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

[Gxg (G²)]

Some guy told me the other day that the real reason they were called Dark Ages is because of the climate in Europe: eg a very cold and gloomy era for weather.

Praying that'd never happen globally, as I hate the cold with a passion.

Oh well...just another theory that won't effect my day-to-day life.

Of course, though it is interesting to see the effects that it can have on the lives of others if viewing one era solely as a negative.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This is not another Christian denomination forum because those that come here do not believe that the church had it all right. If we wanted to follow the Catholic/Anglican way, we would all be in one of those churches, sacrificing Christ over and over again. We do not believe in that so we are here. Anyone that didn't follow what Constantine determined should be followed was deemed a heretic. To you and those like you who try to preach to us how wrong we are, I'm sure consider us all heretics in here as well.
.

Perhaps it's just me---but I think one would have be careful in what you noted since there are Christians (numerous ones) that do not believe the Church had it all right....and even within that, the other Christian denomination forums have that as well. The same goes for here, seeing how many have seen Messianic Judaism as an expression of Christianity even though it's distinct in its outlook---and as it is all done under "Christian Forums", it wouldn't make sense to say that those in the Messianic Forum are not "Christian."

Additionally, in regards to the Catholic/Anglican point you raised, there are many Messianic Believers who are Catholic (i.e. Hebrew Catholics) and others involved in liturgical circles within Christendom (i.e Anglican, Orthodox, etc)---and they've all been here for a good bit and sometimes more so due to the season. They're just as Messianic as others due to their practicing their Jewish heritage and yet believing in Yeshua--and that's why they came here. Thus, speaking in terms of "we" in the sense of not including them into the Messianic camp would be not fully accurate.


Moreover, as there are differing ideas behind the concept of the Eucharist, it can come off demeaning in trying to say all of those who are Catholic or Anglican just want to sacrifice Christ over/over again. For more, one can investigate the article entitled Sacrifice of the Mass: Do Catholics Re-crucify Christ or [SIZE=-1]The Eucharist in Scripture[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] by Marty Barrack[/SIZE]. There's also an excellent book on the issue entitled Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Brant Pitre (as seen here).Also, if you've ever heard of the ministry series known as "Common Ground", it may give some good info for others to consider. During the interview, the Non-Catholic Pastor Steve Andrews asks Fr. John Riccardo about the accusation made by Non-Catholics that they Re-Sacrifice Christ during the Mass. What follows is a great explanation of what Catholics truly believe...and it's well worth it, especially if you want to have a correct understanding of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches - regardless if you are Catholic or not.

Common Ground Sample


One can also go here as well...or investigate places such as Old Testament Sacrifice: Magic or Sacrament? or Exodus 12: The Meal that Teaches Salvation (Devotional 17)

​

 

[Desert Rose]

Oh course, all jkokes aside it was RCC Church that openly promoted the idea that Jews killed Jesus Christ and justified a lot of antisemitism by those teachings,

Pope recently apologized .

Jews laud pope's insistence Jews did not kill Jesus – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Why would he apologize if it didnt happen?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

In another thread in GT where the purpose of the law is being discussed, this group, while not saying "Jews killed Christ", are very clear that that they believe that not only being obligated to the law, but faith-motivated observation of the law is contrary to the Gospel.

There were accusations of one of your members and some others (including myself) that we are "proselytizing"; yet that group has done nothing but " proselytize" in almost every post.

Would you happen to know the name of that specific thread so that I could check it out? For there are many over that about the law and sometimes it's hard to keep up

 

[Lulav]

Oh course, all jkokes aside it was RCC Church that openly promoted the idea that Jews killed Jesus Christ and justified a lot of antisemitism by those teachings,

Pope recently apologized .

Jews laud pope's insistence Jews did not kill Jesus – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Why would he apologize if it didnt happen?

Exactly!

And that brings to mind how many Jews was it that the Catholic Church killed for not believing in Christ? How many were slain on their way to the Holy Land which many in the church believe belongs to them?

 

[Lulav]

Perhaps it's just me---but I think one would have be careful in what you noted since there are Christians (numerous ones) that do not believe the Church had it all right....and even within that, the other Christian denomination forums have that as well. The same goes for here, seeing how many have seen Messianic Judaism as an expression of Christianity even though it's distinct in its outlook---and as it is all done under "Christian Forums", it wouldn't make sense to say that those in the Messianic Forum are not "Christian."

Additionally, in regards to the Catholic/Anglican point you raised, there are many Messianic Believers who are Catholic (i.e. Hebrew Catholics) and others involved in liturgical circles within Christendom (i.e Anglican, Orthodox, etc)---and they've all been here for a good bit and sometimes more so due to the season. They're just as Messianic as others due to their practicing their Jewish heritage and yet believing in Yeshua--and that's why they came here. Thus, speaking in terms of "we" in the sense of not including them into the Messianic camp would be not fully accurate.


Moreover, as there are differing ideas behind the concept of the Eucharist, it can come off demeaning in trying to say all of those who are Catholic or Anglican just want to sacrifice Christ over/over again. For more, one can investigate the article entitled Sacrifice of the Mass: Do Catholics Re-crucify Christ or [SIZE=-1]The Eucharist in Scripture[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] by Marty Barrack[/SIZE]. There's also an excellent book on the issue entitled Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Brant Pitre (as seen here).Also, if you've ever heard of the ministry series known as "Common Ground", it may give some good info for others to consider. During the interview, the Non-Catholic Pastor Steve Andrews asks Fr. John Riccardo about the accusation made by Non-Catholics that they Re-Sacrifice Christ during the Mass. What follows is a great explanation of what Catholics truly believe...and it's well worth it, especially if you want to have a correct understanding of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches - regardless if you are Catholic or not.

Thanks for the lesson Easy, but I was brought up in a Step family that was Catholic (and Italian in fact) so I don't need to be taught what they believe (which means I have witnessed many discussions on what they believe and have also attended Mass).

Also we have discussed numerous times in this forum since I've been here (over 10 years) that there is a difference between Hebrew Christians and Messianics. In fact we used to have a Hebrew Catholics here that almost destroyed this forum. They finally had to ban him.

When you are taught the one way and only one way is the right way, you then have to believe everyone else is wrong, there's no getting around it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thanks for the lesson Easy, but I was brought up in a Step family that was Catholic (and Italian in fact) so I don't need to be taught what they believe (which means I have witnessed many discussions on what they believe and have also attended Mass)..

I don't knock the fact that you grew up in a Catholic family. However, just because one was raised one way doesn't mean that what one was taught was how it IS for all others. Italian Catholics are not the same as Eastern Catholic, nor is every Latin Rite explained the same way--and thus again, saying all Catholics "re-sacrifice Christ" is not what Catholics believe. I also was brought up Catholic growing up, with a Hispanic mother (from Panama) who grew up in the Catholic Church and went to Catholic school---and although there were intense discussions on many things, it was never the case that Eucharist was seen remotely close to how your family saw it. The same thing with differing views in Catholicsm occurred in the West Indies, as my friends and family in Jamaica all celebrated Mass and again did not see it as your family saw it/may've been taught it. ...but then again, they didn't see it in the West Indian Catholic Church the same way that others in the U.S Catholic church saw it. For our Masses were very exciting, full of dance/vibrant singing and the Power of God. They were more akin to what's known as Charismatic Catholics---as my mother experienced when she came to the Lord. Wild people and glad I was able to experience them growing up, even though others within Catholicism battle against those who are Charismatic Catholics.

Ultimately, IMHO, what it comes down to is essentially the same thing debated earlier about differing variations of a camp...and no one side likes to have another speak of it in misrepresentation, just as you have voiced with views you may have/feeling as if other Messianics did not say correctly what you feel or believe even if they may say they grew up on your side of the street.

Also we have discussed numerous times in this forum since I've been here (over 10 years) that there is a difference between Hebrew Christians and Messianics. In fact we used to have a Hebrew Catholics here that almost destroyed this forum. They finally had to ban him.

I'm aware of the previous discussions. And with that, it should be noted that there has also been debate numerous times on the forums on how many MESSIANIC organizations not only accept Hebrew Catholics as Messianic....but actively work with them in their organizations. This also goes for Jews involved in Anglican circles or Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy such as Ethopian Jews. One Hebrew Catholic being banned doesn't speak for an entire movement.

When you are taught the one way and only one way is the right way, you then have to believe everyone else is wrong, there's no getting around it

That I don't disagree with, as noted earlier with things within Christendom. However, the same thing goes for others seeing a negative variation of something and then assuming that variation is the DEFINITION of how all others are---such as it is with those who are Catholic and demonizing them or misrepresenting what is taught as if all Catholics are remotely for the idea of re-sacrificing Christ when it comes to the concept of Real Prescence/ transubstantiation (or the other view of Consubstantiation , in regards to what many Anglicans believe) just because it either taught in a way not really in line with what the early Church taught on the issue...or because someone else taught it in a manner where one was threatened to believe "or else."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Would you happen to know the name of that specific thread so that I could check it out? For there are many over that about the law and sometimes it's hard to keep up

This one: Acts 15:21 (2)

 

[visionary]

Separation into two separate congregations will ultimately be best... Those Messianic Jews who are more main stream Christians than Messianic Judaism should have their own congregational area.

Messianic Judaism people who see Jew and Gentile under the same obligations of a Yeshua style Judaism know that it will never qualify as up to par with mainstream Judaism or Christian.. but that is not our intent. Believers are coming in from all over and both sides of the fence to embrace a type of Judaism that Yeshua lived and taught along with the disciples.

If you want relative peace on this forum, give Messianic [Christian style] Jews their own corner.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Separation into two separate congregations will ultimately be best... Those Messianic Jews who are more main stream Christians than Messianic Judaism should have their own congregational area.

Messianic Judaism people who see Jew and Gentile under the same obligations of a Yeshua style Judaism know that it will never qualify as up to par with mainstream Judaism or Christian.. but that is not our intent. Believers are coming in from all over and both sides of the fence to embrace a type of Judaism that Yeshua lived and taught along with the disciples.

If you want relative peace on this forum, give Messianic [Christian style] Jews their own corner.

To be more accurate,

The reality is that it is generally those in camps advocating for Gentiles having to follow all of the Mosaic Law that are not really for mainstream Messianic Judaism--and as other Messianic Jewish organizations have mentioned that, it'd not be correct to try to label those as being just more "main stream Christian" since the other side has already been noted by most as not really reflecting what Messianic Jews have felt throughout history. Ultimately, Mainstream Christianity isn't something that other Messianics in agreement with them are what other Messiancis are following...but rather, Christianity is what flows out of historcial Mainstream Judaism. Two areas would perhaps be good, although the categories would need to be truthful before even making them....as trying to seperate "Christianity" from a Judaic lifestyle, as if one doesn't equal the other, isn't what the Bible or scriptures even advocated.

Yeshua style Judaism is not something that can be given a forum since BOTH people are included in that/are divided into what was going into that. To do that would be akin to one side saying "Well, you guys can have your forum because all of you are really just into more Christianity...but our side truly follows Jesus as he intended."

Jesus did not advocate for Gentiles to BE OBLIGATED in following Torah--nor does Judaism in many places since even in his days there were already schools of thought mentioning how the Gentiles weren't bound to Mosaic Law on all points...and many of the stories the Lord taught reflected/mirrored the stories from that school of thought. WIthin the Torah itself, the same thing is repeatedly noted as it concerns Gentiles having distinction from Jews in the rules given and both camps being united in the Lord while having differing standards for both on a host of issues. While Gentiles in the days of CHRIST could choose to actively mirror the lifestyles of Jews, there was never any reference to the Judaism Christ practiced as mandating that they did. TO say otherwise would not be historically accurate or even scriptural at multiple points. Thus, the issue isn't about one side having a Judaism that reflects Yeshua as much as it's about being divided over options that were present in the Judaism that Christ offered. For one side is for the option given involving desiring for Gentiles to walk in a way that Jews would've expected of themselves while the other is for the option Yeshua and other Messianics of his time gave the Gentiles in expericing God's salvation while NOT feeling any pressure to observe Torah as the Jews did...and if they wanted to go further, they could..but there'd be no condemnation or thought allowed to think of them as being either "less" of a follower of Yeshua or not approved of the Lord.


Outside of that, each group already HAS their own congregation forums. Those believing that Gentiles must follow the Law already have the TORAH Observant section, whereas others have their own section as well---but as both sides keep coming to the main forum that's opened for everyone..either people can learn to disagree agreeably...or they'll continue to see more of the same.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This one: Acts 15:21 (2)

Thanks for the reference...

 

[visionary]

The only cavet is that Yeshua style Judaism is not something that can be given a forum since BOTH people are included in that/are divided. To do that would be akin to one side saying "Well, you guys can have your forum because all of you are really just into more Christianity...but our side truly follows Jesus as he intended."

Jesus did not advocate for Gentiles to BE OBLIGATED to following Torah--nor does Judaism in many places. Thus, the issue isn't about one side having a Judaism that reflects Yeshua as much as it's about one side desiring for Gentiles to walk in a way that Jews would've expected of themselves while the other is for the option Yeshua and other Messianics of his time gave the Gentiles in expericing God's salvation while NOT feeling any pressure to observe Torah as the Jews did...and if they wanted to go further, they could..but there'd be no condemnation or thought allowed to think of them as being either "less" of a follower of Yeshua or not approved of the Lord.

And in that lies the dilemna .. what you have stated is the very reason Messianic Jews never see what Messianic Judaism is all about.

And it is the reason for the controversy and contentions between both parties. One says .. can to.. and the other says... can not.

We can point to scripture that shows that Yeshua did indicate to the Gentile woman that we all are to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

John 4: 22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

It doesn't mean that Jews [whether Christian or Judaism in theology] are going to agree.. One thing is for sure both Jews of either party are dogmatic that we, Messianics Judaism, can not worship Yeshua style but that is their bias.

All parties believe that they are following Jesus as he intends them to.

The difference is what cause the controversies and contentions. It can not be resolved but by conviction and transformation. It can not be resolved in subforums and reporting each other. Those of us who came from there to here would like to have a peaceful corner to explore this faith. Those who want to drag there to here are trying to bring stuff we are trying to get away from.

We see it this way.... This is the instruction for Gentiles... to be taught Torah every sabbath day..

Acts 15:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. 22Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

That is what pleased the elders and apostles...

 

[visionary]

We know this from the teachings of Yeshua -- heaven and earth will pass away before one yod or stroke from written Torah will ...

Matthew 5:17
King James Version (KJV)
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

We also know that Yeshua considered the "traditions of man" not equal to written Torah, in fact, sometimes the oral tradition violated the written Torah...

.Mark 7:9
King James Version (KJV)
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

So we work very carefully between these seeking God's balance in these matters.

We know Gentiles could be saved without becoming proselytes --- the believing of Cornelius and his family proves this. Cornelius was a god fearer/righteous Gentile, one who had believed in the God of Israel but had not actually undergone the conversion rituals to become a proselyte. Now, from a 20th century perspective, circumcision may seem to some as only one law out of many in Torah. But from the 1st century perspective, circumcision was the means of making a proselyte. That is why circumcision is being singled out as a demand apart from its inclusion in the Torah. Torah-observance in general isn't the issue -- conversion is. Notice the Pharisaic complaint was the means of making a proselyte to a Pharisaic understanding of saved via circumcision. Circumcision had become a conversion ritual by the Pharisees just as baptism is often misused today as a means of "joining a particular church."

G-d "made no distinction between us and them"

Acts 15:9
King James Version (KJV)
9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

and so we walk in the truth and the light and the Way as it is outlined in scripture to the best of our ability with God's help.

Psalm 119:44-45
King James Version (KJV)
44So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever. 45And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.

 

[visionary]

Is there one Torah for the Jews and something else for the Gentiles? No, we see God requiring the same of each form the beginning.

In the book of Numbers 15:13-16, we see that Gentiles (aliens, foreigners, sojourners, or strangers) who attach themselves to Israel were required to “do exactly” as “native-born Israelites"…The same Laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

And in that lies the dilemna .. what you have stated is the very reason Messianic Jews never see what Messianic Judaism is all about.

And it is the reason for the controversy and contentions between both parties. One says .. can to.. and the other says... can not..

Wouldn't say, IMHO, that it's the main reason why Messianic Jews actually see Messianic Judaism for what it is as much as it is an issue of not having clarity as to the actual evolution of Messianic Judaism/all that may've been included. Nothing wrong with sub-groups within a larger camp having differing stances, provided that they choose to see that it's a matter of "
can" if they wish.

Those who wish to live as they think is necessary according to OT Torah/Mosaic code are free to do so, whereas others who feel that they do not need to according to Torah are free to do so. The moment either side begins saying "You HAVE to do it like me to really love the Lord", that's when it becomes a problem.

We can point to scripture that shows that Yeshua did indicate to the Gentile woman that we all are to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

John 4: 22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


It doesn't mean that Jews [whether Christian or Judaism in theology] are going to agree.. One thing is for sure both Jews of either party are dogmatic that we, Messianics Judaism, can not worship Yeshua style but that is their bias.

Pretty much....and with what occurred in John 4 is rather fascinating when considering the fact that Samaritans, with their own version of the Penteteuch and Judaic practices that were distinct, were often considered to be vastly differing from the Jews...to the point of essentially being an entirely differing religion altogether. But they didn't stop being Samaritans after the revelation of Messiah.

In the Gospel of John when the Samaritan woman believed in Jesus, she immediately went back to her community, told them what He had done for her, and led many others to Jesus (John 4.39-42). Notice that the woman is referred to as a Samaritan throughout the entire passage and process. Samaritans in first century Palestine were viewed as heretical half-breed Jews. They even hand their own religious practices and holy sights. They and the Jews were enemies, yet in all of Jesus’ interactions with her he never asked her to leave her religion – even though her spiritual identity has been transformed. Why?

We see a similar story in Jesus’ interaction with the Gerasene demoniac in Mark 5. After Jesus healed the demoniac he begged Jesus to let him enter his boat and follow him. Surprisingly, Jesus said NO! Jesus wouldn’t let the man follow him. Instead, he sent him away, back to his homeland. Why?
In both of these Biblical scenes the ‘why?’ question is answered in the second half of the story. With the Samaritan woman we see her go back to her village and proclaim the good news of Jesus with everyone she encounters. As the result many Samaritans come to believe in Jesus (John 4:39). Her witness was not based on her conversion to ‘Christianity,’ it was centered on her life changing encounter with Jesus.

With the Gerasene demoniac a similar thing occurs. As Jesus sent him away he said, “Go home to your own people and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” (Mark 5:19). The next time Jesus came to the region, there were some 4,000 others waiting to hear from Him (Mark 8.1). Surely this man played a key role in creating this second scene by his faithful witness.

In both stories one profound encounter with Jesus was enough preparation to proclaim the good news of the kingdom. Samaritans remained Samaritan, Gentiles remained Gentile, and Jews remained Jewish. The central question was not “What is your religion?” but “Who do you say that Jesus is?”

All parties believe that they are following Jesus as he intends them to.

The difference is what cause the controversies and contentions. It can not be resolved but by conviction and transformation. It can not be resolved in subforums and reporting each other. Those of us who came from there to here would like to have a peaceful corner to explore this faith. Those who want to drag there to here are trying to bring stuff we are trying to get away from.

I agree with you, though I'd also say that the reality of the situation is that discussing things in terms of "we" can be misleading at times if indicating that there's only one side who does so. FOr BOTH sides have had others bring "there to here" in their own viewpoints and have had frustration with running into things they were trying to either get away from---or were hoping to run into others who'd be able to resolve them in a peaceful manner, regardless of where they may've fallen into.

We see it this way.... This is the instruction for Gentiles... to be taught Torah every sabbath day..

Acts 15:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

​

On the rest of Acts 15:

Acts 15:15-24




15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[a]—
18 things known from long ago.[b]
​

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
​

Indeed, the Law of Moses was being taught--though the reasons why Gentiles were included in the statement can take on a myriad of meanings. I appreciate how One commentator said the following:

In 15:15-17, James said that the prophets (the Septuagint version of Amos 9:12) agreed with what God was doing. "Luke does not have James declare that `this thing'...agrees...with the prophets, so that the scripture text is the measure of how God can work, but the opposite: the working of God precedes the perception of the text's agreement." God will rebuild David's fallen tent —- a reference to Christ and/or his kingdom —- so the remnant of men, including gentiles who have God's name, may seek him. This quote from Amos helps "bring out more clearly the way in which the progress of the church is in accordance with the Old Testament prophecies."



By quoting Amos, James puts the gentile mission into a new age. As Marshall says, "God is doing something new in raising up the church; it is an event of the last days, and therefore the old rules of the Jewish religion no longer apply." This prophecy had been known for ages, James said (15:18), so gentile converts should be no surprise nor cause for controversy.


Therefore, said James, I decide not to harass the gentiles (15:19). "James characterizes the Pharisees' demands as a form of harassment of the Gentiles that he wants stopped."10 Because God is doing this, James said, we should not put obstacles in the way of the gentiles who are turning to God.

In contrast to harassment, James decided to tell the gentiles to abstain from four things (to be discussed in detail below). The four restrictions are presented as minimal requests, as small, easy-to-comply-with requirements —- perhaps things the gentiles in Antioch were already doing. As Johnson says, "According to Luke's presentation...the prohibitions are neither new to these Gentile converts nor a burden to them. This implies that they...would have already been observing them." As Dunn notes in a similar setting, "Many of these Gentiles were sufficiently ready to conform to Jewish practices as to make possible regular social intercourse, including at least guest friendship and table-fellowship."


Why these four restrictions? Because Moses is preached in every city (15:21). However, that's not the only reason for the decree. The "therefore" at the beginning of 15:19 indicates that 15:14-18 is also a reason for the decree. The logical sequence is this: "A; therefore B, because of C." C (15:21) is relevant because it explains how B (15:19-20) should be a consequence of A (15:14-18).


A: God is doing this work. B: Therefore we need a decree. C: Because Moses is preached in synagogues. The decree is needed not only because God is calling gentiles but also because Moses is being preached in synagogues. The sequence implies a contrast between the decree and the preaching of Moses, as has already been implied in 15:5.

The thought is this: Because God is doing this work (15:14-17), and because we do not want to hinder his work (15:19), we should therefore give gentile converts this decree (15:20) because much stricter rules are being preached in the synagogues (15:21). Pharisaic rules are too strict for gentile Christians, but because those rules are being taught in every city, we need to write a decree to let all gentiles believers know that they don't have to keep the laws of Moses. James is advocating a contrast, not just a pared-down version of synagogue rules.



The "instead" that begins 15:20 also supports this. We do not want to harass the gentiles, James said. Instead, we should write an easy decree, because Moses is widely preached. This implies that synagogue preaching (the laws of Moses as interpreted by Pharisees) was a harassment for gentile Christians. The decree was needed because there was a conflict between God's work and Pharisaic teaching. The decree is needed to counteract the harassing rules of the Pharisees.




This interpretation is further supported when we analyze the audience of the synagogue preaching. Some commentators have assumed (without analysis) that James is referring to preaching that gentiles were hearing in the synagogues. But gentiles who attended synagogues had already changed their behavior to be acceptable to Jews; they had little or no need for a decree. Moreover, gentiles were coming into the church who did not have a background in the synagogue (11:20). There was a synagogue in Iconium (14:1), but none is mentioned for Lystra or Derbe, but there were disciples in each city, presumably from pagan backgrounds (14:8-22). James' comment in 15:21, if it referred to gentiles who attended synagogues, would fail to address the situation the church was facing. The decree was needed even by gentiles who did not have a background in Judaism —- even by those who lived in cities that may not have had a synagogue (16:1-4).



The thought in 15:21 seems to be that in every city there are Jews who are being instructed in the laws of Moses. James was not encouraging gentiles to go to the synagogues to hear Moses be preached. Throughout the book of Acts, Christ is the one who is preached.




​

Of course, I don't agree fully with all of their conclusions as it concerns Mosaic Law--but I do agree with them that having the Law of Moses preached/mentioning that prior to writing to the Gentiles does not necessarily mean that it was mention to indicate that Gentiles were meant to hear all of the Mosaic code and gradually learn how to walk in it as many of the Jews sought. And on the issue, it seems scripture ultimately notes how it was Yeshua---not the Law--that could give true justification.

In commenting on Acts 15:21, I appreciate what Messianic Derek Leman noted best on the subject in one of his articles. As seen here and said there in Quick Conversation on Acts 15:21 | Messianic Jewish Musings:

I strongly disagree with this interpretation in which people read Acts 15:21 as a verse to reverse the meaning of the whole passage. It is a dishonest reading.

Note that vs. 21 speaks of the reading of Moses in the past tense, not future. James does not say, “For Moses will be read in the synagogue,” so that they will learn. Rather, he says, “For Moses has been read in the synagogue…”

His point concerns something from the past. The thrust of the chapter is that some parts of Torah are not required of gentiles. In vs. 21, James says that something about the history of gentiles hearing Moses in the synagogue affirms the decision that Torah is not completely laid on the gentiles. What could James mean?

The simple and evident answer is this: gentiles have been hearing Moses in synagogue and most have not decided to convert. But now, in Yeshua, it is evident that gentiles are accepted as gentiles, without converting. Therefore, we can expect many gentiles to come into the movement now, since it is clear they do not have to convert to be acceptable to God. What the reading of Moses in the synagogue has not done for gentiles the preaching of the good news of Messiah to gentiles will do.
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

We know this from the teachings of Yeshua -- heaven and earth will pass away before one yod or stroke from written Torah will ...


We also know that Yeshua considered the "traditions of man" not equal to written Torah, in fact, sometimes the oral tradition violated the written Torah...So we work very carefully between these seeking God's balance in these matters.

We know Gentiles could be saved without becoming proselytes --- the believing of Cornelius and his family proves this. Cornelius was a god fearer/righteous Gentile, one who had believed in the God of Israel but had not actually undergone the conversion rituals to become a proselyte. Now, from a 20th century perspective, circumcision may seem to some as only one law out of many in Torah. But from the 1st century perspective, circumcision was the means of making a proselyte. That is why circumcision is being singled out as a demand apart from its inclusion in the Torah. Torah-observance in general isn't the issue -- conversion is. Notice the Pharisaic complaint was the means of making a proselyte to a Pharisaic understanding of saved via circumcision. Circumcision had become a conversion ritual by the Pharisees just as baptism is often misused today as a means of "joining a particular church."

G-d "made no distinction between us and them" and so we walk in the truth and the light and the Way as it is outlined in scripture to the best of our ability with God's help.

Amen. In line with what occurred with Cornelius as well as others, it truly does serve to bring back the focus on the thing the Lord hones in on..and that's the heart, with all other things as commentary/apart of one's heritage to enjoy.

Is there one Torah for the Jews and something else for the Gentiles? No, we see God requiring the same of each form the beginning.

In the book of Numbers 15:13-16, we see that Gentiles (aliens, foreigners, sojourners, or strangers) who attach themselves to Israel were required to “do exactly” as “native-born Israelites"…The same Laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you.

On this, I'd have to disagree...as it'd not really consistent, IMHO, with the rest of the Word when claiming that Jews and Gentiles must have the same standards on all points---for as said before, there can be a Law given to all that has differing regulations specific to each group within a camp. As already mentioned by yourself, Cornelius was saved without ever having to become a convert fully be it in Circumcision as a main way or other things. To say otherwise wouldn't really be honest with the text of scripture...and on the issue, many times there can be error done when focusing on where scripture notes both strangers/Hebrews were to do the same at the exclusion of where they were plainly told to do differently.

Deuteronomy 14:21 is one of the main examples of what it is that is noted in the Gentiles/foreigners within Israel being given differing laws..as the text states plainly, "Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk."

Of course, Lev. 17:15 which when compared to Deut. 14:21 offers a seeming contradiction:

"When any person eats an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or an alien (GER), he shall wash his cloths and bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; then he will become clean."


​

However, Leviticus 17:15 says that the impurity of the act must be dealt with..and when seeing the entire context, it seems plain that part of the focus is upon those entering the temple since impurity defiles God's Temple (Lev 15:31; Num 19:13). It does not say it is forbidden for the sojourner and foreigner to eat the meat. Most kinds of impurity do not involve sin (childbirth, menstruation, caring for a corpse), although they all require purification of some type. If Israelites can sell unclean meat to non-Jews, it seems it is no sin for non-Jews to eat unclean meat. If they do it in the land, they simply need to practice purification as specified in Lev 17:15 (when the Temple is standing).

There are other things to consider in regards to sub-laws within the same universal/overarching Law that both Gentiles and Jews were under. Exodus 12:48 says that circumcision is optional for even a Sojourner living in Israel (much less a non-Jew living in Georgia or wherever other Non-Jews are). Exodus 31:13 says the Sabbath is a sign between Israel and God (not a universal command).


Derek Leman had some excellent discussions on the issue as seen in the following:

• FFOZ and Messianic Judaism
• Eating Lizards . . . Acts 10 & 11
• Rereading on Torah and Gentiles « Messianic Jewish Musings
• Torah and New Testament #3 | Messianic Jewish Musings
• Non-Jewish Customs, Worship, Deuteronomy 14 | Messianic Jewish ...

There are other beneficial places to go, one of them being the organization of FFOZ, as the folks there do an excellent job in discussing the ways in which Jews/Gentiles were always distinct from one another---both in the OT and in the NT, even though both have been brought together in radical ways in Yeshua. Places for one to go can be seen here:

• FFOZ Blogs : Sin and Torah
• FFOZ Blogs : Moral vs. Ceremonial
• Building Fellowship | Morning Meditations
• FFOZ Blogs : One Simple Verse: Galatians 5:3
• Frequently Asked Questions - First Fruits of Zion
• FFOZ Blogs : Part 1) "One Law" in Context
• FFOZ Blogs : Part 2) "One Law" in the Late Second Temple Era
• D. Thomas Lancaster – The Holy Epistle to the Galatians, full review| Hope Abbey

There has always been distinctions between those who are believng Jews and believing Gentiles...and one must be careful to remember who the sojourner is: a non-Jew who has come to dwell in Israel and who takes on many of Israel’s obligations, though not all. A sojourner in Israel had a status that would have to be considered greater toward the Torah than a non-Jew in the Messianic Jewish movement today. That is, the position of a sojourner was not at all ambiguous. Such a person lived within Israel’s borders and was obligated by Israel’s law to observe the Sabbath and holy days along with Israel. Circumcision and full participation (today it is called conversion) was optional, but a certain set of standards was not optional.

But ultimately, what matters is whether people are looking plainly to the Lord-the only one who can bring true salvation rather than the Law:

Acts 13:36-41
“Now when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed. 37 But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

38 “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. 40 Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you:

41 “‘Look, you scoffers,
wonder and perish,
for I am going to do something in your days
that you would never believe,
even if someone told you.’[e]”
​

 

[ContraMundum]

Thanks for the lesson Easy, but I was brought up in a Step family that was Catholic (and Italian in fact) so I don't need to be taught what they believe (which means I have witnessed many discussions on what they believe and have also attended Mass).

If you grew up knowing Catholicism how come you think they re-crucify Jesus over and over? That's not Catholic (or Anglican- and for you to equate the two is really off the mark)

Anyway..regarding the other posts: easy is right. One Law doctrine is not Messianic - according to the Messianics.

 

[visionary]

Why are others so worked up about Gentile believers pursuing a life of obedience to the Torah, according to the Book of Hebrews understanding and following Yeshua teaching on how to observe it?

There is nothing wrong with having faith in God and His kingdom, His Way, His truth, and His life.

 

[visionary]

I have heard from those who have attended UMJC and MJAA congregations where the Judaica Shop is open on Shabbat, where visiting Messianic musicians sell their recordings after the Torah service, and congregates retreat to their favorite restaurant following the Shabbat morning service. Some don’t seem to have any qualms about shrimp on ice at their wedding receptions, and it’s not uncommon to hear bold statements that “since we are members of the New Covenant, we are free from the Law.” In fact, I wonder if it might not be appropriate to label some groups within “Messianic Judaism” as “Reform Messianic Judaism?”

 

[visionary]

...<snip>....
Deuteronomy 14:21 is one of the main examples of what it is that is noted in the Gentiles/foreigners within Israel being given differing laws..as the text states plainly, "Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk."...<snip>...

Also in that same scripture is that the people who are to be holy are to obey God and not eat anything already found dead... Since that is our object.. to be a set apart [holy] people.. all things that we can do to be a part of the set apart in God's way.. we should do..

What matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. There is no indication that there are two separate lists of commandments, one for Jews and another for Gentiles both of whom are believers in Yeshua as their God in the flesh and savior. All who are “called” to salvation are to keep them. Here are the saints, here are they that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Yeshua.

So what is the Apostolic hallacah [not sure of spelling]for the body of Messiah?

I far as I can see, there is no unique calling for Jews and Gentiles within the body of Messiah, in which Jews are called to do speci&#64257;c things that Gentiles are not called to do. Rather, there is a singular calling for Jew and Gentile, which is a call to salvation in Yeshua and the life of holiness that God’s redemption inevitably produces.