. Although the Ebionites were very diverse/didn't all see the same, Paul’s oppoments were often those who were “Ebionites” ..just as it is with many here in their stances against Paul on a host of issues and choosing to be aggressive in noting it. With the Ebionites, as many here also believe, they felt that only certain books in the NT Gospels could be trusted while Gentiles were bound to keep all of the OT laws as the Jews were. Much of what they held to was shot down by the early church--and some felt that their lack of being accepted was a sign of God's approval.......and although there were many Gentiles who joined with them believing they had to observe all aspects of the Torah in order to have acceptance before the Lord, those Gentiles within the Ebionite version of Christianity and the Ebionite Jews would collectively be a different kind of "Messianic" altogether.

If I'm alone in that viewpoint, cool..but IMHO, it truly does seem to be a resurrgence of such thought on the forums when seeing the side of "Messianic Jew" you come at and the other side others reside..akin to Neo-Ebionites --and some of which was discussed elsewhere in places like #91 /"Nazarenes, Ebionites, and Essenes . And for other places, one can go either here or here and here in regards to what is known as the Gospel of the Ebionites. Derek Leman also did an amazing series on the group (seen here )and its relevance for Messianic Judaism today when examining the many groups (including others within the camp Sister Lulav brought up that she supports) which may be similar---and are just as worthy of the term "Messianic Jew" even though it is not agreed that their variation of Messianic Judaism is the most Biblical way...just as there were debates within the differing camps of Judaism during the days of Christ and others discussed how one could discuss which camp had the most Biblical/God-Honoring perspective even though being involved in one rather than another didn't make one any less "Jewish."

... Messianic Jews! Born Jewish, raised Jewish...but not Jewish enough for the Gentiles, who want to "out-Jew" us. LOL

Indeed, there are many Gentiles who claim the term "Messianic Jewish" and indeed try to live out their lifestyles in the attempt to be more "Jewish" than how many Jews advocate..which is a significant problem when it comes to failing to remember how being Gentile was never something the Lord was against in all senses. If you know of Marshall Beber, a Messianic Jew who used to be one of the key leaders in the movement during its early days in the 60s/70's and who has tried to bring reform to the movement in it's legalism, he had some very striking points in regards to the issue....and I was thankful for the many whom he was able to reference speaking on the subject of Gentile Identity (as seen here) like Jacob Prash of Moriel Ministries, Dan Juster of "Tikkun Ministries" and others. And to be clear, tor those who wish to live a Jewish lifestyle as Gentiles due to their being convicted to do so, they have the freedom to do so since the same thing seemed to occur many times in the scriptures...specifically in regards to those who had a Ruth-Like mindset of joining with the Jewish people and honoring their mindset....and I do think that there's a beauty to those who wish to be Messianic Gentiles, as FFOZ has noted alongside many other groups. One of the books I was able to read on it growing up is by Don Fito, entitled Your People Shall Be My People----and it's very well written in regards to discussing those who wish to have a Ruth-Like calling toward joining with the Jewish people for the sake of outreach/identification.


Acts 15:23-29 makes it clear that in order to become a child of God, a Gentile does not need to undergo conversion rites to Judaism in order to be accepted...and in fact, Rav Shaul (Paul) takes it one step further in saying that Messianic gentiles should remain as they are and not seek to become part of Israel in the flesh (I Corinthians 7:18-24) ---but if one wishes to live in a specific way, that is their decision.




The only issue that is to be taken (IMHO) is when Gentiles try to live Jewishly thinking they now have the rights to speak as if they themselves are "Jews"/belonging to Israel and do so because of a fixation on all things "Israel"----as that has caused great damage in the Body....and it is an issue when many Gentile believers today, in their search for "the Jewish roots of the faith" are adopting traditional Jewish ways not mandated by Scripture....specifically in regards to how traditional Judaism's oral law contains conversion rituals and too many Messianics are attempting to 'graft' those beliefs into Messianic Judaism.

Whenever that occurs, it is right for other Messianic Jews to note to them that they are indeed trying to outdo other Jews where it was not even necessary or allowed. Being "Jewish" was never what the Lord was concerned on for Gentiles, for as Peter said, " in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." ( Acts 10:34-35 ).

You already know where I stand in agreement with you on Gentiles (as said here in #229, #15 and #17 )--for when anything Gentile is despised just for one to call themselves "Israel", that's a problem. And As another said best, " What a great cosmic joke, after 2,000 years of separation begun by anti-Semitism, for Jewish and Gentile believers to begin to come together, and be torn apart this time, not by anti-Semitism, but by its converse, let us call it anti-Gentilism! Such divisions are not scriptural, and only give place to the devil."

Also, As another said best in a paper presented to the International Messianic Jewish Alliance meeting in Puerto Vallarta Mexico in 1997 :

Identifying With Israel​

The primary role of Gentiles in the Body of the Messiah is to identify with Israel. To identify with Israel is different from identifying as Israel. As Gentiles, our struggle must be to show that we have been brought into a relationship with the God of Abraham without being a replacement of Israel. But there is a danger here. If Gentiles lose their own identity and become copy-cat Jews, or if the differences become hidden, the purpose for the body to be both Jew and Gentile in one new man will be lost.

​

We are to appreciate both Jewish and Gentile culture...and for those Gentiles within the movement who feel that all Gentiles MUST live as Jewish people in order to appreciate them, it's a big problem. As Yeshua noted:

Luke 7

The Faith of the Centurion

1When Jesus had finished saying all this in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. 2There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, "This man deserves to have you do this, 5because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue." 6So Jesus went with them.

He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: "Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

9When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." 10Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.
​

Matthew 8:4-6is the place where the other version is given....and of course, in Luke's account, others came to Jesus on his behalf while Matthew's account does not mention them at all. The accounts may seem contradictory--but Matthew, as he often does, simply abbreviates the story. For in Matthew, he actually reports what the centurion said through the messengers, based on the idea that what the person does through an agent is what the person himself does. Regarding the text, when the Roman centurion addresses Jesus as "Lord", he shows a remarkable sensitivity for Jewish traditions...saying he's unworthy of receiving Jesus into his Gentile home, as a Jew who entered the home of a Gentile became ceremonially unclean ( Acts 10:27-29 / ).

Some other interesting things from the text are that the normal relationship between Romans and Jews, as is usual between conquerors and conquered, was not one of love and trust---from either side. But this pagan Roman officer had demonstrated a love for the Jewish people which moved the Jewish leaders to plead on his behalf before Yeshua, whose primary ministry was not to Gentiles but to Jews..especially as evidenced in his interaction with the girl whose daughter was possessed/was a Gentile ( Matthew 10:4-6 / /Matthew 15:25-27/ ). Love was demonstrated to be a matter of deeds--"he built the synagogue for us!"--not mere words or feelings; and this is its primary meaning throughout Scripture. Similarly, in modern times "Righteous Gentiles" have been honored by trees planted along the road to Israel's Yad VaShem Memorial of the Holocaust because they risked their own death to save Jewish lives. Examples of such would be people such as Chiune Sugihara, a Japanese individual who saved many Jewish people during his time in China and was a rescuer of Jews during the Nazi Holocaust.....one of the greatest example of what it means to be a "God-Fearer" and how being a Gentile isn't something to be ashamed of.

Sugihara - The Conspiracy of Kindness 1/6 ​

In regards to Matthew 8:4-6 and the Roman Centurion, of course Replacement Theologians and those against Jews may conclude that Jesus was excluding Jews from the Kingdom---but the point of the story was not exclusion. Rather, it was inclusion......as here Yeshua clearly states that Gentiles from ALL OVER (from the east and the west), even an army officer of the hated Roman Empire, can by virtue of trusting in God join God's people Israel and take their places at the feast in the Kingdom of Heaven with Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Of course, this very thing has occurred many times before---whether with Rabab the Prostitute when she joined the people of God ( Joshua 6:24-26 / /Hebrews 11:30-32 /James 2:24-26 )..or Ruth..who was in the line of Christ ( Matthew 1:4-6 / ) after she joined on with the Jewish people, even though she was a Moabite ( Ruth 1:1 /Genesis 19:36-38/ ) and the Law forbade anyone of Moabite descent to enter the sanctuary due to Moab's history ( Deuteronomy 23:2-4/ /Numbers 22:1 )

 

[Lulav]

It is interesting to note that in the 2nd century, the man called Irenaeus (c. 180) was probably the first to use the term "Ebionites" to describe a heretical judaizing sect, which he regarded as stubbornly clinging to the Law.

Origen (c. 212) remarks that the name derives from the Hebrew word "evyon," meaning "poor." They have been known as the poor or the Poor ones.

Paul mentions them but it is usually dismissed as having another meaning.

26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for The Poor saints which are at Jerusalem.

AND

10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember The Poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Epiphanius of Salamis in the 4th century gives the most complete but also questionable account in his heresiology called Panarion, denouncing eighty heretical sects, among them the Ebionites.

80 in the 4th century?

After the end of the First Jewish-Roman War, the importance of the Jerusalem church began to fade. Jewish Christianity became dispersed throughout the Jewish diaspora in the Levant, where it was slowly eclipsed by gentile Christianity, which then spread throughout the Roman Empire without competition from "judaizing" Christian groups.

Once the Jerusalem church, still headed by Jesus' relatives, was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost influence and followers. According to Hyam Maccoby (1987) their decline was due to marginalization and "persecution" by both Jews and Christians

Is it wrong to want to get back to what is described above as Jewish Christianity or does the persecution still continue?.

 

[visionary]

It is interesting to note that in the 2nd century, the man called Irenaeus (c. 180) was probably the first to use the term "Ebionites" to describe a heretical judaizing sect, which he regarded as stubbornly clinging to the Law.

Origen (c. 212) remarks that the name derives from the Hebrew word "evyon," meaning "poor." They have been known as the poor or the Poor ones.

Paul mentions them but it is usually dismissed as having another meaning.

AND
Epiphanius of Salamis in the 4th century gives the most complete but also questionable account in his heresiology called Panarion, denouncing eighty heretical sects, among them the Ebionites.

80 in the 4th century?

Is it wrong to want to get back to what is described above as Jewish Christianity or does the persecution still continue?.

Can I quote this in the Messianic History thread.. .or could you.. This is another keeper.

 

[Lulav]

These are just some quotes from the church fathers, I found on wiki. You can get the sources here.

Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.

That is from
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus

Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion is also known as 'Against Heresies'

I've found this too you might want.

The Ebionites were not originally heretics. Their characteristic was the more or less strict insistence upon the observance of the Jewish law; a matter of cultus, therefore, not of theology, separated them from Gentile Christians. Among the early Jewish Christians existed all shades of opinion, in regard to the relation of the law and the Gospel, from the freest recognition of the uncircumcised Gentile Christian to the bitterest insistence upon the necessity for salvation of full observance of the Jewish law by Gentile as well as by Jewish Christians.

With the latter Paul himself had to contend, and as time went on, and Christianity spread more and more among the Gentiles, the breach only became wider. In the time of Justin there were two opposite tendencies among such Christians as still observed the Jewish law: some wished to impose it upon all Christians; others confined it to themselves. Upon the latter Justin looks with charity; but the former he condemns as schismatics (see Dial. c. Trypho. 47).

Read the whole thing in the side bar on this page. It is copyrighted, but you can put a link to it in your thread with an introduction about what it says.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It is interesting to note that in the 2nd century, the man called Irenaeus (c. 180) was probably the first to use the term "Ebionites" to describe a heretical judaizing sect, which he regarded as stubbornly clinging to the Law.

Origen (c. 212) remarks that the name derives from the Hebrew word "evyon," meaning "poor." They have been known as the poor or the Poor ones.

Paul mentions them but it is usually dismissed as having another meaning.

For the sake of consideration, there've been differing views on what the term "poor ones" actually means. Some say the sect in question seems to have assumed the name Ebionites, "the poor ones," from the first Beatitude (Matthew 5:3), claiming to be the continuation into the new dispensation of the "poor and needy" of the Psalms, eg. Psalms 69:33; 70:5; 74:21.

And although some say that Paul's references to the poor within his epistles meant he was considering the Ebionites (which is possible), other explanations have been given. Some are of the mindset that the term means “poor men” and is thought to refer to their poverty of understanding, which probably has reference to the poverty understanding the Law to which they clung, or to the poor understanding they held concerning Christ when it came to certain things. Perhaps this poverty of understanding is intended to refer to both opinions...although the lifestyle of the Ebionites was often one of voluntary impoverishment/ascetism and thus saying they were "poor" in that sense is more than a possibility. The ordinary view of the origin of the name 'Ebionite" has the advantage of analogy in its favor since the pre-Reformation Protestants of the 12th and 13th centuries in France called themselves "the poor men" (of Lyons)...and the fact that the apostle James in his Epistle implies a natural union between poverty and piety (2:5), "Did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith ....?" would confirm the Jewish Christians in their use of the name.


As one study source said:

All authorities combine in asserting a close connection between the Ebionites and the Essenes. At first sight there are serious points of difference, principally these, the Ebionites enjoined marriage, while the Essenes, if we may believe Philo and Josephus, forbade it. This forbiddal, however, appears to have been true only of the Coenobites of Engedi. Moreover, some of the Judaizers, that is Ebionites, are charged with forbidding to marry (1 Timothy 4:3). The Essenes in all their varieties seem to have come over to Christianity on the fall of the Jewish state and the retreat of the church to Pella. When they joined the believers in their exile the Parsee elements began a ferment in the church and Ebionism was one of the products. This probably is the meaning of the statement that Ebion began to teach his doctrines at Pella. If we may judge from the statements of Scripture and from the earliest of the noncanonical apocalypses, the Ebionites were not at first heretical in their Christology. Only they maintained the universal obligation of the ceremonial law, holding that believers of Gentiledescent could be received into the church only if they were first circumcised. The keen dialectic of Paul forced them from this position.
​

If it was the case that Paul referenced them as either being the groups he was seeking to help---or at least being amongst the groups who were impoverished--it places a differing perspective on Paul's heart for generosity. For even with others who may've differed from him, his choosing to help Ebionites could be taken as an indicator that he was not heartless toward those who may've oppossed him....just as it'd be with others who may have strong disagreements with other people and yet still recognize the basic reality that all men are human/still are to be aided when they're struggling....and if I dislike someone's ideology intensely, that doesn't mean I have the right to rejoice when their children suffer from impoverishment. Just some thoughts
.

Epiphanius of Salamis in the 4th century gives the most complete but also questionable account in his heresiology called Panarion, denouncing eighty heretical sects, among them the Ebionites.


80 in the 4th century?

After the end of the First Jewish-Roman War, the importance of the Jerusalem church began to fade. Jewish Christianity became dispersed throughout the Jewish diaspora in the Levant, where it was slowly eclipsed by gentile Christianity, which then spread throughout the Roman Empire without competition from "judaizing" Christian groups.

Once the Jerusalem church, still headed by Jesus' relatives, was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost influence and followers. According to Hyam Maccoby (1987) their decline was due to marginalization and "persecution" by both Jews and Christians

Indeed, Wiki had some good material on them that would be interesting to develop discussion on...even if one may not agree with all of the conclusions or the ideology of the group. For if nothing else, I think it'd open up doors for discussing dynamics within history on why groups are viewed as they are and how movements today can learn from that---and within the Messianic movement, I'd think history would offer some excellent lessons on how interaction in the present isn't always divorced from what occurred already in the past.

Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:8-10 /Ecclesiastes 1
​

As it is, IMHO, there was alot of variation amongst the Ebionites and it would not be fair to label them all as not believing in Messiah (in light of how often those identifying with their stances are labeled as such)...and if we are to be students of history, we can at least be willing/able to deal with it as it presented itself rather than broad-brush. With the Ebionites, there were some who may've disagreed with Paul...yet they also didn't choose to go to war with him as it was with the Jews going around/following Paul and causing riots in cities. For those that did, it was an issue (as discussed here). And it is not necessarily the case that others who believed Yeshua was the Messiah automatically didn't believe that because they disagreed with Paul's stance. This is something that can also be said for others today who are essentially Neo-Ebionites (as other Hebrew Christians have noted)..for some could say they had a limited view /understanding without having Paul's mindset seen (which is my stance), but to assert they weren't saved is something I don't think is appropriate. Many scholars have noted that James, the Brother of Jesus, actually was considered to be the leader of one of the groups of Ebionites at Pella (as seen here in an article discussing the influence of Jewish Christianity on the early church)---and for his group, which was more legally minded in regards to adherance to the Law, he sought to keep the peace between Jewish Christians and Gentile believers often .

For more in-depth critique/debate on the Ebionites, as offered elsewhere, there are some sources that've been a blessing which can be found here..or here under the following titles:

• "Ebionites and Nazirites « Messianic Jewish Musings "
• Nazarenes/Ebionites - A Christian Thinktank
• "JewishEncyclopedia.com - EBIONITES"
• Ebionism and Ebionites.
• CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ebionites
• Was Josephus an Ebionite? « Smoodock's Blog
• "Heresy or Reasonable Theology? The Ebionites: Part 2"
• Ebionites: diversity of the early Christianity - a knol by Zia Shah
• The Poor Men, Jesus and Christianity—Ebionites, the Essenes who ...
• The Epistle to the Galatians: a commentary on the Greek text - Page 113
• Jewish Ways of Following Jesus: Redrawing the Religious Map of ... - Page 208
• Lost scriptures: books that did not make it into the New Testament - Page 12
• The Ebionites and "Jewish Christianity": Examining heresy and the ... - Page 87
• The image of the Judaeo-Christians in ancient Jewish and Christian ... - Page 163

The Ebionites were not originally heretics. Their characteristic was the more or less strict insistence upon the observance of the Jewish law; a matter of cultus, therefore, not of theology, separated them from Gentile Christians. Among the early Jewish Christians existed all shades of opinion, in regard to the relation of the law and the Gospel, from the freest recognition of the uncircumcised Gentile Christian to the bitterest insistence upon the necessity for salvation of full observance of the Jewish law by Gentile as well as by Jewish Christians.

With the latter Paul himself had to contend, and as time went on, and Christianity spread more and more among the Gentiles, the breach only became wider. In the time of Justin there were two opposite tendencies among such Christians as still observed the Jewish law: some wished to impose it upon all Christians; others confined it to themselves. Upon the latter Justin looks with charity; but the former he condemns as schismatics (see Dial. c. Trypho. 47).
​

Read the whole thing in the side bar on this page. It is copyrighted, but you can put a link to it in your thread with an introduction about what it says.

Many thanks for the link you gave out with that one, as it was an enjoyable/informative read and it's always a blessing learning of the ways that differing groups developed---both internally in what they felt and externally in how they were perceived over time.

Is it wrong to want to get back to what is described above as Jewish Christianity or does the persecution still continue?

That goes back, IMHO, to the question asked earlier when it comes to disagreements---and that is "Was it right that certain groups lost influence?". A question to consider alongside that is one asking "Is all disagreement to be taken as persecution?" or "Was a persecuted group innocent at all points/never persecutors themselves?"