Paul fought the circumcision, Messianic Judaism.

[Frogster]

With all due respect, no offense to our friends in the MJ movement, but Paul fought this belief system the most. The Jews for the most part were an easy battle for Paul in the theological arena, it was black and white, they did not know the Lord. They were a tough battle in the natural though, as the synagogue leaders ordered Paul's back to be opened up 5 times, 39 lashes. But the circumcision, after all, were believers in the Lord, but they tried to impose Judaism on the church. Now "believers" did not mean they were all actually saved, but for the most part they either were, or it was presumed they were.

Acts 15:2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am not sure what Messianic Judaism means now anyway. Some within MJ reject the blessed Trinity. Some reject saint Paul's letters. How can one be sure what is what in a movement that's so broad?

I presume that MJ members in this forum are Nicene Creed accepting Christians. That being so one presumes that the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is accepted as truth. I am not sure if saint Paul's letters would be accepted but I think that a new testament minus saint Paul's letters might leave one in a difficult position when it comes to discussing Christian doctrine.

I've noticed that a "Hebrew roots" movement of sorts has started in charismatic/pentecostal circles. And it is distinct from MJ. So that's another group that advocates ten commandment keeping and other things too.

So as far as I can tell we have SDA, MJ, and Hebrew roots movements all pressing for people to observe the seventh day (Friday-sunset till Saturday-sunset) as Sabbath in compliance with one of the ten commandments. Some want dietary laws to be observed too and some want to keep the feasts mentioned in Torah too.

I don't know what keeping all those things does for one's faith and spirituality. I don't know if any of the above movements teaches that keeping laws leads to salvation or not. Some say that grace is what saves and that commandment keeping has a role in cultivating holiness after salvation (after seems to be what they mean but maybe they teach something different from that, I am guessing to a degree on this matter).

It is difficult to pin down the core elements that are held in common by these movements. But if it is something along the lines of the people who came up from Jerusalem to Antioch urging circumcision and obedience to the Law upon gentile Christians then it is something that saint Paul opposed with all his strength and that the council in Jerusalem - reported in Acts chapter fifteen - rejected as error.

I wonder if any of our MJ, SDA, or Hebrew Roots forum contributors care to comment on the decisions reached at the Jerusalem council?

Specifically: 'It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.' Acts 15:28-29

 

[MoreCoffee]

I noticed that Wikipedia on Hebrew Roots says: Salvation derives from the belief in Yeshua the Messiah as personal saviour, not from commandment/Torah keeping; however, believers are rewarded according to their fruits, works, and obedience. Hebrew Roots followers believe that sin is breaking the written Torah (cf. 1 John 3:4), all of the purity laws such as dietary restrictions and sabbath keeping are in the written Torah, thus it is sinful to not keep the sabbath and to eat forbidden animals, among other social and religious observance laws. It is also true, according to Hebrew Roots followers, that those who are truly born of God will not continue in sin (cf. 1John 3:9), therefore, if you are not moved to keep the sabbath or to keep dietary restrictions, you must not truly be born of God.

 

[Frogster]

.

 

[Soyeong]

I am not sure what Messianic Judaism means now anyway. Some within MJ reject the blessed Trinity. Some reject saint Paul's letters. How can one be sure what is what in a movement that's so broad?

Messianic Judaism basically consists of Jews who believe that Jesus is their Messiah, which grew to include Gentiles after Peter's vision in Acts 10. Generally it is made up of Jews who haven't brought into the lie that they have to give up their Jewish identity in order to follow their Jewish Messiah and Gentiles who recognize the inherent Jewish foundation of Christianity.

As with all organizations of sufficient size, you'll find a variety of beliefs. There are also Christians who aren't MJ's who deny the Trinity and reject Paul's letters, so that is not unique to MJ. I know there are some who argue that the Hebraic concept of God was different than the Greek concept, but I haven't looked that much into it. From what I recall, they understood that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father, which amounted to a big shrug. The Greek mindset wanted to define everything and came up with the formalized concept of the Trinity, but trying to wrap our mind around that can also amount to a big shrug, so I don't get hung up over it.

I will say that if any of the other books in the NT contradict Jesus' words, such as in Matthew 5:17-19, then Jesus trumps them, but it doesn't have to come to that when Paul is correctly understand.

So as far as I can tell we have SDA, MJ, and Hebrew roots movements all pressing for people to observe the seventh day (Friday-sunset till Saturday-sunset) as Sabbath in compliance with one of the ten commandments. Some want dietary laws to be observed too and some want to keep the feasts mentioned in Torah too.

There are some MJs that hold that only Jewish Christians are required to keep the Mosaic law, but my understanding is that Jews would have considered anyone who taught against keeping the law to be in violation of Deuteronomy 13 and would have rejected them out of hand, if not tried to stone them. Many of them who were on the fence about whether to believe that Jesus was their Messiah were looking at whether Gentiles were coming to worship God in an acceptable way in great numbers. In their view, that would be a fulfillment of prophecy and an indication that Paul's ministry was from God and that Jesus was the Messiah. However, Gentiles showed no regard for the faith of Israel, then it was not of God and what Paul was saying was a lie.

I will say that those Christians who don't at least study the Feasts are missing out on some rich teachings about the Messiah.

I don't know what keeping all those things does for one's faith and spirituality. I don't know if any of the above movements teaches that keeping laws leads to salvation or not. Some say that grace is what saves and that commandment keeping has a role in cultivating holiness after salvation (after seems to be what they mean but maybe they teach something different from that, I am guessing to a degree on this matter).

I have not run across any who have taught that keeping the law leads to salvation, but that's not to say that aren't some people who are confused on the matter. As I've said before, the law is God's instructions for how to practice righteousness and 1 John 3:10 says it is the children of God who practice righteousness. It is an ongoing part of sanctification as we are made to be more like Jesus in how he thought and acted.

 

[Soyeong]

It is difficult to pin down the core elements that are held in common by these movements. But if it is something along the lines of the people who came up from Jerusalem to Antioch urging circumcision and obedience to the Law upon gentile Christians then it is something that saint Paul opposed with all his strength and that the council in Jerusalem - reported in Acts chapter fifteen - rejected as error.

Mark 7:1-4 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly,[a] holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.[c])

The traditions of the elders is also called oral law, which consists of fences and rulings for how to keep the written law of the Torah. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for rejecting the commandments of God to establish their own traditions and I think Paul was doing the same thing in Acts 15. The Mishna is the codified oral law.

Mishna Chapter 1 Moshe received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua; Yehoshua to the Elders; the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets transmitted it to the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah (Members of the Great Assembly). They made three statements (taught three things): Be deliberate (patient and restrained) in judgment; establish a large cadre of disciples; and construct a boundary around the Torah.

So the Jews traced their traditions back to Moses and some considered them to be more important that the written law because you couldn't know how to correctly keep the written law without it. For instance, how can you keep the command not to work on the sabbath if what it means to work is not defined? So they would not have considered teaching the written law apart from their oral laws.

The commandment for all Gentiles to become circumcised is not found in the Torah, so what the circumcision group was wanting Gentiles to follow was a man-made oral law. I think what Paul was rejecting in Acts 15 as a heavy burden was their mountain of oral laws and the idea that the laws of Moses were required to be kept in order to be saved. Paul would never have referred to God's holy, righteous, and good law is being a heavy burden. God didn't give the law to Moses because He thought they could use a heavy burden either. Furthermore, God didn't think it was too difficult:

Deuteronomy 30:11 “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.

And neither did Jesus:

Matthew 11:28-30 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

 

[Soyeong]

Specifically: 'It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.' Acts 15:28-29

If you hold strictly that Gentiles were only required to follow these four laws, then that would exclude that commands of Jesus. However, if you hold that this was obviously not an exhaustive list, then I'd agree with you. It appears to me to be a specific list for a particular purpose, namely to give a minimum standard that Gentiles would need to keep in order to make a clean break from paganism and to have fellowship with Jews and community meals.

Acts 19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

In Jewish literature, the Jews realized that they had a lot of laws and that they shouldn't be meticulous with new converts. If an employer were to hire a new employee, they wouldn't start by making sure they learned everything they would ever need to know about the job upfront, but rather they would teach them the basics with the understanding that they would continue to learn the rest on the job. Similarly, they didn't want to make it too difficult for new Gentile converts, so they started them off with just the basics with the understanding that they would continue to learn how to behave by hearing Moses taught about every Sabbath in the synagogues.

 

[Soyeong]

Sorry Frogster, I had this typed up before I saw you wanted to close it.

 

[Steeno7]

For any who want a Christian perspective on this Hebrew roots movement, a dear sister in Christ has done exhaustive work on her website, which is dedicated to it, HERE.

 

[Frogster]

Sorry Frogster, I had this typed up before I saw you wanted to close it.

No sweat, going to leave it open anyway, I can just post at night, I see things already the need confronting, but thanks, frog.

 

[BobRyan]

Mark 7:1-4 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly,[a] holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.[c])

The traditions of the elders is also called oral law, which consists of fences and rulings for how to keep the written law of the Torah. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for rejecting the commandments of God to establish their own traditions

That is true - it appears that Jesus' statement goes something like this --

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The elders consisting of scrib[FONT=&quot]es and ph[FONT=&quot]arise[FONT=&quot]es [/FONT]are in fact the "magisterium" even Paul admits to this. And Jesus shows how they claim to "sit in the chair of Moses" as church magisterium[FONT=&quot].[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. (Matthew 23:1-3)
[/FONT]

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am impressed that a single post by myself generated three replies from the same person.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... There are also Christians who aren't MJ's who deny the Trinity and reject Paul's letters, so that is not unique to MJ. ...

Those who reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity are usually not called Christians except by themselves. And I can't think of any orthodox Nicene Creed compliant denomination, church, or independent group that rejects the letters of saint Paul that are included in the new testament.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul's on-the-record statement to Messianic Jews --


Acts 21
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

(Many here would argue - "yeah... that is EXACTLY what Paul was doing!" - Paul goes out of his way to disprove it.



22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.
.

 

[SAAN]

On judgement day, you are judged by your works according to scriptures, NOT the Nicene Creed.

 

[Soyeong]

I am impressed that a single post by myself generated three replies from the same person.

Some people don't like long posts and weren't reading them because they were too long. Splitting my reply up into multiple posts somehow makes it shorter to read, though I haven't figured that part out yet.

 

[Steeno7]

Note how most all of the Law-centered groups draw their beliefs from what is not even doctrinal, but what is historical and transitional, the book of Acts. A book that merely bridges the gap between the Old and the New.

 

[BobRyan]

On judgement day, you are judged by your works according to scriptures, NOT the Nicene Creed.

True -

Romans 2:13-16.

2Cor 5:10

1 John 3:4-10

 

[BobRyan]

Note how most all of the Law-centered groups draw their beliefs from what is not even doctrinal, but what is historical and transitional, the book of Acts. A book that merely bridges the gap between the Old and the New.

When we point to Acts 17:11 and the sola-scriptura model of scripture seen in action - "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE if those things spoken by the Apostle Paul -- were So" we often hear that sort of "complaint" from members of denominations that would prefer not to follow the sola-scriptura method of testing doctrine.

I think the GT section will show that point in triplicate.

Interesting how the anti-law groups would like to toss out Acts --- except when trying to get Acts 10 to be about rat sandwiches.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Steeno7]

When we point to Acts 17:11 and the sola-scriptura model of scripture seen in action - "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE if those things spoken by the Apostle Paul -- were So" we often hear that sort of "complaint" from members of denominations that would prefer not to follow the sola-scriptura method of testing doctrine.

I think the GT section will show that point in triplicate.

Interesting how the anti-law groups would like to toss out Acts --- except when trying to get Acts 10 to be about rat sandwiches.

in Christ,

Bob

You prove my point well.