Messianics and Dispensationalism

[annier]

Yes and no. The main thing that would get Messianic's in a hissy fit is the 'law of Moses is rendered in operative/not binding.

This seems a confusingly contradictory statement. Dr. F, is a Messianic! So some Messiancs would have trouble with this it seems, not all.

Which is true per se and also isn't true per se. True in that we are in an age where it isn't binding.

Again not to be troublesome. What do you mean? Do you mean the law is not being kept, as written? Which is the same as saying the law is not being kept? Is it really an argument over wording, and not substance here?

Here's a response from Dr F....

"the Mosaic Law came to an end when Messiah died as a mandatory rule of life. Today we are under the Law of the Messiah but that will end with the establishment of the Kingdom and then we shall be under Kingdom Law. In the Kingdom Law there will be once again the observance of Passover and sacrifices but this will not be the same as those of the Mosaic Law. For example, under the Mosaic Law the observance of Passover was mandatory for Jews only but in the Kingdom it will be mandatory for both Jews and Gentiles. The sacrificial system of the Kingdom has many differences from the Mosaic system as in comparison with the Law of Moses and Kingdom Law in Ezekiel 40-48 will show. So when we deal with these things we are dealing with a new rule of life, Kingdom Law where some of these things will be brought in but not in the same way that it was under the Law of Moses."

It seems to me, he is speaking of sacrificial law. Or another way of putting it, Levitical sacrifices, or temple law. Which ever way one describes that part of keeping the law, nobody denies it is not able to be done. So, I dunno know what all the fuss is about. Other than those which may still be making sacrifices somehow. Even then, it would still fall short of the written law, so I do not get it.

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

This seems a confusingly contradictory statement. Dr. F, is a Messianic! So some Messiancs would have trouble with this it seems, not all.

Again not to be troublesome. What do you mean? Do you mean the law is not being kept, as written? Which is the same as saying the law is not being kept? Is it really an argument over wording, and not substance here?

It seems to me, he is speaking of sacrificial law. Or another way of putting it, Levitical sacrifices, or temple law. Which ever way one describes that part of keeping the law, nobody denies it is not able to be done. So, I dunno know what all the fuss is about. Other than those which may still be making sacrifices somehow. Even then, it would still fall short of the written law, so I do not get it.

Well he's speaking of the Law of Moses in entirety being 100% in-operative, done away with. Which if you look at the Messianic Age it's not the Law of Moses re-newed if you're honest. Even the rabbi's say the Law of Moses won't be present in the Messianic Age.

"The Torah which a man learns in this world is but vanity compared to the Torah of Messiah." (Midrash Qohelet 11:8)

 

[mishkan]

This seems a confusingly contradictory statement. Dr. F, is a Messianic! So some Messiancs would have trouble with this it seems, not all.

This really depends upon how one defines the term, "Messianic". You have to understand that, until recently, Arnold never used that term to describe himself. He has always identified as a "Hebrew-Christian". That is, the emphasis is on the fact that he is a Christian. Being of Hebraic heritage is merely an ethnic qualifier to the primary noun, Christian.

"Messianic" or "Messianic Judaism" is something else. There, the primary noun is "Judaism". Messianic Judaism views itself as a branch of Judaism that accepts Yeshua as the Messiah.

Arnold started identifying with MJ only in the late 90's... when it became evident that the label was becoming more acceptable with a larger number of people. But he did nothing to alter his Hebrew-Christian beliefs or presentation.

Again not to be troublesome. What do you mean? Do you mean the law is not being kept, as written? Which is the same as saying the law is not being kept? Is it really an argument over wording, and not substance here?

Arnold argues, along with the majority of Christian theologians, that the Torah ceased to be binding on anyone--including Israel--upon the death of Yeshua in the first century. In this regard, he is no different at all from every other Christian theologian.

It seems to me, he is speaking of sacrificial law. Or another way of putting it, Levitical sacrifices, or temple law. Which ever way one describes that part of keeping the law, nobody denies it is not able to be done. So, I dunno know what all the fuss is about. Other than those which may still be making sacrifices somehow. Even then, it would still fall short of the written law, so I do not get it.

You have to understand the Jewish perspective on the Levitical sacrifices. Christians are taught to believe that, because the Temple was destroyed, so were the laws regulating Temple sacrifice. But this is not the first time Israel has been without a Temple. We forget that the same scenario existed during the Babylonian captivity. That was when the rabbis created sayings like, "He who studies the laws regarding sacrifices is credited as though he performed them."

Not saying this should be taken in a strictly literal sense, but the point they were making is that temporary suspension is a very different thing from teaching that the laws have been completely eliminated. Arnold would say the destruction of the Temple is synonymous with the destruction of the Torah commandments. Messianics would disagree with that point.

 

[mishkan]

Yedida, what you said elsewhere was that Yeshua did not start a new religion and that He taught the Judaism of the first century and was in 100% agreement with the Jewish leaders of that day.
Prove it.

There is a source book that demonstrates this case extensively. It is called "The Bible". I encourage you to read it. Especially several sub-books in it, called, "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", "John", and "Acts". That's where you will find that Yeshua lived in the context of Judean Judaism, engaged the theological discussions of the day, and taught his followers to obey the instructions taught by the rabbis. Then, a student named "Sha'ul" went around, teaching Gentiles that they could join this Jewish sect. Boy, did he take heat for that posture!

 

[intojoy]

Now you have lost me, are you posting these scripture in preparing your apology for not doing what the scripture says?

Or is your acceptance based on telling people they aren't in Christ first?

If you are asking for me to bear your weakness, then by all means, I will.

'' Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his edification, therefore accept one another.''

I have seen how you practice this.

You tell people they aren't following Christ and that they are not in Christ and refuse to talk to the supposed heathen.

Do you do this to please your neighbor for his good to edify?

Ham nibble sorry - iPhone auto spell
Paul in Romans 15 is comparing the insults messiah endure at the hand of his enemies:

For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "T he reproaches of those who reproached Y ou fell on M e." Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. (Romans 15:3, 7 NASB)

With the insults that we (brothers and sisters in the Body of Messiah) give one another.
Paul says our goal is to glorify God. Not endure to get along smoothly but to glorify Him.

so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. (Romans 15:6, 7 NASB)

You may not like my personality (sorry) but I have no hard feelings for you or your friend Yedida. However Paul is referring to how we as believers interact together and not unbelievers (context). If I thought that Yeshua taught exactly as the Pharisees and rulers of Israel taught and as she said "Yeshua was in 100% agreement with their teachings", then I would not be saved. Nothing personal. We owe it to the Messiah to defend His teachings and in all honesty He went out of his way to deliberately break all of the Mishnahic additions of Pharisaic Judaism at every opportunity - praise God

 

[intojoy]

There is a source book that demonstrates this case extensively. It is called "The Bible". I encourage you to read it. Especially several sub-books in it, called, "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", "John", and "Acts". That's where you will find that Yeshua lived in the context of Judean Judaism, engaged the theological discussions of the day, and taught his followers to obey the instructions taught by the rabbis. Then, a student named "Sha'ul" went around, teaching Gentiles that they could join this Jewish sect. Boy, did he take heat for that posture!

Thanks for the insult buddy

 

[intojoy]

Who were the brood of vipers and hypocrites?

 

[intojoy]

It's been a learning experience here. My observation is that those Jews that believe in Yeshua and are Torah observant glorify the Torah more than they glorify the Messiah. They would rather speak of the Law than speak of the suffering of The Lord Yeshua. I can understand the need to remain Jewish and even to celebrate parts of the Torah. I also feel that Christians owe the Jews (saved and unsaved) a lot of kindness. Romans 15:27 says I owe the Jews more than just kindness and I know this. God has blessed me immeasurably as a result. In the material realm Israel has a place above the nations but in the spiritual realm gentile believers are equals.
My work (lack of work jk) is done here. I'll remember your names and beliefs I. Future threads and will avoid commenting (unless it gets reeeaaallly bad) in the future.

Your dearest friend,

Joydogg

Subscription exited

I know - good riddens

 

[HannibalFlavius]

Ham nibble sorry - iPhone auto spell
Paul in Romans 15 is comparing the insults messiah endure at the hand of his enemies:

For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "T he reproaches of those who reproached Y ou fell on M e." Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. (Romans 15:3, 7 NASB)

With the insults that we (brothers and sisters in the Body of Messiah) give one another.
Paul says our goal is to glorify God. Not endure to get along smoothly but to glorify Him.

so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. (Romans 15:6, 7 NASB)

You may not like my personality (sorry) but I have no hard feelings for you or your friend Yedida. However Paul is referring to how we as believers interact together and not unbelievers (context). If I thought that Yeshua taught exactly as the Pharisees and rulers of Israel taught and as she said "Yeshua was in 100% agreement with their teachings", then I would not be saved. Nothing personal. We owe it to the Messiah to defend His teachings and in all honesty He went out of his way to deliberately break all of the Mishnahic additions of Pharisaic Judaism at every opportunity - praise God

I seriously cant tell where you are trying to go with all this Intojoy.


Are you trying to say that we as believers in Christ should accept one another?

If so, that's not what you have done in judging a believer in Christ.


You say that you want to defend the teachings of Christ and so you go around deciding who is in Christ and who isn't.

I suppose you think that all of us here are not in Christ and you come to defend Christ from us.

I seriously can't make heads of tails out of what you are trying to say.


I only know that you came, you judged, you went even further in trying to shame somebody in refusing to talk to them because................?

Were they to evil to talk to?

They were such enemies of Christ that you wouldn't waste your time?


That's fine, but if I were you, I wouldn't come talking about RESPECT, apologies, acceptance, and insults.

How insulting is it when you tell somebody they aren't a follower of Christ and then refuse to talk to them?

 

[dnc101]

It's been a learning experience here. My observation is that those Jews that believe in Yeshua and are Torah observant glorify the Torah more than they glorify the Messiah. They would rather speak of the Law than speak of the suffering of The Lord Yeshua.

You haven't learned anything here, nor have you truly observed anything. You are one of those with an icon of convenience who came here to educate us as to the true path and bring us back to neo-Catholicism. Wish I'd caught you before you "left"- but I'm guessing you'll look in, so ...

For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "T he reproaches of those who reproached Y ou fell on M e." Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. (Romans 15:3, 7 NASB)

With the insults that we (brothers and sisters in the Body of Messiah) give one another.
Paul says our goal is to glorify God. Not endure to get along smoothly but to glorify Him.

And you showed this how?

Who were the brood of vipers and hypocrites?

This was a typical idiom of the day, and was used in debates all the time. The charge was leveled whenever someone twisted scripture to suit their own purposes, similar to what you do here. So if I called you a viper, in this context it doesn't mean I think you are a snake (allegorically here on the level of a pagan) any more than Yeshua thought Peter was ha satan when He told him to "get thee behind me, Satan."

The brood of vipers were those religious leaders who, for their own ends wanted to deny Yeshua and keep the Jewish people under their control, mostly those from the house of Shamai. It was not all them "e-e--evil Pharisees"- if this were the case, you'd have to throw out all the Pauline works, as he was a Pharisee until the day he died. (Acts 23:6, 26:5, Phl 3:5)

And, I'm not going to go back and find it, but did I read somewhere that you said if Yeshua told you to obey the Pharisees, you'd do it?

Matthew 23:1-4, "Then Yeshua addressed the crowds and his talmidim: "The Torah-teachers and the P'rushim," he said, "sit in the seat of Moshe. So whatever they tell you, take care to do it. But don't do what they do, because they talk but don't act! They tie heavy loads onto people's shoulders but won't lift a finger to help carry them." The seat of Moshe, or Moses Seat, was the Great Sanhedrin- 71 men out of thousands. But religiously their word was law.​

I know, you always were taught and now teach the second part. But the first part is still there in bright red letters in your Bible. So, you should get busy doing ALL that they told you, including the fences.

Let us know how you are getting on, and if you have any questions, I'm sure there are many here who will be delighted to help you!

Call me ha-satan, or a viper if you will, lol; my work here is done!

Dan C

 

[dnc101]

You know, with all the back and forth here, I still have a problem with dispensation theology. At the risk of getting really hammered ("oh, go ahead" says the voice on my left shoulder ), true dispensationalism has to believe Gd lied. He made everlasting covenants, but these were only tests for specific people or for everyone in a particular dispensational era. Covenants, like laws, can just be made null and void by simply making a new contract or passing a new law. Everything is a test, and lucky us, we got an easy one! One question, true or false, and you're set for eternity!

Now, you may tweek it or change it, but I'd suggest changing the name of what you believe; because true dispensational doctrine is majorly flawed, and when you claim it, the taint goes with you.

I was raised with it, or at least with another "tweeked" version, but went and looked it up anyhow. Everything I've read makes me more sure it is wrong, and that I was right to leave mainstream Christianity. The tenets of Disp Theology are a huge reason I rejected Mian C.

Gd cannot lie, He does not make mistakes, and nowhere does He say "One law for you, another for the stranger in your gates, and a really easy law for the New Church Age!"

Dan C

edit: before someone gets all upset and says I accused them of believing Gd lies, it is not what I said and not what I think. But you do subscribe to a doctrine that teaches that, whether you believe it or not.

 

[annier]

This really depends upon how one defines the term, "Messianic". You have to understand that, until recently, Arnold never used that term to describe himself. He has always identified as a "Hebrew-Christian". That is, the emphasis is on the fact that he is a Christian. Being of Hebraic heritage is merely an ethnic qualifier to the primary noun, Christian.

Hello Mishkan, Thanks for your reply
To be fair here, Messianic Judaism was a name change of recent origin was it not? I have see on daystar television one of the Chernoffs explain , that messianics used to call themselves Hebrew Christians. So, I am not so sure what to think here.

"Messianic" or "Messianic Judaism" is something else. There, the primary noun is "Judaism". Messianic Judaism views itself as a branch of Judaism that accepts Yeshua as the Messiah.

Historically, called themselves hebrew Christians, from what Chernoff says?

Arnold started identifying with MJ only in the late 90's... when it became evident that the label was becoming more acceptable with a larger number of people. But he did nothing to alter his Hebrew-Christian beliefs or presentation.

As did many Hebrew Christians certainly according to Mr Chernoff. I do not know why you are picking on AF. I heard Mr Chernoff, with my own ears say, historically they called themselves Hebrew Christians. Now either Mr Chernoff is correct, and Messianics have been existing for a very, very long time. Or He is not correct. You say it is a new movement never around before, (or it seems you are at least implying that), but the leadership in the mjaa, says otherwise. Or... do you consider the mjaa a non messianic organization too?

Arnold argues, along with the majority of Christian theologians, that the Torah ceased to be binding on anyone--including Israel--upon the death of Yeshua in the first century. In this regard, he is no different at all from every other Christian theologian.

As I said earlier I am not so sure about that. He has been misrepresented though in the past.

You have to understand the Jewish perspective on the Levitical sacrifices. Christians are taught to believe that, because the Temple was destroyed, so were the laws regulating Temple sacrifice.

I am sorry Mishkan but,, I am a Christian, and I have never been taught the above. Nor do I believe that. I do know that the Temple ministry cannot operate, and is not operating, and has not been operative for 2000 years.

But this is not the first time Israel has been without a Temple. We forget that the same scenario existed during the Babylonian captivity. That was when the rabbis created sayings like, "He who studies the laws regarding sacrifices is credited as though he performed them."

And when the temple was destroyed in the past, Temple services could not be performed. As is the case now. Correct?

Not saying this should be taken in a strictly literal sense, but the point they were making is that temporary suspension is a very different thing from teaching that the laws have been completely eliminated. Arnold would say the destruction of the Temple is synonymous with the destruction of the Torah commandments. Messianics would disagree with that point.

Mishkan I am sorry, truly am. But I am not so sure of much you have said here is really accurate.
Here is a recap of why.....
1. I have heard Mr Chernoff on the matter of Hebrew Christians being "messianics". In that, he has said "They called themselves Hebrew Christians back then"
2. I know what I believe and have been taught as a Christian about the temple and it's destruction. And I was not taught, what you said I was taught. Nor do I believe that now.
So I just do not know what more there is to say. No hard feelings I hope. I have none on this end

 

[HannibalFlavius]

I know - good riddens

I don't think its good riddens, I love you.

Tell me you love me.

 

[Ryan L]

If you have 5 minutes, an amusing parallel between the theory of evolution and the theory of dispensationalism. When you think about it, dispensational thinking and evolution "evolved" around the same time period.

 

[Ryan L]

Yay, 50 posts. Now I can post links

The evolution of Christian Man - It's Free! — The WildBranch Ministry

 

[yedida]

Yedida, what you said elsewhere was that Yeshua did not start a new religion and that He taught the Judaism of the first century and was in 100% agreement with the Jewish leaders of that day.
Prove it.

I did not say He was 100% in agreement with them. But He did say to the Jewish people that the leaders sat in the seat of Moses and they were to do as the leaders bade them do, but the people were not to do as the leaders did (Mt. 23:1-4). And don't order me around, thank you.

 

[yedida]

This seems a confusingly contradictory statement. Dr. F, is a Messianic! So some Messiancs would have trouble with this it seems, not all.

Again not to be troublesome. What do you mean? Do you mean the law is not being kept, as written? Which is the same as saying the law is not being kept? Is it really an argument over wording, and not substance here?

It seems to me, he is speaking of sacrificial law. Or another way of putting it, Levitical sacrifices, or temple law. Which ever way one describes that part of keeping the law, nobody denies it is not able to be done. So, I dunno know what all the fuss is about. Other than those which may still be making sacrifices somehow. Even then, it would still fall short of the written law, so I do not get it.

Annier, nowadays, just being Jewish and believing in Jesus does not make a Messianic Jew, it makes a Jewish Christian or a Hebrew Christian.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well he's speaking of the Law of Moses in entirety being 100% in-operative, done away with. Which if you look at the Messianic Age it's not the Law of Moses re-newed if you're honest. Even the rabbi's say the Law of Moses won't be present in the Messianic Age.

"The Torah which a man learns in this world is but vanity compared to the Torah of Messiah." (Midrash Qohelet 11:8)

Good point.

Sadly, whenever this distinction is made, it tends to be the case that those against what actually occurred within early Jewish culture make the false distinction that others are "Hebrew Christians" while others are "Messianic Jews" - a concept that was never present in the early body of believers nor logical when it came to the many ways things were seen within the Jewish culture. There was support of the Law and yet distinctions were made...

 

[yedida]

Ham nibble sorry - iPhone auto spell
Paul in Romans 15 is comparing the insults messiah endure at the hand of his enemies:

For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "T he reproaches of those who reproached Y ou fell on M e." Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. (Romans 15:3, 7 NASB)

With the insults that we (brothers and sisters in the Body of Messiah) give one another.
Paul says our goal is to glorify God. Not endure to get along smoothly but to glorify Him.

so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. (Romans 15:6, 7 NASB)

You may not like my personality (sorry) but I have no hard feelings for you or your friend Yedida. However Paul is referring to how we as believers interact together and not unbelievers (context). If I thought that Yeshua taught exactly as the Pharisees and rulers of Israel taught and as she said "Yeshua was in 100% agreement with their teachings", then I would not be saved. Nothing personal. We owe it to the Messiah to defend His teachings and in all honesty He went out of his way to deliberately break all of the Mishnahic additions of Pharisaic Judaism at every opportunity - praise God

Once again, I did NOT say that. Please, show me the quote, the post # where I said those exact words, because I never did. He was totally against the way the leaders made hardships on the laity with all their fences. But I will again refer you to Mt. 23:1-4.

 

[yedida]

I seriously cant tell where you are trying to go with all this Intojoy.


Are you trying to say that we as believers in Christ should accept one another?

If so, that's not what you have done in judging a believer in Christ.


You say that you want to defend the teachings of Christ and so you go around deciding who is in Christ and who isn't.

I suppose you think that all of us here are not in Christ and you come to defend Christ from us.

I seriously can't make heads of tails out of what you are trying to say.


I only know that you came, you judged, you went even further in trying to shame somebody in refusing to talk to them because................?

Were they to evil to talk to?

They were such enemies of Christ that you wouldn't waste your time?


That's fine, but if I were you, I wouldn't come talking about RESPECT, apologies, acceptance, and insults.

How insulting is it when you tell somebody they aren't a follower of Christ and then refuse to talk to them?

Todah rabbah! check your reps.