Divine Invitation

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I'd have to disagree. Yeshua said the scribes and Pharisee's sit on Moses Seat he didn't reference the Saduccees.
Yeshua wouldn't need to reference both groups by name anymore than he'd need to say the name "Zealots" in order to speak out against their views on taking the Kingdom by force...

And the things he noted in Matthew 23 were in a context of flowing from other things he already noted about them - such as warning His own disciples on the yeast of the Pharisees/Saducees ( as seen in Matthew 16:1-3 / Matthew 16 ). "Be careful," He says, "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." The danger of which He warns them is false doctrine. He says nothing about the sword of persecution, or the love of money, or the love of pleasure. All these things no doubt were perils and snares to which the souls of the Apostles were exposed; but against these things our Lord raises no warning voice here. His warning is confined to one single point: "The yeast of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." For they both had positions of authority and it was an issue for Yeshua - with the Saducees being the ones who historically controlled the High Priesthood - another aspect of the Law Moses started...and one of the reasons they were denoucned together (
Matthew 3:6-8 / Matthew 3 ). With the Saducees, their practices were the following:

-Ran the Temple and all its ceremonies
-Dominated the Sanhedrin-the religious ruling council
-Lived a Hellenistic, affluent lifestyle
-Received Roman support
With the Pharisees, they did the following:
-Supported synagogues for Torah study and interpretation
-Strict, detailed obedience to oral and written law
-Accepted Rome as a necessary evil as long as they were allowed to practice their beliefs
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
:clap:
:clap:
From what I have read in Josephus, the Sadducees did side with the Pharisees often when it came to actions of public judgment. For he say's, otherwise the people would not tolerate them. The Pharisees had gained alot of power in that seat, due to the people admiring them greatly. But, the priests remained as heads of the Sanhedrin (even if as a prop essentially to their facad) a matter of being in keeping with the law. However when it came to Christ, this was no facad for the people, nor the Romans. It was real.
:)So true. It's like what happens in organizing events - as others from the grass roots organizations may be able to gather resources/influence while those who are senators tend to have the final word/decisions on how to run things. People more closely connected to the people will have significant authority due to their status - but they need to have backing by senators (even if/when they may dislike them) - and so it's a bit of an informal business relationship.

When Yeshua came on the scene, it became a matter of "The Enemy of my enemy is my friend - not my enemy" - and there seem to be patterns of this repeatedly when the groups came together to be united against the Lord from multiple fronts....for Yeshua seems to have that ability to do that with people and unite others who'd normally not work together - be it in helping others to serve him or causing others to war against Him:

Matthew 16:1
[ The Demand for a Sign ] The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.
Matthew 16:1-3

Matthew 22:34
[ The Greatest Commandment ] Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.
Matthew 22:33-35 / Matthew 22


Acts 4
The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. 2 They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 3 They seized Peter and John, and because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. 4 But many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew to about five thousand.

5 The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest’s family. 7 They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?”

Acts 5:16
17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18 They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20 “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people the full message of this new life.”

21 At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.

When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles. 22 But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, 23 “We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” 24 On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this.

25 Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” 26 At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.

27 Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
 
Upvote 0

mishkan

There's room for YOU in the Mishkan!
Supporter
Dec 28, 2011
1,560
276
Germantown, MD
Visit site
✟40,950.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Just for clarification's sake, would you agree with the notion that there were also pronounced differences between the priesthood in general and the Sadducean leadership? If so, how would you characterize Messiah's chastisements of the Sadducean leadership because of this? Was His ire directed to the leadership or the Sadducees as a whole.

After all, there were Levites starving and dying in the streets during that same period, so obviously they were not receiving their just portion of the Temple sacrifices, the portions of the harvest in the storehouses or anything else. In short, they weren't all in one accord. So how did these thing play out?

Oh, my... so many questions, and so little documentation. :)

Much of what we know about Sadducean doctrine comes from Acts 23:7-9 and three parallel passages from the Gospels (Nattityahu 22:23-32; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-38)...

Acts 23:7-9 said:
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men [and] brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."

And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

And there arose a great cry: and the scribes [that were] of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.

The difference between the two groups was a matter of accepting the theological developments that took place during the Babylonian captivity. The Pharisees accepted this development of thought, including the identification of a political office we call, "Mashiach". The Sadducees refused to adopt this theological development, including the additions to the canon as it grew from Torah alone to include the Prophets and the Writings.

Whether the Sadducees had anything to do with the Levitical line, or not, is questionable. That is only one of the two main theories. Some contend, as you have noted, that they were descended from the priestly line of Zadok. However, others believe both the titles, "Tzadok" ("Righteous") and "P'rush" ("Separated"), are merely self-congratulatory terms adopted for political purposes during the Maccabean period.

Or... it might be a blend of both--a Zadokean priesthood influenced by the views of the political party.

At any rate, the Sadducees were identified as horribly corrupt long before the time of Yeshua. No one regarded them as really in charge of anything other than their own wallets (sort of like the US Congress today). Even in matters of festivals and sacrifices, the Sadducees were required to follow Pharisaic teachings and practices... by order of the Romans!

Yeshua routinely engaged the Pharisees, usually over detailed matters of practice, like determining what is allowed to do on Shabbat. I don't see where he challenged their fundamental belief structure at all. On the other hand, he definitely challenged the Sadducean disbelief in resurrection (Nattityahu 22:23-32; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-38).

So, to return to your question, I don't see Yeshua differentiating between Sadducean leadership and any other Sadducee. The Gospel authors consistently specify that the issue at hand is the denial of resurrection, a characteristic of Sadducean rationalistic philosophy. Scholars, for the sake of caution, restrict themselves to designating the high priesthood as the domain of a Sadducean line. There is no clear statement I can find that indicates anything about how pervasive Sadducean doctrine was among the general priesthood.
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
Remember Paul taking advantage of the division between those who had gathered together to judge his motives in the temple.
Acts 23:7-9 "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men [and] brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."
is clear evidence to the two party system in the judicial department.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
:clap:
:clap:
From what I have read in Josephus, the Sadducees did side with the Pharisees often when it came to actions of public judgment. For he say's, otherwise the people would not tolerate them. The Pharisees had gained alot of power in that seat, due to the people admiring them greatly. But, the priests remained as heads of the Sanhedrin (even if as a prop essentially to their facad) a matter of being in keeping with the law. .
The Herodians would be another one to throw into the mix
 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟78,078.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Gxg (G²);62130893 said:
I do think that the paper needs more development - although not in the direction of many of the folks from the One Law camp who often critique them and wrongly so, I might add, for noting Biblical distinctions. But what they have is a start.

Here's irony for you- the One Law camp got their start from FFoZ. To some degree, FFoZ should shoulder the blame for it.


I agree because they say one thing then they say another thing. But from the Q&A they have on the paper it looks like people mentioned that their theology changed from One Law to Divine Theology. I know what One Law is. And it seems to me that Divine Theology is sort of the same per se with a much more lax approach more in line with UMJC and MJAA.

I agree, and I think the whole thing has been poorly thought out. This is what happens when essentially unqualified people try to lead and teach others.

I decided on my vacation (which I have returned from today) to read Lancaster's plea for One Law in his book "Restoration". I kept the thought that he no longer holds this position in the back of my mind, but I wanted to get into the mind of the One Law'er. I had read so much One Law stuff to this point and had flicked through Restoration but never sat down with a highlighter with it.

Here's the rub- the whole argument begs questions and is predicated on a rather strange spin on church history. It leaves serious questions about the authority of Yeshua unanswered, and also fails to adequately answer or address places in the NT where RJish halacha is modified or possibly abrogated- as this allegation arises from scholars Jewish and Christian. Worst of all, the entire OL argument as presented by Lancaster rests on the notion that the first Christians were part of the Jewish community and lived entirely frum lives- which is simply not the case even scripturally, let alone from the testimony of history.

I'm thinking of reviewing the book, but perhaps even Lancaster himself has seen the holes in the argument, hence the retraction of the One Law position, which would make the review redundant anyway. The Divine Invitation position makes more sense, when put under the NT theologies of justification and sanctification. It also has a little more street cred with history, but I still think FFoZ have a lot to think about and a few seminary and yeshiva courses to sit through before they end up in a sensible, clear position- which may merely prove that both Judaism and Christianity already agree on the issue of the Laws for Gentiles (which is what most Jewish believers have been saying all along). We'll have to wait and see.

Interesting. I'll be reading more OL stuff in the next few months too. I'll go deeper and maybe even write an assesment of my own. Again, we'll see.
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
Here's irony for you- the One Law camp got their start from FFoZ. To some degree, FFoZ should shoulder the blame for it.




I agree, and I think the whole thing has been poorly thought out. This is what happens when essentially unqualified people try to lead and teach others.

I decided on my vacation (which I have returned from today) to read Lancaster's plea for One Law in his book "Restoration". I kept the thought that he no longer holds this position in the back of my mind, but I wanted to get into the mind of the One Law'er. I had read so much One Law stuff to this point and had flicked through Restoration but never sat down with a highlighter with it.

Here's the rub- the whole argument begs questions and is predicated on a rather strange spin on church history. It leaves serious questions about the authority of Yeshua unanswered, and also fails to adequately answer or address places in the NT where RJish halacha is modified or possibly abrogated- as this allegation arises from scholars Jewish and Christian. Worst of all, the entire OL argument as presented by Lancaster rests on the notion that the first Christians were part of the Jewish community and lived entirely frum lives- which is simply not the case even scripturally, let alone from the testimony of history.

I'm thinking of reviewing the book, but perhaps even Lancaster himself has seen the holes in the argument, hence the retraction of the One Law position, which would make the review redundant anyway. The Divine Invitation position makes more sense, when put under the NT theologies of justification and sanctification. It also has a little more street cred with history, but I still think FFoZ have a lot to think about and a few seminary and yeshiva courses to sit through before they end up in a sensible, clear position- which may merely prove that both Judaism and Christianity already agree on the issue of the Laws for Gentiles (which is what most Jewish believers have been saying all along). We'll have to wait and see.

Interesting. I'll be reading more OL stuff in the next few months too. I'll go deeper and maybe even write an assesment of my own. Again, we'll see.
Work it from God's eternal objective... a back to the Garden senario... It will remove a lot of human organizational shoving and pushing the sheep into pens. It will be a clean slate in the new heaven and new earth in which these types of petty king of the hill stuff will be gone... Then you will see one Law.
 
Upvote 0

macher

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2012
529
21
✟840.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Work it from God's eternal objective... a back to the Garden senario... It will remove a lot of human organizational shoving and pushing the sheep into pens. It will be a clean slate in the new heaven and new earth in which these types of petty king of the hill stuff will be gone... Then you will see one Law.

That's not what ContraMundum addressed though.
 
Upvote 0

yedida

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!
Oct 6, 2010
9,779
1,461
Elyria, OH
✟25,205.00
Faith
Marital Status
In Relationship
Gxg (G²);62176822 said:
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:



good post!
 
Upvote 0

mishkan

There's room for YOU in the Mishkan!
Supporter
Dec 28, 2011
1,560
276
Germantown, MD
Visit site
✟40,950.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's not what ContraMundum addressed though.

He is addressing the premises that lead to the posture of "One Law for All".

Lancaster is one (former) advocate for the position, but by no means is he uniquely a leader in this view. I reached the same conclusions quite independently. In fact, I was quite surprised in the late 1990's to find that FFOZ material supported the same views I taught at my shul.

Contra is welcome to review whatever materials he wants. But Visionary was quite on topic.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

macher

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2012
529
21
✟840.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
He is addressing the premises that lead to the posture of "One Law for All".

Lancaster is one (former) advocate for the position, but by no means is he uniquely a leader in this view. I reached the same conclusions quite independently. In fact, I was quite surprised in the late 1990's to find that FFOZ material supported the same views I taught at my shul.

Contra is welcome to review whatever materials he wants. But Visionary was quite on topic.

He wasn't so on topic because visionary is referring to the New Heaven and New Earth. In this case the Law was added to the Abrahamic covenant. If no golden calf incident then no '613 commandments'. I put that in parenthesis to show that I mean something. After the golden calf incident then came the 613 commandments. These commandments were given to a specific people's, the children of Israel.

Now the issue here is whether or not if other people's are obligated to observe in the same manner as the people who they were specifically given too.
 
Upvote 0

mishkan

There's room for YOU in the Mishkan!
Supporter
Dec 28, 2011
1,560
276
Germantown, MD
Visit site
✟40,950.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
He wasn't so on topic because visionary is referring to the New Heaven and New Earth.

Fine. If you want to criticize Contra for not being on topic, go ahead.

In this case the Law was added to the Abrahamic covenant. If no golden calf incident then no '613 commandments'.

Interesting idea. Could you suggest a source where I might review this assertion?

I put that in parenthesis to show that I mean something. After the golden calf incident then came the 613 commandments. These commandments were given to a specific people's, the children of Israel.

That claim seems to wrap around and bite the speaker, though. If the commandments in the Torah were only for a specific people group, then parallel reasoning would suggest likewise for all aspects of the Torah. No "Ten Commandments" for Gentiles--they're intended for "us". Even the alleged Noachide commandments were never perceived for Gentile observance until after the current diaspora began.

Let's face it, until the animosity between Jews and Messianic Believers began during the current diaspora, there was never a real resistance to prevent Gentile inclusion. That can be seen in the story of Esther--mass conversions for the sake of protecting life and limb, not even for any religious reason. Only after the influx of Gentile Believers in Yeshua did the rabbis start looking for loopholes by which to exclude sincere adherents to Israel.

Now the issue here is whether or not if other people's are obligated to observe in the same manner as the people who they were specifically given too.

No, not everybody is obligated. Only those who claim to serve the Israel King, Yeshua. Others can do whatever they see fit. ;)
 
Upvote 0

macher

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2012
529
21
✟840.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Fine. If you want to criticize Contra for not being on topic, go ahead.

My response wasn't to Contra.


mishkan said:
Interesting idea. Could you suggest a source where I might review this assertion?

Sure asks why was the Law added. What was it added too?



mishkan said:
That claim seems to wrap around and bite the speaker, though. If the commandments in the Torah were only for a specific people group, then parallel reasoning would suggest likewise for all aspects of the Torah. No "Ten Commandments" for Gentiles--they're intended for "us". Even the alleged Noachide commandments were never perceived for Gentile observance until after the current diaspora began.

There's neither Jew or Greek... In Christ. However a Jew doesn't cease being a Jew and a non Jew cease being a non Jew. There are commandments specifically for Jews in which non Jews are not obligated to observe. They are free to observe such as the Passover. Scripture doesn't suggest that a non Jew is obligated to observe the Passover as a native born is. Scripture doesn't say that a non Jew must be circumcised and therefore eat the Passover.

mishkan said:
Let's face it, until the animosity between Jews and Messianic Believers began during the current diaspora, there was never a real resistance to prevent Gentile inclusion. That can be seen in the story of Esther--mass conversions for the sake of protecting life and limb, not even for any religious reason. Only after the influx of Gentile Believers in Yeshua did the rabbis start looking for loopholes by which to exclude sincere adherents to Israel.

There's only created animosity on the part of non Jews. As Contra pointed out Christianianity and Judaism both agree on this.

What Messianic Judaism offers is you don't have to be Jewish to be part of the family. The mystery of the one new man is that 2 distinct communities are united under Yeshua.


mishkan said:
No, not everybody is obligated. Only those who claim to serve the Israel King, Yeshua. Others can do whatever they see fit. ;)

What is greater... Keeping the Sabbath, observing kosher or feeding the poor, caring for widows, justice, mercy, faith? Remember caring for widows etc is part of the Torah too.

Why is it a measure that if someone doesn't observe the Sabbath or keep kosher they are not keeping God's Torah? This is the issue.

In essence you are accusing Christians for not serving the King of Israel because you are using a measure to measure their faithfulness.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mishkan

There's room for YOU in the Mishkan!
Supporter
Dec 28, 2011
1,560
276
Germantown, MD
Visit site
✟40,950.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
My response wasn't to Contra.
Not overall, no. But the criticism was directed towards him.
Sure asks why was the Law added. What was it added too?
Going to have to assume you fell victim to "phone correction syndrome". You meant to start that sentence with "Sha'ul", right?

He noted that there might be a reason why the Torah was composed some 400 years after the calling of Avraham, yes. You are suggesting that the phrase, "Because of sin" was specifically about the "chet ha eigel" incident?
I like that explanation a lot! Could you direct me to a source that brings out that idea?
There's neither Jew or Greek... In Christ.
Yes. And there's neither male nor female. Please explain how that works?
However a Jew doesn't cease being a Jew and a non Jew cease being a non Jew.
I never said different.
There are commandments specifically for Jews in which non Jews are not obligated to observe.
I know what you're going for. But I consider that statement dicey, at best.
They are free to observe such as the Passover. Scripture doesn't suggest that a non Jew is obligated to observe the Passover as a native born is. Scripture doesn't say that a non Jew must be circumcised and therefore eat the Passover.
We're returning to the ideas of neikar, ger, and ger toshav again. I have found the English-language discussions of these concepts to be quite sloppy, so I don't want to pursue this idea further until I have done some more thorough documentation. I'll post my thoughts later.
There's only created animosity on the part of non Jews. As Contra pointed out Christianianity and Judaism both agree on this.
Yes, that is the one thing both major traditions agree on--"You stay on your side, and I'll stay on mine". That, however, does not fit the description of Ephesians 2.
What Messianic Judaism offers is you don't have to be Jewish to be part of the family. The mystery of the one new man is that 2 distinct communities are united under Yeshua.
I believe you are confusing the words, "ethnicity" (implied by "be Jewish") and "community".

What you are proposing is that one should be adopted into the family, but not allowed to live in the house. I find that arbitrary, at best.
What is greater... Keeping the Sabbath, observing kosher or feeding the poor, caring for widows, justice, mercy, faith? Remember caring for widows etc is part of the Torah too.
Indeed. And keeping that in mind has always led me to be lenient on individuals who have caught the anti-Torah syndrome without realizing it. However, there is a verifiable aspect of nearly all Christian tradition that explicitly states "Torah has been done away with". If they keep some aspects by accident, I'm not sure that counts. Judaism maintains that doing something without right intention is useless. Yeshua seemed to believe that, as well, with his repeated admonitions against hypocrisy. What does it mean to affirm, "Torah is not for us", while at the same time keeping some aspects of Torah that have crept into the common culture?

Why is it a measure that if someone doesn't observe the Sabbath or keep kosher they are not keeping God's Torah? This is the issue.

In essence you are accusing Christians for not serving the King of Israel because you are using a measure to measure their faithfulness.
I confess to using the same measure as the prophets--"keep my Sabbaths", and "care for the widow and orphan". It seems to me you are proposing an either/or scenario where the Scripture presents us with a both/and. We don't choose a few of the mitzvot at the expense of the others. Especially while holding to a theology that depicts the Torah as the very source of sin.
 
Upvote 0

macher

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2012
529
21
✟840.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
mishkan said:
Not overall, no. But the criticism was directed towards him.


I was agreeing with Contra. You are the one criticizing :)

[quote=mishkan]He noted that there might be a reason why the Torah was composed some 400 years after the calling of Avraham, yes. You are suggesting that the phrase, "Because of sin" was specifically about the "chet ha eigel" incident?
I like that explanation a lot! Could you direct me to a source that brings out that idea?[/quote]


Right there was a reason Paul said the Torah was added to the Abrahamic Covenant. It was because of transgression. There was no Deut, Lev etc prior to the golden calf incident.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,876
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I just reported this thread. Not any post in particular, but the whole thread. I wrote, "This is a discussion about Divine Invitation, a position paper by FFOZ promoting non-observance for non-Jews. The base premise of this discussion is not 'Torah positive' as demanded by the SoP. This paper and the resultant discussion is in fact, also critical of various levels of Torah observance; another violation of the SoP. Since it is unsuitable for discussion in this environment, I strongly suggest it be moved to General Theology."

Great answers BTW David. I couldn't agree more. But this isn't FFOZ, so I don't see that we should be obligated to host their heresy. Anyone that wants to discuss this tripe is welcome at their website or to open a thread in General Theology where its proponents will receive more support from our mainstream Christian brethren anyway. The proponents of this position paper are welcome in either location. That is my position.
 
Upvote 0

macher

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2012
529
21
✟840.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
I just reported this thread. Not any post in particular, but the whole thread. I wrote, "This is a discussion about Divine Invitation, a position paper by FFOZ promoting non-observance for non-Jews. The base premise of this discussion is not 'Torah positive' as demanded by the SoP. This paper and the resultant discussion is in fact, also critical of various levels of Torah observance; another violation of the SoP. Since it is unsuitable for discussion in this environment, I strongly suggest it be moved to General Theology."

Great answers BTW David. I couldn't agree more. But this isn't FFOZ, so I don't see that we should be obligated to host their heresy. Anyone that wants to discuss this tripe is welcome at their website or to open a thread in General Theology where its proponents will receive more support from our mainstream Christian brethren anyway. The proponents of this position paper are welcome in either location. That is my position.

Divine Invitation isn't about non Torah observance for non Jews. It's a difference between being obligated or not. Divine Invitation doesn't condemn non Jews from observance, it addresses non Jews OBLIGATION.

So you are wrong.

It becomes Torah positive when a believer like yourself becomes observant in which the likes of FFOZ and myself wouldn't condemn or discourage. The issue is OBLIGATION.
 
Upvote 0

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,876
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Divine Invitation isn't about non Torah observance for non Jews. It's a difference between being obligated or not. Divine Invitation doesn't condemn non Jews from observance, it addresses non Jews OBLIGATION.

So you are wrong.

It becomes Torah positive when a believer like yourself becomes observant in which the likes of FFOZ and myself wouldn't condemn or discourage. The issue is OBLIGATION.
And you are wrong chaver. ;)

ANY position where our obligation to Torah reverts to mainstream Christian doctrine of it's OK for the Jews but the obligation has been done away with for the gentiles is a violation of the SoP; where all discussion of Torah observance in this forum must remain Torah positive.

Please don't be upset. It's not like there aren't literally thousands of places hosting this same discussion right now; many of them right here on Christian Forums. :D
 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟78,078.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I just reported this thread. Not any post in particular, but the whole thread. I wrote, "This is a discussion about Divine Invitation, a position paper by FFOZ promoting non-observance for non-Jews. The base premise of this discussion is not 'Torah positive' as demanded by the SoP. This paper and the resultant discussion is in fact, also critical of various levels of Torah observance; another violation of the SoP. Since it is unsuitable for discussion in this environment, I strongly suggest it be moved to General Theology."

Great answers BTW David. I couldn't agree more. But this isn't FFOZ, so I don't see that we should be obligated to host their heresy. Anyone that wants to discuss this tripe is welcome at their website or to open a thread in General Theology where its proponents will receive more support from our mainstream Christian brethren anyway. The proponents of this position paper are welcome in either location. That is my position.

The more I read your stuff and compare it to proper MJ position statements out there in the world the more I am convinced that the onus is on you to prove that the mainstream MJ position is not "true" MJism, and your take on it is. It seems to me that you take a very radical "everyone must keep the 613 laws" position which is ill-defined at best and certainly foreign to mainstream MJism. Also, your take on what constitutes being "Torah positive" as per SoP is a bit strict (compared to most MJs) and without a lot of grace or warranty of MJ historical praxis. IOW- I don't think you are right on calling all the shots on halacha.

Perhaps it is about time you put forward exactly what you think everyone should believe and practice? Point by point, law by law. Including the proper way that you think each law should be done. Please begin.

If you prove yourself right I promise publically that I'll forward your teachings to the MJAA and the UMJC and others to make sure they fall in line. I wonder how they will respond.

Seriously. I'm really interested in this.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

macher

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2012
529
21
✟840.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
And you are wrong chaver. ;)

ANY position where our obligation to Torah reverts to mainstream Christian doctrine of it's OK for the Jews but the obligation has been done away with for the gentiles is a violation of the SoP; where all discussion of Torah observance in this forum must remain Torah positive.

Please don't be upset. It's not like there aren't literally thousands of places hosting this same discussion right now; many of them right here on Christian Forums. :D

Nope actually the position reverts to Judaism :) in which Christianity is in somewhat of an agreement.

Nowhere does the position say observance is done away for non Jews.

The position is about OBLIGATION. What makes Messianic Judaism different is that there isn't a discouragement with non Jews observance.
 
Upvote 0