Divine Invitation

[Qnts2]

Let me begin by stating that i understand that a convert is a full-fledged Jew, I get that. I applaud it. But, I must say, that I wonder big time about converts that were christain, converted and now are christians again.
Having said that, I've heard that Michael is what I've just described. 'nuf said.

From Boaz Michael's web site.

Boaz Michael » About Me

'
My great grandmother was the last one in our family to care enough about Jewish identity that she requested to be buried in a Jewish cemetery. That seemed to be the last breath of Jewish heritage in my family.
My parents were without God, secular, and living regular American lives, but when I was two years old, a Baptist Christian knocked on my parent’s apartment door and invited them to church. They went, and they found God. Our family began on a journey of reconciling back to God. Through Jesus, we came closer to our Jewishness and ultimately desired to reconcile our Jewish heritage as well.
That’s when things started changing in our lives. When I was a teenager, my family started observing Shabbat, studying Torah, and connecting with the local Jewish community. Through these relationships we had the opportunity to formally reconnect to our Jewish heritage through halachically (legally) converting to Judaism. This procedure, much like what Paul did with Timothy, formally recognized our heritage once again within the larger community of the Jewish people.
It’s not an option I would recommend for a believer. Ordinarily, a convert to Judaism must renounce faith in Yeshua. Paul also counsels Gentile believers against conversion. At the time though, I didn’t understand all the ramifications. In our case, we were not asked to deny the Master.'

 

[Qnts2]

OK...I've got to read that book. Getting cited a lot.



I think Boaz Micheal has met with the same kind of despair that many Jews have when it comes to the Messianic movement. His book on Messsianic Judaism struck a few chords with me.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by despair when it comes to the Messianic Movement, but I might agree.

So often I hear that the 'church/assembly' started as a part of Judaism, and then moved away from the Jewish roots. I hear that that is the major failure of the Christian movement.

My concern with Messianic Judaism, is that today, it is at a cross roads. A choice to once again move away from the 'Jewish roots' but this time, the pressure is from people who argue for One Law. The vast majority of Jewish believers do not subscribe to this belief, so maybe that is the despair. Once again the pressure to move away from the Jewish view, thought and beliefs.

I have heard some about Kinzers book, but have not read it. I dislike the title, Post missionary Messianic Judaism. On that Kinzer is absolutely wrong. Messianic Judaism should never become post missionary, as long as there are Jewish people who do not yet believe on Yeshua.

As far as Gentiles encouraged to return to the Christian churches, I have heard this sentiment. I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I understand the sentiment, as a concern that some Gentiles are trying to push their idea of what Messianic Judaism should be, but what is being pushed is not Jewish. Jewish people who were much more comfortable in Messianic Judaism over the Christian church, (not due to core beliefs but because of the Gentile culture), might be faced with the same situation in Messianic Judaism if Messianic Judaism follows a more Gentile viewpoint.

There are other issues which I am concerned with, basically being, that Jews and Gentiles in Messiah are equal, but with different 'callings'.

In the paper, 'Defining Messianic Judaism', UMJC Theology Committee, Summer 2002 with commentary by Russ Resnick

Messianic Judaism embraces the fullness of the New Covenant realities available through Yeshua, and seeks to express them in forms drawn from Jewish experience and accessible to Jewish people.

The paper emphasizes that Messianic Judaism is fully part of the Jewish people. It emphasizes that Jewish believers identify as a part of the Jewish community, while still being in united faith with the Gentile Christian Church.

The paper says:

'We are Jewish not only in a biblical sense, but also in a living interaction with the whole of our community and tradition, the "concrete, historical community"'... 'We are making the revolutionary claim that we are at home in the Jewish community as we identify with Messiah'.

In otherwords, Messianic Jews have not left the community to join a predominantly Gentile community, only to return to testify of Messiah, but live as a part of the Jewish community.

I have no problems viewing myself as a member of the Jewish community, or living like a member of the Jewish community. I grew up there so it is what I am and live like. At the same time, I see a strong tie with the community of believers. We are of like Spirit.

I see a couple of questions though. I don't like or understand the kind of separation which seems to be defined in this approach. At the same time, a Messianic Judaism which is more Gentile then Jewish is not a part of the Jewish community at large. And, a Messianic Judaism changed by Gentile preferences is also not longer a part of the Jewish community as Messianic Judaism would leave behind Jewish culture, thought and understanding, becoming a Gentile movement.

 

[macher]

Qnts2 the Messianic Jewish movement is defiantly in a crossroads. I'm not sure that Messianic Judaism was/is the answer.

 

[Qnts2]

Qnts2 the Messianic Jewish movement is defiantly in a crossroads. I'm not sure that Messianic Judaism was/is the answer.

If you can say it on this forum, what to you think the question and the answer is?

From my personal experience, one of the issues with the predominantly Gentile Christian church was the pressure I sometimes felt to stop doing Jewish things. I don't mind explaining my view, but at times felt uncomfotable having to justify my view too much.

The other thing which I experienced doesn't happen as much today. I was the first Jewish person in my area who believed that anyone knew of. I could walk into any church, and everyone would know I was the Jewish believer. Many people would come up to meet me, and ask me questions. I can't count the number of times the Pastor, if he was using the 'OT' in his sermon, would stop in the middle of the sermon and ask me if he was right. I tend to be a quiet person, and sometimes wished I could just sit in a service without all of this attention. But again, I don't think that happens these days as there are far more Jewish believers and churches are not as surprised when a Jewish believer walks in.

 

[mishkan]

If you can say it on this forum, what to you think the question and the answer is?

From my personal experience, one of the issues with the predominantly Gentile Christian church was the pressure I sometimes felt to stop doing Jewish things. I don't mind explaining my view, but at times felt uncomfotable having to justify my view too much.

The other thing which I experienced doesn't happen as much today. I was the first Jewish person in my area who believed that anyone knew of. I could walk into any church, and everyone would know I was the Jewish believer. Many people would come up to meet me, and ask me questions. I can't count the number of times the Pastor, if he was using the 'OT' in his sermon, would stop in the middle of the sermon and ask me if he was right. I tend to be a quiet person, and sometimes wished I could just sit in a service without all of this attention. But again, I don't think that happens these days as there are far more Jewish believers and churches are not as surprised when a Jewish believer walks in.

Understood. Nobody likes to be the token minority. To this day, I feel bad for putting Jewish believers on the spot with my own early zeal.

 

[MadMaxData]

Been reading the Divine Invitation paper by FFOZ. I think the paper/theology is misunderstood. Actually it's contradictory.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[annier]

That is the issue - as no one is talking from the basis of Mt.Sinai when it came to noting where things drastically changed. And seeing how things were supposed to be doesn't equate to all decisions made being Biblical or in unison with what was allowed in Sinai. It's like assuming the Saducees were correct simply because they were judges over the people and then going to the OT where it says to take matters to the judges - for one aspect being true doesn't mean all factors are.

No it is not like assuming the Sadducees were correct in everything. The Sadducees nor Pharisees existed at Sinai.

The time of the Maccabees did ALOT to change matters of law historically and one has to study that in-depth to understand how much stuff went out the window when Jewish nationalism took over and the high priesthood was replaced at large. And with the priesthood already being significantly altered even though they still used Moses/the Law to justify a lot of things they condoned as if it was always like that, more was recently discussed elsewhere on the issue of why Yeshua and others came on the scene as they did.

As said before:
Hope that makes sense....
The High Priest office was not something to mess with. The authorized priesthood in Jerusalem (with Caiphas and Ananias) may have been in power but that in no way meant that in those times it was seen as legitimate by all camps. ....including camps in Jerusalem, as not all priests LIVING in Jerusalem participated in the priesthood practiced by those in POWER in Jerusalem.

Paul respected it.


For more info on the subject of corruption in the days of Judaism/THOSE who were in power, As seen in John 11:45-57, the text makes clear that the Chief Priests and the Pharisees were afraid of the their nation being taken away due to the actions of Christ. And the phrase "Our place" almost certainly refers to the temple (Acts 6:13-14, Acts 21:28). The phrase "The romans will come and take away both our place and our nation" may refer to the feared removal of the Jews' semiautonomous status by the Romans (1 Macc. 5:19). Ironically, what the Sanhedrin sought to prevent by killing Jesus still came to pass when the Romans razed the temple and captured Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Concerning who the Chief Priests are---as referenced in John 11 as well as Luke 9:21-22, Luke 22:52 and Luke 22:54-71 and Matthew 26:57-67---the "chief priests" are not the high priests but rather members of the most prominent priestly families.

As it concerns the Jewish high court, it consisted of 71 members----70 elders according to the pattern of Numbers 11:16 plus the high priest as presiding officer. It was dominated by the priestly Sadducees with a Pharisaic minority, represented mainly by the scribes (lawyers) of the court. This is what was referenced in John 7:45-51 when an attempt was made to arrest Jesus. Under the Roman procurators, three wealthy priestly families largely controlled the extremely important position of high priest. Annas was the patriarch of one of these powerful families of high priest (Acts 4:6). Annas was designated as the high priest (much like a U.S President, as high priests seemed to have retained their title for life). He had served in that role earlier (A.D. 6-15) and was the controlling figure in the high-priestly circle, which may also explain why he is given the title in Acts 4:6. His son-in-law Caiaphas was the official high priest at this time, serving A.D. 18-36, and Anna's son John would serve in that role later (36-37). Caiphas also presided over the Sanhedrin during the time of Christ's trial.....as he managed to retain control of the high priesthood gor nearly 18years (c.A.D. 18-36)----Longer than anyone else in the first century (cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.35, 95). He was certainly the high priest during Jesus' ministry, although he also consulted frequently with his father-in-law Annas (John 18:13, Luke 3:2).

There were definately cases of class warfare/favoritism within the priesthood--and those without power often had to live on the sidelines or be outsted. It's one of the reasons (coupled with the corruption of the priesthood) why many Essenes had left Jerusalem and chose to live in the Desert

The lower ranks of the priesthood numbered in the thousands, of whom many were POOR and may have been attracted to Christians by their charity, under the guidance of thr newly appointed deacons. This is said in light of Acts 6:7 when it notes how many priests came to faith in Messiah ---as some have noted those specific priests who came to salvation were of the Essene camp. One can consider the concept of Ronin Samurai, as that may aid in making more sense on the issue. For in Japan, there was a dominant class of Samurai loyal to one leader/clan or dynasty whereas the Ronin were those who were not employed by dominant groups.....often rouge and on their own, yet still considered "Samurai" and with others who were alongside them. It was the same with many of the priests who did not have the same mobility as the priestly families who were rich/had power due to being DOMINANT. There were many Essenes who still did buisness in Jerusalem during the era of the Pharisees and Sadduccess, influencing. And yet, as they lived a COMMUNAL life, they would not have had as much economic power. With the believers living RADICALLY in their lifestyles and ensuring others were provided for, it would have been very attractive to priests from the Essene world.
More than understand...[/quote]
The Gospels show us the corruption of the Pharisees as well.

 

[jamie2014]

So often I hear that the 'church/assembly' started as a part of Judaism, and then moved away from the Jewish roots.

The NT church of God has never moved away from its Jewish roots, but the true church was suppressed as a result of the decision by the Roman church with regard to the Quartodeciman Controversy.

The Roman church rejected the Jewish Pascha in favor of Ishtar (Easter).

Passover occurs in the first month after the spring equinox. Easter occurs on the first Sunday after the spring equinox but can never coincide with Passover.

The NT deals with three different groups of people, Jews, Gentiles, and the church of God. The true church makes no distinction spiritually between Jews and Gentiles. Paul stated that God is God of both groups.