Judaeo, Judaic, Judaizers, Judaize, Judaism

[visionary]

A believing Jew eating like a non-believing gentile??

 

[yedida]

They were eating non-kosher food.

Yes, I get that. But if Peter is eating with them and living as gentiles (per Paul) what could he possibly be doing that would compel the gentiles to live as Jews, if he was no longer living as a Jew himself (again per Paul)?

 

[GuardianShua]

Yes, I get that. But if Peter is eating with them and living as gentiles (per Paul) what could he possibly be doing that would compel the gentiles to live as Jews, if he was no longer living as a Jew himself (again per Paul)?

Thats the problem. He was not doing anything to compel the Gentiles to Judaize.

 

[yedida]

A believing Jew eating like a non-believing gentile??

According to Gal. 2:14.
And if that was the case, what could he have possibly been doing that would be seen as compelling the gentiles to live as Jews?
The verse says this is happening and Paul is very proud of himself in what he did. But exactly what was Peter doing? That just escapes me.

 

[yedida]

Thats the problem. He was not doing anything to compel the Gentiles to Judaize.

Then we would have a statement made by an important person that is seemingly a lie.....?

 

[Lulav]

The way I view it, and yes, I know that I am not in conformity with the Church and the Mainstream on this, the whole thing needs to be read in context.

First this is part of the letter that starts off with Paul being offended and defending himself, and what he teaches.

Now how did Peter get involved in this rebuttal? He is mentioned as one of the ones who 'seemed to be pillars but didn't add anything to Paul'. So there we see the disrespect he is treated with behind his back. Then Paul accuses him of being like a gentile or living like one. This is a serious charge as that same word means heathen.

Notice he did not even say he lived like a G-d fearer, but a gentile.

He tells them that he got into Peters face because he was wrong, but in who's opinion was he wrong? According to Yeshua's gospel or the one Paul was preaching to the Gentiles?

Because of the reference to Paul going up to Jerusalem, many think this is the meeting that we have a writing on in Acts 15. If so, then Paul saying that the only thing that the council told him to do was to 'remember the poor' is an outright lie.

If this letter is following that meeting then those in Galatia hadn't been told of the edicts for eating Kosher. They would be still eating the same as before.

Peter, being present at the coucil and knowing that Paul was given explicit instructions to take this letter of edict to the Gentiles was fellowshipping with them everyday, believing that they were indeed eating Kosher.

We see that Paul goes on to say that when the men (from James)( meaning the head Bishop of the movement who sent this message to Peter), got there and spoke to Peter, that Peter was afraid of them, which makes no sense. Peters reaction after hearing that he had been eating trief and food sacrificed to idols would have made him upset but not afraid of James.

And if it was only Peter then we could agree that Peter was being a hypocrite.

But the problem with that conclusion is that it doesn't take into account that it wasn't just Peter who drew away from eating with them (and that's plain that's what it's talking about) but also all the other Jews there, including Barnabas.

So all the Jews separated themselves from the Gentiles because they found out that they were still eating as heathens.

 

[GuardianShua]

Then we would have a statement made by an important person that is seemingly a lie.....?

My best guess is that Paul over reacted to Peter's behavior. Normally men do not act like drama queens, but it does happen.

 

[yedida]

The way I view it, and yes, I know that I am not in conformity with the Church and the Mainstream on this, the whole thing needs to be read in context.

First this is part of the letter that starts off with Paul being offended and defending himself, and what he teaches.

Now how did Peter get involved in this rebuttal? He is mentioned as one of the ones who 'seemed to be pillars but didn't add anything to Paul'. So there we see the disrespect he is treated with behind his back. Then Paul accuses him of being like a gentile or living like one. This is a serious charge as that same word means heathen.

Notice he did not even say he lived like a G-d fearer, but a gentile.

He tells them that he got into Peters face because he was wrong, but in who's opinion was he wrong? According to Yeshua's gospel or the one Paul was preaching to the Gentiles?

Because of the reference to Paul going up to Jerusalem, many think this is the meeting that we have a writing on in Acts 15. If so, then Paul saying that the only thing that the council told him to do was to 'remember the poor' is an outright lie.

If this letter is following that meeting then those in Galatia hadn't been told of the edicts for eating Kosher. They would be still eating the same as before.

Peter, being present at the coucil and knowing that Paul was given explicit instructions to take this letter of edict to the Gentiles was fellowshipping with them everyday, believing that they were indeed eating Kosher.

We see that Paul goes on to say that when the men (from James)( meaning the head Bishop of the movement who sent this message to Peter), got there and spoke to Peter, that Peter was afraid of them, which makes no sense. Peters reaction after hearing that he had been eating trief and food sacrificed to idols would have made him upset but not afraid of James.

And if it was only Peter then we could agree that Peter was being a hypocrite.

But the problem with that conclusion is that it doesn't take into account that it wasn't just Peter who drew away from eating with them (and that's plain that's what it's talking about) but also all the other Jews there, including Barnabas.

So all the Jews separated themselves from the Gentiles because they found out that they were still eating as heathens.

Thanks, I knew all this but hadn't put the timing in it,, therefore, it didn't click - you wrapped it up nicely.

 

[yedida]

My best guess is that Paul over reacted to Peter's behavior. Normally men do not act like drama queens, but it does happen.

It's nice to see a guy admit to this!!!

 

[Lulav]

My best guess is that Paul over reacted to Peter's behavior. Normally men do not act like drama queens, but it does happen.

Thanks, I knew all this but hadn't put the timing in it,, therefore, it didn't click - you wrapped it up nicely.

 

[visionary]

The way I view it, and yes, I know that I am not in conformity with the Church and the Mainstream on this, the whole thing needs to be read in context.

First this is part of the letter that starts off with Paul being offended and defending himself, and what he teaches.

Now how did Peter get involved in this rebuttal? He is mentioned as one of the ones who 'seemed to be pillars but didn't add anything to Paul'. So there we see the disrespect he is treated with behind his back. Then Paul accuses him of being like a gentile or living like one. This is a serious charge as that same word means heathen.

Notice he did not even say he lived like a G-d fearer, but a gentile.

He tells them that he got into Peters face because he was wrong, but in who's opinion was he wrong? According to Yeshua's gospel or the one Paul was preaching to the Gentiles?

Because of the reference to Paul going up to Jerusalem, many think this is the meeting that we have a writing on in Acts 15. If so, then Paul saying that the only thing that the council told him to do was to 'remember the poor' is an outright lie.

If this letter is following that meeting then those in Galatia hadn't been told of the edicts for eating Kosher. They would be still eating the same as before.

Peter, being present at the coucil and knowing that Paul was given explicit instructions to take this letter of edict to the Gentiles was fellowshipping with them everyday, believing that they were indeed eating Kosher.

We see that Paul goes on to say that when the men (from James)( meaning the head Bishop of the movement who sent this message to Peter), got there and spoke to Peter, that Peter was afraid of them, which makes no sense. Peters reaction after hearing that he had been eating trief and food sacrificed to idols would have made him upset but not afraid of James.

And if it was only Peter then we could agree that Peter was being a hypocrite.

But the problem with that conclusion is that it doesn't take into account that it wasn't just Peter who drew away from eating with them (and that's plain that's what it's talking about) but also all the other Jews there, including Barnabas.

So all the Jews separated themselves from the Gentiles because they found out that they were still eating as heathens.

When the Lord stepped in with the vision for Peter, I believe it was key to how to handle being in the presence of gentiles. Those in Jerusalem being surrounded by fellow Jews were not so familiar of living out in Disporia, and the very fact that gentiles were at the same table, is living like a gentile in the Jew's eyes.

It could well be that we are not even dealing with food issue but just the association with gentiles in close proximity. Peter knew better, via vision, and Paul understanding the contention and separation [bias/social stigma] that was occuring when the Jews from Jerusalem walked in the door caused, he stepped up to the plate and tried to stop it..

Reminds me of the 50-60's when "if" a white was seen with a black in any sort of friendly manner, the tension would rise and the very idea of sitting at the same table and eating with them would have caused many such snide remarks and put downs and even a serious "conversation" behind the wood shed for the both of them.

 

[tzadik]

The way I view it, and yes, I know that I am not in conformity with the Church and the Mainstream on this, the whole thing needs to be read in context.

First this is part of the letter that starts off with Paul being offended and defending himself, and what he teaches.

Now how did Peter get involved in this rebuttal? He is mentioned as one of the ones who 'seemed to be pillars but didn't add anything to Paul'. So there we see the disrespect he is treated with behind his back. Then Paul accuses him of being like a gentile or living like one. This is a serious charge as that same word means heathen.

Notice he did not even say he lived like a G-d fearer, but a gentile.

He tells them that he got into Peters face because he was wrong, but in who's opinion was he wrong? According to Yeshua's gospel or the one Paul was preaching to the Gentiles?

Because of the reference to Paul going up to Jerusalem, many think this is the meeting that we have a writing on in Acts 15. If so, then Paul saying that the only thing that the council told him to do was to 'remember the poor' is an outright lie.

If this letter is following that meeting then those in Galatia hadn't been told of the edicts for eating Kosher. They would be still eating the same as before.

Peter, being present at the coucil and knowing that Paul was given explicit instructions to take this letter of edict to the Gentiles was fellowshipping with them everyday, believing that they were indeed eating Kosher.

We see that Paul goes on to say that when the men (from James)( meaning the head Bishop of the movement who sent this message to Peter), got there and spoke to Peter, that Peter was afraid of them, which makes no sense. Peters reaction after hearing that he had been eating trief and food sacrificed to idols would have made him upset but not afraid of James.

And if it was only Peter then we could agree that Peter was being a hypocrite.

But the problem with that conclusion is that it doesn't take into account that it wasn't just Peter who drew away from eating with them (and that's plain that's what it's talking about) but also all the other Jews there, including Barnabas.

So all the Jews separated themselves from the Gentiles because they found out that they were still eating as heathens.

When the Lord stepped in with the vision for Peter, I believe it was key to how to handle being in the presence of gentiles. Those in Jerusalem being surrounded by fellow Jews were not so familiar of living out in Disporia, and the very fact that gentiles were at the same table, is living like a gentile in the Jew's eyes.

It could well be that we are not even dealing with food issue but just the association with gentiles in close proximity. Peter knew better, via vision, and Paul understanding the contention and separation [bias/social stigma] that was occuring when the Jews from Jerusalem walked in the door caused, he stepped up to the plate and tried to stop it..

Reminds me of the 50-60's when "if" a white was seen with a black in any sort of friendly manner, the tension would rise and the very idea of sitting at the same table and eating with them would have caused many such snide remarks and put downs and even a serious "conversation" behind the wood shed for the both of them.

Really appreciate both of your input on this, because this has driven me a bit loopy myself. I'm still studying it - but I knew that it would be flying straight in the face of All of Scripture if it truly meant that Jewish believers in Yeshua would be living like Gentile unbelievers in Antioch. Thanks for your input

 

[SGM4HIM]

It could well be that we are not even dealing with food issue but just the association with gentiles in close proximity. Peter knew better, via vision, and Paul understanding the contention and separation [bias/social stigma] that was occurring when the Jews from Jerusalem walked in the door caused, he stepped up to the plate and tried to stop it..

Reminds me of the 50-60's when a white was seen with a black in any sort of friendly manner, the tension would rise and the very idea of sitting at the same table and eating with them would have caused many such snide remarks and put downs and even a serious "conversation" behind the wood shed for the both of them.

Vis,
I was just thinking of this 1 hr earlier at work. I moved to Florida in early 60's and witness this. Lunch counters would empty when a black man sat down, and the booths would fill with white people. Whites had true friendships with blacks but would withdraw in conversation if white peers would approach.

I see "table fellowship" as the main issue in Galatians verse, similar to above example. Old habits were hard to break.

 

[Lulav]

SG, What do you see as the difference between table fellowship and eating with them?

 

[visionary]

I have always understood table fellowship and eating with them to be hand in hand.

 

[Shimshon]

It seems that everyone has forgotten that the Nicene Creed is a Catholic invention. The problem being that after the disciples, hundreds of years later, the name title "Holy Spirit" for the Father is introduced as a third person; thus making a trinity. This was not originally Orthodox Christianity. Why would anyone think that joining Pagan beliefs to God is what He would want? Orthodox Judaism never has, and still does not, teach a trinity.

So your point of view is that the bible is a doctored piece of bias literature, the message we have from the witnesses has been altered by the Catholic Church (of Constantine) and the whole of Christianity for thousands of years has been proclaiming Yeshua's Deity in error and ignorance? In fact, the deity of Yeshua is of no consequence, but observing Orthodox Judaism is?

Cause this is what I just understood you to say here.

You literally butchered the scriptures and declared it all a lie.

The Creed was a consensus on the Truth, not an alteration of it.

 

[yedida]

Interesting post.

Here's a quote from Mark Kinser which is interesting(from Kesha Journal)."
"Finding our Way Through Nicaea: The Deity of Yeshua, Bilateral ecclesiology, and redemptive encounter with the Living God"

"They are not making the supersessionist claim that the Christian Church lacks any organic connection to or dependence upon Judaism and the Jewish people; in fact, it is theologians loyal to nicene orthodoxy who have taken the lead over the last forty years in combating supersessionism.

When Christians honor the Council of nicaea, they are doing one thing and one thing only: they are paying homage to Yeshua, and glorifying him as the divine son who is “the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Hebrews 1:3)."

It seems like a lot has happened in the "last forty years". Isn't it time to stop the rhetoric that has been adopted by some in MJ circles.

Another article quote" If we embrace bilateral ecclesiology, then we must seek unity with the Christian Church even as we main- tain our own distinctive identity"

It seems like a lot has happened in the "last forty years". Isn't it time to stop the rhetoric that has been adopted by some in MJ circles?

What "rhetoric" would that be exactly?

 

[visionary]

So your point of view is that the bible is a doctored piece of bias literature, the message we have from the witnesses has been altered by the Catholic Church (of Constantine) and the whole of Christianity for thousands of years has been proclaiming Yeshua's Deity in error and ignorance? In fact, the deity of Yeshua is of no consequence, but observing Orthodox Judaism is?

Cause this is what I just understood you to say here.

You literally butchered the scriptures and declared it all a lie.

The Creed was a consensus on the Truth, not an alteration of it.

I would reword that statement.. and present it like this... The interpretation is a doctored piece of bias literature, the message we have from the witnesses is true, and the altered enforced version on all of Christianity does have its errors. Proclaiming Yeshua's diety is not in ignorance or error but then it was never called into question. Observing Orthodox Judaism was not even brought up either.

 

[visionary]

Nicene Creed... was there any body of believers invited outside catholic doctrine and compliance?

 

[yedida]

Nicene Creed... was there any body of believers invited outside catholic doctrine and compliance?

I doubt it - they were all dead or awaiting death as heretics. The RCC was all in all at that time. If you differed with them, you couldn't play the game, and they sure weren't gonna leave you be to start up a new game with better rules.