The Two Concepts of the Sabbath

[Florin Lăiu]

Your life is interesting! Now, with regards to your saying just above that you do not agree with the theology that distinguishes Jews from Gentiles. Does it mean you don't agree with Jeremiah 46:28 and Matthew 10:5,6? The first says, "But you have no fear My Servant Jacob for I am with you. I will make an end of all the nations among which I have banished you, but I will not make an end of you! I will not leave you unpunished though, but I will chastise you in measure. That's a distinction the Lord makes between Gentiles and Israel. And for Matthew 10:5,6 every time Jesus sent his disciples to spread the gospel of salvation he would warn them not to go the way of the Gentiles especially Samaritans. What do you say about the distinction Jesus made between Gentiles and Jews?

Each biblical reference has its contextual value and interpretation. Jeremiah 46:28 cannot refer simply to the Israelite nationality. Most of Israelite tribes have been lost among pagans, because they had become pagan. The Jewish blood today is derived only from Judah, Benjamin, Levi and some prozelytes (e. g. khazars). No Dan, no Ephraim, no Gad or Manasseh etc. Jeremiah knew that God’s prophecies (promissions or threats) are always conditional (Jeremiah 18:5-11). Thus Jeremiah prophesied that the Jerusalem will be rebuild after the exile, and that tyhe post-exilic Jerusalem will NEVER be destroyed (Jeremiah 31:38-40). But it was destroyed, unfortunately! Even Jesus lamented on its destiny, indicating that He had other expectation from Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44), and from the Jewish leaders (Luke 7:29-30).
In Matthew 10:5-6 Jesus sent for the first time His apostles to Jews only. However, later He sent them into all the world (Matthew 28:19-20; John 11:51-52; Acts 1:8; Ephesians 2:11-22).

 

[Shibolet]

Each biblical reference has its contextual value and interpretation. Jeremiah 46:28 cannot refer simply to the Israelite nationality. Most of Israelite tribes have been lost among pagans, because they had become pagan. The Jewish blood today is derived only from Judah, Benjamin, Levi and some prozelytes (e. g. khazars). No Dan, no Ephraim, no Gad or Manasseh etc. Jeremiah knew that God’s prophecies (promissions or threats) are always conditional (Jeremiah 18:5-11). Thus Jeremiah prophesied that the Jerusalem will be rebuild after the exile, and that tyhe post-exilic Jerusalem will NEVER be destroyed (Jeremiah 31:38-40). But it was destroyed, unfortunately! Even Jesus lamented on its destiny, indicating that He had other expectation from Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44), and from the Jewish leaders (Luke 7:29-30).
In Matthew 10:5-6 Jesus sent for the first time His apostles to Jews only. However, later He sent them into all the world (Matthew 28:19-20; John 11:51-52; Acts 1:8; Ephesians 2:11-22).

I did not say that Jeremiah 46:28 covers the Israel of the Ten Tribes. I know that they got lost when HaShem rejected the Tabernacle of Joseph and confirmed Judah to remain alone as a nation before the Lord aka as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever. (Psalm 78:67-70 and I Kings 11:36) Regarding Jerusalem being rebuilt and again being destroyed, the reason is that HaShem's blessings are conditional on obedience of His laws. Nothing is forever as man is concerned; only Sheol aka the grave. But if you focus back
on Jeremiah 46:28, we will be chastised as we deserve but we will never be rejected for good as the Israel of the Ten Tribes was.

 

[Florin Lăiu]

I did not say that Jeremiah 46:28 covers the Israel of the Ten Tribes. I know that they got lost when HaShem rejected the Tabernacle of Joseph and confirmed Judah to remain alone as a nation before the Lord aka as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever. (Psalm 78:67-70 and I Kings 11:36) Regarding Jerusalem being rebuilt and again being destroyed, the reason is that HaShem's blessings are conditional on obedience of His laws. Nothing is forever as man is concerned; only Sheol aka the grave. But if you focus back
on Jeremiah 46:28, we will be chastised as we deserve but we will never be rejected for good as the Israel of the Ten Tribes was.

Surely, that was the plan and promise of HaShem. But were they not conditional? In any case, the continuity of the true Jews was assured by the first Church who was mainly a Jewish-Christian Church. God grafted in the olive tree of Israel more and more goym, while less and less Jews accepted their Messiah (Romans 11:1-33). Without Messiah there is no Israel (John 15:6).

 

[Shibolet]

Surely, that was the plan and promise of HaShem. But were they not conditional? In any case, the continuity of the true Jews was assured by the first Church who was mainly a Jewish-Christian Church. God grafted in the olive tree of Israel more and more goym, while less and less Jews accepted their Messiah (Romans 11:1-33). Without Messiah there is no Israel (John 15:6).

There has never been a Jewish-Christian Church. One is either a Jew or a Christian. The hyphenated Jew is a reference to the "Jews-for-Baal" of the time of Prophet Elijah who experienced a hell of a struggle with the "Jews-for-Baal" who as Elijah claimed were straddling the issue between HaShem and Baal. They insisted on holding their Jewish identity while living as a pagan. So, things got so bad that Elijah had to execute 800 of the prophets of Baal. (I Kings 18:21,40) Since then, we do not acknowledge a hyphenated Jew. Hence, one is either a Jew or a Christian.

 

[BobRyan]

There has never been a Jewish-Christian Church. One is either a Jew or a Christian .

Let's see what the non-Christian Jewish Pharisees said about that idea.

Acts 23 -- where Paul is on trial
6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” 7 As he said this, there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. 9 And there occurred a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, “We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?”

Notice that what they don't say is "he is not a Jew... he is not a Pharisee... he is not a Christian"

 

[Shibolet]

Let's see what the non-Christian Jewish Pharisees said about that idea.

Acts 23 -- where Paul is on trial 6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” 7 As he said this, there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. 9 And there occurred a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, “We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?”

Notice that what they don't say is "he is not a Jew... he is not a Pharisee... he is not a Christian"

Paul was dangerous liar. Only in that text of Acts 23, he pathetically lied twice. First, if you focus on your reading, Paul was not arrested for believing in resurrection but for having been acknowledged by the Jews from Asia who had come for the festival and, as they recognized Paul in the Temple, they screamed aloud to all the congregation thus: "Help brothers! This is the man teaching throughout the Diaspora against Moses, the Law and the Temple." (Acts 21:21) That was the reason why he was arrested. Then, before the Sanhedrin, when asked if he knew why he had been arrested, he said that it was because of his belief in the resurrection.

Now, for the second lie, the point is that, "Pharisee" by definition, means the separated ones. It means that they were too selective of Jews who applied to any of their yeshivas. One class that could never be accepted was the one of the Hellenists. A man who was know to be a Hellenist Jew could never be a Pharisee. Paul was a Hellenist Jew from birth, the son of a well-to-do couple of Hellenistic Jews from Tarsus in the Cilicia. So, he lied when he said he was a Pharisee.

 

[Dave-W]

So, he lied when he said he was a Pharisee.

I find your argument weak in the light of Paul being a disciple of Gamaliel.

 

[Shibolet]

I find your argument weak in the light of Paul being a disciple of Gamaliel.

Gamaliel was a Pharisee. A Pharisee would not take a Hellenist Jew for a disciple. So, Paul lied to claim that he was a disciple of Gamaliel.

 

[Dave-W]

Gamaliel was a Pharisee. A Pharisee would not take a Hellenist Jew for a disciple. So, Paul lied to claim that he was a disciple of Gamaliel.

And who were the rabbis in the Diaspora synagogues? Pharisees. They had the same set-up for training young men in Torah that the synagogues in Judea and the Gallil had.

 

[Shibolet]

And who were the rabbis in the Diaspora synagogues? Pharisees. They had the same set-up for training young men in Torah that the synagogues in Judea and the Gallil had.

The Rabbis in the Diaspora synagogues were trained in the Sect of the Nazarenes to serve as leaders in the synagogues. Even Pharisees who would decided to join the Sect, they would remain as members of the Council in Jerusalem. (Acts 15:5-7)

 

[Dave-W]

The Rabbis in the Diaspora synagogues were trained in the Sect of the Nazarenes to serve as leaders in the synagogues.

WHAT??? The "Sect of the Nazoreans" did not exist before about 35 ad. There were synagogues with rabbis all over Greece almost 200 years before that.

BTW - you DO know that the "Nazorean" that sect was named after was Jesus of Nazareth, right? The modern day Messianic Jewish movement was patterned after the Nazoreans.

 

[Shibolet]

WHAT??? The "Sect of the Nazoreans" did not exist before about 35 ad. There were synagogues with rabbis all over Greece almost 200 years before that.

BTW - you DO know that the "Nazorean" that sect was named after was Jesus of Nazareth, right? The modern day Messianic Jewish movement was patterned after the Nazoreans.

I was talking about Rabbis after the Sect of the Nazarenes. Of course there were Rabbis almost everywhere acting as leaders in the Jewish synagogues. The Sect of the Nazarenes was organized by the Apostles of Jesus in memory of Jesus of Nazareth, and James was the leader of the Sect in Jerusalem. They had nothing to do with modern day "Messianic-Judaism." According to the Nazarenes, Jesus was neither the Messiah not had resurrected. Both claims BTW were fabricated by Paul if you read II Timothy 2:8

 

[Dave-W]

The Sect of the Nazarenes was organized by the Apostles of Jesus in memory of Jesus of Nazareth, and James was the leader of the Sect in Jerusalem.

So far so good.

They had nothing to do with modern day "Messianic-Judaism."

Modern day MJ looked to the Nazarenes as inspiration. We have copied many of their patterns.

According to the Nazarenes, Jesus was neither the Messiah not had resurrected. Both claims BTW were fabricated by Paul

You clearly have NOT read early church father Eusubius. Writing about 300 ce, he compared the Nazarenes with the Ebionites. He was vehemently against both groups. Of the Nazarenes, he testified that their beliefs were absolutely in line with what he called the "Christian church," but condemned them severely for continuing a Jewish worship pattern.

What you describe more fits the Ebionites: "Jesus was neither the Messiah not had resurrected."

 

[Shibolet]

So far so good.
Modern day MJ looked to the Nazarenes as inspiration. We have copied many of their patterns.

You clearly have NOT read early church father Eusubius. Writing about 300 ce, he compared the Nazarenes with the Ebionites. He was vehemently against both groups. Of the Nazarenes, he testified that their beliefs were absolutely in line with what he called the "Christian church," but condemned them severely for continuing a Jewish worship pattern.

What you describe more fits the Ebionites: "Jesus was neither the Messiah not had resurrected."

The beliefs of the Sect of the Nazarenes were completely opposite to modern
day MJ. Whoever said that MJ looked for inspiration in the Nazarenes of the First Century is only looking for apostolic credibility to enhance their organization. The truth is that they had nothing to do with each other. If you read II Timothy 2:8, Paul was the one who first claimed that Jesus was the Messiah and had resurrected.

 

[BobRyan]

There has never been a Jewish-Christian Church. One is either a Jew or a Christian .

Let's see what the non-Christian Jewish Pharisees said about that idea.

Acts 23 -- where Paul is on trial
6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” 7 As he said this, there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. 9 And there occurred a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, “We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?”

Notice that what they don't say is "he is not a Jew... he is not a Pharisee... he is not a Christian"

Paul was dangerous liar.

In the court case while on trial - Paul gets the seal of approval from non-Christian Pharisees.

You apparently do not agree with those non-Christian Pharisees in Acts 23... but we have this fact on record.

Only in that text of Acts 23, he pathetically lied twice. First, if you focus on your reading, Paul was not arrested for believing in resurrection but for having been acknowledged by the Jews from Asia who had come for the festival and, as they recognized Paul in the Temple, they screamed aloud to all the congregation thus: "Help brothers! This is the man teaching throughout the Diaspora against Moses, the Law and the Temple."

In Acts 21 - Paul and the Christian Jews in Jerusalem agree on a course of action to prove that the false accusation you quote above - is pure vapor and imagination. And so Paul agrees with James - and engages in the action that serves as "proof" that the false accusers were lying.

Acts 21
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

Thus they were refuted.. even so the non-Christian Pharisees in Acts 23 agree that Paul is being asked to explain his faith in the resurrected Christ (Messiah) and that this dispute does not prove Paul to be a bad Pharisee but rather "we find no fault in him"

Acts 23 - “We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?”

Now, for the second lie, the point is that, "Pharisee" by definition, means the separated ones. It means that they were too selective of Jews who applied to any of their yeshivas. One class that could never be accepted was the one of the Hellenists. A man who was know to be a Hellenist Jew could never be a Pharisee.

Paul stated he was not a hellenist but rather a Jew trained in Jerusalem under Gameliel. We already pointed that out. The Pharisees of Acts 23 do not dispute that fact but accept him as a true Pharisees in response to his claim of the same.