Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What you say also connects with the dynamic of saying one supports others within the Body of Messiah and yet speaks of them in both verbal/physial terms that the Lord tolerates them while he loves others more so who are more observant in other areas than others (in their view).I see Judaizing as insisting the Mosaic law (or traditional church laws) as a requirement to be good believers, or even a member of the family of God (sons of God by adoption thru Yeshua). Or to view other believers in Yeshua as somehow inferior or superior based on the their conduct. A Judaizer places additional requirements not necessary to be a full member of the body of Messiah, or a equal member in the body of Messiah.
he possibly only met RC's ....I was under the impression that MJs were Christian?
But I suppose that depends on one's definition of same
NASB) 1 Peter 4:16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.
As Gandhi exclaimed:
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians
They are so unlike your Christ. Gandhi
The only place that you are going to find the limitations of things like the avoidance of consuming blood is not in Torah but in Rabbinical law for the gentile and in this I would say that God never stated anywhere that gentiles were of a different type of human body than a Jew, and both are required to keep their temple holy. Thus said, it may have been a place to start for the newbies into the faith, so not to cause upset at the omeg table in the synagogue if the gentiles brought food not sacrificed to idols or was improperly slaughtered so that they could fellowship together. But to think that is the end all be all for gentiles.. is sub-categorizing them.
Modern day Jewish or Gentiles believers who are Judaizers insist that to be part of the people of God, one must live like a Jew (with or without circumcision).
Easy G (G²);61488535 said:
A lot of the insistence seems to often come from not realizing what it means to live according to the Law of God. The Torah says ONE LAW for the native-born and the stranger. Anyone who does not believe this can read Leviticus.
Nonetheless, even with that, the "One Law" had clear diistinctions for both GENTILES in the Land of Israel and the Hebrews...and of course, there were also the realities of Gentiles outside of the Land of Israel who were believers.
Deuteronomy 14:21 is one of the main examples of what it is that is noted in the Gentiles/foreigners within Israel being given differing laws..as the text states plainly, "Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mothers milk."
Of course, Lev. 17:15 which when compared to Deut. 14:21 offers a seeming contradiction:
"When any person eats an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or an alien (GER), he shall wash his cloths and bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; then he will become clean."However, Leviticus 17:15 says that the impurity of the act must be dealt with..and when seeing the entire context, it seems plain that part of the focus is upon those entering the temple since impurity defiles God's Temple (Lev 15:31; Num 19:13). It does not say it is forbidden for the sojourner and foreigner to eat the meat. Most kinds of impurity do not involve sin (childbirth, menstruation, caring for a corpse), although they all require purification of some type. If Israelites can sell unclean meat to non-Jews, it seems it is no sin for non-Jews to eat unclean meat. If they do it in the land, they simply need to practice purification as specified in Lev 17:15 (when the Temple is standing).
There are other things to consider in regards to sub-laws within the same universal/overarching Law that both Gentiles and Jews were under. Exodus 12:48 says that circumcision is optional for even a Sojourner living in Israel (much less a non-Jew living in Georgia or wherever other Non-Jews are). Exodus 31:13 says the Sabbath is a sign between Israel and God (not a universal command).
Derek Leman had some excellent discussions on the issue as seen in the following:
Most people discussing the subject of ONE Law don't really study what that ONE law really says---and it needs to be addressed. Gentiles and Jews will always be a part of the same family in Messiah---but being in the same family does not entail being the same at all parts and the Word of God never argued such, be it with Christ or the apostles and others. To make an issue out of it would be like one saying that parents have no right to choose not to treat all of their children the same when it comes to differing standards/expectations and that dad was somehow treating 10yr old Jimmy as if he's not part of the family because he assigned him to take out the garbage as chores while 8yr Sarah is simply required to clean dishes and the youngest to read. Having differing assignments/callings doesn't equate to having a lesser role in the family as another. It simply means that there's distinction between others, just as it has often been the case within the scriptures where the Lord operated differently with Gentiles at certain points than He did with the Hebrews.....both painting part of a larger picture that gloried the Lord and showed who He was
- FFOZ and Messianic Judaism
- Eating Lizards . . . Acts 10 & 11
- Rereading on Torah and Gentiles « Messianic Jewish Musings
- Torah and New Testament #3 | Messianic Jewish Musings
- 'Strangers Choosing Jewish Life | Messianic Jewish Musings
- Non-Jewish Customs, Worship, Deuteronomy 14 | Messianic Jewish ...
Very thankful for the work of Dan Juster and Russ Resnick who took time to address the scriptures point for point and show the reality of relationship between Gentiles/Jews (as seen here ). Additionally, although differing in opinion/stances from Dan Juster, John McKee did some excellent work in covering the issue. from the perspective of how many Gentiles---in the name of being the same as the Jews in requirements/standards and lifestyle---can actually practive a reverse form of Replacement Theology by trying to essentially become what the Lord meant to be a unique role for the Jewish community...as seen in "One Law as Replacement Theology." and other places ( here here, and here ). McKees organization, TNNOnline, is grounded in the Scriptures, Biblically conservative, free of pop theology, a bastion of apologetics and standing firm in the face of shifting ministerial alliances.
Good to know/thanks for the heads up. In that event, one can always google it and find the same.Your TnnOnline link doesn't work.
If that's how one feels, that is their right to do so. IMHO, haven't seen any real credible evidence to show where what they note is not accurate (and I take seriously the advice of others who are friends with John McKee/advocate for him like Messianic Mommy and others have before in #9 , #51 #56 #117 and #164 ), nor have I seen that TNN is grounded solely in focus of the dollar bill or that it's any different than many other Hebrew Roots organizations/Messianic ministries involved with financial support. Much of their material is free/was given out without charge for a long time...although it's unfortunate that some of it isn't public anymore.Followed it out of sheer curiosity as I have seen very little on TNN that's grounded in anything other than the most exalted dollar bill !
Happy Sukkot dear fiends!
I have read all posts of this thread, thank for your kind replies. Recently I am attacked and criticized for the sake of MJ on web. I feel very tired. But fortunately I am one of administrators of a Chinese Christianity-Judaism relationship web group and the biggest Chinese Judaism web group. I have authority to delete the posts or kick off the publishers of them that condemn MJ or J or C as heresy. And now I have a Christian church to visit on Sunday, I dont know how long I can stay there. The leader of it likes Romanism.
Anyway, Have a blessed Sukkot!
It is the definitions that you are using that is causing the confusion. We have given you different definitions that if you use, you will see clearly through the mess and what we are trying to say.to be honest - i'm still confused in regard to Messianic -Judaism . but i think its misunderstanding mixed with perception based on upbringing.
for instance- when i hear the term "Messianic" it makes me think the person is Jewish/Israeli who believes in Yeshua
when i think of "Judaism" --its a Jewish and/or Israeli person who does not yet believe that Yeshua is the Messiah and insists adherence to the law as a means of salvation
so when these two terms are put together - it forms a point of confusion .as from perceived appearance -it makes one think of a Jewish/Israeli who believe that Yeshua is the Messiah -are baptized into his death but still insist adherence to the law ....to maintain salvation .
now i'm not saying its ANY of these things .(because i'm still mildly confused lol )
i'm just saying, from different gentile upbringings - these are the type of confusions that arise due to different understanding of the terminology used. such as, when the two words .
Messianic and Judaism are put together .
it creates a perceived- paradox? or is it oxymoron? of sorts, through misunderstanding ..(almost like some one saying they are an "islamic-christian"
hope that all made sense
Originally Posted by YusuphhaiHappy Sukkot dear fiends!
I have read all posts of this thread, thank for your kind replies. Recently I am attacked and criticized for the sake of MJ on web. I feel very tired. But fortunately I am one of administrators of a Chinese Christianity-Judaism relationship web group and the biggest Chinese Judaism web group. I have authority to delete the posts or kick off the publishers of them that condemn MJ or J or C as heresy. And now I have a Christian church to visit on Sunday, I dont know how long I can stay there. The leader of it likes Romanism.
Anyway, Have a blessed Sukkot!
Is that the first Sukkot you have had? How many days and nights would you have to spend under it during the feast?Thank you Yusuphhai!
You just reminded me....I got distracted over the weekend with visiting and didn't build my Sukkot yet....I have a couple of hours before work so I shall try to build it right now. There frame is there already at least!
Hebrew 9:3 After yet the second veil, a booth/skhnh <4633>, the one being said holy of holies.
Revelation 21:3 and I hear a voice, great, out of the heaven, saying, `Behold!, the booth/skhnh <4633> of the God with the men, and He shall be boothing/skhnwsei <4637> (5692) with them.
And they, peoples of Him shall be, and He, the God, is with them
That's just a translation.
The Two-Law opinion does indeed sub-categorize gentiles! We, as gentiles, are either a part of the family or we are not, no two-ways about it. What ever was/is good for the Jew to do belongs to the gentile who has attached themselves thru faith to Israel or it isn't. I believe the Torah and Yeshua says that we ARE to obey the same commands. If we don't, we are not part of God's people, or, at the least, we are outside of God's will for our earthly lives. Just simply believing isn't the cure-all ticket; there is a standard of right-living that God requires of all who will come before Him.
Easy G (G²);61467560 said:When you follow the Messiah, you're a Christ-Bearer (Christian).
Semantics, as nothing you noted addresses where early Jewish believers noted themselves to be Christian and used it in the context of bearing/reflecting Christ. It'd be like saying one's American and then taking issue with that when someone says they bear the American spirit/pledge upon them as they represent.How do you understand Christian to mean Christ-bearer? Do you have a reason for taking it that way? The ian suffix nomrally refers to a person who belongs to something, whether a city (Corinth → Corinthian; Thessaly → Thessalonian) or a group of followers. A Christian is one who belongs to, is associated with, or follows Christ. It is not one who bears Christ.
Such a designation would be Χριστόφορος (Christophoros, Christ-bearer) in Greek. This designation eventually became the name Christopher, which really does mean Christ-bearer. Similarly, we have the name Θεόφορος (Theophoros, God-bearer) coming to us from antiquity.
Here is a list of other words that end in an or ian
.
There is something specific that alot of modern Christians do which is called 'Judaizing' ... I'm not exactly sure what that means yet.
Easy G (G²);61492883 said:Semantics, as nothing you noted addresses where early Jewish believers noted themselves to be Christian and used it in the context of bearing/reflecting Christ. It'd be like saying one's American and then taking issue with that when someone says they bear the American spirit/pledge upon them as they represent.
To me Judiazers are those who think that letters of the law are more important than the relationship. You can find those in any crowd. Think of a catholic who reverses the order in which they make the sign of the cross... and the consternation of the Judiazers watching.
The Two-Law opinion does indeed sub-categorize gentiles! We, as gentiles, are either a part of the family or we are not, no two-ways about it. What ever was/is good for the Jew to do belongs to the gentile who has attached themselves thru faith to Israel or it isn't. I believe the Torah and Yeshua says that we ARE to obey the same commands. If we don't, we are not part of God's people, or, at the least, we are outside of God's will for our earthly lives. Just simply believing isn't the cure-all ticket; there is a standard of right-living that God requires of all who will come before Him.
Incorrect, as meaning is determined by the context others use the term in. Believers in the early church used the term "Christian" to mean "Christ-Bearer" and that was shared often...simultaneously with being identified as a "little Christ". No different than someone saying they're "black" and not having others assume they meant that they have no color by the absolute use of the word. It'd be misrepresentation for another to come along/accuse someone saying they're black by saying "YOU'RE NOT TECHNICALLY BLACK!!!!!! You're BROWN!!!" since they don't understand the basics of words changing context. The same would apply if someone saw another say that they are Afro-American (as was often used by people in the black power movements ) or say they're Afro-Hispanic and then claiming they misrepresent others because they didn't claim they were "black" exclusively...even though it's obvious that being black is a part of their identity.In your post above, you have misrepresented the etymology and meaning of the term “Christian.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?