Divine Invitation

Gxg (G²) · Jan 12, 2013

annier said:
Melchizedek is a priest and Christ is as well. .

The concept of priesthoods being established in differing levels and allowing for others to do the same (the basis behind why Melchizedek was used as a metaphor for Yeshua in His actions) is a beautiful thought within Jewish culture. In Genesis 9:8-17 and Genesis 8:20-22 (when Noah made sacrifices and the Lord responded to it) - in addition to the sacrifices of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:4-5) - there is a demonstration that the rite of sacrifice goes back almost to the beginnings of the human race. No priest was needed in these early sacrifices - and the sacrifice of Noah after the flood was called a burnt offering and is closely connected witht he covenant of God described in Genesis 9:8-17. In the sacrifices of Abraham, several of which are mentioned (Genesis 12:7-8, Genesis 13:4, Genesis 13:18, Genesis 15:4, etc.), he acted as his own priest, making offerings to express his adoration of God and probably atone for sin.

The same concept is seen in Job 1-2 - for Job, like the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, functioned as a priest for his family. He took his sacrifical obligation seriously, making atonement even for sins of the heart (Job 1:5) - and there is also the example of others such as Jethro the priest as well as David as well. All of the types of a Divine Reality - in the same way that Melchizedek was taken to be symbolic of a Type that reflected the work of Yeshua. He was deemed to be a priest - one of high honor and rank in the time of Abraham - and one whom Abraham recieved graciously. In Genesis 14:19 - where he is known as "Priest of GOD Most HIGH" and was shown to bless Abraham - it was the case in ancient times that the chief Canannite deity was frequently referred to as the "most high," "lord of heaven" and "creator of earth." Based on the terminology and location (Jerusalem was in central Canaan), Melchizedek was probably a Canaanite king-priest.

If seeing Melchizedek as a man, obvious would be the case that he was a G0D-Fearing man (as his very name means "king of righteousness," and king of Salem means "king of peace." He recognized God as Creator of Heaven and Earth.

By identifying Melchizedek's "God Most High" with "the Lord" in Genesis 14:22, Abram bore testimony to the one true God, whom Melchizedek also had come to know. Moreover, since Melchizedek was a priest of the Mos High, one can be certain that by Abraham's day the giving of tithes had been recognized as a holy deed - and this is something that happened often in that culture...thus making it far from being a simple allegory. Four main theories have been suggested. (1) Melchisedek was a respected king of hat region. Abram was simply showing him the respect he deserved. (2) The name Melchizedek may have been a standing title for all the kings of Salam. (3) Melchisedek was a type of Christ (Hebrews 7:3 ) - with a type being an Old Testament event or teaching that is so closely related to what Christ did that it illustrates a lesson about CHrist. (4) Melchizedek was the appearance on earth of the preincarnate Christ in a temporary bodily form - which would not be surprising seeing how the Lord already chose to have dinner/fellowship with Abraham in Genesis 18 when he came along with angels in the form of 3 strangers.

But the aspect of seeing Christ as revealed in Melchizedek as a type makes the most sense, IMHO. Again, it's beautiful seeing the ways that there were parallels within the Jewish worldview. For in the Law of Moses, the priestly function was restricted to the family of Aaron from the tribe o Levi) - but Jesus came from the non-priestly tribe of Judah - and yet also walked in a priestly role of another type in the work He came to accomplish. Understanding the Hebrew makes a world of difference on the matter - and it's always important to deal with the Hebrew Scriptures in the context they occurred in so that those which early Jewish believers held to are not dismissed in the name of believing something done in the name of it.

Steve Petersen · Jan 12, 2013

yedida said:
That's all good and fine but I would suggest you quit throwing out unfounded accusations: "...Not everything the rabbis taught on this was correct..." No one gave you any reports of what the rabbis taught, regardless of whether or not they are correct, and please don't hollar at us: "...Who's views are really OLD PRESUPPOSITIONS HERE?" This is our forum, you are the guest here. Thank you!

Is it time for 'The Post' yet?

Could still use a link to the rules specifically for this sub-forum (Messianic Judaism.)

Gxg (G²) · Jan 12, 2013

annier said:
For now, my thoughts are, The order of Melchizedek is no metaphor. Christ was spoken of as a firstborn, as well as an only born. One speaks of SOLE HEIR, the other speaks of receiving a double portion, but also as having BROTHERS/ FELLOW HEIRS. The things going on in my thoughts right now are also pulling these things together. But I need to look at it a lot closer than just a days reveiw of things. Just because I disagree that Melchizedek is a metaphor, does not mean I have rejected all that I have read.,

More than understand. I was curious as to how things were taught at the Messianic Jewish fellowship you were apart of - as I recall you discussing your extensive involvement in it before it seemed that other things took over, as you noted here:

Easy G (G²);62128900 said:
If I may ask, are you coming from non-liturgical background? Or are you coming from a liturgical background in another area and wanted to see something else?

Originally Posted by annier

I was raised Roman Catholic. But my father really resented vatican 2. So he quit attending for a long time, during my formative years. So, I was not confirmed, nor partook of my first communion. When I was a young adult, I became protestant. Resented Catholicism like ALOT OF EX'S. Eventually attended a Messianic shul for quite a few years, until "one law" seemed to be taking over the movement, and defining what "messianic" meant. I simply desired fellowship with Jews, and enjoyed it for a time. But when the arguing started, somethings came to light for me anyway. Most were not "Jews" etc, etc "two house" and on and on.
Annier.

Click to expand...

Again, at the Messianic shul you went to for some time, what exactly was the view of Melchizedek that was accepted/promoted? Was there uniformity on the matter - or did divergences occur on the matter? Trying to be certain. Many have tended to support the ideology of Melchizedek not being connected to Yeshua in any manner - a view that is not accepted within mainstream Messianic Judaism (as it concerns the claim that Melchizedek was not a priest nor Yeshua) and a view that has generally been deemed to be outside of the context of Biblical history in the Judaic. ..and generally, although others tend to argue "Well that's just Christian and the Jewish lens of interpretation saw it like this", there really isn't a lot of basis for such and goes past the reality of what Mel represented.

yedida · Jan 12, 2013

Steve Petersen said:
Is it time for 'The Post' yet?

Could still use a link to the rules specifically for this sub-forum (Messianic Judaism.)

They've been posted numerous times. Or just click the sticky on the home page. They're really not that hard to find. A nd are you saying that it's perfectly proper to come into someone else's home and yell at them? I don't and I don't like being yelled at, 'specially for no reason.

Steve Petersen · Jan 12, 2013

yedida said:
They've been posted numerous times. Or just click the sticky on the home page. They're really not that hard to find. A nd are you saying that it's perfectly proper to come into someone else's home and yell at them? I don't and I don't like being yelled at, 'specially for no reason.

Doh! Right in front of my eyes and I missed it.

Thx

yedida · Jan 12, 2013

Steve Petersen said:
Doh! Right in front of my eyes and I missed it.

Thx

annier · Jan 12, 2013

yedida said:
That's all good and fine but I would suggest you quit throwing out unfounded accusations: "...Not everything the rabbis taught on this was correct..." No one gave you any reports of what the rabbis taught, regardless of whether or not they are correct, and please don't hollar at us: "...Who's views are really OLD PRESUPPOSITIONS HERE?" This is our forum, you are the guest here. Thank you!

Excuse me? Nobody gave me any reports of what the rabbi's taught? Did you read his post? I did not mean to holler, I do like to either capitalize and embolden for emphasis. Not all messianics agree with all rabbinics so, I do not see what the fuss is all about.

annier · Jan 12, 2013

Easy G (G²);62170251 said:
More than understand. I was curious as to how things were taught at the Messianic Jewish fellowship you were apart of - as I recall you discussing your extensive involvement in it before it seemed that other things took over, as you noted here:

Again, at the Messianic shul you went to for some time, what exactly was the view of Melchizedek that was accepted/promoted? Was there uniformity on the matter - or did divergences occur on the matter? Trying to be certain. Many have tended to support the ideology of Melchizedek not being connected to Yeshua in any manner - a view that is not accepted within mainstream Messianic Judaism (as it concerns the claim that Melchizedek was not a priest nor Yeshua) and a view that has generally been deemed to be outside of the context of Biblical history in the Judaic. ..and generally, although others tend to argue "Well that's just Christian and the Jewish lens of interpretation saw it like this", there really isn't a lot of basis for such and goes past the reality of what Mel represented.

I heard it said by the rabbi, some believe Melchizedek to be shem, he agreed with that view. Outside of that not much was taught. As for myself in just the last couple of days I am thinking something different. Hebrews speaks of the" HIGH" PRIESTHOOD OF JESUS (capitals for emphasis only) but the others as priests,( ie he who met Abraham) no matter who he is.

annier · Jan 12, 2013

yedida said:
That's all good and fine but I would suggest you quit throwing out unfounded accusations: "...Not everything the rabbis taught on this was correct..." No one gave you any reports of what the rabbis taught, regardless of whether or not they are correct, and please don't hollar at us: "...Who's views are really OLD PRESUPPOSITIONS HERE?" This is our forum, you are the guest here. Thank you!

Here is the "old presuppositions" to which my post spoke of. I do not agree with this. No surprise, Messianics do not all accept all rabbinics.

Mishkan said...
"You have to understand how the rabbis would sometimes manipulate the stories"

I do not agree with this. No surprise, Messianics do not all accept all rabbinics. So why all the fuss that I disagree that Hebrews is presenting THAT in Hebrews?

macher · Jan 13, 2013

annier said:
Here is the "old presuppositions" to which my post spoke of. I do not agree with this. No surprise, Messianics do not all accept all rabbinics.
I do not agree with this. No surprise, Messianics do not all accept all rabbinics. So why all the fuss that I disagree that Hebrews is presenting THAT in Hebrews?

I think Mishkan is referring to how rabbi's might manipulate or midrash like Paul did in Galatians 4:21+. Paul manipulates the story to apply it.

annier · Jan 13, 2013

macher said:
I think Mishkan is referring to how rabbi's might manipulate or midrash like Paul did in Galatians 4:21+. Paul manipulates the story to apply it.

Maybe so. He said there is no priesthood of Melchizedek. I disagree with that. He spoke of rabbinics. So, why am I getting pumelled as if he did not speak of those things?

Yahudim · Jan 13, 2013

annier said:
Maybe so. He said there is no priesthood of Melchizedek. I disagree with that. He spoke of rabbinics. So, why am I getting pumelled as if he did not speak of those things?

Just something to consider...

I think you regard 'rabbinic' as the doctrines of the rabbinate. We do not. And this may be where that confusion begins. You should understand that a midrash is a style of analysis and a style of teaching. Within this style, 'the priesthood of Melchizedek' is a literary device and not a literal pronouncement.

It seems you are reading and understanding these ancient Jewish writings from the perspective of western Greco-Roman influenced modern technological society. It leaves you at a disadvantage.

If you are not familiar with the rabbinic midrash, you are not reading the commentary and teachings of Y'shua and His Disciples in the context it was constructed and conveyed.
If you are not familiar with ancient Hebraic poetry then you are not familiar with the various teaching forms of the vast majority of scripture.
If you do not know intimately, what it means to be Torah observant, then you are ill equipped to receive the teachings of the Master in the context they were intended.
If you are not familiar with the difference between ancient Eastern philosophy as it applies to rabbinic thought and practices and post-modern Western philosophy as it applies to Christianity, then you are reading scripture with a debilitating bias.
If you are not intimately familiar with the relationship and symbolism associated with the cycles of the astronomical, the agrarian and of the Appointed Times, then you are again at a grave disadvantage in your studies of the redemptive ministry of Messiah.

Y'shua, at the time of His teaching ministry, was a Jewish Rabbi in an ancient Middle Eastern theocratic, agrarian and mercantile society. He was of the majority party of the Pharisees and very Orthodox in His approach to Torah observance and in His style of teaching. His audience was Torah observant and mostly Eastern in it's philosophical bent.

This was a society that was profoundly influenced by it's fall from grace as the former Divinely ordained, fiercely independent and dominant culture in the region to that of a subservient state that never recovered from Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman domination. This was a society that was profoundly influenced by the prophetic pronouncements of a Divinely anointed King that would lead them back to greatness. So it is only logical to conclude that these philosophical, sociological, cultural, historical and political influences figured prominently in the teachings of the Messiah. To be ignorant of these details is to be oblivious to the nuanced nature of His instruction.

Many Jewish rabbis, those both believing and otherwise, have observed (and correctly so) that the majority of the 'New Testament' is primarily a rabbinic midrash. My suggestion is that you learn what that really means in terms of Messianic Judaism. It is not simply a way to provide pretexts to justify oral traditions of rabbinic Judaism as many Christians suggest. That aspect of the rabbinic midrash seems to be primarily post diaspora. I consider most tradition, whether in modern Judaism or Christianity, to be in some way, flawed.

You may be offended by some of what I say. People as a rule do not like to be corrected. But I hope and pray that instead you will take this as it is intended; a sincere critique that is meant to be helpful to you in your continuing walk.

annier · Jan 13, 2013

talmidim said:
Just something to consider...

I think you regard 'rabbinic' as the doctrines of the rabbinate. We do not. And this may be where that confusion begins. You should understand that a midrash is a style of analysis and a style of teaching. Within this style, 'the priesthood of Melchizedek' is a literary device and not a literal pronouncement.

It seems you are reading and understanding these ancient Jewish writings from the perspective of western Greco-Roman influenced modern technological society. It leaves you at a disadvantage.

If you are not familiar with the rabbinic midrash, you are not reading the commentary and teachings of Y'shua and His Disciples in the context it was constructed and conveyed.

If you are not familiar with ancient Hebraic poetry then you are not familiar with the various teaching forms of the vast majority of scripture.

If you do not know intimately, what it means to be Torah observant, then you are ill equipped to receive the teachings of the Master in the context they were intended.

If you are not familiar with the difference between ancient Eastern philosophy as it applies to rabbinic thought and practices and post-modern Western philosophy as it applies to Christianity, then you are reading scripture with a debilitating bias.

If you are not intimately familiar with the relationship and symbolism associated with the cycles of the astronomical, the agrarian and of the Appointed Times, then you are again at a grave disadvantage in your studies of the redemptive ministry of Messiah.

Y'shua, at the time of His teaching ministry, was a Jewish Rabbi in an ancient Middle Eastern theocratic, agrarian and mercantile society. He was of the majority party of the Pharisees and very Orthodox in His approach to Torah observance and in His style of teaching. His audience was Torah observant and mostly Eastern in it's philosophical bent.

This was a society that was profoundly influenced by it's fall from grace as the former Divinely ordained, fiercely independent and dominant culture in the region to that of a subservient state that never recovered from Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman domination. This was a society that was profoundly influenced by the prophetic pronouncements of a Divinely anointed King that would lead them back to greatness. So it is only logical to conclude that these philosophical, sociological, cultural, historical and political influences figured prominently in the teachings of the Messiah. To be ignorant of these details is to be oblivious to the nuanced nature of His instruction.

Many Jewish rabbis, those both believing and otherwise, have observed (and correctly so) that the majority of the 'New Testament' is primarily a rabbinic midrash. My suggestion is that you learn what that really means in terms of Messianic Judaism. It is not simply a way to provide pretexts to justify oral traditions of rabbinic Judaism as many Christians suggest. That aspect of the rabbinic midrash seems to be primarily post diaspora. I consider most tradition, whether in modern Judaism or Christianity, to be in some way, flawed.

You may be offended by some of what I say. People as a rule do not like to be corrected. But I hope and pray that instead you will take this as it is intended; a sincere critique that is meant to be helpful to you in your continuing walk.

Well, I do disagree with some of your comments. Jesus was not a Pharisee, and neither were his disciples Pharisees IMO. His disciples followed John's baptismal ministry. John certainly was no Pharisee he. Jesus disciples continued John's baptism under Christs discipleship. I believe it is quite clear from the scriptures that many Israelites were baptized of John. Paul encounters them several different places. They were called believers. As far as I am concerned the priestly status of Melchizedek is not a metaphor.

yedida · Jan 13, 2013

annier said:
Well, I do disagree with some of your comments. Jesus was not a Pharisee, and neither were his disciples Pharisees IMO. His disciples followed John's baptismal ministry. John certainly was no Pharisee he. Jesus disciples continued John's baptism under Christs discipleship. I believe it is quite clear from the scriptures that many Israelites were baptized of John. Paul encounters them several different places. They were called believers. As far as I am concerned the priestly status of Melchizedek is not a metaphor.

yep baptism was invented in the 1st century, never before having ever been done. Not. Yeshua and his disciples certainly were not flying under the radar, they probably were pharasaic. Yeshua was not against the pharasees, just some of the ways of the leadership.

Gxg (G²) · Jan 13, 2013

annier said:
Well, I do disagree with some of your comments. Jesus was not a Pharisee, and neither were his disciples Pharisees IMO. His disciples followed John's baptismal ministry. John certainly was no Pharisee he. Jesus disciples continued John's baptism under Christs discipleship. I believe it is quite clear from the scriptures that many Israelites were baptized of John. Paul encounters them several different places. They were called believers. As far as I am concerned the priestly status of Melchizedek is not a metaphor.

You'd probably be interested in the ways that Baptism had been practiced for a good bit BEFORE Christ came on the scene - specifically by the Essenes/groups affiliated with them. It is something many Biblical archeologist have often pointed out when it comes to the ways the Essenes and the early body of believers were very similar. The mission of the faithful community of Essenes was to prepare the way (Matthew 3:3) meaning God's road or path of obedience. They felt they must be ready to take their place in God's army by keeping their hearts and minds pure and their practices obedient. Their lifestyle reflected this commitment as the Essene community was carefully organized. They lived in small, self-sufficient communities having all property in common (Acts 2:44-45). They practiced ritual washing, similar to the baptism practices of John, to purify them of any ritual uncleanness or sin that might disqualify them from being part of God's work (more shared here and here). They wore white as a symbol of their purity. They grew their own food and were forbidden to eat food prepared by others. They spent significant time in study and in careful copying of their sacred texts. It is these scrolls, probably hidden when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in the First Jewish Revolt that are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

That said, the liturgical use of water was common in the Jewish world. The Law of Moses required ablutions (washings) on the part of priests following certain sacrifices and on certain individuals who were unclean because of an infectious disease (Num. 19:1-22; Lev 14,15, 16:24-28).

The natural method of cleansing the body by washing and bathing in water was always customary in Israel. The washing of their clothes was an important means of sanctification imposed on the Israelites even before the law was given a Mt. Sinai (Ex 19:10). The use of water for cleansing was used symbolically as well in such passages as Eze 36:25 where God says "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities." One may choose to believe that the practice of baptism for the remission of sins as taught in the New Testament was not based in any way on the Old Testament....and yet the Old Testament washings with or in water that were for the purpose of physical cleansing can be seen as a type or shadow of New Testament baptism, which is for the purpose of spiritual cleansing (1 Peter 3:21). Toward the beginning of the Christian era, the Jews adopted (as a custom unrelated to Divine guidance) the custom of baptizing proselytes seven days after their circumcision. A series of specific interrogations made it possible to judge the real intentions of the candidate who wished to adopt the Jewish religion. After submitting to these interrogations, he was circumcised and later baptized before witnesses. In the baptism, he was immersed naked in a pool of flowing water; when he rose from the pool, he was a true son of Israel. After their baptism, new converts were allowed access to the sacrifices in the Temple.

For more:

Gxg (G²) · Jan 13, 2013

annier said:
Jesus was not a Pharisee, and neither were his disciples Pharisees IMO. His disciples followed John's baptismal ministry. John certainly was no Pharisee he. Jesus disciples continued John's baptism under Christs discipleship..

We've had some good discussions on the subject of identification before and how closely Yeshua was alligned with the party of the Pharisees.

More was shared here (in example), if interested in going back/seeing more of what was said:

More was discussed before from previous discussion - as seen here:

MessianicMommy said:
You may find this of interest: Part 7

Seven Types of Pharisees | Fishing The Abyss
Teaching Article
Pharisees - Good Guys?
Jesus and the Pharisees
David Bivin on the “Hypocrisy of the Pharisees”
What you never knew about the Pharisees

I do not find Y'shua anti-talmud (Rabbinic teaching) at all. I find that he is arguing with the schools of thought and hashing out what is and is not the correct interpretation of following G-d. Nothing more, nothing less. If one is well steeped in Scriptural understanding, and they're handed the Talmud with a great scholar teaching them, I'm sure you'll find a lot of the same.

I've not had a chance to sit down and study it as a whole document, but bits and pieces, nibbles and bites. And what nibbles and bites I've had, I'm seeing within Scripture and it makes a lot of sense.

Easy G (G²);59386572 said:

Concerning the excellent research material you noted, I'd also add in there articles such as the following:

Jesus the Pharisee? | Boundless Line

Pharisees or Sadducees - Follow the Rabbi

Jesus and the Pharisees - Bible History Online

Religion: What Sort of Jew Was Jesus? - TIME

Pharisees | That the World May Know - Follow the Rabbi

There are other scholars with much valuable information which may be beneficial for anyone wishing to review further. For a good read on what Jesus may've held to, one book that may be a blessing to investigate is entitled "Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus" by Harvey Falk. He did an excellent job on discussing the reality of what has often been said in Judaism when it came to the Noahide Laws. To see snippets of his work, one can go online/research an article that can be found under the name of "Khirbet Qumran, the Essene Community along the Wadi Succacah near the Dead Sea -- The Essenes, the Hasidim and the Righteous Gentile of the Nations"and here to Rabbi Harvey Falk defends Jesus the Nazarenes Mission to the Gentiles: Divine Mission to Bring the Good News to the Gentiles

For more review on the book, one can go here to Book Review: Jesus The Pharisee by Harvey Falk | Grasping Mashi'ach.

As that Messianic stated:

Although subtitled as a New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus, Rabbi Falks work is a reintroduction of Jacob Emdens original thoughts expanded and applied to Jesus teachings based on various Talmudic and historic rabbinic texts. In the 1700s Emden wrote favorably of Christianity by expressing his view that Jesus and Paul had acted completely within halacha in creating a religion for the Gentiles based on the Noahide Commandments while yet considering Jewish law eternally binding upon the Jew.

From this thesis of Rabbi Emden long forgotten and disregarded by scholars in general (yet brought to attention again in Rudolphs Pauls Rule paper) Falk goes on to weave a fascinating and intriguing picture of Jesus as a Pharisee in the first century CE world in which he lived. Each chapter presents intricate details of various Talmudic and rabbinic writings that the author uses to present Jesus as an adherent of the school of Hillel and member of the sect of the Essenes. In Falks view the debate of the Eighteen Measures between the school of Hillel and school of Shammai, in which numerous prophets of Hillel were killed, followed shortly after by the death of Hillel in 10 CE, resulted in Hillels disciples going underground by joining the sect of the Essenes. This allowed the house of Shammai to gain dominance until the close of the first century.

Falk presents Jesus mission as the establishment of a religion for the Gentiles based on the Noahide commandments, a mission presented in both the Talmud and Maimonides as something Moses obligated Israel to accomplish once they had gained a position of prominence as a nation. Because Israel had not gained such a position by the time of the first century CE the obligation never went into effect. Jesus, in spreading the knowledge of HaShem and the Noahide commandments to the Gentiles did so as a means of creating Hasidim of the Nations, by going beyond the letter of the halacha as given to Moses.
.

Time Magazine did an excellent review on the subject as well

The book by Harvey Faulk has truly been a blessing/good way to build dialouge between those who are Christians and Jews----as its often the case that both sides miss the Mark when trying to polarize. Of course, I don't agree with all of his conclusions. In example, I don't think he really grapples with those areas in which Jesus and the School of Hillel did most definitely part company---and for more, go here.

Though I agree that Christ came to create something entirely new that would be inclusive to the Gentiles, there's the reality that Jesus often emphasized making certain that the Jews would come first in those he reached out to. This is seen, in example, when he gave the command to his twelve disciples to not "go in the way of the Gentiles or Samaritans," but instead to bring the gospel "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5ff /Matthew 10:4-6 ) when ministry began.

Qnts2 said:

Jesus did come against the Perushim concerning that additions to the law and taking away from the law.

Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Halachah is not a bad thing, unless that halachah adds to or takes away from the commandments of the Lord. Then, the adding to or taking away is actually a violation of the law. When the Temple, the priesthood and the Sanhedrin were in place, it was a requirement to obey them.

I do not believe Yeshua was adding His own Halachah, but was actually explaining the law.

I do believe the Rabbis overstepped their mandate. Starting with Yavneh.

Easy G (G²);60422303 said:

In some ways, if Yeshua was explaining the Law in its proper meaning/doing differently, it was a form of Halachah.

Qnts2 said:

Ok, interesting take.

Halacha is Jewish law, as set forth by interpretation of the Rabbis. Varying communities will have some differences in their Halacha.

On the other hand, Yeshua is God, so his explanations are not a result of scholars debating the meaning and setting the way to do the law. They are not arguable. They would fall under the category of immutable. Halacha is a combination of immutable and Rabbinical, and Rabbinical interpretation of how to perform the immutable. My take on it.

Easy G (G²);60422505 said:

For me, what makes it a bit interesting with the Halacha dynamic is that Yeshua was a rabbi Himself, abeit different from all of the others (even though he often referenced thought from the other camps). In some of what he noted, you see thoughts that the Essenes taught....and at times, language utilized was akin to what the Zealots would say when it came to militant terminolgoy. Most scholars have noted where Christ Himself often spoke directly in line with the Pharisees, specifically the school of Hiliel....often directly at odds with the School of Shemai (which had a very LOW view of Gentiles and happened to be one that many Pharisees in the days of Christ were with).

Hiliel was involved with the school advocating for the Gentiles to not live fully as the Jews in order to achieve salvation...with their salvation being tied to things expressed to Noah and known generally amongst mankind. But Shammai's school felt Gentiles would be doomed for an eternity apart from the Lord if they didn't convert FULLY to Jewish lifestyles/law. And because of that, both schools often fought. It was this context that Yeshua stepped into, seeing how some of the Pharisees were of the Hiliel school and others of Shammai...and the latter felt Christ was often stepping over the line for daring to say the things He did with Gentiles--just as it was with Paul.

More was discussed here in #15 and #167 ...as it concerns the book by scholar, Harvey Faulk, called "Jesus the Pharisee. Time Magazine did an excellent review on the subject as well. The book by Harvey Faulk has truly been a blessing/good way to build dialouge between those who are Christians and Jews----as its often the case that both sides miss the Mark when trying to polarize. Of course, I don't agree with all of his conclusions. In example, I don't think he really grapples with those areas in which Jesus and the School of Hillel did most definitely part company---and for more, go here.

Christ, as a teacher/rabbi, would be taken in His teachings (IMHO) as having his own form of Halacha whenever He challenged that of others while referencing what they did at the same time....such as with the Good Samaritan Story (more discussed here, here, here, here, and here ) or Matthew 23 when he essentially quoted directly from rabbinical law/Talmud on the differing kinds of Pharisees.

As God, He didn't merely rely only upon what scholars and teachers debated on...but as a Man, he didn't simply say what He felt divorced from cultural context--or ignoring the reality that the Lord could work through men in discussions and the teachings they developed could be emphasized. All truth is God's Truth, IMHO....and the Lord can inspire others who may not know of Him.

Click to expand...

Qnts2 said:

I think His teaching coincided with the various groups, because the various groups did get somethings right. Or to reverse it to what I consider a better view, Yeshua is God, and therefore nothing He taught could be in error. Sometimes the Essenses and sometimes the Pharisees got things right. Most of the time, Yeshua is saying the Pharisees got things right, but at the same time, because they got things right, and because of their popularity among the people which brought them influence with the people, Jesus was also the hardest on the Pharisees.

I do agree that He used cultural context to explain. I see Paul using cultural context to explain Jesus to the various Gentile groups he spoke to about Yeshua. That is why I believe various people can worship the Lord from their cultural context, as long as that practice is not in violation of scripture.

Easy G (G²);60422771 said:

More than agree. It essentially comes back to Yeshua being the fulfillment of all truth (as Colossiasn 1-2 notes)--and thus, as the other groups only had partial understanding, they may've thought that Christ was borrowing from them when in actuality much of what they noted originally came from His mind (in the Heavenlies)---and although his view was the ultimate form a teaching, it was a new form to others

Cultural context is a big deal. Curious as to what examples you'd have to express your point

Qnts2 said:

I think Yeshua's statements align with the Pharisees the most, and most often with the school of Hillel. I wouldn't say He identified with the Pharisees the most. There were Pharisees who came to believe on Yeshua or identified with Yeshua.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

gg

annier · Jan 13, 2013

yedida said:
yep baptism was invented in the 1st century, never before having ever been done. Not. Yeshua and his disciples certainly were not flying under the radar, they probably were pharasaic. Yeshua was not against the pharasees, just some of the ways of the leadership.

I did not say anything about baptism being an invention of the first century? So I do not know where you are going with that one. John had his own disciples. He was not a Pharisee. The Pharisees, were one of several sects of Judaism. John, was not of that sect.

annier · Jan 13, 2013

Easy G (G²);62176879 said:
We've had some good discussions on the subject of identification before and how closely Yeshua was alligned with the party of the Pharisees.

More was shared here (in example), if interested in going back/seeing more of what was said:

More was discussed before from previous discussion - as seen here:

gg

I will read from this later. But for now I will give you my thoughts on the matter. You and I have discussed this issue before yes. But, I do not think you fully understand my position. I would agree Jesus agreed with much concerning the Pharisees. As I stated before to you, I believe the differences between the sects were few, but,,,, were serious. What I mean is, you and I for example can agree on almost everything, but there are a number of serious issues in which disagreement on one thing alone can make a huge difference. An example would be a married couple could agree on about almost everything. If they cannot agree on child discipline, or what religion to to raise their children etc. the difference between them in even ONE of these things can be a serious dispute.
The Sadducees had differing views concerning the resurrection, angels etc. These were huge issues between them. The way I see it is.....These things did not matter.....It was not their office to teach on these things, and they had no authority to enforce their decisions in these things. They were to Judge the causes between the people, and enforce justice according to Mosaic law. Therefore, many disputes, concerning the NEXT LIFE, ETC. Had nothing to do with their authority as JUDGES. What good did it do the Pharisees to be right about there being a resurrection? They denied the very resurrection when it occurred. And many priests were joined to the Lord, as well. All their arguing over things they had no authority of office to "DECIDE", in the first place simply became a divided kingdom which could not stand.

Yahudim · Jan 13, 2013

annier said:
Well, I do disagree with some of your comments. Jesus was not a Pharisee, and neither were his disciples Pharisees IMO. His disciples followed John's baptismal ministry. John certainly was no Pharisee he. Jesus disciples continued John's baptism under Christs discipleship. I believe it is quite clear from the scriptures that many Israelites were baptized of John. Paul encounters them several different places. They were called believers. As far as I am concerned the priestly status of Melchizedek is not a metaphor.

On the matter of Messiah, you disagree based on your opinion. I can respect that. But while you have only opinion to go on, there are some scriptures that do indicate a relationship. What you don't seem to understand is that Pharisee, Esscene, etc., were a lot like Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc., in that they were simply political affiliations with many differences within each party. It is estimated that there were more than 8 individual political parties in Judea at the time of Messiah. Paul identified himself as being a Pharisee. So what makes you think Y'shua and the other disciples were not?

On the matter of the mikvah of repentance (John's baptism), what do you know about baptism within the ancient Judean culture? Do you see John's baptism as the initiation or the advent of a new political party in Judea?

annier · Jan 13, 2013

talmidim said:
On the matter of Messiah, you disagree based on your opinion.

Yes, I did. You have your opinion I have mine.

talmidim said:
I can respect that. But while you have only opinion to go on, there are some scriptures that do indicate a relationship. What you don't seem to understand is that Pharisee, Esscene, etc., were a lot like Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc., in that they were simply political affiliations with many differences within each party. It is estimated that there were more than 8 individual political parties in Judea at the time of Messiah. Paul identified himself as being a Pharisee. So what makes you think Y'shua and the other disciples were not?

John was no Pharisee, that is why.

talmidim said:
On the matter of the mikvah of repentance (John's baptism), what do you know about baptism within the ancient Judean culture? Do you see John's baptism as the initiation or the advent of a new political party in Judea?

I believe Johns baptism was to call to bring the people to repentance. He warned of the coming wrath to those under the law, and those judged by the law (jew first). They went out to him confessing their sins.
Mt 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mr 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
Lev 26:40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;
41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:
42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.
44 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God.
45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.
46 These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.

Lu 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abrahams seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

Ac 24:10 Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself:

John was more than a sectarian. He was a prophet. Sent of God to testify of JESUS CHRIST.

Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Lu 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

Divine Invitation

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

Senior Veteran

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

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

Senior Veteran

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

annier

Guest

annier

Guest

annier

Guest

Well-Known Member

annier

Guest

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic

annier

Guest

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

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

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

annier

Guest

annier

Guest

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic

annier

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency