Question about converting to Messianic Judaism

sacerdote said:

Please any good MJ feel free to answer.

Do the majority of MJ's, kind of like the mainstream MJ's like Baptist are mainstream Christian's, (and I'm not saying MJ's are not Christian's), do MJ's pretty much follow the Talmud? I'm not talking about those who just seem to have one foot in the door but solid MJ's.?

Click to expand...

That is, unfortunately, a rather divisive issue on which MJism as a whole has yet to come to a concensus.

In my personal IRL experience it is about 50/50 among those MJs who hold true Torah Observance as a worthy expression of obeying G-d. As for my house we do our best to obey the Oral Torah as well as the Written Torah, except where the Oral appears to contradict the Written. We believe in the principle of Hiddur Mitzvat - extending or beautifying His Comandments. Not like going the extra mile without being told to do so by a parent or employer, IYKWIM.

b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}

Henaynei said:

That is, unfortunately, a rather divisive issue on which MJism as a whole has yet to come to a concensus.

In my personal IRL experience it is about 50/50 among those MJs who hold true Torah Observance as a worthy expression of obeying G-d. As for my house we do our best to obey the Oral Torah as well as the Written Torah, except where the Oral appears to contradict the Written. We believe in the principle of Hiddur Mitzvat - extending or beautifying His Comandments. Not like going the extra mile without being told to do so by a parent or employer, IYKWIM.

b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}

Click to expand...

Is it divisive enough to be a huge bone of contention or something a group of MJ's can live with. Just asking for my own info and understanding.

Shalom

sacerdote said:

Is it divisive enough to be a huge bone of contention or something a group of MJ's can live with. Just asking for my own info and understanding.

Shalom

Click to expand...

As you can see in posts of MJF about attitudes toward the Rabbis, the attitudes can be rather polar - one camp believing that the Rabbis over stepped their mandate and their teachings are detrimental to honoring Messiah Yeshua - for the other camp
Halakah was actually taught, commanded to be obeyed and supported by Messiah Yeshua and is integral to obeying Him.

The success or failure of any given MJ. Community is dependent on the strength and wisdom of the leadership, demographics of which side of the issue the majority of members fall and the level of maturity of all. I have seen dissension for which this very issue the core.

b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}

sacerdote said:

Please any good MJ feel free to answer.

Do the majority of MJ's, kind of like the mainstream MJ's like Baptist are mainstream Christian's, (and I'm not saying MJ's are not Christian's), do MJ's pretty much follow the Talmud? I'm not talking about those who just seem to have one foot in the door but solid MJ's.?

Click to expand...

I would not say MJ's follow the Talmud.

The bulk of the Talmud is debates on how to keep the law. There are other debates, and also moralistic stories.

Pirkei Avot 1:1
1. Moses received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over to Joshua. Joshua gave it over to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets gave it over to the Men of the Great Assembly. They [the Men of the Great Assembly] would always say these three things: Be cautious in judgment. Establish many pupils. And make a safety fence around the Torah.

It is the fence around the Torah which is problematic, as it was this fence that Jesus most often criticized.

Of course there are other issues with the Talmud. This Oral Torah is said to be given to Moses at Mt. Sinai. Most people that I know of in Messianic Judaism do not believe that the Talmud was a revelation, given by God to Moses.

However, the Talmud does contain some good information, and is a good resource to find historical information. And since the Rabbis were honestly seeking for the right and best way to follow the law of Moses, some of their discussions are interesting and have merit, of course avoiding or being aware that laws or practices were added as a hedge around the law.

The way I have heard and like the best, is that the Talmud as a Jewish writing, has some valid information, but it is not divinely inspired, so the value is limited and should not be regarded when it does contradict scripture (Tenakh and NT) or add to scripture.

I do reference the Talmud, especially for historical content, but do not view it as authoritative.

I have personally never seen the Talmud become a bone of contention in Messianic Judaism.

Qnts2 said:

I would not say MJ's follow the Talmud.

The bulk of the Talmud is debates on how to keep the law. There are other debates, and also moralistic stories.

Pirkei Avot 1:1
1. Moses received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over to Joshua. Joshua gave it over to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets gave it over to the Men of the Great Assembly. They [the Men of the Great Assembly] would always say these three things: Be cautious in judgment. Establish many pupils. And make a safety fence around the Torah.

It is the fence around the Torah which is problematic, as it was this fence that Jesus most often criticized.

Of course there are other issues with the Talmud. This Oral Torah is said to be given to Moses at Mt. Sinai. Most people that I know of in Messianic Judaism do not believe that the Talmud was a revelation, given by God to Moses.

However, the Talmud does contain some good information, and is a good resource to find historical information. And since the Rabbis were honestly seeking for the right and best way to follow the law of Moses, some of their discussions are interesting and have merit, of course avoiding or being aware that laws or practices were added as a hedge around the law.

The way I have heard and like the best, is that the Talmud as a Jewish writing, has some valid information, but it is not divinely inspired, so the value is limited and should not be regarded when it does contradict scripture (Tenakh and NT) or add to scripture.

I do reference the Talmud, especially for historical content, but do not view it as authoritative.

I have personally never seen the Talmud become a bone of contention in Messianic Judaism.

Click to expand...

Many of us see Messiah Yeshua as making quite a number of His own fences/halakah and specifically instructing His students to obey the teachings of the P'rushim, aka halakah, just not with the kavanah/heart attitude some of them had.

b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}

Henaynei said:

As you can see in posts of MJF about attitudes toward the Rabbis, the attitudes can be rather polar - one camp believing that the Rabbis over stepped their mandate and their teachings are detrimental to honoring Messiah Yeshua - for the other camp
Halakah was actually taught, commanded to be obeyed and supported by Messiah Yeshua and is integral to obeying Him.

The success or failure of any given MJ. Community is dependent on the strength and wisdom of the leadership, demographics of which side of the issue the majority of members fall and the level of maturity of all. I have seen dissension for which this very issue the core.

b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}

Click to expand...

I can understand it and have seen similar things in other churches but the way things have been going around here I've about had it with dissension. just want to get along. Yet I realize we cannot have life without some.

Henaynei said:

Many of us see Messiah Yeshua as making quite a number of His own fences/halakah and specifically instructing His students to obey the teachings of the P'rushim, aka halakah, just not with the kavanah/heart attitude some of them had.

b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}

Click to expand...

From my perspective:

Some of the Perushim were also judges.

Deut 17:12 The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the LORD your God, nor to the judge, that man shall die; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.

Matthew 32:1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

It was the law that the people had to obey the Priest and the judge. They sat on Moses seat, which would be the position of the judge, so according to the law, they were to be obeyed.

Acts 23:3 Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?” 4 But the bystanders said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” 5 And Paul said, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.’”

So, if there is a valid court of judges and a valid High Priest, according to the Law of Moses, these are to be obeyed.

Jesus did come against the Perushim concerning that additions to the law and taking away from the law.

Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Halachah is not a bad thing, unless that halachah adds to or takes away from the commandments of the Lord. Then, the adding to or taking away is actually a violation of the law. When the Temple, the priesthood and the Sanhedrin were in place, it was a requirement to obey them.

I do not believe Yeshua was adding His own Halachah, but was actually explaining the law.

I do believe the Rabbis overstepped their mandate. Starting with Yavneh.

Qnts2 said:

I do not believe Yeshua was adding His own Halachah, but was actually explaining the law.

I do believe the Rabbis overstepped their mandate. Starting with Yavneh.

Click to expand...

In some ways, if Yeshua was explaining the Law in its proper meaning/doing differently, it was a form of Halachah.

Easy G (G²);60422303 said:

In some ways, if Yeshua was explaining the Law in its proper meaning/doing differently, it was a form of Halachah.

Click to expand...

Ok, interesting take.

Halacha is Jewish law, as set forth by interpretation of the Rabbis. Varying communities will have some differences in their Halacha.

On the other hand, Yeshua is God, so his explanations are not a result of scholars debating the meaning and setting the way to do the law. They are not arguable. They would fall under the category of immutable. Halacha is a combination of immutable and Rabbinical, and Rabbinical interpretation of how to perform the immutable. My take on it.

Qnts2 said:

Ok, interesting take.

Halacha is Jewish law, as set forth by interpretation of the Rabbis. Varying communities will have some differences in their Halacha. .

Yeshua is God, so his explanations are not a result of scholars debating the meaning and setting the way to do the law. They are not arguable. They would fall under the category of immutable. Halacha is a combination of immutable and Rabbinical, and Rabbinical interpretation of how to perform the immutable. My take on it

Click to expand...

For me, what makes it a bit interesting with the Halacha dynamic is that Yeshua was a rabbi Himself, abeit different from all of the others (even though he often referenced thought from the other camps). In some of what he noted, you see thoughts that the Essenes taught....and at times, language utilized was akin to what the Zealots would say when it came to militant terminolgoy. Most scholars have noted where Christ Himself often spoke directly in line with the Pharisees, specifically the school of Hiliel....often directly at odds with the School of Shemai (which had a very LOW view of Gentiles and happened to be one that many Pharisees in the days of Christ were with).

Hiliel was involved with the school advocating for the Gentiles to not live fully as the Jews in order to achieve salvation...with their salvation being tied to things expressed to Noah and known generally amongst mankind. But Shammai's school felt Gentiles would be doomed for an eternity apart from the Lord if they didn't convert FULLY to Jewish lifestyles/law. And because of that, both schools often fought. It was this context that Yeshua stepped into, seeing how some of the Pharisees were of the Hiliel school and others of Shammai...and the latter felt Christ was often stepping over the line for daring to say the things He did with Gentiles--just as it was with Paul.

More was discussed here in #15 and #167 ...as it concerns the book by scholar, Harvey Faulk, called "Jesus the Pharisee. Time Magazine did an excellent review on the subject as well. The book by Harvey Faulk has truly been a blessing/good way to build dialouge between those who are Christians and Jews----as its often the case that both sides miss the Mark when trying to polarize. Of course, I don't agree with all of his conclusions. In example, I don't think he really grapples with those areas in which Jesus and the School of Hillel did most definitely part company---and for more, go here.

Christ, as a teacher/rabbi, would be taken in His teachings (IMHO) as having his own form of Halacha whenever He challenged that of others while referencing what they did at the same time....such as with the Good Samaritan Story (more discussed here, here, here, here, and here ) or Matthew 23 when he essentially quoted directly from rabbinical law/Talmud on the differing kinds of Pharisees.

As God, He didn't merely rely only upon what scholars and teachers debated on...but as a Man, he didn't simply say what He felt divorced from cultural context--or ignoring the reality that the Lord could work through men in discussions and the teachings they developed could be emphasized. All truth is God's Truth, IMHO....and the Lord can inspire others who may not know of Him.

Easy G (G²);60422505 said:

For me, what makes it a bit interesting with the Halacha dynamic is that Yeshua was a rabbi Himself, abeit different from all of the others (even though he often referenced thought from the other camps). In some of what he noted, you see thoughts that the Essenes taught....and at times, language utilized was akin to what the Zealots would say when it came to militant terminolgoy. Most scholars have noted where Christ Himself often spoke directly in line with the Pharisees, specifically the school of Hiliel....often directly at odds with the School of Shemai (which had a very LOW view of Gentiles and happened to be one that many Pharisees in the days of Christ were with).

Christ, as a teacher/rabbi, would be taken in His teachings (IMHO) as having his own form of Halacha whenever He challenged that of others while referencing what they did at the same time....such as with the Good Samaritan Story or Matthew 23 when he essentially quoted directly from rabbinical law/Talmud on the differing kinds of Pharisees.


As God, He didn't merely rely only upon what scholars and teachers debated on...but as a Man, he didn't simply say what He felt divorced from cultural context--or ignoring the reality that the Lord could work through men in discussions and the teachings they developed could be emphasized.

Click to expand...

I think His teaching coincided with the various groups, because the various groups did get somethings right. Or to reverse it to what I consider a better view, Yeshua is God, and therefore nothing He taught could be in error. Sometimes the Essenses and sometimes the Pharisees got things right. Most of the time, Yeshua is saying the Pharisees got things right, but at the same time, because they got things right, and because of their popularity among the people which brought them influence with the people, Jesus was also the hardest on the Pharisees.

I do agree that He used cultural context to explain. I see Paul using cultural context to explain Jesus to the various Gentile groups he spoke to about Yeshua. That is why I believe various people can worship the Lord from their cultural context, as long as that practice is not in violation of scripture.

Qnts2 said:

I think His teaching coincided with the various groups, because the various groups did get somethings right. Or to reverse it to what I consider a better view, Yeshua is God, and therefore nothing He taught could be in error. Sometimes the Essenses and sometimes the Pharisees got things right. Most of the time, Yeshua is saying the Pharisees got things right, but at the same time, because they got things right, and because of their popularity among the people which brought them influence with the people, Jesus was also the hardest on the Pharisees.

I do agree that He used cultural context to explain. I see Paul using cultural context to explain Jesus to the various Gentile groups he spoke to about Yeshua. That is why I believe various people can worship the Lord from their cultural context, as long as that practice is not in violation of scripture.

Click to expand...

More than agree. It essentially comes back to Yeshua being the fulfillment of all truth (as Colossiasn 1-2 notes)--and thus, as the other groups only had partial understanding, they may've thought that Christ was borrowing from them when in actuality much of what they noted originally came from His mind (in the Heavenlies)---and although his view was the ultimate form a teaching, it was a new form to others

Cultural context is a big deal. Curious as to what examples you'd have to express your point

Qnts2 said:

I think His teaching coincided with the various groups, because the various groups did get somethings right. Or to reverse it to what I consider a better view, Yeshua is God, and therefore nothing He taught could be in error. Sometimes the Essenses and sometimes the Pharisees got things right. Most of the time, Yeshua is saying the Pharisees got things right, but at the same time, because they got things right, and because of their popularity among the people which brought them influence with the people, Jesus was also the hardest on the Pharisees.
.

Click to expand...

Do you feel there was a camp that Yeshua identified with the most?

Easy G (G²);60422843 said:

Do you feel there was a camp that Yeshua identified with the most?

Click to expand...

I think Yeshua's statements align with the Pharisees the most, and most often with the school of Hillel. I wouldn't say He identified with the Pharisees the most. There were Pharisees who came to believe on Yeshua or identified with Yeshua.

Qnts2 said:

I think Yeshua's statements align with the Pharisees the most, and most often with the school of Hillel. I wouldn't say He identified with the Pharisees the most. There were Pharisees who came to believe on Yeshua or identified with Yeshua.

Click to expand...

Got ya