Juster on the dangers in the HR movement.

[rick357]

Quote: "The Hebraic Roots Movement could/should become a modern day “m’chitzah” and not just another religious wrapper."

The actual English term "Hebrew Roots" / "Hebraic Roots" has as far as I see already been set in stone as "Hebraicized Christianity", ie Christianity with a different vocabulary and a few differences in praxis, but still largely indistinguishable from the rest of Christianity when it comes to doctrine and praxis.

This has not happened to the term "Messianic Judaism", a term which will probably have multiple definitions for foreseeable time; one of these definitions being closer to Judaism than to historical Christianity (Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Protestantism, Evangelicalism, etc.)

Quote: "Hopefully, those that see a sign of DANGER aren't themselves bound up in their own religious wrapper.."

What exactly do you mean by "danger" ?

I understand what you mean but if there is still a smoke it can become a blaze

 

[Hoshiyya]

I understand what you mean but if there is still a smoke it can become a blaze

what smoke ?

 

[rick357]

ok, how does that advice apply to what I said ?

Only in dont give up on them yet...the journey from Judaism to MJ is simply the next step...from pagan laden neoplatonism to living Torah is a long uphill journey

 

[Hoshiyya]

Only in dont give up on them yet...the journey from Judaism to MJ is simply the next step...from pagan laden neoplatonism to living Torah is a long uphill journey

I was giving (or suggesting) a definition of terms, based on observation of how each term is used. Don't see what that has to do with giving up or giving down on anyone. Words and people are not the same, to say the obvious.

You are of course right that Neoplatonism is a major part of the secular/gentile intellectual world.

 

[rick357]

I was giving (or suggesting) a definition of terms, based on observation of how each term is used. Don't see what that has to do with giving up or giving down on anyone.

You are of course right that Neoplatonism is a major part of the secular/gentile intellectual world.

I was speaking in general as to your comments being what is seen...but reminding myself that He knows the heart no matter how dense the skull.
To neoplatonism Yes the gentile world but for the church they have interpreted the Scriptures through those same eyes...meaning not only must they be taught but untaught.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I was speaking in general as to your comments being what is seen...but reminding myself that He knows the heart no matter how dense the skull. Yes the gentile world but for the church they have interpreted the Scriptures through those same eyes...meaning not only must they be taught but untaught.

I agree with everything you say here, just don't understand why you bring it up.

Words and people are two different things.

 

[rick357]

I agree with everything you say here, just don't understand why you bring it up.

When you pointed out that HR had ground into far less than it could be I know you are right so my comment was more to me not to judge its end till its end....I should be more clear.

 

[Hoshiyya]

The reason "Hebrew Roots" has been used more by the Christian-leaning people is because it is ambigious. It can mean what you want. It doesn't imply or say anything about what you actually believe or how you live. It doesn't have the word "Judaism" in it. They prefer the more ambiguous term "Hebrew".

"Messianic Judaism" makes people think of Judaism, and naturally, the term is therefore more strongly associated with, and used by, the more Jewish-leaning.

Again, purely a comment on words. No judgment.

 

[rick357]

The reason "Hebrew Roots" has been used more by the Christian-leaning people is because it is ambigious. It can mean what you want. It doesn't imply or say anything about what you actually believe or how you live. It doesn't have the word "Judaism" in it. They prefer the more ambiguous term "Hebrew".

"Messianic Judaism" makes people think of Judaism, and naturally, the term is therefore more strongly associated with, and used by, the more Jewish-leaning.

Again, purely a comment on words. No judgment.

Good point...maybe like Israel when they saw the promise they drew back in unbelief...yet perhaps amoung them is a Joshua and Calab...after a while they may move forward.
I dont see your comment as judgment...life and death is in the tongue...they chose their name.

 

[AbbaLove]

I am talking about my perception of the definition of two specific terms, Hebrew Roots and Messianic Judaism.

Isn't your perception of "Hebrew Roots" the same as that of the Brit Chadashah ?

Can we say that about Messianic Judaism when certain elements of MJ question whether or not Paul's letters are more his opinions (own understanding) than being divinely inspired by the Lord's Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh.

 

[Hoshiyya]

[/size][/font]
Isn't your perception of "Hebrew Roots" the same as that of the Brit Chadashah ?

The New Testament, and the modern English term "Hebrew Roots (Movement)" are two separate subjects. Ænglysce didn't even exist back then.

I think the religion Yeshua taught would be better approximated with Messianic Judaism than to HR, if that's what you are asking.

 

[AbbaLove]

Originally Posted by AbbaLove
Isn't your perception of "Hebrew Roots" the same as that of the Brit Chadashah ?​

The New Testament, and the modern English term "Hebrew Roots (Movement)" are two separate subjects.

Well, it shouldn't be assuming Paul's writings are inspired by the Lord's Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh. Which we both believe

I think the religion Yeshua taught would be better approximated with Messianic Judaism than to HR.

HR believes the Brit Chadashah is totally inspired by the Lord's Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh. Can we say that about Messianic Judaism? Certain elements within MJ question whether or not Paul's letters are more his opinions (own understanding) than being divinely inspired by the Lord's Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh.

The truths of the Mashiach Yeshua were not contrary to Paul's writings being inspired by Ruach HaKodesh. If the Hebrew Roots Movement has a problem could it be that the Movement is trying to imitate Messianic Judaism. Is that a danger?

 

[Hoshiyya]

Originally Posted by AbbaLove
Isn't your perception of "Hebrew Roots" the same as that of the Brit Chadashah ?​

Well, it shouldn't be assuming Paul's writings are inspired by the Lord's Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh. Which we both believe

[/size][/font]
HR believes the Brit Chadashah is totally inspired by the Lord's Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh. Can we say that about Messianic Judaism? Certain elements within MJ question whether or not Paul's letters are more his opinions (own understanding) than being divinely inspired by the Lord's Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh.

The truths of the Mashiach Yeshua were not contrary to Paul's writings being inspired by Ruach HaKodesh. If the Hebrew Roots Movement has a problem could it be that the Movement is trying to imitate Messianic Judaism. Is that a danger?

"Well, it shouldn't be"

Well, that's the way it is. The New Testament was not written in English, so obviously it has no connection to a modern English-language term that probably didn't even exist 50 years ago.

"HR believes......"

You are free to give your definition of what "HR" generally believes, and you are free to disagree with my observations.

 

[BukiRob]

Originally Posted by AbbaLove
Isn't your perception of "Hebrew Roots" the same as that of the Brit Chadashah ?​

Well, it shouldn't be assuming Paul's writings are inspired by the Lord's Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh. Which we both believe

[/SIZE][/FONT]
HR believes the Brit Chadashah is totally inspired by the Lord's Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh. Can we say that about Messianic Judaism? Certain elements within MJ question whether or not Paul's letters are more his opinions (own understanding) than being divinely inspired by the Lord's Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh.

The truths of the Mashiach Yeshua were not contrary to Paul's writings being inspired by Ruach HaKodesh. If the Hebrew Roots Movement has a problem could it be that the Movement is trying to imitate Messianic Judaism. Is that a danger?

I would strongly disagree with what you are saying. I know that my Rabbi is a regional director for the UMJC and is a past president of the UMJC. *The UMJC is the oldest and broadest affiliation of congregations serving the Jewish movement for Yeshua as Messiah and Lord, serving congregations that are committed to Yeshua and connected with Jewish life and identity.

I know without question that Rabbi considers Paul's writings to be SCRIPTURE. I will say this again, far too many people see conflict in Paul's writings because they do NOT understand the JEWISH thinking behind his writing style. James speaks of this in Acts 21, Peter in 2 Peter...

UMJA states **"We believe in the inerrancy of scripture as found in Bereshit (Genesis) through Revelation, and that it alone holds authority in our lives."
UMJC states * The writings of Tanakh and Brit Hadasha are divinely inspired and fully trustworthy (true), a gift given by God to His people, provided to impart life and to form, nurture, and guide them in the ways of truth. They are of supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and practice. (II Tim. 3:16, 17; II Pet. 1:19-21)


* taken from the UMJC website
** tanke from the UMJA website

If anyone is teaching that Pauls writings are not scripture, IMO they are way, way, way out there and in deep error.

 

[AbbaLove]

The New Testament, and the modern English term "Hebrew Roots (Movement)" are two separate subjects. Ænglysce didn't even exist back then.

Ænglysce does not exist on google

If you go back and read my post (#232) you’ll see that my reference to “Well, it shouldn’t be” (in other words WHY two separate subjects) was with respect to your above comment.

So are you implying that …

(1) That the Hebrew Roots Movement is dangerous because today’s Christians don’t speak Hebrew ?
(2) That because the Christians at Antioch were not fluent in Hebrew the name Hebrew Roots Movement within Christianity is a misnomer ?
(3) That the Hebrew Roots Movement is an affront to Messianic Judaism ?
(4) That the Hebrew Roots Movement within Christianity isn’t kosher and therefore bogus ?
(5) All of the above and then some​

Perhaps some think the Hebrew/Jewish Roots of Christianity Movement is still too Christian. On one hand some MJs believe it would be good if all Christians celebrate the Feasts of the Lord. On the other hand some of the same MJs believe that the Hebrew/Jewish Roots Movement within Christianity isn't firmly rooted.

As equal sharers in the rich root of the olive tree the Hebrew/Jewish Roots Movement within Christianity is IMO long overdue. Consider this: Do the wild olive grafts that are members of the Messianic Jewish Movement (Messianic Judaism) consider their fruit of better quality than the fruit of the wild HR grafts. In other words are the MJ wild grafts getting better nourishment from the root than the wild HR grafts ?

Romans 11:16-18 MSG
Behind and underneath all this there is a holy, God-planted, God-tended root. If the primary root of the tree is holy, there’s bound to be some holy fruit. Some of the tree’s branches were pruned and you wild olive shoots were grafted in. Yet the fact that you are now fed by that rich and holy root gives you no cause to crow over the pruned branches. Remember, you aren’t feeding the root; the root is feeding you.

 

[AbbaLove]

As a personal friend - I put a LOT of trust in his opinions.

Juster is as much an academician as he is a pastor/rabbi. He will as frequently quote from academic sources as he will from "faith based" sources.

So whether Sanders is a believer or not is not the point. The point is his writings sparked a shift in how theologians viewed Paul.

Do you really trust the teaching of these academic intellectuals when it's questionable if they're even a Believer in Mashiach Yeshua as God the Son?

They may not even believe that Yeshua was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, resurrected back to life after 3 days and baptized his followers with the Holy Spirit and fire.

This is not really new stuff for Juster. If you have read one of his early books "Growing to Maturity" he addresses many of the same concerns in what he termed "Super Jews" in the Messianic movement as he does in the problems with HR. It is just that the HR is under a different wrapper.

By “Super Jews” is Daniel Juster belittling those Spirit-filled Messianic followers that were and still are empowered by the supernatural Gifts of Ruach HaKodesh (1 Cor. 12:4-11).

1 Corinthians 2:4-6 CJB
4 and neither the delivery nor the content of my message relied on compelling words of “wisdom” but on a demonstration of the power of the Spirit,
5 so that your trust might not rest on human wisdom but on God’s power.
6 Yet there is a wisdom that we are speaking to those who are mature enough for it. But it is not the wisdom of this world or of this world’s leaders, who are in the process of passing away.

Juster’s belief that Saunder’s (E.P. Sanders) “quest for accurate understanding” (like his groundbreaking book Paul and Palestinian Judaism) started the movement called the New Perspective on Paul. A movement that led to what has also become known as anti-Paul theology.

E.P. Sanders book New Perspective on Paul and his next major work Jesus and Judaism were very controversial. In Jesus and Judaism Sanders argued that:

Jesus began as a follower of John the Baptist and was a prophet of the restoration of Israel. Sanders saw Jesus as creating an eschatological Jewish movement through his appointment of the Apostles and through his preaching and actions. After his execution (the trigger for which was Jesus overthrowing the tables in the temple court of Herod's Temple, thereby antagonizing the political authorities) his followers continued the movement, expecting his return to restore Israel.

Similar to some of the academic theological scholarship from what sounds like an unbelieving believer in Mashiach Yeshua, God the Son.

 

[Hoshiyya]

AbbaLove, not a single thing you said in your post makes sense to me. Is English your first language ?

If it is interesting, Ænglysce (it is spelled Ænglisc on Wikipedia) is a valid spelling of "English" in Old English. In case you didn't know, there is a world outside the internet.

 

[Hoshiyya]

"Do you really trust the teaching of these academic intellectuals when it's questionable if they're even a Believer in Mashiach Yeshua as God the Son?"


And ?
What's the problem ?

When research is presented, do you then ask if the scientist is Christian ?
That's your first question ?

 

[rick357]

"Do you really trust the teaching of these academic intellectuals when it's questionable if they're even a Believer in Mashiach Yeshua as God the Son?"

And ?
What's the problem ?

When research is presented, do you then ask if the scientist is Christian ?
That's your first question ?

Only when that scientist has a known agenda to destroy the foolish faith of believers...same for theological academics....in general...not necessarily those of whom we are adressing.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Only when that scientist has a known agenda to destroy the foolish faith of believers...same for theological academics....in general...not necessarily those of whom we are adressing.

Right, with say Dawkins that is an issue, but he's really just an opinion-guy, he doesn't create medicine or write theories of gravity, language, migration-patterns or what you have you. But if a mathematician is Jewish or Muslim or atheist or Catholic, no skin off my back.