Divine Invitation

[Gxg (G²)]

There was a video posted some time ago that got removed. The essence of the video compared Torah positive to those that observe that aren't Torah positive. It looks like FFOZ has moved more to this but not all the way. FFOZ doesn't say that non Jews shouldn't observe they moved away from the One Law approach.

FFOZ has indeed supported an ideology that goes away from the One Law approach - although they also seem to support the concept of having Jew/Gentile communities being different. That one seems more than logical and no different than being in a Hispanic community and setting up Hispanic based churches while those in Asian communities do the same - each focusing on how to reach the unique needs of their community. A lot of people see this and assume it's like some type of segregation like we're in the South during the 1900s with "Colored Only Fountains" - but I think that's ludicrous when considering that communities set up around certain groups are a way of doing missionary work - and to a degree, you are going to have some level of seperation. People tend to automatically assume that any type of fellowship geared toward the make - up of one group being reached is AUTOMATICALLY an error - and whenever there's reference to what happened in the Civil Rights era/segregation, I tend to think it's an insult to blacks who actually went through things. They didn't fight so that there could no longer be such a thing as The Black Church/churches uniquely geared toward black communities - nor did they fight in order to ensure that all White churches had to adopt black styles/forms of worship in their services in every white community. They were fighting against things such as inequality in the workplace/voting, harrassment in their communities - and the fear of systematic terrorism in many ways (i.e. Mobs, lynchings, sexual exploitation, not being paid fair wages, etc.). Even Dr.Martin Luther King discussed this issue in-depth.

Anyone aware of his direct words at the Rabbinical Assembly in March of 1968 is aware of his willingness for seperatism. Ten days before his death, King argued before the convention of the Rabbinical Assembly that "temporary segregation" -- the maintenance of certain exclusively black schools and businesses, for example -- may be necessary to prevent the loss of economic power that could result from complete integration. And in the last year of his life, King planned the Poor People's March, uniting poor blacks, whites, Latinos and native Americans in a multiracial coalition that sought to challenge the unfair distribution of wealth, employment and education. He made very plain he was for seperatism at one point when it was apparent that whites would not help the black community - arguing that a temporary segregation was necessary for blacks to take care of themselves in the absence of help from the government/larger community. While he rejected seperatism as the ultimate goal, he was very concerned with being integrated out of power.... and it is intellectually dishonest to try arguing otherwise. With Martin, although he disagreed with the stances of other black nationalists like Malcom X on many things, he later started to have a convergence with his views as time progresssed - be it his advocating black nationalism, seperatism (due to seeing the majority white culture seem not interested in really helping blacks and not aware of how to do so ) or things such as denouncing the racism in white society as Malcom X did. Malcom X also had convergence on views as well in his latte years - more discussed here directly on the matter.


I seriously think it's a grave injustice (and a real lack of understanding history) in trivializing what others went through in that era when trying to use their struggle as a pretext for saying that all Messianic Communities are somehow supporting the evils of "segregation" that they experienced simply because there's notice in the Messianic community to have sub-groups geared toward others in outreach. Being One People in the Lord - as Ephesians 2, Ephesians 4, I Corinthians 12 and Romans 16 (on how the Gentiles could bless the Jews) doesn't equate to looking the same - nor does it equate to solidarity in lifestyle. Never was the case within the Hebrew culture or the times of Christ - and it will never will be.
.
What many often forget is that you can have unity WITHIN diversity

Those in diverse communities which wish to come together have the freedom to do so - and many have done just that, with Gentiles and Jews knowing how to work together/seeing that the needs of both are met in their fellowships (like the Church in Antioch in Acts 11). On the same token, those fellowships also give freedom for others when in territory with a dominant make-up - no different than Acts 6 when those who were Hellenized Jews were chosen to do ministry amongst the other Hellenized Jews because those who did not come from that background did not know how to relate. More was shared more in-depth in another thread entitled Missionary Work in NY ( more shared here in #261, #266 #and 270 )

 

[mishkan]

Hope it helps.

Awesome review.

I maintain a blog where I plan to eventually post my thoughts on the book in an article. I may contact you for further input.

Thanks for inspiring me today.

I actually agree with Kinzer in large part... when he is talking about continued need for Jewish engagement with Torah in real life.

However, I think he utterly fails to acknowledge the implications of Gentile solidarity in a single "people of God", as described in Romans 11, Ephesians 2, etc. The intimacy of the metaphors used to describe the unity of the people of God are all lost in bi-polar... er, bi-lateral ecclesiology. You can't have terms like "one body", "one family", "one Temple", "one tree", and still make sense of such a dysfunctional separation.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Awesome review.

I maintain a blog where I plan to eventually post my thoughts on the book in an article. I may contact you for further input.

Thanks for inspiring me today.

I actually agree with Kinzer in large part... when he is talking about continued need for Jewish engagement with Torah in real life.

However, I think he utterly fails to acknowledge the implications of Gentile solidarity in a single "people of God", as described in Romans 11, Ephesians 2, etc. The intimacy of the metaphors used to describe the unity of the people of God are all lost in bi-polar... er, bi-lateral ecclesiology. You can't have terms like "one body", "one family", "one Temple", "one tree", and still make sense of such a dysfunctional separation.

One faith, one Lord, one baptism, two Laws, two ecclesias, and a partridge in a pear tree.

 

[macher]

My concern is 'How much of Kinzer has/will FFOZ adopt?'

I read Kinzer's bookPost Missionary Messianic Judaism, and he ends up saying Gentiles in the Messianic movement should go back to church and leave Messianic Judaism to Jews.

I previously summarized his book on this forum. Here is the link to that thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t6166901/

I'm waiting for either a PDF or Kindle version of 'Tent of David'. In the intro video from what I heard was that Boaz wants to talk about the co-existence of the Church and the Messianic Jewish synagogue.

I don't have a problem with that. The co-existence is for a reason. MUST Jews or Gentiles come into Messianic Judaism or the Church? No of course not but I do believe the Church should be educated and realize their Jewish roots and be Israel positive and be educated as such. I go to a church on occasion and once a month someone from Friends of Israel speaks there and educates. FoI does Passover Seders all over as an example.

There are many churches that I see that are realizing that Israel and Jews play an important role.

I hope that Boaz covers this in the book. 'Not all Churches are bad'.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm waiting for either a PDF or Kindle version of 'Tent of David'. In the intro video from what I heard was that Boaz wants to talk about the co-existence of the Church and the Messianic Jewish synagogue.

I don't have a problem with that. The co-existence is for a reason. MUST Jews or Gentiles come into Messianic Judaism or the Church? No of course not but I do believe the Church should be educated and realize their Jewish roots and be Israel positive and be educated as such. I go to a church on occasion and once a month someone from Friends of Israel speaks there and educates. FoI does Passover Seders all over as an example.

There are many churches that I see that are realizing that Israel and Jews play an important role.

I hope that Boaz covers this in the book. 'Not all Churches are bad'.

Looking forward to the read by Boaz - as it seems very engaging. And there've been good reviews on the issue from one of the Messianic posters who used to be here back in the day:

• Tent of David: Returning to Faith
• Tent of David: Return of the Christian
• Tent of David | Morning Meditationshttps://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/h...lse&aff_id=0&locale=en_us&ui=1&os_ver=6.1.1.0</DIV>

On the rest of what you noted, those were a lot of good points. As co-existence does not logically equate to conformity/looking the same across the board - and that is something that the Jewish community has noted to be a big deal for a long time. Both sides need to educated - but there has never been anything scriptural (or historical, for that matter) of saying that both sides should look uniform. Unless, of course, one claims that to be identified with the Hebrew/Jewish people in support necessitates that one live as them - whereas those who are Gentiles cannot live out what they're called to in their own culture (and even Paul discussed that in I Corinthians 7 in "Remain where you are before you were called"). It's easier to exalt a form of ministry above the principle...

We see the same dynamics in Native American culture when they have fellowships geared toward what they experience in their own world and knowing how to do outreach - and other Messianic Jews have often supported what they do (from the dances to the forms of conveying stories/truth and other things) just as they appreciate support when it comes to doing things in a Jewish context. Trying to get both sides to be like the other and saying it's somehow against what it means to be "One New Man" isn't what the Torah ever advocated or what early Jewish communities did in the 1st Century Body of Believers.

I loved what Q shared on the issue:

You don't have to act like a Jew to be a believer in Yeshua. I don't have to act like a Gentile to be a believer in Yeshua. The body of Messiah is made up of people from all different languages, cultures, etc. People from diverse groups don't have to act Jewish. I don't have to act Native American, but I can enjoy their music and culture. If I do try to act Native American, it falls short as I am only imitating them the way I think I see what Native Americans say, do, and act . ( I use Native American because my spouses side has some Native Americans. I have gone to Native American believers pow wows. Very different then Jewish cultural worship of Yeshua, and very beautiful. I really enjoyed it, even though I am not Native American. Some of us actually had a joint worship service, Jewish and Native American. It was great. The shofar was blown with tom toms being played alongside).

body.

I know of Native Americans who meet together and worship in a Native American way. The music is more Native American style, and they will play songs with Native American words. They will dance Native American style dances. A group of Cree will sometimes meet with us, and then our services will be a mixture of First Nation (Canadian terminology for Native American), and Jewish. Messianic Jews will beat the tom toms and Cree will blow the shofar, with worship music alternating between Jewish and Cree.

I have attended a French speaking church.

I have never attended a Black church but understand from TV, that the style of preaching and interaction with the audience appears to be different.

I have visited with a church in the U.S. which was predominantly Korean, and joined them for lunch. That was different and greatly enjoyable.

The point is, certain assemblies are ethnically or racially separated because of the language, culture etc. That does not mean that we are spiritually separated. We are one body, with a lot of diversity. I actually enjoy worshipping with the various other cultures, but generally speaking, probably would not become a permanent member of say the Korean church.

Most churches in the U.S. are based on a Gentile U.S. culture. I have found most do not realize that they are more culturally Gentile. They have had a bit of trouble understanding my Jewish cultural ways. And there are certain things done in many Christian churches which bother me, but Gentiles see no problems and don't understand my concern. It is not that we are separate spiritually, but culturally, we are

 

[mishkan]

In the intro video from what I heard was that Boaz wants to talk about the co-existence of the Church and the Messianic Jewish synagogue.


I don't have a problem with that.

I do.

The co-existence is for a reason.

So Paul got it all wrong, then? No unity? No single body of Messiah? No ingrafting in the one tree?

What reason do you suppose would justify/necessitate a divided body?

MUST Jews or Gentiles come into Messianic Judaism or the Church? No of course not

You lose me, here. Are you suggesting that lone-ranger style isolationism is a valid option?

I do believe the Church should be educated and realize their Jewish roots and be Israel positive and be educated as such.

Good... as far as it goes. But I think it misses the whole point that Messiah is the King of Israel. If you're going to claim to follow the King, then your trajectory must be towards integrating with the Kingdom of the King--Israel.

I go to a church on occasion and once a month someone from Friends of Israel speaks there and educates. FoI does Passover Seders all over as an example.

That's a nice start. But you still have to wrangle with the fact--absolute fact--of anti-Israel bias that is a fundamental component of all Christian theologies.

There are many churches that I see that are realizing that Israel and Jews play an important role.

Yes, but they do so in spite of their theology, not because of it. Eventually, we have to acknowledge that the King is the King of Israel. He made no other claim.

I hope that Boaz covers this in the book. 'Not all Churches are bad'.

I wouldn't call them bad. But modern Christians only get a pass because there is 1700 years of self-imposed communal ignorance coming from their top-level theologians. It is the job of Messianic Judaism to raise the clarion call that,

"If you claim to serve the God of Israel and the King of Israel, then you must get with the Israeli program--including Torah observance and rewriting the theological frameworks in Israeli/Jewish terms."
​

 

[macher]

So Paul got it all wrong, then? No unity? No single body of Messiah? No ingrafting in the one tree?

What reason do you suppose would justify/necessitate a unified body?

Well some churches believe they are grafted in. And there are a lot more that don't.

Are you suggesting that the ones that realize they are grafted into the commonwealth go into Messianic Judaism?

And what level do you suggest we gauge a Church when they realize they are grafted in?

Yes, but they do so in spite of their theology, not because of it. Eventually, we have to acknowledge that the King is the King of Israel. He made no other claim.

Just like we ask that others don't paint a general picture of Messianic Judaism, we shouldn't paint a stereo-typical picture of Churches. As there are Churches that acknowledge the King is King of Israel.

So I ask you, are these Churches suppose to come into Messianic Judaism or become Messianic Jewish synagogues?

 

[mishkan]

My apologies. I just realized I had a typo in my post that might alter how you respond. I asked for reasons to justify a "unified" body. That was a Freudian slip. I mean to ask what would necessitate a divided body.

I'll wait a few minutes and see if you want to make any changes as a result of this edit.

 

[macher]

My apologies. I just realized I had a typo in my post that might alter how you respond. I asked for reasons to justify a "unified" body. That was a Freudian slip. I mean to ask what would necessitate a divided body.

I'll wait a few minutes and see if you want to make any changes as a result of this edit.

My point is 'it is what it is' and God will deal with it. My point isn't to discuss what necessitate a divided body.

It's certainly divided if Churches are supercessional. My point is what about the Churches that aren't

 

[yedida]

My point is 'it is what it is' and God will deal with it. My point isn't to discuss what necessitate a divided body.

It's certainly divided if Churches are supercessional. My point is what about the Churches that aren't

If those in the church are not walking in first century Judaism that Yeshua taught then, no, they would not fall into the frame of Messianic Judaism, they are but a western Christian church. Keep in mind that Yeshua taught nothing but Torah and he never intended starting a new religion.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

My point is 'it is what it is' and God will deal with it. My point isn't to discuss what necessitate a divided body.

It is interesting to consider the sect/school of thought within Judaism that Yeshua taught - consistent with Hilel. For although he was not about useless division, he was not against seperate communities on differing levels. He never said anyone of the Gentiles had to be like the Jews in order to know the Messiah (even as he said he came for the "Lost Sheep of Israel"/reached out to them first and Gentiles second ..more in #11 ) - nor did he at any point during his missionary endeavors with the Samaritans (Luke 9, Luke 17, John 4, etc.) ever advocate for the Samaritans to become Jewish in all aspects of life. Jews stayed Jews and Samaritans stayed Samaritan (unless either side wished to join the other/become like them ) - all in the Unity of following Messiah...and the early Jewish body of the 1st century had the same mindset.

Unity within Diversity is a theme very prevalent throughout scripture - and for Churches today reaching out to Gentiles while other Messianic synagouges reach out to the Jewish people, they are walking out exactly what Yeshua and the Apostles practiced.

 

[macher]

If those in the church are not walking in first century Judaism that Yeshua taught then, no, they would not fall into the frame of Messianic Judaism, they are but a western Christian church. Keep in mind that Yeshua taught nothing but Torah and he never intended starting a new religion.

Yeshua's ministry was to the lost sheep of Israel and that's the context of His ministry. The non Jews He encountered He said He never saw such faith in all of Israel...That's Judaism.

 

[yedida]

Yeshua's ministry was to the lost sheep of Israel and that's the context of His ministry. The non Jews He encountered He said He never saw such faith in all of Israel...That's Judaism.

He said that of one man. And who's to say we're to take that as literally as we have. I know I've often said things such as 'I've never seen anything like that before!' to describe how great or terrible one thing was, but it certainly wasn't meant to be understood literally, why not Yeshua in a moment of approval?

 

[annier]

I do.



So Paul got it all wrong, then? No unity? No single body of Messiah? No ingrafting in the one tree?

What reason do you suppose would justify/necessitate a divided body?



You lose me, here. Are you suggesting that lone-ranger style isolationism is a valid option?



Good... as far as it goes. But I think it misses the whole point that Messiah is the King of Israel. If you're going to claim to follow the King, then your trajectory must be towards integrating with the Kingdom of the King--Israel.



That's a nice start. But you still have to wrangle with the fact--absolute fact--of anti-Israel bias that is a fundamental component of all Christian theologies.



Yes, but they do so in spite of their theology, not because of it. Eventually, we have to acknowledge that the King is the King of Israel. He made no other claim.



I wouldn't call them bad. But modern Christians only get a pass because there is 1700 years of self-imposed communal ignorance coming from their top-level theologians. It is the job of Messianic Judaism to raise the clarion call that,

"If you claim to serve the God of Israel and the King of Israel, then you must get with the Israeli program--including Torah observance and rewriting the theological frameworks in Israeli/Jewish terms."
​

I am wondering about your usage of the king of Israel?

Where is the concept of Melchizedek? The priest king, the king of righteousness. this is he which is King of kings, Lord of Lords? God is the God of all men, the judge of ALL THE EARTH.

 

[macher]

He said that of one man. And who's to say we're to take that as literally as we have. I know I've often said things such as 'I've never seen anything like that before!' to describe how great or terrible one thing was, but it certainly wasn't meant to be understood literally, why not Yeshua in a moment of approval?

Well you have to regard the context of who He was speaking too. Yeshua's ministry was to lost sheep of Israel. He even to obey those that sit in Moses Seat. He was directing to obey those that sit in Moses Seat to Jews. Non Jews wouldn't be 'subject' to.

So the trick is since His ministry when He walked the Earth was to Israel can you apply what He said to the specific audience to non Jews? Not necessarily. When the Gentiles were being saved there were Apostle's who were given authority to preach and teach the Gentiles. The Gospel started with Israel then after His resurrection it also went out to the Gentiles.

 

[annier]

Well you have to regard the context of who He was speaking too. Yeshua's ministry was to lost sheep of Israel. He even to obey those that sit in Moses Seat. He was directing to obey those that sit in Moses Seat to Jews. Non Jews wouldn't be 'subject' to.

So the trick is since His ministry when He walked the Earth was to Israel can you apply what He said to the specific audience to non Jews? Not necessarily. When the Gentiles were being saved there were Apostle's who were given authority to preach and teach the Gentiles. The Gospel started with Israel then after His resurrection it also went out to the Gentiles.

Well said. It is quite clear that the Apostles to the Jews understood themselves to be just that from the beginning. Since they were quite stunned to have Cornelius, to receive repentance unto life. There had been no understanding that Gentiles were a part of the gospel when Christ spake to them. Interestingly, I think we can find evidence that while they did not yet understand about Gentiles, they did understand they were a priesthood, and they were as kings judging the twelve tribes of Israel, a royal priesthood.

 

[yedida]

Well you have to regard the context of who He was speaking too. Yeshua's ministry was to lost sheep of Israel. He even to obey those that sit in Moses Seat. He was directing to obey those that sit in Moses Seat to Jews. Non Jews wouldn't be 'subject' to.

So the trick is since His ministry when He walked the Earth was to Israel can you apply what He said to the specific audience to non Jews? Not necessarily. When the Gentiles were being saved there were Apostle's who were given authority to preach and teach the Gentiles. The Gospel started with Israel then after His resurrection it also went out to the Gentiles.

Thank you, I am aware of all that. Regardless, the question I posed still stands. Why does that statement have to apply to any more than the one of whom it was spoken? Why does it necessarily have to imply an entire people group?

 

[macher]

Thank you, I am aware of all that. Regardless, the question I posed still stands. Why does that statement have to apply to any more than the one of whom it was spoken? Why does it necessarily have to imply an entire people group?

I always regard context. As an example I'm Jewish and when Paul is writing to non Jews I put my finger in my ears(figuratively)like Galatians when he talks about circumcision. Being Jewish I had a Bris so....However I don't put my finger in my ear literally because it's essential to know but it doesn't apply to me and our 2 sons. Since we are Jewish we circumcise according to Gen 17 anyway and males are circumcised on the 8th day so the likes of Galatians can't apply.

 

[yedida]

I always regard context. As an example I'm Jewish and when Paul is writing to non Jews I put my finger in my ears(figuratively)like Galatians when he talks about circumcision. Being Jewish I had a Bris so....However I don't put my finger in my war literally because it's essential to know but it doesn't apply to me and our 2 sons.

This to the Jew and this to the gentile is not exactly conducive to building unity, one new man. So I don't plug my ears, I listen.

 

[visionary]

Yep.. Jews who have studied Torah are at step 8 of the 10***.. and those who have no clue [be it Jew or Gentile] are at 0. Non-Jews who have accepted Yeshua as their savior at at 2-4 because they have yet to learn Torah. Those who obey the commandments of God and have the faith of Yeshua are in the top 9-10 set because they have both irregardless of their blood line.

All parties need to fulfill the role of the saints of Revelation in the last days no matter whether they be of blood or not.

**** the scale is just for conversation sake and has no bearing on any group or faith.