Are you part of Mainstream Messianic Judaism?

[christianmomof3]

Do you see yourself being involved in the Messianic faith at some point
in the future?

I doubt it, but one never knows.

The church as an organization is not the body. The people of Yeshua are the body, inside or outside any religious affiliation.

The church is the Body of Christ. The various Christian religions are not the church although they may call themselves that. The Body of Christ consists of all redeemed and regenerated believers no matter which religious group they meet with or don't meet with.

 

[ChavaK]

I come here and I realize that non-Jews are very attracted to the worst things in Judaism and not the best things.

Interesting....what are the "worst things" you see them attracted to..
and the "best things" that they are not?

 

[ContraMundum]

The church as an organization is not the body. The people of Yeshua are the body, inside or outside any religious affiliation.

I'm not really of the mind that the Church is not meant to have visible marks. I believe it does- but it is not organizational, it is theological etc.

The RCC, and to a lesser extent, her daughters, the protestant churches are political bodies as well as religious ones. And the higher in each organization one looks, the more worldly and corrupt they are. That is one of the problems having large groups with paid leaders. The more power (including money) they wield, the more likely they are to be corrupted by it.

This is true to some degree, but I would also say that your view is likely formed by the country in which you live, where the church is always blamed for being involved in politics. There have been theologians in history who believe, based on their understanding of scripture, that the separation of Church and State is a secular ideal and not a scriptural one.

 

[ananda]

... Don't even attempt to convince that the church up to this point is not muddied. We have 10 commandments that we are to obey, but don't. We have a picture of a life that we are to live, but don't.

Should we or should we not follow Torah? The eternal Messianic vs Christianity question I see our relationship with our Creator and Heavenly Husband as a familial relationship.

Should my wife/spouse, son & daughter love me and try to show their love for me by trying to follow the rules of my house as best as they can, even though they cannot possibly follow all of them perfectly?

Or, should my wife/spouse, son, or daughter simply say that they love me, but avoid or openly reject what I say? Perhaps they explain that they reject my rules, or even do the opposite, because, they explain that's how they stay in my love, and for the reason that they couldn't possibly keep all of them. How would we see our own spouses and children if they had this attitude in our earthly homes?

 

[ContraMundum]

Interesting....what are the "worst things" you see them attracted to..

Racism- Jew vs. Gentile. Jewish supremacy. Holding the religion of law vs. religion of the heart, and a whole array of things that spring from such prejudices to numerous to mention. These things are radically and directly opposed to the Gospel.

and the "best things" that they are not?

The opposite of the above: acceptance of other nations, acknowledging the equality of the Gentiles and their amazing contribution to the world, working for social justice and other mitzvahs that help the mission of tikkun olam, putting religion of the heart above ritual and identity and all other things that good Jews work against to rid the planet of prejudices. These things are radically and directly taught in the Gospel.

 

[Shimshon]

Should my wife/spouse, son & daughter love me and try to show their love for me by trying to follow the rules of my house as best as they can, even though they cannot possibly follow all of them perfectly?

Who's house are you living in? God's? If so, why would Yeshua, who speaks only what God has to say, say this:

34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 35 Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "

21 Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

Or, should my wife/spouse, son, or daughter simply say that they love me, but avoid or openly reject what I say? Perhaps they explain that they reject my rules, or even do the opposite, because, they explain that's how they stay in my love, and for the reason that they couldn't possibly keep all of them. How would we see our own spouses and children if they had this attitude in our earthly homes?

Wouldn't this then be the case for you? You are saying you live in his house by his rules, yet by his own admission the house has been left desolate, to this day. And still your going to follow the rules to a house he has left desolate? It's not about keeping 'some' of the rules, you can't keep ANY! Because they all involved 'living in the Land'. All of the rules to the house you claim to live in were given in accordance to attaining and living in the Land where God himself resided. How do you one law adherents overlook so easily the 'when you enter the Land in which I am giving you'.... that is attached to EVERY Torah command? Even the 'you shall have one law for you and for the sojourner'....IN THE LAND.

Don't you all realize you are doing exactly what Rabbinical Judaism did in creating your own paradigm of theology in regards to how to deal with observing Torah without Temple and Land.

Yeshua explains very well why we don't have it and who we are while it's not here on earth. But Rabbinical Judaism rejects Yeshua and his words.

Is the presence of God still residing in the Land? Or is the presence of God now indwelt in his people, Messianic Jews and Gentiles. And is not his house a spiritual dwelling place? Do the righteous live by faith, or by observance to Torah commands to a house left desolate?

Something worth repeating:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]14 "Return, you faithless children" -[this is] the Lord's declaration-"for I am your master, and I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. 15 I will give you shepherds who are loyal to Me, and they will shepherd you with knowledge and skill. 16 When you multiply and increase in the land, in those days"-the Lord's declaration-"no one will say any longer: The ark of the Lord's covenant. It will never come to mind, and no one will remember or miss it. It will never again be made. 17 At that time Jerusalem will be called, The Lord's Throne, and all the nations will be gathered to it, to the name of the Lord in Jerusalem. They will cease to follow the stubbornness of their evil hearts. 18 In those days the house of Judah will join with the house of Israel, and they will come together from the land of the north to the land I have given your ancestors to inherit."[/FONT][/FONT]

Notice the prophet said that in those days by the Lords command no one will be even thinking about the ark of the Lord's covenant, they won't remember it, nor miss it. And it will never again be made!! But his 'law's are still able to be walked out...hmmm Laws that do not deal with the ark of the covenant?

Ezekiel says we will no longer remember our deliverance out of Egypt but out of the world. And Jeremiah says we will no longer remember the ark of the covenant when we are returned by the King.....things to think about, no?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

MJism is part of the church. Some so-called Messianics have left. Mainstream Messianics are prepared to accept the scriptural truth that the Church is the Body of Christ- people who attend church may or may not be in that Body. Likewise, I think there are Messianics that are not in the Body either. I have met them.

Furthermore, to attack the Body is to attack the Lord. To equate the Body with Babylon is a demonic heresy from the pits of Hell, as Babylon is never described as the blood-bought followers of the Christ in the Bible.

What you said reminded me of something one of my brothers in Christ stated in an article he made entitled "Dropping the "H" Bomb | The Assembling of the Church" ( ). As said there:

Looking through various definitions of the word "heretic", you'll find that a "heretic" (in English) is a person who holds a position that is different from standard or accepted church beliefs. Thus, in English, "heresy" can only be defined from the perspective of a certain set of beliefs. So, someone can be a "heretic" from the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church, but that same person may not be a "heretic" from the point of view of the Anglican Church.


Similarly, looking through various definitions of the word "heresy", you'll find that a "heresy" (again, in English) is any teaching, belief, or opinion that is different from standard or accepted church beliefs. Once again, "heresy" is a valid term on from the perspective of a certain set of beliefs.

From these modern definitions, every Baptist is a heretic to every Presbyterian. Every Anglican teaches heresy from the perspective of every Charismatic. From the point of view of Methodists, everyone in the Vineyard church is a heretic. These terms have lost any meaning, but they continue to be used with force and vehemence.

Perhaps, instead of looking at the modern definitions of "heresy" and "heretic" it would be helpful to consider the source of these words, and to consider how Scripture uses these words. Also, instead of comparing someone's opinions and beliefs to the standard beliefs of a given church, perhaps it would be better to compare that person's opinions and beliefs to Scripture.

Of course, even before we think about the source of the words "heresy" and "heretic", we are immediately faced with the reality that different people interpret Scripture in different ways. Does this mean that our terms "heretic" and "heresy" are completely useless? No. It means that we must humbly admit that brothers and sisters in Christ disagree concerning the meaning of Scripture. We must also humbly admit that disagreement, in and of itself, does not constitute heresy. I may disagree with someone, and neither one of us may be heretics. However, according to the modern definitions of the words "heresy" and "heretic", if two people disagree, one of them must be a heretic.

The terms "heresy" and "heretic" are scriptural words. The noun form αἱρεσις (hairesis) is used five times in the New Testament, and is usually translated "sect", "division", "opinion", or "schism". The Pharisees and Sadducees are called "sects" ("heresies") of Judaism (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5). Christians are called a "sect" ("heresy") of Judaism (Acts 24:5; 24:14; 28:22). Finally, there are said to be "divisions" or "dissensions" ("heresies") among groups of Christians (1 Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20; 2 Pet 2:1). It is this last category that should interest us.

Scripture warns us about "heresies" among believers. But, in context, what are these passages telling us? In 1 Corinthians 11:19, Paul mentions "factions". These are probably similar to the divisions mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1-4. The danger is not found in disagreements between believers, but in separation. The groups were separating from one another and treating one another differently based on their affiliations.

In Galatians 5:20, "heresies" or "divisions" or "factions" are mentioned again along with "disputes", "dissensions", and "envy". All of these are listed as "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19-21), practiced by those who "will not inherit the kingdom of God". This is contrasted against the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:22-23) which will be evident in the lives of God's children. Since the fruit of the Spirit includes characteristics such as patience, gentleness, and self-control, we can assume that these are demonstrated in the context of disagreements, not in the absence of them. Again, this says nothing about disagreement being "heresy".

In 2 Peter 2:1, Peter warns that false prophets and false teachers will bring "destructive heresies" with them. These false prophets and false teachers will not be known for disagreeing with other believers, but instead they will be known for "denying the Lord" (2 Pet 2:1), "sensuality" (2 Pet 2:2), "covetousness" (2 Pet 2:3). Thus, these false prophets and false teachers are not ones who simply disagree with other Christians, but those who deny that Christ is Lord, and live a life that demonstrates that they are not children of God.

Perhaps, from this connection of "heresy" with false prophets and false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1, we should also recognize why these people are called "false prophets" and "false teachers". Perhaps one of the most important passages to help us understand what it means to be a "false teacher" is 1 Timothy 1:3-11. Here, those who teach "other doctrines" are those who teach contrary to the gospel (1 Tim 1:11). In many other passages, the authors of Scripture encourage their readers to teach and live in accordance to the gospel of Jesus Christ - that is, the good news that God has provided a way for all people to accepted as his children.

So, according to Scripture, who are the true "heretics"? Heretics are those who deny the gospel of Jesus Christ. Heretics are also those who live in a manner contrary to the gospel - that is, according to the flesh, not according to the Spirit. Similarly, heretics are those who cause and encourage divisions and dissensions among the followers of Jesus Christ.

When Person A calls Person B a "heretic" for a teaching that Person A disagrees with, but which is not contrary to the gospel, and when Person A refuses to fellowship with Person B because of that teaching, then, according to Scripture, Person A is actually the "heretic". Person A is the one causing division among the followers of Christ and is thus promoting true heresy.

So, let's be careful, thoughtful, and prayerful before we drop the "H" Bomb. It could be that we are the true "heretics", not necessarily because our opinion is "wrong", but because our words and actions are divisive - and this is the type of heresy that Scripture warns us about.

​

When it comes to considering the body of Messiah and the many that've left aspects of it---as well as the many within it who are either beginning their journey of faith, struggling in it, or simply residing there without truly being commited to it (like tares among wheat, per Matthew 13:24-58 )--I think something else that stands out to me is how the same dynamics of discussion occurring here with Messianic Judaism are things that've gone down in NUMEROUS parts of the body for centuries....even as far back as the very formation of the early church. Some of the same mindsets of parts of the church being "Babylon" or saying the churches needed to be altered to "save it" have come up with a myriad of things....and it's often, IMHO, behind what often goes down whenever people are quick to throw out cards toward one another decrying the other as a "herectic" or "false convert" on many things.

To me, it seems reflective of what is often labeled as "factions"...and more specifically, one large "GANG-Turf" war. This is something I had to learn often when studying church history/trying to discover how it could be so messed up in differing camps...and yet, each had something wonderful to add to the saints in some way. If interested, I would highly suggest looking up something known as "Ben Witherington's series Howard Snyder's Review of 'Pagan Christianity' ()---as Brother Witherington did an ongoing critique of a book called "Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices", by Frank Viola and George Barna...with the book aimed at discussing how the church has been very much messed up. And I think many his points I believe can be applicable to the discussion on Messianic Judaism.

As said there:

Three Approaches to Church History

Traditionally, the church’s development through history has been seen in one of two ways: The “traditional orthodox” approach or the “secret history of the faithful remnant” theory.



The Traditional View. The most generally accepted view—the traditional orthodox interpretation—is that God has guided the church through history, protecting it from heresy and apostasy, assistingit to adapt to changing circumstances. The development of clergy, liturgy, church buildings, and all the rest were the ways in which the church successfully adjusted as it grew and got more complex, and the way it extended its influence.

Constantinianism—the development of the church after the conversion of the Emperor Constantine—is the key test case. In the traditional orthodox view (celebrated first by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History), the success of the church under Constantine was the great triumph of the church. God’s hand was in it all. In this view, it is foolish to expect the church today to look like the New Testament church (which was essentially a network of house churches with highly flexible leadership patterns). The New Testament church was the church in embryo; the little seedling that
has now wonderfully put forth branches into all the world.



The Secret History of the Faithful Remnant. The other view, unsurprisingly, is just the opposite. God has been working down through history through a mostly hidden underground church. The “institutional church” is corrupt and largely apostate. But God has an unbroken succession of the true church that has appeared from time to time in groups that the official church viewed as heretical or extreme.This true church has surfaced periodically under names like Montanists, Priscillians, Anabaptists, Waldensians, and so forth—and in networks of house churches today. This view has been advocated by various people—notably the German Pietist Gottfried Arnold (1666-1714), and today people like Gene Edwards. Pagan Christianity seems to assume this theory. In this view, Constantinianism was a great tragedy—the fall of the church. The only route to fidelity is a return to the New Testament pattern, some form of restoration to the original model.


The choice here is rather clear-cut. But there is a third way, a mediating position that can be supported biblically, historically,
theologically, and sociologically.




The Renewal Movement View. This view recognizes the truth in both the traditional view and the counter-view. Yes, God has been working through the “institutional church” down through history, despiteits problems. Yes, the church has often been unfaithful, corrupt,and, in certain times and places, apostate. And yes, God has often worked through marginal groups—even sometimes rather extreme groups, like the “Montanists” — to enliven a “faithful remnant.” And yes, many of these groups were not really heretical doctrinally, yet were shamefully persecuted and often driven underground. The renewal-movement view holds that, despite the church’s frequent unfaithfulness, God has continued to work through “institutional” Christianity. It also observes that underground “remnant” churches can themselves become corrupt, or dysfunctional (I’ve known some), or moribund, needing renewal.

Those of us in the Wesleyan tradition note John Wesley’s insights here. Wesley was outspoken in his denunciation of the failures of the Anglican Church in his day. Yet he did not abandon it. His views on the church, drawn largely from the New Testament, church history, and contemporary groups such as the Moravians, had much in common with the “secret history” view. But Wesley felt it was possible (and substantially proved it) to create a “faithful remnant” movement within the larger “institutional” church. This was British Methodism during Wesley’s lifetime. In this view, God has worked throughout history to bring new life to the church through a series of movements. This dynamic is foreshadowed already in the Bible, especially in Israel’s history. It can be documented over the centuries of the church. God has never given up on the church—even the “institutional church.” Neither should we.

Yet in particular times and places the church may become so unfaithful that it falls under God’s judgment and may even disappear entirely.
​

I tend to hold to the The Renewal Movement View---and that GOD'S STILL WORKING THROUGH HIS CHURCH IN WHATEVER FORM IT'S IN---AND seeing that at this point in life, one must strive to be appreciative/keep the main thing the main thing, which is the GOSPEL OF CHRIST ABOVE ALL ELSE AND ENSURING HOW TO SPREAD THAT.... seeking to KEEP THE MAIN THING THE MAIN THING----WHICH IS CHRIST and the GOSPEL ( Ephesians 4:8 /1 Corinthians 12:10 )

Psalm 133/Psalm 133
A song of ascents. Of David.

1 How good and pleasant it is
when brothers live together in unity!

John 17:23
I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Some so-called Messianics have left. Mainstream Messianics are prepared to accept the scriptural truth that the Church is the Body of Christ- people who attend church may or may not be in that Body. Likewise, I think there are Messianics that are not in the Body either. I have met them.

Furthermore, to attack the Body is to attack the Lord. To equate the Body with Babylon is a demonic heresy from the pits of Hell, as Babylon is never described as the blood-bought followers of the Christ in the Bible.

IMHO, its interesting to see the standards we often use for establishing who IS or isn't in the club....

In example, it's interesting that questions of the canon of Scripture (often discussed in many Jewish cirlces) are considered to be "done deals" by other groups based on the Ecumenical Councils of so long ago, yet within Evangelicalism, the Councils aren't taken to be wholly authoritative. ..and this is said in light of how many times attempts to denounce others from a paticular camp involve others never stopping to consider how it can be futile if one trys to use certain councils as the standard for interpreting who is or who isn't a believer and not realizing whether or not all where present. It often seems off to even try to use CHurch History from one side to prove it something as invalid since not all the councils were ever agreed upon by all aspects of the Church WORLDWIDE as the standard for evaluation.........

Christian doctrine has never been a monolithic, universally held set of beliefs---as there have always been the outliers and the minorities and the mystics and the political dissidents. And if realizing how much drama may've occurred for certain viewpoints to come to where they are now, one would be shocked at it all.


As it concerns who is or isn't "orthodox" and trying to interepret that by saying who has the correct "interpretation" of scripture, it can be difficult since everyone naturally assumes that they have the correct interpretation. I still get humored whenever talking to others in the world of Eastern Orthodoxy in general and seeing how often they get a laugh out of other Protestant groups claiming they're in any way "orthodox" since all they see is schisms, with certain groups in the Protestant camp simply fighting to have the largest voice/ability to say to others that they're not "orthodox."

From their viewpoint, they feel that all of us need to come home to what's truly "Orthodox" since they feel that the proper cannon of scripture/viewpoint was always held by them---with the Catholics breaking off and the Protestants following later on to have their own camp battles/rules established on who is "orthodox."

And within it all, how funny that many of those who are Hebrews/Jewish are not concerned with being with the modern "Messianic Jewish movement" that began 30-40yrs ago...but rather, they are scattered throughtout all parts of the world and practicing their belief in the Lord as they see fit. Some in the Orthodox camp, others in differing parts of the Protestant world..and some in Catholic circles. SOme outside of it all completely, even though they still claim to have their faith in Yeshua and believe not titles can truly fit them. They may not all agree on which camp is the best one to practice...and they may even fight vehemently at times..but it is what it is. As the old saying goes, "Two Jews, Three Opinions...."

Some of this was discussed more in-depth in another thread by Brother Heber, as seen here in #25


I'm glad for the many places where all camps within the Body can agree---and in that sense, the body is unified/one. In that sense, its akin to what occurred for the disciples who all came from differing backgrounds...and yet, they were forced to get along/keep Jesus as central. Within their differing political viewpoints and perspectives---which many of them kept even after following Christ---they were able to have unity within diversity. For there were multiple camps THROUGHOUT church history who've always felt they were "orthodox"---and the camps that developed later from their decisions may consider themselves orthodox....but they really have no basis (IMHO) for saying that another is not truly Biblical simple because they don't have what was considered the "orthodox" perspective/domiant view. In all realness, most claiming to be "orthodox" today would probably not survive back then even if they felt that they were in agreement with some things.

Of course, for those who seem to love saying that any/all things considered "unorthodox" must be correct, I do think they can have just as much of an error.


There are, of course, many views within "unorthodox" camps that have been forgotten.....and may've been dismissed without good reason. Sadly, but necessarily, it may take others who aren't even within the faith to point it out. I'm reminded of one of the prominent scholars that many cite today. His name is Bart Ehrman. Though I disagree with him on many things, I'm glad for many of the points that Erhman has sought to bring up in light of many other believers who are not for simply accepting what has been done in the name of "Orthodoxy" have noted the same for ages. One of the books I've been reading/really enjoying is known as "Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and Faiths that we never knew." He brings up many excellent points as it concerns discussing how much of what is seen within Christianity today could've been RADICALLY different depending on which camp may've been able to win....and come out on top. For much of what was considered to be truly "Christian" was based solely/fully on being apart of one group that had the most power....and that's something which needs to be squared with honestly. Granted, of course one needs to keep in mind that they need to also do their own research rather than just accept what one scholar has to say...as it'd be wild to see others talking about not accepting what is said by the standard theologians unquestionably and yet accepting without question what another says if it happens to agree with their viewpoints. I say that simply because as much as I enjoy Erhman, many of his points have been rightfully critiqued as being incomplete at points---with his agnostic mindset sometimes coloring what he says so that there's not objectivity at times.

On the book that Erhman made, for a solid review on the book that may be helpful in addressing where he gets it right and wrong:

• "Archaic Christianity - Review of Ehrman's Lost Christianities"()

There are others apart from Erhman who've done a good job at being more objective on many points that he brings up..and one of them coming to mind is a man known as


Philip Jenkins. He wrote in-depth on the issue in one of his books entitled Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way" ( ). Definately is a refreshing to see, in light of how all of the discussion that has occurred over the years on who isn't "orthodox" has led to an endless search on what was actually the "right" view. Jenkins has been a breath of fresh air when it comes to honestly tackling issues that it often seems secular/agnotic scholars like Bart seem to be the only ones addressing honestly.

With that work, JenkinS helpfully draws implications from his study for the work of scholars like Bart Ehrmann (as well as others like Elaine Pagels), who have sought to rehabilitate early Gnostic writings as containing legitimate "alternative Christianities;" Christianities which were supposedly suppressed by the church. Jenkins, however, remains unconvinced: "The... conservatism of these [eastern] churches, so far removed from papal or imperial control, makes nonsense of claims that the church...allied with empire to suppress unpleasant truths about Christian origins" (88).

Jenkins thankfully has detailed other dynamics as it concerns the develop of Christianity in its various forms (including the many aspects that involved Jewish brethren leading the way)...for as much as some may say that "Christianity was invented by Gentiles!!!!", its really not accurate 100% since many of the Church Fathers were Jewish as well. Hegesippus, a second century writer, is the only extant orthodox, Jewish Christian that comes to mind outside of the New Testament. And after a bit of poking around I found Aristo of Pella, who recorded a debate between another Jewish Christian, Jason, and a Jew, Papiscus. Apparently Papiscus was so influenced by Jason that he eventually converted to Christianity as well.

Many times, it seems people have considered calling the church "Babylon" due to what they feel is nothing but error on the part of the Gentiles...while those who are Jewish are free of charges since it would have been better for the Gentiles to become "Jewish" and preserve the church. That said, I think people (IMHO) need to be honest when it comes to trying to make it out as if all of the mess done by the early church was on the hands of Gentiles...and with that said, its rather amazing to see how much drama occurred for things to make Christianity what it was. Another excellent book by Jenkins I think you'd enjoy on the issue is known as ["Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years " ( )

Here, from Jenkins, is a brief recap of what often occurred in the context of the fourth and fifth centuries (As seen on p.g 67 of "Jesus Wars ) :

But if they did not fully understand the theology they believed, Christians knew passionately the kinds of religious thought thatthey loathed. They knew what they were against. Much of the debate at the time' consisted of identifying sets of theological ideas and giving them the name of some unpopular leader, so that believers could unite against a despised and demonized ism . And once something was an ism, it presumably represented that person's twisted and peculiar view of church teaching, rather than the pure serene of authentic Christianity.

Whatever he actually preached, Nestorius became the central figure in Nestorianism, a theological trend that supposedly divided Christ's natures. Once this stereotype was established, it could be used to taint any theological approach with which the speaker disagreed.

Theological debate became a game of guilt by association. Reading the denunciations of the time, we need to remember. that each faction tended to caricature and exaggerate the positions of its enemies.m[All the emphasis added by me.]
​

The book pays careful attention to the construction of the mono/dual nature of Christ, whose "orthodoxy" was decided by successive vendettas, bribery, assault and slander, watching the fall of Nestorius in particular, a bishop who believed that Christ was both fully divine and fully human in the days of an orthodox declaration of the Christ of a single nature...He was declared a heretic, and we've spoken of the Nestorian heresy to this day. Though his theology was declared "orthodox" fifty years after he was deposed as bishop, as the Alexandrian bishopric lost its prestige to conniving Rome, it was pointless since he was already gone...exiled to a monastery in the desert of his enemies. Consequently, the Syriac church has been called Nestorian to this day....and amazingly, they have done MANY amazing things ( shared here/ here/ and here ). Jenkins gave a more in-depth review on the issue of Christianity within the world of those who were within the "unorthodox" camps and showed how they spread it as well---as seen in the book he made entitled "The Lost History of Christianity." ..and for more, one can go either here to #4 #62 / #232 or here to Armarium Magnum: The Lost History of Christianity by Philip Jenkins




History's a trip...and it has implications for discussion to what's occurring within Messianic Judaism today.

 

[pat34lee]

I'm not really of the mind that the Church is not meant to have visible marks. I believe it does- but it is not organizational, it is theological etc.

The marks are individual, not collective. How are we supposed to be known? By our love for each other. Not by our tolerance or non-judgmental attitudes.

This is true to some degree, but I would also say that your view is likely formed by the country in which you live, where the church is always blamed for being involved in politics. There have been theologians in history who believe, based on their understanding of scripture, that the separation of Church and State is a secular ideal and not a scriptural one.

That separation nonsense has been perverted like much else this last generation. The first amendment was not written to keep believers out of government, but to keep government from interfering in our lives.

The best type of government is what Israel had originally, to be ruled directly by YHWH through prophets. The next best would be the priest-king system.

 

[ContraMundum]

The marks are individual, not collective. How are we supposed to be known? By our love for each other. Not by our tolerance or non-judgmental attitudes.

I think that is only one mark of the visible church, the others being the Gospel and the means of grace. I believe the church is to be a "city set on a hill", that is, visible and collective, not just individual. Looking at religion as mainly individual is very modern, western and not really the way the Judeo-Christian religion saw itself before the later Reformation.

That separation nonsense has been perverted like much else this last generation. The first amendment was not written to keep believers out of government, but to keep government from interfering in our lives.

Yeah- doesn't really worry me.

The best type of government is what Israel had originally, to be ruled directly by YHWH through prophets. The next best would be the priest-king system.

Yeah, I think we often have romantic ideas about the Priest-King system. I think it looks pretty bad in scripture.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yeshua explains very well why we don't have it and who we are while it's not here on earth. But Rabbinical Judaism rejects Yeshua and his words.

Is the presence of God still residing in the Land? Or is the presence of God now indwelt in his people, Messianic Jews and Gentiles. And is not his house a spiritual dwelling place? Do the righteous live by faith, or by observance to Torah commands to a house left desolate?

Something else in line with that, as discussed before, is the fact that the Torah itself (even in regards to rules for living in the land) already had MANY points where it said that God-fearing Gentiles never had to do the same things as the Hebrews did...for "One Law" didn't mean that all the laws were the same for all within the nation that laws were given....no more than saying all citizens in the U.S have the same laws applied to them when the reality is that there are differing laws for differing groups/situations even while there are others that are universal.

 

[ContraMundum]

Christian doctrine has never been a monolithic, universally held set of beliefs---

I believe there is a consensual church that has always been in existence throughout history- indeed it is not monolithic on every point, but consensus has formed the core beliefs of Christianity.

History's a trip...and it has implications for discussion to what's occurring within Messianic Judaism today.

Indeed, but that's a lengthy topic!

 

[Desert Rose]

I think that is only one mark of the visible church, the others being the Gospel and the means of grace. I believe the church is to be a "city set on a hill", that is, visible and collective, not just individual. Looking at religion as mainly individual is very modern, western and not really the way the Judeo-Christian religion saw itself before the later Reformation.

its a very well expressed point. As much as we ought to be vigilant and not let ourselves to idolize a certain from of religion, the collective view of it , like one is judaism has its obvious spiritual benefits. Its harder to do good on a big scale, like sending missions, etc. if you are all alone

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I believe the church is to be a "city set on a hill", that is, visible and collective, not just individual. Looking at religion as mainly individual is very modern, western and not really the way the Judeo-Christian religion saw itself before the later Reformation.
.

Interesting you noted as you did, as Brother Ravi Zacharias noted similar dynamics in a book he did entitled "Walking from East to West: God in the Shadows"...as he discussed how the mindset of those in the East is very collective whereas the Western mindset is indeed more individualistic---and in the Eastern context where scriptures were written, one would naturally have not seen the individuals as seperate from the legacy of those who went before them. Ravi Zacharias, who is originally from India, says that we in the West sometimes miss the Eastern undercurrent of the biblical narratives. For instance, he writes, “Most people I have met who have grown up in a Western culture don’t seem to be nearly as aware of their ancestry as those from the East.” This connection to ancestry “is a tendency that has both a good and bad side, for in the East history and ancestry never die.” Family ties are of utmost importance for many cultures. And in many ways, as we in the West lack familiarity with things such as sovereignty, monarchy, and lordship.... so also we’ve long lost the idea of familial hierarchy. Yet each of these things come in to play when we talk of Jesus being the Son of God and the Mission He had. IMHO, this is why it is important to view the title “Son of God” in its Eastern, Jewish, biblical context....for as Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-37 discuss, the subject of understanding one's past/ancestry was key in understanding the very nature of what the Messiah was going to be. There's a reason the scriptures place so much high importance on geneologies when it comes to showing who a person is fully.


The passage of Hebrews 11-12 comes immediately mind, especially when the author encourages the people to not give up on their faith in light of the fact that they were "surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses."...numerous others who went before them who had to experience the same. It wasn't to singular individuals alone that the author of Hebrews was talking to---and the people wouldn't have understood what it meant to be a believer apart from seeing the extensive ways in which people walked out their faiths...many of them seperated by centuries of time, unaware of others coming after them....

And many of them having a myriad of flaws, yet simultaneously seeing the Lord use them..

Personally, As it concerns mindsets within Christendom that seem to be more so focused upon the collective unit as opposed to individual, I'd say that the ones naturally leaning toward it more so than others would be those within Liturgical circles--specially, groups within the world of Eastern Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy since I've often seen them reference the "Hall of Faith" dynamic multiple times when it comes to seeing oneself as a part of a whole rather than the sole focus...and the collective mindset is one of the reasons they seem to be so focused upon things like iconagraphy/artwork showing the saints in remembrance of them or Biblical characters. (as discussed here and #108 ). Those from the East seem to be very deeply connected with the past--and as many have noted, they've often remained unchanged in their practices. As the Rabbi of my fellowship is very much conencted with this mindset and Eastern Christianity in general (as you and I discussed here, if you recall), it is something I've often seen him bring up...and it is interesting to consider.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I believe there is a consensual church that has always been in existence throughout history- indeed it is not monolithic on every point, but consensus has formed the core beliefs of Christianity.

That I can see to a good degree, though I'd tend to see it more so within the sense of intersections in theology/ideology.

Indeed, but that's a lengthy topic!!

Issues that tend to have big ramifications can be extensive...

 

[ananda]

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate

You are saying you live in his house by his rules, yet by [Yeshuas] own admission the house has been left desolate, to this day. And still your going to follow the rules to a house he has left desolate?

Where does it say that Messiah is referring to His House?

It's not about keeping 'some' of the rules, you can't keep ANY! Because they all involved 'living in the Land'. All of the rules to the house you claim to live in were given in accordance to attaining and living in the Land where God himself resided.

It is good to know that I have your blessing to go worship idols, blaspheme His Name, dishonor the Shabbat and my parents, etc. - all because I am apparently not living in His Land, in your opinion.

How do you one law adherents overlook so easily the 'when you enter the Land in which I am giving you'.... that is attached to EVERY Torah command? Even the 'you shall have one law for you and for the sojourner'....IN THE LAND.

Why are you attached to thinking that Elohim is only referring to physical land? "behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Lk 17:21

Is the presence of God still residing in the Land?

Yes, the presence of Elohim is still residing in His Land: Heaven, and in our hearts.

Do the righteous live by faith, or by observance to Torah commands to a house left desolate?

Again, I ask, where does it say that it is Elohim's House that is left desolate?

Messiah "answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Mt 4:4); "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Mt 19:16,17). "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." (1Jn 5:3)

Notice [Jer 3:14-18] said that in those days by the Lords command no one will be even thinking about the ark of the Lord's covenant, they won't remember it, nor miss it. And it will never again be made!! But his 'law's are still able to be walked out...hmmm Laws that do not deal with the ark of the covenant?

The way I see Jer 3:14-18, the reason that the Ark is no longer remembered or missed is because it is no longer necessary. The purpose of the Ark is to testify, as a witness, to YHVH, and to the truth of His Law, Covenant, and faithfulness. As v17 states, Elohim's Throne will exist in Jerusalem, and He will be there Himself, so there is no need for the lesser witness anymore. This has nothing to do with Torah being thrown out.

עֹולָם יְהוָה דְּבָרְךָ נִצָּב בַּשָּׁמָֽיִם׃ (Psa 119:89)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Just subscribing

What's a kippah?

I believe that MJ should not look like 'church in a kippah'

 

[Shimshon]

Where does it say that Messiah is referring to His House?

1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

It is good to know that I have your blessing to go worship idols, blaspheme His Name, dishonor the Shabbat and my parents, etc. - all because I am apparently not living in His Land, in your opinion.

It's good to know I'm not the only one with a propensity to respond like this. I'm working on it, how about you?

Why are you attached to thinking that Elohim is only referring to physical land? "behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Lk 17:21

Why are you attached to thinking that the Kingdom of God is only referring to the Torah given Moshe. Or that Yeshua is only referring to the Torah given Moshe?

Yes, the presence of Elohim is still residing in His Land, Heaven, and in our hearts.

If God's presence is in his people, and his people have rejected him, thus being evacuated from the Land. And he places his presence in all who follow Yeshua, for he is the way the truth and the light. Saying he will never ever leave us, outside of the Land. How is it you say his presence is still in the Land? He lives in Yisrael without Temple, and in the hearts of those who reject him? He lives in a Land where the people have not his Spirit? Nor the Temple where the ark of his 'presence' resided? Tell me then, where is he residing in the Land today? Where is his presence in the Land? How can they see him when he told them they would NOT see him till they confess faith in him?

Messiah "answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Mt 4:4); "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Mt 19:16,17). "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." (1Jn 5:3)

God never commanded you as a gentile to keep the Torah as Yisrael. He commanded you to believe in Yeshua here in the land you are born in. Just like he commanded the rich young ruler to follow him, as this was what he was lacking.

Your focusing on the fact Yeshua said to obey that which was commanded him. And then taking it to it's illogical conclusion that eternal life comes by keeping the commandments given Yisrael. This is what you have just testified to: that keeping the commandments leads to eternal life.

Exactly what contra said, that there are gentiles here who claim to be adopted into Yisrael to keep her commandments (Jews), and that eternal life comes by keeping them.

Not the witness and testimony of Yeshua my friend. The rich young ruler was 'Jewish', not a gentile. Of course Yeshua said to keep the law. It was given to him, he was commanded to be obedient to it through Moshe. Gentiles are not.

Again, why would Yeshua teach Jews and Gentiles to observe laws of Land and Temple when he was teaching that the very temple would be leveled and that worship would NOT be in Jerusalem in a short time.

Observe the laws even though I'm going to destroy the temple and scatter you from the Land? Act like Yisrael even though I'm going to remove Yisrael from the map? And make a way for God's people to worship in Spirit and in Truth.

The way I see Jer 3:14-18, the reason that the Ark is no longer remembered or missed is because it is no longer necessary. The purpose of the Ark is to testify, as a witness, to YHVH, and to the truth of His Law, Covenant, and faithfulness. As v17 states, Elohim's Throne will exist in Jerusalem, and He will be there Himself, so there is no need for the lesser witness anymore. This has nothing to do with Torah being thrown out.

עֹולָם יְהוָה דְּבָרְךָ נִצָּב בַּשָּׁמָֽיִם׃ (Psa 119:89)

Torah is not thrown out. But, do you have no reason to grow up now that you have aged? You still going to wear diapers and a bib? Or can you eat real food and not soil yourself any longer? Your saying since I have grown up and have a greater witness of God's instructions I still have to act and relate to Him as I did when I was a child. Diapers and all. Even though God came and taught us how to relate to him in person, I still need to relate to him through the shadows and patters as well. It's not like we are throwing out Torah, we have it placed in us.

God relates to us differently now than he did yesterday. God didn't change, we did. And so did his way of relating to us. God is the same, forever, but he changes the way he relates to us, as we grow up. Just like a father and his children.

You seem to want to be a college student and yet continue the practices of kindergarden. God's people grew up, we have his Spirit inside our hearts, as opposed to an earthly temple and ark. This was the work of Yeshua. He does not return us to the past, he see's us in the future.

Yisrael and the Torah of Moshe are not the center of God's will that you are making it to be.

 

[ananda]

You quoted Luke 13:35 in your defense that Elohim has left His house desolate. The verse clearly does not say "His House" (referring to Elohim) or even "My House" (from Messiah's perspective). It says οἶκος ὑμῶν - "your house". You pulled a proof text from Mt 24 which has nothing to do with Luke 13:35. The fact that the Temple was torn down (Mt 24:2) says absolutely nothing about Elohim or Messiah taking away Torah.

So, I ask again, where does it clearly say that Elohim has left His house desolate?

It's good to know I'm not the only one with a propensity to respond like this. I'm working on it, how about you?

That is not an answer. Again I ask, is it acceptable for me to go worship idols now, and blaspheme His Name? As a Gentile not living in His physical land, it is not a sin for me to do either, right?

How is it you say his presence is still in the Land? ... Tell me then, where is he residing in the Land today? Where is his presence in the Land?

I apologize for not being clearer. What I was actually saying was that the presence of Elohim is still in His Land. His Land is Heaven and our Hearts.

Just like he commanded the rich young ruler to follow him, as this was what he was lacking ... The rich young ruler was 'Jewish', not a gentile. Of course Yeshua said to keep the law. It was given to him, he was commanded to be obedient to it through Moshe. Gentiles are not.

Where does it say that he was Jewish?

do you have no reason to grow up now that you have aged? You still going to wear diapers and a bib? Or can you eat real food and not soil yourself any longer? Your saying since I have grown up and have a greater witness of God's instructions I still have to act and relate to Him as I did when I was a child. Diapers and all. ... God is the same, forever, but he changes the way he relates to us, as we grow up. Just like a father and his children. You seem to want to be a college student and yet continue the practices of kindergarden. God's people grew up, we have his Spirit inside our hearts, as opposed to an earthly temple and ark. This was the work of Yeshua. He does not return us to the past, he see's us in the future

"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Mt 18:3. What do good children do? Love, trust, and obey their Parents. What does a good wife do? Love, trust, and obey her Husband.

... keeping the commandments leads to eternal life ...Not the witness and testimony of Yeshua my friend.

Trust in and love for our spouse is what "marries" a husband and wife. Trust in and love for Messiah is what marries us to Him & saves us.

A wife who obeys her husband is walking in a way that shows her love for him. The believer, in obeying Messiah, the Husband, is walking in the way He wants us to show our love for Him.

A husband has every right to question the love of a wife who persistently denies and rejects his rules. He has every right to say "I never knew you, depart from me, you that work anomia!" Messiah, in the same way, has every right to say the same thing to us if we call Him Lord and never do the things He or His Father says. (Mt 7:17-23).

Yisrael and the Torah of Moshe are not the center of God's will that you are making it to be.

It is ultimately YHVH's Torah.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Subscribing.