Divine Invitation

visionary · Jan 7, 2013

Easy G (G²);62130817 said:
I have already stated what I believe - multiple times - and thus, I don't really see the logic in restating it again EVerytime the subject comes up as if there's some rule dictating one do so - and that's not the focus of the OP, anyhow:

The focus of the OP is addressing the paper/understanding the position, from what I saw. If you want to know what I believe on the matter, you can ask Contra, Shimshon and a host of others who've noted it - in addition to what I already wrote on the issue before in previous discussion...but what is of focus here - per the OP - is what FFOZ believes ..and thus, it is why I noted what I saw of their views in summation. Simple as that, really.

I don't need to have everyone else answer ... You have always hidden in the verbose responses something that might be your own opinion.. but it is hard to determine exactly where it stops being everybody else's and where you start or conclude... You have always presented almost everyone's position whether the right or left of the question ... and it is hard to determine where you stand. I think in this answer you just gave me, is that you are standing with other Jews on this matter, which is this collective position from the days of old carried over from before you found the Messiah. Keep coming and one day you will hug us Gentiles like a long lost family member who has all the rights of maybe not the first born, but the rights of the stranger within thy gates whom you have come to love like one of your own.

Gxg (G²) · Jan 7, 2013

visionary said:
I don't need to have everyone else answer ...

Yet you've already given multiple postings/responses from other websites and resoruces to show a stance - including threads you've made. Again, if you want to talk, be consistent in addressing where you've done the same without change And to be clear, it really isn't easy to show such since it has happened about 54 times or more in over 2 yrs - for anyone using the Search Engine.

You have always hidden in the verbose responses something that might be your own opi

Incorrect -and plenty of others have noted that to be infactual multiple times, especially in repeated occassions where short response has been given. Again, if you cannot deal accurately with what has been said and complicate things which others are able to handle, it'd behoove you to listen more BEFORE responding (Proverbs 18:13)

it is hard to determine exactly where it stops being everybody else's and where you start or conclude

Not seeing where there's really an issue. When I say "This is what I think" and write it out plainly - be it short or long - that is where I state plainly what I think. The same goes for doing what others have done (yourself included) when saying "Here's a good overview on the issue which I support" and giving a link or a video on it - in the effort of supporting what was written or giving third party perspective/insight from others who may've expressed something better (as I'd not want to reinvent the wheel if others already did so . Again, IMHOM, this is not a difficult concept since you have done the same yourself on the issue. .

... You

have always presented almost everyone's position whether the right or left of the question

When you're dealing with facts, vis, opinion is inconsequential. What matters is the facts - and that happens in discussion (Proverbs 18:2). On what I feel, I share directly - but on things I have multiple leanings on since it doesn't seem one way or another, I share BOTH sides to be objective just as you're required to do in a court of Law when doing researh/doing what the Word says in being impartial. Others would prefer a less comprehensive approach - but some are fine and prefer it. We're called to be people of accuracy and truth - and even with others whom we disagree with, if something has been said which they don't support and discussion occurs, it's imperative for there to be addressment of that so that there's a clear picture. People who have already made up their minds to believe what they wish regardless of the facts tend to just want to say their piece/not want to addressing opposing views or seeing if there's middle ground/third positions that are lost. Contra has done the same alongside Messianic Mommy and many others - so nothing being done with presentation is really unique.

I think in this answer you just gave me, is that you are standing with other Jews on this matter, which is this collective position from the days of old carried over from before you found the Messiah. Keep coming and one day you will hug us Gentiles like a long lost family member

who has all the rights of maybe not the first born

, but the rights of the stranger within thy gates whom you have come to love like one of your own.

Pause......for the bottom line reality is that no Gentiles are being denied "hugs" or acceptance when it comes to noting what the Lord/Yeshua noted directly in HIS Torah on the subject of distinction. Being unable to accept that can be akin to not wanting the Lord to hug an individual when he or she cannot accept what He has said of them because they're so focused on HAVING to be like another child of His - and not content with being HIS.

No one has said at any point that a stranger cannot do certain things if they wish - but insisting that God himself said the stranger was meant to be reflective of how ALL strangers are isn't in the Torah at any point.

yedida · Jan 7, 2013

annier said:
I understand the deal concerning the priesthood in the time of the maccabees. But what I was referring to is the Pharisaical story of the ORIGINS of their oral torah, as well as the purpose of it. They said it was given at Sinai, along with the written law. How could that be so when the priests could consult the urim and thumim?
Why wouldn't the priests have done with their jurisprudence, what the Pharisees say they did with theirs? Write it down before they were taken captive. That is pretty much why the Pharisees say they wrote theirs down. Why wouldn't the priests?

Also consider this
Jo 11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Also many of the priests which served in the first temple were present at the rebuilding of the second temple, in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Why would they not know what thier own jurisprudence by urim and thummim was? Could they have written it down then?

Ezr 3:12 But many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy:

Neh 7:73 So the priests, and the Levites, and the porters, and the singers, and some of the people, and the Nethinims, and all Israel, dwelt in their cities; and when the seventh month came, the children of Israel were in their cities.
Neh 8:1 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.
2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.
3 And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.
4 And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.
5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.
7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
9 ¶ And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the LORD your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law.
10 Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the LORD is your strength.
11 So the Levites stilled all the people, saying, Hold your peace, for the day is holy; neither be ye grieved.
12 And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.

Much of the oral law is the determining things such as "what is work on the Shabbat," "how to place these words on our doorposts and gates, and which words specifically," "how to place these words as frontlets on our foreheads," "how to make sure we don't boil a kid in its mother's milk and how to avoid taking part in such a thing." All these things needed to be figured out, and this is just a blink in what knowledge is needed to keep Torah as properly as possible. So many things are not explained in the Scriptures but it's believed that Moses was told these things while there with Hashem on Mt. Sinai.

visionary · Jan 7, 2013

Easy G (G²);62130958 said:
Yet you've already given multiple postings/responses from other websites and resoruces to show a stance - including threads you've made. Again, if you want to talk, be consistent in addressing where you've done the same without change And to be clear, it really isn't easy to show such since it has happened about 54 times or more in over 2 yrs - for anyone using the Search Engine.
Incorrect -and plenty of others have noted that to be infactual multiple times, especially in repeated occasions where short response has been given. Again, if you cannot deal accurately with what has been said and complicate things which others are able to handle, it'd behoove you to listen more BEFORE responding.

I am not the only one to say to you that the verbose amount you give is not necessary. I do try to be brief, bring up one example if I deem it necessary to show, someone who can say it better than myself, the position I wish to make. Verbose does not make it factual, nor does infactual determinations made by those with an opposite view make it an accurate assessment. If my suggestion to you falls on deaf ears, I have noted that it was when Tishri1 asked you to stop... so I am not surprised...

annier · Jan 7, 2013

yedida said:
Much of the oral law is the determining things such as "what is work on the Shabbat," "how to place these words on our doorposts and gates, and which words specifically," "how to place these words as frontlets on our foreheads," "how to make sure we don't boil a kid in its mother's milk and how to avoid taking part in such a thing." All these things needed to be figured out, and this is just a blink in what knowledge is needed to keep Torah as properly as possible. So many things are not explained in the Scriptures but it's believed that Moses was told these things while there with Hashem on Mt. Sinai.

I know that is what they say. Any controversy concerning these things would have been taken care of by the priests. Just like in Ezra and Nehemiahs day. Any question needing to be answered could have been by the urim and thummim. So why would there be a need for the oral Torah?

Gxg (G²) · Jan 7, 2013

visionary said:
I am not the only one to say to you that the verbose amount you give is not necessary.

And I'm not the only one who has noted that much of the responses given by yourself are done without reference to history or without proper research - favoring a "quick"/glib methodology as opposed to actually dealing fully with an issue. Whether or not you feel it as "unnecessary" is really inconsequential to the point that MANY others have long disagreed with you and have been quite fine/preferring of it...and if you do not prefer it, you don't prefer it. Anything else is avoiding of the issues and that is something you need to address.

I do try to be brief, bring up one example if I deem it necessary to show, someone who can say it better than myself, the position I wish to make. Verbose does not make it factual, nor does infactual determinations made by those with an opposite view make it an accurate assessment.

Not according to what others have said ..as it concerns multiple times you've brought up numerous examples/quoted entire articles in a string of postings - your thread on "Messianic History" being one amongst many other examples of that. In brief example:

visionary said:
For historical documents of the existance the Messianic type of believers we often have to look within "heresy" documents written at that time.

Inquisicion

CONCORDIAS
HECHAS, Y FIRMADAS
entre la jurisdicion Real, y
el Santo Oficio de la

Inquisicion.
DECLARATIONS, Acts and Edicts of the royal Jurisdiction, and the Holy Office of the Inquisition
Valencia, 1568 (collection of the Author).

EDICT OF FAITH

"We Doctor Andres de Palacio, Inquisitor against the heresy and apostolic perversity in the city and kingdom of Valencia, etc.

"To all faithful Christians, both men and women, chaplains, friars and priests of every condition, quality and degree; whose attention to this will result in salvation in our Lord Jesus Christ, the true salvation; who are aware that, by means of other edicts and sentences of the Reverend inquisitors, our predecessors, they were warned to appear before them, within a given period, and declare and manifest the things which they had seen, known, and heard tell of any person or persons, either alive or dead, who had said or done anything against the Holy Catholic Faith; cultivated and observed the law of Moses or the Mohammedan sect, or the rites and ceremonies of the same; or perpetrated diverse crimes of heresy; observing Friday evenings and Saturdays; changing into clean personal linen on Saturdays and wearing better clothes than on other days; preparing on Fridays the food for Saturdays, in stewing pans on a small fire; who do not work on Friday evenings and Saturdays as on other days; who kindle lights in clean lamps with new wicks, on Friday evenings; place clean linen on the beds and clean napkins on the table; celebrate the festival of unleavened bread, eat unleavened bread and celery and bitter herbs; observe the fast of pardon (Day of Atonement) when they do not eat all day until the evening after star-rise, when they pardon one another and break their fast; and in the same manner observe the fasts of Queen Esther, of tissabav, and rosessena; who say prayers according to the law of Moses, standing up before the wall, swaying back and forth, and taking a few steps backwards; who give money for oil for the Jewish temple or other secret place of worship; who slaughter poultry according to the Judaic law, and refrain from eating sheep or any other animal which is trefa; who do not wish to eat salt pork, hares, rabbits, snails, or fish that have not scales; who bathe the bodies of their dead and bury them in virgin soil according to the Jewish custom; who, in the house of mourning do not eat meat but fish and hard-boiled eggs, seated at low tables; who separate a morsel of dough when baking and throw it on the fire; who become, or know of others who become circumcised; who invoke demons, and give to them the honour that is due to God; who say that the law of Moses is good and can bring about their salvation; who perform many other rites and ceremonies of the same; who say that our Lord Jesus Christ was not the true Messiah promised in Scripture, nor the true God nor son of God; who deny that he died to save the human race; deny the resurrection and his ascension to heaven; and say that our Lady the Virgin Mary was not the mother of God or a virgin before the nativity and after; who say and affirm many other heretical errors; who state that what they had confessed before the inquisitors was not the truth; who remove their penitential robes and neither remain in the prison nor observe she penance imposed upon them; who say scandalous things against our holy Catholic Faith and against the officials of the Inquisition; or who influence any infidel who might have been drawn towards Catholicism to refrain from converting; who assert that the Holy Sacrament of the altar is not the true body and blood of Jesus Christ our Redeemer, and that God cannot be omnipresent; or any priest holding this damnable opinion, who recites and celebrates the mass, not saying the holy words of the consecration; saying and believing that the law of Mahomet and its rites and ceremonies are good and can bring about their salvation; who affirm that life is but birth and death, and that there is no paradise and no hell; and state that to practise usury is not a sin; if any man whose wife still lives, marries again, or any woman remarries in the lifetime of her first husband; if any know of those who keep Jewish customs, and name their children on the seventh night after their birth and with silver and gold upon a table, pleasurably observe the Jewish ceremony; and if any know that when somebody dies, they place a cup of water and a lighted candle and some napkins where the deceased died, and for some days, do not enter there; if any know of the effort of a Jew or convert, secretly to preach the law of Moses and convert others to this creed, teaching the ceremonies belonging to the same, giving information as to the dates of festivals and fasts, teaching Jewish prayers; if any know of anyone who attempts to become a Jew, or being Christian walks abroad in the costume of a Jew; if any know of anyone, converted or otherwise, who orders that his dress shall he made of canvas and not of linen, as the good Jews do; if any know of those who, when their children kiss their hands, place their hands on the childrens heads without making the Sign (of the Cross); or who, after dinner or supper, bless the wine and pass is to everyone at the table, which blessing is called the veraha; if any know that in any house, people congregate for the purpose of carrying on religious services, or read out of bibles of the vernacular or perform other Judaic ceremonies, and if any know that when someone is about to set out on a journey, certain words of the law of Moses are spoken to him, and a hand placed on his head without making the Sign (of the Cross). And if any know of anyone who has professed the Mosaic creed, or awaited the coming of the Messiah, saying that our Redeemer and Saviour Jesus Christ was not come and that now Elijah was to come and take them to the promised land; and if any know that any person had pretended to go into a trance and wandered in heaven and that an angel had conducted him over green fields and told him that was the promised land which was being saved for all converts whom Elijah was to redeem from the captivity in which they lived; and if any know that any person or persons be children or grandchildren of the condemned, and being disqualified, should make use of public office, or bear arms or wear silk and fine cloth, or ornament their costumes with gold, silver, pearls or other precious stones or coral, or make use of any other thing which they are forbidden and disqualified to have; and if any know that any persons have or possessed any confiscated goods, furniture, money, gold, silver, or other jewels belonging to those condemned for heresy, which should be brought before the receiver of goods confiscated for the crime of heresy. All these things, having been seen, heard or known, you, the above-mentioned faithful Christians, have, with obstinate hearts, refused to declare and manifest, greatly to the burden and prejudice of your souls; thinking that you were absolved by the bulls and indulgences issued by our holy father, and by promises and donations which you had made, for which you have incurred the sentence of excommunication and other grave penalties under statutory law; and thus you may be proceeded against as those who have suffered excommunication and as abettors of heretics, in various ways; but, wishing so act with benevolence, and in order that your souls may not be lost, since our Lord does not wish the death of the sinner but his reformation and life; by these presents, we remove and suspend the censure promulgated by the said former inquisitors against you, so long as you observe and comply with the terms of this our edict, by which we require, exhort and order you, in virtue of the holy obedience, and under penalty of complete excommunication, within nine days from the time that the present edict shall have been read to you, or made known to you in whatsoever manner, to state all that you know, have seen, heard, or heard tell in any manner whatsoever, of the things and ceremonies above-mentioned, and to appear before us personally to declare and manifest what you have seen, heard, or heard tell secretly, without having spoken previously with any other person, or borne false witness against anyone. Otherwise, the period having passed, the canonical admonitions having been repeated in accordance with the law, steps will be taken so give out and promulgate sentence of excommunication against you, in and by these documents; and through such excommunication, we order that you be publicly denounced; and if, after a further period of nine days, you should persist in your rebellion and excommunication, you shall be excommunicated, anathematised, cursed, segregated, and separated as an associate of the devil, from union with and inclusion in the holy Mother-Church, and the sacraments of the same. And we order the vicars, rectors, chaplains, and sacristans and any other religious or ecclesiastical persons to regard and treat the above-mentioned as excommunicated and accursed for having incurred the wrath and indignation of Almighty God, and of the glorious Virgin Mary, His Mother, and of the beatified apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul, and all the saints of the celestial Court; and upon such rebels and disobedient ones who would hide the truth regarding the above-mentioned things, be all the plagues and maledictions which befell and descended upon King Pharaoh and his host for not having obeyed the divine commandments; and the same sentence of divine excommunication encompass them as it encompassed the people of Sodom and Gomorrah who all perished in flames; and of Athan and Abiron who were swallowed up into the earth for the great delinquencies and sins which they committed in disobedience and rebellion against our Lord God; and may they be accursed in eating and drinking, in waking and sleeping, in coming and going. . .

More was done the same in #2 when discussing the lost tribes - and again, plenty others. Thus again, you protest too much if talking on "verbose" but keeping quiet where you gave allowance for yourself elsewhere.

I don't really care whether you're verbose or short - as that's not a barometer for the substance of things. SOme things take more detail to cover fully while others do not - but ultimately, it's the facts that matter. As others have shown before, being brief doesn't make one accurate - nor does being verbose mean nothing was covered.

As others have pointed out, for those who don't read or are not used to actually reading at length consistently/processing quickly - anything beyond a paragraph is "too much" - and that really has nothing to do with what's written as much as learning how to adapt. As it is, should one keep trying to focus on "verbose", the bottom line is that never has it been the case that everything has been long and it has already repeatedly happened that many things brief/short were shared - only to be skipped over.

Others have experienced the same - and thus, it is a moot point talking on length when the real issue is reading/addressing what one doesn't agree with. When something is without fact or basis, whether short or small, it's easy to dismiss it/keep on going - and then focus on the style rather than the content being disagreed on and the preference of those disagreeing as the central issue.

That said,

If my suggestion to you falls on deaf ears, I have noted that it was when Tishri1 asked you to stop... so I am not surprised...

Seeing that your suggestion has also been noted to others - and not suprisingly when you tend to disagree - it is not something very solid, IMHO. Contra experienced this himself years ago and I take that seriously as well as his suggestions/those of several other Messianic Jews who have offered you suggestions as well....specfically on being consistent with the things you may ask of others but do not do yourself when the mood fits ...and not knowing how to really address things properly, short or long, if you tend to want to go with one view you favor.

Concerning your attempt to bring up Tish, you may also note that Tishri also noted directly for personal commentary/seeking that out and you were asked to stop alongside others - multiple times in other interactions. The same also goes for avoding the concept of being charitable/gracious in knowing how to avoid interactions with what you don't like and being fair (seeing the multiple times you've either been silent or given a thumbs up to those who are persistently verbose but saying what you like). This is something others also pointed out to yourself when noting that you alongside others have ALL done the same thing at multiple points - thus leading to the issue of needing to grow in being more charitable universally rather than selective. If what others have said on the matter is ignored, I'm not surprised.

That said, I'd advise you to stop pursuing conversation that borders on personal discussion of posters and is OFF topic to the OP.

visionary · Jan 7, 2013

annier said:
I know that is what they say. Any controversy concerning these things would have been taken care of by the priests. Just like in Ezra and Nehemiahs day. Any question needing to be answered could have been by the urim and thummim. So why would there be a need for the oral Torah?

That is a 3000 year old question when it was illegal to be Torah observant and distance was making consistency difficult... just like the councils Rome has had within itself to try and keep consistency within its kingdom which is spread out far and wide. Every religious organizations believes it helps cohesion within its members.. you know something everyone stands for.. a standardization for beginners and members.

Gxg (G²) · Jan 7, 2013

annier said:
I understand the deal concerning the priesthood in the time of the maccabees. But what I was referring to is the Pharisaical story of the ORIGINS of their oral torah, as well as the purpose of it. They said it was given at Sinai, along with the written law. How could that be so when the priests could consult the urim and thumim?
Why wouldn't the priests have done with their jurisprudence, what the Pharisees say they did with theirs? Write it down before they were taken captive. That is pretty much why the Pharisees say they wrote theirs down. Why wouldn't the priests?

With that in mind, I'm curious if your question was based more so on seeking to make a point -or asking what others thought on it.

The Pharisees themselves were but one school amongst many others in Judaism - each other having a differing form of oral law and some not trusting the Priesthood. And the Pharisees often had others working as well with those in the priesthood - so it would not have been surprising that ideas within oral law were not fought against by people in the Priesthood - and at that point in history, the urim and thumim was not used as much.

Also consider this
Jo 11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

That doesn't really serve to show your point on the Oral Law being in contradiction with the priesthood - as other groups did work together.

Also many of the priests which served in the first temple were present at the rebuilding of the second temple, in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Why would they not know what thier own jurisprudence by urim and thummim was? Could they have written it down then?

Who knows...

annier · Jan 7, 2013

visionary said:
That is a 3000 year old question when it was illegal to be Torah observant and distance was making consistency difficult... just like the councils Rome has had within itself to try and keep consistency within its kingdom which is spread out far and wide. Every religious organizations believes it helps cohesion within its members.. you know something everyone stands for.. a standardization for beginners and members.

I am not understanding how this answers my question? Both traditions were written down. Except the book of decrees was written down first. There were priests and judges all over Israel. Cities of refuge were to be close enough for unintentional bloodsheders to flee to.

pat34lee · Jan 7, 2013

Easy G (G²);62130680 said:
One, which thread are you talking on? Second, where is it the case that disagreeing with a stance someone has is to automatically be deemed "don't offend or teach right and wrong?" For people still take heat teaching that Yeshua is LORD and KING - the way to salvation - and sharing his standards is a big deal today throughout Christendom....and teaching that a Gentile was never called to be circumcised as a Jewish believer was in the OT is not a matter of avoiding "right and wrong" as much as it's a matter of teaching what it right correctly instead of having right desire and yet teaching wrong concepts - as many do in their zeal of looking throughout the OT/assuming all commands given at Sinai for the Hebrews were meant for Gentiles and basically trying to get all to do so without understanding the context - the distinctions, sub-laws and categories.

Third, as it concerns the Messianic at the convocation, a big question to ask is where does it say at any point a Christian is to not be involved in civil life? For it's easy to focus on an invocation - but it can be selective if only that the invocation of the president currently isn't to be attended - and yet all others before are different.

I bolded the parts of the quote that I was talking about.

No longer teaching that it is a sin for Gentiles to fail to keep the commandments of circumcision, Sabbath, festivals, and Leviticus 11 dietary standards.

Sin is failure to obey the Torah. Since these are part of Torah commands, failure to do them is sin. Churches teach that following salvation, you basically can coast through life without further effort on your part. Being saved does not exempt us from learning continually and growing in spirit. As we study, we learn the Torah. As we learn Torah, we must apply it. As we apply Torah, we grow.

As far as the invocation, I would be surprised if there are not at least two conditions. It must not offend, and must be approved by Obama's pro-Muslim, anti-Jewish people before it can be given. Also, I wonder, which names will he use? Yeshua or Jesus, and God, Yahweh or hashem? Will he go with generic father (more inclusive)? If he mentions terrorism, will he bring up Islam as the problem? I can see many ways he can compromise the message, and few where he will not.

annier · Jan 7, 2013

Easy G (G²);62131028 said:
With that in mind, I'm curious if your question was based more so on seeking to make a point -or asking what others thought on it.

The Pharisees themselves were but one school amongst many others in Judaism - each other having a differing form of oral law and some not trusting the Priesthood. And the Pharisees often had others working as well with those in the priesthood - so it would not have been surprising that ideas within oral law were not fought against by people in the Priesthood - and at that point in history, the urim and thumim was not used as much.

That doesn't really serve to show your point on the Oral Law being in contradiction with the priesthood - as other groups did work together.
Who knows...

Actually it is the Pharisees which abolished it because they disageed with it. We only are aware of it because they mention it. I was asking the questin concerning the origins of oral law. Yes what do others think of it with the understanding that the priests, did have the urim and the thummim to settle issues of controvery. It is a question yes. Because nobody ever seems to take that into account.

visionary · Jan 7, 2013

annier said:
I am not understanding how this answers my question? Both traditions were written down. Except the book of decrees was written down first. There were priests and judges all over Israel. Cities of refuge were to be close enough for unintentional bloodsheders to flee to.

answer... FOR Cohesiveness with the community..... In the beginning when the Direct communication was through the priest's stones on an issue, not directly mentioned in the law of Moses, it was easy to determine what God wanted. When that was no longer available, then the council of priest/judges had to be trusted on answering the hard questions as they dedicated their lives to the law of Moses study, then the king/and his council on the rulership of the kingdom, and without a king when they came back from Babylon the oral traditions that they had clung was to keep the coherency within the community. It was something that was hotly debated between the two schools of thought, Pharisee and Sadducee, by the time Yeshua came on board and which He addressed on numerous issues. So the accumulation was gathered and written down long after Yeshua died, the temple was taken away, and the people scattered to again continue with a coherence which has lasted through all kinds of persecutions. And this is why the Jews felt a need for Oral Torah. I hope that helps. It is their answer to "how, what, when, where and why" in living in obedience to God's commands. To make a fence around His commands, to further protect the people from inadvertently breaking His laws, and it is their faith now a part of their community lifestyle to do so.

Gxg (G²) · Jan 7, 2013

annier said:
Actually it is the Pharisees which abolished it because they disageed with it. We only are aware of it because they mention it..

That is already acknowledged - but as said before, there were other groups in Judaism who also said things - and none of that is seeming to be addressed in your comments. If we're going to talk about the Pharisees, we first need reference/resource for confirmation - and then secondly, we need to address what the other camps in Judaism said counter to that. As it is, the Pharisees were not in charge of the Priesthood - but rather, it was the Sadducees.

I was asking the questin concerning the origins of oral law. Yes what do others think of it with the understanding that the priests, did have the urim and the thummim to settle issues of controvery.

It is a question yes. Because nobody ever seems to take that into account

Anyone studying what happened in the Maccabees account is well aware of how the priesthood got changed - and how oral law shifted as well.
There was excellent discussion on the issue (including the ways that Judaism after/during the Maccabean Revolt managed to find ways of utilizing Hellenization to their advantage by making it fit a Judaic perspective) as seen in the book entitled In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. The Maccabean fighters, who eventually established the Hasmonean kingdom, were themselves influenced deeply by Hellenism - with later generations finding many positive benefits from it as a result (more shared here /here). Of course, other negatives occurred as well. With Hannakuh, In the battle against Hellenism invaiding the Temple, there was a major victory at restoring Torah instruction to Temple services. The success of the victory did seem to come at the expense of some blessings....and other things that the other nations around them supported.

Gxg (G²) · Jan 7, 2013

pat34lee said:
I bolded the parts of the quote that I was talking about.

No longer teaching that it is a sin for Gentiles to fail to keep the commandments of circumcision, Sabbath, festivals, and Leviticus 11 dietary standards.

Sin is failure to obey the Torah. Since these are part of Torah commands, failure to do them is sin. .

The things they mentioned, however, have nothing to do with commands that the Lord gave in the TOrah for Gentiles - and that has been noted by Messianic Jews for centuries. To say that they were required (i.e."Gentiles MUST be circumcised for approval before the Lord" or "The Festivals were given to Gentiles and not just Israel!!!") goes directly counter to the Lord in what He noted - and as it's not historically accurate, it'd be a sin to demand Gentiles fall in line. The early Jewish body of believers from the 1st century noted the same.

Churches teach that following salvation, you basically can coast through life without further effort on your part. Being saved does not exempt us from learning continually and growing in spirit.

Never has it been the case that Churches in general teach that you're simply to coast through life - as that's a rather new development over the last couple of decades. The focus has always been following Yeshua in what He commanded of his followers and what the epistles lay out - with Jude often being refernenced when it comes to turning the Grace of God into a liscense to sin/do immorality and other scriptures addressed such as I Corinthians 5 or I Corinthians 10 and many others on living Holy for the Lord.

As we study, we learn the Torah. As we learn Torah, we must apply it. As we apply Torah, we grow.

Applying the Torah also requires studying it in context and applying it where the Lord - NOT ourselves - said things were to apply. Many do not do that.

As far as the invocation, I would be surprised if there are not at least two conditions. It must not offend, and must be approved by Obama's pro-Muslim, anti-Jewish people before it can be given.

Also, I wonder, which names will he use? Yeshua or Jesus, and God, Yahweh or hashem? Will he go with generic father (more inclusive)? If he mentions terrorism, will he bring up Islam as the problem? I can see many ways he can compromise the message, and few where he will not

Seeing that multiple Jewish groups/organizations around the world have long supported the president and numerous Muslim groups have had beef with him for where he supports Jewish groups, I don't see any real evidence whatsoever that what is said at convocation is a matter of somehow not "offending" anymore than any other convocation - and again, for consistency, one must be willing to say the same for ALL convocations rather than one if it's something to be made an issue. If the Messianic speaking says Yeshua instead of Jesus or God instead of Hashem, that's not really consequential to the fact that he's speaking of the Lord/pointing others to Him.....and setting the example of what other believers have done throughout history when it comes to working in government. With Terrorism, it'd be foolish to focus on Islam as if IT is the problem rather than people - for there's terrorism all over and no one has the lock on it.

pat34lee · Jan 7, 2013

yedida said:
Much of the oral law is the determining things such as "what is work on the Shabbat," "how to place these words on our doorposts and gates, and which words specifically," "how to place these words as frontlets on our foreheads," "how to make sure we don't boil a kid in its mother's milk and how to avoid taking part in such a thing." All these things needed to be figured out, and this is just a blink in what knowledge is needed to keep Torah as properly as possible. So many things are not explained in the Scriptures but it's believed that Moses was told these things while there with Hashem on Mt. Sinai.

While people still pass on that bit about the oral laws coming from Moses, I don't think many still believe it. It came from Babylon, where the rabbis first began to gain power as a group. Most of the regulations and traditions in it are newer than Yeshua's day. Many were not settled until the middle ages and after (the kippa and milk/meat for example). The rabbis of Yeshua's day and after would have had no more idea what the Urim and Thummin were than anyone else.

If a command in the Torah could be fulfilled in several ways, like that of putting the words on your doorposts, why believe that only the rabbinic way is correct? And the frontlets should be between our eyes, not on the forehead.

visionary · Jan 7, 2013

Easy G (G²);62131090 said:
The things they mentioned, however, have nothing to do with commands that the Lord gave in the TOrah for Gentiles - and that has been noted by Messianic Jews for centuries. To say that they were required (i.e."Gentiles MUST be circumcised for approval before the Lord" or "The Festivals were given to Gentiles and not just Israel!!!") goes directly counter to the Lord in what He noted - and as it's not historically accurate, it'd be a sin to demand Gentiles fall in line.

Passover does require strangers within thy gates to be circumcised to participate, that is a law of the Lord

The early Jewish body of believers from the 1st century noted the same.
Never has it been the case that Churches in general teach that you're simply to coast through life - as that's a rather new development over the last couple of decades. The focus has always been following Yeshua in what He commanded of his followers and what the epistles lay out - with Jude often being refernenced when it comes to turning the Grace of God into a liscense to sin/do immorality and other scriptures addressed such as I Corinthians 5 or I Corinthians 10 and many others on living Holy for the Lord.Applying the Torah also requires studying it in context and applying it where the Lord - NOT ourselves - said things were to apply. Many do not do that.
Seeing that multiple Jewish groups/organizations around the world have long supported the president and numerous Muslim groups have had beef with him for where he supports Jewish groups, I don't see any real evidence whatsoever that what is said at convocation is a matter of somehow not "offending" anymore than any other convocation - and again, for consistency, one must be willing to say the same for ALL convocations rather than one if it's something to be made an issue. If the Messianic speaking says Yeshua instead of Jesus or God instead of Hashem, that's not really consequential to the fact that he's speaking of the Lord/pointing others to Him.....and setting the example of what other believers have done throughout history when it comes to working in government. With Terrorism, it'd be foolish to focus on Islam as if IT is the problem rather than people - for there's terrorism all over and no one has the lock on it.

which is a whole another topic that could use a thread of its own...

Gxg (G²) · Jan 7, 2013

visionary said:
Passover does require strangers within thy gates to be circumcised to participate, that is a law of the Lord .

Contextually, that was something based on OPTIONAL action.

In Exodus 12, a mixed multitude had gone out of Egypt with Moses. YHVH, now has to bring the entire group back toward righteousness. In Exodus 12:43, the command is that no foreigner is to eat the Passover lamb. But Exodus 12:44 provides an expanded guidance that those "in your house" - that is, those whom are bound to you (such as slaves)- must then "do as you do" - and they should be circumcised. Verses 45 and 48 make this even clearer as (45) "neither a traveler nor a hired servant may eat it" and (48) "If a foreigner staying with you wants to observe ADONAI's Pesach, all his males must be circumcised. Then he may take part and observe it; he will be like a citizen of the land. But no uncircumcised person is to eat it."

In these verses, you can see two types of people. First, there is the Isra'eli, who is already obedient and Torah observant; and then there are those who are volunteering to be obedient to YHVH - choosing YHVH over the other "gods" of the mixed multitude. That second group, we are told (Exodus 12:48) are "like a citizen of the land."

THE COMMAND: They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. (Exodus 12:8).

THE PROHIBITION: If a resident alien shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as the native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. (Exodus 12:48).

THE MISUSED VERSE: There shall be one law for the native and the resident alien who sojourns among you. (Exodus 12:49).

THE UNAVOIDABLE CONCLUSION: “One law” does not mean “there is no difference in Torah for Jews and gentiles.”

In regards to what occurs for today, there is no prohibition against non-Jews joining in the Passover Seder. At the Passover Seder, we do not “eat the Passover.” How can I say that? “The Passover” is “the flesh . . . roasted” mentioned in Exodus 12:8. It is a form of the peace offering (see Leviticus 3). In a peace offering, the organ fat (suet), the fatty tail of the species of sheep used in Israel, and the kidneys are burned on the altar to God and the rest of the offering is eaten by the worshipper and those who join the feast in the household. The priest gets the breast and the right thigh (see Lev 7:30-35).

Eating the peace offering is a covenant ceremony between the worshippers and God. The burnt (or whole) offering and the peace (or fellowship or well-being) offering are the oldest forms of sacrifice and were practiced in the days of the Patriarchs.

Peace offerings are brought for specific purposes. So one kind is called a thanksgiving offering (Lev 7:12-15) and another a freewill or votive offering (Lev 7:16-18).

The Passover sacrifice is a peace offering with a specific purpose. It is brought out of thanksgiving for being redeemed from Egypt. Why is it wrong for a gentile to eat the Passover sacrifice, the sanctified meat from which the blood has been sprinkled on the holy altar and the perpetual portion given to the priest? It is because God did not redeem all persons from slavery in Egypt, but only the Israelites. (Note: the presence of others, the famous “mixed multitude,” does not change the fact that scores of times scripture says the Exodus was for the Israelites and was personal between the people of Israel and God).

It would be hollow for a ceremony to occur where a non-Israelite ate the sacred food and said, “Thank you, O Lord, for setting me free from the bonds of Egypt.” God did not set all peoples free from Egypt, but only Israel. I am talking about the literal sense, of course, as it is true that spiritually God sets all people free from the “Egypt of sin and guilt,” if they come to him in faith.

Circumcision in Torah brings a non-Jew into the household (“both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised,” (Gen 17:13)). As Exodus 12:48 shows, by being circumcised, a non-Jew becomes part of the people Israel, and can partake in the spiritual history by saying at Passover, “Thank you, O Lord, for bringing me out of Egypt.” Circumcision is what today we call “conversion” (a term which confuses people since we think in terms of religious conversion instead of national or ethnic conversion). Once circumcised, it is not unfitting for a resident alien to join in with Israel in eating the Passover and declaring personal history with God. The people of Israel have become his or her people. The experiences of the nation Israel have become part of his or her past too, since he or she now belongs to the nation.

A non-Jew may draw near to the people of Israel and keep Torah alongside but should not blur the covenant identity and destiny of the people of Israel by acting in a very shallow manner as if everything in the Torah applies equally to non-Jews. A non-Jew who desires to keep Sabbath is invited to do so. And they do not have to convert. Sabbath is not prohibited to non-Jews. It seems from various prophetic scriptures as if all nations will keep Sabbath in the days of Messiah - and Isaiah 58 does give some info on the issue of how Gentiles wishing to do so would be blessed. Indeed, there are many good and valid reasons a non-Jew may want to keep a Judaic form of faith in Messiah, including Sabbath. But anyone who thinks that God will only accept them if they adopt Israel’s customs, such as Sabbath, is living “another gospel,” as Paul says so clearly (Gal 1:6).

The Isra'eli (today commonly referred to as the "Jew") who is circumcised at birth has no choice in his circumcision, but still has to choose to be obedient to the Word, otherwise his circumcision is "nothing." Similarly, for the Gentile, he should not be circumcised for the sake of being circumcised (1 Cor 7:18-19). For both, the key is to keep YHVH's commands (but willingly, not by rote or by tradition.) (1 Cor 7:19.)

And ultimately, Yeshua is our true Passover Lamb - with His actions altering the way it was done when compared to the NT (more shared here ).

annier · Jan 7, 2013

Easy G (G²);62131075 said:
That is already acknowledged - but as said before, there were other groups in Judaism who also said things - and none of that is seeming to be addressed in your comments. If we're going to talk about the Pharisees, we first need reference/resource for confirmation - and then secondly, we need to address what the other camps in Judaism said counter to that. As it is, the Pharisees were not in charge of the Priesthood - but rather, it was the Sadducees.

I am not getting your point here. There were no Sadducees at Sinai. Nor Pharisees. Yet, the Pharisees say oral law was given then.
Before the corruption of the priesthood etc. Why would it need to be given if the priests had the Urim and thummim? That was the question. But this probably taking this thread off track. You say I have not mentioned other groups. This is true because I am not privy to other groups having spoken to this issue. That's why the questions.
I will take a look at your links later. I think the Pharisees and Sadducees SHARED alot of similar understanding of the law. I think it is possible some their tradition (oral law) came from those ancient decisions. But I do not know because it is never spoken of, other than the Pharisees themselves. They diverged however in this book of manner of punishment of the guilty.

pat34lee · Jan 7, 2013

Easy G (G²);62131090 said:
The things they mentioned, however, have nothing to do with commands that the Lord gave in the TOrah for Gentiles - and that has been noted by Messianic Jews for centuries. To say that they were required (i.e."Gentiles MUST be circumcised for approval before the Lord" or "The Festivals were given to Gentiles and not just Israel!!!") goes directly counter to the Lord in what He noted - and as it's not historically accurate, it'd be a sin to demand Gentiles fall in line. The early Jewish body of believers from the 1st century noted the same.
Never has it been the case that Churches in general teach that you're simply to coast through life - as that's a rather new development over the last couple of decades. The focus has always been following Yeshua in what He commanded of his followers and what the epistles lay out - with Jude often being refernenced when it comes to turning the Grace of God into a liscense to sin/do immorality and other scriptures addressed such as I Corinthians 5 or I Corinthians 10 and many others on living Holy for the Lord.Applying the Torah also requires studying it in context and applying it where the Lord - NOT ourselves - said things were to apply. Many do not do that.
Seeing that multiple Jewish groups/organizations around the world have long supported the president and numerous Muslim groups have had beef with him for where he supports Jewish groups, I don't see any real evidence whatsoever that what is said at convocation is a matter of somehow not "offending" anymore than any other convocation - and again, for consistency, one must be willing to say the same for ALL convocations rather than one if it's something to be made an issue. If the Messianic speaking says Yeshua instead of Jesus or God instead of Hashem, that's not really consequential to the fact that he's speaking of the Lord/pointing others to Him.....and setting the example of what other believers have done throughout history when it comes to working in government. With Terrorism, it'd be foolish to focus on Islam as if IT is the problem rather than people - for there's terrorism all over and no one has the lock on it.

There are nations, then there are YHWH's people. Two different groups. When we accept Yeshua, we become YHWH's people, and come under his law. The problem in the NT wasn't circumcision but conversion. The Judaizers were trying to force the gentiles to convert to Judaism before being accepted. Paul fought that, saying they would learn Torah at the synagogues and apply the learning, not be forced to follow rules they didn't understand yet.

Just because Jewish organizations support Obama does not make him worthy of that support. Many of these organizations support the liberals and democrats even though that erodes US support for Israel directly. Obama is the worst anti-Israel President we've had since Carter. If he has his way, Israel will be split, and open to attack from within on most major cities.

The names he uses and what he says will be a big deal in the invocation. As a messianic, he should know the names, so it comes to whether he will call on them. I can imagine that some Jewish organizations will be offended if he calls on Yahweh or Yahuah, and Yeshua or Yahushua.

While Islam is not the only source of terrorism, it is the major one today. As it is religiously based, I don't see it stopping until or unless they are forced to teach and learn other ways. Basically, outlawing the sects of Islam that teach terrorism.

yedida · Jan 7, 2013

annier said:
Actually it is the Pharisees which abolished it because they disageed with it. We only are aware of it because they mention it. I was asking the questin concerning the origins of oral law. Yes what do others think of it with the understanding that the priests, did have the urim and the thummim to settle issues of controvery. It is a question yes. Because nobody ever seems to take that into account.

Do you not figure that the Urim/Thummim could pretty much only be used when only 2 answers were available? Either yes or no, east or west, north or south, live or die, hot dog or hamburger, house or apartment, Ford or Toyota - a 3rd option could not be a possibility. That's why the oral Torah. Most things in life have numerous possibibities due to circumstantial considerations. The Oral Torah was the way to find their way through these disputes, it offered ground work on making important decisions.

Divine Invitation

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

annier

Guest

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

annier

Guest

Messianic

annier

Guest

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Messianic

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

annier

Guest

Messianic

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency