Messianic Judaism?

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
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Avodat

Contending for Biblical truth
Jul 2, 2011
4,188
315
✟21,427.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Easy G (G²);62113965 said:
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.

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.
 
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
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.
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).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Avodat

Contending for Biblical truth
Jul 2, 2011
4,188
315
✟21,427.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Easy G (G²);62114049 said:
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."

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).

:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Easy G (G²);62114049 said:
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).

I think that there is an early Christian tradition that Mary WAS the daughter of a priest. IIRC, the Mishah or another Jewish source indicates that it was the priests daughters who made the curtains for the Temple. Apparently they were periodically replaced.
 
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
I think that there is an early Christian tradition that Mary WAS the daughter of a priest. IIRC, the Mishah or another Jewish source indicates that it was the priests daughters who made the curtains for the Temple. Apparently they were periodically replaced.
On the early Christian tradition, according to Holy Tradition, Mary’s parents were Joachim and Anne. Joachim was a priest and his wife Anne was probably a daughter of a priest. Mary is said to have been born in the grotto under the Church of St. Anne which would have been adjacent to the Temple, in an area where the Temple priests lived.


For more:
Will have to investigate the Mishah on the temple curtains made by the priests daughters....
 
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
The Jewish people are one people and the Mosaic law was given to the Jewish people. As a people, we are obligated to the entire law, as we said at Mt Sinai, all that God says, we will do. So speaking individually, I am obligated to do the laws which apply to me as my part of the people, but as a people, we are obligated to the entire law (minus the Temple as that is impossible to keep without the Temple)

I grew up in Judaism, so the Mosaic law is nothing new to me. When I accepted Yeshua, the Jewish community didn't really want me around. What was new is Yeshua. So when I joined in with other Mess ianic Jews in Messianic Judaism, we had all grown up in Judaism but were now outcastes because of our belief in Yeshua. What held us together, was our belief in Yeshua.

So, for me, it is not about the Mosaic law. That has always been in my life. What makes me Messianic is Yeshua. If it were not for Yeshua, I would not be a Messianic Jew.


Reverse your story for mine. I grew up in traditional mainstream Christianity. When I returned to the Lord 8-9yrs ago, Christianity was nothing new to me. But I remembered what caused me to become closed to it some 10 years earlier and didn't want to walk down the same path. So I opened up the Bible and read it for myself, all the way through, several times. In the process of doing that something jumped out at me, something I had never been taught before, something I had never even heard before - Hashem gave instructions to His people at Sinai and those instructions were for everyone who would call themselves by His name. And that is why I follow Torah today, it was something Hashem called me to do, no one told me this. In fact, just the opposite is about all I had ever heard and am still hearing - but I'm not hearing that when I read God's word! So I follow and obey.
If, when the judgment day comes and He tells me I could have enjoyed bacon and eggs for breakfast and coconut shrimp for dinner every day of my life - so be it. At least I won't hear, "Why did you read and hear over and over again and still refused to obey?" There's no condemnation in obedience (even if it's not necessary (yeah, right!!)) but there is condemnation in blatant, willful disobedience.
 
Upvote 0

macher

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2012
529
21
✟840.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Lovely, but you end out the quote too soon:



This passage clearly indicates that circumcision was not restricted to Abraham and his descendants. It is for anyone living within Abraham's sphere of influence.

Rashi tries to quibble, but the text strikes me as pretty plain.

Not a quibble at all.

Genesis 17:12-13, 23 and 27 are very specific about which people' were to be circumcised, plus Genesis 15 and 17 are also VERY specific about just exactly who is included in fleshly Bris Milah; Abraham's physical descendants by Sarah through Isaac and Jacob. Even Abraham's own son Ishmael was excluded from Abrahamic Covenant.
 
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
Genesis 15 and 17 are also VERY specific about just exactly who is included in fleshly Bris Milah; Abraham's physical descendants by Sarah through Isaac and Jacob. Even Abraham's own son Ishmael was excluded from Abrahamic Covenant.
Abraham's son, Ishamel, was NEVER excluded from the Abrahamic Covenant when reading the entirety of Genesis 17 and how all in the household (including Ishmael) were circumcised (more shared already in #511 and #512 and #93 ). It'd not be accurate texually/historically to say otherwise. As Dr. Tony Maalouf notes wonderfully in his work (recommended by other Messianic Jews), there are numerous scriptures showing where even Ishmael was apart of the Covenants the Lord made with Abraham (as there were multiple Abrahamic covenants or parts of them--but the promised seed of the Messiah was meant to come through Issac ). The Blessing of the Covenant (whom the Messiah would come through) is not the same as the Promise of a Blessing which the Lord gave to Abraham's first son - and honored fully, in addition to considering others his people who honored what He had already asked of Abraham years earlier.
 
Last edited:
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

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
Not a quibble at all.

Genesis 17:12-13, 23 and 27 are very specific about which people' were to be circumcised, plus Genesis 15 and 17 are also VERY specific about just exactly who is included in fleshly Bris Milah; Abraham's physical descendants by Sarah through Isaac and Jacob. Even Abraham's own son Ishmael was excluded from Abrahamic Covenant.


Ishmael was granted the portion where all nations would be blessed thru Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the same general blessings that included gentiles but I agree with you, that in the promises of the Land, etc., Ishmael was excluded, he was not the child of promise.
 
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
I think that there is an early Christian tradition that Mary WAS the daughter of a priest. IIRC, the Mishah or another Jewish source indicates that it was the priests daughters who made the curtains for the Temple. Apparently they were periodically replaced.
It makes sense.. as I understand "swaddling clothes" could have easily have been the linen from the priests' old clothing which she used to wrap Yeshua in as a baby..
 
Upvote 0

yonah_mishael

הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם
Jun 14, 2009
5,370
1,325
Tel Aviv, Israel
Visit site
✟27,173.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Hillel may be quoted in the talmud, but he didn't write it. That began with Akiva, who made himself one of the great rabbis in it. Look up his history of dealing with messianic Jews and Christians.

You really have a beef with the Talmud, don't you? The composition of the kernel of the Talmud was the work of Judah the Prince (יהודה הנשיא). I don't know where you got the idea that Akiva wrote parts of the Talmud. If Akiva's statements were written down by his students and later incorporated into the Mishnah by Judah the Prince, that would simply make sense, but that doesn't mean that Akiva intended his statements to "make it in" to the Mishnah.

Also, if Akiva taught against becoming a believer in Jesus, that would be par for the course for proto-Orthodox Jews of the time (Orthodoxy itself didn't exist as a movement back then, by the way). That would give you no reason to attack him, and saying that he in any way "dealt with" Messianic Jews makes little sense. Do you imagine that he had any authority at all to "deal with" people, to punish them, to take away their property, to excommunicate them? Akiva lived at the time after the fall of the Temple. There was no Jewish state at the time. He had no authority at all.
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,637
59
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
You really have a beef with the Talmud, don't you? The composition of the kernel of the Talmud was the work of Judah the Prince (יהודה הנשיא). I don't know where you got the idea that Akiva wrote parts of the Talmud. If Akiva's statements were written down by his students and later incorporated into the Mishnah by Judah the Prince, that would simply make sense, but that doesn't mean that Akiva intended his statements to "make it in" to the Mishnah.

Also, if Akiva taught against becoming a believer in Jesus, that would be par for the course for proto-Orthodox Jews of the time (Orthodoxy itself didn't exist as a movement back then, by the way). That would give you no reason to attack him, and saying that he in any way "dealt with" Messianic Jews makes little sense. Do you imagine that he had any authority at all to "deal with" people, to punish them, to take away their property, to excommunicate them? Akiva lived at the time after the fall of the Temple. There was no Jewish state at the time. He had no authority at all.

Akiva was either the first or one of the first to begin putting the talmud to paper. That is why he is so revered in it. He created his own legend.

When he backed bar Kosiba's revolt, Kosiba became his power. Why do you think that only the Pharisees survived as a power? The Saducees lost their power when Rome no longer backed them, and Kosiba's army was used against the messianic Jews and other groups who opposed them.
YHWHThe Yeast of the Pharisees
Rabbi Akiba (or Akiva), who died around 135 AD, initiated the pioneer work of collecting and classifying the oral teachings by subject into a "Mishnah" or "review." He was a well-known and respected teacher and had thousands of followers.
An Introduction to the Talmud
 
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

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
It makes sense.. as I understand "swaddling clothes" could have easily have been the linen from the priests' old clothing which she used to wrap Yeshua in as a baby..
Cool to consider the possibilities - as Yeshua wrapped in older priestly linen would've been so profound.
 
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
Interesting to note- the shepherds that "watched their flocks" by night were also Levites. Maybe there's a 'drash in there somewhere.


I can see the 2 + 2 in that thinking, it hadn't really occurred to me before and I like it, actually, but is there a place where this is literally stated beyond "certain" shepherds (my memory fails me)?
 
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
I can see the 2 + 2 in that thinking, it hadn't really occurred to me before and I like it, actually, but is there a place where this is literally stated beyond "certain" shepherds (my memory fails me)?
From the traditional Christmas carol "The First Noel": The first Noel, the angels did say. Was to certain poor shepherds in fields as they lay..... :D
 
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

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
From the traditional Christmas carol "The First Noel": The first Noel, the angels did say. Was to certain poor shepherds in fields as they lay..... :D


Like I said, my memory fails me (more times than not) :blush: :sorry:
 
Upvote 0