Hell?

[Jase]

I think there's a little more than just saying your Jewish and you believe in Yeshua. Just as hearing one claim to be a Christian and then listening to their theology or watching their lives. One doesn't necessarily = the other. When a Gentile claims to be an MJ but is anti Torah we question it. When one is Jewish and anti Torah we allow it?

One should be living their life according to Yeshua's commandments. How do you define "anti-torah"? Are Reform Jews anti-torah because they don't rigidly stick to them like Haredi Jews?

 

[yonah_mishael]

Taking a liberal approach to the Torah does not make me a non-MJ.

Shalom, Jase.

It's surely interesting. I haven't met many in MJ (online) with your perspective.

By the way, did you receive the PM I sent you a while back?

Regards,
YM

 

[Jase]

Shalom, Jase.

It's surely interesting. I haven't met many in MJ (online) with your perspective.

By the way, did you receive the PM I sent you a while back?

Regards,
YM

Yeah, I guess I'm a rare duck I basically view myself as a Reform Jew with Messianic theological beliefs. And Reform Jews view the Torah as a general guideline, not as a rigid requirement for all Jews to follow to the letter.

I will double check my PMs and get back to you. I probably got it but can't remember. I'm so bad at checking them I'm about to run to the gym, but will get back to you.

 

[visionary]

One should be living their life according to Yeshua's commandments. How do you define "anti-torah"? Are Reform Jews anti-torah because they don't rigidly stick to them like Haredi Jews?

Haredi Jew's rigidity are in the areas of more pro-Talmud to extreme.

 

[visionary]

Yeah, I guess I'm a rare duck I basically view myself as a Reform Jew with some Messianic theological beliefs. And Reform Jews view the Torah as a general guideline, not as a rigid requirement for all Jews to follow to the letter.

I will double check my PMs and get back to you. I probably got it but can't remember. I'm so bad at checking them I'm about to run to the gym, but will get back to you.

That explains a lot of things...

 

[yonah_mishael]

I'm happy with Reform Judaism. No problems on my end, Jase. I don't know why you believe in Jesus, but that's your choice, and I won't try to dissuade you from it.

 

[anisavta]

Biblical Torah is indeed a different animal than Rabbinic Torah - or Talmud. Yeshua defined Biblical Torah. When it says to follow His commandments to be His - that's not a hodge podge of pick and choose watered down if it fits my theology suggestions. It's Biblical Torah. And why is it when people mention Torah one of the main arguments against it is zeroing in on corporal punishment? Seems to me a cop out clause. We don't and won't kill someone for disobeying a law so it can't be valid. That's were Yeshua comes in. He died - was sacrificed so we are not under the penalty of death. But it doesn't negate the commandments.

 

[yedida]

Biblical Torah is indeed a different animal than Rabbinic Torah - or Talmud. Yeshua defined Biblical Torah. When it says to follow His commandments to be His - that's not a hodge podge of pick and choose watered down if it fits my theology suggestions. It's Biblical Torah. And why is it when people mention Torah one of the main arguments against it is zeroing in on corporal punishment? Seems to me a cop out clause. We don't and won't kill someone for disobeying a law so it can't be valid. That's were Yeshua comes in. He died - was sacrificed so we are not under the penalty of death. But it doesn't negate the commandments.

That's exactly what I've said, over and over. No one listens. You've hit the nail square on the head - it's a copout. Churchianity is cheap, easy and comfortable.

 

[ContraMundum]

That's all that's required to be a Messianic Jew. Unless you guys have for some reason put additional conditions on what it means to be a "Messianic", but that doesn't fly outside this board.

I have to agree with you. The first in MJ movement all agreed on this, and those pioneers deserve respect.

 

[ContraMundum]

That's exactly what I've said, over and over. No one listens. You've hit the nail square on the head - it's a copout. Churchianity is cheap, easy and comfortable.

I really don't get this angry attack on other Christians sometimes, yedida. All this "churchianity" being weak talk seems like a bit of a straw man. As far as I know, I don't see orthodox Christianity as cheap, easy and comfortable. I don't think keeping a few Mosaic laws gives anyone bragging rights- that to me can be an easy cop-out too, and there are cautions in the NT about that. The real fact is that no one I know lives out the law of the New Covenant because it is way harder than you give it credit for. I really think that until a person can live up to that standard, they need to back off of the rest of the Body of Christ who struggle in their own ways.

Perhaps I am just misunderstanding you?

 

[ContraMundum]

Biblical Torah is indeed a different animal than Rabbinic Torah - or Talmud. Yeshua defined Biblical Torah. When it says to follow His commandments to be His - that's not a hodge podge of pick and choose watered down if it fits my theology suggestions. It's Biblical Torah. And why is it when people mention Torah one of the main arguments against it is zeroing in on corporal punishment? Seems to me a cop out clause. We don't and won't kill someone for disobeying a law so it can't be valid. That's were Yeshua comes in. He died - was sacrificed so we are not under the penalty of death. But it doesn't negate the commandments.

Ani, I think those who mention capital punishments are making a point- the Law of Moses and the Covenant of Moses is one whole package. You take it all or you leave it all. This is Judaism.

The question that people want to know is where in the Mosaic writings does it say that the Covenant and its laws will be partially done away with at some future time? Why is the NT consistent with Judaism by claiming that the Mosaic Covenant is one whole that cannot be diced and sliced up (Gal 5), while some Christian groups like the SDAs and FFoZ do exactly the opposite?

The sad thing is that many MJ scholars are in step with the NT and the Jewish paradigm about the Law, and yet their doctrine is almost daily disparaged on this forum as not Jewish enough or somehow not Biblical. Michael Brown, Arnold Fructenbaum, Glaser, Fischer, Stern, Nerel (all born and raised Jews AFAIK) and most of the other respected scholars all teach the same basic doctrine on the Law. I agree with them myself. MJism is quite agreeable to me when it sticks to the genuinely Jewish paradigms that these men teach in regards the Mosaic Covenant and the Law.

Can we not talk more about what MJ scholars are teaching on this forum? Is not MJism about building bridges?

 

[yedida]

Ani, I think those who mention capital punishments are making a point- the Law of Moses and the Covenant of Moses is one whole package. You take it all or you leave it all. This is Judaism.

The question that people want to know is where in the Mosaic writings does it say that the Covenant and its laws will be partially done away with at some future time? Why is the NT consistent with Judaism by claiming that the Mosaic Covenant is one whole that cannot be diced and sliced up (Gal 5), while some Christian groups like the SDAs and FFoZ do exactly the opposite?

The sad thing is that many MJ scholars are in step with the NT and the Jewish paradigm about the Law, and yet their doctrine is almost daily disparaged on this forum as not Jewish enough or somehow not Biblical. Michael Brown, Arnold Fructenbaum, Glaser, Fischer, Stern, Nerel (all born and raised Jews AFAIK) and most of the other respected scholars all teach the same basic doctrine on the Law. I agree with them myself. MJism is quite agreeable to me when it sticks to the genuinely Jewish paradigms that these men teach in regards the Mosaic Covenant and the Law.

Can we not talk more about what MJ scholars are teaching on this forum? Is not MJism about building bridges?

Contra,
Can you tell me where in the Torah it says that if you break one you've broken the whole? I can't remember ever seeing it. Just going to the places that the concordance gives for the use of law isn't giving me anything. Neither in the Nave's topical. Is it in Torah proper? or is it from the Talmud? (I'm aware of the passage in James, but I'm wondering what source he used.)

 

[yedida]

Biblical Torah is indeed a different animal than Rabbinic Torah - or Talmud. Yeshua defined Biblical Torah. When it says to follow His commandments to be His - that's not a hodge podge of pick and choose watered down if it fits my theology suggestions. It's Biblical Torah. And why is it when people mention Torah one of the main arguments against it is zeroing in on corporal punishment? Seems to me a cop out clause. We don't and won't kill someone for disobeying a law so it can't be valid. That's were Yeshua comes in. He died - was sacrificed so we are not under the penalty of death. But it doesn't negate the commandments.

Exactly!
Everyone seems to agree that Yeshua kept Torah and yet when they want to hit us with it, they conveniently forget this and that he showed mercy toward the woman who should have been stoned. Should we not follow Yeshua's example and show mercy as well? Sheesh.....

 

[INTJ-F]

Exactly!
Everyone seems to agree that Yeshua kept Torah and yet when they want to hit us with it, they conveniently forget this and that he showed mercy toward the woman who should have been stoned. Should we not follow Yeshua's example and show mercy as well? Sheesh.....

​

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=57652571

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=57652571

Yeshua had to keep Torah including the death penalty. As our High Priest, He is the one to carry out the penalty. This will occur on judgment day. If you accept His atoning for sin, then you will escape judgment. If you continue in on your sin, you receive the judgment. Just because judgment is not immediate does not mean it won't be carried out.

 

[yedida]

[/url]

Yeshua had to keep Torah including the death penalty. As our High Priest, He is the one to carry out the penalty. This will occur on judgment day. If you accept His atoning for sin, then you will escape judgment. If you continue in on your sin, you receive the judgment. Just because judgment is not immediate does not mean it won't be carried out.

For those who are against Torah always bring up this incident. It shows Yeshua not following Torah (in their opinion) but showing mercy instead. So this is a good one to use to counter antinomianism.

 

[INTJ-F]

For those who are against Torah always bring up this incident. It shows Yeshua not following Torah (in their opinion) but showing mercy instead. So this is a good one to use to counter antinomianism.

You twisted what I said just like you twist what Paul said.

Where does Torah state mercy can be given? Torah is clear: Those that commit capital offenses are to be put to death. The only way Yeshua did not violate Torah is if He is the atonement for sin and uncovered punishment is carried out later.

​

 

[ContraMundum]

Contra,
Can you tell me where in the Torah it says that if you break one you've broken the whole? I can't remember ever seeing it. Just going to the places that the concordance gives for the use of law isn't giving me anything. Neither in the Nave's topical. Is it in Torah proper? or is it from the Talmud? (I'm aware of the passage in James, but I'm wondering what source he used.)

A few points here-

First of all, James is in agreement with Paul in Gal 5:3 on this, and they both are in agreement with Jesus (Matt 5:19, 23:23), so the question is "where did Jesus get this idea from?"

This I would argue comes from many Biblical sources (like most doctrines they come from the agreement of many points of scripture), but perhaps the most direct is Dt. 27:26.

There are so many Rabbinic sources for this too, which brings me to the point where I said that this is truly "Jewish" - so the Jews and the Jewish NT authors of James and Paul are in accord. I'm thinking that there are probably good sources around for Jewish commentaries on this point available somewhere online. Vis is probably the best at digging that stuff up.

 

[ContraMundum]

Biblical Torah is indeed a different animal than Rabbinic Torah - or Talmud. Yeshua defined Biblical Torah. When it says to follow His commandments to be His - that's not a hodge podge of pick and choose watered down if it fits my theology suggestions. It's Biblical Torah. And why is it when people mention Torah one of the main arguments against it is zeroing in on corporal punishment? Seems to me a cop out clause. We don't and won't kill someone for disobeying a law so it can't be valid. That's were Yeshua comes in. He died - was sacrificed so we are not under the penalty of death. But it doesn't negate the commandments.

I think I know where you're coming from, but I'm not sure. Are you saying that Jesus defined the Biblical (or right) way to understand the Mosaic Law or that He defined the New Covenant Torah, or some other idea?

 

[yedida]

A few points here-

First of all, James is in agreement with Paul in Gal 5:3 on this, and they both are in agreement with Jesus (Matt 5:19, 23:23), so the question is "where did Jesus get this idea from?"

This I would argue comes from many Biblical sources (like most doctrines they come from the agreement of many points of scripture), but perhaps the most direct is Dt. 27:26.

There are so many Rabbinic sources for this too, which brings me to the point where I said that this is truly "Jewish" - so the Jews and the Jewish NT authors of James and Paul are in accord. I'm thinking that there are probably good sources around for Jewish commentaries on this point available somewhere online. Vis is probably the best at digging that stuff up.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Jase]

You twisted what I said just like you twist what Paul said.

Where does Torah state mercy can be given? Torah is clear: Those that commit capital offenses are to be put to death. The only way Yeshua did not violate Torah is if He is the atonement for sin and uncovered punishment is carried out later.

Capital Punishment was nearly non existent under Jewish Law. It was a warning and deterrant, not a practice. It was impossible to actually meet the burden of proof. And it was abolished by the Sanhedrin in 30 A.D.