[Open] tags-a read and respond thread for all

[Gxg (G²)]

I was talking to a young MJ guy coming home from a christian surfers meeting(picking up my son too) and we were sharing and he said "Praise Jesus, I mean Yeshua, I mean where am I"

Hilarious

Thankful that the Lord doesn't necessarily trip if saying His name one way, be it in Greek or in Spanish and any other language...as he sees one's heart/can hear praise given to him regardless

 

[Lulav]

For the sake of consideration, there've been differing views on what the term "poor ones" actually means. Some say the sect in question seems to have assumed the name Ebionites, "the poor ones," from the first Beatitude (Matthew 5:3), claiming to be the continuation into the new dispensation of the "poor and needy" of the Psalms, eg. Psalms 69:33; 70:5; 74:21.

And although some say that Paul's references to the poor within his epistles meant he was considering the Ebionites (which is possible), other explanations have been given. Some are of the mindset that the term means “poor men” and is thought to refer to their poverty of understanding, which probably has reference to the poverty understanding the Law to which they clung, or to the poor understanding they held concerning Christ when it came to certain things. Perhaps this poverty of understanding is intended to refer to both opinions...although the lifestyle of the Ebionites was often one of voluntary impoverishment/ascetism and thus saying they were "poor" in that sense is more than a possibility. The ordinary view of the origin of the name 'Ebionite" has the advantage of analogy in its favor since the pre-Reformation Protestants of the 12th and 13th centuries in France called themselves "the poor men" (of Lyons)...and the fact that the apostle James in his Epistle implies a natural union between poverty and piety (2:5), "Did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith ....?" would confirm the Jewish Christians in their use of the name.


As one study source said:

All authorities combine in asserting a close connection between the Ebionites and the Essenes. At first sight there are serious points of difference, principally these, the Ebionites enjoined marriage, while the Essenes, if we may believe Philo and Josephus, forbade it. This forbiddal, however, appears to have been true only of the Coenobites of Engedi. Moreover, some of the Judaizers, that is Ebionites, are charged with forbidding to marry (1 Timothy 4:3). The Essenes in all their varieties seem to have come over to Christianity on the fall of the Jewish state and the retreat of the church to Pella. When they joined the believers in their exile the Parsee elements began a ferment in the church and Ebionism was one of the products. This probably is the meaning of the statement that Ebion began to teach his doctrines at Pella. If we may judge from the statements of Scripture and from the earliest of the noncanonical apocalypses, the Ebionites were not at first heretical in their Christology. Only they maintained the universal obligation of the ceremonial law, holding that believers of Gentiledescent could be received into the church only if they were first circumcised. The keen dialectic of Paul forced them from this position.
​

If it was the case that Paul referenced them as either being the groups he was seeking to help---or at least being amongst the groups who were impoverished--it places a differing perspective on Paul's heart for generosity. For even with others who may've differed from him, his choosing to help Ebionites could be taken as an indicator that he was not heartless toward those who may've oppossed him....just as it'd be with others who may have strong disagreements with other people and yet still recognize the basic reality that all men are human/still are to be aided when they're struggling....and if I dislike someone's ideology intensely, that doesn't mean I have the right to rejoice when their children suffer from impoverishment. Just some thoughts
.

Indeed, Wiki had some good material on them that would be interesting to develop discussion on...even if one may not agree with all of the conclusions or the ideology of the group. For if nothing else, I think it'd open up doors for discussing dynamics within history on why groups are viewed as they are and how movements today can learn from that---and within the Messianic movement, I'd think history would offer some excellent lessons on how interaction in the present isn't always divorced from what occurred already in the past.

Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:8-10 /Ecclesiastes 1
​

As it is, IMHO, there was alot of variation amongst the Ebionites and it would not be fair to label them all as not believing in Messiah (in light of how often those identifying with their stances are labeled as such)...and if we are to be students of history, we can at least be willing/able to deal with it as it presented itself rather than broad-brush. With the Ebionites, there were some who may've disagreed with Paul...yet they also didn't choose to go to war with him as it was with the Jews going around/following Paul and causing riots in cities. For those that did, it was an issue (as discussed here). And it is not necessarily the case that others who believed Yeshua was the Messiah automatically didn't believe that because they disagreed with Paul's stance. This is something that can also be said for others today who are essentially Neo-Ebionites (as other Hebrew Christians have noted)..for some could say they had a limited view /understanding without having Paul's mindset seen (which is my stance), but to assert they weren't saved is something I don't think is appropriate. Many scholars have noted that James, the Brother of Jesus, actually was considered to be the leader of one of the groups of Ebionites at Pella (as seen here in an article discussing the influence of Jewish Christianity on the early church)---and for his group, which was more legally minded in regards to adherance to the Law, he sought to keep the peace between Jewish Christians and Gentile believers often .

For more in-depth critique/debate on the Ebionites, as offered elsewhere, there are some sources that've been a blessing which can be found here..or here under the following titles:

• "Ebionites and Nazirites « Messianic Jewish Musings "
• Nazarenes/Ebionites - A Christian Thinktank
• "JewishEncyclopedia.com - EBIONITES"
• Ebionism and Ebionites.
• CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ebionites
• Was Josephus an Ebionite? « Smoodock's Blog
• "Heresy or Reasonable Theology? The Ebionites: Part 2"
• Ebionites: diversity of the early Christianity - a knol by Zia Shah
• The Poor Men, Jesus and Christianity—Ebionites, the Essenes who ...
• The Epistle to the Galatians: a commentary on the Greek text - Page 113
• Jewish Ways of Following Jesus: Redrawing the Religious Map of ... - Page 208
• Lost scriptures: books that did not make it into the New Testament - Page 12
• The Ebionites and "Jewish Christianity": Examining heresy and the ... - Page 87
• The image of the Judaeo-Christians in ancient Jewish and Christian ... - Page 163

Many thanks for the link you gave out with that one, as it was an enjoyable/informative read and it's always a blessing learning of the ways that differing groups developed---both internally in what they felt and externally in how they were perceived over time.
That goes back, IMHO, to the question asked earlier when it comes to disagreements---and that is "Was it right that certain groups lost influence?". A question to consider alongside that is one asking "Is all disagreement to be taken as persecution?" or "Was a persecuted group innocent at all points/never persecutors themselves?"

Yes, that was Baptist Seminary If I remember.

Addressing some of your points above, in Ax2 we read about all these Jews:

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them (120) about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

This is the true beginning of Messianic Judaism to me. This is what I hope we can get back to.

But regarding what Paul said, in Ax15 there is nothing from James saying what Paul says he told them, here.

9 And when James , Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10All they asked was that we should continue to rememberThe Poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

​

What James told him was to teach the gentiles to stay away from idols and things connected, from sexual immorality, from blood and to eat kosher. But we see here that Paul tells them that all they told him to do was to ask for a contribution.

26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for The Poor saints which are at Jerusalem.

I don't see this as generous, but wont' go into it here.

I believe that the poor were those who were in Jerusalem, those who were from the beginning, and those who came in on Shavuot. They were 'poor' because they did not regard wealth on earth. ?remember the rich man who followed all the Torah, yet was still rich and Yeshua told him to go sell everything he had and give it to those in need? that is what the church in Jerusalem did, they obeyed the Masters words. They were not needy though. They were also obeying another of the Masters teachings to :


"Do not store up for yourselves wealth here on earth, where moths and rust destroy, and burglars break in and steal. Instead, store up for yourselves wealth in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and burglars do not break in or steal. For where your wealth is, there your heart will be also.

They were not only being faithful to the instructions (Torah) but they were also being faithful to Yeshua's instructions.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yes, that was Baptist Seminary If I remember.

.

Not real certain as to what the Baptist Seminary comment was about...

Addressing some of your points above, in Ax2 we read about all these Jews:

Addressing some of your points above, in Ax2 we read about all these Jews:

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them (120) about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
​

This is the true beginning of Messianic Judaism to me. This is what I hope we can get back to.

I don't think there's anyone here who'd disagree with that being something which Messianic Judaism can go back to, though there are places where that has already been occurring...and that also goes for Christian circles as well who've been doing that/having success and noting how there's no excuse for anyone in a fellowship not being taken care of. In example, one of the men of God whom I highly enjoy learning from is by the name of Shane Claiborne…..and Shane is apart of what’s known as New Monasticism. Since the early church lived simply and held all things in common, we ought to live simply and care for the needs of others just like they did in Acts 2 and 3. Shane Claiborne popularized this idea (and he lives it out as well) with the work he does, although the sense that the poverty of Jesus and the earliest forms of Christianity ought to be applied today has been a common thread throughout church history. The Twelve Marks of a New Monasticism is an example of people who are trying to live out a lifestyle modeled on the church as it appears in the book of Acts. I have a great deal of respect for this kind of ministry and think that these sorts of projects are healthy for the Church in general. With Monasticism, its interesting to see how revivals in monasticism historically have ocourred in the forgotten places when the church is in real danger of forgetting its meant to be on Gods mission. Monasticis living is something that is truly worth investigating when it comes to fasting you describe.

For some good review:

• A New Monasticism? - Urban Theology
  
• Economy of Love | Creating a Community of Enough
• Punk Monk: New Monasticism and the Ancient Art of Breathing
• New Monasticism: What It Has to Say to Today's Church
• Shane Claiborne and Circus Theology | :: TheOoze.TV :: Emerging …
• The New Monastics: Meeting Shane Claiborne [Speaking of Faith ...
• Economy of Love – A Conversation with Relational Tithe - The Ooze
• Becoming the Answer to Our Prayers: Prayer for Ordinary Radicals -
• The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical - Google Books
• Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals - Google Books Result
• In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political Theology
  
  

ThinkFwd: SE02EP19 -- Economy of Love -- A Conversation with Relational Tithe ​

​

There are others besides Claiborne who've been doing what Acts 2 notes. In example, I'd suggest looking up kats like New Monastic, peacemaker and speaker Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove . In one of his series, he talks about the abundance of manna in God's new economy..as seen in Prosperity Vs. Abundance ...based on one of the books he made entitled "God's Economy"

Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove: God's Economy: Redefine the "Health and Wealth" Gospel: CCDA 2009 Audio
​

The people discussing are those who are for issues of Social Justice----and from a myriad of camps. Though it seems that many advocating for what Acts 2 notes are often found within the field of Christendom known as Liberation Theology. Liberation theology is something which has often been connected to aspects of the Messianic Jewisn movement and many Jews are apart of it...even though there is debate on that (as discussed more here and here). In the streets, regardless of one's ethnicity, people are often united in the common struggle against things such as poverty and raising the quality of life for others in the name of the Lord...and growing up doing work in the inner-city, the texts of Acts 2 and Acts 4 alongside what the scriptures discuss concerning the poor were always a big deal. It's why I've often had issue with others who'd say things like Jesus not being concerned for the plight of the poor..which to me made NO sense whatsoever. There are other places besides what was offered where the subject of Liberation Theology/aspects of it have been touched upon, as its out there for anyone who wishes to dialouge on it. If interested, you can investigate the work of a man known as Phil Perkins....and one organization that deals much in the area is known as the CCDA. They're a ministry geared toward aiding those who deal extensively in Urban/Street Ministry....and who often deal with groups where there's physical struggle going on and the needs of the poor are ignored counter to what the Good Samaritan did (Luke 10:25-33). They have also done an excellent job (IMHO) addressing the issue of Liberation Theology and what it means for others in certain social contexts. For more, one can go online/investigate under the following titles:

• "UrbanSermons.org | Liberation Theology" ( )

• "Tikkun Magazine: A European Revival of Liberation Theology" ()

• "CCDA 2009: Soong-Chan Rah Sermon: Subversion--Pursuing New Approaches to Activism" ( )

• "Luis Carlo: Understanding Liberation Theology: UYWI 2008: Free Christian MPC Podcast " ( )

• "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THEORY AND PRACTICE: BRIDGING THE DIVIDE BETWEEN ‘MICRO’ AND ‘MACRO’ LEVELS OF SOCIAL WORK .By Allison Tan" ( )

 

[Gxg (G²)]

.
But regarding what Paul said, in Ax15 there is nothing from James saying what Paul says he told them, here.

9 And when James , Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10All they asked was that we should continue to rememberThe Poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
​

What James told him was to teach the gentiles to stay away from idols and things connected, from sexual immorality, from blood and to eat kosher. But we see here that Paul tells them that all they told him to do was to ask for a contribution.






I don't see this as generous, but wont' go into it here.

On what you noted, two things came to mind.

1.) I don't know where the basis is at in trying to take the word "poor" and capitalize it to look like "POOR" (as in how the Ebionites were labeled) and where that translation of such comes...but that is a side-issue.


2.) With what Paul noted in Galatians 2:10, the context doesn't seem to be one where one even remotely has to assume Paul was inconsistent with what James said to him in Acts 15...and one would have to assume that what Paul was discussing in Galatians had to be in reference to the things noted later after his conversion/missionary endeavors and the council in Acts 15 to assume he wasn't consistent. The apostles were referring to the poor of Jerusalem--for while there were many Gentile converts who had suffered from the effects of a severe famine in Palestine (Acts 11:28-30) and struggling, Paul on his journeys had gathered funds for the Jewish Christians (Acts 24:17, Romans 15:25-29, I Corinthians 16:1-4, II Corinthians 8)...and when Paul was initially accepted in meeting with Peter/James and John, they alerted him not to forget those impoverished in his kind. Their requesting this is not surprising, nor is it a sign of Paul not being generous (IMHO) anymore than it'd be a sign of immaturity in a teen to be "reminded" by their parents to always watch who they hang with they go out on their own. Someone could see where a reminder was given by parents and assume "Oh, yeah...that person really doesn't want to walk in wisdom!!!"--but when considering the nature of many parents in being over-protective/pressumptious or fearful of what could happen, the reminders given can be taken in context. The same could've easily been the case with Paul, a Pharisee of Pharisees ( Acts 23:5-7 , Acts 26:4-6 , Acts 26:4-6 ). As there was not much interaction between Jews/Gentiles and thus ALOT of unknown territory, there would have been a natural fear that a new ministry starting to reach the Gentiles would mean that the Gentiles themselves would have become so much a focus that Paul's own people would not be loved as much by him....though they had no reason to suspect that seeing how much Paul loved his people/was persecuting Christians because of his initial thoughts that he was actually aiding the Jewish people.
​

But there is the other view that what was noted to Paul by the apostles makes sense when considering other factors. As John Gill's commentary on Galatians said best:

Galatians 2:10
Only they would that we should remember the poor
Not in a spiritual sense, as some have thought, though these the apostle was greatly mindful of; but properly and literally the poor as to the things of this world; and may design the poor in general, everywhere, in the several churches where they should be called to minister, and particularly the poor saints at Jerusalem; who were become such, either through the frequent calamities of the nation, and a dearth or scarcity of provisions among them, and which affected the whole country; or rather through the persecutions of their countrymen, who plundered them of their goods for professing the name of Christ; or it may be through their having given up all their substance into one common stock and fund, as they did at first, and which was now exhausted, and that in a great measure by assisting out of it the preachers who first spread the Gospel among the Gentiles; so that it was but just that they should make some return unto them, and especially for the spiritual favours they received from them, as the Gospel, and the ministers of it, which first went out of Jerusalem: the "remembering" of them not only intends giving them actual assistance according to their abilities, which was very small, but mentioning their case to the several Gentile churches, and stirring them up to a liberal contribution:



the same which I also was forward to do;
as abundantly appears from his epistles to the churches, and especially from his two epistles to the Corinthians. Now since the apostles at Jerusalem desired nothing else but this, and said not a word concerning the observance of the rites and ceremonies of the law, and neither found fault with, nor added to the Gospel the apostle communicated to them, it was a clear case that there was an entire agreement between them, in principle and practice, and that he did not receive his Gospel from them
​

One has to be careful of assuming that all things said by others are those things that are explicitly in the text of Acts. For just because James was mentioned does in Paul's initial meeting with the apostles doesn't mean that James was not among them.

James may've talked with all the other apostes dozens of time when it comes to everyday life, yet the text of Acts only shows him speaking a few times. It would not be logical to assume that in the entirety of his life he only spoke so much since the text of Acts isn't trying to make record of EVERY conversation he had with others----nor would it be reasonable to assume such. There were letters written by the apostles that were lost and on some things, when letters were written, they gave more details on things that happened which another only had one aspect of...and in the case of James/the other apostles speaking to Paul on remembering the poor, there doesn't seem to be ANY reason to think that what they noted on Gentiles was all that was said.

Paul had a very big heart in ensuring that those who were Jews were to be looked out by the Gentiles:

Romans 15:3

18 I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done— 19 by the power of signs and wonders, through the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. 20 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. 21 Rather, as it is written:

“Those who were not told about him will see,
and those who have not heard will understand.”[g]
​

22 This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you. Paul’s Plan to Visit Rome

23 But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to visit you, 24 I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. 25 Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem. 27 They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. 28 So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this contribution, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. 29 I know that when I come to you, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ.


30 I urge you, brothers and sisters, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. 31 Pray that I may be kept safe from the unbelievers in Judea and that the contribution I take to Jerusalem may be favorably received by the Lord’s people there, 32 so that I may come to you with joy, by God’s will, and in your company be refreshed. 33 The God of peace be with you all. Amen.
​

Again, we can read more about Paul's collection for the saints in 1Cor. 16:1-4; 2Cor. 8:1-7; 9:1-15. Gentiles throughout the world felt an obligation towards their Jewish brethren, because the Messiah had come through the Jews. Even though the Gentiles debt was spiritual and could not be repaid in kind, they had the ability to minister to the physical needs of the Judean saints. Paul indicates that he as well as the Romans are prepared for him to come...and "The fullness of the blessings of Christ" could indicate additional spiritual gifts, but certainly includes whatever additional blessings they need.


Paul was aware of the dangers of going to Jerusalem...and therefore, he asked for prayers for two reasons: 1) to deliver him from his enemies, 2) that the gift he was bringing would be acceptable. Many commentators feel that Paul believes these monetary gifts would help to bring the Jewish brethren closer to the Gentile brethren. If his gift was accepted, then he could come to Rome in joy through the will of God. That is, he could relax and enjoy his stay there, knowing he had done all he could for the Judean Christians. Paul obviously did not know how he would eventually come to Rome. ...

And this all goes well with the context of what Paul noted in Galatians 2 about James/others asking him to remember the poor. The apostles agreed with Paul’s gospel of grace to the Gentiles at the Jerusalem Council but they had one request that he should “remember the poor.” They did not demand that he do this; it was simply a request. The Gentile church was in a financial position to meet the needs of the Jews under persecution in Judea. This request was not doctrinal but practical, therefore, the Judaizers could not use this as leverage against Paul. Only one stipulation came out of the Jerusalem Council ["only"] and that stipulation had nothing to do with doctrine.

Paul was zealous in remembering the poor. He took this task with forceful motivation. Paul previously brought financial relief to Jerusalem (Acts 11:29-30) when working with Barnabas... so giving to the poor was in his heart already. He raised funds on his third missionary enterprise to alleviate those destitute due to persecution (1 Corinthians 16:1-3; 2 Corinthians 8:1-9,15; 9:1-5, 12; Romans 15:25-28).

I believe that the poor were those who were in Jerusalem, those who were from the beginning, and those who came in on Shavuot. They were 'poor' because they did not regard wealth on earth. ?remember the rich man who followed all the Torah, yet was still rich and Yeshua told him to go sell everything he had and give it to those in need? that is what the church in Jerusalem did, they obeyed the Masters words.



They were not needy though. They were also obeying another of the Masters teachings to :

"Do not store up for yourselves wealth here on earth, where moths and rust destroy, and burglars break in and steal. Instead, store up for yourselves wealth in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and burglars do not break in or steal. For where your wealth is, there your heart will be also.
​

They were not only being faithful to the instructions (Torah) but they were also being faithful to Yeshua's instructions

Indeed, there can be those in the category of "poor" who are considered as such because they have impoverished themselves in order to provide for others. Nonetheless, as the poor was also deemed as such because of how many were born into poverty/the laws of God for taking care of the needy (according to Leviticus 15 and Leviticus 25) were not be adhered to as they should have been, many were not "poor" out of choice ...and needed to be remembered. History itself has given MANY accounts of the state of the poor in Jerusalem and why they were in that position---with many of them in that category because of neglecting God's commands to rememeber those who were not given JUSTICE as opposed to looking out for those who wanted to live a simple life.

The Lord often spoke on such issues and took issue with the religious leaders of his day, some of which were deemed to be highly pious and yet they would not even give crumbs to beggars...and even robbed widows/orphans. James made clear in James 1 that to avoid looking out for widows and orphans was a great sin....and that is something that needs to be considered, IMHO.

Shalom

 

[Lulav]

Duplicate post, forum hiccup.................

 

[Gxg (G²)]

But regarding what Paul said, in Ax15 there is nothing from James saying what Paul says he told them, here.

9 And when James , Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10All they asked was that we should continue to rememberThe Poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
​

What James told him was to teach the gentiles to stay away from idols and things connected, from sexual immorality, from blood and to eat kosher. But we see here that Paul tells them that all they told him to do was to ask for a contribution.



I don't see this as generous, but wont' go into it here.

I believe that the poor were those who were in Jerusalem, those who were from the beginning, and those who came in on Shavuot. They were 'poor' because they did not regard wealth on earth. ?remember the rich man who followed all the Torah, yet was still rich and Yeshua told him to go sell everything he had and give it to those in need? that is what the church in Jerusalem did, they obeyed the Masters words. They were not needy though. They were also obeying another of the Masters teachings to :

"Do not store up for yourselves wealth here on earth, where moths and rust destroy, and burglars break in and steal. Instead, store up for yourselves wealth in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and burglars do not break in or steal. For where your wealth is, there your heart will be also.
​

They were not only being faithful to the instructions (Torah) but they were also being faithful to Yeshua's instructions.

You ended up doing a re-do of the same post, one which I responded to in #164 and #163/ #163 ...in the event you didn't notice. However, if that was intentional, that's another issue altogether On the issue, in regards to what Paul noted in Galatians 2:10 and where there's debate on the leaders asking him to remember the poor, something I found interesting in one commentary on Galatians 2:

2:7 ­ The positive side of the story, Paul continues to report, is that the Jerusalem leaders, "seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter with the gospel to the circumcised," recognized that there was only one essential gospel in the ontological dynamic of the grace of God in Jesus Christ, though different people could be called of God to different ministries in different locations among different people-groups. There is no "different gospel" with appended performance responsibilities, but there are diversified personnel and mission strategies for the sharing of the gospel of Christ.




2:8 ­ Paul inserts a parenthesis of explanation: "(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles)". The same God energizing in the same gospel of the dynamic of His grace in His Son, Jesus, can designate different spheres of ministry for different apostles. There can be unity in the diversity of ministries within the one Body of Christ. Both Peter and Paul, as apostolic colleagues, were equally entrusted to minister in their respective fields of labor.



2:9 ­ The lengthy, drawn-out sentence that runs from verse 6 through 9 is concluded as Paul reports that "James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, recognizing the grace that had been given to me, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised." Three of the particular leaders of the church in Jerusalem are identified by name. That they are "reputed to be pillars" may be a renewed questioning of the reverence afforded to them by the Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem, by the "false brethren," and by the infiltrating false teachers in Galatia, but then again it could be an accepted designation of these apostolic leaders who were the foundational and supportive strength of the early church. The important fact is that Peter, James and John accepted and acknowledged the grace-activity of God in Jesus Christ that had been given to Paul. This grace was not given to Paul as a possession, or as a supplemental power, but was the dynamic life of Jesus given to him as the complete basis of his being and activity. On that basis the Jerusalem leaders extended to Paul and Barnabas "the right hand of fellowship," recognizing their commonality and solidarity in Christ, and endorsing a favorable partnership and cooperation in their respective God-given ministries. This was probably acted out in a handshake that represented a formal agreement. How tragic it is that the petty squabbles of religion today, fought over the slightest of doctrinal differences, often result in "the right-foot of disfellowship" as nonconformists are charged with "heresy" and given "the boot" of ostracism or excommunication.






2:10 ­ As a final excursus to this autobiographical defense of the gospel which served as the basis of his life and ministry, Paul notes that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem "only asked us to remember the poor ­ the very thing I also was eager to do." This was not a contractual addendum that constituted an obligatory stipulation, as it might be interpreted to be if this were a synopsis of the written document drawn up after the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:23-29). The Jewish-Christian leaders were simply suggesting and urging the leaders of the Gentile-mission to continue to remember the Christians in Judea who had been forced into economic deprivation either by Jewish ostracism or by agricultural famine. Such a monetary collection had been given to the church in Jerusalem for distribution to deserving peoples during this visit of Paul, Barnabas and Titus, but the Jewish-Christian leaders were desirous that the Gentile Christians should not become detached from their concern for their poor Jewish-Christian brethren. Paul indicates that he was eager to continue the collections from the Gentile churches for the poor saints in Judea, for this served as a consistent expression of the love, compassion and givingness of the character of Christ in Christians.


The operative grace of God will inevitably be expressed as Christ in us for others.


The question might legitimately be asked, "What if the Jewish-Christian leaders in Jerusalem had not agreed that the essentiality of the gospel was to be found in the grace of Jesus Christ alone? What if they had refused to accept Paul's gospel of grace and liberty to the Gentiles? What if they had demanded modifications of supplemental Judaic law-observance in addition to the faithful receptivity of Christ's activity? We can rest assured that Paul's declaration that "if any man should preach a gospel contrary, ...let him be accursed" (1:8,9), would have remained in place and applied to the original Jewish-Christian apostles in Jerusalem. Under no circumstances would Paul have sacrificed the gospel of grace, which had become the essence of his life and ministry, for a legalistic amalgam of performance righteousness. He would have been constrained by the divine grace of Christ's activity in him to continue to share Christ with the Gentiles as God had directed him to do. The universality of the gospel and the external unity of the Body would have been compromised and relinquished, as the church would have been divided into two distinct groups ­ the Jewish Church (which could have become a Petrine or Jacobian sect of Judaism), and the Gentile Church (possibly identified as Pauline Christianity). As it is, the major splits in the church came centuries later in the break between the Western Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the division of the Western Church into Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in the sixteenth century. The question we have posed is hypothetical, for much to the credit of the Jerusalem leaders and Paul, they listened to the Spirit of God within them and preserved the unity of the church in the essential gospel of grace and liberty in Jesus Christ.


Some have questioned whether the autobiographical chronologue of selected events that Paul wrote in this passage is of any real value to subsequent generations of Christians, other than as an historical footnote. Let us first note that history is important to Christianity! Without the documentable historical foundation of the earthly life and ministry of Jesus, Christianity would be relegated to nothing more than a subjective belief-system of mystical speculation, moralistic behavioral modification and conformity, and philosophical or theological reasonings. The gospel has definite historical moorings, as Paul so adequately pointed out to the Corinthians (I Cor. 15:3-10), which include the historical details of the impact of the gospel on Paul's life. The historical foundations alongside of the revealed theological formulations allow for the personal and spiritual formation (4:19) of Christ in the individual and the church. Paul has shared in these verses how such a formation occurred in his own life in the most radical transformation from persecutor to preacher, evidencing the vital dynamic of God's grace in Christ. He obviously desired and hoped that it would happen in every person's life.






The second value of this recitation of events in Paul's life is that his defense of the Christocentric gospel functioning by the grace of God, serves as a model for the persistent and perennial need for Christians in every age to defend the gospel against the intrusion of religious attempts to modify the gospel with behavioristic performance requirements. Christians will always be called upon to "make a defense of the hope that is in them" (I Pet. 3:15), and would that they were as firmly convinced as Paul was that the living Lord Jesus is the sole basis of the gospel and of their personal identity (who they are) and their personal purpose (what they do). They could and would then stand before any so-called church authority (whoever they might be), take the flak from any detractors, and bear the ostracism of any religious "false brethren," in order to declare the life-message and life-purpose that God had called them to in Christ. The reality of Jesus Christ would so be the basis of their lives that they would not be defending themselves or their reputation, but declaring the gospel of the life that is theirs in Christ Jesus. Sadly, religious understanding has so permeated Christian thinking that few understand, appreciate or experience the essential ontological dynamic of the gospel of the living Lord Jesus in them, much less attempt to defend that Christo-centric gospel.
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

bottom line, this is first a safe haven for MJs of all types and we want to keep it that way as much as possible

Hoping that you all find the kind of outcomes you're looking for

 

[visionary]

Truth be known... when we use to tag the threads, it was ignored for the most part by those who just could not leave it alone.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Truth be known... when we use to tag the threads, it was ignored for the most part by those who just could not leave it alone.

Agreed. And thus, as there seems to be a determination for others to get involved in threads that may not have things in line with their mindsets, it seems that the real issue is one of not knowing how to interact when in the home or neighborhood of another. If there's going to be insistence in going into places that one knows in advance will bring sharp disagreement, one can learn how to go about disagreeing agreeably...or at least learning how to listen/move on. For many, the desire is for others to HAVE to hear what they want others to agree with so it may be difficult to have things one way...

 

[Lulav]

You ended up doing a re-do of the same post, one which I responded to in #164 and #163/ #163 ...in the event you didn't notice. However, if that was intentional, that's another issue altogether

It was NoT intentional at all. I am having trouble with the forum here, at least on that post. While waiting for it to connect I clicked over to another window I had opened. When I came back there was an error on the page. So I hit back and hit submit again, not realizing it had already posted. This happened twice. I will remove my duplicate posts, sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[Lulav]

Not real certain as to what the Baptist Seminary comment was about...

That was in response to what you wrote here.

Many thanks for the link you gave out with that one, as it was an enjoyable/informative read and it's always a blessing learning of the ways that differing groups developed---both internally in what they felt and externally in how they were perceived over time.

It was a link to Christian Classics Ethereal Library from Calvin College> My bad, I assumed it was a Baptist Seminary because of the 'Calvin' but found this about them.

Calvin College is a comprehensive liberal arts college in the Reformed tradition of historic Christianity. Through our learning, we seek to be agents of renewal in the academy, church, and society. We pledge fidelity to Jesus Christ, offering our hearts and lives to do God's work in God's world. (Purpose, Vision, Mission Statement of Calvin College)

Sorry for the mis-info

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It was NoT intentional at all. I am having trouble with the forum here, at least on that post. While waiting for it to connect I clicked over to another window I had opened. When I came back there was an error on the page. So I hit back and hit submit again, not realizing it had already posted. This happened twice. I will remove my duplicate posts, sorry for the inconvenience.

No worries whatsoever, as I was just perplexed at the double-posting. The same has happened to me before, though I generally have chosen to take a duplicate posting/simply type a differing response to something else that I found interesting from what someone said. But that's just me.

Duplicate post, forum hiccup.................

It's always crazy how a computer may trip on you..and sometimes, it does feel like it can be possessed/needs to be cast out. Can't tell you the amount of times I yelled at my computer for doing something that seemed so random, though there were some times where I've also thought "Perhaps that was the Lord trying to get me to see something"

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That was in response to what you wrote here.



It was a link to Christian Classics Ethereal Library from Calvin College> My bad, I assumed it was a Baptist Seminary because of the 'Calvin' but found this about them.

Understood..and thanks for the clarifications.

To me, as I went to a predominately Reformed highschool where Calvin was constantly brought to my attention by my teachers, I didn't think that Calvin automatically meant "Baptist" since plenty of Baptist would have been against him...and have gone to war with Calvinists. Growing up, it was always interesting to see how they have variations within their own camps (i.e. 5-Point Calvinist vs 4 or 3point Calvinist, Pentecostal Calvinist, Reformed Charismatic, Emerging Reformer, Missional Reformed, etc)----just as the Messianic movement has its own variations...but all are in the pursuit of truth

 

[ContraMundum]

My Maternal grandmother was a Messianic Jew or Hebrew Christian, whichever way you want to put it. She and my gentile grandfather raised my mother and her brother in the Methodist church. The Jewish traditions she retained were never spoken of, but done. Passover cleaning, Certain foods (she was from NY so you know, chopped liver, matzoh ball soup, and Jewish penicillin in the Frigidaire all year round). We were told a lie to protect what happened, as you yourself know what it's like to become a Christian and how your family treats you (imagine what it was like 70-80 years ago).

My Father (not the one I spoke of before, that was my stepfather) was also a Messianic or Hebrew Christian, both parents Jewish. He became a minister, so on fire for the L-RD that my mother divorced him because of it.

So If you don't want to consider me a Messianic Jew, but consider one who only has a Jewish father and a Catholic mother, that's fine. I don't think it's labels that get you into heaven.

I wasn't speaking of people's "Jewishness" but rather their theology.

 

[visionary]

The most rejectable fact by Jews is the notion of Gentiles under the obligation of God and becoming Torah keeper too, as Contra said.. both then and now... That doesn't change the fact that God has one Kingdom and one people and one Law.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The most rejectable fact by Jews is the notion of Gentiles under the obligation of God and becoming Torah keeper too, as Contra said.. both then and now... That doesn't change the fact that God has one Kingdom and one people and one Law.

Hello vis
Is the Law of Christ and the NC different from the Law of Moses and the OC?
Christ, His Apostles and even Paul all kept the Law of Moses, but is that really necessary for both Jews, Gentiles and even other religions coming to Christ, to keep those same Levitical Laws?

Exactly what does Paul mean by the "law of the Christs"? Just curious. Thanks

Young) Galatians 6:2 of one another the burdens bear ye, and so fill up the law of the Christ,

http://www.christianforums.com/t7576552-13/#post58539310
Jesus vs Paul, law abolishment. A simple answer, from a frog.

John 5:45 "No be ye supposing that I shall be accusing of ye toward the Father,
is the one accusing of ye, Moses into whom ye have hoped"
[Luke 16:31/Reve 12:10]

Luke 16:31 Saying yet to him "if Moses and the Prophets not they are hearing, neither if ever anyone out of dead-ones may be rising/anasth <450> (5632), they shall be being persuaded".

 

[Gxg (G²)]

< staff edit >
I think so as well. To be clear, my referencing them doesn't mean that they are idolized by myself in any way..as many of them, if in our times, would probably be going to war against mostly all of the people on the boards---including those supporting them--since many of them were against the apostles as well. The variations amongst the groups cannot be ignored, of course, as some were in support of the apostles (though more strict) whereas others went to war---and vehemently hated Pauline thought.

As much as there is a romanticized notion, I think the same thing can be said in having unecessary notions that demonize all things about them simply because many of the Church fathers spoke negatively of them..and we in our times take that commentary/make our own conclusions even though the amount of evidence to know fully what was going on is often uncertain/speculation on many points. In light of that, I greatly appreciate others such as Derek Leman for his work in trying to address the issue graciously---both with those seeking to idolize all things "Ebionite" and those who demonize all things "Ebionite"...for either end of the specturm is a matter of historical slander, IMHO, that doesn't need to happen if simply going through the facts and seeing the Mosaic that existed in the early world of Jewish Christianity. And I take that seriously in light of how Derek is one who doesn't even believe that Gentiles are in any way required to live the same as Gentiles ( as seen here, here , here , here and here ). The leader of the Messianic Fellowship I attend has also noted some of the same things---and for him as one who was a priest within Eastern Orthodoxy (where some things by the Ebionites were condemned with their views of Christ), I'll take that seriously.

< staff edit >

Indeed, as was noted earlier on how the groups (many of them) ended up venturing into heresy even though it was not always the case that they were considered "herectical"--and on many points when it came to dismissing the majority of the Gospels and having one of their own, it became no small issue in deciding whether or not they were supported.

But on the subject of "herectical Christology", there were indeed MANY things said that simply did not reflect accuractely what a group believed---and that's something which has occurred frequently throughout church history with many groups who were deemed "herectical" simply for not agreeing with whatever school of thought held a majority at the time. Being off on one point doesn't equate to being off on all, IMHO. And you already know where I stand (as seen here in #48 and #51 ) when we discussed the issue in-depth. Perhap it may be beneficial to make a thread on the subject to discuss what Christology looks like and which groups are to be supported---and to what degree. Of course, that may take awhile due to how extensive it could get ...

< staff edit >

On many things, they were...at least specific groups of Ebionites. It really is error to try grouping all Ebionites into one camp as if they were all the same/on the same level. For those camps that denied the Gospel/its centrality, indeed, that was..and still is an issue. Nonetheless, it is just as much of an issue when broad-brushing an entire camp as denying God's revelation simply because of association...similar to what happens whenever others hear of people like Jeremiah Wright and assume all forms of Black Liberation Theology AUTOMATICALLY mean one's a racist simply because of where there was a racist variation elsewhere (as you/I discussed before in #60 and #61 ).
.

< staff edit >

That's one of the ironic things that I've often noted whenever it comes to claims of supporting Jewish ideology and yet ignoring where the Torah itself already made clear Gentiles were never held to the same things as the Jews---and for those who read the book of Acts and see other Jewish Christians saying Gentiles HAD to keep the Law, the focus seems to always be on what was occurring then/assuming the way things were reflected how they were meant to be.

No one stops to think on how perhaps it was the case that there were many cultural assumptions about Gentiles that were never meant to be accepted....just as many of the Ebionites never seemed to consider if their assumptions about Gentiles having to submit to Torah Law the same as Jews were things that were based more so on hearsay rather than their own history.

The same thing occurred with the Lord himself. 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, &#8220;How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David&#8217;s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?&#8221; 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, &#8220;Why didn&#8217;t you bring him in?&#8221;
46 &#8220;No one ever spoke the way this man does,&#8221; the guards replied.

47 &#8220;You mean he has deceived you also?&#8221; the Pharisees retorted. 48 &#8220;Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49 No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law&#8212;there is a curse on them.&#8221;

50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, 51 &#8220;Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?&#8221;

52 They replied, &#8220;Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.&#8221;

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53&#8212;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)]

The most rejectable fact by Jews is the notion of Gentiles under the obligation of God and becoming Torah keeper too, as Contra said.. both then and now... That doesn't change the fact that God has one Kingdom and one people and one Law.

Nothing Contra noted would be contrary to the fact that God has one kingdom, one people and one law. What Contra is getting at is that the dynamic of Gentiles not being under obligation of God to become Torah Keepers is in connection with the subject of One People/One Law--for the two are not DISCONNECTED, which many seem focused on insisting. God's Law was inclusive of differing standards for differing groups--all under the heading of all being one people.....and trying to make it out where all of the laws applying to one group MUST apply to the other is not really dealing with the Torah as it really expresses itself.

For better explanation, Dr.Michael Brown once came to Atlanta and visited the ministry of Ryan Lambert who is the leader of a Messianic Jewish fellowship--and he shared many wonderful points in regards to what it means to be one people united under one Law which Dr.Brown agreed with. For more, one can go here to the main page of Lambert's fellowship and look here, if looking up the sermon entitled "Should Christians Keep the Torah? (Delivered at The Vineyard – Senoia, GA.)"

 

[visionary]

Hello vis
Is the Law of Christ and the NC different from the Law of Moses and the OC?
Christ, His Apostles and even Paul all kept the Law of Moses, but is that really necessary for both Jews, Gentiles and even other religions coming to Christ, to keep those same Levitical Laws?

Exactly what does Paul mean by the "law of the Christs"? Just curious. Thanks

Young) Galatians 6:2 of one another the burdens bear ye, and so fill up the law of the Christ,

http://www.christianforums.com/t7576552-13/#post58539310
Jesus vs Paul, law abolishment. A simple answer, from a frog.

John 5:45 "No be ye supposing that I shall be accusing of ye toward the Father,
is the one accusing of ye, Moses into whom ye have hoped"
[Luke 16:31/Reve 12:10]

Luke 16:31 Saying yet to him "if Moses and the Prophets not they are hearing, neither if ever anyone out of dead-ones may be rising/anasth <450> (5632), they shall be being persuaded".

The Law of Christ is the same as the Law of God.. The law of Moses does contain the plan of redemption which reveals Yeshua both in His work with His first coming and fulfilling the spring feast, becoming the Lamb of God, sacrificing Himself for our sins, and being the suffering servant Messiah and His role as our High Priest in the heavenly temple applying the blood on our behalf before His Father redeeming us by His blood.. The law of Moses also reveals the precepts of the who, what, where and why for a lot of things in regard to living the godly life.

 

[visionary]

Nothing Contra noted would be contrary to the fact that God has one kingdom, one people and one law. What Contra is getting at is that the dynamic of Gentiles not being under obligation of God to become Torah Keepers is in connection with the subject of One People/One Law--for the two are not DISCONNECTED, which many seem focused on insisting. God's Law was inclusive of differing standards for differing groups--all under the heading of all being one people.....and trying to make it out where all of the laws applying to one group MUST apply to the other is not really dealing with the Torah as it really expresses itself.

For better explanation, Dr.Michael Brown once came to Atlanta and visited the ministry of Ryan Lambert who is the leader of a Messianic Jewish fellowship--and he shared many wonderful points in regards to what it means to be one people united under one Law which Dr.Brown agreed with. For more, one can go here to the main page of Lambert's fellowship and look here, if looking up the sermon entitled "Should Christians Keep the Torah? (Delivered at The Vineyard – Senoia, GA.)"

Christians should keep the Law of God and understand the application of the law of Moses as seen in Yeshua, and as to how it applies to our life. The One Law is the Law of God.. the other Torah portions written by Moses can be found given to Levites specifically, the earthly temple services, and prophetically valuable with the spring and fall feasts, healthy in diet and family relationships.