Divine Invitation

[Gxg (G²)]

I am not getting your point here. There were no Sadducees at Sinai. Nor Pharisees. Yet, the Pharisees say oral law was given then.

corruption of the priesthood etc. Why would it need to be given if the priests had the Urim and thummim? That was the question.
Before the .

There were no Pharisees either - and thus, that's the point. Just because there were certain laws given at Sinai doesn't mean that any or all groups within Judaism would not have chosen to add things in orally when the priesthood was seriously challenged and later changed during the Hasmonean Dynasty - and the priesthood wasn't the same with the Urim and Thirim. Your question and conclusion presupposes that the Urim and Thurim were still PRESENT during the time of the Pharisees and other groups - but much of that was lost alongside a trust in a valid priesthood - thus making any desire to see what the priests said (even if they had it/claimed to use it) of no effect.

As said earlier, one good resource on the issue to consider is Urim and Thummim. And with the Urim and Thummim issue, the issue of casting lots is HIGHLY signficant since it was perfectly acceptable to cast lots on important decisions, no different than praying and asking the Lord to reveal something in a dream or a vision or a sign for confirmation (more#5#19 and #25/#45 as it concerns the Biblical history of casting lots). The apostles did pray/ask the Lord to reveal whom to chose...and it fell to Mattias. and with the priesthood shifting to a Christ centered perspective, some things did not really seem as necessary.

Why would it need to be given if the priests had the Urim and thummim? That was the question.

Again, when seeing how the Pharisees sprang up out of the Hasidism movement that followed the Maccabees account - due to not seeing a valid priesthood and finding corruption - it's not surprising to see the Pharisees do as they did for a sense of connection to the past. And this goes in addtion to the way that centuries of Diaspora had led to less of a focus on the Priesthood/Temple and more of a focus on the scribe/teacher - thus increasing the power of Oral Law/Tradition.

But this probably taking this thread off track. You say I have not mentioned other groups. This is true because I am not privy to other groups having spoken to this issue. That's why the questions.
I will take a look at your links later. I think the Pharisees and Sadducees SHARED alot of similar understanding of the law. I think it is possible some their tradition (oral law) came from those ancient decisions. But I do not know because it is never spoken of, other than the Pharisees themselves. They diverged however in this book of manner of punishment of the guilty.

Definately things to consider...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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

That's not what the early Jewish body taught - as the problem was directly saying Gentiles HAD to be circumcised - at any point. That's not Torah nor what Yeshua emphasized.

Just because Jewish organizations support Obama does not make him worthy of that support.

Just because other Jewish groups are against him doesn't mean he's someone to not support. It goes both ways - and the issue is facts. If you disagree with others who don't have an issue with a convocation, that's your choice - but it doesn't mean it's the final word.

Many of these organizations support the liberals and democrats even though that erodes US support for Israel directly

That's a stance that other Conservatives have often pointed out to be inaccurate - seeing that conservatives support the President just as others...and even those who don't support the president note where it's not accurate speaking as if all things Liberal are bad and all things opposite of that are good. Israel has multiple issues within itself as well as outside of it that have NOTHING to do with Democrats or U.S support...

. Obama is the worst anti-Israel President we've had since Carter

Nothing really factual in that - seeing that other leaders in Israel have repeatedly noted there has never been better relations - both in funding and resources (more shared in #91 ). President Obama has shown consistent support for the Israeli government (more shared on that in #356 /#36 and in one excellent review by Mark Martinez examining his stances ) - but for real practical solutions leading to peace/progress, it'd behoove him to advocate for things that go against the grain.

• A Three State Solution - The Daily Beast
• CultureFuture: Israel's Three State Solution
• Healing Israel/Palestine | Tikkun Magazine
• The Three-State Solution :: Gatestone Institute
• A Three-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict | Mayrav ...
• Palestinians Put Jordanian Option on the Table - Europe's World
• Tikkun Daily Blog » Blog Archive » How Would a One-State Israel & Palestine Work?
• Tikkun Daily Blog » Blog Archive » What Palestinians And Israelis Must Remember To Forget

__________________
.


.

If he has his way, Israel will be split, and open to attack from within on most major cities.

Disagree - but on the issue, this is really not what the OP is about and I think we should make another thread to continue the conversation and not distract from what the OP author wanted to talk on

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

Calling on Yeshua - if he believes in the Lord - will always be an issue for many ...and for some, it's no big deal.

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

Not really anything in history (or current evidene) supporting that anymore than saying U.S Western culture is the #1 cause of decadence in our nation - and that was already addressed before in-depth ( #41 #44 #45 ) when it came to many of the inaccurate claims that it was based in violence

 

[pat34lee]

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

If the Urim and Thummin were plain flat rocks marked on both sides, they would be able to give 4 choices using front and back, Ff, Fb, Bf, Bb. If they were like 6-sided dice, that gives up to 36 combinations.

Without knowing what they were and how they were used, we have no idea how many possible answers they could give at one time.

Even if it were only 2 answers, yes or no, it wouldn't take long to break down a larger question. Say you need to choose one tribe out of twelve. Break them into 1-6 and 7-12 and choose one. Then keep dividing the chosen group until you have only one left.

 

[annier]

There were no Pharisees either - and thus, that's the point. Just because there were certain laws given at Sinai doesn't mean that any or all groups within Judaism would not have chosen to add things in orally when the priesthood was seriously challenged and later changed during the Hasmonean Dynasty

I guess I either cannot make myself clear here or or have different view of how the Government was set up at Sinai, than you do. Because I do not see the allowance of "GROUPS" to challenge decisions. It seems to me the governing officals had various levels of authority, and were to operates in unison, to that authority. Therein lies my question. Many questions of law, would have long been settled by the time of the maccabees, I would think.

- and the priesthood wasn't the same with the Urim and Thirim. Your question and conclusion presupposes that the Urim and Thurim were still PRESENT during the time of the Pharisees and other groups - but much of that was lost alongside a trust in a valid priesthood - thus making any desire to see what the priests said (even if they had it/claimed to use it) of no effect.

No, I just did not elaborate the point concerning the high priest prophesying Jesus should die. That is my fault. I was afraid of going much further with a subject that might be considered a thread hijack. Did not mean for it to go on like this. I know the Rabbi's say the urim and thummim were lost when they went into babylonian exile. Josephus says until the time of the Maccabees. My thought on the gospel passage, was to show that the highpriest was still given the
stature of his office as high priest that year.

As said earlier, one good resource on the issue to consider is And with the Urim and Thummim issue, the issue of casting lots is HIGHLY signficant since it was perfectly acceptable to cast lots on important decisions, no different than praying and asking the Lord to reveal something in a dream or a vision or a sign for confirmationas it concerns the Biblical history of casting lots). The apostles did pray/ask the Lord to reveal whom to chose...and it fell to Mattias. and with the priesthood shifting to a Christ centered perspective, some things did not really seem as necessary.
Again, when seeing how the Pharisees sprang up out of the Hasidism movement that followed the Maccabees account - due to not seeing a valid priesthood and finding corruption - it's not surprising to see the Pharisees do as they did for a sense of connection to the past. And this goes in addtion to the way that centuries of Diaspora had led to less of a focus on the Priesthood/Temple and more of a focus on the scribe/teacher - thus increasing the power of Oral Law/Tradition.
Definately things to consider...

Yes the Apostles cast lots. IMO, as did the priests the urim and thummim. Gotta get to bed. P.s. If you happen to notice your post is not all intact, that is because I cannot post links yet. It will not let me have your links in quotes to reply???? So if some of your posts seem chopped up, well thats why. Evidently I need 50 posts before I can have liks posted. LOL, your last post I deleted all the links that I could see, and it still said there was a link. So I just deleted a paragraph and that worked.

 

[macher]

FFoZ's position both before and after that paper seems to be a little shallow, and not very well thought out. A lot more theological and linguistic maturity is needed for that denomination before they figure this out. I'm still waiting to see what happens.

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.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I guess I either cannot make myself clear here or or have different view of how the Government was set up at Sinai, than you do. Because I do not see the allowance of "GROUPS" to challenge decisions. It seems to me the governing officals had various levels of authority, and were to operates in unison, to that authority. Therein lies my question. Many questions of law, would have long been settled by the time of the maccabees, I would think..

That is the issue - as no one is talking from the basis of Mt.Sinai when it came to noting where things drastically changed. And seeing how things were supposed to be doesn't equate to all decisions made being Biblical or in unison with what was allowed in Sinai. It's like assuming the Saducees were correct simply because they were judges over the people and then going to the OT where it says to take matters to the judges - for one aspect being true doesn't mean all factors are.

The time of the Maccabees did ALOT to change matters of law historically and one has to study that in-depth to understand how much stuff went out the window when Jewish nationalism took over and the high priesthood was replaced at large. And with the priesthood already being significantly altered even though they still used Moses/the Law to justify a lot of things they condoned as if it was always like that, more was recently discussed elsewhere on the issue of why Yeshua and others came on the scene as they did.

As said before:

He didn't need man to declare him as King (in fact when they tried to make him king he refused and walked away) and neither did he need man to make him a High Priest. He submitted to it because his father had decreed that King and Priest had to be set apart and that John's function was to point him out and declare him as G_d's chosen one. Therefore, Yeshua submitted to John, though, as John said, it should be the other way round.

Spot on...as Yeshua was affirmed by the Lord himself...although it makes sense that John would declare Yeshua as He was since John was also descended from a Levitical line - and perhaps one of the few who actually had any real right to the priesthood after the Hasmonean Dynasty messed things up and set up their own, Roman enforced priesthood with no connection to the Levitical line/ Zadokites. The book "In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity" did an awesome job covering the issue - and for more, one can go here or here.

Exactly - it couldn't be any old priest from those appointed by Herod's choice. John was miraculously born for the purpose of declaring who the son of G_d was - it would make sense, therefore, for G_d to use him in this very public anointing of Yeshua to his Kingly and Priestly role and so to fulfill the prophecies. Many think John was the High Priest of the true Temple - in Qumran - and so Yeshua was properly anointed according to the Law. This links in with his gown not being torn too - Leviticus 10, I think it is, that a priest who tears his gown shall die, so his gown was not torn by the soldiers. It was a part of acknowledging his Priesthood, just as the Charge, above his head on the cross, acknowledged his Kingship as well as his G_dly role as seen in Philippians.

There are lots more connections if his 'baptism' is in fact an anointing.

I do take it significant seeing the location that John lived in (Desert) and the clothing style he utilized - for as argued elsewhere (here, here and here), there were other legitimate groups within Judaism who were not mentioned in the scriptures/had bounced out long before Yeshua arrived on the scene...and yet their actions had a signfiicant effect in how others saw the Temple era. Specifically, in order to break away from the corruption in Jerusalem in the priesthood and be ready for the Lord, the Essenes broke away and went into the wilderness - and numerous scholars have noted their community practices and language (from their use of the term "The Way" to having a commune/communal lifestyle, their rites with baptism/water and other things) were directly present in the NT community of believers - and it has been noted that John himself probably went out to the Essene community in the wilderness/lived there for a time. His dress style was similar to what many of them (in a monastic spirit) dressed due to their focus/ascetic practices. Additionally, although not a dominant group in Jerusalem, they were hated by the other groups in Jerusalem -especially the priesthood - due to their actions being somewhat "outside the lines of jurisdiction." More has been shared on the issue elsewhere, as shared here/here and here/here and here.



With the Levitical priesthood dynamic, it is also interesting to see that Mary - a cousin of Elizabeth (a daughter of Aaron) - would also have had Levitical background...and thus, even apart from John, Yeshua would have had legal rights to the Levitical priesthood in addition to what he had from his father Joseph (of Judah/David's kingship).

​

Hope that makes sense....

No, I just did not elaborate the point concerning the high priest prophesying Jesus should die. That is my fault. I was afraid of going much further with a subject that might be considered a thread hijack. Did not mean for it to go on like this. I know the Rabbi's say the urim and thummim were lost when they went into babylonian exile. Josephus says until the time of the Maccabees. My thought on the gospel passage, was to show that the highpriest was still given the hstature of his office as high priest that year.

The High Priest office was not something to mess with. The authorized priesthood in Jerusalem (with Caiphas and Ananias) may have been in power but that in no way meant that in those times it was seen as legitimate by all camps. ....including camps in Jerusalem, as not all priests LIVING in Jerusalem participated in the priesthood practiced by those in POWER in Jerusalem.


For more info on the subject of corruption in the days of Judaism/THOSE who were in power, As seen in John 11:45-57, the text makes clear that the Chief Priests and the Pharisees were afraid of the their nation being taken away due to the actions of Christ. And the phrase "Our place" almost certainly refers to the temple (Acts 6:13-14, Acts 21:28). The phrase "The romans will come and take away both our place and our nation" may refer to the feared removal of the Jews' semiautonomous status by the Romans (1 Macc. 5:19). Ironically, what the Sanhedrin sought to prevent by killing Jesus still came to pass when the Romans razed the temple and captured Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Concerning who the Chief Priests are---as referenced in John 11 as well as Luke 9:21-22, Luke 22:52 and Luke 22:54-71 and Matthew 26:57-67---the "chief priests" are not the high priests but rather members of the most prominent priestly families.

As it concerns the Jewish high court, it consisted of 71 members----70 elders according to the pattern of Numbers 11:16 plus the high priest as presiding officer. It was dominated by the priestly Sadducees with a Pharisaic minority, represented mainly by the scribes (lawyers) of the court. This is what was referenced in John 7:45-51 when an attempt was made to arrest Jesus. Under the Roman procurators, three wealthy priestly families largely controlled the extremely important position of high priest. Annas was the patriarch of one of these powerful families of high priest (Acts 4:6). Annas was designated as the high priest (much like a U.S President, as high priests seemed to have retained their title for life). He had served in that role earlier (A.D. 6-15) and was the controlling figure in the high-priestly circle, which may also explain why he is given the title in Acts 4:6. His son-in-law Caiaphas was the official high priest at this time, serving A.D. 18-36, and Anna's son John would serve in that role later (36-37). Caiphas also presided over the Sanhedrin during the time of Christ's trial.....as he managed to retain control of the high priesthood gor nearly 18years (c.A.D. 18-36)----Longer than anyone else in the first century (cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.35, 95). He was certainly the high priest during Jesus' ministry, although he also consulted frequently with his father-in-law Annas (John 18:13, Luke 3:2).

There were definately cases of class warfare/favoritism within the priesthood--and those without power often had to live on the sidelines or be outsted. It's one of the reasons (coupled with the corruption of the priesthood) why many Essenes had left Jerusalem and chose to live in the Desert

The lower ranks of the priesthood numbered in the thousands, of whom many were POOR and may have been attracted to Christians by their charity, under the guidance of thr newly appointed deacons. This is said in light of Acts 6:7 when it notes how many priests came to faith in Messiah ---as some have noted those specific priests who came to salvation were of the Essene camp. One can consider the concept of Ronin Samurai, as that may aid in making more sense on the issue. For in Japan, there was a dominant class of Samurai loyal to one leader/clan or dynasty whereas the Ronin were those who were not employed by dominant groups.....often rouge and on their own, yet still considered "Samurai" and with others who were alongside them. It was the same with many of the priests who did not have the same mobility as the priestly families who were rich/had power due to being DOMINANT. There were many Essenes who still did buisness in Jerusalem during the era of the Pharisees and Sadduccess, influencing. And yet, as they lived a COMMUNAL life, they would not have had as much economic power. With the believers living RADICALLY in their lifestyles and ensuring others were provided for, it would have been very attractive to priests from the Essene world.

Yes the Apostles cast lots. IMO, as did the priests the urim and thummim. Gotta get to bed. P.s. If you happen to notice your post is not all intact, that is because I cannot post links yet. It will not let me have your links in quotes to reply???? So if some of your posts seem chopped up, well thats why. Evidently I need 50 posts before I can have liks posted. LOL, your last post I deleted all the links that I could see, and it still said there was a link. So I just deleted a paragraph and that worked

More than understand...

 

[annier]

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 am pretty sure I read that the mjaa assisted in the drafting of their
theology.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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.

You mean "lax" in the sense that they actually are the same as UMJC?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am pretty sure I read that the mjaa assisted in the drafting of thier
theology.

Interesting. Will have to look into that...

 

[macher]

You mean "lax" in the sense that they actually are the same as UMJC?

I can only speak for my congregation. There isn't promotion of 'no law' and there isn't promotion of 'law' as Moses is read in the synagogue every Sabbath. Similar to the Divine Theology paper per se. There isn't a promotion against non Jews observing Torah. In fact on the Holidays the synagogue is packed with Jews and non Jews.

 

[Avodat]

Lol! Having asked for the article to be made available via a link, and then determining to look at this morning and respond, I see 40 or so posts have appeared overnight. Oh well, leave you guys to it!

 

[annier]

That is the issue - as no one is talking from the basis of Mt.Sinai

Well, I certainly was, and so do rabbinics. That is the main issue of my question to begin with.

when it came to noting where things drastically changed. And seeing how things were supposed to be

So, you seem to acknowledge, that is how things were originally. Might I asume then you would agree that oral torah was not really given at Sinai along with the written Torah?

doesn't equate to all decisions made being Biblical or in unison with what was allowed in Sinai. It's like assuming the Saducees were correct simply because they were judges over the people and then going to the OT where it says to take matters to the judges - for one aspect being true doesn't mean all factors are.

As I mentioned earlier, I do believe much of the oral torah contained, or was based upon decisions made before the corruption. Therefore the Sadducees and Pharisees would have held much in common in my opinion. I also think that the issues of law enforcement which they disagreed upon were few, but not insignificant. That is to say, I suspect oral law was originally the application of law decided originally by URIM and Thummim. It was neither Pharisaical nor Sadducean in origin.

The time of the Maccabees did ALOT to change matters of law historically and one has to study that in-depth to understand how much stuff went out the window when Jewish nationalism took over and the high priesthood was replaced at large. And with the priesthood already being significantly altered even though they still used Moses/the Law to justify a lot of things they condoned as if it was always like that, more was recently discussed elsewhere on the issue of why Yeshua and others came on the scene as they did.

I will have to read those things later. But, again it does seem you are agreeing the oral law was not given at Sinai along with the written law.

As said before:

​

Hope that makes sense....
The High Priest office was not something to mess with. The authorized priesthood in Jerusalem (with Caiphas and Ananias) may have been in power but that in no way meant that in those times it was seen as legitimate by all camps. ....including camps in Jerusalem, as not all priests LIVING in Jerusalem participated in the priesthood practiced by those in POWER in Jerusalem.


For more info on the subject of corruption in the days of Judaism/THOSE who were in power, As seen in John 11:45-57, the text makes clear that the Chief Priests and the Pharisees were afraid of the their nation being taken away due to the actions of Christ. And the phrase "Our place" almost certainly refers to the temple (Acts 6:13-14, Acts 21:28). The phrase "The romans will come and take away both our place and our nation" may refer to the feared removal of the Jews' semiautonomous status by the Romans (1 Macc. 5:19). Ironically, what the Sanhedrin sought to prevent by killing Jesus still came to pass when the Romans razed the temple and captured Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Concerning who the Chief Priests are---as referenced in John 11 as well as Luke 9:21-22, Luke 22:52 and Luke 22:54-71 and Matthew 26:57-67---the "chief priests" are not the high priests but rather members of the most prominent priestly families.

As it concerns the Jewish high court, it consisted of 71 members----70 elders according to the pattern of Numbers 11:16 plus the high priest as presiding officer. It was dominated by the priestly Sadducees with a Pharisaic minority, represented mainly by the scribes (lawyers) of the court. This is what was referenced in John 7:45-51 when an attempt was made to arrest Jesus. Under the Roman procurators, three wealthy priestly families largely controlled the extremely important position of high priest. Annas was the patriarch of one of these powerful families of high priest (Acts 4:6). Annas was designated as the high priest (much like a U.S President, as high priests seemed to have retained their title for life). He had served in that role earlier (A.D. 6-15) and was the controlling figure in the high-priestly circle, which may also explain why he is given the title in Acts 4:6. His son-in-law Caiaphas was the official high priest at this time, serving A.D. 18-36, and Anna's son John would serve in that role later (36-37). Caiphas also presided over the Sanhedrin during the time of Christ's trial.....as he managed to retain control of the high priesthood gor nearly 18years (c.A.D. 18-36)----Longer than anyone else in the first century (cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.35, 95). He was certainly the high priest during Jesus' ministry, although he also consulted frequently with his father-in-law Annas (John 18:13, Luke 3:2).

There were definately cases of class warfare/favoritism within the priesthood--and those without power often had to live on the sidelines or be outsted. It's one of the reasons (coupled with the corruption of the priesthood) why many Essenes had left Jerusalem and chose to live in the Desert

The lower ranks of the priesthood numbered in the thousands, of whom many were POOR and may have been attracted to Christians by their charity, under the guidance of thr newly appointed deacons. This is said in light of Acts 6:7 when it notes how many priests came to faith in Messiah ---as some have noted those specific priests who came to salvation were of the Essene camp. One can consider the concept of Ronin Samurai, as that may aid in making more sense on the issue. For in Japan, there was a dominant class of Samurai loyal to one leader/clan or dynasty whereas the Ronin were those who were not employed by dominant groups.....often rouge and on their own, yet still considered "Samurai" and with others who were alongside them. It was the same with many of the priests who did not have the same mobility as the priestly families who were rich/had power due to being DOMINANT. There were many Essenes who still did buisness in Jerusalem during the era of the Pharisees and Sadduccess, influencing. And yet, as they lived a COMMUNAL life, they would not have had as much economic power. With the believers living RADICALLY in their lifestyles and ensuring others were provided for, it would have been very attractive to priests from the Essene world.
More than understand...

I have to help a family member move today. So not much time for reading all this stuff. But I would be interested in doing so later. But I do not wish to hijack this thread. HOWEVER, since you appear to have some historical knowledge, I woud like to give you my opinion of what I think on the changes. For the purpose that you could critique it
I think the Pharisees took control because of corruption. Then as they gained control, became corrupt themselves, as does hapeen when people have control. I think some of that corruption was what made them loved by the people. They having little authority, on the basis of scripture, ensured their authority through their additions which were their traditions. They were less HARSH in their judgments of the law. And they also took to teaching things that had not to do with their office of authority in the law period. They went beyond any governing office, in their teachings. Their Job was to judge disputes between their brethren. They were going way beyond that, into things they had been given no authority to teach nor enforce.
That is my opinion of the change. I could be wrong though.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well, I certainly was, and so do rabbinics. That is the main issue of my question to begin with.
.

That has been understood for a good bit. What was noted earlier was that other rabbinics did not see other schools of thought as having any connection with Mt.Sinai and discussed it - both before/after the time of Christ on the earth. That was where I was coming from when it came to addressing the issue that just because the Pharisees say Oral Law is consistent with what GOd said to Moses doesn't prove anything in the realm of being authoratitive..

So, you seem to acknowledge, that is how things were originally. Might I asume then you would agree that oral torah was not really given at Sinai along with the written Torah?

As I've already said plainly/directly, there are aspects about Oral Law that are based on tradition - which is not bad in/of itself but it's far from being the final word. And other things are within it which are indeed consistent with the words of Moses - and other things which are not necessarily consistent but were added in as a "fence around a fence" ...a precautionary measure to ensure others would not violate things God commanded.

As I mentioned earlier, I do believe much of the oral torah contained, or was based upon decisions made before the corruption. Therefore the Sadducees and Pharisees would have held much in common in my opinion. I also think that the issues of law enforcement which they disagreed upon were few, but not insignificant. That is to say, I suspect oral law was originally the application of law decided originally by URIM and Thummim. It was neither Pharisaical nor Sadducean in origin.

That is understood ..and I can see how one could come to that conclusion. Granted, as said before, it is not agreed on universally and has been debated on multiple levels when it comes to substantiation of the idea and seeing what the Thummim and Urim was actually used for. There were vast differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees and it's one of the reasons why they had so much conflict between them ( Acts 23:7-9/ Acts 23 ) - and why it was so significant that they decided to come together to persecute Yeshua since that normally would not have happened.

But nonetheless, I can see where you're coming from.

I will have to read those things later. But, again it does seem you are agreeing the oral law was not given at Sinai along with the written law.

I have to help a family member move today. So not much time for reading all this stuff. But I would be interested in doing so later. But I do not wish to hijack this thread. HOWEVER, since you appear to have some historical knowledge, I woud like to give you my opinion of what I think on the changes. For the purpose that you could critique it
I think the Pharisees took control because of corruption. Then as they gained control, became corrupt themselves, as does hapeen when people have control. I think some of that corruption was what made them loved by the people. They having little authority, on the basis of scripture, ensured their authority through their additions which were their traditions. They were less HARSH in their judgments of the law. And they also took to teaching things that had not to do with their office of authority in the law period. They went beyond any governing office, in their teachings. Their Job was to judge disputes between their brethren. They were going way beyond that, into things they had been given no authority to teach nor enforce.
That is my opinion of the change. I could be wrong though

More than reasonable, IMHO, when seeing history and what other Messianic Jews noted if/when they ended up being persecuted by others like the Pharisees - and if giving critique, I'd simply say that they were by no means the only ones corrupt since the Saducees often did the same as they did in seeking power/trying to enforce it amongst all others. ...despite the fact that there was predominately no connection to the priesthood in either group. And with the early believers, it is significant to see what Paul and others did in challenging that as Yeshua did - for they had the access to true Levites more than any others...with people like Barnabas (who trained Paul for a time) being a Levite himself. For more discussion, you can go/investigate a thread entitled Barnabas the Levite: Does it make a difference that Paul was trained by a Priest?

In regards to what you noted about "hijacking" I think it'd be good if you made a thread on the subject to give more in-depth discussion and analysis I'll try to join in there should I have more time - as I'm about to be busy on a number of things coming up soon. Shalom

 

[yedida]

If the Urim and Thummin were plain flat rocks marked on both sides, they would be able to give 4 choices using front and back, Ff, Fb, Bf, Bb. If they were like 6-sided dice, that gives up to 36 combinations.

Without knowing what they were and how they were used, we have no idea how many possible answers they could give at one time.

Even if it were only 2 answers, yes or no, it wouldn't take long to break down a larger question. Say you need to choose one tribe out of twelve. Break them into 1-6 and 7-12 and choose one. Then keep dividing the chosen group until you have only one left.

Lol, when you're right, you're right!!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Lol! Having asked for the article to be made available via a link, and then determining to look at this morning and respond, I see 40 or so posts have appeared overnight. Oh well, leave you guys to it!

I'd think you'd still have some good things to say regardless of others who jumped in

 

[macher]

I am pretty sure I read that the mjaa assisted in the drafting of their
theology.

Yes and I believe the UMJC too.

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.

 

[Steve Petersen]

?

 

[Steve Petersen]

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/

This is the part that galls me, from chapter 4:

The book of Ephesians proclaims the one new humanity in Messiah consisting of two differentiated but united parts, and celebrates the fact that the Gentile Yeshua believers have been given a share in Israel's riches
'...the clearest statement of bilateral ecclesiology articulated by...a distinguished Jewish Christian scholar David Noel Freedman....Freedman recognized that the New Testament presumes two subcommunities, each with it own "polity and practice,""equal but separate."

Jim Crow laws for Messianic Judaism!

 

[mishkan]

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/

Thank you! I keep telling people that's the uptake on that book, and I'm constantly told I am wrong to reach that conclusion.

It is getting to the point where I feel I have to do a chapter-by-chapter analysis to demonstrate what he is saying. I'll go read your review now.

Todah.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Thank you! I keep telling people that's the uptake on that book, and I'm constantly told I am wrong to reach that conclusion.

It is getting to the point where I feel I have to do a chapter-by-chapter analysis to demonstrate what he is saying. I'll go read your review now.

Todah.

Hope it helps.