Messianic Judaism?

[Gxg (G²)]

I have friends who attend AOG churches and others who attend independent Charismatic churches, and some Baptist friends to. All great people, and definitely family in the Lord, even though we don't always agree.

 

[Qnts2]

Was Israel alone when they received the law in the wilderness? No, there was also a mixed multitude representing the other nations. Israel was not only called to carry the law forward in time, but to teach it to the nations, which they failed miserably at. It took a splinter group who became Christians to perform that task.

As one of the more vocal opponents of messianics following rabbinic Judaism, I have to say I don't think it is evil or all wrong, any more than the church system. It is religion; a man-made set of rules, some good, some bad. Accepting the system means accepting the authority of those who made it, whether the pope or the rabbis. Religion is a corporate endeavor, where faith is personal.

The mixed multitude who left Egypt with the Jewish people, converted and became Jews.

A reading of the Mosaic law shows one thing which is very very different from the New Covenant. If the leader(s) sinned, grossly, all of the people were punished. All of the people were sent into exhile. So, even those with personal faith, went into exhile as a member of the people. When one person sinned in the desert, the group had to execute judgement. All were responsible and had to act. In scripture, and even today, the Jewish people don't usually think in you and me, when thinking about other Jewish people. What one Jewish person does effects all of us. And what happens to one Jewish person effects all of us. So, it is always 'we' and 'us'. Being Jewish is a corporate endeavor and also where faith is personal.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

In the Tenakh, was there a difference between Jews and Gentiles? The answer is yes. The Jewish people received the Mosaic law, and along with that received certain promises from God.

When the New Covenant was established, did it change the Mosaic covenant? No. The Mosaic covenant, made with the children of Israel can not be changed. .

In regards to the example of Yeshua, the Lord did not come to create a new religion (i.e. "It's not about religion but relationship" , regardles sof where one may be)..or, for that matter, try to stay confined solely within the confines of the one precedding it since there were differing aspects that He ushered in ( more shared here in #30 #31 #34 ).

Matthew 13:52
He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”
Matthew 13:51-53/Matthew 13

​

The Good Samaritan parable (Luke 10:25-39) will always be one of the most powerful analogies in existence, itself being a parable that Rabbi Heliel already noted previously since he had the same mindset as Christ did when it came to acceptance of Gentiles within Judaism as he/others saw it (more discussed here and here at Hillel and The Good Samaritan | Think Hebrew or Yeshua and Hillel - Nazarene Space). Christ was asked about what the greatest commandments were in the Mosaic Law---and after stating what they were, he was challenged by another on it....at which point Christ pointed to a Samaritan (considered to be idolatrous, half-breed/mixed people related to the Jews) as the one living out what the Lord wanted more than all of the others one would have expected to be examples, as was the case with the Levite and the priest. People often miss the significance of the Samaritan culture in what it symbolizes, as they practiced their own version of Judaism, and lived side by side with the Jews of Israel. Despite the striking similarities in religion, appearance, and language between the two people, they were treated by the xenophobic occupants of that ancient land as foreigners. For Jews, to be called a Samaritan meant in more general terms: a despised foreigner. To be called such was a deep insult, with the Jewish people even calling Christ one when denouncing him ( John 8:47-49 )....and yet for Christ, it was a honor to identify with them as well as love them/spread the Gospel to them and see them as fellow believers (more discussed here in #31 , #35 ,#52, #53 , #77, #78 , #85, & #95 ).

The one who challenged Christ could not even say "The Samaritan" due to the angst/beef Jews had with Samaritans...and instead chose to say "The one who had mercy on him" as the one who was truly a neighbor as the Lord saw it. In many ways, Christ rose the standard....in line with what he often did....and yet, he also took concepts beyond the bounds of a paticular religion when showing the simplicity of what it means to follow Him and be considered one of His own.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Check out Christy Anderson at www.foritiswritten.com

She put together a good book on hermeneutics from a Messianic perspective. Heard her speak in Albuquerque, NM a couple years ago.

Thanks for the resource, as it's an interesting read.

 

[Qnts2]

In regards to the example of Yeshua, the Lord did not come to create a new religion (i.e. "It's not about religion but relationship" , regardles sof where one may be)..or, for that matter, try to stay confined solely within the confines of the one precedding it since there were differing aspects that He ushered in ( more shared here in #30 #31 #34 ).

Matthew 13:52
He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”
Matthew 13:51-53/Matthew 13

​

The Good Samaritan parable (Luke 10:25-39) will always be one of the most powerful analogies in existence, itself being a parable that Rabbi Heliel already noted previously since he had the same mindset as Christ did when it came to acceptance of Gentiles within Judaism as he/others saw it (more discussed here and here at Hillel and The Good Samaritan | Think Hebrew or Yeshua and Hillel - Nazarene Space). Christ was asked about what the greatest commandments were in the Mosaic Law---and after stating what they were, he was challenged by another on it....at which point Christ pointed to a Samaritan (considered to be idolatrous, half-breed/mixed people related to the Jews) as the one living out what the Lord wanted more than all of the others one would have expected to be examples, as was the case with the Levite and the priest. People often miss the significance of the Samaritan culture in what it symbolizes, as they practiced their own version of Judaism, and lived side by side with the Jews of Israel. Despite the striking similarities in religion, appearance, and language between the two people, they were treated by the xenophobic occupants of that ancient land as foreigners. For Jews, to be called a Samaritan meant in more general terms: a despised foreigner. To be called such was a deep insult, with the Jewish people even calling Christ one when denouncing him ( John 8:47-49 )....and yet for Christ, it was a honor to identify with them as well as love them/spread the Gospel to them and see them as fellow believers (more discussed here in #31 , #35 ,#52, #53 , #77, #78 , #85, & #95 ).

The one who challenged Christ could not even say "The Samaritan" due to the angst/beef Jews had with Samaritans...and instead chose to say "The one who had mercy on him" as the one who was truly a neighbor as the Lord saw it. In many ways, Christ rose the standard....in line with what he often did....and yet, he also took concepts beyond the bounds of a paticular religion when showing the simplicity of what it means to follow Him and be considered one of His own.

I mostly agree. On another post, I mentioned that Jewish people are taught to use, we and us. In the New Covenant, believing Jews and Gentiles become one people, but often what is missing is the view of we and us rather then us and them.

 

[visionary]

In all this controversy within our own camp. I would like to point out, we are not the only ones grappling with one way of thinking about it and the other way.. The Trouble with Jesus (TTP-326) | cardozoacademy.org

 

[visionary]

 

[mishkan]

In all this controversy within our own camp. I would like to point out, we are not the only ones grappling with one way of thinking about it and the other way.. The Trouble with Jesus (TTP-326) | cardozoacademy.org

Brilliant! Thanks for sharing. I always find such articles to be a rare bit of fresh air.

 

[Tishri1]

Hi have a lot to catch up on so please bear with me if I have to close the thread to do so I will see if I can do it with out closing but if I do I will try to be quick

Ok soooo in this post I see complaints restated about teaching Torah on many levels of observance by those who don't observe.... To be honest I think we are past pointing fingers because we have established a desire to accept discussion including teaching as long as one is some what observant in what Torah teaching is being discussed

And all agreed as well that to teach against Torah or to teach non observance should be something not fair to do in this place that does have high regard for the Torah by its nature

So all that to say we have established the issue and the resolution of that issue

We just need to work on flaming now

Hi Tish....


As said earlier to another, I think it is something that otherrs need to be honest about in light of how others - from the MJAA to UMJC (of which one of the mods belongs to at her church) - have noted that same reality. We cannot arbitrarily begin to say "Well, they're teaching Non-Observance of Torah because they disagree with my own view of what Torah calls for in observance" - as that goes nowhere quick.

And in all of the discussion, I've yet to see one example of where someone has acturately shown that something was ever being against what the TORAH said. Many times, in being asked to go in-depth, a lot of people then raise fuss of not having to defend their view.....yet the people choosing to explain their own views based on what the OT/Torah says get flack.

For all of the discussion on enforcing TOrah Observance/addressing Non-Torah Observance, I really don't see where many of the people complaining have consistently been for observing TOrah on all parts. For there are multiple parts of the Mosaic Law/613 that every poster complaining have often said cannot be played out today - due to the Land not being where we live....and due to the lack of an established priesthood as well as resources.

I've seen several instances where those complaining on Torah Observance say they want something done about the MJs who are not observant consistantly or at all in areas - but again, who here on this forum has at any point qualified as being observant in all areas and consistently? Every poster on the thread has at one point or another not observed in one area for a myriad of reasons - many feeling like they either don't have freedom to or don't see the need to do when they observe in others...and some saying it cannot be done as they'd like. I don't think it'd be honest for anyone to speak on Torah Observance and not own up to where they've already done this.

How is it that whenever they share on such (and it can easily be documented) that it is not equally deemed by them to be "Non-Torah Observance" by their logic - and yet they complain on all other Messianics not observing on things they feel are central? It seems, IMHO, like a case of "Do as I say, Not as I do.."..and that comes off as extreme hypocrisy at the worse......or innocent failure to notice inconsistency in stances.

It's one thing to claim someone's not "Torah Observant" because they feel that the dietary laws of the Mosaic code were ever meant to apply for all time to Jewish believers - but it's another thing to actually show historically/contexually that what they advocate as "Torah Observance" for the DIetary Laws is just that. Messianic Jews have all debated - all in desire of keeping/observing Kosher - what rules were meant to be in play for Jewish people.

Shoot, others feel that eating bugs of certain types like locusts are allowed while others are to discontinue - such as is the case with the Jews of Yemen and how they have been deemed to be "non-Kosher" by the Askenazi Jews for their views on eating locusts. Both groups are focused on Torah/honoring it - and yet both have differences on what is or isn't to be "kosher". More was discussed explictly on the subject here, here and here/here. Even some of the people here complaining actually jumped in/shared their thoughts of where they didn't really agree with certain foods in the Dietary Laws because they were not comfortable eating bugs as other Jewish groups were - and there was honest dialouge on what it means to live according to Kosher.

But by the logic of some arguing in the thread, if one side feels another is acting "non-kosher", then it's okay to rant that what they do is promoting "non observance".....and it is completely divorced from anything related to Jewish culture/Torah when others do just that. That needs to stop..

Some have suggested reporting - although others, truthfully, have considered it in reverse if it feels others are bullied for disagreeing. The same goes for a host of other issues.

 

[Tishri1]

Ok and maybe we can all concentrate and even pray that our own actions in responding to that thread will be genuine and fair and gracious .... Kinda like a new beginning

Tish, with respect, I think his post was not really a sincere confession of the cunning plan to smear he admitted to, as he spent most of it spinning my words, spoken to him on another forum, into a way of attacking me here. I don't know how that could touch anyone's heart in a good way.

As an aside, I think this thread has become very productive, and it seems that the consensus has remained to try to be gracious to one another. Perhaps the real problem here is that there was a conspiracy to disrupt this forum, and at least one person has publically admitted to it. Obviously these self-admitted Torah observant folks who were part of this woeful disturbance haven't learned the concept of shalom bayis- which is Torah, at least to me and most likely the other Jews here.

So, how about this: when Tal gets back, let's run a thread on the necessity of living the heart of the Torah. Then Tal can participate in the tikkun here, which I think would be a sign of good faith.

 

[Tishri1]

Direct quotation of what has been said - in regards to things said elsewhere PRIOR to making comments here on the thread - may be about the only real issue in driving the point home on how many things have not truly been sincere...and pretense on multiple levels. If people deny what was said, then you have a good indicator on where people really stand.

Eazy please stop quoting other people's posts like you did here ...This is one request I made in the beginning and I really need you to stop doing it ....its not helpful ok

 

[macher]

In the Tenakh, was there a difference between Jews and Gentiles? The answer is yes. The Jewish people received the Mosaic law, and along with that received certain promises from God.

When the New Covenant was established, did it change the Mosaic covenant? No. The Mosaic covenant, made with the children of Israel can not be changed. .

Thinking out loud here. There has to be a distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the flesh.
In the Spirit, in the New Covenant no, circumcision and un-circumcision
means nothing.

However A Jew in the flesh is one that is circumcised in the flesh according to Gen 17. If there are no Jews in the flesh then there can be no promise of Messiah to the Jews who have not yet come to belief in Yeshua by faith. Romans 11 makes this distinction IN THE FLESH. Again IN the flesh. I repeat myself so I'm not misunderstood IN THE FLESH.

That's why believing Jews like myself still circumcise our male childs as per Gen 17. However if and when the male child who was circimcised on the 8th day comes to faith then his circumcision means nothing. But in the flesh it means something. When the male child comes to faith it's a fulfillment of Romans 11 per se and the Torah and the prophets.

Understand?

So we are talking about Messianic Judaism and Torah observance. If non Jews circumcised their males on the 8th then?

IN the flesh there are also certain promises to Jews(circumcised in the flesh) that are unconditional that don't have to do with faith in Messiah. Such as the Land. Enjoyment of the Land however is based on faith in Messiah. The Land deed whether enjoyment or not is unconditional.

 

[visionary]

Thinking out loud here. There has to be a distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the flesh.
In the Spirit, in the New Covenant no, circumcision and un-circumcision
means nothing.

However A Jew in the flesh is one that is circumcised in the flesh according to Gen 17. If there are no Jews in the flesh then there can be no promise of Messiah to the Jews who have not yet come to belief in Yeshua by faith. Romans 11 makes this distinction IN THE FLESH. Again IN the flesh. I repeat myself so I'm not misunderstood IN THE FLESH.

That's why believing Jews like myself still circumcise our male childs as per Gen 17. However if and when the male child who was circimcised on the 8th day comes to faith then his circumcision means nothing. But in the flesh it means something. When the male child comes to faith it's a fulfillment of Romans 11 per se and the Torah and the prophets.

Understand?

So we are talking about the Messianic Judaism and Torah observance. If non Jews circumcised their males on the 8th then?

The child's parents have made the same committment to the community of faith, to raise the child in the Way.

 

[pat34lee]

The mixed multitude who left Egypt with the Jewish people, converted and became Jews.

A reading of the Mosaic law shows one thing which is very very different from the New Covenant. If the leader(s) sinned, grossly, all of the people were punished. All of the people were sent into exhile. So, even those with personal faith, went into exhile as a member of the people. When one person sinned in the desert, the group had to execute judgement. All were responsible and had to act. In scripture, and even today, the Jewish people don't usually think in you and me, when thinking about other Jewish people. What one Jewish person does effects all of us. And what happens to one Jewish person effects all of us. So, it is always 'we' and 'us'. Being Jewish is a corporate endeavor and also where faith is personal.

There is no scripture saying that all of the multitude converted. Many probably did, but it is pure speculation as to how many.

National judgment is in Revelation also. We are judged individually, and our nations are judged communally. That is why the Tanakh was so focused on getting the evil out from among us. Even among congregations and churches today, how many judge their own so that YHWH isn't forced to do it?

 

[macher]

The child's parents have made the same committment to the community of faith, to raise the child in the Way.

A believing Jewish parent can't make the child have faith who was circumcised on the 8th day according to Gen 17.

Read my post again and who I quoted and read my response.

 

[visionary]

A believing Jewish parent can't make the child have faith who was circumcised on the 8th day according to Gen 17. I'm a prime example of that in a different context.

Read my post again and who I quoted and read my response.

Never said that this covenant of faith is going to take with the circumcised child. Just that the child was going to hear about it from the parents upon waking up in the morning and all day long in the parent's word and example.

 

[macher]

Never said that this covenant of faith is going to take with the circumcised child. Just that the child was going to hear about it from the parents upon waking up in the morning and all day long in the parent's word and example.

You're getting away from what I posted.

Do you agree that a Jew is one that is circumcised in the flesh(Abraham and his descendants>Isaac>Jacob)?

 

[visionary]

You're getting away from what I posted.

Do you agree that a Jew is one that is circumcised in the flesh(Abraham and his descendants>Isaac>Jacob)?

One of many tribes...

 

[Tishri1]

Wonderful heartfelt post thank you!!!!

Some of you may be aware that I've recently come to Messianic Judaism from a Pentecostal background. And as such have had some problems with my family and friends accepting the change.

I recently spoke with one of a good pastor friend of mine, and he indicated that "a proper understanding of Hermeneutics" was require to interpret scripture. While I agree to an extent, I believe this argument is used to put lay people in their place. Since they have no formal training, their opinion on the subject is invalid. Out of respect, I didn't pursue the discussion, but here's my point of view.

Hermeneutics is taught in hundreds of classes, in hundreds of Bible colleges, owned by hundreds of denominations across this country. With that, you find that NONE of these denominations agree with one another. What makes the opinion of someone with a Masters Degree in Theology any more relevant than someone who has studied the word for 30 years with the guiding of the Holy Spirit?

I've personally been hit with that Hermeneutics argument a number of times. Unbeknownst to them, I HAVE studied hermeneutics, but I just smile, because ultimately, my opinion in no weightier than theirs.



I completely understand that Messianic Judaism is in chaos at the moment, and there needs to be a unified statement of beliefs, but please don't discount those new comers, who are earnestly inquiring into Messianic Judaism. They may bring some preconceived ideas to the table, and some of those ideas will be wrong due to ignorance. Instead of rejecting them, or attacking them, maybe we should try to mentor them?

Maz

 

[macher]

One of many tribes...

Ok I assume we agree that an Israelite is one that is circumcised in the flesh accordingly; Abraham>Isaac>Jacob and that it pertains to all of Jacob.

Is circumcising your male child on the 8th pertain to all people's?