Messianic Judaism?

[Gxg (G²)]

Interesting to note- the shepherds that "watched their flocks" by night were also Levites. Maybe there's a 'drash in there somewhere.

There are definately a lot of interesting views about the shepherds and their identity...as there are others who speak here of the Shepherds as those which tended the temple flock.

And as another said:

I like your comment about the shepherds being first to come visit the baby Yeshua. This reminds me of the targum Yerushalmi on Genesis 35:21, in which it is written,

And Jacob proceeded and spread his tent beyond the tower of Eder [מִגְדַּל־עֵדֶר; migdal eder], the place from where, it is to be, the King Messiah will be revealed at the end of the days.

עֵדֶר (eder) means "flock," as in a flock of sheep. This tower is elsewhere mentioned in Micah 4:8, in which it is written,

And you, O' tower of the flock [מִגְדַּל־עֵדֶר; migdal eder], the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto you shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.

Migdal Eder was located about a mile south of Beit-Lechem, the city in which our Lord was born. According to the Mishna, Shekhalim 7.4, this place was also used for keeping animals for Passover offerings. As we all know, our savior was the Lamb of God who would be offered on Passover for our sins. The shepherds were watching over the Lamb of God.

Amen!
​

Also, for another excerpt from what another said.

I’m afraid you will hear all kinds of conjecture and explanations, and if we are to base our understanding on just one or two pieces of data, then we might come up with all kinds of theories. But the only way to achieve a high degree of accuracy is to base our understanding on the weight of evidence, which means look at all the historical/archaeological data and then base our views on that. And there is quite a bit of historical and archaeological data about the shepherds and the flock at Bethlehem.

On a general note about the practices of Jewish shepherds, according to Rabbinic sources the wilderness flocks “remain in the open alike in the hottest days and in the rainy season.” (Bezah 40 a cf. Tosephta Bezah iv.6 and Jer. Bezah 63 b) The winter in Palestine is referred to as the rainy season because this is a moderate region of the Mediterranean where the winter is mild and rainy. After all, this is a land of palms, and fig trees, and pomegranates, plants which only grow in areas with moderate winter temperatures. The average nighttime temperature in Bethlehem on December 24 is 41 degrees F. I have actually seen temperatures on Christmas day in the 60’s. This is simply not a cold enough climate to require that wooly sheep be brought into shelter for the winter. To verify the temperature data I’ve provided log onto http://www.weather.com or http://www.jerusalempost.comand search their archives.

But there is other evidence that also must be taken into consideration. During the 1st century there were literally hundreds of thousands of animals sacrificed in the Temple every year. According to Josephus as many as a quarter million lambs were slain at Passover alone! Animals to be used for cultic purposes was the primary import commodity of Israel, and before these animals could be offered they had to be inspected by specially trained priests to be sure they were free of any blemish, deformity, scars, or infestations. According to Rabbinic writings (Mishnah, Baba K. 7.7 and Baba K. 80a) the “Temple flock,” as it was called referring to those flocks of sheep intended for sacrifice in Jerusalem, were kept at Bethlehem, five miles south of the city. This would not be a typical sheep fold, but a stock-yard where hundreds and even thousands of animals were temporarily kept until they were inspected and then brought to Jerusalem for sacrifice.

Another important piece of data, this time of particular archaeological interest, is that Bethlehem was the ancient site of the royal house of David, and there was at one time a castle there. Even in Jesus’ time that castle had long since fallen to ruin, but it is believed that the “Migdal Eder,” the “tower of the flock” which was located in Bethlehem was in fact one of the old watchtowers from the royal castle that was being used as the watchtower for the shepherds who were keeping watch over the temple flock. The Palestinian Authority has been peppered with requests for permits to conduct archaeological investigations in this area to attempt to locate the castle ruins, but permission has not yet been given. We know that this Migdal Eder stood just outside Bethlehem on the road to Jerusalem.

A messianic prophecy about this Migdal Eder was very familiar to 1st century Jews. The prophet Micah had foretold that the birth of the Messiah would be announced from this tower: “And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.” (Micah 4:8) We know from both the Gospels as well as the Rabbinic writings that it was commonly believed that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but this prophecy about his birth being announced from the tower of the flock was equally well-known to the Jews (Targum Pseudo-Jon. On Gen. 35.21). There is also an ancient story of Messiah’s birth related in the Jerusalem Talmud which says the Messiah was said to have been born “in the royal castle of Bethlehem” (Ber. 2.3 cf. Midrash on Lamentations 1.16). According to the Rabbis, even if a castle falls down, it is still called a castle (Yalkut, Vol. 2, p. 60 b).

And another piece of historical information, the shepherds who tended these flocks were no ordinary shepherds. The reason we know this is that shepherds, because of their necessary isolation from the religions life of the nation being required to live in "the wilderness" and migrate with their sheep, were under a Rabbinic ban, such as that imposed on others who engaged in trades that in some way rendered them unclean, such as tax collectors, weavers, tanners, physicians, midwives, city sanitation workers, etc. And yet, on the night of Christ’s birth, we see the shepherds who were keeping watch over the flock in Bethlehem going freely about the neighborhood conversing openly with the people about the things they had seen and heard. The only reason these shepherds were able to do so is that they were not under the Rabbinic ban because their duty was to guard and care for the Temple flock, a sacred purpose, and they were not required to live in isolation from the religious life but in fact played a very important role in that religious life.

All of which means that not only was Jesus born in Bethlehem, as the ancient prophet had foretold, but his birth was announced to the Jewish people by the very shepherds stationed in the Migdal Eder, the royal tower of the flock, who kept watch over the lambs destined for sacrifice in Jerusalem.
​

I definately think that the theory of the shepherds tending royal sheep/lambs for sacrifice is more than plausible....and it can make sense of alot of events. However, I'd also tend to think that the story has room for the viewpoint that the shepherds were at night being theives who were trying to steal sheep. Technically, the shepherds would not have needed to be in Jerusalem when considering how not everyone deemed as a shepherd or living in Israel was living righteouslly. There have been scholars noting how what occurred with the shepherds was that they were really rebel-rousers/people stealing sheep--and the shepherds were often deemed the most dirty.

As shepherds were often a despised group of people (against Roman Law to testify in court if needing a character witness in a court of law due to their reputation), not able to maintain all the ceremonial washings and activities because they were busy tending to the sheep, some of what occurred with Christ was interesting

There was a sermon on that which I was able to listen to on that subject which may give more detail, as seen here if going online/looking up the sermon entitled "Christmas Characters - Angels, Shepherd's, Simeon & Anna - Luke 2" ().


Either way, whether with theives stealing sheep at night or with shephers tending lambs destined for sacrifice, the power of the story is not lost in either version since it gives perspectives that go along with the importance of Christ and both point to the need for sacrifice.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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.....

 

[visionary]

Either way, whether with thieves stealing sheep at night or with shepherds tending lambs destined for sacrifice, the power of the story is not lost in either version since it gives perspectives that go along with the importance of Christ and both point to the need for sacrifice.

You are far too wishy washy... Thieves wouldn't be sitting around the camp fire discussing the coming Messiah.. thus have their minds and hearts yearning for this blessed event... nor go around telling the good news... because as thieves are less likely to have any acceptance of what they say is true.. where as the Temple Shepherds as Levites would not only be great students of the Word but also it would not be unusual in speaking the Word to those around them.

 

[yedida]

There are definately a lot of interesting views about the shepherds and their identity...as there are others who speak here of the Shepherds as those which tended the temple flock.

I definately think that the theory of the shepherds tending royal sheep/lambs for sacrifice is more than plausible....
quote]

This is what I originally reckoned CM was referring to. That's exactly why I said "2 + 2" perspective. One sentence, sheesh.....

 

[visionary]

There are definately a lot of interesting views about the shepherds and their identity...as there are others who speak here of the Shepherds as those which tended the temple flock.

I definately think that the theory of the shepherds tending royal sheep/lambs for sacrifice is more than plausible....
quote]

This is what I originally reckoned CM was referring to. That's exactly why I said "2 + 2" perspective. One sentence, sheesh.....

This is most logical.. that is why God gave us the good sense to use. He would not do outside of that which would be against His Word. His word to the unrighteous is repent... To the righteous do the blessings of further insight come.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You are far too wishy washy.

Beg to differ - as, IMHO, I think you can tend to be far too dogmatic on tha which scripture never lays out plainly (and that's something the Jewish rabbis often warned against in making law where there wasn't certainty)

 

[visionary]

Beg to differ - as you're far too dogmatic on that scripture never lays out plainly (and that's something the Jewish rabbis often warned against in making law where there wasn't certainty)

certainty can look that way to those who have not chosen the narrow path.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

certainty can look that way to those who have not chosen the narrow path.

Seeing that Yeshua actually noted the same, one can look past him in avoidance of what he actually supported and did - for you already did just that when making some of the claims you did, counter to the Jewish culture Christ lived in and often pointed to (and I say that specifically in regards to the comment you made claiming that Yeshua would not be associated with people who were deemed to be of bad reputation or that the Messiah was going to be one who had a huge following/good reputation when he was born).

Disagreeing with your preference doesn't equate to not following the "Narrow Path" that Christ spoke of in Luke 13 and Matthew 7 - and it's humorous to see you'd assume such.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This is what I originally reckoned CM was referring to. That's exactly why I said "2 + 2" perspective. One sentence, sheesh.....

What you noted to CM is what you noted to CM. Not really anything said it, of course, that gave anything in the way of history or verification since it was simple agreement - and that is your right to do so just as others (myself included) have done so as well. However, if others share their thoughts in-depth with verification on what another has said (as CF and I often prefer with one another/appreciate) and it's not what you prefer, what of it? If it's something you choose to offer "sheesh.." on, I'd suggest it'd behoove you to get over it as it's not a big deal nor really significant that you use one sentence.

 

[visionary]

Seeing that Yeshua actually noted the same, one can look past him in avoidance of what he actually supported and did - for you already did just that when making some of the claims you did, counter to the Jewish culture Christ lived in and often pointed to

not... thieves have the same reputation and lower standards as they are today thus will have the same response from the community at large. Shepherds especially the temple shepherds would have been given more respect and been seriously considered on what they had to say about this miraculous event, than would thieves who are on the same level as liars.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You are far too wishy washy....

Again, noting the differing views on texts where there has never been universal agreement is no more "wishy washy" than one is "accurate" for taking a stance on something where there is ambiguity - and as others have noted before, it can be problematic for one to do as you've done in making dogma where there is none to be made. And we're called in scripture to not do such ( Proverbs 19:2, Provebrs 18:13, Proverbs 18:15, Proverbs 18:17, etc. ) - getting all the facts before making a judgement.

Thieves wouldn't be sitting around the camp fire discussing the coming Messiah.. thus have their minds and hearts yearning for this blessed event... nor go around telling the good news... because as thieves are less likely to have any acceptance of what they say is true.. where as the Temple Shepherds as Levites would not only be great students of the Word but also it would not be unusual in speaking the Word to those around them

Please - and seriously, if you're going to make a comment about how others in Jewish culture were, there's no need doing so speaking counter to what actually happened and what the Lord himself noted. For there were already many times where those who were poor/destitute - driven to steal or do bad things - noted hope in the Messiah to help them change. Additionally, for those who had bad reputations, Christ already showed multiple instances where he came after them and they showed they were readily awaiting Him.

It has NEVER been the case in scripture or history that only those doing good were the ones expecting the Messiah/desiring Him to come. That doesn't even happen today with people who come from unsavory pasts - as there've been plenty of accounts of others in gangs or criminal activities who noted that they discussed who God was - and others expressed desire to know Him/see if there was anything beyond life as they were seeing it....BEFORE the Lord revealed Himself to them/set them free. For shepherds to see the Messiah proclaimed is consistent with the Message He brought - which is His annoucment to save the world from their sins rather than simply come for the righteous.


When you're truly living life with real people, it's hard not to be reminded of the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-31, alongside all the other ones spoken, were shared in light of the Pharisees looking down upon the tax-collectors (deemed traitors/crooks by the Jewish people ) and the prostitutes (unclean, immoral, etc). As shared before more in-depth on the issue:

We as kint de adonoi may not snub the hospitality of the goyim who are saved. If we do we declare the same things that have been in every (christian) denomination. They don't follow my way therefore they are either unsaved or not saved enough.

Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter, as it concerns many things that others don't talk on when it comes to seeing what actually happened within the scriptures...and understanding the principle of how the application of Mosaic law was not always the same as it was in the OT when Christ was present. The example of Christ with the tax-collectors/"sinners" is something else to keep in mind, in light of the fact that just because one was Jewish in the days of Christ didn't mean they led a kosher lifestyle...

Tax collectors were a trip...with most of them indeed WEALTHY, as it was with Zacchaeus ( Luke 19:1-3 /Luke 19 )..and for those who were tax-collectors, it's something that people often did not want to mix with ...even though Jesus often did went counter to the norms in connecting with them as He often did for those who were outcasts( Matthew 11:19,Matthew 11:18-20, , Matthew 21:31-33/ ,Luke 3:11-13 Luke 3 , Luke 15:1-3 Luke 15, Luke 18:8-10 /Luke 18, etc). When Matthew was called, he did not disguise his past or make any excuse for it, which was humility. Tax collectors were among the most hated and despised in society in society since the money they collected was often extorted for personal gain and partly a tax for Rome, which made them not only theives but traitors to the Jewish Nation. Also, regarding the text, one must keep in mind that there are generally 2 categories of tax collectors: 1.) gabbi collected general taxes on land and property, and a income, referred to as poll and registration taxex; 2.) mokhes colleted a wide variety of use taxes, similar to import duties, buisness license fees, and toll fees. Additionally, there were two categories of mokhes: great mokhes hired others to collect taxes for them; small mokhes did their own assessing and collecting. Matthew was a small mokhes ......and it is likely that there was representivitves of both classes attending Matthew's Feast---ALL of whom were considered social outcasts and of bad reputation. There was still stigma against him when he invited Jesus to come/dine in his home and others were still wondering "Why in the world is Christ fellowshipping with this person who is clearly a sinner?".

For anyone doing sincere research on the types of people who were often at tax-collevtor parties, it'll be apparent that it was not a matter of things being "prime/proper". ...as they were noted to be BUCK WILD!!! For the "religious", Heaven help them if they were there.....but for Christ, He decided to go counter to what many Judeas would've done---and what the Pharisees often did when it came to distancing themselves from anything they thought was unclean. Jesus, in his radical ideology, was able to maintain mobility that the religious leaders simply didn't have...

Christ associated with sinners at morally upright or at least morally neutral places, such as meals in people's homes .

I do wonder what to make of it when Christ noted where he was also eating/drinking as well publically:

Luke 7:34
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’
Luke 7:33-35
​

On what you note..when you're truly living life with real people, it's hard not to be reminded of the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-31, alongside all the other ones spoken, were shared in light of the Pharisees looking down upon the tax-collectors (deemed traitors/crooks by the Jewish people ) and the prostitutes (unclean, immoral, etc).

Luke 15
The Parable of the Lost Sheep

1 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”


3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
The Parable of the Lost Coin

8 “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins[] and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

The Parable of the Lost Son

11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.


13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.


17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.


“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.


21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in.’”
​

The three parables on the subject of being lost and found were never primarily about Gentiles being brought back into the Jewish community (in regards to anyone saying "older brothers" are those Jews who don't believe Gentiles are meant to be the same in stance as the Jews). The portrayal of the elder son and his resentment was in many ways a subtle criticism of the grumbling Pharisees and scribes toward those within the Jewish community who they deemed to be lower-class Jews...ones who weren't as "Worthy" of salvation as they were. It is no small issue when Yeshua noted that the tax collectors/prostitutes were entering in before the religious leaders of Christ's day..as they understood their need of salvation (Matthew 21:30-32 )


In regards to the greater context of Luke 15, why were the Pharisees and teachers of the law bothered that Jesus associated with the people he did? The religious leaders were always careful to stay "clean" according to the OT law. In fact, they went well beyond the law in their avoidance of certain people and situations and in their ritual washings. By contrast, Jesus took their concept of "cleanness" lightly. He risked defilement by touching those who had leprosy and by neglecting to wash in the Pharisees' prescribed manner, and he showed complete disregard for their sanctions against associating with certain classes of people. He came to offer salvation to sinners, to show that God loves them...and he wasn't concerned with the accusations brought to him by being with the "wrong crowd."

For the Lord associated with sinners because he wanted to bring people considered beyond hope the Gospel of God's kingdom...just as the shepherd was not concerned so much with the bigger flock as much as he was about that one lost sheep. And with the parable Jesus shared, the younger brother was a perfect example of the Jewish indivduals who went away from the Lord/were redeemed and loved just as strongly by the Father as the older/"righteous" brother was. It was hard for the older brother to accept his younger brother when he returned after living a notoriously sinful life--but the Father had to show him that love required forgivness and compassion.

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

not... thieves have the same reputation and lower standards as they are today thus will have the same response from the community at large. Shepherds especially the temple shepherds would have been given more respect and been seriously considered on what they had to say about this miraculous event, than would thieves who are on the same level as liars.

As said before, although you may disagree, it seems you're presumming where there is no evidence (IMHO).

For the logic you're using is the same type that says EVERYONE knew Christ was a King when he was born - and that's not what the scriptures say. No one believed Mary or Joseph and Jesus and it's why many took offense at him when He began to claim He was God/the Messiah. To them, he was simply another kid from the Ghetto of Israel.

The same thing goes for claiming that only those who had good reputations were called to be present before Him - but that's no more logical than saying that only the best of the best associated with CHrist - and that's not what he did. Be it Luke 7:36-50 with the woman who anointed the feet of Christ despite her horrible background (and was rebuked by those having the mindset that the dirty had no place around Christ) - or the woman in Matthew 15 who was a Gentile woman with a Demon-possessed daughter - and the same with the Woman at the well in John 4 who had a bad reputation - and yet noted directly where the Samaritans had been eagerly looking for the Messiah to reveal himself ...regardless of how the Jews didn't favor their opinons (and regardless of Christ loving them). Christ had no problem being associated with those who didn't seem to look the best.

People have come to respect Christ when they were found out in doing wrong (even if they were searching) just as much as they respected him when they were doing good. It would not have mattered if the shepherds themselves were corrupt since the point emphasized is that they would've seen Christ/the Glory and seen what they needed to remember - and change. The same thing has occurred for many believers over a long time - be it those caught up in the Gang Lifestyle...or those who were stealing/robbing or those in prison or even prostitution (if ever seriously working in those populations/helping them ) - with others noting that it was amazing when the Lord revealed himself to them/told them WHO He was and they changed....and although others didn't trust them or look favorably on them due to their reputation, they still were thankful he convicted them/showed them what to do. And they told their friends on it and it was amazing to see their families changed

It'd be no more "wrong" for shepherds of a bad reputation to recieve Christ in His birth than it would be for ANY OTHER group in history in sin since the word is clear that Christ came for us when we were struggling (Titus 3:1-8, Romans 5, etc.) - and that's why it's significant that His birth would be for everyone - rich and poor, good and bad.

In the event other say "Well Christ would never be associated with the bad folks in his society", Christ noted where he was also eating/drinking as well publically:

Luke 7:34
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’
Luke 7:33-35

Matthew 9:13

The Calling of Matthew

9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
​

One cannot understand the significance of the point Christ rose without understanding basic facts about the people he associted with. Tax collectors were a trip...with most of them indeed WEALTHY, as it was with Zacchaeus ( Luke 19:1-3 /Luke 19 )..and for those who were tax-collectors, it's something that people often did not want to mix with ...even though Jesus often did went counter to the norms in connecting with them as He often did for those who were outcasts( Matthew 11:19,Matthew 11:18-20, , Matthew 21:31-33/ ,Luke 3:11-13 Luke 3 , Luke 15:1-3 Luke 15, Luke 18:8-10 /Luke 18, etc). When Matthew was called, he did not disguise his past or make any excuse for it, which was humility. Tax collectors were among the most hated and despised in society in society since the money they collected was often extorted for personal gain and partly a tax for Rome, which made them not only theives but traitors to the Jewish Nation.

Also, regarding the text, one must keep in mind that there are generally 2 categories of tax collectors: 1.) gabbi collected general taxes on land and property, and a income, referred to as poll and registration taxex; 2.) mokhes colleted a wide variety of use taxes, similar to import duties, buisness license fees, and toll fees. Additionally, there were two categories of mokhes: great mokhes hired others to collect taxes for them; small mokhes did their own assessing and collecting. Matthew was a small mokhes ......and it is likely that there was representivitves of both classes attending Matthew's Feast---ALL of whom were considered social outcasts and of bad reputation. There was still stigma against him when he invited Jesus to come/dine in his home and others were still wondering "Why in the world is Christ fellowshipping with this person who is clearly a sinner?".

For anyone doing sincere research on the types of people who were often at tax-collevtor parties, it'll be apparent that it was not a matter of things being "prime/proper". ...as they were noted to be BUCK WILD!!! For the "religious", Heaven help them if they were there.....but for Christ, He decided to go counter to what many Judeas would've done---and what the Pharisees often did when it came to distancing themselves from anything they thought was unclean. Jesus, in his radical ideology, was able to maintain mobility that the religious leaders simply didn't have...

Again, Christ associated with sinners at morally upright or at least morally neutral places, such as meals in people's homes . And on the issue, as said before, Luke 15:11-31 is one of the most direct texts on the issue in light of the Pharisees looking down upon the tax-collectors (deemed traitors/crooks by the Jewish people ) and the prostitutes (unclean, immoral, etc).

Luke 15
The Parable of the Lost Sheep

1 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”


3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

The Parable of the Lost Coin

8 “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins[] and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

The Parable of the Lost Son

11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.


13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.


17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’ 28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in.’”

​

The three parables on the subject of being lost and found were never primarily about Gentiles being brought back into the Jewish community (in regards to anyone saying "older brothers" are those Jews who don't believe Gentiles are meant to be the same in stance as the Jews). The portrayal of the elder son and his resentment was in many ways a subtle criticism of the grumbling Pharisees and scribes toward those within the Jewish community who they deemed to be lower-class Jews...ones who weren't as "Worthy" of salvation as they were. It is no small issue when Yeshua noted that the tax collectors/prostitutes were entering in before the religious leaders of Christ's day..as they understood their need of salvation (Matthew 21:30-32 )

Matthew 21:28-32

The Parable of the Two Sons

28 “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’

29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.

31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
“The first,” they answered.Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
​

In regards to the greater context of Luke 15, why were the Pharisees and teachers of the law bothered that Jesus associated with the people he did? The religious leaders were always careful to stay "clean" according to the OT law. In fact, they went well beyond the law in their avoidance of certain people and situations and in their ritual washings. By contrast, Jesus took their concept of "cleanness" lightly. He risked defilement by touching those who had leprosy and by neglecting to wash in the Pharisees' prescribed manner, and he showed complete disregard for their sanctions against associating with certain classes of people. He came to offer salvation to sinners, to show that God loves them...and he wasn't concerned with the accusations brought to him by being with the "wrong crowd."

For the Lord associated with sinners because he wanted to bring people considered beyond hope the Gospel of God's kingdom...just as the shepherd was not concerned so much with the bigger flock as much as he was about that one lost sheep. And with the parable Jesus shared, the younger brother was a perfect example of the Jewish indivduals who went away from the Lord/were redeemed and loved just as strongly by the Father as the older/"righteous" brother was. It was hard for the older brother to accept his younger brother when he returned after living a notoriously sinful life--but the Father had to show him that love required forgivness and compassion.

 

[yedida]

Seeing that Yeshua actually noted the same, one can look past him in avoidance of what he actually supported and did - for you already did just that when making some of the claims you did, counter to the Jewish culture Christ lived in and often pointed to

Disagreeing with your preference doesn't equate to not following the "Narrow Path" that Christ spoke of in Luke 13 and Matthew 7 - and it's humorous to see you'd assume such.

I think this post is in violation of what Tish just set into place! You have made it personal, and that wihout one thing to back it up. That's not a very nice thing to do.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think this post is in violation of what Tish just set into place! You have made it personal,.
You have made it personal, and that wihout one thing to back it up. That's not a very nice thing to do.

If you want to be consistent, you need to go back/address where it was said that others not agreeing to a certain view were not following the "Narrow Path" -

You are far too wishy washy...around them.

certainty can look that way to those who have not chosen the narrow path.

Playful banter is one thing (and I have no issue with that )- but if you want to assume any response commentary is personal, by all means respond EQUALLY and not selectively. You already know logically that the same has been said of others before and it was noted that it was "personal" - and if wanting to debate on the matter, by all means keep quiet the next time someone tells you you're not following on the Narrrow Path or that you're too wishy washy - for you've responded before saying that was personal to much less if it was said about you......so if really wanting to talk on being "personal", now is your choice: Show you address comments such as the aforementioned as "being personal" and go back to all instances where it was said of you/you complained on it. Otherwise, there's no real claim on concern with what Tish said. ..and it could easily be said that you're looking to make issue where there is none with others you've already made apparent multiple times you don't like. Period.

We can talk all day long about "making things personal" since it has already occurred throughout the thread as well as other places and can easily be seen as such from yourself - if you really want to go there.

Too often responses smack of saying things you don't think to be "nice" if it happens to be on others you favor - but then when it is either yourself or others agreeing with you noting things to others that are rather equal to all the "not nice" comments you claim, it's deemed to be different - and doesn't do much for consistent claims of wanting to be concerned with what's nice.

That said, unless you have anything different to do other than making issues out of nothing, it'd good to go back to addressing the discussion

 

[yedida]

If you want to be consistent, you need to go back/address where it was said that others not agreeing to a certain view were not following the "Narrow Path" -

​

Playful banter is one thing - but if you want to assume any commentary is personal, by all means respond EQUALLY and not selectively. Otherwise, there's no real claim on concern with what Tish said. ..and it could easily be said that you're looking to make issue where there is none with others you've already made apparent multiple times you don't like. Period

Admittedly, the first one did. and I'm sure she'll apologize for it. The second did not. But even the first one does not give license to respond in the same manner. It's time we all grew up and tried to get along; after all, we may be spending eternity together.

 

[annier]

I don't think you get this yet. It is not "communion with the saints" it is the communion OF the saints. It's about unity in Messiah. We are asked to pray for one another in scripture, and this is merely one small part of being part of the one communion in Messiah. We all have the Messiah as our advocate, and we all can boldly approach- yet we are called to pray for one another. We need each other. If it's about graduation to higher levels then we would (theoretically) not need the prayers of others.

I don't think this idea you have about this doctrine is the right one. Not even Catholics would agree with your understanding of their doctrine.

You and EZ, are really having some excellent discussion here. It has really been wonderful to me anyway. I am looking for a more liturgical church. I was considering Anglican. But this doctrine had me hesitiant. But you here have given me the incentive to check out what they have to say about this doctrine. As I do believe liturgical churches are a more accurate reflection of Christian Judaism personally.
Thank you

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Admittedly, the first one did. and I'm sure she'll apologize for it. The second did not..

That, again, is the issue - as it's selective in saying what is personal or not - and this has been discussed as well by Tish when it comes to claims of others not following the Lord or Torah/Jewish culture as it was and then saying the best of themselves. You may disagree, but that doesn't change the nature of what was said - and the reality of how it was responded to in the event it was said to others as yourself or anyone you feel to be at a certain place you approve of...even though others look at you in the same way on multiple points. For as said before, anyone saying the same of yourself or others (i.e. "You don't follow the Narrow Path" ) when it comes to your own walks has already been responded to - and the same applies to others

I don't think nor would I choose to ever say Visionary is not following the path of Yeshua and I think she's a wonderful person who has many wonderful insights - although if/when something is said that doesn't really agree with what Christ or other Jewish rabbis/Jewish customs noted, there's nothing wrong with saying that one disagrees and noting why. She has freedom to do the same with me - and we have on differing occassions. Jewish rabbis would do that often where they'd say things in playful banter that someone from the outside could look/assume was a matter of them being a bit intense with one another - and yet those people would go back to having fellowship and noting appreciation.

Thus, although there's disagreement, I do not think everything she says is a personal remark. Of course, it can be interpreted as such if one chooses such...and with some things, even if one says "It's not personal", they can be so direct that it's hard to see otherwise ..especially if coupled with the history of interaction being bad. Again, if you really want to go there with discussing what is or isn't "personal", it's not that difficult showing where you've already qualified for that and used a selective application.

It's time we all grew up and tried to get along; after all, we may be spending eternity together

I agree - and the same has been noted for a long time when it comes to some of the responses to that which folks do not agree with (as said earlier). And with that comes the reality of knowing how to be playful with one another without being overly sensitive..knowing what the boundaries are/respecting them, not thinking the worse of others and not assuming all others disagreeing are not concerned with following Yeshua.

That also goes for knowing how to treat things equally when they happen - and not doing or saying things that don't represent others as they are . Whether it be here or in other forums people participate that most here are aware of in what's really said/have noted as an issue

Galatians 5:14-16/ Galatians 5
You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You and EZ, are really having some excellent discussion here. It has really been wonderful to me anyway. I am looking for a more liturgical church. I was considering Anglican. But this doctrine had me hesitiant. But you here have given me the incentive to check out what they have to say about this doctrine.

Glad you were enjoying the discussion..

As I do believe liturgical churches are a more accurate reflection of Christian Judaism personally. Thank you

Many others have long noted where they feel the same

 

[Gxg (G²)]

not... thieves have the same reputation and lower standards as they are today thus will have the same response from the community at large. Shepherds especially the temple shepherds would have been given more respect and been seriously considered on what they had to say about this miraculous event, than would thieves who are on the same level as liars.

It should be considered that reputation doesn't equate to being well -known - and as said before, not even Christ had that...consistent with Isaiah 53 which talked of him coming from a lowly background/being of a background which others would not consider significant.

Isaiah 53
Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

​

With Christ, others were threatened...and thus, his background was often used against him in POLITICAL ways more often than not. The leaders tried to trap him multiple times and get him in trouble with the government, as seen in Matthew 22 when came to their questioning Him.

But his upbringing is where they seemed to have the most issue.

Recall John 7:

John 7:37-53

Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” 43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44 Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.

Unbelief of the Jewish Leaders
45 Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who asked them, “Why didn’t you bring him in?”
46 “No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards replied.

47 “You mean he has deceived you also?” the Pharisees retorted. 48 “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49 No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.”

50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, 51 “Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?”

52 They replied, “Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.”

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

53 Then they all went home,

​

The Pharisees that Jesus came against, often noted to be apart of the School of Shemi, were not accepting of Gentiles....and this is not surprising since the School of Shemai taught such. Thus, using their authorities, they often tried to silence anything that was supportative of Gentile praise. Its one of the reasons they came in conflict with Christ---as with him being more in line with the School of Hilel, he would have been very much opposed to Him. Though they could claim nothing good came out of Nazareth/Galilee, they could only reinforce that thought if they skipped over what the Prophets had already said.


As said of Galilee by Isaiah:

Isaiah 9: 1
Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress.
In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the
Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan.

​

What the Pharisees did not tell the people was that yes in the past God did humble the land of Zebulun but in the future God will honour Galilee of the Gentiles.....and the future had arrived, as the Messiah was from Galilee---The One place that many Ethocentric Jews just could not stand. Bear in mind that the Jews LITERALLY wanted to kill him after praising Gentiles (like Naaman the Syrian or the Widow who the prophet fed) in Luke 4/Matthew 4...as they felt that only Jews could have truth faith...but this was apart of prophecy

For as much as the Pharisees (minus the godly ones, such as Nicodemus---a secret follower of Christ) and Saducess would say Christ was illegitimate due to his upbringing, they had no real basis...and their desire to kill Jesus was birthed out of how he was really challenging their biases/prejudices toward certain groups. When they said "Examine the Scriptures.....you will see that out of Galilee there ariseth no prophet!!!!", it was a reflection of something that often happens in history when certain groups deliberately leave out the stories of where other groups have made contributions---and then all precedding generations afterward believe the lie. For the Pharisees were simply false in their claims (as were others agasinst Galilee) since Jonah was of Gathheper, in Galilee ( 2 Kings 14:25, compared with Joshua 19:13). As said before, Jonah was a prophet from Galilee (Gath-hepher) who counseled Jeroboam II in his successful conflict with the Syrians...making our date for the prophet Jonah to be that of 786-746 B.C.E. During Jeroboam II's reign, the boundaries of Israel reached the former limits of David's kingdom. And a new threat arose in the move of Assyria as it expanded and swalloed up kingdoms. Jonah came from Galilee to prophesy during expansion of Israel under Jeroboam II. ..and as the story of Jonah shows, God responded compassionately to Israel

Outside of Jonah, other prophets came from the "Ghetto" of Israel. In example, the Prophet Nahum was also a Galilean ( (Na 1:1) ), for he was of the tribe of Simeon. And some suppose that Malachi was of the same place. If that wasn't enough, the greatest of the prophets was Elijah the Tishbite (1 Kings 17:1)---and even HE was of Galilee. Either they were unaware of scripture as they were teaching--or they were BLANTANTLY putting up a BOLD Front due to desiring to maintain the "color line" in the Jewish world when it came to hating to admit any of the contributions other ethnic/cultural groups in the Jewish world could bring.....no more different than today if saying two sub-groups in a larger culture are fighting (i.e. West Indian Blacks and Black Hispanics of the Americas and African Blacks) and one side has power....but refuses to publish where another group has made significant impact in the world.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You and EZ, are really having some excellent discussion here. It has really been wonderful to me anyway. I am looking for a more liturgical church. I was considering Anglican. But this doctrine had me hesitiant. But you here have given me the incentive to check out what they have to say about this doctrine. As I do believe liturgical churches are a more accurate reflection of Christian Judaism personally.
Thank you

If I may ask, are you coming from non-liturgical background? Or are you coming from a liturgical background in another area and wanted to see something else?